For most people, analysis of how a language works is not meaningful. Just like for software users, most people don't care how a program works. They just want to use it.

For highly analytical mathematical minds, study of grammar can be effective. Krashen's research shows, however, that grammar study in classroom environments does not help the majority of students to achieve conversational fluency.

So I'm not saying you are wrong. But there's plenty of evidence to suggest that what works for you might not work for everyone.

Personally, I don't believe that human language is purely analytical framework for thinking. I do believe, strongly, that language is also physical, emotional and expressive. I mean, what is the first word out of a baby's mouth?

Just guessing, but I bet the experience that sounddust describes has less to do with grammar analysis, and more to do with personally relating to the stories in the films and songs. He gets input that A) he comprehends and B) he cares about.

Guessing again, I bet sounddust's success with early output results from practice within a safe environment, where he has no fear of sounding like an idiot. It's a much different experience that being surrounded by peers in a classroom and challenged by the teaching authority.

Further, since he's vocalizing expressions from authentic films and songs, he can mimic not only correct pronunciation, but also mimic expression with real gut feelings, like glad, sad or mad. Feelings are meaningful.

So I agree with you, pradocchia, that early output (expressive mimicry within a safe and playful environment) is useful: 1) it helps us to hear and understand the new language, and 2) it boosts our confidence so we can talk much sooner.

And to sounddust, please correct my wild guessing about what you experienced while learning French!