Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner It is often said that 10,000 hours in a certain profession..

...makes a person "world-class" in that profession. Is that true with piano?

"Quantity" is no guarantee of "quality."

It is, however, a virtual guarantee that someone is spamming the Pianist Corner with posts of questionable usefulness.

I feel like that number has been tossed around a lot ever since "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell came out a couple years ago. He makes a good case that this is a reasonable benchmark (if I remember he used beetles/bill gates/others as examples). But most of his analysis was focussed on people who became very successful by reaching 10,000 hours of "practice" before competitors (bill gates with computer access/programming time, beetles playing 40 hours/week in Germany, conservatory students applying to orchestras, etc.) They then built on this status as "leaders" to expand their successes.

When it comes to music, I'm inclined to think that if someone has actually spent 10,000 hours PRACTICING THOROUGHLY (which I'd say I do 30% of the time I actually spend sitting at the piano) then they would have technical faculties at the professional level for sure. They might not be recognized by "the public" because that's a whole other issue, but they would certainly "pros" and I believe most would be able to do a good job supporting themselves with their musical skills.

Interesting to do the math on this. I for example play an average of 2 hours / day, so:

10000 / (2 hours/day * 365 days/year * 30% "real practice time") = about 46 years ....

but for those who are really serious...

10000 / (6 hours/day * 365 days/year * 70% "real practice time" = around 7 years

seems reasonable what do you guys think?

kmd11,

<<<<<
Re:
10000 / (2 hours/day * 365 days/year * 30% "real practice time") = about 46 years ....

but for those who are really serious...

10000 / (6 hours/day * 365 days/year * 70% "real practice time" = around 7 years
>>>>

If you google this topic, you'll find that it's 10000 hours of "Deliberate Practice", which stresses goal orientation and that correct mentoring and a good teacher are also important.

I think I understand your 30% and 70% reductions of "real practice time", but it could be far worse and without the correct practice technique that satisfies the "Deliberate Practice" specs then in a worse case scenario none of any 'intuitive practice' may count...

I wonder whether there's a minimum time of e.g. 2 hours deliberate practice a day that enables one to "burst the bubble", and in a manner analagous to the old "compound interest" maths graphs (interest on the interest on the interest), enable real progress to kick off and accelerate away?

I don't think it's ever true since brain plasticity isn't the same for everyone.

I'm sure almost anyone spending that amount of time on serious playing would be playing like a pro (assuming he has no serious disabilities of course)

It isn't true with anything.

"It is often said " A lot of stuff is often said. What sources? Oprah & friends?????

This would be in my sig other than the fact that the Colbert quote is funnier.

"The most common misconception surrounding the 10,000 hours theory (which I cannot take credit for, it comes from Herb Simon, and then elaborated by John Hays) is this: 10,000 hours does not IN ANY WAY guarantee that you will be an expert. Rather, there are no cases of an expert who did it in less. 10,000 hours is, in logical parlance, a NECESSARY but not a SUFFICIENT condition for expertise."
Daniel Levitin

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=99195416598&topic=10561

This is why we're not tripping over "experts"........we are tripping over self-help nonsense though.



Considers the Beatles didn't have his golden number when they broke why make the point? The book borders on numerology except he is only looking for one number. He whips out the 10,000 hour ruler again though later.

There were a few Beatles documentaries last year. I remember this....

"SIR GEORGE MARTIN thought THE BEATLES were "awful" and "crap" when he first heard them perform"
http://www.contactmusic.com/news.ns...atles-at-the-beginning-were-crap_1020920

I'm going with George Martin's assessment.

What teenage girls where evaluating how well be played live?

How many hours did Elvis have under his belt before he became famous? Where is Gladwell's ruler now?

When did the Spice Girls do their first live gig? 15 months after their single "Wannabe".




There is no such thing as a formula that guarantees success. Unless we are the Sci-fi inspired Borg or Cylons we can't make predictions on transfer rates of data, or the what the data is. Real Practice or Deep Practice is abstract. That leaves too much room for interpretation where you can chat about what Deep Practice can mean.

Neurologists are looking at brain-structures, both MRI and fMRI etc learning the map of the brain and see that people have different set-ups. The same with Genetic research.

On the other hand we have "yes you can" books, that are often said....why does this info spread faster?

I recently gained a self-taught student in his seventies who has been playing the piano all his life.

Thousands of hours, and he plays atrociously.

And old habits die hard...especially for people past 70. Good luck.

I can just imagine that!

I heard about the 10,000 hour theory in grad school. Actually, my professor had to explain that it's 10 years of serious, disciplined study that enables a person to become an expert.

That still does not explain why some 9-year-old kids play better than I do.

i thought in OUTLIERS that gladwell said it is 10,000 hours to mastery. not career success or fame.

they aren't the same thing.

to say that anyone who has mastered a discipline has spent at least 10K hours at it is not at all the same thing as saying that ANYONE who practices for 10K hours will achieve mastery.

The 10,000 hours seems to completely ignore the talent factor. Some people have so little natural ability that no amount of practice would alllow them to reach a particular level or "mastery" or "world class" or anything else.

It's much more reasonable to try and formulate a statement that for most people some minimum of x hours is needed to reach level y.

Gladwell's analysis seemed to deemphasize talent in favor of practice and opportunity. I quickly grew annoyed with his premise and stopped reading the book. I could "practice" drawing for the next 10,000 hours and never be any good. I don't have the ability. I knew guys in law school who studied 3 times more than the rest of us, but they struggled to make Bs. Everybody doesn't have the same abilities, and it's folly to pretend that they do.

I've never heard such a thing. 10,000 hours is five years of 40 hour weeks. There's folks in every profession with five years of full time experience who are not world class.

I interpreted the book differently from some of you folks: I read it that IF you're going to be good, 10,000 hours is about how long it takes. For me, that was almost exactly how long it took for me to get to the point where I was skillful enough with my tools to do exactly what I wanted, without hesitation and without mistakes, every time.. . . that is, how long it took to feel "at one" with my tools and the process.

I will agree, so long as you change "if you're going to be good" to "if you will ever be good." That will account for differences in innate ability. Which, I still contend, the author discounted without any real basis.

The Gladwell book is a little more subtle than some seem to think. In the section on Noble prize winners, he clearly points out that for scientific achievement there is a minimum "talent" benchmark - an IQ of 130 or so. But after that achievement seems well correlated with hard work.
Those who studied musical achievement didn't address the minimum talent level issue because they were dealing with conservatory students, who had presumably passed the entry level of talent. Once admitted to the Curtis Institute, the theory goes, it is hard work that will get you to the top (together with the with the normal helping of good luck and good looks to ease the way to bookings and recordings and rave reviews).

....if everybody had the same level of talent and intelligence..

I would think that those that get into Curtis would, for the most part, have have stratoshperic levels of talent.