zlacker

>>i7l+(OP)
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.

>>hn_thr+1l
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.

>>simian+jv
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.