We love taking our kids to the New York Philharmonic’s Young People’s Concerts, which were made famous by the late, great Leonard Bernstein.
The four programs this year were each devoted to a different “capital of music”: Mozart‘s Vienna, Ravel‘s Paris, Mussorgsky‘s St. Petersberg, and Bernstein’s New York.
The final program, held last weekend, was Mussogsky’s St. Petersberg. The conductor, Delta David Gier, began by wandering into the audience and asking kids, apparently picked at random, which had been their favorite program to date.
The first kid said he liked Bernstein’s New York. Why? “Because it was loud.” Another kid liked the Paris program but didn’t say much about it. And a third kid, maybe 7 or 8 years old, preferred Mozart’s Vienna. When asked why, he replied that it taught him a lot about composition. When pressed further, he mentioned that Mozart mixed up minor and major keys in interesting ways.
Amazingly precocious! You could hear the jaws of all the other parents hitting the floor. My 7-year-old is pretty musical but — well, this reply was well beyond her level. (My 8-year-old could tell you Honus Wagner‘s career batting stats but, well, Mozart’s not his bag.)
The concert was typically excellent. When it was over, a few of the musicians came off the stage to say hello to friends and family. Among them was the first violinist. She and the little Mozart lover were sharing a big hug and happy conversation. It looked very much like she was his mom. That’s when it dawned on me that we may have all gotten shilled by an 8-year-old.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
If anyone “shilled”, which I am not comfortable throwing around without more evidence than your own bitterness at this child’s talent, it would be the adults. Do not hold the child responsible.
There are some of us who, at age 7, knew exactly why Mozart was entertaining–including his artful use of minor and major keys. Sorry to say it, but although the number of us has declined, it’s not impossible for a child to be raised with musical (or other) intelligence. Please educate your children in music everyone.
I’ve never heard the term “shill” before (an Americanism?) so had to look it up.
“A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services or a political group, who pretends no association to the seller/group and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer”
Not sure anytyhing was being purchased given that you were already there?
It’s not surprising that a child of the performer had an encyclopedic knowledge of Mozart. My son knows more about maths and stats than most children his age because it’s an area I am interested in – likewise the little boy across the road knows more about the internal combustion engine than I ever will, but his dad is in the car industry. That’s how kids are wired.
The question is whether he was randomly picked on for interview. And how random was it anyway ? If the conductor started in the front few rows maybe he was statistically (and possibly inadvertantly) more likely to find children of the performers.
Who knows. Interviewing kids, at the bet of times, is schmaltzy to most of us outside the US.
I’ll second #11 on his last point.
Why would you ask a child anything, if not to get feedback on how much attention he was paying?
Why is the concise (stupid?) answer of the first child less acceptable than the pretentious answer of the second?
When you consider that the answer of the first was likely heartfelt and the answer of the second was likely trained and combine that with this blog’s opinion that precocity only loosely correlates with success, well, who cares?
What about Warren Buffet who said he was “wired at birth to allocate capital” and was buying stocks when he was 8?
I teach my nephews about giving precise answers to why they like certain foods and to comment on how recipes could be improved. They are getting better and better at not just “yucking” but at saying “i wish this was softer” or “with a little less cinnamon we could taste the other flavors”…
Um, guys, this was intended as a lighthearted post about kids and moms. No defense of the child is needed. The accusation of shilling was not a genuine condemnation. I think the tone Dubner was aiming for was admiration at a “well-made con,” with the understanding that the only thing the kid was attempting to con out of the audience was greater admiration for his mom’s performance.