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. 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.

▲

Revolution1120 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

Revolution1120 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Playing a musical instrument is far more athletic than sports, requires more scientific practice, and is more "competitive." The only difference is the scoring method. Music doesn't test "who can finish playing in the shortest time," but during practice, speeds faster or slower than the original tempo have already been practiced. Sports are about "who can push their limits"; in musical instrument playing, the very act of "practicing a complete, challenging piece" is already a limit. The difference is that it doesn't require pushing further limits.

▲

djtango 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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

▲

simianwords 14 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

▲

pibaker an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Most, if not all, musicians in any professional symphony orchestra was at one point an unusually talented 7yo.

It just takes many years worth of practice to get from being good by 7 years old standards to being good enough that people buy tickets to see your performance, especially in the classical music culture where skill, or "virtuoso", is everything.

▲

djtango 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Did you watch the video? Her expressivity and musicianship is far beyond many adults.. She had also just finished a concerto playing with an orchestra

EDIT Also with band music or non-classical music so much of it is to do with platform and distribution, and 7 year old prodigies don't get much interest outside of talent shows or Youtube. Justin Bieber (as mentioned in another reply) though is a good example of someone who did at age 12

▲

kjksf 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

	▲	simianwords 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		you bring a fair point

▲

Revolution1120 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Classical music and popular music are two completely different fields, and there is almost no way to evaluate them interchangeably.

▲

analog31 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Michael Jackson is another. And there were child stars in the movies.

One difference is how popular music is produced today. The members of the band are not just performers, and in fact, they're often mediocre instrumentalists and singers. They're expected to create their own material, which probably requires a certain level of social development and experience. The emphasis is on other skills such as creating songs that resonate with the audience, performing on stage, etc.

▲

wavemode 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.)

▲

PunchyHamster 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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