3 year-old's First Show Tonight

JH6056

jrnyc wrote:

Any adult with a single ounce of common sense knows taking a 3 year old to a rock concert is beyond insane. I don't care what rationalizations anyone makes or what did or didn't happen to your kid that night, it still is a horrendous idea.

Also, get over your narcissistic self, your kid didn't want to go the show, you wanted your kid to go to the show.

BTW, when can we expect your kid to post a review of the show?

Since it sounds like you have really limited experience with 3 yr olds (if any at all), it's worth enlightening you that 3 yr olds actually have a LOT of opinions, and most can express them quite clearly! Obviously, as parents, we have to redirect them on many (pizza for every meal, every day, is never gonna happen), so no I'm not saying you listen and obey your 3 yr old's every whim. Not by a long shot. But 3 yr olds DO have likes, dislikes, and sometimes very strong feelings about those likes and dislikes. Yours may not, ok, cool, that's YOUR kid. But mine and the ones they go to school with and play with: 3 was an age full of opinions. Where those opinions/likes are not harmful and especially where the whole family is on the same page, why not go with it? Again, since to you it's "beyond insane and a horrendous idea", spell it out: WHY? What specifically is insane and horrendous about it?

And please be clear: just because your 3 yr old doesn't/can't express a desire to do something like see a specific concert, don't assume the entire world of 3 yr olds out there can't do it.

PJ_Soul

I just saw a segment on the news this morning about how a strict and constant bedtime for children prevents emotional and behavioural problems, and how more and more parents in the past 10 - 20 years have moved away from this practice because they try to fit their kids into their lives rather than working their lives around their kids. Experts seem to have found that many parents show a lack of understanding of what the impact of not having a strict bedtime schedule has on children.

JH6056

PJ_Soul wrote:

I just saw a segment on the news this morning about how a strict and constant bedtime for children prevents emotional and behavioural problems, and how more and more parents in the past 10 - 20 years have moved away from this practice because they try to fit their kids into their lives rather than working their lives around their kids. Experts seem to have found that many parents show a lack of understanding of what the impact of not having a strict bedtime schedule has on children.

That seems to be true about how parents increasingly make choices about how they structure their family schedules. And I can see both sides on the impact issue... There are also other studies that show a positive link between increased parental happiness and better behaviors of kids (I.e. Parents not looking at all aspects of family life as a "sacrifice", which has never been my view of parenting but is very common.) Could start a whole other thread about that! More importantly though, a strict and constant bedtime can only "prevent behavioral problems" if everything else about the family dynamic is pretty healthy. But strict constant bedtimes will NOT prevent bad behavior if there is emotional abuse or bullying or other negative factors present. It's more accurate to say there's a demonstrated correlation between kids with inconsistent/no bedtimes and poor behavior in those kids, because strict bedtimes won't cure other dysfunctions if they're present.

Even with this though, the whole taking kids to shows question is such an isolated event (we went to only 3 shows with kids in all of 2013. That's 3 out of 365 days...). For me, because the point has been raised that this is abusive or neglectful, I'm still waiting for that to be explained. Not having at least one family meal a day with all family present has also been linked to increased behavioral problems in kids... But no one in their right mind expects every family to do that 365 out of 365 days.

In other words, no study ever has shown that 4 or 10 days a year of not getting your kids to bed ontime leads to behavioral problems. So far no one in this thread is taking kids weekly or even monthly to shows. It's all about scale, and while your point is totally relevant to the discussion of why some parents may take kids to shows, it can't really be used to say that we're hurting kids or giving them behavioral problems because 5 nights a year we took them to a show. Even Mr. Psychologist/child development expert would have to agree with that.

Speaking of him, I hope he returns soon. Still waiting on how this all adds up to abuse or neglect, in his expert opinion.

badbrains

Oh so now not only does JH work at CPS, she also works as a grammar policewoman! So I spelled tampons tampoons, who the fuck cares. But hey, keep on trucking along to all those shows (1,200) last time you checked. God I hope I see you at one of the shows. Smoke a fat spliff right in front of you and your kid. Love to see what you'd say then. :thumbup:

JM44800

Jack Straw wrote:

Merkin Baller wrote:

bicyclejoe wrote:

Sorry, Jack Straw, but it's very questionable parenting, not to mention utterly self-centered behavior.
As I said above, you might as well bring your dog. Considering research into megacognitive knowledge and retention of adolescents, your dog will get more out of a rock concert than your 3-year-old or 4-year-old -- 6 is pushing it.

Can't help but agree with this quote. . . .taking a kid to a PJ show is very self centered. Kids that age want to go see the Fresh Beat Band, not Pearl Jam (never mind the blatant fact that it would be more age appropriate). . . . . who is getting the most satisfaction out of taking a 3 or 4 year old to this show? I understand the desire to be the cool parent, but that shouldn't trump a child's safety or well being.

Umm. No. My kids are way into music and have been exposed to it from the beginning. They love Pearl Jam, not the Fresh Beat Band. I didn't even ask my kids if they wanted to go. The 6 year old asked to go for his birthday, so while many of the other points are valid, that one is not.

I would agree with Jack Straw on the music thing. My son, who is 4, has never even heard of the Fresh Beat Band. My kid listens to music every day and he picks the music he wants to listen to and it is typically PJ, Beatles, QOTSA, Nirvana, blah, blah. Yes he listens to childrens music as well, but for the most part, he wants what his parents are listening to.

I wouldn't take my son to a show until he is much older, but he definitely has asked me. He has been asking me for weeks if he can come with Mommy & Daddy to see Pearl Jam show and we tell him he is too young.

Vedd Hedd

I have a 3 year old. My three year old would LOVE a concert. She loves sporting events, she loves movies, she loves anything where there is a bunch of people.

She plays MYM on repeat.

I dont know if I would bring my kid to a concert, though.

I have no problem with her staying up late for special occasions. I have no problem with the noise (i would get ear protection) I have no problem with MOST of the crowd either. I dont know all the research on pregnancy issues with sound on the fetus, etc.

But as long as the kid has ear protection, i dont think I would mind.

If you dont mind bathroom breaks every 8 songs, I think this is fine. We took our kid to a baseball game a few months ago, and we could not pull her away from the band that was playing outside the stadium.

So yeah....kids can like music.

JH6056

badbrains wrote:

Oh so now not only does JH work at CPS, she also works as a grammar policewoman! So I spelled tampons tampoons, who the fuck cares. But hey, keep on trucking along to all those shows (1,200) last time you checked. God I hope I see you at one of the shows. Smoke a fat spliff right in front of you and your kid. Love to see what you'd say then. :thumbup:

Aaaah, so great when people just make you're point for you... Such a winning attitude you have there!

P.s so much for me being grammar police - I just said you're instead of your!

Hugh Freaking Dillon

a whole lot of judgement going on in this thread. holy cow.

badbrains

JH6056 wrote:

badbrains wrote:

Oh so now not only does JH work at CPS, she also works as a grammar policewoman! So I spelled tampons tampoons, who the fuck cares. But hey, keep on trucking along to all those shows (1,200) last time you checked. God I hope I see you at one of the shows. Smoke a fat spliff right in front of you and your kid. Love to see what you'd say then. :thumbup:

Aaaah, so great when people just make you're point for you... Such a winning attitude you have there!

P.s so much for me being grammar police - I just said you're instead of your!

It's funny, 90% of people in this thread are against your views and you've attacked everyone of them. Instead of letting it go, you've choses to act like a 5th grader and attack us all. Yup, your 3 year old belongs at EVERY SHOW you attend since you guys act about the same age..... (green smiley face for ya to) :fp:
I'm done with you and your 3 year old, I'm gonna go over to AMT where the adults are...

JH6056

JM44800 wrote:

Jack Straw wrote:

Merkin Baller wrote:

Can't help but agree with this quote. . . .taking a kid to a PJ show is very self centered. Kids that age want to go see the Fresh Beat Band, not Pearl Jam (never mind the blatant fact that it would be more age appropriate). . . . . who is getting the most satisfaction out of taking a 3 or 4 year old to this show? I understand the desire to be the cool parent, but that shouldn't trump a child's safety or well being.

Umm. No. My kids are way into music and have been exposed to it from the beginning. They love Pearl Jam, not the Fresh Beat Band. I didn't even ask my kids if they wanted to go. The 6 year old asked to go for his birthday, so while many of the other points are valid, that one is not.

I would agree with Jack Straw on the music thing. My son, who is 4, has never even heard of the Fresh Beat Band. My kid listens to music every day and he picks the music he wants to listen to and it is typically PJ, Beatles, QOTSA, Nirvana, blah, blah. Yes he listens to childrens music as well, but for the most part, he wants what his parents are listening to.

I wouldn't take my son to a show until he is much older, but he definitely has asked me. He has been asking me for weeks if he can come with Mommy & Daddy to see Pearl Jam show and we tell him he is too young.

Totally agree. My kids have been to Yo Gabba Gabba live twice, and they did love that and the 3 yr old would love to see the Fresh Beat Band. But if you put them in separate rooms and gave them a choice between Yo Gabba Gabba/Fresh Beat and Pearl Jam/Atoms For Peace/Bob Marley, they'd each pick one of the last 3 and pester us forever about when we were going (the 5 yr old knows we'll never see Marley, but the 3 yr old is still hopeful somehow he'll show up to play live again!). And yes, the 5 yr old loves Atoms for Peace and bouncing around to anything that rhythmic. Loves Soul Coughing too, anyone remember them?

PJ_Soul

I really don't think that whether or not the 3 year old likes the music is the point. If the conversation were about what records parents should play for their children, then this would be relevant.

JH6056

badbrains wrote:

JH6056 wrote:

badbrains wrote:

Oh so now not only does JH work at CPS, she also works as a grammar policewoman! So I spelled tampons tampoons, who the fuck cares. But hey, keep on trucking along to all those shows (1,200) last time you checked. God I hope I see you at one of the shows. Smoke a fat spliff right in front of you and your kid. Love to see what you'd say then. :thumbup:

Aaaah, so great when people just make you're point for you... Such a winning attitude you have there!

P.s so much for me being grammar police - I just said you're instead of your!

It's funny, 90% of people in this thread are against your views and you've attacked everyone of them. Instead of letting it go, you've choses to act like a 5th grader and attack us all. Yup, your 3 year old belongs at EVERY SHOW you attend since you guys act about the same age..... (green smiley face for ya to) :fp:
I'm done with you and your 3 year old, I'm gonna go over to AMT where the adults are...

Riiiight... Because nothing about the post below sounds like a 5th grader...

badbrains wrote:

JH5066, chill the fuck out you fucken loud mouth. I made a statement about you being an idiot for taking your "baby" "child" whatever the case is and I STAND by it. Go change some diapers and buy some tampoons mr/mrs super sensitive. I give the bad brains a bad name or something to matter you said??? Well shit, you give parents a bad name. And I raised my sis since she's been a child and guess what loud mouth, I took her to her first concert at the age of 16 (the boss). And in nov she'll be going to see paramore at MSG at the age of 17. Does it make me a better parent/guardian then you, ABSOFUCKENLUTELY! You want to continue this conversation, I'll be at both Brooklyn and both Philly shows WITHOUT my sister.

Have fun over at AMT, wear ear protection, and don't stay up too late!

JH6056

PJ_Soul wrote:

I really don't think that whether or not the 3 year old likes the music is the point. If the conversation were about what records parents should play for their children, then this would be relevant.

If several people are saying that young kids can't choose this music or they don't like this music (and therefore this can only be about parents forcing the parent's desire to see these shows live on the kids and the kids are really actually miserable - all points that have been raised repeatedly in this thread), how are examples of kids who actually ask to hear this music not relevant to this discussion?

Cosmo

When i was 3... I wasn't able to choose the music that played in my house because:
A. I was 3.
B. I didn't know how the radio or record player worked.
C. I was not allowed to go near the radio or record player or television.
D. I was too young to drive to the record store to browse through the various catalogs for music of my liking.
E. I was fricken' 3!
...
So, my only option was to listen to what my parent's were playing.
That is why I loved Perry Como, Andy Williams, Glen Campbell, Jimmy Dean and Sing Along With Mitch Miller.
But, i do remember my favorite record was a kid's record we had that had 'Davey Crockett' on it. It also had a song about some cat that got stuck in a tree and howled at the Moon... that was the greatest song ever invented... to me.
But, hey... I was 3... what the hell did i know?
...
P.S. Guess how many Perry Como, Andy Williams, Glen Campbell, Jimmy Dean and Sing Along With Mitch Miller songs are on my iPod today?
Give yourself a Gold Star if you said, 'Zero'.

AfghanTwilight

PJ_Soul wrote:

I just saw a segment on the news this morning about how a strict and constant bedtime for children prevents emotional and behavioural problems, and how more and more parents in the past 10 - 20 years have moved away from this practice because they try to fit their kids into their lives rather than working their lives around their kids. Experts seem to have found that many parents show a lack of understanding of what the impact of not having a strict bedtime schedule has on children.

One of the wisest things we ever did was getting our son on a schedule.

PJ_Soul

JH6056 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

I really don't think that whether or not the 3 year old likes the music is the point. If the conversation were about what records parents should play for their children, then this would be relevant.

If several people are saying that young kids can't choose this music or they don't like this music (and therefore this can only be about parents forcing the parent's desire to see these shows live on the kids and the kids are really actually miserable - all points that have been raised repeatedly in this thread), how are examples of kids who actually ask to hear this music not relevant to this discussion?

Because whether or not the kids like the music has nothing to do with whether or not a rock concert where there is drinking, drug use, ad goes until 11 or 11:30 at night is an appropriate place for a young child.
I loved Guns n' Roses by the time I was 11 years old, but my parents would not have let me go to one of their concerts at that age, not in a million years. No one's parents would unless they were really shitty parents. Because they were responsible parents who understood what was and wasn't appropriate for a child. I don't know wtf has happened to the concept of parenting for a lot of people since then, but I don't think it's gone in a good direction.

Cosmo

PJ_Soul wrote:

JH6056 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

I really don't think that whether or not the 3 year old likes the music is the point. If the conversation were about what records parents should play for their children, then this would be relevant.

If several people are saying that young kids can't choose this music or they don't like this music (and therefore this can only be about parents forcing the parent's desire to see these shows live on the kids and the kids are really actually miserable - all points that have been raised repeatedly in this thread), how are examples of kids who actually ask to hear this music not relevant to this discussion?

Because whether or not the kids like the music has nothing to do with whether or not a rock concert where there is drinking, drug use, ad goes until 11 or 11:30 at night is an appropriate place for a young child.
I loved Guns n' Roses by the time I was 11 years old, but my parents would not have let me go to one of their concerts at that age, not in a million years. No one's parents would unless they were really shitty parents. Because they were responsible parents who understood what was and wasn't appropriate for a child. I don't know wtf has happened to the concept of parenting for a lot of people since then, but I don't think it's gone in a good direction.

...
You should thank your parents for not letting you go to the Guns and Roses gig back then... because you would have gotten an Axel Rose tattoo on your ass that you would be regretting today.

JH6056

PJ_Soul wrote:

JH6056 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

I really don't think that whether or not the 3 year old likes the music is the point. If the conversation were about what records parents should play for their children, then this would be relevant.

If several people are saying that young kids can't choose this music or they don't like this music (and therefore this can only be about parents forcing the parent's desire to see these shows live on the kids and the kids are really actually miserable - all points that have been raised repeatedly in this thread), how are examples of kids who actually ask to hear this music not relevant to this discussion?

Because whether or not the kids like the music has nothing to do with whether or not a rock concert where there is drinking, drug use, ad goes until 11 or 11:30 at night is an appropriate place for a young child.
I loved Guns n' Roses by the time I was 11 years old, but my parents would not have let me go to one of their concerts at that age, not in a million years. No one's parents would unless they were really shitty parents. Because they were responsible parents who understood what was and wasn't appropriate for a child. I don't know wtf has happened to the concept of parenting for a lot of people since then, but I don't think it's gone in a good direction.

Actually I would never take any kid younger than 16 to a Guns and Roses concert either, because it's a GUNS AND ROSES concert. That bands entire scene and most of their songs were built around drug use, groupies and being bad boys. I saw GNR and saw more tits, idiots and drugged out sad saps than any other show I've been to before or since. Which is exactly what I expected because... Wait for it... It was Guns and Roses!

I should also say I had a great time and feel like that was a very specific slice of a bygone musical time that was mostly silly but was definitely theatrical and GNR had some real talent. Enjoyed that show a ton.

Different bands draw different scenes, and so far no one has mentioned taking a kid to a show like that. All rock shows/scenes are not the same, so please explain why a kid at a typical PJ show would be equally as bad?

pjradio

wow!...this thread is still going?

PJ_Soul

JH6056 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

JH6056 wrote:

If several people are saying that young kids can't choose this music or they don't like this music (and therefore this can only be about parents forcing the parent's desire to see these shows live on the kids and the kids are really actually miserable - all points that have been raised repeatedly in this thread), how are examples of kids who actually ask to hear this music not relevant to this discussion?

Because whether or not the kids like the music has nothing to do with whether or not a rock concert where there is drinking, drug use, ad goes until 11 or 11:30 at night is an appropriate place for a young child.
I loved Guns n' Roses by the time I was 11 years old, but my parents would not have let me go to one of their concerts at that age, not in a million years. No one's parents would unless they were really shitty parents. Because they were responsible parents who understood what was and wasn't appropriate for a child. I don't know wtf has happened to the concept of parenting for a lot of people since then, but I don't think it's gone in a good direction.

Actually I would never take any kid younger than 16 to a Guns and Roses concert either, because it's a GUNS AND ROSES concert. That bands entire scene and most of their songs were built around drug use, groupies and being bad boys. I saw GNR and saw more tits, idiots and drugged out sad saps than any other show I've been to before or since. Which is exactly what I expected because... Wait for it... It was Guns and Roses!

Different bands draw different scenes, and so far no one has mentioned taking a kid to a show like that. All rock shows/scenes are not the same, so please explain why a kid at a typical PJ show would be equally as bad?

I would never take my little kid to ANY place where there is open drug use and thousands of drunk strangers, late at night when they're supposed to be in bed. Because they're 3 years old. The more I think about it, the more idiotic it seems to me. I don't personally know ANY parents who would even consider taking their 3 year old to a rock concert or keep them out around drunk and high people and not get them home until midnight. I've asked some of the them, and they all thought it was the most ridiculous thing they've ever heard.