anon said:

No one is saying he didn't have talent at a relative young age, but not talent to qualify for 'child prodigy' status. No one called him a child prodigy at the time, no one has been calling him a 'child prodigy' since, you can't call someone a child prodigy because of some imaginary inert potential that he would only develop in later years, and you can't go back and re-write his history based on what he was to later do.

I usually don't enter these types of discussions as I see them as an attempt by many to rationalize Prince's greatness without objective thought. Still, there needs to be some clarification about what these words mean:

Taken from Dictionary.com

Child Prodigy - a prodigy whose talents are recognized at an early age; "Mozart was a child prodigy"

Prodigy - a person, esp. a child or young person, having extraordinary talent or ability: a musical prodigy.

In the truest sense of the word, prodigies, especially child prodigies, are usually virtuosos on their instruments. Which takes us to the word virtuoso - a person who excels in musical technique or execution.

As talented as Prince is, he has never been seen as a virtuoso in any of the instruments he plays. Badass, yes, underrated, maybe. A virtuoso - no. He's a great player in a creative sense, not in a standard technical sense. Many of his piano fingerings, for instance, are considered "wrong" but they work for him and his music. Being self-taught, he came up with his own way of doing things and it works for him. Many a teacher would've probably rapped his knuckles for his approach to the piano. But Prince has made it work for him. So has McCartney. So did Hendrix. So did Eddie Van Halen, who's picking technique isn't considered technically correct. That's what makes them unique.

Child prodigy? No. Gifted young musician? Most definitely. Prince developed into an excellent musician. That should be good enough.

wlcm2thdwn said:

Talent gets developed with hard work. He didn't just wake up and start playing sonatas and etudes. Dude started out playing the theme from "Batman", for goodness sake. We all have an aptitude for something - it's up to us to develop it and work at it.

I come from a family of musicians. I had an aptitude and appreciation for music, yet I still had to put in the physical work to learn how to actually play. There's no magic elixir. Just hard (but fun)work.

yes

I would say yeah.

At a young age, he learned how to play up to 20 instruments, even more. I'm not quite sure what the exact age was. He learned piano first at age 7 (correct me if I'm wrong) and by age 12, he learned those 20+ instruments.

He also wanted a record contract when he was a teenager, but they told him to come back when he was 18...

The 20 instruments things when I heard it the first time totally blew me away. Considering what he's accomplished in so many years, is there really anything that Prince can't do?

DreamyPopRoyalty said:

Pinch of salt...

metalorange said:

I understand. I was having fun with the word and all the rigidity and restrictions placed on it. All the absolutes.
I understand what it means, and that by "definition", he's not considered a prodigy but perhaps it's time for Webster to extend that word or create a new one.

I also understand that something must be displayed to be prodigy, but the larger part of being an artist is in the processing, in the thought. The execution is just a technicality. Perhaps he missed this one by a small technicality.

anon said:

Why does it matter if he was a child prodigy or not?

coolcat said:

It's the question the creator of this thread asked, what else do you expect us to discuss on this thread??

coolcat said:

Initially, I never saw it that way, but then again, I think we all want to think that Prince was brilliant beyond his years at a young age since we commonly refer to him as a genius.

I'm not quite sure if he's up there in brilliance with Mozart, though, who composed his first symphony at a young age... but his overall history indicates that he accomplished a lot in his life. I doubt it really matters when he started as much as he started being the genius he is at all.

metalorange said:

Calm down. I asked anon for a specific reason. anon seems to want to go to the lengths of changing the meaning of words so that Prince fits the definition of "child prodigy". I'm curious to know why. Why does it matter if Prince fits the definition of "child prodigy" or not? Why is it so important that it requires changing the English language?

Words have specific meanings. To arbitrarily change them around would make language meaningless.

It's hard to say whether he was or not. Sure, he wasn't playing piano concertos at the age of 6 in front of huge audiences, but he didn't have the formal training either. The only child prodigies we hear about about are the one's who are pushed into the public eye by their parents. I'm sure there are many kids who sit at home creating beautiful music in their minds, but there is no one to help them nurture their gift.

Whether or not he was a child prodigy, we can all agree that he is very musically inclined, and that he practiced very hard. His strong work ethic coupled with his natural abilities made him quite the force to be reckoned with, even as a youngster. More importantly, he is a creative and thoughtful composer who pours his heart and soul into his work. The ability to emote outweighs technical skill in my book. I'll take Prince singing his heart out over a 5 year old playing Chopin any day!

coolcat said:

It really doesn't matter and it doesn't have to be about Prince. But any person that comes on the scene, at an early age, with that level of talent. I didn't want to change the word I just wanted add a little common sense to it.

It's more about how we as a society (or perhaps as humans) must measure things in numbers. In doing this, some forget to factor in a bit of rationale.

UCantHavaDaMango said:

That's it. We all know that by definition he isn't but all the absolute "NO,'s" when it's quite possible that (on many levels) he was. Who knows what was going thru his head when he was 5.

Maybe the only thing on his mind was candy. But maybe it was music. My argument is that you don't develop an understanding of so much, overnight. So if you are thinking and processing advanced music at an early age, then that should qualify for prodigy status. Prince or whoever.

metalorange said:

Well Prince could have went round performing the guitar or piano to the royal courts of Europe at a very young age if they just hooked him up with some Amps!
[Edited 3/16/07 13:47pm]

Astasheiks said:

That's funny. There's a commercial in that.

Was he a child prodigy? No...and thank god for that!
Many child prodigies are beat into excellence and the majority of them accomplish nothing as adults. They end up hating their profession. And usually, they are just technicians, people with no creative ability. Children who are just good mimics,what good is that? I would think that for him to be a prodigy, he would also have to be more keyed in on one thing. He was incredible at learning every facet of music, from the instruments to the studio.
It has been said that musical talent is one of the earliest talents to develop in talented people. There are many people who play very, very well at a young age. That said, it would be left to who is defining prodigy and virtuoso and what their definition a prodigy is.
I would say Michael Jackson (not meant as a comparison) was one of the only child prodigies we have seen in modern music. Someone who could perform with the feel and ability of someone way older, at Motown they used to say he had to have been reincarnated to sing with so much depth at so young an age. He was also, beat into submission by a domineering father as are many prodigies.
So was Prince a child prodigy? No, he is just prodigous and a true genius.

anon said:

But "For You" was released when Prince was 19. Prince started his first band when he was 14. It seems to me like he had enough time to develop his skills.

By 15, Mozart had already composed 13 symphonies. Felix Mendelssohn wrote 12 string symphonies between the ages of 12 and 14. I'm not saying that these guys are more talented, or more important musically than Prince. But I believe they did display advanced musical skills at a much earlier age.

Being a child prodigy doesn't necessarily mean being more talented. Beethoven was not a child prodigy. He's probably the most respected classical composer, even moreso than Mozart.

DreamyPopRoyalty said:

BorisFishpaw said:

exactly, maybe he was, but none of us really knows because he wasn't making albums at 7 years old.

I wouldn't consider 17-18 a prodigy (when we first heard him). I played at 15 but so did every rock musician.

Wasn't it the piano that was Prince's 1st instrument? When did he started playing the paino? Maybe his father locked him in a room w/ the paino cuz Prince had skills on it. or something else. I don't want to go in2 that. I just say some of us didn't know Prince in his early youth. I dunno. Cluelss as something.

From what I gather from various interviews with people who were at school with him and when people have talked about him being in his first bands, Prince wasn't a prodigy at all - he was musically inclined from a young age, but what made him stand out from the rest is that he was a bloody hard worker and very focused.

"Natural Talent" (if there is such a thing) only counts for so much. Somebody here mentioned Mendelsohn - he was a child prodigy; his abilities for his age surpassed even Mozart; but he didn't have the same drive and ambition as Mozart, and ultimately did not turn out to be as great a composer (though his Octet is something to be savoured!)

And all this "Prince can play three million instruments" stuff is nonsense. Prince can play keys, drums, guitar and bass. Being able to get a note out of a saxophone (to take a random example) does not constitute being able to play the thing. And "Handclapsandfingersnaps" is NOT an instrument!

mozfonky said:

Mmmhh, and what about Stevie Wonder...

coolcat said:

I agree. Not only this but by definition alone, idiot savants and side show freak kids can qualify as child prodigy but there is no allowance for the creative mind...the one that, more than likely, would have been a child prodigy, if given the opportunity.

Of course, if you have nothing to show as evidence of this, you don't qualify, but it's very likely that at a young age his musical mind was working in advanced ways. Only he knows that.

Stevie? I don't know, that's a tough one, obviously he's a genius but a prodigy? I don't know, Berry Gordy stated he wasn't knocked out by his voice but was amazed at his instrumental ability. He wrote hit songs as a teen, (as did Paul Anka, Michael and many others) so I don't know. There is a difference in my mind between a creative genius and a prodigy. Prodigy is more like an empty vessel that has a great capacity for learning, creativity is totally the opposite. There are real pitfalls to being a prodigy, i don't even see it as a virtue, most child prodigies don't amount to much for many reasons. One of the biggest ones is that everything comes so easy to them initially that they totally crack when faced with real challenges. That is not genius, genius is diligent impossible to dissuade and only partly talent.

sharonbell said:

sharonbell said:

[quote]

!!GENIUS!!

peterfalconer said:

yeah, he did okay, too!

Yes, he was a child Prodigy. All you need to do is look at what he accomplished at an early age.


" Don't lable me and put me on a shelf" Regina Carman 1987