Originally posted by jimslyp69That kid is a prodigy. I see and hear a world of difference between him and the blues kid. For example, see how he tastefully uses a simple blues lick around 0:55 to effectively decorate a very musical arrangement, rather than just squinting his eyes, contorting his face, swinging his guitar neck, and banging out a bunch of licks.
Anyway smell this: -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmG0KyY38H8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTwfTMBB-H0&feature=rec-fresh
He's got loads of vids on there. I think his dad does all the arrangements but he rarely drops a note.
Originally posted by Nemesio3 hours of tv a day is too much, of course that's just my opinion. I don't know what an appropriate social life is for a second grader. I doubt it involves bars and taverns. kids need to explore a lot of different things. I don't have a problem with him practicing a lot. Just think there needs to be balance. Didn't you see searching for bobby fischer?
Just because he isn't pursuing your idea of fun, doesn't mean he doesn't have a life. He is
nourished by his practice.
The average kid in America watches like 3 hours of television a day. Does every child in America
have 'no life?' What would be your definition of a 2nd grader having an appropriate social life, anyway?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioSo kids should get everything they desire? I did here that it was going to a "college fund". What difference does that make? The laws were put in place to protect kids. If they bend them for this kid then they have to bend them for other kids etc, etc, etc. It's a shame he can't have everything he wants right now. Maybe he can channel that rage into practice and when he gets old enough to play gigs legally he can make a grip of cash for himself and not his "college fund".
If the father was pimping him out, then it would be a problem -- not because it is against
the law, but because it violates the freedom for a child to be a child. However, in this case, it is
the child who desires to play gigs, not the father. The father merely supports it. And, if you
bothered to listen to the report, all of the money th ...[text shortened]... is being 'pimped,' he should fight it like anyone ought to fight any unjust law.
Nemesio
Originally posted by dryhumpLet me get this straight.
I don't know what an appropriate social life is for a second grader.
So you don't know what an appropriate social life for a second grader ought to be, but you somehow
know that this kid doesn't have it based on two videos which focus only on his music.
Am I correct in my assessment?
Nemesio
Originally posted by dryhump
So kids should get everything they desire?
No. Sometimes kids desire things that would harm them and parents have a duty to protect their
children from conceivable harm. Do you think that playing gigs hurts the kid?
I did here that it was going to a "college fund". What difference does that make?
Yes, you heard it. You were complaining that the parents were banking off of this kid. You were
wrong. I was trying to allay your concerns that the parents were in it for themselves.
The laws were put in place to protect kids. If they bend them for this kid then they have to bend them for other kids etc, etc, etc.
That's right. Do you think the kid is being harmed? If not, then how does the law apply. Is
the spirit of the law being honored by preventing this kid from playing?
It's a shame he can't have everything he wants right now. Maybe he can channel that rage into practice and when he gets old enough to play gigs legally he can make a grip of cash for himself and not his "college fund".
So, for you it's merely about obeying the letter of the law, even if the law is stupid? What a
great sheep you are.
Nemesio
