nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Music classes for a 14-month-old?

[Deleted User]

Me and the girlfriend are babysitting her nephew today, and now, she has to take him to his first music class. He doesn't speak and can't sit still for more that 8 seconds.

Is this a normal thing to do? A friend did something similar a while back but I think his daughter was three or four so it seemed reasonable. Fourteen months seems ridiculously young and I don't see how a teacher could do more than just playing some songs at home.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

no.8 wrote: »

Wonderful comment. Care to elaborate?

If I wanted to do so, I would have. :rolleyes:

Mrs OBumble

pickarooney wrote: »

The parents aren't even bringing him though.

Asking them to attend a class together is one way to make sure that a "babysitter" gets off their h*** and actually goes something educational with the kid, not just sticks them in front of the TV all day.

Boom_Bap

Any classes for babies/kids that involve using and growing their senses is brilliant.
Also, mingling with other children will help further down the line when in creches/school and make the integration process much easier for the child.

Also great for the parents as they also get in a room with other people in the same situation and can discuss anything and everything that they are going through.

Minderbinder

Noveight wrote: »

First things first, he’s a year old. He’s 1. This craic of 14 months, 16 months etc must be stopped.

Way too early in the week for mental maths.

You obviously didn’t have maths club as a toddler if you’re struggling with 14 months.

I think in fairness at that age every month is significant and there is probably a big difference between 12 months (that’s 1 year btw

)and 14 months. I wouldn’t know the difference but parents or people in childcare probably would.

I don’t see much of an issue in introducing the child to new things, as long as the parents aren’t boring everyone with such details (which let’s face it they probably are)

I don’t think I would personally do the music thing with my kids. It seems like a waste of time unless they’re very gifted. It’s true that Asian parents are buying pianos left, right and centre and their kids suck and the piano is used to put photos and ornaments on.

[Deleted User]

Birneybau wrote: »

The epitome of 'notions'

Yeah, anybody who might love music and like their child to grow to love it or express themselves through it must have "notions". I must remember to pull my child away from banging on the keyboard to his heart's content next time for fear he might develop these pernicious "notions". Plonk him in front of Fireman Sam or Peppa Pig for the day just so he can fit in with what the thought police allow.

OP, at 14 months old you have nothing to lose by sending them to music "classes" (obviously very informal). Here's a decent article on children's abilities at different ages:

What's the right age to begin music lessons?

Gymboree Ireland are definitely worth checking out and have "classes" for kids from 6 months on.

Your Face

Its funny, the comments making out that music lessons for a child are somehow a symptom of grandiosity.

The Infinite Fart

Definitely not a waste of time. The earlier they are exposed to music the better. It's more focused on music appreciation and simple rhythms and melodies rather than learning some complicated Bach prelude and trying to make your child into a musical prodigy. Music at that age also helps to develop language, fine motor skills when combined with movement and in a group class like that, social skills. It also kind of gives a break to the parents from having to entertain for a while. My nephew is just over a year old and he has books that play songs and he bounces away in time to the music. Our wee one who is only 7 months loves banging away on my piano. Great for her. Plus it's hilarious when she plays a bunch of notes and looks around for a well done clap!

Chrongen

Deleted User wrote: »

I tend not to think in terms of "too young". As long as a child is _capable_ of doing a thing - there is generally no reason they are "too young" to begin being exposed to it. I triggered (pun) someone the other day on here when I informed them I teach my 7 year old daughter to fire a rifle for example.

You can instil things like appreciation of Rhythm in children that young. And explore different acoustic ranges with different instruments.

There is also time at that age to make it fun - and build a mental connection between music learning and fun for them - which is an association that can be beneficial later.

Sure there are some people who even believe playing classical music to the baby in the womb is meant to be beneficial.

There is also the fact that when we are born and our brains develop - they often develop _not_ by creating more and new connections as you might imagine - but by pruning and deleting connections the brain was born with. What is not used in the brain is removed.

As a random example it has been shown that children can tell the difference between monkey and ape faces better than adults but we lose that ability because we never use it. But children constantly shown pictures of them retain the ability.

So perhaps teaching music at some level very early on helps maintain neurological connections in the brain that might otherwise be pruned away.

The same is true of language. There are sounds in different languages that children can clearly hear and learn to pronounce. If they never hear it they lose that ability. So maybe exposing them early to different notes and tones gives them the ability to hear that later in life. How many world famous musicians have back stories of growing up with music being a big thing in their family for example.

Teaching someone aged 7 the art of killing is too young.

Donald Trump

Perhaps it might be a better way to keep a child entertained than filling them full of sugar and plonking them down in from of the flatscreen for a few hours of Peppa Pig on rotation interspersed with adverts about shite toys and junk food...................

[Deleted User]

Chrongen wrote: »

Teaching someone aged 7 the art of killing is too young.

Tell it to someone who teaches someone the art of killing. Those of us firing at an inanimate target however are no more doing that than people teaching their child to run or drive are working on the art of the Bank Robbery Get-a-way.

Noveight

Minderbinder wrote: »

You obviously didn’t have maths club as a toddler if you’re struggling with 14 months.

Ain’t nobody struggling with their twelve times tables. However I always thought saying a child is 14 months/16 months/whatever is an attempt to sound above and beyond poor auld Joe Soap who is a year and a half. Imo, of course.

iamwhoiam

Noveight wrote: »

Ain’t nobody struggling with their twelve times tables. However I always thought saying a child is 14 months/16 months/whatever is an attempt to sound above and beyond poor auld Joe Soap who is a year and a half. Imo, of course.

I remember my gran , my mum and anyone else referring to a child under two in months . The difference between 13 months and 18 months and 22 months is actually huge . It is more common than not to speak of under two's in months

[Deleted User]

Noveight wrote: »

Ain’t nobody struggling with their twelve times tables. However I always thought saying a child is 14 months/16 months/whatever is an attempt to sound above and beyond poor auld Joe Soap who is a year and a half. Imo, of course.

Can not say I have seen anything to form the same opinion. Time is just more relevant when younger. A lot more happens between month 12 and month 14 than happens between year 12 and year 14. As we age - age becomes less relevant. Be is a child that is 12 months compared to 16 months - or be it a 25 year old man going out with an 17 year old girls compared to a 35 year old man going out with a 27 year old girl. The former raises more eyebrows than the latter. Specific ages seem to be more relevant the younger the person is.

Berserker

donegaLroad wrote: »

I am surprised that the music teacher hasnt said that 14 months is too young. They should know better.

Firstly, I suspect that this music class is a group session where they sing nursery rhymes and bang a drum or tambourine. I'm talking about the 'wheels on the bus' and tunes like that. Secondly, why should the music teachers turn down the money if the parents are dumb enough to part with it?