"I questioned the relevancy of experience gained before the age of reason." --RFNAPLES
"The child cannot distill and analyze the parameters or elements of music – rhythm, harmony (harmonic function), melody, structure, form, and texture, i.e., perspective or musical theory if you will." --RFNAPLES
Now, let's dissect these quotes in order to fully comprehend how extraordinary they truly are.
1. "I questioned the relevancy of experience gained before the age of reason." --RFNAPLES
This "age of reason" is arbitrary and non-existent, but it has been suggested by the one who proposed this "theory" that it occurs sometime after the age of 6. This would suggest that all efforts in the field of childhood development are futile, as well as all efforts by parents to teach their children anything at all. Even further, the concept of "childhood development" would be an oxymoron. If any experience before the age of 6 were irrelevant, parents could very well lock their children in a room for the first 6 years or so of their life, feeding them through a slot.
By the age of 6 children, unless there is a significant mental disorder, will be fluent in speech (quite possibly more than one language), possessing a vocabulary of more than 10,000 words and a considerable understanding of sentence structure, syntax, and semantics. The acquisition of language-- this is one of countless developmental milestones in the life of a human being, all of which occur prior to the hypothetical "age of reason," wherein experience would be irrelevant. Do Re Mi, a music school for children below the "age of reason," emphasizes the relevancy of childhood experience: "At such a young age their little brains are in their full capacity to absorb enormous amounts of new information."
2. "The child cannot distill and analyze the parameters or elements of music – rhythm, harmony (harmonic function), melody, structure, form, and texture, i.e., perspective or musical theory if you will." --RFNAPLES
From the Children's Music Academy in Denver, Colorado (one of countless musical schools for children across the world):
"Research has revealed that children’s ears are most receptive to musical training between the ages of three and six. As a result, it is preferable to begin a child’s musical experience/education during those formative years, because his/her 'ear for music' will be more highly developed than a child who begins later. This provides a strong foundation for continued development of his/her musical skills. Therefore, at CMA, we have a strong emphasis on music education for the young child."
Things taught at this school:
* Piano/Keyboard Playing
* Singing
* Harmony
* Rhythm
* Note Reading
* Ear Training
* Composition
* Ensemble Playing
* Recorder
* Guitar
Looks like those students are learning everything Naples said they could not learn, plus more. Keep in mind that admission starts at 3 years old. Again, this is one of many schools across the world that teach children music at such a young age. Not only are children trained musically in academic settings, but this also occurs in every culture in the world. Jalis, a group of musicians from Mali, begin training their children as early as 2 and 3 years old, since, in line with their tradition, they are expected to learn over 100 polyrhythmic compositions by heart, some of which last more than 10 hours, all by the age of 18.
However, according to RFNAPLES' theory of the "age of reason," everyone is clearly wasting their time, since these children are unable to "distill and analyze the parameters or elements of music."
Not once have I ever encountered a view of life that is so far removed from reality. And that is why, more than anything any of the great poets and philosophers of the world have ever said, these are my favorite quotes:
"I questioned the relevancy of experience gained before the age of reason." --RFNAPLES
"The child cannot distill and analyze the parameters or elements of music – rhythm, harmony (harmonic function), melody, structure, form, and texture, i.e., perspective or musical theory if you will." --RFNAPLES
JJ brings up an old post merely for flaming purposes. As she implies there is no defined age of reason and I concur and never said there was. That age is dependent upon the individual and the subject. An infant can find a tit and suckle without much assistance. In the original post I was referring to the point when one possesses the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways. Reason/intellect as a basis for knowledge, as distinct from experience or emotions, is often lacking in the six year old.
As far as I can tell the school she mentions is a for-profit non-accredited franchise. The courses she mentions may be offered at some of their locations but are not designed for all their age groups (ages 3-10).
The course levels they have are:
Pre-junior Course (12 week introduction to music): 3-year-old children (available at some locations)
Junior Course: Pre-school and Kindergarten-age children
Intermediate Course: First and Second-grade children
Senior Course: Third and Fourth-grade children (available at some locations).
JJ is spreading half-truths, misinformation and innuendo in a false hope of proving herself right. Sorry you loose JJ. I stand by my original statements:
"I questioned the relevancy of experience gained before the age of reason." --RFNAPLES
They don't offer certain age levels (not courses-- half-truth on your part) at all locations, but somewhere some 3-year-olds are learning about harmony, rhythm, melody, etc. This is just one example of schools all over the world. Arguing about this particular one is stupid.
You're grasping at straws and overlooking the important bit:
"Research has revealed that children’s ears are most receptive to musical training between the ages of three and six. As a result, it is preferable to begin a child’s musical experience/education during those formative years"
You better give them a call and tell them about your theories on the human brain, because they're wasting their time, like 1000s of schools across the world.
The "age of reason" simply does not exist. Calling any human experience irrelevant is completely idiotic. And your claim that I hadn't reached it by the age of 6, is completely baseless, anyway. I won't even touch on that anymore.
And now, videos of children who have a grasp on the elements of music much more than you:
Jali kid messin' about with polyrhythms. Go read a book at this culture.
"The child cannot distill and analyze the parameters or elements of music – rhythm, harmony (harmonic function), melody, structure, form, and texture, i.e., perspective or musical theory if you will."
"The child cannot distill and analyze the parameters or elements of music – rhythm, harmony (harmonic function), melody, structure, form, and texture, i.e., perspective or musical theory if you will."
"The child cannot distill and analyze the parameters or elements of music – rhythm, harmony (harmonic function), melody, structure, form, and texture, i.e., perspective or musical theory if you will."
"The child cannot distill and analyze the parameters or elements of music – rhythm, harmony (harmonic function), melody, structure, form, and texture, i.e., perspective or musical theory if you will."
"The child cannot distill and analyze the parameters or elements of music – rhythm, harmony (harmonic function), melody, structure, form, and texture, i.e., perspective or musical theory if you will."
"The child cannot distill and analyze the parameters or elements of music – rhythm, harmony (harmonic function), melody, structure, form, and texture, i.e., perspective or musical theory if you will."
"The child cannot distill and analyze the parameters or elements of music – rhythm, harmony (harmonic function), melody, structure, form, and texture, i.e., perspective or musical theory if you will."
"The child cannot distill and analyze the parameters or elements of music – rhythm, harmony (harmonic function), melody, structure, form, and texture, i.e., perspective or musical theory if you will."
"The child cannot distill and analyze the parameters or elements of music – rhythm, harmony (harmonic function), melody, structure, form, and texture, i.e., perspective or musical theory if you will."
"The child cannot distill and analyze the parameters or elements of music – rhythm, harmony (harmonic function), melody, structure, form, and texture, i.e., perspective or musical theory if you will."
You are an idiot. These are a few examples of millions of children around the world learning elements of music.
You understand nothing about life and the world in which you live. If you still stand by your statements after watching those, you have not reached the "age of reason" after 61 years.
I guess Miss Smarty Pants is back to insulting and flaming. You might think she was smart enough not to quote a for-profit organization about unsubstantiated research claims.
Even more dumbfounding is that I was referring to her naked statement that she listened to hip-hop since 6. She seemed to imply that she had more experience than the Pitchfork reviewers/contributors and that only her expert opinion should be trusted. I have been listening to rap even longer than JJ but listening alone doesn't make one an expert. I still question the relevancy of experience gained before the age of reason.
In most of the videos she offered as proof the subjects are over 6. In any event they are not the young JJ I was talking about. I don't doubt that children can play the blocks or bang a piano or drum at early ages. Maybe some of the older children even posses more music knowledge than JJ has now. Nevertheless I still doubt that a six year old understands hip-hop, the subject of the original debate. These are the same kindergarten kids who still believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny!
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. - Albert Einstein
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. - Abraham Lincoln
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt. - Abraham Lincoln
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. - Benjamin Franklin
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There's no point in being a damn fool about it. - W. C. Fields
Better a witty fool than a foolish wit. - William Shakespeare
Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it. - Henry David Thoreau
No man is so foolish but he may sometimes give another good counsel, and no man so wise that he may not easily err if he takes no other counsel than his own. He that is taught only by himself has a fool for a master. - Hunter S. Thompson
I guess Miss Smarty Pants is back to insulting and flaming. You might think she was smart enough not to quote a for-profit organization about unsubstantiated research claims.
Even more dumbfounding is that I was referring to her naked statement that she listened to hip-hop since 6. She seemed to imply that she had more experience than the Pitchfork reviewers/contributors and that only her expert opinion should be trusted. I have been listening to rap even longer than JJ but listening alone doesn't make one an expert. I still question the relevancy of experience gained before the age of reason.
In most of the videos she offered as proof the subjects are over 6. In any event they are not the young JJ I was talking about. I don't doubt that children can play the blocks or bang a piano or drum at early ages. Maybe some of the older children even posses more music knowledge than JJ has now. Nevertheless I still doubt that a six year old understands hip-hop, the subject of the original debate. These are the same kindergarten kids who still believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny!
How many electrons will JJ waste with her incessant rants? Please no more reruns.
Actually, you may want to actually watch the videos. There were a bunch of kids younger than 6.
This video, if you actually watch, also stated that this school started training at 3. The same age as that site from which I got that unsubstantiated claim.
The claim is common sense and painfully obvious, but since you want to bitch about sources:
"Research indicates that music aptitude is developmental during the early years of life."
"A child's aptitude at birth is innate..."
just like their capability for reason, despite what you think. If musical aptitude is innate, they can start learning from birth, not after some fictional age of reason. Therefore any experience is relevant if they can learn from it.
...but can fluctuate until about age nine according to the richness and diversity of musical experiences the child undergoes. After age nine, one cannot expect to achieve in music beyond the limit of one's stabilized music aptitude. It is essential that children receive lots of high quality informal guidance and formal instruction in music in order to best realize their potential for musical fulfillment throughout life. Informal music experience prior to age five is particularly important."
"One's potential to learn is never greater than at the moment of birth. (MLTNYC, 1:1)"
That's a fact. And I can find more sources if you want. You baselessly question the relevancy of any human experience, despite this fact. It is overwhelmingly idiotic questioning the experience during the most important years of human development.
"The early years of life are crucial for establishing a foundation for lifelong music development."
And yet, you baselessly question the relevancy of any human experience. The age of reason doesn't exist. Explain to me what it is. Throwing some term and concept around that you made up is as naked as a statement comes.
"A child's musical experiences from birth to age five have a particularly profound impact on the extent to which she will be able to understand, appreciate, and achieve in music as an adult. Children must be exposed to a rich variety of music during these years in order to develop the necessary readiness for formal music learning when they are older."
"In structured informal guidance, which should take place roughly between ages three and five, the parent or teacher does plan specifically what she will say and do, but does not expect specific responses from the child."
There's that unsubstantiated starting at 3 claim again. How many sources do you need before you accept the fact?
Between 2-5 a child "Imitates with some precision the sounds of music in the environment, specifically tonal patterns and rhythm patterns."
And yet you say a child can not understand these things. Nonsense.
From his book titled "A Music Learning Theory for Newborn and Young Children"
[url is too long-- can be previewed on Google Books]
"The most important time for learning, however, is from birth (if not before) until 18 months."
And yet, you dare question the relevancy of experience during the most important time for learning. Completely stupid. This is common sense.
"In any event they are not the young JJ I was talking about"
In any event you did not know me as a child, nor do you know anything about the young JJ. Therefore any claim about me is completely naked. That's just stupid.
"and that only her expert opinion should be trusted"
And that's just some stupid shit you made up. I never said that. Strawman.
"Nevertheless I still doubt that a six year old understands hip-hop, the subject of the original debate"
Another strawman. Whether or not I understood it at 6 was not the subject. My claim was that I understand it now, and 6 was when I first experienced it-- that I can remember-- and began learning from it and began my path to understanding it. I, at 23, understand it. Actually, I would say I understood it around 11, when I first started writing raps with multisyllable rhymes and consciously counting bars. But that understanding came from 5 years in already.
Claiming to understand it at 6 was never my claim. Strawman. You made that up. However, 6 is when that essential informal training before 9 that Edwin Gordon talked about began for me.
Please, explain the "age of reason" and be specific. Because you completely made this nonsense up. Again, you did not know the young JJ.
"Nevertheless I still doubt that a six year old understands hip-hop. These are the same kindergarten kids who still believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny!"
You question it because you have absolutely no idea how the brain works.
And you're 61 and don't realize that children can learn music at an early age. Childhood experience is irrelevant? Do you have kids? Did you bother trying to teach them anything or did you just lock them in a room and feed them through a slot? Jesus Christ, I hope your children are okay.
What you don't realize is that adults-- billions of adults-- go their entire life believing in God. Obviously, this "age of reason" is never reached by most people-- if it actually existed.
Please, please, please, attempt to explain your age of reason theory. You're talking shite.
i'll have a go at explaining the age of reason theory...
here we go.
right, the age of reason, is perfectly reasonable when thought about it reasonably quickly, before you age, because nothing is more reasonable than something reasonable which makes reasonable sense to me. Although if i was of an age that wasnt reasonable, say age 61, than all reasons are not reasonable because im too old to see reason that its all reasonable.
JJ it looks like you are doing some hardcore threadjacking and trolling again!
JJ please stop, your line of questioning is asinine. Of course children can learn; we learn all of the time. I am not debating that, never have, never will. But surely you see the difference between a child's and an adult's cognitive skills.
For the record:
joannajewsom wrote:
This is coming from someone whose first musical experiences were with hip-hop. Been listening to it since I was 6. I'm not one of these casual hip-hop listeners who'll throw on some contemporary mainstream hip-hop every now and then in between their indie albums, thinking they know hip-hop. It's not unwarranted discrimination. Pitchfork doesn't know hip-hop. It's not a hip-hop site; they merely dabble. I wouldn't say that they should stick to what they know; they can review whatever they want, but they don't know hip-hop. You can tell their hip-hop knowledge is limited because they have like 5 artists with multiple entries. If there is one genre in which I would claim to be an expert, it would be hip-hop, and I stand by my opinion on those albums.
RFNAPLES wrote:
Yes even 6 year olds can enjoy music and rhythms even if they have a difficult time understanding the lyrics or putting the music and rhythms into perspective. But how does the fact that you listened to hip-hop at six add to your credibility as a critic? Why doesn't your chart include any hip-hop? You don't claim to be the greatest person on earth; you just act like it.
The child cannot distill and analyze the parameters or elements of music – rhythm, harmony (harmonic function), melody, structure, form, and texture, i.e., perspective or musical theory if you will. Yes anyone can have a visceral response from music. I don’t think one’s six year old visceral music experiences add to a critic’s capabilities for musical theory, composition, history, evaluation, etc. Again the fact that you listened to hip-hop when you were six proves squat.
JJ please stop, your line of questioning is asinine. Of course children can learn; we learn all of the time.
Then why would you "question the relevancy of experience gained before the age of reason" when children can obviously learn during this time?
Not only that, but "they [those who understand childhood development] know our potential to learn is never greater than at the moment of birth, and that after that it gradually decreases."
Why would you question the relevancy of experience during the most important time to learn, during the time when the ability to learn is at its greatest? If anything, you should encourage more experience at the earliest ages, since our potential is gradually decreasing.
"I questioned the relevancy of experience gained before the age of reason." --RFNAPLES
That is asinine. You may as well tell me that a writer's experience with language is irrelevant until he gets into a creative writing program at grad school. Forget the fact that his linguistic foundation and his fluent speech was developed as a child.
Tell me, how is any experience irrelevant.
RFNAPLES wrote:
But surely you see the difference between a child's and an adult's cognitive skills.
You outright said children could not grasp the concepts of music, not that they weren't as good as adults. Don't try to worm your way out of this. You know why adults may be better, because "a child's musical experiences from birth to age five have a particularly profound impact on the extent to which she will be able to understand, appreciate, and achieve in music as an adult."
Without proper education as a child, they are screwed as an adult. The difference in musical ability between two adults rests heavily on their musical foundations during their stages of childhood development. And the cognitive skills of an adult are determined by the development of those skills as a child. Those cognitive skills were developed during those early years, and yet you say this experience is irrelevant. Fucking stupid.
But back to your attempt to worm your way out of this. You outright said children were incapable.
RFNAPLES wrote:
The child cannot distill and analyze the parameters or elements of music – rhythm, harmony (harmonic function), melody, structure, form, and texture, i.e., perspective or musical theory if you will. Yes anyone can have a visceral response from music.
"A child's [musical] aptitude at birth is innate"
Do you know what aptitude means? Capacity for learning. A child can begins analyzing it at birth.
Between 2-5 a child "Imitates with some precision the sounds of music in the environment, specifically tonal patterns and rhythm patterns."
More on between 2-5
"Breaking the Code. In stage five of preparatory audiation the child first attempts to enter and to participate successfully in the adult's world of music. She develops the ability to perform tonal patterns and rhythm patterns with some accuracy."
Things you said were beyond them.
"The parent or teacher assists in this process by echoing the child's inaccurate performances of patterns first with the child's version, then a repetition of the correct pattern. The confusion that the child experiences as she engages in stage five of preparatory audiation is good confusion. That the child is attempting to perform the pattern is an indication that she is learning. Eventually, incorrect responses are followed by correct responses"
That is analyzing. Incorrect responses followed by correct is analyzing and reasoning. This is possible because the age of reason is 0.
By age 2, and even earlier, they are picking up on patterns and imitating them. That is analyzing.
Children can analyze these things. Why do these institutions start teaching kids at age 3? Tell me, are they completely wasting their time teaching things to kids that they cannot possibly grasp? Fucking stupid.
RFNAPLES wrote:
But how does the fact that you listened to hip-hop at six add to your credibility as a critic?
"Research indicates that music aptitude is developmental during the early years of life."
Because my first experiences were with hip-hop and
"The early years of life are crucial for establishing a foundation for lifelong music development."
Because "It is essential that children receive lots of high quality informal guidance and formal instruction in music in order to best realize their potential for musical fulfillment throughout life. Informal music experience prior to age five is particularly important...a child's musical experiences from birth to age five have a particularly profound impact on the extent to which she will be able to understand, appreciate, and achieve in music as an adult."
But more than that, the volume and diversity of the of hip-hop I listen to makes me an expert, as well as 17 years of analyzing it. As you can see from research, children began analyzing music from birth. I have 17 years of analyzing hip-hop and 12 years of writing and performing, and about 5 of producing. That's what makes me an expert. Jesus Christ, man.
If you don't think I'm an expert, discuss some hip-hop with me. You don't discuss music. All you do is make alphabetical lists. That proves nothing regarding any kind of knowledge.
RFNAPLES wrote:
But how does the fact that you listened to hip-hop at six add to your credibility as a critic?
Again, you may as ask Noam Chomsky--
"yes, Mr. Chomsky. But how does your experience with English, Hebrew, and Yiddish as a child add to your credibility as a linguist?"
Noam would reply, "those very relevant experiences during childhood are when I learned the very basic sentence structures I'm using to talk to you now. It's when I learned all of the fundamentals of the language. From there, my learning has been elaboration on those basic concepts. Without that relevant experience, we wouldn't be able to converse. Now get out and don't come back until you've reached the age of reason."
RFNAPLES wrote:
The child cannot distill and analyze the parameters or elements of music – rhythm, harmony (harmonic function), melody, structure, form, and texture, i.e., perspective or musical theory if you will. Yes anyone can have a visceral response from music.
"A child's [musical] aptitude at birth is innate"
Between 2-5 a child "Imitates with some precision the sounds of music in the environment, specifically tonal patterns and rhythm patterns." That is much more than having a visceral response. That is the child analyzing and imitating patterns.
"I don’t think one’s six year old visceral music experiences add to a critic’s capabilities for musical theory, composition, history, evaluation, etc."-- You
"It is essential that children receive lots of high quality informal guidance and formal instruction in music in order to best realize their potential for musical fulfillment throughout life. Informal music experience prior to age five is particularly important...a child's musical experiences from birth to age five have a particularly profound impact on the extent to which she will be able to understand, appreciate, and achieve in music as an adult."-- Edwin Gordon
God damn, it's like he's responding directly to your bullshit.
RFNAPLES wrote:
The child cannot distill and analyze the parameters or elements of music – rhythm, harmony (harmonic function), melody, structure, form, and texture, i.e., perspective or musical theory if you will. Yes anyone can have a visceral response from music.
You know what I see in those videos I posted? Children doing exactly that.
They may not be 6, but you said "child" and these are clearly children. You arbitrarily chose 6 because I was six. And you don't think these children started learning earlier than 6? I'll give you a hint. They started learning from birth.
Please explain the "age of reason" theory to me. Please...I really want to hear this. If you don't respond to anything, just tell me about your age of reason theory.
Please stop with your semantic debates. Children at three learn but at a rudimental level. Children at 6 are not informed critics. You learn the most at young ages because your base is so low. What is the increase from 0 to 100? Infinite. Are you familiar with the learning curve? Look it up between your rants. Until then please stay on topic—Quotes—not mine or yours. This is not intended to be a debate thread or format to display your ignorance.
Summary:
The child cannot distill and analyze the parameters or elements of music – rhythm, harmony (harmonic function), melody, structure, form, and texture, i.e., perspective or musical theory if you will. Yes anyone can have a visceral response from music. I don’t think one’s six year old visceral music experiences add to a critic’s capabilities for musical theory, composition, history, evaluation, etc. Again the fact that you listened to hip-hop when you were six proves squat.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
