Practice, Practice, Practice

Parents Forum
81

<p>Well, my two kids, who are diametrically opposed in their talents and interests were raised in the same music-rich environment. But one demanded music with his meals at 6 months and has perfect pitch; the other does not have perfect pitch but enjoyed math problems with his meals as a three-years old. Environment and genetics cannot account for it.</p>

<p>Let's be clear. Allmusic, reflectivemom and I are not arguing that practice is useless, and that raw talent is all. Raw talent is just that: raw, undeveloped. But practice will only get you so far and no further.</p>

82

<p>reflectivemom: Your son's ability to write a full orchestral work before kindergarten is beyond talent. It sounds like you have a Mozart on your hands. My son couldn't even hold a pencil properly at that age, never mind understand keys and prepare sheet music. But had you not exposed him to pre-school music lessons, he might be using his brilliance in other areas. I think every one of us has potential in many areas that was just never developed.</p>

83

<p>The Suzuki method takes enormous parental involvement. That's why it is often dropped. Parents have to accompany the kids during lessons, take notes, sometimes the "purist" Suzuki teachers have the parent actually learn the instrument. Practice at home is guided by the parent. Not an approach for the ambivalent. Or the stressed-out, overbooked family.</p>

<p>For other music lessons my kids take, I just write the check. Suzuki has been a great foundation & they just pick up other instruments very easily.</p>

84

<p>"Has anybody done a study of how many kids abandon music after a few years with the Suzuki method? In my community, lots."</p>

<p>In my community, lots! </p>

<p>However, among the kids in my son's group Yamaha piano class that started in Pre-K, all continued to study music and excel in music. They are all high school juniors/seniors now. But, Yamaha had a very different methodology from Suzuki. Very relaxed, fun, holistic approach. </p>

<p>So, what was the difference? The program, the type/temperament that selected each program, or a little bit of both?</p>

85

<p>perfect pitch - it is being studied, ya know! see below.
My daughter's biological tendency (my husband and his sister have p.p.) was "damaged" in some way by my singing to her. I cannot even sing twinkle twinkle. Super bad at it, can't learn spoken languages either. Her teachers at Juilliard said I messed something up, leaving her with more work to do to catch up.
imho a mentor makes all the difference. It is hard to notice our own errors, hard to work on poorly done things rather than well done things, and hard to
figure out how to fix something all by ourself. How did my child get to a conservatory? practice, practice, practice designed and encouraged by a series of GREAT people.
<a href="http://perfectpitch.ucsf.edu/ppstudy.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://perfectpitch.ucsf.edu/ppstudy.html&lt;/a>
Based on the data collected from the surveys and the auditory tests, we found that most individuals with Perfect Pitch began formal musical training before age 6. This supports the hypothesis that early musical training may be necessary for the development of Perfect Pitch. However, early musical training alone is not sufficient for one to develop Perfect Pitch, as most individuals with musical training initiated before age 6 did not report that they possessed Perfect Pitch. We also observed that Perfect Pitch aggregates in families, indicating a role for genetic components in the development of Perfect Pitch. Indeed we found that a sibling (with early musical training) of a Perfect Pitch possessor is as much as 15 times more likely to possess Perfect Pitch than is another individual with early musical training but with no family history of Perfect Pitch. (See the PRESS link of this website for more information on this study.)</p>

86

<p>We are obviously going in circles here.</p>

<p>Fact is, I suspect that my son, and Marite's and Reflectivemom's sons, have something in common, and perhaps it is simply our own experience, our own anecdotal evidence, that causes us to know there is a different etiology than simply practice for these special children. If you who have not experienced perfect pitch in a toddler, or a child who can solve complicated math sets in elementary school, maybe it does seem like poppycock, blarney or hogwash. </p>

<p>I know what I have seen, and I understand Marite's and Refectivemom's posts perfectly.</p>

<p>On edit for Old in Jersey, Son did not start formal lessons before 6, although had lots of exposure to different genres of music since infancy. His sister does not have perfect pitch, but every music teacher he has ever had noticed it immediately.</p>

87

<p>The difference could simply be the instrument chosen. Most suzuki programs are for the violin --- A very frustrating instrument to learn. A piano sounds good if the right key is hit. To make a violin sound good, about a dozen things have to be done correctly at the same time. And even Midori won't sound good on a cheap violin, so that can cause frustration, as well. I do know some Suzuki parents who didn't agree with learning by ear & then introducing reading years later. The American teachers generally do introduce it earlier than those in Japan, but some purists are hold-outs and can rub parents the wrong way. Our Suzuki experience has been very fun & relaxed. In fact, that is the foundation of Dr. Suzuki's method.</p>

88

<p>Perfect pitch in a toddler? Some toddlers can't speak yet. You can't just "notice" perfect pitch. You have to test a student for its presence. You'd also have to introduce the concept of octaves and notes, sharps & flats to the toddler. I don't believe any one year old kid is capable of that. A person with perfect pitch can instantly identify every note played on a piano. THey generally are not wearing diapers.</p>

<p>I don't think practice enables this. I think exposure does. I also believe there are many people incapable of developing perfect pitch, or a variety of other talents. But I don't believe you are born with it. Perhaps born with an aptitude to learn or absorb more "talents" than the average bear, however.</p>

89

<p>
[quote]
I think every one of us has potential in many areas that was just never developed.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree with this wholeheartedly. But what I would question is whether even after being developed, that potential would result in as great a level of achievement as someone with a natural talent (call it greater potential). </p>

<p>As for perfect pitch, I have no opinion on how it develops. It was not noticed in my S until he went to music camp in middle school. But he could do a mean Queen of the Night aria at 3 (The Magic Flute by then having become his favorite music). He did not know a single note of music.</p>

90

<p>Maybe not diapers, SS, but definitely toddler. We noticed, when S was about 3, that we could play any note on a recorder, or clarinet, for example, and he could reproduce it, perfectly, on the piano. No, he couldn't identify it as A flat, but he could hear and play the note, even as a toddler.</p>

91

<p>When my son was in 7th grade, he performed in Camelot with his middle school mates. The 7th grade girl who played Guinevere had a pretty voice but had trouble finding her note at the beginning of numbers and was fairly often off-pitch during songs. She was the best match they could find that year, but vocally lacking. She was smitten by the singing bug, though, and started taking lessons. Last year, as a HS junior, she played Cosette in Les Mis and she was unbelievable. I would never have thought that practice with the right teacher could yield these results.</p>

92

<p>O.K, Allmusic, I get it now. I guess it's just our definition of perfect pitch. My kids could do the same at that age -- reproduce any note on the piano that was played on another instrument. Also just tap out tunes on the piano years before they could read music. The perfect pitch was tested when they were older & could name the notes. I understood that to be part of the p.p. designation, but I quite possibly am wrong.</p>

<p>I see lots of kids in the traditional Irish music world who can't name any notes & can't read music, but can play virtually any tune after listening to it a few times. They learn by ear & have developed great ears, but struggle in other musical genres that require reading skill. On the other side, some classically trained kids struggle with improvising.</p>

93

<p>And, my son was verbally talented and practicing constantly from the age of 2. He edited himself so often to improve a sentence, it sounded like stuttering sometimes. This was clearly not something we were pressuring or expecting him to do. He was and is fascinated with language.</p>

94

<p>bethievt, I have also seen young singers with major intonation problems develop into lovely singers with vocal training. Our town has great choirs & it inspires plenty of kids to take privae lessons. People can absolutely improve their ability to recognize & hit the proper pitch.</p>

95

<p>Nah, but once he learned note reading at age 7, he could as identify each and every one of the 88 notes on a piano, by name. And still can. Since he plays multiple genres, he has to be able to both read music for classical, and improvise for jazz. And he sight reads contemporary and show music incredibly well to boot. :)</p>

<p>(Now I am taking off this bragging mother hat. It's feeling a bit constricting.;))</p>

96

<p>bethievt: sounds like a talent for practice! :)</p>

97

<p>idad</p>

<p>yeah, but only for certain things. He literally would not "lift a finger" for others.</p>

98

<p>"Fact is, I suspect that my son, and Marite's and Reflectivemom's sons, have something in common, and perhaps it is simply our own experience, our own anecdotal evidence, that causes us to know there is a different etiology than simply practice for these special children. If you who have not experienced perfect pitch in a toddler, or a child who can solve complicated math sets in elementary school, maybe it does seem like poppycock, blarney or hogwash."</p>

<p>Exactly!</p>

<p>But, if one is willing to step back and observe with an open mind - it is amazing what can be shown. My son, a junior, and a friend of his, a senior are the top two math students in their school. They could not be more different in their approach to math and life. </p>

<p>The senior is a very driven individual. He has purchased and studied most of the "name" problem solving texts on the market. He attends every math team practice and event and truly excels in this arena.</p>

<p>My son participates in math competitions, but prefers other extracurricular activities, although he enjoys advanced math courses The school needs him for the "heavyweight" tournaments, so he attends. At first the two team sponsors were frustrated by my son's lack of commitment and lack of practice. They constantly compared his lack of "effort" to that of the senior. </p>

<p>Until they discovered that each had something to contribute. The senior has seen most of the problems that appear on competitions before and solves them quickly and effortlessly. My son is not quite as fast on those problems - he has never seen them before - but he is the one who solves the hardest problems, the ones the more practiced student can't solve. And, no, his ability to solve these problems did not result from guided problem solving. He simply reads math texts and "gets it". He never has to review he doesn't have to "practice". He just knows it. </p>

<p>The two are in the same math and physics courses. But, where the math teacher had to "see to believe", the physics teacher immediately understood that my son could read the chapter and "get it" without doing any of the assigned problems. In both of these classes, the senior works many many more problems and they usually have the same/similar grades. </p>

<p>I know it is difficult for those who learn in a different way to accept his methodology, but it does work for some!</p>

99

<p>reflectivemom:</p>

<p>This is where the MIT teacher's rec comes in. It asks whether a student has achieved a particular grade by dint of hard work, grade-consciousness, memorization of brilliance. Assuming that two students have the same grade, the student who achieved it through memorization and hard work will eventually reach a stage where that is no longer enough. The student who achieved the same grade through brilliance should be able to go further than his/her friend but will need the discipline to do so.</p>

100

<p>Marite, you wrote, </p>

<p>
[quote]
This is where the MIT teacher's rec comes in. . . . Assuming that two students have the same grade, the student who achieved it through memorization and hard work will eventually reach a stage where that is no longer enough. The student who achieved the same grade through brilliance should be able to go further than his/her friend but will need the discipline to do so.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I've seen you bring up this point on previous occasions. (I recall that you and your son looked at MIT, which is indubitably a strong math school, but he got accepted where he is now happily studying before he completed an application to MIT.) I looked up the MIT application for this year now that I have seen you give this example more than once. This year, the application's recommendation form for teachers reads: </p>

<p>
[quote]
A. How has the applicant achieved good grades in your class? Check as many as apply.
■ By consistent hard work ■ By grade consciousness ■ By virtue of memory ■ By brilliance of mind
■ Other

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think the "check as many as apply" language there is key. Just as in your reply to reflectivemom, there is not so much an opposition on the form between work and brilliance as there is a curiosity about the INTERACTION between the two. I do not see any statement on the MIT Web site, particularly not on the site's "What We Look for in Applicants" page, </p>

<p><a href="http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/schools/what_we_look_for/index.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/schools/what_we_look_for/index.shtml&lt;/a> </p>

<p>that implies that all brilliance with no work is a sure way to get in, or that brilliance always looks the same in every life context an applicant might come from. Brilliance is as brilliance does, and what may look like brilliance to one teacher (who doesn't know what the student's outside school context looks like) may look like the result of consistent hard work to another teacher (who coaches the hard work or who knew the student before the hard work paid off in developed brilliance).</p>