"The law of 10 000 hours"

[beebert]

Hello everyone! Some of you have probably heard of the famous quote that it takes about 10 000 hours of hard practice to be a master at a subject, like for example piano. Do you think this really is true? And if so, how good will you have become after, let's say 4000 hours? Or 7000 hours? And also, does it mean that one can become a master if he starts to play the piano from scratch at the age of 30 and then he practices for about 3 hours every day for 10 years? Or do you have to have reached the 10 000 hours before a certain age?

Thanks on advance!

[rachfan]

Hi beebert,

I believe that the person who actually uttered this statement expected it to be taken figuratively, not literally.  In other words, he probably used the 1,000 hours to make a point about dedication.

Think of it this way: Let's assume that for serious pianists, the norm or average is to practice three hours a day.  So 1,000 hours divided by 3 hours per day equals 333 "practice days".  Also if one masters the piano, it means that he has obtained the knowledge, skill and intellectual command of the piano.  I don't know of any pianist that attained complete musicianship and artistry in less than one year.  Do you?  That's why I believe that you need to take this with a big grain of salt. 

Moreover on the figurative nature of this adage, I'm reminded of the one that says "Success is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration".  Gee, are those percentages accurate?  Here again, you can't take that literally.  The intended message is simply that one must work very hard to succeed.

David
   

[rachfan]

I noticed you edited you post to read 10,000 hours.  I still believe it's to be taken figuratively.  You're trying to quantify artistry in an inquiry with too many confounding variables.  For instance, how do you take into account different degrees of talent amoung pianists? The range of quality of teaching they receive?  Differing aspirations among pianists?  Differences in motivation?  Differences in dedication? Differing practicing methods that have a bearing on the efficiency of learning?  Differing abilities of pianists to critically listen to themselves play?  Varying levels of understanding of stylistic periods and prevailing performance practices?  Differing amounts of encouragement from others?  Etc.  I believe that you're trying to take a greatly over-simplified axiom based on practice hours alone (just one variable) to predict success in reaching mastery.  You could have a would be pianist who practices more than 10,000 hours who never demonstrates any musicality!  I'm afraid you're on a quest to quantify the unquantifiable. Good luck with that!                

[beebert]

you are, of course, right. That is actually why I opened the thread from the start. I did find it a bit wierd that it takes everyone 10 000 to become a master.. I mean, what happens after say 9 998 hours, right? No it's strange to me. Though, you are probably quite a great pianist(at a technical point of view) after 10 000 hours of focused practice. Probably, you will be quite good already after 5000 hours..

[lostinidlewonder]

It is a nice thought 10k hours (if you could retain 100% of all those hours), but I do not see it happen in reality most people give up before a hundred hours of personal study! Each person has their limitation as to how far they can possibly progress, I use to think that everyone could attain the highest level of mastery with enough practice and discipline but it is just not the case. You also cannot replace years upon years of listening experience and this is a big part of a musicians life. Repetition is also very important, you just do not constantly increase your level every time choosing a piece that is harder and harder. We need to repeat music, revisit older works and see how we treat things differently, this requires many years and really a lifetime of observation. However after 10k hours of effective study I would think that you would be pretty good at whatever you dedicated your focus to but there are limiting factors that time cannot solve since we have a limited life span!

Co-ordination is a limiting factor. I like to think of sports as a parallel. No matter how much you practice tennis for instance you cannot hope to play as a professional if you simply do not have the exceptional coordination talent and physique for the sport. Piano certainly has similar factors limiting peoples potential. To play at the highest levels your coordination at the piano has to be at a level that most who try would have great difficulty producing. And it is no good having great coordination but it relies on inefficient amounts of time to get to acquire it.

To learn efficiently takes years upon years of practicing strenuous mental focus. I see a parallel with how grandmaster chess players level increases with age and then decreases as they get older. I estimate with piano at the age of 40-50 you maximum potential to think would be achieved, after that you start going backwards because your body and mind is no longer the spring chicken it used to be! This is not to say you cant work at highly efficient rates, but you can't hope to really improve further at that age a great deal as you would if you where younger. The mental focus and marathons of study that you can do when you are younger as you get older they become much more difficult to undergo. For older students who have never learned to work at effective rates they will never know how fast they could have thought at a younger age so it becomes difficult to compare the difference, they can certainly improve a great deal from nothing, but I believe strongly if they did it younger they could have achieved a greater standard.  

But don't get me wrong, I have taught a number of beginner 60-80 year olds and some progress quite rapidly, the majority however do not progress as fast as their younger counterparts. Coordination is a large factor limiting the older student, but rudimentary coordination to play the piano can be learned, more advanced technique might never be achieved.

Some beginners I have taught learn at an explosive rate, they can skip grade with ease and have natural ability to play the instrument. Some of them can acquire concert performance with certainly less than 10k hours of practice. But they are not really masters, since a master can also learn concert standard music at an efficient rate and that of course takes many years of experience.

[beebert]

Well, if we for example take two persons. Person number one begins at the age of ten and practices two hours a day for ten years, which is about 7 300 hours of practice when he is at the age of twenty. Then we take the other person number two, who starts playing the piano at the age of sixteen and practices for seven hours a day for four years which will get him to 10 000 hours at the age of twenty. If they both have the same amount of talent and potential, will person number two who started playing at the age of 16 be the better one of the two considering he has practiced more than person number on?

We assume that every hour that they both spend on the piano while they are practicing are effective hours..

[m1469]

What kind of piano do they play on?

What kind of environment do they practice in?  

What kind of family do they have?

What kind of life-experience?

Do they play any other instruments?  Sing?

Do they compose?

Do they improvise?

Do they actually like/love music?

What do they want to be when they grow up?

Do they believe in God?

Who's their favorite composer?

What's their favorite scale?

How well do they sleep at night?

Do they exercise?

Are they good at math?

Science?

What is their religion?

Have they traveled within the world?

Do they know how to cook?

Do they read for "fun"?

Do they appreciate Art?

How well do they know and understand music history?

[m1469]

The real determining factors on who will be considered more advanced and the better pianist are things like:

How big is his/her bra size?

How much of his/her boobs show at any given time?

Might one "pop out" unexpectedly while playing?

How well can her/his boobs play the piano?

Is s/he generally sexy?  Super?  Kind of?  Not really?

What kind of clothes does s/he wear?

What color is her/his hair?

How long or short is it?

Are they generally considered to be attractive-looking?

Would you want to sleep with him/her?

What color are his/her eyes?

Do you generally approve of his/her set of buns?

[49410enrique]

The real determining factors on who will be considered more advanced and the better pianist are things like:

How big is his/her bra size?

How much of his/her boobs show at any given time?

Might one "pop out" unexpectedly while playing?

How well can her/his boobs play the piano?

Is s/he generally sexy?  Super?  Kind of?  Not really?

What kind of clothes does s/he wear?

What color is her/his hair?

How long or short is it?

Are they generally considered to be attractive-looking?

Would you want to sleep with him/her?

What color are his/her eyes?

Do you generally approve of his/her set of buns?

also important,

do they wipe their butt back to front or front to back?

do they think bella should stay with edward?

do they think mayonaise is gross?

are their nipples and lips the same color?

[pianoplayjl]

And also determine how large are your waist?

JL

[pianoplunker]

Hello everyone! Some of you have probably heard of the famous quote that it takes about 10 000 hours of hard practice to be a master at a subject, like for example piano. Do you think this really is true? And if so, how good will you have become after, let's say 4000 hours? Or 7000 hours? And also, does it mean that one can become a master if he starts to play the piano from scratch at the age of 30 and then he practices for about 3 hours every day for 10 years? Or do you have to have reached the 10 000 hours before a certain age?

Thanks on advance!

No I didnt hear the famous quote about 10,000 hours of practice. If I had I would have given up a long time ago.

[sashaco]

There is no quote about 10,000 hours, nor was the principle meant to be figurative.  The idea comes from a book by Malcolm Gladwell, which cites instances of people in a broad spectrum of fields acquiring mastery after 10,00 hours.  Bill Gates, for example, went to one of the only high-schools in the country (at that time) with a computer, and spent enormous amounts of time in the computer lab, which was always available because few others were interested.  The Beatles played eight hours a day for a year in Hamburg, after playing three a day for years at home.
I believe the book includes interviews with pianists at prominent music schools which suggest that the top tier of students have practiced something like 3000 hours more than the next group before they arrive at schools like Julliard.
A week after I read a long piece about the book I read a piece on Leonard Bernstein, which reported that he could play Rhapsody in Blue profficiently after less than a year playing the piano.

I am of the opinion that the chief talent in all areas of life is the ability to concentrate, but even within that simple sounding ability there are enormous and indescribable shades of quality.  10,000 hours of sloppy practice probably aren't worth as much as 1000 of quality.  On the other hand, anyone who loves the piano enough to spend 10,000 hours on it, probably loves it too much to waste so many hours on sloppy practice.

Cheers, Sasha

[pianoplayjl]

One doesn't practice 10000 hours to gain mastery at the piano. If one does, probably alot more people will be practicing like 6-8 hours a day. There are pianists that practice alot and pianists that practice not as much. It depends on how hard one practices and their devotion to practicing. There is no point in practicing 8 hours a day when you are not going to learn something, it is a waste of time. So really one has to 'work smarter no harder'. Another factor are child prodigies, where they can play a piece profficently after a short period of time and really practice at most a few hours a day. You also have musicians who practice hard like 12 hours to become a proffessional pianist.

JL

[ahinton]

The real determining factors on who will be considered more advanced and the better pianist are things like:

How big is his/her bra size?

When bra size becomes any kind of determining factor for a male pianist, critical traditions and appreciation will have undergone quite a fundamental change, I humbly submit...

How much of his/her boobs show at any given time?

The extent to which his/her wrong notes and other performance errors become apparent will remain a matter for the critical faculties of the listener.

Might one "pop out" unexpectedly while playing?

Audience members do occasionally walk out when a performer is performing, usually when the performance is hopelessly inadequate, so I suppose that this might continue in such circumstances.

How well can her/his boobs play the piano?

This question takes the clichéd notion of Liszt playing the odd note with his nose to interesting but potentially quite painful extremes...

Is s/he generally sexy?  Super?  Kind of?  Not really?

That's something for the eye of the beholder that will count for nothing in a recording where the more necessary ear of the beholder is the only critical facility.

What kind of clothes does s/he wear?

When? While performing or while involved in other "non-concertizing" (see, I know my American!) activities?

What color is her/his hair?

And isn't a good thing that Arnold Schönberg was not a pianist?

How long or short is it?

How long or short is what?

Are they generally considered to be attractive-looking?

Are what considered to be attractive-looking? Are you back to those boobs again?

Would you want to sleep with him/her?

Leaving aside the fact that "sleeping with" anyone is a generally accepted euphemism for doing something with them that would not be expected to involve soporific inactivity, I don't suppose that anyone would really want to sleep with anone while they're playing the piano.

What color are his/her eyes?

It would be difficult to determine this from the auditorium, especially with the pianist facing at right angles to the listeners.

Do you generally approve of his/her set of buns?

Buns? Quoi? OK, here's an Americanism that's tripped me up after all; since the art of the patissier is clearly not something to which you intend reference here, I appear to be left with little option but to admit to having encountered yet another instance of two nations divided by a common language.

Best,

Alisair

[m1469]

That's something for the eye of the beholder that will count for nothing in a recording where the more necessary ear of the beholder is the only critical facility.

Well, there are album covers which appeal to the eye of the beholder when the ear of the beholder may not be quite capable of knowing what is good, except for the eyes to be at least engaged pleasantly by the endeavor of listening.  

[furtwaengler]

The real determining factors on who will be considered more advanced and the better pianist are things like:

How big is his/her bra size?

How much of his/her boobs show at any given time?

Might one "pop out" unexpectedly while playing?

How well can her/his boobs play the piano?

Is s/he generally sexy?  Super?  Kind of?  Not really?

What kind of clothes does s/he wear?

What color is her/his hair?

How long or short is it?

Are they generally considered to be attractive-looking?

Would you want to sleep with him/her?

What color are his/her eyes?

Do you generally approve of his/her set of buns?

What ever are you talking about, m1469? So cynical!

[m1469]

What ever are you talking about, m1469? So cynical!

Yes, you're right, I am delusionally cynical.  

I like the guys in back:

"Here we go again ... I've been sitting back here in the shadows for ... who knows how long ... *grumble grumble,* and there she goes with her little dress on.  meh.  If only I were a hot woman my life would be so much better, simpler, gooder.  grumble.  I'm not even going to clap; enough people are clapping for her already.  I'm just going to sit here, staring at her buns, which are pretty cute, btw.  Hey, maybe this job isn't so bad afterall!"

[thalbergmad]

[goldentone]

Yes, you're right, I am delusionally cynical.  

I like the guys in back:

"Here we go again ... I've been sitting back here in the shadows for ... who knows how long ... *grumble grumble,* and there she goes with her little dress on.  meh.  If only I were a hot woman my life would be so much better, simpler, gooder.  grumble.  I'm not even going to clap; enough people are clapping for her already.  I'm just going to sit here, staring at her buns, which are pretty cute, btw.  Hey, maybe this job isn't so bad afterall!"

So you finally splurged and got one of those electromagnetic thought wave transcribers.  That explains the other day when my thoughts suddenly left me.

[chidzuyo]

Beyond the quantity of hours, I think it's equally important to look at the quality of learning.

I believe that the 10000 hours of practise has to be progressive ie. learning varied pieces, participating in competitions, be involved in performances, seek out good teachers, attend master classes (eventually), composing, attend concerts etc.

There has to be a constant levelling up. If one stays in the comfort zone without seeking new challenges, then no amount of hours can propel him upwards.

[bengoodwin]

It is a pretty good rough estimate.
In a way, I think that constant dedication over a period of years is the real key. Even if you somehow got all 10,000 hours of practice the first year, you would not have processed everything with wisdom yet. Letting some concepts bounce around the inside of your head, listening a lot, continuing diligent practice, spending 10 years doing it, i think that's the key.