This one way prioritizes certain people and used certain age groups to get the most benefit out of the cultivation. Past that prime age, the method dried up and became ineffective, thus people started thinking that it was impossible to do it.

It was only impossible for ignorant humans to consider things outside the box.

Your genes are hiding most of its potential and waiting for the right trigger. Much of your traits are inherited from all 7 generations ago. The older concept of genetics that you are born with traits and that training them young will get the most out of it, was not entirely accurate. In fact, it was mostly wrong.

Training can enhance prodigy gifts, yes, but orthodox training can also burn out and destroy prodigies as well by inflicting epigenetic activation of markers that counter act their strengths. Tribes called this a curse, or a sin, or a family that kept producing bad seed or criminals.

The number of people that can excel at musical fields is far greater than the masses were led to believe. Even if they missed out on it in their childhood, so long as they have the specific physical techniques and abilities, so long as they activate their full epigenetic DNA encoding potential, their future success is still feasible.

The idea that you can’t do something because you missed out on this class as a child is orthodox but also limiting. Most people are lazy when it comes to enhancing their hidden talents and weaknesses. They choose of their own free will to ignore their strengths and instead cater to what society and Authority tells them is good. That is not the fault of the teaching method. Humans are free to mess themselves up as much as they wish.

People can’t do something because they aren’t fated to do it.

Musical prodiges aren’t dependent on perfect pitch. That’s a different subject. For example, the Deaf Beethoven must have had perfect pitch, right.

http://www.lvbeethoven.com/Bio/BiographyDeafness.html

Even though his talent didn’t need it.

Music has its written and voice activated language. In cases where people cannot learn it from the sound, they can learn it from two other methods: reading/writing which uses linguistic specialties vs touch sensitivity (pianists).

The instrument’s frictional vibration substitutes for not hearing the tone. In fact on pitch pianists and violinists are not necessarily beautiful or good. The reason why music can transmute emotions and not just melody, is because the user imposes their own energy and timings. That is why in competitions, there is a check mark for how many notes you hit or miss, and then there is a check mark for how your style actually sounds.

American Idol generally capitalizes on the latter, and the judges criticize the lack of the former.

Orthodox methods could never activate the epigenetic markers for musical talent in children X years too old. That is because orthodox was mono.

As it happens when browsing the web, I found this interesting group of videos of operatic mezzo-soprano Joyce DiDonato’s master classes at Carnegie Hall. It is fascinating to watch her study each music student’s performance demo and give such great encouraging yet critical advice. Reminded me of my love of singing and lifelong wish to be an opera singer. I was in one opera, a Benjamin Britten rendition of a Miracle Play, Noye’s Fludde, (Noah’s Flood) with lyrics in medieval English. I played one of Mrs. Noah’s drunken friends. I drowned.

I think the theory is related to language acquisition and is very early. The argument is that tonal languages keep the child’s tone recognition working and is an argument for early music training. I’m not arguing. I’d just like to see some evidence one way or the other.

I would also be interested. In any case, it’s not “all babies.” I know people who are tone-deaf, and apparently always have been.

I’d be interested in a link since that contradicts what I have read about all babies having perfect pitch.