Starbucks
Starbucks
At Starbucks two mothers with babies sat talking and sipping lattes. It would have been impossible to know whether the moms were aware of the jazz compilation CD playing at an audible but not intrusive volume in the background. The two year-old, however, was clearly affected, bouncing and dancing to the music. Well naturally, I thought. Trying to disguise my research as coffee chat, I decided to say something to the young mother.
"She really seems to like dancing."
"Yes," said mom, "but I don't know whose genes - certainly not mine. She has a lot more talent than I do."
"But I'll bet that you were like that at her age," I ventured, still feigning casual interest.
"Well, yes, but she's so uninhibited." The significance of her own words was lost on the unsuspecting mom.
I've run into this baffling paradox more times than I can count: A parent sees and acknowledges talent in her child and concedes having demonstrated the same behavior at the same age, but manages to draw the conclusion that she herself has no talent. Algebraically, this should look like:
Responding to music through dancing (x) = talent (y)Parent at one time responded to music through dancing (x) = Parent at one time had talent (y).
Since it doesn't, maybe this person should be worrying about her math, not her music.
Or maybe she thinks that she did have talent, which then mysteriously disappeared? Or is she equating talent with lack of inhibition?
What makes this even more puzzling is the fact that so many people I know who consider themselves unmusical will, in the same breath, express the wish that they did have musical talent!
It is a frustrating thing to find yourself at just the right moment and in the right circumstances for an epiphany: the conscientious mother, musically responsive baby, coffee adrenalin and business card - but not know how to broach the subject with a stranger. Is there a way? I will ponder it for the next time. With all of the Starbucks, babies and jazz CDs in the world, that time can't be too far away.
At Starbucks two mothers with babies sat talking and sipping lattes. It would have been impossible to know whether the moms were aware of the jazz compilation CD playing at an audible but not intrusive volume in the background. The two year-old, however, was clearly affected, bouncing and dancing to the music. Well naturally, I thought. Trying to disguise my research as coffee chat, I decided to say something to the young mother.
"She really seems to like dancing."
"Yes," said mom, "but I don't know whose genes - certainly not mine. She has a lot more talent than I do."
"But I'll bet that you were like that at her age," I ventured, still feigning casual interest.
"Well, yes, but she's so uninhibited." The significance of her own words was lost on the unsuspecting mom.
I've run into this baffling paradox more times than I can count: A parent sees and acknowledges talent in her child and concedes having demonstrated the same behavior at the same age, but manages to draw the conclusion that she herself has no talent. Algebraically, this should look like:
Responding to music through dancing (x) = talent (y)Parent at one time responded to music through dancing (x) = Parent at one time had talent (y).
Since it doesn't, maybe this person should be worrying about her math, not her music.
Or maybe she thinks that she did have talent, which then mysteriously disappeared? Or is she equating talent with lack of inhibition?
What makes this even more puzzling is the fact that so many people I know who consider themselves unmusical will, in the same breath, express the wish that they did have musical talent!
It is a frustrating thing to find yourself at just the right moment and in the right circumstances for an epiphany: the conscientious mother, musically responsive baby, coffee adrenalin and business card - but not know how to broach the subject with a stranger. Is there a way? I will ponder it for the next time. With all of the Starbucks, babies and jazz CDs in the world, that time can't be too far away.
posted by Music House at 11:43 AM
0 comments
