I'm not discussing fine art in general merely the simple act of drawing a man. If you try and draw a realistic picture of a man and it comes out looking nothing like, it's frustrating. If you're painting a cubist or abstract man that's another issue entirely
Twinkle, unless I have missed it, at no point did the poster (in this case, Bertand) comment on the quality of their children's playing, just the level attained and the amount practised Sometimes mine wouldn't play for a week-sometimes they would play for a couple of hours. From this, you have concluded that this has inhibited their success, even though the children are still playing and enjoying their instruments. How have you come to this conclusion?
So if you try and play the Mendelssohn violin concerto and its sounds like a cat being skinned, it's just not that fun
Obviously. No one is disagreeing wholeheartedly that no practise is advocated. The norm is regularity. This is easier to achieve at younger years than senior, but still preferable in the usual learning an instrument model. And those that really excel have more than likely put in the hours to play a Mendelssohn at a competent level.
However, it should not negate those children that may just learn for pleasure, and that pleasure is not measured by the complexity of the piece, or by a grade level alone.
Practise alone/good attitude does not always equal high quality playing...but helps.
Good teaching does not alone equal high quality playing...but helps.
Natural ability and musicality alone does not equal high quality playing....but helps.
Having all 3 is optimum. But sometimes they fail or succeed based on less. And that criteria is subjective and dependent on the child, circumstances and on other stuff they may have going on.