"Prodigies?" said Professor Auer. "The word 'prodigy' when applied to
some youthful artist is always used with an accent of reproach. Public
and critics are inclined to regard them with suspicion. Why? After all,
the important thing is not their youth, but their artistry. Examine the
history of music--you will discover that any number of great masters,
great in the maturity of their genius, were great in its infancy as
well. There are Mozart, Beethoven, Liszt, Rubinstein, d'Albert, Hofmann,
Scriabine, Wieniawski--they were all 'infant prodigies,' and certainly
not in any objectionable sense. Not that I wish to claim that every
_prodigy_ necessarily becomes a great master. That does not always
follow. But I believe that a musical prodigy, instead of being regarded
with suspicion, has a right to be looked upon as a striking example of a
pronounced natural predisposition for musical art. Of course, full
mental development of artistic power must come as a result of the
maturing processes of life itself. But I firmly believe that every
prodigy represents a valuable musical phenomenon, one deserving of the
keenest interest and encouragement. It does not seem right to me that
when the art of the prodigy is incontestably great, that the mere fact
of his youth should serve as an excuse to look upon him with prejudice,
and even with a certain degree of distrust."