I was wondering if Prince was considered a child prodigy, or did he just develop into an excellent musician over time?

I would have to say that anyone that can be that good at that many instruments by the time they are 17 could be considered a prodigy, IMHO.

.

Yes.

I'd say he started as a child prodigy and honed his craft to become a musical genius...

I've been honing my craft since I was child also.

I would say no. I seem to remember hearing his school let him hang out in the music room a lot, but I've never read about them considering him anything special musically. He just developed his talent quickly in his own quiet way, I mean he went to that studio to work with that bloke Pepe to learn about studios and recording and such, he was a quick learner but I wouldn't say he was a considered a child prodigy on any specific instrument, a talented youngster yes.

I think he was...

Anyone that is so relaxed to turn down a record contract at 15 years old.

You have to just be pretty relaxed and not desperate.

metalorange said:

No one considered Einstein special at an early age because he never spoke. Doesn't mean stuff wasn't going on. Same here. You don't suddenly wake up knowing how to play every instrument around. Even if he did, he's still a prodigy.

So, yes.

anon said:

A prodigy is someone who is extremely adept in his chosen field, a child prodigy is that at a young age. Prince wasn't, neither was Einstein. You can't argue that either were prodigies because of stuff going on in their heads at a young age. If Einstein had written his paper on relativity at a young age, then yes, he would have been called a scientific child prodigy. But he didn't, and he wasn't, he honed his skills in adult years, as did Prince. Being slightly 'special' at a young age doesn't earn you the title 'child prodigy' you have to actually show you're amazing at a young age, as Amadeus Mozart did going round performing the violin to the royal courts of Europe at a very young age.

metalorange said:

I'd say Prince was pretty "adept" at 17... Have U ever heard his instrumental demo tapes?

I don't like labels, but yes... Prince could easily "qualify" as a "child progidy".
[Edited 3/14/07 12:30pm]

metalorange said:

I totally agree.

I was a child prodigy, but now I'm shit. Such is life!

metalorange said:

I didn't say Einstein was a prodigy, the point there was that "he wasn't considered" special, as you state that Prince wasn't.

The argument that one must have exhibited or documented these abilities to prove that they exist is an entirely different argument. I don't agree with it, anyway. Just because one does not witness something doesn't mean it's not there. Still, what Prince was able to do at a very young age didn't just happen one day. It's proof that more was going on.

Answer, still yes.

anon said:

All I'm saying, is although Prince was talented from a young age I don't think he did enough to qualify for the very rare status of 'child prodigy'. Is he a prodigy now? Well, you don't really get 'prodigy' associated so much with older people, you move straight into 'genius'. I don't think Prince or Einstein were child prodigies, at that stage they were just talented... but they became genius's in their own fields in adulthood.

metalorange said:

So if Mozart wasn't made a spectacle of at a young age, would he not be considered a child prodigy...even if he turned up at age 17 doing advanced things?

I would have to say yes.


I think he could have used alot more coaching from other musicians than he had, and it would have been uber cool if he had learned to read music, but given the things he was able to do at a very young age, something special was going on there.

What I appreciate most about Prince was that he regularly tried to think outside the box when it came to music. I hope to see some of that again before he finally gets too old, but even if he doesn't recapture some of that zest, I appreciate the music he has already given me.

Imago said:

Prince tix?

anon said:

Exactly. Metalorange is quite right. The qualification for the term 'Child Prodigy'
involves ACTION, not merely potential. To be a child prodigy you have to be
actively achieving in your field at an adult level while you are still a child.
Prince was neither famous, performing or recording as child so therefore cannot
be considered a 'child prodigy'. Same goes for The Beatles, Einstein and
Steven Hawking.

Now, if Prince had released 'For You' when he was 11, then you would have
a case.

anon said:[quote]

metalorange said:

Well, yeah, if no one had ever heard of Mozart or seen him play, no one could have pronounced him a child prodigy without evidence. I've heard plenty of stories of fantastic musicians actually picking up their chosen instrument at quite an old age and becoming virtuoso's in only a year or 2, for all people would know that could have happened to Mozart, again without evidence of him performing to that adult standard at a young age.

Besides, in comparison, Prince really wasn't doing amazing things at a young age. It's not like he was a virtuoso on guitar aged 8, he wasn't even a virtuoso on guitar when his first few albums came out, he wasn't doing anything that amazing on those albums for his age, and some people even still don't consider him a virtuoso now on guitar, and that is without doubt his best instrument, so quite when he was supposed to be a child prodigy I don't know. His talents progressed quickly but not so spectacularly as to achieve prodigy status, in my opinion. He has become considered a genius because of all his combined skills and what he's achieved, but all that simply wasn't obvious when he was 8 or really even when his first albums came out. Good for his age, but not child prodigy status.
[Edited 3/14/07 16:15pm]

metalorange said:[quote]

anon said:

That's right, his genius is in the combined skills. I agree with that. How do you measure that ?
Especially in a child. The point is it's not like he emerged playing one instrument, and then over time learned another but when he came on the scene he could play them all.

Seems we're caught up in labels and semantics and things. If you can accept where the genius lie, how can you deny that it was there long before he was 17? Whether it was documented or not.

Perhaps he could have been performing at a high level as a child if his parents or someone would him exposed him to the public at an early age?

sharonbell said:

Exactly. This is an interesting topic but it's kinda crazy to have to see the "official documents" before you can acknowledge what all the evidence points to. It's like he can't be valid without "the papers".

BorisFishpaw said:

But wasn't he trying to release this material at 15? Didn't the Dick Clark interview clearly mention that Prince had written/produced much of the material on his first album at that age? He just didn't have the means at that time to relase it because the record labels refused to let him have complete control the firs go-round.
[Edited 3/14/07 17:58pm]

anon said:

Sounds to me like 'if a tree falls in the jungle does it make a sound if no one is there' theory. I would think he was still doing some extraordinary things they just weren't known to the masses but they were known to MN. JMO

shaedove99 said:

No. They're right. I just looked it up.

Prince had no talent at all, as a child, but he woke on his 15th birthday and it was there...as if by magic. Unfortunately the day of his 15th birthday was one day too late to qualify for prodigy status, so he doesn't make the cut. He didn't get the certificate.

anon said:

I say Prodigy, he had the talents and gifts all along just no way to showcase them. His talents are God-given inherited from his dad.

thekidsgirl said:

Well, people can argue about it all they like, but the FACT of the matter is
that the term "Child Prodigy" has a specific definition... and Prince doesn't
meet that definition.