I like the headline, but I felt the rest of the article didn't really live up to it. The setup is intriguing - for instance, the notion that micromanaged child

I like the headline, but I felt the rest of the article didn't really live up to it. The setup is intriguing - for instance, the notion that micromanaged children will become excellent concert violinists, but may not become ground breaking classical composers (let alone the next Bob Dylan). The example put forth in the article to support this assertion is... Itzak Perlman. A wonderful violinist and (I don't know him at all, this is what I've read) a generous spirit as well. But aside form a foray into jazz that I thought wasn't especially notable, Perlman's greatness is more or less as a concert violinist. Interesting to hear he was rejected from music school, but this seems a very odd example. Why not focus on someone like Stefan Grapelli, who started playing at an older age, asked a busker in the paris metro how to play the violin (who laughed the question)? Why not look into the careers and lives of musicians who made their mark through creativity rather than virtuosity? I really like violin, from a lot of angles. I enjoy the amazing precision of the great classical musicians, but I do find myself even more intrigued by musicians like Steve Wickham (who played with U2 and the water boys, among others). I do tend to agree with the article that the micromanagement many young classical musicians go through in their quest to play perfectly may indeed vastly reduce the possibility that the musician will be able to put together an interesting track for "Sunday Bloody Sunday" or collaborate with a rock musician to produce something like Fisherman's Blues. These things may in fact be inversely correlated. There's a lot here, unfortunately, I just don't think it was explored in interesting directions by the article.