OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Mon Jul 18 2016, NEWGEN Chapter 1 Analyzing musical prodigiousness using Gagné’s Integrative Model of Talent Development Françoys Gagné and Gary E. McPherson Introduction 1. Defining (musical) prodigies For most people the term “prodigy” brings to mind three defining characteristics. The first one is a process characteristic: it refers to an extraordinary learning pace in mastering the competencies of a specific occupational field. As Kenneson (1998) aptly noted: “The ability to develop exceedingly quickly is the hallmark of the prodigy, whether the ability expresses itself in the prodigy- prone field of music or elsewhere” (p. 36). This process leads to two closely linkedoutcome characteristics: (a) an outstanding level of competence, akin to expert mastery, in a particular human occupation, and (b) its attainment at a very early age, usually before adolescence. So, prodigies are extremely precocious— pre- teen— high achievers within a specific field of human occupation, in the present case music. Webster’s Dictionary (1983) does nothing to attenuate the image of quasi-miraculous achievements. Its main meaning says: “a marvel; a person, thing, or act so extraordinary as to inspire wonder; as, a child prodigy” (p. 1436). This global view agrees with existing scholarly definitions. Here are a few examples. A prodigy is “. a child who, at a very young age (typically younger than 10 years old), performs at an adult professional level in a highly demanding culturally recognized field of endeavor” (Feldman & Morelock, 2010, p. 212). Prodigies are “very young children who demonstrate extraordinary abili- ties and exceptional talents” (Shavinina, 2009, p. 233). “A prodigy is simply a more extreme version of a gifted child, a child so gifted that he or she performs in some domain at an adult level” (Winner, 1996, pp. 4– 5). “A prodigy is able to function at an advanced adult level in some domain before the age of twelve” (Solomon, 2012, p. 405). Note that these definitions do not explicitly acknowledge the process characteristic mentioned above. Moreover, they do not include precisions concerning either the minimum level of expertise required, the maximum age of appearance, or the exact meaning of “culturally recognized field of endeavor”. We will address these ambiguities later in this chapter. Common usage frequently confounds the concepts of prodigy and genius. In our view, they are very different. We have chosen to endorse Robert S. Albert’s landmark definition of genius: [A genius is] a person who produces, over a long period of time, a large body of work that has a signifi- cant influence on many persons for many years; requiring people, as well as the individual in question, to come to terms with a different set of attitudes, ideas, viewpoints, or techniques before all can have “peace of mind”, that is, a sense of resolution and closure. (Albert, 1983, p. 61) The principal author, Françoys Gagné, whose theory of talent development forms the basis of this chapter, wrote all the drafts, and authored all twenty-three innovative proposals described on pages 103–104. As second author, Gary E. McPherson facilitated the adaptation of Gagné’s theoretical framework to music and to musical prodigies. McPherson091015OUK.indb 3 7/19/2016 11:08:11 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Mon Jul 18 2016, NEWGEN 4 CHAPTEr 1 ANALYZING MUSICAL PRODIGIOUSNESS USING GAGNÉ’S IMTD This definition shows that former prodigies can attain in adulthood, old age, or even posthu- mously, the status of genius, but their musical prodigiousness in itself has nothing to do with this technical definition of genius. 2. Chapter organization We aim in this opening chapter to dissect the phenomenon of musical prodigiousness, looking for answers to a key question: Where does that phenomenal developmental growth originate, and what nourishes it? Are special gifts involved, special temperamental predispositions, or more powerful motivations? Does exceptional investment in time and/ or energy play a crucial role, or else a special nurturing environment? In other words, we aim to pinpoint what makes a difference between becoming a musical prodigy as opposed to “just” reaching high musical talent as a young or older adult. Music is a very broad field, including not only performers in a diversity of musical instruments, but also composers, maestros, music teachers, music critics, and many others. Each of these specialties requires different abilities, and implies distinct developmental paths. To avoid undue complexity, we have chosen to focus on the specific subfield where the vast majority of musical prodigies are found, namely music performers in keyboard and string instruments. We will employ as our dissecting tool three developmental models: the Differentiating Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT), the Developmental Model for Natural Abilities (DMNA), and the Integrative Model of Talent Development (IMTD), formerly called “expanded model” (Gagné, 2013a). The first author developed the DMGT progressively over the past 30 years (Gagné, 1985) within the field of education, and targeted primarily the educational talent development of bright boys and girls, commonly called “gifted children.” Its reputation progressively exceeded the boundaries of gifted education to encompass, among other fields, musical talent development (e.g. McPherson & Williamon, 2006, 2016) and sports talent development (e.g. Gagné, 2015; Tranckle & Cushion, 2006). The DMNA and IMTD represent recent proposals (Gagné, 2013a, 2015). In the first case, the author aimed to describe the complex developmental process of human natural abilities, commonly— but wrongly— called “innate talent”, from their biological roots to their behavioral expression in childhood and later; that process involves a delicate and still only par- tially understood interplay between nature and nurture. For its part, the recently created IMTD brought the DMGT and DMNA models together into a unified whole. In the first two parts of this chapter, we will survey the three analytical models involved in this exploration, focusing on the DMGT in Part I, then on the DMNA and IMTD in Part II. In Parts III to VII, each of the five DMGT components will serve as a focusing framework to examine the nature of musical prodigiousness. This dissection will come together in Part VIII with the key question “Becoming a musical prodigy: Which DMGT facets make a difference?” I— A brief walk through the DMGT A— The two key DMGT constructs 1. Giftedness and talent The DMGT was created to take advantage of the fact that scholars and practitioners almost unan- imously acknowledged that the concept of “giftedness” represented two distinct realities: early emerging forms of “giftedness” with strong biological roots, as opposed to fully developed adult forms of “giftedness.” Scholars expressed that distinction through pairs of terms such as potential/ realization, aptitude/ achievement, or promise/fulfilment. Since two labels, giftedness and talent, were available to describe outstanding abilities, it seemed logical to attach each label to one, and only one, of these two concepts. Thus were born the two basic definitions that constitute the core of the DMGT framework, presented below in their current form. McPherson091015OUK.indb 4 7/19/2016 11:08:11 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Mon Jul 18 2016, NEWGEN I—A BRIEF WALK THROUGh thE DMGT 5 Giftedness designates the possession and use of untrained and spontaneously expressed out- standing natural abilities or aptitudes (called gifts), in at least one ability domain, to a degree that places an individual at least among the top 10% of age peers. Talent designates the outstanding mastery of systematically developed competencies (knowl- edge and skills), in at least one field of human activity, to a degree that places an individual at least among the top 10% of “learning peers” (those having accumulated a similar amount of learning time from either current or past training). Note how the DMGT clearly separates the concepts of giftedness, potential, aptitude, and nat- ural abilities, on the one hand, from those of talent, performance, achievement, systematically developed abilities, as well as expertise, eminence, and prodigiousness; this is one of the DMGT’s unique qualities. The DMGT will stand—or fall— on the validity of that basic distinction, espe- cially on the acceptance of the giftedness part of this crucial duo of constructs. Note also that we use here the term “ability” as an umbrella construct that covers both “natural” abilities (apti- tudes) and “systematically developed” abilities (competencies). No complete consensus exists on the concept of giftedness, although the vast majority of scholars and professionals in various fields of talent development (e.g. music, sports, education) do recognize the existence of what most call “innate talent.” Still, there are some disbelievers; we will address their objections later. 2. Differential assessment of aptitudes and achievements Even though we call aptitudes a “potential”, assessing their level involves measuring some form of performance. As an example, psychologists use an IQ test to measure intellectual potential. So, as Gagné (2013c) asked relevantly: “How can we hope to distinguish aptitude measures from achieve- ment measures if both rely on some form of performance” (p. 201)? Indeed, the differences are not qualitative; there are no “pure” measures of aptitude on one side, and of achievement on the other. Measures