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?

From what I can see, it's not any more work to bring up a prodigy or a gifted child than a non-gifted child. The work is in whether you are a dedicated, caring parent. My dc's are Gifted, but dealing with ds' genetic disease and other illnesses and dd's 15 year old "needs" are far more expensive and time consuming than supporting their giftedness.

China has a lot of people. More likely that a few more piano prodigies might appear. Also, bear in mind that in several of the Asian countries the culture is such that a child might focus only on piano and not have any other skill sets/training at all. We tend to emphasize a more well-rounded up bringing in the west. (This is not a comment on the relative merits of educational style, just a mention of cultural differences.)

There's a big difference between having the technical ability to play Grade 8 pieces because of hours and hours of practice and the innate talent to play to an exceptionally high standard.

Prodigies are people that are rarely seen. I have never met any that I can think of but have made masses of gifted children.

I thing prodigies are quite rare and I am sure some fall by the wayside through lack of opportunity.
I think giftedness is more about maximising the talents people have and that is more easily achieved if there are resources available.
However, I also think that sometimes giftedness is not recognised in children from poorer backgrounds because it doesn't fit within the stereotype. For example, children who can often speak multiple "community languages" are not recognised as gifted linguists unless they are also good at a standard MFL. So children who might be able to speak English plus Hindi /Arabic/Urdu are not seen as linguists unless they also happen to be good at French. Being outstanding on the tabla is not regarded as highly as being good at the cello.

But if you are instructed by the best composer in the world since a young age how to compose operas, surely you'll be able to compose one after 5 years of tuition?

You might be able to but it would be rubbish if you didn't already have the ability.

OP are you taking into account all those who DO have this level of input but still don't make it as a successful composer or musician? I think there must be lots of them.

But would Alma still be writing operas if she was born in an ordinary family with no musical knowledge and went to her local school and started violin lessons age 8?

I think her talents would have manifested themselves in some way by 8. Most children have exposure to basic music in pre-school.

Most people who are seen as gifted are bright children who are tutored and have their talents developed. For every gifted child, there will be another equally bright child who has had a poor education or no education, and so they are never recognised as gifted.

True geniuses are different and rare.

'But would Alma still be writing operas if she was born in an ordinary family with no musical knowledge and went to her local school and started violin lessons age 8?'

No but the local violin teacher would have identified her as exceptionally talented and she could have been encouraged to progress with her studies.

Of course it is much, much easier for children of musicians/ well off/ engaged parents, etc but children with exceptional talent can still be identified.

Agree op. Watched a film with the kids about the African American Olympic gymnast who got lots of gold medals from a low income family. Dh and I were in tears at the scene her 3 siblings voluntarily gave up all their after school activities to free up money for gabby to do her gym.

She succeeded due to her own drive, support of (single) mother and kindness of strangers (a Christian family had her live with them for free as she had to relocate to be near the top coach). Worth watching.

But actually, the Chinese piano playing example is a great example of nurture/ parental influence. Chinese parents absolutely prioritise instruments (piano or violin) and academia from a v early age. By contrast, most Chinese pre-schoolers are very malco-ordinated compared to western children (observe a sports day at a HK school- the difference is marked) because parents don't prioritise gross motor development. They don't see sporting talent as worth nurturing.

With things like sports and music, of course access to tuition and equipment makes a difference.
A boy I went to school with started playing an instrument at 13 years of age. Where I grew up because of poverty, few children learned any instruments. Within 9 months he had won a scholarship to a music school because he was incredibly talented. No one had picked that up beforehand, and if like most kids in my school including me he had never learned an instrument, it would not have been picked up at all.

One top HK school's admission criteria requires the student to play one instrument to (equivalent of Grade 6) in ADDITION to either the piano or the violin which is kind of taken for granted .......oh yes, and also fluency in Cantonese, Mandarin and English (written and spoken).

Watching the many TV shows about "gifted" children, it's pretty easy to pick out the genuinely gifted ones from the ones who've been pushed to within an inch of their lives to succeed. For instance, on the latest season of that awful Child Genius show, there was one kid who really did seem to have an unusually enquiring mind and capacity for knowledge retention. His parents seemed a bit baffled by him. Then there were dozens who had study timetables devised by their parents, rivalry with their siblings, and were under enormous pressure to succeed. I suspected that very few would have been considered unusually bright without being forced into it by pushy parents.

Also Chinese families often do Suzuki violin/music lessons. This is a very efficient and effective way of teaching music that enables children to progress faster than traditional western music tuition.

Both my children did suzuki violin, one is significantly better than the other but they both had the same input. So I believe there is a nature aspect as well as a nurture.

I have 2 gifted children, and we're on WTC.

To be honest I am very disillusioned with the notion of "talent", "gift", "hard work". If you look at contemporary musicians, most are from middle class background and private/ or at least grammar school. It's not a fair playing field anymore...

I think her talents would have manifested themselves in some way by 8. Most children have exposure to basic music in pre-school.

I am from a loving, engaged and encouraging but not really wealthy and not pushy family. I've never picked up a violin in my life! I wonder if I have a talent just bursting to get out

As regards musicians, you are correct. Music lessons and instruments are very very expensive, prohibitive for most. A very large percentage also come from families of musicians.

In previous generations, it was possible from someone from a non affluent background to have access to this but not any more. I think it's a huge shame.

Your example of Alma isn't a good one though, she is different from a very gifted, musical child.

OP you might be right about there being an unfair advantage for richer children.

But you absolutely do not get to be a classical music composer or performer without starting with talent and doing an immense amount of hard work.

And no, nothing is a level playing field, look at the class background of most workers in the BBC or MPs in the house of commons.

You have to have all of these things!

Tbh the problem with gifted children in uk state education is that the curriculum, especially in primary, is not rigorous enough at the top. These children may spend most days bored out of their brain and that just wastes potential.

OP, it's not really about life not being fair, perhaps your dc's just aren't meant to be musicians. Resenting other families who do have children with musical talents is not going to benefit your dc's. Surely they must have other talents that you can nurture.

@SofiaAmes - social mobility in the US is much lower than the European average, worse than the UK even. This is exceptionally well established, and hardly surprising given how little assistance the poor get over there.

www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/10/us-social-mobility-might-be-even-worse-than-you-thought

To be a "prodigy" or just to be very successful at something, you need two things: natural talent (a gift), and good support/opportunity in the form of contacts, motivated parents, access to resources, etc.

There are 4 combinations of those two factors:

1. No natural talent, no real support/opportunity. This is why people like me can't play shit on the piano, cos I had neither of these things.

2. No natural talent, but plenty of support/opportunity. My best friend grew up playing piano and having weekly lessons. She passed her grade 8 exam in her teens. She can play well, but she's never going to make a living out of music.

3. Natural talent, but no support/opportunity. Some people have a natural ability at something, but it doesn't get nurtured by their parents and it may well even go completely unnoticed their whole life.

4. Natural talent PLUS support/opportunity. The rare golden ticket that is required by all top level athletes, musicians, academics, etc.

DD is musically gifted. We can't afford lessons outside school, and at school it's one instrument for a few weeks, then a different instrument. All it means is that poor gifted children don't get as far as they could, because they don't have the opportunity.

Sofia, my children are doing very well musically, older ones got musical scholarships to top private schools and the younger one is very advanced musically for his age. I don't want a musical career for them anyway. I am just trying to rationalize how the parental input/income/connections affect children and are prodigies made or born?

Chaz:

"However, I also think that sometimes giftedness is not recognised in children from poorer backgrounds because it doesn't fit within the stereotype. For example, children who can often speak multiple "community languages" are not recognised as gifted linguists unless they are also good at a standard MFL. So children who might be able to speak English plus Hindi /Arabic/Urdu are not seen as linguists unless they also happen to be good at French. Being outstanding on the tabla is not regarded as highly as being good at the cello"

I couldn't agree more with this.