To think most "gifted" children are from affluent backgrounds?

[Notapushymum1]

I was reading about Alma Deutscher, a child prodigy who started composing at age 6 and had her first opera performed at age 9. She is a child prodigy who is home schooled, her parents are scholars with interest in music, she had the best teachers from age 3 and according to Wikipedia:
^^
Professor Gjerdingen recommended to Deutscher's parents the renowned Swiss improvisor Rudolf Lutz, who then connected them with the Swiss musician Tobias Cramm.[51] Gjerdingen sent exercises and commented on technical aspects of Alma’s composition, while Alma had lessons in improvisation from Cramm via Skype, with the pair using the pedagogical method of the eighteenth century Italian partimenti, instructional bass lines used for the teaching of harmony, counterpoint and improvisation.[52] Alma quickly became fluent in the music syntax of eighteenth century music

She spends 5 hours a day on music lessons from "Renowned violin and piano teachers at Yehudi Menuhin music school".

AIBU to think that most kids will become "prodigies" with such input?

Bobo, I'd hate having a "prodigy", I don't want my child spending 8 hours a day playing music and not going to school. I don't think many rich parents would like such lifestyle for their kids.

Notapushy or maybe it could be your children do actually have musicality, regardless of youtube videos?

And I'm not sure "copying it note for note" is musicality or that it's something you could copy "note for note". "Note for note" is not musicality.

OK you have clearly made up your mind on this

Sunday, I am not musical at all, can't even read music, so maybe I am wrong. But I always listen to them practice and compare to what I hear in videos, then tell them where they need an accent, where they should be changing the rythm, where to play with more energy etc etc. Somehow it always works out 😂

I didn't practice that much to do my grade 8s - maybe an hour/ hour and half. I wouldn't have been able to focus much more. In music school we were expected to do three. But us lazy people did two and the serious people would do 4-5.

8 hours is a bit of a stretch.

I think you can learn musicality to a certain degree actually, but not at a young age. At a young age I think its either there or not.

Bobo, I am still not convinced my youngest is "musical", for example he is terrible at clapping rythm at his aural tests. But he is also very very good at composing and performing. I am not sure if this is because of all the lessons he had over the years or something else. He is constantly told that he is "gifted" by professionals, won a few music competitions, I personally can't see it, he can't just pick up a guitar and play it like say my middle DS could.

Notapushy You aren't musical at all you say, and yet you can identify where accent, rhythm changes and energies are required from watching a youtube video?

I think you must be musical actually

was seen as "prodigy-ish" at the time

Only by people who weren't musicians.

As you see from bobo I wasn't unusual among musical families. I know someone who did grade 5 theory when she was 7 but she was very bright.

I happened to be musical but it's not required at grade 8. Phrasing can be taught. Some people are better at it than others - and you may get a higher mark on your pieces for true musicality. But someone who is technically accomplished but not massively sensitive can still get a distinction particularly if their scales and aural are on point.

I know a lot of people who were not hugely musical who as I said - who started young, practised and got to grade 8. The standard for grade 8 isn't that high. The next thing is a diploma.

I said before that music is very badly taught in this country. In Russia, E.Europe, China, Japan, Korea etc - it's normal to start very young with a rigorously technical method and children get proficient very quickly.

OP your son just needs one of these:

Read Rhythm Right

Sight Reading: the Rhythm Book

There are others but I can't remember them offhand.

MiddleagedManic

I totally agree with you, it is a SEN in that their needs are additional, I was told that being bored all day was good for dd and she just had to learn what others did.
She found this really hard and couldn't understand why she had to do all these subjects where she had no interest.
She'd work for hours at music and not find it work at all.
We have also been under CAMHS previously, not for anything bad, just being on a different planet to everyone else.

Thank you Riding! Will check the out.

Roman Kemp. Father- Martin Kemp (80s band-Spandau Ballet and actor). Mother- Shirlie (backing singer for Wham)

How did dear Roman end up on 'Do the Right Thing with Eamon and Ruth'??

My DD will graduate from Oxford this year in a humanities subject. I have been shocked at the amount of mental illness and prescription drug use (and the medicalisation of anxiety linked to grades and deadlines) among very high achieving students. Seems to be much higher than 'in my day' - the mid 80s. There's a downside to all this pushing and tutoring - including for the very bright.

My dad was extremely adept at languages. He was completely fluent in German after spending 6 months there in 1971. In 1987, having spoken no German in all those years, he was asked for directions by a German tourist (in English) and answered them in German. The tourist asked him what part of Hamburg he was from. He spoke about 7 languages that he just picked up from being stationed in different countries whilst he was in the RAF. He also played the piano very well by ear and could just sit at a piano and play pretty much anything.

He came from a very poor background. His dad died when he was a baby and his mam worked three jobs. He went to a local technical college, then got an apprenticeship in the shipyards, before joining the RAF. I often wonder what he could have achieved had he had better access to education when he was growing up and had had more encouragement as a child. I also wish he'd passed his gifts on to me.

There was always mental illness at Oxbridge, it was less acknowledged in the past, less support available. I think medical drugs are more acceptable now.

However there is definitely a lot more pressure and competition from other students, schools/unis and workplaces. More focus on grades, league tables and high requirements from workplaces. Crucially there's lot more international competition.

I also think society is breeding mental illness into teenagers with massive pressure from social media, popular culture and porn which compounds academic pressure. Self harm wasn't really a thing in the 80s.

I also think society is breeding mental illness into teenagers with massive pressure from social media, popular culture and porn which compounds academic pressure. Self harm wasn't really a thing in the 80s.

Not really true. Self-harm and anorexia did happen, it just wasn't talked about and it was kept hidden. It's the reason why a lot of people, including myself, feel able to ask for help now. I had PTSD symptoms (childhood abuse) from being a teenager, I just didn't tell anyone as I felt so ashamed.

My point was that self harm was not as widespread and openly discussed as it is now.

And I made no mention of anorexia - it was prevalent. I know four women who had anorexia as teenagers, and there were two girls in my college at uni who had it - one who had to take a year out and one who died.

I'm so sorry to hear about the girl who died, that's really sad. I mentioned it because I also knew a girl at my school who would have been a promising ballet dancer but she developed anorexia. I also suffered from an eating disorder for years myself.

If that's what you meant, then sadly you're right, I never heard it talked about. But I do know people who self-harmed.

Prodigy-gifted, yeah probably. Most kids from poor families don't get to play pianos at young ages.

Normal-gifted is perhaps a bit different. My dad got a scholarship to a secondary single-sex school that creams the very top percent of 11+ passes (then the next highest marks go to Grammar) with most of the students being fee-paid. My dad was from social housing with what would now be called a chaotic upbringing. He got picked on at school by the upper-class kids whose parents had to pay for him to be there, his mum and dad couldn't help him with homework or pay for tutouring and still he did well, though he couldn't afford to go to university.

My dad is very very clever and did things without a degree that would require one now, though he undoubtedly could have done even better with a functional, well off family.

So I think giftedness is inherent in some children, but is very hard to realise the potential when you are poor and/or have a very difficult home-life.

I have friends with children in sport and music. Some children are naturally gifted, but their parents do not have the knowlege of the area, or the money to spend on lessons with the best tutors from age 3. Ordinary school does not develop these talents, it is the parents/tutors who make the difference. One friend is on a low income, but has some knowledge of tennis. The child is very very good at tennis, but needs a parent who is free to take them to all the lessons and outside tournaments. The parents had to chose between that only one of them at work. As the child grew older many of the costs increased, most of their peers were at private schools whose parents had the money to travel across the country to get them into the most beneficial tournaments. Private schools were much more flexible about this and about training. This child is still in tennis and still has a chance to succeed, but others with less talent and more money have their path smoothed. Not arguing with that. They put the effort in and deserve the success but Sports and arts funding has been cut to the bone and so I think it is true that children from lower income families do find it more difficult to keep going and have a higher drop out rate due to lack of financial support. Which is a pity. Talent and effort should be given an equal chance. Full comittment to the sport does have an impact on exams and they have to weigh up the pros/cons/risks of that. but it has been an uhill struggle for them financially, it will only get worse as they rise in the ranks and have to attend international tournaments and it is true that their career would be more advanced if things were easier financially. The same is true of teenagers I know who want an acting/music career. It is an eyeopener how much university Drama courses charge prospective students just to audition. Eg travel from London to a Northern University based course, train, audition workshop fee, overnight hotel as audition workshop starts at 8.45 am and so on.. this is just for one UCAS application. To stand a chance, they needed to do pre audition courses, another cost. And they have to consider whether parents can support them in the lean early years of the industry, especially when there is a risk that however talented, they may not find regular work, despite all the training. This has detered several kids from less well off families as they went along the application route. At the same time another friend's daughter has won a place at a very reputable private drama/music school - they've had to increase their mortgage to fund it at great personal difficulty. I don't begruge the people who can afford it, good luck to them and hope they do well, but at the same time we need to support talent and have a wide spread of careers and opportunities for all our younger generation - so it is important that there is some kind of support for teenagers and those making a career. So I agree with the OP.

Actually, my DM was born to a very poor farming family, and her parents both died when she was 10. She succeeded in getting to grammar school and passed her A levels with flying colours. Ok, she didn't go to uni then, she emigrated to Australia as she had difficulties with the aunt and uncle who were bringing her up. She qualified as a primary school teacher.

Later, though, she did do a degree, whilst she had her babies. She achieved a first class honours degree. Then she finally got her PhD in her 70s, and she's now a fully fledged academic.

It can be done, though it's obviously unusual.

I agree that those who are really determined can get there in the end. and your DM sounds like an amazing woman, but I was arguing that there should be more support for talented people to get established in competitive, expensive, but still worthwhile careers. It seems hard to wait until your 70s, but all credit to her for her drive and determination.

Here's food for thought, there are children who are gifted in one subject who are forced into taking options in subjects where they will do very badly.
Time is spent teaching them when they don't want to do it, can't do it without 1 to 1 support and the subjects won't be a back up if they don't work in their gifted subject, because the results will be too low to offer to a uni anyway.
If somebody can explain this, because I'm stumped and gob smacked atm, having just received the non options form.