Ok, I did account for prodigies in my theory. I said they get to the algebra and calculus while the others are still doing arithmetic. Mature far beyond their age. They still go through the same progression, just (very) much quicker.
I guess I don?t understand why you think that the entire talented music community has gotten it so wrong for so long? A lot of my ideas and theories come from studying talent and how it progresses in sophistication. And there is a logical basis for that. I am trying to determine the best way to coach it, not create it, and if I discount our entire pool of talent then what would be the basis of anything I think? At that point wouldn't I be talking about some abstract student that doesn?t even exist?
For 100?s of years the music community has done it technique first, theory and expression second. How, in such a talented and demanding endeavor, over such a long period of time, did they get it so wrong? It seems to me that the endeavor is situated perfectly to evolve to what is natural. Did it evolve wrong? It isn?t like we are talking about political public school music pedagogy.
And how does Bach, Mozart and Beethoven fit into the Sub-Saharan music scene? A lot of people liken music to mathematics, and I see a lot of truth in the comparison. However, mathematics is universal, yet when you compare the music of different cultures, the differences indicate that music acts more like language than it acts like mathematics. Are you suggesting something similar to the discussion on how Chinese chidden do better with arithmetic because they have more logical names for their numbers? That by removing the complexity of time signatures we can simplify rhythm? I would have thought we would have removed that damn key signature thing first. Just one scale.:)