Posts by Nicholas King

I suppose I should address this—though I’m not entirely sure where to begin with such a disorganized mess of thoughts—but there is something fundamentally irritating about how things are being handled lately. It feels like we are constantly circling the same drain, much like that one time my old boss at Boeing tried to tell me that a structural flaw was just a "minor optimization opportunity"—as if that makes any sense at all. I mean, honestly, does anyone actually care about the details anymore? Everything seems to be moving toward this frantic, superficial rush, and frankly, it's exhausting to watch. I guess some people find it exhilarating—maybe they thrive on the chaos—but for those of us who actually value precision and a bit of decorum, it’s nothing but a headache. It's almost as if we've collectively decided that doing things correctly is far too much effort compared to just getting them done poorly. I don't know... perhaps I'm just being overly cynical here, but it certainly feels that way. kaže:
Why on earth would anyone even ask that? I mean, honestly—it seems like such an obvious question that I’m almost hesitant to even attempt an answer, given how much nuance is involved. I guess it depends entirely on what we're actually talking about, doesn't it? There isn't just one single reason for anything in this life—everything is layered, complicated, and frankly, a bit exhausting if you think about it too deeply. But maybe, just maybe, there’s some underlying logic we’re all missing. Or perhaps there isn't. It’s hard to say for sure without more context, but I suspect the answer is far less simple than most people would care to admit.🤷

It’s really about the fine motor skills and all that other practical stuff—plus, I suppose there's a certain convenience to finishing both music school and your regular high school at the same time.

Jessica Chavez4 said:It really depends on which instrument you’re eyeing; some programs have later enrollment windows.

http://www.garfieldschoolofmusic.com/about

I honestly missed where you spotted that on the linked page—anyway, thanks for sending the link over. It’s about time someone actually pointed out a source that explicitly mentions they aren't even enrolling older kids from...
I suppose we have officially reached the milestone of finishing second grade.

Could I please ask you all to refrain from doing this within this specific thread? 🙂

John Thomas13 said:In my experience, kids here usually start around 3rd grade, and mine did. They just wanted to sign up, then they ended up dropping out after three years.
At least they learned how to read music, I guess. 😉

It’s such a shame—because of that one single year, my child missed the admission cutoff by a mere two points.

if nothing else, at least they learned how to read music notation😉

Well, I suppose you could pick that up in elementary school anyway.

John Thomas13 said:😕 Too late for what exactly???
Too late to learn an instrument?
To become the next Chopin?
I’ve always had a passion for the piano, and I actually taught myself how to play when I was 25. Sure, I probably won't be playing sold-out shows at Carnegie Hall, but I can use both hands and I play for my own soul and even for work sometimes. Ahhh, I am just so proud.☕

No. It’s just too late to actually enroll in a formal music conservatory—and let's be clear, that isn't quite the same thing as simply "learning to play."

BTW, I was actually responding to the thread that starts with "it's best to"...

Jessica Chavez4 said:I don't know, back when I was in third or fourth grade, my music school told my parents I couldn't really sing. They signed me up for choir anyway, though we didn't actually start performing right away. I think I passed the entrance audition by singing something basic like "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" or some other nursery rhyme nightmare. 🤷

And I didn't even go to choir because I wanted to; my parents dragged me there because it was a mandatory part of the curriculum at the academy. I wasn't interested, so I’d just stand there with my mouth open. Looking back, I know that sounds perfectly logical to everyone else, but in hindsight, the whole setup feels a bit ridiculous.🤷

Having enough musical intuition to pass an audition for a conservatory and actually being able to "sing" are two very different things.

and I didn't even have to go to choir because my parents forced me to.

So your parents were (I assume 😕) forcing you into this music school where the teachers were completely unhinged, and the ear training instructor was a total drunk. Honestly, looking at how you describe everything with such sheer disgust, it’s almost impossible to fathom how you ever participated in any of it by choice—or with any sense of joy, for that matter.

Kate Thomas said:Honestly, you’re much better off waiting until senior year of high school!!

I have no idea what you're basing such an utterly flawed claim on—honestly. Anything starting after the 3rd grade is just too late, if you ask me.

Jessica Chavez4 said:Man, ear training and choir were actually the highlights for me. Honestly, my piano teachers weren't exactly great either, except for one, but my ear training teacher was a total drunk and the choir didn't even let me sing. I basically just sat there yawning because attendance was mandatory. It feels like these local music academies don't have any real standards. I managed to scrape by until fifth grade when I finally failed a level, and they just suggested I drop out since I wasn't musical and didn't even care for music. My grandparents signed me up because my grandpa got bored one day and bought an upright piano. He just plopped it right in the living room. 🤣

So, I don't know—don't rely on a music school to tell you if your kid has talent. You're better off listening to the kid. 🤷

Well, you had to show up because your parents were essentially forcing you—which, frankly, seems like a pretty ridiculous way for them to handle things. That doesn't really have anything to do with the actual point we're discussing here.

don't rely too heavily on whether the local music conservatory thinks your kid has talent or not; listen to what the child tells you instead. 🤷

A child can't exactly determine if they have "musical aptitude" or not—that’s what the instructors at the conservatory are trained to assess. What a child *can* tell you is whether or not they actually enjoy attending their lessons.

Austin Diaz3 said:That's exactly what I'm looking for (the bold part). And I'm with you on that.
Now that I think about it, the school itself isn't the big deal. It matters more that the kid follows a decent program and works with someone who actually motivates them and clicks with them. I don't want this turning into some kind of drag.
Is a private tutor a good move? I'm considering it. Someone who's willing and professional. I don't have any crazy parental ego involved.

If you ask me—and I suspect you might disagree—it’s probably not the best way to go.

To start with, music school provides things like ear training and choir—but honestly, that isn't even the main selling point here.

One of the biggest advantages of a local community music school is the social aspect—getting kids around peers who share similar interests. Contrary to those tired old clichés, these kids aren't just a bunch of socially awkward geeks; quite the opposite, really. On the other hand, a private tutor doesn't offer that "organic environment" in the same way a public school does.

And we shouldn't overlook the fact that a private instructor is a much more expensive option, too.

Rachel Jones8 said:Nah, this is actually getting pretty serious.

Honestly, those stories don't mean anything. They have zero connection to Berklee College of Music.

Alright, they don't have them. I already apologized... I actually agreed with some of what Charles Murphy6 was saying.

These choirs are basically just breeding grounds for toxic parental ambition. They really think their little golden child is going to become the next Madonna one day. Maybe with a few less Hollywood dreams, right? 😬.

Which "choirs" are we talking about here? Like, any and all of them?

I'm not gonna drop the name of the choir here—not because I don't think their work is decent or anything—but seriously, what's the point? My kid’s been going for two months now and they haven't even handed over song lyrics, let alone actually spoken to him directly. It wasn't like everyone was "new" at once, just a small handful of kids. In my book, that's just bad teaching, isn't it?
Maybe my first impression was off, but honestly? It felt like those girls were stuck in some kind of military boot camp. There was zero tolerance for missing anything, and they were even being pressured to skip class just for rehearsals. If they couldn't make it, they’d get threatened with being cut from the tour or whatever. Seems pretty toxic to me, you know? Or am I totally off base?
Of course, you'll find a few Madonnas in there too. Most people start out somewhere, right?

Pop-star children's choirs.

Of course, you get a few "Madonna" types coming out of those groups—many stars start somewhere, I suppose...

As long as there’s a critical mass of pathologically ambitious parents who view drilling their kids like soldiers as some sort of virtue, the only real solution is—well, to pull the child out of that toxic environment entirely.

Admittedly, there is another side to this coin: if a choir is heading to a national competition, it isn't entirely unreasonable to leave out kids who haven't put in the prep work—even if their reasons for skipping practice are perfectly valid.

In the end, everything—as it always does—comes down to finding that elusive middle ground 🙂.

Rachel Jones8 said:Nah, my bad.
When I said "well-known," I meant how people just show up at a school, scout talent, and pull them into the choir without even checking with the parents first.
It’s strictly about the choir here. Not the whole music school.

Oh, please—you might as well claim they were one of those tacky little children's groups like "The Bells," "The Little Nails," "The Little Fingers," or "The Cookies," and then the whole circus would be complete.

The reality is that these stories have absolutely—and I mean absolutely—nothing to do with the actual music school. These types of choirs are just the perfect breeding ground for pathological parental ambition; it’s all about that desperate hope that their precious little golden child might one day become the next Madonna. Well, perhaps with slightly fewer cinematic aspirations, of course 😬.

Rachel Jones8 said:Famous, right?
So the kid joins the choir. You've got a kid with actual talent whose potential could really take off.
But it only lasted about two months.
First off—she starts this program, being one of the youngest there, and nobody even acknowledges her. No praise, no advice, no smiles... not even any constructive criticism.
Second—they were prepping for a big performance, and since she was the "new girl," she wasn't even in the plans. She didn't get the lyrics or the gear. Then, just days before the show, suddenly she’s expected to perform? She's just standing there looking lost. 🙄
And the equipment... it was beat up, but you have to sign a paper saying you received it in perfect condition and promise to return it that way.
If the girls don't show up to the extra rehearsals on Saturday afternoons, they're out and don't get to perform. And then they cry about it. Even when they literally couldn't make it because of family stuff or other schoolwork.
When someone pointed out to the directors that their attitude wasn't exactly "educational," they just snapped back rudely, acting like because they have teaching degrees, they're above reproach. They basically said anyone complaining doesn't understand "professionalism." But they aren't professionals; they're terrorizing these kids... keeping them in this trance where the kids are proud to follow them, but they treat them like...🤷... like convicts who don't have the strength to fight back. It's true, the girls are popular and always traveling, but man, they are ruthless.

Are you seriously talking about a "real music school" when the child only joined the choir? 😕

Austin Diaz3 said:Basically, one where my kid can actually finish what they started after finishing second grade...
Anyone got some leads?..

How exactly am I supposed to ask "well, what does successfully continuing look like to you?" without coming across as some sort of provocateur?

"Success" could mean anything—playing beautifully, winning competitions, picking up trophies, whatever—but, I suppose, what about the actual cost of that success?

I don't want anyone thinking I'm trying to pull a fast one on you: you aren't going to find any "go see Professor Vilibald Hlowytzkog at the Juilliard School, they are incredibly successful" type of pitches in this text—so if that’s what you’re looking for, you might as well stop reading now. To be clear, I personally view those kinds of recommendations as misguided; the only way people usually measure a school's "success" is by how many students place in competitions—but, in my opinion, that shouldn't be the deciding factor for a parent. Besides, the reality is that the exact same teacher—depending entirely on a child's specific temperament—might be seen as Jesus, Elvis Presley, and Elvis Presley all rolled into one by one student, while to another, they might seem like Caligula, Hitler, and whoever else you can think of.

If your primary concern is simply that your child heads off to music school with a smile and returns home even happier—if you truly care about the joy of making music (which, if you ask me, is arguably the single most important reason to attend music school at all)—then you should just find out which instructor at your local music school has the right temperament for your specific child. That, I believe, would be the best choice you could make.

One more thing: middle school and high school music programs span several long years, during which a child goes through all sorts of turbulent developmental changes. No single school, and certainly no single teacher, can ever truly guarantee a "successful" completion of a musical education.

Kate Morgan14 said:To me, a good music school is one that actually assesses whether a kid has an aptitude for music—rather than just forcing lessons to squeeze money out of parents. If there’s no genuine interest or drive from the child, don't push it. Some kids simply aren't built for music; they belong in something else entirely. That needs to be accepted. You should try to find where their talent lies first, rather than just chasing tuition fees.

Even more confusingly—what does it even mean to be "a child for music"? 😕

At the entrance exam for any given in every single American music school, they are going to assess what people colloquially call "having an ear"—you know, sing a little song, mimic the rhythm of my clapping, or match a pitch I play on the piano. A kid who passes that entrance exam (or even those who don't, in cases where interest is high) certainly qualifies as being "for music" in that technical sense—but, honestly, that doesn't have anything to do with whether the music school itself is "good" or "bad."

rather than forcing things just to squeeze money out of parents

This is complete nonsense when we are talking about "public" schools. The amount of money these schools "squeeze from parents" is laughable compared to the countless other things parents willingly shell out massive amounts for—but that isn't really the point here: music schools fill their enrollment quotas quite easily, and the bulk of their revenue comes from entirely different sources, so they have absolutely no incentive to deceive parents.

without the child's own will or desire for music, kids should simply not pursue music but rather find something else, and that needs to be accepted after trying to explore what fits the child and what doesn't

I think you’ve completely lost the plot here: what you are describing is the parents' responsibility, and it has nothing to do with the music school, regardless of whether that school is good or bad.

Eric Gray2 said:Alright, we’re on the same page here.

My point is that trying to diagnose someone else—especially when it’s done with the best intentions under the guise of "protecting" the community or whatever—is honestly just pointless. I mean, I won't go as far as calling it something else, but it really doesn't accomplish anything.

My take is pretty straightforward—when someone snaps and says, "You're a total psycho, just go get help, you lunatic," what they’re actually saying is: "This is a closeted psychopath, a genuine threat to everyone around them, this guy has a serious issue, and things have officially spiraled out of control."

So, what exactly should qualify as an insult worthy of a ban? Like, if someone just drops a comment along the lines of, "Hey, maybe you should go talk to a psychologist," is that really crossing the line? It feels like we need to figure out where that boundary actually sits.

No.
I find myself constantly suggesting that people go talk to psychologists or other mental health professionals—it’s just something I do quite often.

Did I misunderstand you? Feel free to set me straight on that first part of the quote—to be honest, it’s not exactly clear from this thread where you guys are pulling all these mental health diagnoses from, or what exactly is triggering this whole debate in the first place.

To be honest, I’ve been feeling pretty inspired lately—mostly by those posts Jason Gonzalez7 and driftingeagle27 have been putting up over on the FBI forums.
Since they’ve openly admitted they aren't actual qualified experts—and they certainly don't have the diagnostic tools required to make these kinds of calls—their entire argument falls apart. Even if we pretend they actually had the equipment and had put someone like steelskipper5 through a rigorous clinical evaluation, those results and diagnoses would be private medical data. They shouldn't be broadcasting that kind of sensitive information on a public forum anyway. At the end of the day, the only thing they're basing these "serious" claims on is a series of forum posts—which, if you ask me, is nothing more than straight-up harassment.

There’s another issue we really need to address here—hypersensitivity.
It’s getting to the point where if you use a word like "problem" or "issue" in a sentence here, people immediately jump to labeling it a diagnosis. It's honestly complete nonsense—just total nonsense.

If I’ve understood you correctly, we’re totally on the same page here.

Honestly, I don't really think we’re going to see any massive shifts on this issue. I've already laid out my position here—and even over in the moderator threads—but I actually have a bit of a silver lining. I moderate the Psychology section, which happens to be a specific PDF focused exactly on this topic, so, you know, it doesn't really affect me that much.

Also, I'm not. I haven't quite figured out what you're getting at yet—it looks like you might have hit send a little too early. If there was something specific you wanted to dive into or a thought you were trying to get down on paper, just let me know. I'm all ears and ready to chat whenever you're ready to lay it all out. Someone, right? Against it. I’ve had some heated debates about eating disorders and anorexia before—even with steelskipper5—but honestly, this whole witch hunt where people just throw diagnoses around at everyone is what really gets me. I can't stand it. In my opinion, until an actual specialist steps in, all this labeling is just noise and doesn't do anyone any good.

Look, as you pointed out yourself, there is a massive difference between suggesting someone see a psychologist when they are actually asking for help with a specific issue, and then—for reasons I can't quite fathom—suddenly bringing up psychologists, psychiatrists (not to mention pathologists 🤣), in a conversation about American cinema history.

The distinction is glaringly obvious; it isn't exactly rocket science to tell which situation we're dealing with here.

I realize I’m flirting with the risk of facing consequences for "commenting on the moderation," but I suppose I'll be brave 🙂.

The point here isn't about handing out diagnoses to random people on this forum—I'm trying to illustrate just how absurd it is to advocate for what would essentially be official oversight of forum members' mental health, and the sheer chaos that ensues when you allow public diagnosing.

Every single one of us is perfectly free to sit at home and diagnose ourselves privately, or engage in those informal, off-forum sessions where we basically have "Gossip about Forum Members, Vol. 15." We are also free to report anything we deem necessary to "the proper authorities" whenever we feel like it. Honestly, I don't understand why anyone would expect or demand that the forum administration take on that specific responsibility.

However, any attempt to lower the bar below a strict ban and sanctioning of all forum-based diagnostics would be pointless, harmful, and dangerous for this community—regardless of how certain a self-proclaimed diagnostician might feel that "everything is obvious." This entire tedious thread exists because of this simple fact, and changing it would pose a greater threat to the forum than any individual user ever could.

BTW, what are we going to do about the CUT in adminNice's post, where she clearly writes "gone crazy" without any provocation whatsoever? 🤣

brightpuma said:Just me, alone with my thoughts. Or maybe not... 🤔

Hold on, you can't play it that way: make up your mind, is it a yes or a no?

Let's see here... Duka, Duke, Duki_28... ah, there we go, brightpuma—let's take a look at what's actually in the file: displays significant indecisiveness regarding their stances, shows a tendency toward using thought-emojis which might suggest some underlying internal struggles, uses a highly symbolic avatar that hints at a fear of death, potential suicidal ideation, or perhaps even the possibility of committing a mass shooting...

Conclusion: the forum user brightpuma is exhibiting psychotic behavior at a level of 82.5 psychoses. For now, more drastic measures aren't required, but I'm advising the moderators to remain vigilant and act if they hit the 100 psychoses threshold.

Next...

🤦

driftingeagle27 said:That said, I know enough about health to competently conclude that something is wrong if someone exhibits such incredibly blatant symptoms that it's obvious something isn't right.

Let’s look at this from a different angle.

Imagine there's User A on this forum who spent all of last week churning out endless walls of text dedicated entirely to User B—someone they don't even actually know. In all those rants, User A basically just repeats one single sentence: "User B is a psychopath, they need help, somebody do something, do something!!!11!!1!". In the name of spreading the truth about User B, User A gets drunk and banned, an outcome they take immense pride in because they view themselves as some insignificant martyr on their holy crusade for Truth.

Do you honestly think that such an obsessive fixation on one (completely unknown) individual can't be labeled by anyone else as an obsessive need to persecute, or perhaps receive some other diagnosis and medical advice? Do you truly believe your sentences reveal nothing but a pure person who is beyond debate, and that one couldn't dig through them to find suppressed aggression and whatnot? I mean, suppose I take a week off, comb through your posts, and construct a monster—only then, I become User C, who is obsessed with User A, so then some User D spends their entire week analyzing my posts and so on and so forth.

Furthermore—and even if we aren't strictly limiting ourselves to the Psychology subforum—statistically speaking, it is a certainty that there are mentally ill people posting on this forum. I mean, it's completely impossible for a random sample size as large as a forum population to be as mentally sound as a saint.

And so what? What is it you actually want???

Are we going down these "driftingeagle27-Jason Gonzalez7" paths now? What are we supposed to do? Establish a forum-wide FBI that, the moment it spots a suspicious sentence, issues a warrant for the close monitoring of the 🤦suspect? Create a psychological dossier for every single user and log observations regarding the mental stability of their prose? WTF???

I mean, who am I supposed to talk to on this forum if everyone with a condition gets slapped with a diagnosis and sent straight to a psychiatric facility? 🙂

Austin Diaz3 said:It’s been quiet in here for a minute. Wondering if this thread is even alive or if it's just me...
Looking for some solid music school recs in Chicago—specifically piano. My kid just wrapped up second grade. Where should I be looking in the city?
Honestly, I don't even know where to start. Too much noise, can't see the big picture. If anyone knows a good spot—piano program, somewhere downtown—I'd appreciate it...

I mean, what does a "good music school" actually look like to you?

Disclaimer: this is going to be boring—there’s no blood, no insults toward anyone's mother, no images, and I'm not trying to bait any bans or red cards... there's nothing of the sort.

Following the summer slump on the PZ, things have started heating up over the last few days—specifically regarding whether or not it should be punishable to suggest someone needs psychological or psychiatric treatment. Furthermore, the supermoderator has once again been branded incompetent, partly because she apparently fails to see that suggesting a user seek treatment is justified in certain instances and therefore shouldn't be sanctioned.

In the same vein, for the umpteenth time, the eternal debate has resurfaced: "What is the relationship between the forum and real life, and what is real life to the forum?"—essentially, what should the "forum do or undertake" in one specific case or another.

I realize it might look like I'm seizing an opportunity while most of the main players are currently banned, but this isn't a vendetta against them (I already said this would be boring); rather, it’s just a few scattered thoughts. I don't think this is off-topic, but I won't lose any sleep if someone decides to delete or lock the thread.

Actually, it’s far too hot for me to go into a massive elaboration; I really only wanted to say two things. First, all levels of administration are truly incompetent—but in a completely different sense: they are professionally incompetent when it comes to judging whether calling a forum user mentally ill constitutes an insult or serves as a correct diagnosis. It isn't their job, nor should they be dealing with it even if they were professionally competent. That is precisely why I believe the phrase "go get treated" is an insult that should always be sanctioned.

Second, I don't see any basis upon which any level of forum administration should be monitoring posts to report potential instances of this or that to "the authorities"—in other words, I don't see why this should be the responsibility of the administration more or less than anyone else who reads the posts. You only need a tiny bit of caricature to argue that we could just as easily demand that an ISP monitor everything its users write. Besides, in situations where someone's writing suggests the author has certain issues (and where they aren't announcing some criminal act), what are we supposed to do? Report it to whom?

I also feel compelled to mention this: I am just as terrified by clear examples of people advocating for violence and taking pride in their own biographical violent endeavors (and I'm not just talking about recent events; you can find detailed descriptions on other threads of what one user or another would do to certain people), as I am by anyone embarking on a mission to "fix the world by any means necessary, whether those means are legal or not." Unpopular opinion aside, I am quite literally afraid of such people; I wouldn't want to be in physical proximity to them, because I never know if I or someone dear to me might end up in one of those many situations where they feel they have a right to justified🙄 violence. We might say the wrong word or act incorrectly... but I still maintain that labeling someone as ill on the forum should be sanctioned, no matter how pedantic it may seem to some.

There. I did say this would be boring 🙂.

steelskipper5 said:Personally, I’d much rather see them just scrap the whole hunting season concept entirely. 🙂

I suppose we're actually on the same page here—this whole "hunting season" thing is really just a way to give trolls something to nitpick🙂.