Does it take 10,000 hours to master the piano?

[webacademyofmusic]

Malcolm Gladwell thinks so according to his book Outliers. Check out this chart and see if those 10,000 hours can be broken down into milestones. I'd be interested to hear any additional milestones that people have experienced along this timeline.

https://webaom.com/piano_practice

[p2u_]

@ webacademyofmusic

One general remark only: the underlying assumption in these data is that you do everything correctly, no mistakes, no detours, etc. This happens very rarely, so I would say that even the 10.000 hours is too optimistic for most. It's, of course, not the number of experiences that counts, but what you learn from them....

Paul

[faulty_damper]

It's not a rule.  It's just that it correlates to that many hours.  It can take much less time if you have the right instruction, environment, and instrument to start with.  But very few have these things.  You only have 24 hours in a day, and more than half of it is spent sleeping and other basal metabolic processes.  What's left is free time.

[j_menz]

You only have 24 hours in a day, and more than half of it is spent sleeping and other basal metabolic processes.  What's left is free time.

I've never considered my job, much as I like it, to be "free time".

The 10,000 hours is something that crops up from time to time.  My own view is that that's simply a case of pick a big round number and make it sound magical. In the best tradition of all quackery.

[outin]

I've never considered my job, much as I like it, to be "free time".

And I really wish I could sleep for over 12 hours and still have time to practice piano 

[chopin2015]

And I really wish I could sleep for over 12 hours and still have time to practice piano 

You dont wanna sleep for 12 hours, it makes you feel crazy from draining serotonin. As for 10, 000...what do they mean by master? like ondine level?  Thats more than 6 years of 4 hour practices each day.  You dont really develop a good regime right away even if taught, so add 4 more years applied to childhood years and youre all set to do the 10,000 then maybe...

[crownrib]

I'd be interested to hear any additional milestones that people have experienced along this timeline.

I read the book and the original research paper that spurred the book.  I've also read a lot of 10,000 hour comments by other pianists.

Don't forget-- IT TAKES 10 YEARS.  You can't sit down now and then in 10,000 hours of straight practice become masterful.  The human mind needs to restructure around the work and topic, etc.  So it needs time to familiarize with all physical and mental aspects of any task.

Others have said they noted a sharp improvement and ease of coordination around 3500-4000 hours of practice.  So I'd take the assumption that it is a golden area for becoming competent and "at ease" the they piano.  I'd say the first 4000 hours of practice don't need to be as directed as the later ones, though it helps to cram in all the theory you can and do as much as possible in the first 4000.  Physical coordination becomes comfortable in that 4000 hour mark as you have been playing so much that you can easily get around the keys.  I've done circa 2100 hours so far and I can feel it coming together, and that 2x this much will make me quite dexterous.

The last 6000 hours are about refining style, broadening all understanding, and cramming in experience and developing creativity.  As far as others have said.  Having 10,000 hours doesn't necessarily make someone a concert-level hero or amazing talent, but it gives anyone that got there quite good.  You have to practice a lot, practice what you want to be good at, and study beyond those areas to help bring in other ideas to make something new or fresh in your overall approach.  The final keystone is a creative approach to your craft which will set you apart... and then you need a lot of luck and marketing and showmanship to become a valued product. (If monetary success is a goal)

There is also a "virtuoso" level around 14,000 hours.  By the reckoning of others.

Thousands of people in America alone have "mastered" the piano.  Many probably restricted themselves too much in breadth of study, others have no creativity and play pre-written items like machines, others might have no particular interest in communicating through the piano, etc.  So you never hear much about them.  It's a complex study, and there are many pitfalls if you aren't focused on a clear goal.

[j_menz]

.....

For someone who has done 2000 hours, you have a lot to say about those bits you haven't done and nothing about the bits you have. 

[crownrib]

It's called study.  Been seeing a lot on the subject by people that have gone the distances.  You should try doing some research, too.

[slobone]

As if there was any way to guarantee you can master the piano. When only a handful of performers in any generation can legitimately be called masters. The Greatest Pianists of the 20th Century series only had 72 people in it, and some of them were pretty dubious.

[j_menz]

You should try doing some research, too.

I'm too busy playing.

[fleetfingers]

I'm too busy playing.

Surely, you can do both with all of your "free time" each day.

[j_menz]

Surely, you can do both with all of your "free time" each day.

I don't have any free time. I try to charge for every minute. Sometimes each minute more than once.

[jazzyjeff]

funny i was talking about this the other day.
learning piano is a life long pursuit. so the amount of hours vary from person to person.
take a savant for instance, people just naturally gifted.
then there is me, i think if you put an amount of hours on anything it becomes a big barrier.
i like to think in terms of hours,days, weeks, months.
and celebrate the smallest victories.

[thalbergmad]

10,000 years more like.

Thal

[lostinidlewonder]

I don't understand what 10,000 hours is supposed to mean and what kind of mastery we are considering.

Do you mean that after 10,000 hours you can play every single piece ever written for the piano at mastery level? Of course that is not enough time, 1,000 years probably would not be enough time.

Do you mean mastery that you get to a level where you can sight read anything on first attempt at a masters level? This is also a fantasy and an impossibility, no one can sight read everything at a masters level on first reading.

Do you mean that you can play a few pieces at mastery? That is of course possible and probably one can do that in much less than 10,000 hours. Playing a few concert standard pieces at a high level does not mean you are a master though.

Do you mean that after 10,000 hours you can get through all the music grades for a given school? This also does not mean that you master the piano. I have taught many students who have completed all grades but the rate at which they learn their music does not reflect mastery.

Do you mean that after 10,000 hours that you no longer need to invest time to get better at the piano and you reach your utmost maximum level? This is not true, 10,000 hours is not enough. You NEVER stop improving with effective study.

True mastery of piano means that you can learn pieces at a highly efficient rate and the quality of your work is also at a high level. I would not consider someone a master at the piano if they take 10 years to master one very difficult piece and their repertoire is extremely small and their rate of learning at a snail pace. That is not a master in my opinion although to listeners they well may be classified as masters. The rate at which you can learn music is the single most important aspect of determining mastery of the piano.

[musicioso]

I wish this was true!! I would totally spend 10000 hours to master the piano.

But i dont think it works that way. To become master of anything, you need to have a combination  of some qualities. First of all you have to be patient, if you are not, you will become stressed when practicing thus your practice wont be effective. You also need to have good concentration. I myself have difficulty with that because a lot of things in daily life dont let my mind be free and calm, that way even if i practice 10 hours a day that wont be effective.
You also need to have suited hands, fingers, arms, shoulders etc. Not every hand is suited for piano. If you have extremely short, thick and stiff fingers, you wont become a master no matter what, right?
And beside those things you also need good teacher, good environment, people that inspire you, without inspiration 20 000 hours wont be enough!
And when those aspects are oke then you need those (more or less) 10000 hours.

Thats what i could think of..

[janbreuer]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000421

[rmbarbosa]

I play piano since I was 4 years old and now I`m 71... 67 years of piano playing... <> 4 h/day.
And I remain unsatisfied... Even if I live till 100 years old, I`ll be unsatisfied, I think... Perfection doesnt exist...
But the great portuguese pianist Maria João Pires gave her first Concert when she was 5 years old. And she played very well. With five years old nobody has 10.000 hours of piano practice. So...

[senanserat]

While it is a nice number, and I agree that anyone with that much practice time ough to be at least above competent, I think in the end its more about quality than quantity. For example I can do much more with 10 minutes of focused practice than mindless hammering Hannon or Czerny for one hour. After all paying attention is what cements the knowledge and actualy understanding of something, sure hammering for hours will give you muscles memory, but I think understanding is way superior.

I think that if you know your piece, not only by memory but understand each pasage it is very hard to get one of those blank moments that attack you mid-play. Also such things like piano are not...like a game's skill system where you get EXP until you reach X level and suddenly Y knowledge becomes avaible, it is the study of a lifetime there is always more to learn or improve.

Not even someone who can pick any piece of the literature, play it virtuoso level, blindfolded has reached the end of the road because in my opinion each person has its own style our touch thus, there are endless variants and possiblities.

Now regarding the current masters out there while some of them may be closer than others don't forget that the mob is wilful and no more than often someone is more the result of marketing than actual "mastery" this goes for eveything (see Justin Beaver)

Of course this is a mere opinion

[crownrib]

Now at 2500 hours of deliberate practice, I can see mastery at 10,000.

Mastery doesn't mean successful in the business of music, though.  Don't forget that the two are different subject completely.  However, I've jammed in lots of ability in a mere 500 hours.  So by 4000 hours I could see myself having good coordination, sight reading, fluent intermediate theory, and better expressiveness.  I saw how my expressiveness and reading have already broken through in the last 1000 hours. 

I'd expect 4x this much practice in 4x this many years to have a complete comfort and newfound ease.  Most deniers of the 10,000 hour rule don't want to do the hard work, or they are merely naysayers that want to believe there is something innate to people's extraordinary abilities.  I can guarantee that you or anyone doing 10,000 of deliberate practice will be quite exceptionally talented at ANYTHING you did that much.  Will you be famous/affluent/lauded/noted? ... probably not so much, but you could be.

Don't get creativity mixed into technical mastery, either.  The creative side of it is what you might confuse with mastery, and creativity can be adeptly implemented by near beginners with the onions to express themselves and their vision.

[j_menz]

Now at 2500 hours of deliberate practice, I can see mastery at 10,000.

Get back to us at 9500. What you are seeing now could be anything.

[rachfan]

This is the truth of the matter:  At the end of our lifetimes as pianists, there are still things about our pianism that could be improved.  And in the piano literature that we select, we always strive for perfection but never draw quite close enough to actually touch it.  The fact is... we are mere mortals. It's not the destination that's important to the pianist. It's the joys of discovery during the long journey.

David

[hansscherff]

Everyone should take this 10,000 hours remark not that literal, nor does Malcolm Gladwell.

In his book he presents and elaborates on the fact that 'talent' is often mistaken for hard and efficient work. He shows that learning things from a young age, not only means that you learn much faster, but also that you get easier access to better teacher, better facilities etc. This increases your learning curve and makes it more rewarding to practice more and better.

In the end most people performing at world class level in their profession (piano or anything else) have invested time in the order of magnitude of 10,000 hours. This is no guarantee for anyone that played for 20,000 hours to become great and it is not impossible for someone who has played 5,000 hours to be world class either.

In the end the only message in his book is: Investing time and effort will leave you rewarded!

[toby1]

I can't remember where I read about it on the web but K. Anders Ericsson did a follow up and also wrote a public letter to a psychology magazine about misinterpretations of his data.

Gist of it was that it's not 10,000 hours of practice but "deliberate practice" which has a particular definition according to him.

He found that the top violinists at the Berlin Acadamey had done significantly more practice than the middle ones, who had done more than those in the teaching course which had less strict requirements.

Bounce covers the hidden advantages thing too. You play well for your age so you get labelled "prodigy". Because you're a prodigy or just very good you get access to better tuition, to scholarships and so it snowballs. Meanwhile if you're not a prodigy you get regular tuition, no scholarships, less opportunities for public performance and dealing with those stresses and so after a few years the gap is significant.

There's motivational factors too, whole thing is complex. It's fun to play though

[pytheamateur]

What's the definition of "master"?  If it's playing like Horowitz, then it is clearly not just the question of how many hours you put in. If it's playing like a good graduate from a respectable conservatoire, then the 10000 hour rule might make a little sense. However, there are so many such pianists, most of them struggling in obscurity, that one wonders whether there's much significance in that rule anyway.

[iancollett6]

This whole 10 000 hours topic has been risen time and time again. I cant help but to think that one of the reasons of its popularity is that it appeals to pianists fragile ego.

    " I did the maths, at 2.2 hours/day at 3.6 days/week for 7.2 years...that's  2965.248 hours!! holy Sh*t, Im nearly 30% as good  as a virtuoso!! "  *    

* This example was given to illustrate the logic that could occur within an insecure and vain pianists mind, and is in no way indicative of pianists as a whole.

[faa2010]

When it is related to learning and practice, time is not the only indicator which can say at which level you are at this moment.  For example, some people may have more than 20 years of playing, but they are still not considered as masters; or maybe there is someone who started to learn 2 years ago and can really impress the audience and make us think that he/she has 10 years of playing the piano.

It is also about dedication and interest. Careful, dedication is not only about how much time you afford for it, it is also about determination.

It's like learning a second language, you can't finish mastering it during your life, even if you feel that you are in the peak, you still have to practice, practice and keeping updated because if you don't do it, all what you have earned, will be lost and forgotten.

[indianajo]

No.  In my 8 years of study with a paid teacher, I practiced an hour a day or about 2880 hours.  I was playing the most advanced pieces of that teacher's students, or of her circle of friends that played at  the piano Guild chapter recitals. Anybody going to national compeitions would have been excluded from that circle, as I had never heard of national competitions as a goal.  The only competition I heard of was van Cliburn's trip to the USSR, which was as likely as a trip to the moon for me.    
I bought a piano at age 32 and have practiced maybe another 1000 hours.  Maybe 300 hours in the last year since I'm not working. I'm playing pieces you hear at master's degree recital  concerts over at the University of Louisville.  Per lostinwonder's post, I don't learn all that fast, and don't have an extremely wide repretoire.  So I'm not quite a "master".  But I play pieces heard frequently on the radio, which is my goal at piano: to play the pieces that run through my head when the radio is not turned on.    

[toby1]

I still think maybe. But Ericsson also stated that for an international quality musician it might be closer to 25000 hours.

That's twenty-five Thousand.

Significantly longer.

Also it's not how long you've held your pilot's licence that counts but how many hours you've spent in the air on fiercely improving your flying. Now think similar for piano:

ie it's not how long you've been getting lessons that counts but rather racking up significant amount of effectively structured individual practice to improve your individual playing.

We're also forgetting that heaps of piano literature isn't about solo playing but playing as an accompanist or in groups. That needs a different approach. I played accompanist parts for about 3 groups in high school. Not huge experience, but enough to show that interacting with other players requires more listening and working together and a slighty different skill set.

If I speed up a little and slow down in certain parts of my playing I can get away with calling it my interpretation and that I added a little rubato

If I wanted to call myself an expert in piano, my aim would be able to be reliably play a particular interpretation of the music, to be able to come up with novel interpretations of music that are still appropriate to the style, to be able to play accurately, sensitively and smoothly with different touches like staccato, legato, different volumes and combinations even with particular melodies within a hand or passing between them, to have a large repertoire of technically challenging music "under my hands" if not concert ready while having several pieces that are. But also to enjoy it

I think the problem with music in general is that there are a lot of very good musicians out there, so the ones with the solo careers are the top 1% of the top 1% in the same way you can be a damn fast runner who does the 100m in 11 seconds but still not be good enough for the olympics.

Hijacking the thread for a moment, isn't it funny when a country is disappointed that one of their athletes is second in an international event? You're still better than 99% of the population but somehow you've "failed".

I would be quite happy to be the second best pianist in the world when you look at the gap between that and what I do. I think the problem we have is that the top 500 pianists (made up number but is it even that many?) are getting regular work internationally and meanwhile there's some poor bugger who's in the top 600 but she's playing background music at a hotel and being ignored because even though she's better than a million other people she doesn't stand out enough to have fame and fortune and so on.

Long rant, lots of guessing since I'm not international, can we get K. Anders Ericsson to make a pianostreet account and set us straight from the horses mouth?

Super short version of his account was that the influence of genetics was negligible because many many hours of deliberate practice change your brain and your body. I think.

Who's an expert on expertise? I'd like to be able to play this now too:

I'm Italian background and would love to play a tarantella on the piano

[bronnestam]

Also it's not how long you've held your pilot's licence that counts but how many hours you've spent in the air on fiercely improving your flying. Now think similar for piano:

ie it's not how long you've been getting lessons that counts but rather racking up significant amount of effectively structured individual practice to improve your individual playing.

Quite true. I also think that you can look at it from another perspective: good pianists are good at effective practicing. And good practisers become good pianists. Maybe this is the real meaning of the curious word "talent" - the ability and WILLINGNESS to practice in an effective way.

...
I would be quite happy to be the second best pianist in the world when you look at the gap between that and what I do. I think the problem we have is that the top 500 pianists (made up number but is it even that many?) are getting regular work internationally and meanwhile there's some poor bugger who's in the top 600 but she's playing background music at a hotel and being ignored because even though she's better than a million other people she doesn't stand out enough to have fame and fortune and so on.

There is a mix of concepts here: is a "top pianist" the same as someone who earns a lot of money, is famous and so on? Or is it someone who simply is a great artist? We have another thread here somewhere, which is discussing this.
"Anyone" can strive for becoming a great artist, that is, the outcome will depend on YOU and your efforts.
But if "great artist" means "someone who is recognized by others", then it will become trickier. Your outcome is partly in the hands of other forces. Or at least you must be a talent in the art of promoting yourself as well as playing the piano well. You must know the game, learn the tricks, get the right contacts, and work with personal characteristics that you might not have considered so much before - are you considered "good-looking"? Are you fluent in many languages? Are you a social talent? Do you have charisma? Are you friends with the right persons? Are you good at handling your fans and your audience? 
And you must also be a bit lucky as well.

So there are two different questions here:
1. what does it take to master piano playing?
2. what does it take to become "succesful" and famous?

[ted]

A quick calculation tells me I probably passed that figure long ago. I don't think I am a "master" of anything though. If you "master" something it implies there is no further to go, and I think any pianist, any artist of any sort, would eschew such a static goal. For one thing it would imply a stultifying lack of imagination. Even in the case of playing a simple piece, new ideas, new playing mechanisms constantly occur to me. Were it not so I don't think I could be bothered playing at all. And how on earth can you possibly "master" the creative aspect ? It has no end. I am not going to be able to scrape the surface of my own ideas before I peg out, never mind "master" anybody else's.

The proposition is ill defined in more ways than one.

[gvans]

It's not the destination that's important to the pianist. It's the joys of discovery during the long journey.

David

Well said, David. The journey, my friends, not the destination. For the destination does not involve composing. Nope. At the terminal, we'll be de-composing.

To attain mastery while you're still alive, practicing, it seems to me, is necessary, but not sufficient. Ensemble playing and performance are, perhaps, even more important. An hour giving a concert can teach you more than dozens of hours of practicing. Also, there is time spent listening to recordings, time spent reading scores in silence, time spent on Piano Street...

Now there's a new thread. Does that time counter on the web site listing the hours and days you've spent lurking on PS help you, or just waste chunks of your life?

[ranniks]

I'm at probably 300 hours of piano.......

At 10k hours I would be very good, but that wouldn't mean I'd stop trying.

I somewhat agree though; if you can push it to 10k hours then you must have some degree of talent.

Now.....Being able to sightread anything, like this gentlemen over here:

Now that would be an achievement.

[ranniks]

Just look at him go:

[ted]

Brier is indeed a truly exceptional sight reader but I tend to think a player of his experience in ragtime must have played most of Scott before. It's a nice rendition of Pegasus, better without those drums though. Apparently ragtime had reached such a nadir at the time of publication that Pegasus was named after a brand of stationery which happened to be lying on John Stark's desk. Sad really, like the last years of James Scott's life.

[ajspiano]

I'd hate to think that I could be a master at 10,000 hours.. 

For one, I've probably passed that and I'm still a pretty average pianist.. ofcourse to the majority of people with less experience I come off as being quite the master (mwhahaha).

Secondly, I have no interest in a pursuit where I run out of stuff to learn. I'd rather there always be an Everest to climb.

[toby1]

At Bronnestan I think you make an interesting point there. I'd be interested to read through this other thread on the topic.

We tend to define ourselves in reference to or in response to other people. Certain things about piano playing are objective. Like whether a person can play with control to play at a series of increasing volumes in tiny increments rather than crashing wildly from loud to soft or whether someone can repeatably perform with a certain level of accuracy. But whether a particular interpretation is "Art" or crud is different. I took a philosophy of art course at uni and the one thing I got from it is that there is no universally agreed upon definition of art and what count and what doesn't.

Although piano requires athleticism in a sense it's not a sport. We don't have an ELO or world rankings for professionals. It would be amusing in a way:

Lang Lang has slipped to the number 13 Seed in the piano competition circuit for the Singles but is part of the number 5 ranked team in the quintets

Piano is fun, piano is tricky. We play to please ourselves, our teachers, our audience. We need outsiders to judge our playing or we might think fast and sloppy is as good as a well executed chopin etude. But too much relying on others and we might think: I didn't win International Chopin piano competition so my artistry is inferior.

... I just used a whole lot of words to go nowhere. I'll just practice and hope I improve and get better and still enjoy playing in 50 years as much as I do now

[japzz]

actually I think this discussion(I didn't read all of the comments but nervertheless....) is quite irrelevant.I've the impression that there are a lot of people around who want to be a great pianist by looking for shortcuts to become one instead of playing to become one.No matter what study-method you use,it takes years to master the piano (or guitar,trumpet,drums,...) and you won't get there if you don't play.I saw this post somewhere about someone who was wondering why he couldn't do the things he would like to do after playing 5 minutes a day for 4 years.Is it this over-automised society that makes us think that everything is for granted.Is it old-fashioned to think that you have to make an effort to achieve a goal?