Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum Realistic Expectations for Adult Beginner

Hmm, the 10,000 hours. If I remember correctly (I think so but am not certain), the survey was done with students who have already entered conservatories. Among them, those who had practiced 10,000 hours were significantly better players than those who had practiced 4,000 to 6,000 hours. But what about those who did not enter conservatories? Is it because they didn't have the talent to start with, or is it because they didn't practice enough? The survey does not in any way claim that talent is irrelevant.

the Journey wrote:
"The message behind these studies is not:

"Whoever you are, as long as you put in the time, you will become an expert."

but

"We consistently find behind those who are considered talented experts an internal motivation to consistently push oneself to learn what one does not know and work on what one cannot do rather than polish shiny objects. We find them having worked for years or tens of thousands of hours under expert or master tutors consistently studying and practicing effectively (=spending 80% of your time learning/doing what you cannot do)."


So, no, there are no guarantees that 10.000 hours of such practice will make you an "expert" pianist, whatever that is. However, without such an approach, it is highly unlikely that even the most "talented", whatever that is, will reach the pinnacle, or anything close to it, of playing the piano.

I believe that for millions of us, taking such a deliberate approach could make us better pianists (or better ...) than we could possibly imagine. However, obviously, everything has its price and there are very real opportunity costs that would require us to say "no" to other things in our life."

I would agree with this and I think that is quite close to what I was saying as well. However, I do think sometimes the way the 10,000 hour message is portrayed is too close to the "whoever you are, if you put in the time you will become an expert" version.

Sophia

I second that.

To the original poster re. adult beginner progress:

I'm also an adult beginner, and I have quite a few friends who started learning piano with their kids. My own experience and observation of those friends is that adult beginners do very well. We don't have much time to practice, but we make up by our focus, our ability to understand new concepts and our possession of learning strategies. Plus we have been exposed to all kinds of music for many more years than our kids. My adult beginner friends and I all made very fast progress (faster than the kids) in the first couple of years (this is true despite the fact that the kids have more practice time and a few of our kids are very good piano students). Then at some point the kids catch up and get ahead of us (because they gain momentum and the adults usually slow down due to the lack of practice). So I'd say if you check out how fast kids should advance, you'd know roughly where you will be.

To the original poster, re: kid playing Clementi, Mozart and Chopin after 2 years of study. I think the fact that the kid and his mom were trying out a Steinway means that they are very serious about piano study. For someone who is serious, with some talent, starting at the age of 8 (meaning, not too young), I wouldn't be surprised that he can play easy Chopin, Mozart and Clementi after 2 years. I'm sure some talented adult beginners can also do that if they have discplined practice.

I once taught a (wonderful) student who started at age 13. He was very motivated, and practiced 2 hours a day, every day. We were working on Clementi and Mozart after about a year. (the Mozart sonata in question was an easy one - K.545 - but still...)

And this was not a kid whom I, or anyone else, would have pegged as "having musical talent." Just a normal, average kid with no particular musical inclination - but he was brought up in a culture that valued hard work and practice, so he practiced. And got surprisingly good surprisingly fast.

I had to move away, so I could not continue with the child, but I hope he is still playing.

Larisa, I know we agreed to disagree and all , but I would suggest that his rapid advancement is proof that he did have musical inclination (or innate ability, aptitute, talent, etc., however it's labeled).

Steven

I would agree with Steven here.

You know - I'm not so sure that he had "musical talent", whatever it is. He was smart, definitely. His level of general intelligence was very high, and it definitely made it easier for him to learn to read music, for example. But his musical ear was not above average. I give some basic ear-training to all my students, and he was not particularly outstanding at it. His finger dexterity was OK, but nothing spectacular. His musicianship was, again, OK, but nothing spectacular. I've taught "musically gifted" kids (and I was, once upon a time, a "musically gifted" kid), and he definitely wasn't one.

And this is part of why I've been arguing what I've been arguing here. If this child had posted here asking the sort of question that started this thread, he would have gotten a discouraging reply, and may not even have started piano. (What? You're starting at age 13? You don't have perfect pitch? Let's be realistic here....) And note that when he started with me, he knew nothing about music, and no one was saying anything about musical talent. He came to me because his best friend was taking lessons from me, and he wanted some too.

And instead of "realism", he got me and my bromides. I never told him he couldn't get good. I told him he could get really good if he put his mind to it. I told him that the harder he worked, the faster he'd get through all the beginner stuff and the sooner he would play real music. I told him he had musical talent. His Vietnamese parents told him he had to practice 2 hours a day. And it all worked.

Well, I can only share a personal experience of my own with someone who was called talented as a child, though the sources probably weren't reliable and he never had quality instruction. From his teen years onward, he returned to piano only sporadically but has been fairly consistent for the past several years. Now middle-aged, he has reached a level of playing by spending about 45 minutes a day on repertoire alone—no technical exercises, scales or arpeggios ever in his lifetime—that some of his peers have not advanced to though they practice for three hours daily or more.

What accounts for the difference, if not some innate ability? What accounts for all the 13-year-olds who don't make the remarkable progress that your student did notwithstanding the same practice habits?

That's the realism of my own experience. I would never deny the importance of dedication and practice. Why do I feel that so many people wish to deny the role of "talent" when it plainly exists?

Steven

By "bromides", do you mean"commonplace or hackneyed statements"? I'm trying to understand your point, and I'm lost.
Well, obviously something did NOT work. I don't judge people by where they start, or even how long it takes them to reach a particular point. I can only judge results.

However, it is reasonable to assume that someone who takes 10 years to accomplish what someone else does in two is highly unlikely to get very far, and no matter how much we analyze why some people are so successful, and others are not, there are always questions.

To me there is all the difference in the world between encouraging people to find out how far they can go and encouraging them to make money in music. But even here we can never be sure, since some people who never acquire great playing ability do other things in music and are highly successful.

I think we do more damage to people by telling them what they can't do. I think it's best to just watch, encourage, and see what will happen.

Oh, of course it exists. I can tell you about my own experience, too. I've always found music to be easy. Everyone has always told me I had great musical talent, including all my piano teachers. I know that there are many musical things that are easy for me that are hard for others. In music school as a child, I breezed through things that my classmates sweated over.

But stellar though my natural ability is, I have not gotten to Carnegie Hall. And other people, with lesser abilities, have. And that's as it should be - they put in their practice time, and I have not.

So this is one of the reasons I dislike the label of "talented" or "untalented" - it does not correlate to actual success. Dedication and practice matters far more.

As for my student, I don't know too many 13-year-olds who would practice 2 hours a day and do everything - and I do mean everything - their piano teacher told them. Generally, such 13 year olds tend to do very very well.

I don't think they tend to do very well unless they also have a gift for following directions carefully, which is something that is not given enough credit. Granted, it is only one factor, but it points towards many things that, together with talent (or other kinds of talent), make it all come together.

I was accused, earlier in this discussion, of dispensing empty "bromides" such as "hard work and motivation will get you anywhere." I was alluding to that.

Yes. I think that we do a lot of damage to people by telling them what they can't do. More than we can say.

One of the reasons I feel so strongly on the subject is that I am a "returning" piano player - I'd quit for about 10 years, from age 18 to age 28. Had I listened to everyone I could listen to, I wouldn't be playing now - obviously, I'd never be any good anymore after I'd quit for so long, and why waste my time? And I did hear such sentiments from my parents, from my friends, from everyone. And I believed them, for way too long.

I played my first solo concert this summer, and lots of festival gigs as well. My second CD is coming out soon. My first CD is selling nicely, as is the sheetmusic of my compositions. No, this is not Carnegie Hall, but I'm doing what everyone in my life told me was impossible. And it saddens me to see other people believe the word "impossible," or be told to be "realistic."

Aside from the above, how do you know how much musical talent someone has? Especially over the Internet, from a short posting? You don't. Neither do I. Chances are, neither does the person who asked the question.

I have perfect pitch, which is genetic. I have to have acquired it from either my father or my mother. Neither of my parents have had any kind of musical training. Both are convinced that they are completely unmusical and have no musical talent. At least one of them has to be wrong, by the laws of genetics.

Except when talent is minimal or nonexistent to the extent that such deficit cannot be overcome or compensated for by effort alone.

I think we're about to need to agree to disagree again!

Steven

p.s. Re your last post, I don't believe that perfect pitch, while an innate trait, is any indicator of musical talent.

Well, doesn't this simply underscore the idea that we never know what will happen? Isn't this a good reason to keep an open mind? It does not suggest that talent does not exist, or that it is not important. But the important thing is that we can't define what talent is. And because we can't, it has become almost PC to say that it either does not exist or is of very little importance.
I don't feel this is what this thread is about. The orginal poster wrote, about himself, in third person:

"Keep in mind this person is a very busy professional with an active family and social life and great demands on time. What level of playing and satisfaction should one one realistically expect in a few years?"

Does that suggest hard work to you? Dedication? Any willingness to make any meaningful sacrifice in order to succeed at playing the piano?
The person evidently knows he has very little time. We can't know for sure, but I've taught many people with unreasonably high expectations of success coupled with very little practice. To be honest, these kind of messages really irritate me.

Gee, I'm an adult with an active social life, and very little free time. I am busy with my family. But I want to learn golf. Or a foreign language. Or learn to paint well.

Don't ask me to spend much time doing it. Don't expect me to do much work. I probably won't show up for many lessons. You see, I am busy. I am An Important Person. We Important People live by other rules. We have money, and money buys everything.
I would never equate "perfect pitch" with musical talent. For one thing, there are too many things we don't know about what it is, how it functions, or how it develops. I've worked with talented musicians who don't have it at all but who have marvelous relative pitch.

As a teacher of 20+ years, taking only adult students, about 1/3 beginners, I will say that in my experience it is almost impossible to know ahead of time what an individual will achieve. Talent takes many forms- some were incredible physical talents and some musical. Some had the talent of working hard every day. Some made steady progress and some jumped and slipped back. One of the most pianistically talented of my students turned to drugs. What talent is that? The important thing is that the ones that worked hard were able to give satisfying solo recitals. Have fun!

Frycek's comment was back on the second page of this thread. I'm not sure it was addressed, and I think it bears repeating now.

Some people are indeed more efficient at the process of learning than others, and I think that can be regarded as a talent in its own right. I don't know that it's of the inborn variety, but it's certainly a valuable skill to have.

Steven

You know, that's exactly how my teacher describes it.

I agree.
We can never define talent. We dance all around it, trying. But isn't it interesting that some people seem to do things effortlessly, naturally, when many times we can't find any logical reason to explain it other than something that is not (completely) learned?