When my clock, with which I am counting my practise hours, reaches 12, then it always starts at 0 again.
Each time that I start to think for a moment that I improve, I finally only better understand how bad my playing still is and that the journey will last even longer than I before estimated it to for sure still last very(!) long.

Most of my performing in recent years has been at the amateur competitions. There was only one time that I was really happy with how I played in any round, and my feeling seemed to be confirmed because I made the finals. Recently I went back and listened to the recording. It stunk.

I think the idea comes from research by K. Anders Ericsson, which has been discussed here before. Eventually, we'll all master the concept, because of spending 10K hours on it here.

“Outliers” was truly awful. Just another self-help/motivational book pretending to be science based.

To quote Professor Steven Pinker "The reasoning in 'Outliers,' which consists of cherry-picked anecdotes, post-hoc sophistry and false dichotomies, had me gnawing on my Kindle.”

Even Ericsson himself has his barge-pole out. He is distancing himself well clear of the BS from these Talent books/articles. From his faculty site....

The Danger of Delegating Education to Journalists


No magic numbers folks!

ROFL.

Of course whether or not one believes the kind of evolutionary psychological precepts as Mr. Pinker speculates upon amounts practically in effect to be some kind of religion...

Personally I cannot trust anyone who without iron-clad proof

I think there's a "meta point" here. It takes a LONG TIME to be able to play the piano well. Plan on practicing every day for 10 years, just to get started, and a lifetime of daily pracctice.

Many people get frustrated after a year of lessons. The "10,000" number is a useful reminder of the type of commitment it takes.

I agree. I also think that the kind of rough "predicted progress chart" attempted by the OP is a useful thought exercise.

We can't say anything definitive or categorical about how much (and when) progress can be expected and predicted for a reasonably intelligent and diligent student.

That doesn't mean, though, that we can't say anything.

I wonder if it's not safe to say that after you've devoted 10,000 studious hours of practicing, you'll be a pretty solidly talented and capable pianist? I'm not sure that there's any official virtuoso certificate or rubber seal of phenomenal talent. Is it necessary to have one?

If you want to be good at playing piano, then by all means, be on your way to your ten thousandth hour :-) I imagine you won't regret the time you've put in after the 10,000 mark. Not sure if there's a lot more to the conversation than that (imo).

I don't think it is, because it depends on some basic ability to begin with. Not everyone could become good with that amount of work or even with any amount. BTW I would quibble a bit with your saying "talented," because I don't think of talent as something that comes about from any amount of work but something that 'just is.' In fact, I think that's a word we could use for what someone needs to have in the first place.

But I think the rest of how you put it -- "pretty solidly capable" -- is a real good handle on this whole thing, a whole lot better than "master the piano" and more meaningful to try to discuss. I'd agree that for someone who has enough of the basic "talent," or whatever it is that you need in the first place, 10,000 hours would do what you said, and in fact I think we could say the same of a much lower number.

BTW I know that "talent" can mean different things. I think the best meaning is:

I know some people who will never remember FACE after 10 million hours. ( Do we live that long?) I've seen kids learning to play at intermediate level after just a few months, and all variations in between.

It's an absurd notion to think that all learn at the same pace.

Indeed. Did someone suggest that we all learn at the same pace?

It is a genetic ability to be able to recognize faces.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1002/10022302

I think he meant on the staff...

Try telling that to FACEBOOK.

rada

I know some people who will never remember FACE after 10 million hours.

Do you really think so? I would imagine most of the crowd destined not to learn FACE would have dropped out before hour ten million, don't you think? At any rate, I myself would tip my hat to anyone who practiced the piano for ten thousand hours, especially if they worked through moments of discouragement and adversity. I admire work very much, and perhaps give more credence to it than "giftedness." But it's of course just one person's opinion :-)

I don't think I could bring myself to pooh-pooh the innate gifts of a person who had worked that hard. But it's all quite hypothetical anyway isn't it?

After doing the math, I am quite certain I have spent in excess of 10,000 hours playing piano.

I have not mastered it. Not even close. In fact, many on this board would undoubtedly find me to be totally incompetent if they heard me.

I think this should put this thread to rest.

K.

I think it was a pun... But I generally don't have a sense of humour, so I don't know...

I had to google for it, since I don't remember it. I don't even remember if it was ever taught to me that way. It's hard to remember stuff if you never learned it in the first place.

Anyway, for anyone else like me who didn't know what it is, it's the note names for the spaces between the lines of the treble clef (duh...feeling really stupid).

As a matter of fact, I rarely think of music in terms of note names - maybe it's because I didn't learn FACE at a tender age.

I don't know what it would mean for myself, either. But, OTOH, I think there are some pianists who are masters. So, it's what they have done.

Anyway, the funny thing is - once you've put in the 10K hours mastering the piano, it seems like you would have to put in another 10K to master each and every piece of any substance you want to play.

Because it's not about time sitting at the piano, it's about how that time is used. So assumptions are being made here that could be deceptive to the novice pianist. Is it 10,000 hours of efficient practicing? And what about the necessary sleep that has to be done in between learning a new skill or passage and reminding oneself of it? There is a point at which there will be diminishing returns. If one practiced for 10 hours a day for 2.74 years is that the same as someone who practices for 2 hours a day for 13.69 years? This is what this "statistic" implies, and those of us who do play can see already the pitfalls of this train of thought.