3 ms·

I admit I haven't read the full study, but I'm extremely skeptical that the takeaway as given in the article is valid. Take violinists, for example. Essentiall

I admit I haven't read the full study, but I'm extremely skeptical that the takeaway as given in the article is valid. Take violinists, for example. Essentially every single world renowned soloist was "some sort" of child prodigy. Now, I've heard some soloists argue that they were not, in fact, child prodigies. For example, may favorite violinist, Hilary Hahn, has said this. She still debuted with the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra when she was 12, and here she is performing as a soloist at 15: https://youtu.be/upkP46nvqVI https://youtu.be/upkP46nvqVI. Nathan Milstein, one of the greatest violinists of all time, said he was "not very good until his teens" - he still started playing at the age of 5, and at the age of 11 Leopold Auer, a great violin teacher, invited him to become one of his students, so he clearly saw his potential. I have no doubt lots of prodigies burn out. But, at least in the world of violins, essentially every great soloist was playing at an extremely high level by the time they were in middle school.

vintermann 9mo ago
In contrast, it's rare to find any classical singers who were child prodigies. Whatever skills you may develop as a child there apparently don't transfer well into adulthood. It makes sense to me that there may be fine ear/motorics skills which are far more relevant to violinists, which do transfer.
- alex43578 9mo ago
  Upthread someone made the point that adult "physique" for lack of a better word matters more for some pursuits than others. Chess prodigies don't need to grow to 6ft tall, but if a basketball prodigy doesn't get tall enough, he's never making the NBA. I think the same concept could generalize: for pursuit X, the impact of childhood skill is inversely related to the impact of adult form.
simianwords 9mo ago
I never got the idea of an art prodigy. It’s like treating violin as a sport but not as a beautiful medium to communicate with fellow humans.
- wavemode 9mo ago
  Art still requires technique, and technique takes practice. Words like "prodigy" and "virtuoso" are typically reserved for techniques which take a large amount of practice to get right, like playing a violin. (You would never call someone a kazoo prodigy, for example.)
- djtango 9mo ago
  There are 7 year olds[1] who can play better than I can despite 30+ years of playing piano, and even with fairly dedicated practise the progress is so much slower than someone with actual talent. I had a friend who could play all the Chopin Etudes at age 9. Some of the best art simply requires a virtuoso to bring it to life. [1] https://youtu.be/PX57r1l5W3U?si=wiix8NWw_9D4YCCb https://youtu.be/PX57r1l5W3U?si=wiix8NWw_9D4YCCb
  - simianwords 9mo ago
    why do we never hear of 7 year old bands then? i think there's more to music than just technique and vast majority appreciate the artistic aspect. but i can imagine musicians appreciating the technique.
    - kjksf 9mo ago
      Are you looking for facts that will contradict your opinion? Justin Bieber clearly was that. His youtube videos got him discovered at age 13-14. Vanessa Paradis made her first public appearance as a singer at age 7. There are several children prodigies I've seen on YouTube (singers, drummers, guitarists). They clearly have such talent that even at young age they do music better than most people would do with infinite amount of practice. As to your question, the prodigy is, by definition, extremely rare. They clearly exist (Bieber, Paradis) but, by definition, you can't expect to have a lot of them. And "why aren't 7 year olds headlining for Taylor Swift" is not a fair bar. There are reasons 7 year olds don't do world wide tours that have to do with things other than musical talent. Like being in school or not being allowed to take a bus by themselves.
      - 9mo ago
PunchyHamster 9mo ago
There might just not be enough spots on top to have every prodigy there
Revolution1120 9mo ago
There are no child prodigies yes or no in musical instrument playing. Because regardless of whether one is a prodigy or not, to become a basic,only basic, fundamental performer, one already needs to practice diligently from a childhood.Sometimes it's just a difference in the pieces they practice. Some children played musical pieces when they were young, while others only played etudes. The former might make people think they are child prodigies, while the latter might make people think they are not, but in fact they are the same.

vintermann 9mo ago

In contrast, it's rare to find any classical singers who were child prodigies. Whatever skills you may develop as a child there apparently don't transfer well into adulthood. It makes sense to me that there may be fine ear/motorics skills which are far more relevant to violinists, which do transfer.

alex43578 9mo ago
Upthread someone made the point that adult "physique" for lack of a better word matters more for some pursuits than others. Chess prodigies don't need to grow to 6ft tall, but if a basketball prodigy doesn't get tall enough, he's never making the NBA. I think the same concept could generalize: for pursuit X, the impact of childhood skill is inversely related to the impact of adult form.

simianwords 9mo ago

I never got the idea of an art prodigy. It’s like treating violin as a sport but not as a beautiful medium to communicate with fellow humans.

wavemode 9mo ago
Art still requires technique, and technique takes practice. Words like "prodigy" and "virtuoso" are typically reserved for techniques which take a large amount of practice to get right, like playing a violin. (You would never call someone a kazoo prodigy, for example.)
djtango 9mo ago
There are 7 year olds[1] who can play better than I can despite 30+ years of playing piano, and even with fairly dedicated practise the progress is so much slower than someone with actual talent. I had a friend who could play all the Chopin Etudes at age 9. Some of the best art simply requires a virtuoso to bring it to life. [1] https://youtu.be/PX57r1l5W3U?si=wiix8NWw_9D4YCCb https://youtu.be/PX57r1l5W3U?si=wiix8NWw_9D4YCCb
- simianwords 9mo ago
  why do we never hear of 7 year old bands then? i think there's more to music than just technique and vast majority appreciate the artistic aspect. but i can imagine musicians appreciating the technique.
  - kjksf 9mo ago
    Are you looking for facts that will contradict your opinion? Justin Bieber clearly was that. His youtube videos got him discovered at age 13-14. Vanessa Paradis made her first public appearance as a singer at age 7. There are several children prodigies I've seen on YouTube (singers, drummers, guitarists). They clearly have such talent that even at young age they do music better than most people would do with infinite amount of practice. As to your question, the prodigy is, by definition, extremely rare. They clearly exist (Bieber, Paradis) but, by definition, you can't expect to have a lot of them. And "why aren't 7 year olds headlining for Taylor Swift" is not a fair bar. There are reasons 7 year olds don't do world wide tours that have to do with things other than musical talent. Like being in school or not being allowed to take a bus by themselves.
    - 9mo ago

PunchyHamster 9mo ago

There might just not be enough spots on top to have every prodigy there

Revolution1120 9mo ago

There are no child prodigies yes or no in musical instrument playing. Because regardless of whether one is a prodigy or not, to become a basic,only basic, fundamental performer, one already needs to practice diligently from a childhood.Sometimes it's just a difference in the pieces they practice. Some children played musical pieces when they were young, while others only played etudes. The former might make people think they are child prodigies, while the latter might make people think they are not, but in fact they are the same.