thoughts about the 10,000 hour rule

[cwjalex]

i have had this discussion many times and i believe that with the correct practice that anyone, besides for medical reasons, is able to reach a very very high level of skill.  Of course people learn faster than others and not everyone is going to be able to be world class, but I believe the skill level that we are all able to reach is much much much higher than most people think. 

i am often met with a response like "I have tried _________ so hard and so long and no matter how hard i practiced or tried I couldn't get good or even decent.  I got better but I could never become proficient."  The reason I believe many of these people are not improving is because they have poorly developed prerequisite skills and are approaching the activity the wrong way.  Almost every activity or skill is not a single skill but is actually the coordination of many skills into one. 

the way I think about it is imagine you asked a toddler to juggle.  no matter how hard or long a toddler tried, 10,000 or 100,000 hours, they most likely would never be able to juggle.  the reason is juggling requires many prerequisite skills:

-need to be able to accurately throw a ball with your left hand
-need to be able to throw a ball with your right hand
-need to be able to catch a ball with your left hand
-need to be able to catch a ball with your right hand
-need the hand-eye coordination to perform these actions simultaneously

i believe that many people who have extreme difficulty at learning something, like the toddler, have poorly developed prerequisite skills that are needed.  Some people are unable to simply start juggling, play the piano, or learn algebra.  Maybe if they tried breaking down the activity into components of required skills and work on developing those skills they might be able to finally succeed.

the reason I believe so strongly in this is because of myself.  I have done a lot of competitive activities and played a few instruments and often have been able to compete nationally in many things.  People think I am naturally gifted but that couldn't be farther from the truth.  Every activity that I started I was bad in the beginning.  Not only was I bad, i was worse than just about anyone I knew who was also starting.  Gradually I improved, put in a TON of practice and was able to succeed.  Furthermore once you get good at one thing it becomes easier and easier to get good at other things considering many things require the same skills of hand eye coordination, speed, and dexterity. 

When I was younger I entered a lot of video game and karate tournaments and also learned to type at about 150 words a minute.  During highschool I spent 3-5 hours a day playing guitar for years.  I just started playing piano a year ago and my teacher thinks I am some amazing talent but I'm not at all, I just already have developed a lot of the skills necessary to play the piano.  I am not trying to brag and say how awesome I am.  I am trying to say the opposite and that I am the most ordinary person and I just put in a TON of practice and set out to master many things.  I strongly believe that if people approached whatever they were trying to master in the correct way they would most certainly be able to reach an extraordinary level of skill.

[dima_76557]

@ cwjalex

If piano playing were nothing else but pressing pieces of wood within a certain time limit to make strings sound at certain prescribed volumes, you *could* be right, but since this itself is only a single prerequisite for something else on an entirely different level, I am skeptic that it works like this. In short, you cannot learn talent.

[Bob]

This was in the news recently...
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=56299.0

Here's a 6-7 year old juggling...  sort of.

I couldn't find anyone younger. 

If I searched for "juggling babies..." I suppose someone could juggle babies too.  Babies are probably kind of heavy to juggle though.

[timothy42b]

i am often met with a response like "I have tried _________ so hard and so long and no matter how hard i practiced or tried I couldn't get good or even decent.  I got better but I could never become proficient."  The reason I believe many of these people are not improving is because they have poorly developed prerequisite skills and are approaching the activity the wrong way.  Almost every activity or skill is not a single skill but is actually the coordination of many skills into one. 

I'm cherry picking one idea out of your thoughts, thinking this one deserves a little more attention.  Maybe I'll start a new thread.

The phenomenon of people who work diligently for years and never succeed is real.  It is rarely discussed.  They are somewhat of an embarassment to the teacher and an object of sympathy for everybody who is succeeding.  Sometimes teachers carry them for years because these students are often nice people with sincere intentions.   

We all have opinions on what they are doing wrong and how it could be fixed.  These fixes never seem to work, which suggests we have not identified a correct "root cause." 

[amytsuda]

The phenomenon of people who work diligently for years and never succeed is real.

Yes, it's real, and I can proudly say I am one of them. I really don't care what others think at the end. I want to re-phraise this 10,000 hours rule. It takes 10,000 hours to reach the personal plateau of whatever level it may be for the each individual. What I mean is I absolutely lack talent and gift including my rather small hands and lack of neuro-coordination in every physical activity, etc, but I still am making progresses. Even the progress is seriously small but it's not like I didn't make any progress after a year _ there is a progress no matter how pitiful it is. I think it takes 10,000 hours to get to the good 80/90% of potential the personal has.

Should I quit because I will never play well? Of course, not! I will continue, because I want to play as good as I can play. Do I ever want to perform in front of great pianists? No way. But I am happy to perform for anyone who feels happy to hear me play, no matter how tone deaf they are! So I support this 10,000 hours theory.

[swagmaster420x]

I think talent is an extremely vague word. I think to get better at anything you have to be able to fix mistakes by yourself and that it's something you have to figure out independently to truly understand. You might not be able to be taught 'talent,' but I think you can learn/find it in yourself.

[dima_76557]

I think talent is an extremely vague word. I think to get better at anything you have to be able to fix mistakes by yourself and that it's something you have to figure out independently to truly understand. You might not be able to be taught 'talent,' but I think you can learn/find it in yourself.

That in itself is already a "talent". A very intelligent person who is able to analyze his/her own intuition is a genius. Teachers who are able to pinpoint all weaknesses in all types of students are rare, very rare. That's why the 10,000 hour rule simply cannot work as advertised for everybody.

[timothy42b]

That in itself is already a "talent". A very intelligent person who is able to analyze his/her own intuition is a genius.

I agree.  One of my theories is that prodigies are those who have the gift of being able to hear themselves from an early stage and hence make corrections.  Learning to listen is a skill that takes many of us most of our development, if we get it at all - and is a skill that is almost never discussed, although Gieseking and Lieber did talk about it. 

[cwjalex]

I think that many of the people who are trying hard but failing to improve at a normal rate are the 'toddlers trying to juggle when they should be learning how to throw and catch a ball'.  I already said that I am not talking about people with medical conditions.  If you are a dwarf and have teeny tiny hands or if you have a severe learning disability then you obviously are not going to progress at a fast rate no matter how hard you try. For everyone else, I believe it is possible to reach a very high level of skill. 

For example, if you are an adult that has the coordination and dexterity of an average 4 year old then learning the piano the way the majority of people do would be extremely difficult if not impossible.  It requires synchronizing skills that are beyond your current ability.  I believe it is necessary to improve your hand eye coordination, dexterity, and speed through other activities and exercises before you will be able to learn piano at the same rate as most people.  Of course 4 year olds can play the piano, but the difference is a 4 year old is going to rapidly improve their hand eye coordination and dexterity while an adult with the coordination of a 4 year old will be stuck at that level unless they engage in activities or exercises that specifically enhance these skills.

I do believe there are people out there that legitimately are unable to play grade 8 piano pieces no matter what they do and how hard they try.  Medical reasons aside, I believe the people that  actually fall in this category are exceptionally rare and the majority of people who think they can't actually can if they altered their approach. 

[awesom_o]

I think that many of the people who are trying hard but failing to improve at a normal rate are the 'toddlers trying to juggle when they should be learning how to throw and catch a ball'.

I agree with you. You do know, however, that joggling IS separate from juggling? Joggling involves juggling WHILE jogging, and it is a very real thing.

Do you juggle? I love to juggle!

Personally, I think the 10,000 hours is bogus. Generally, high level professionals in any skill-based endeavor WILL have accumulated at least this many hours, but this has little to do with their actual skill.

The reason many people don't improve in classical music beyond a mediocre level no matter how many hours they put in is because they are too busy trying to be INCREDIBLE long before they have mastered the basics required to be just CREDIBLE. A common example of this would be a piano student working on a virtuoso concerto who doesn't yet have the skill required to earn $60 an hour accompanying hymns for a local church.

 

[faulty_damper]

The "10,000 hour rule" has been rehashed so many times since Malcolm Gladwell popularized it that very few people actually knows what it originally meant from the actual researcher, K. Anders Ericsson.  There are many qualifications to that rule that's rarely mentioned and, as a result, the "rule" has been misunderstood due to lack of knowledge.  A quick search can quell this ignorance.  Regardless, the above YT clip further explains it in a way that most people can understand.

[awesom_o]

Hey! Good to see you again, faulty! Hope you're well! The link you posted seems to be invalid.

[faulty_damper]

Yeah, I'm well.  I just realized I forgot to delete the 's' in https so the YT link wouldn't show up.

[awesom_o]

I just realized I forgot to delete the 's' in https so the YT link wouldn't show up.

That's usually the reason!

I've watched this video before, and I must say, I find it fascinating!

Obviously, there are limits... nobody can learn to juggle seven clubs in just 20 hours. Unless, for example, they are already very good with 5 clubs.

Similarly, nobody can learn to play the Hammerklavier in just 20 hours.... unless, of course, they have already mastered the 31 other Beethoven Sonatas...

But still, the first 20 hours are so important! You can do a lot in 20 hours if you're good.

[timothy42b]

The reason many people don't improve in classical music beyond a mediocre level no matter how many hours they put in is because they are too busy trying to be INCREDIBLE long before they have mastered the basics required to be just CREDIBLE. A common example of this would be a piano student working on a virtuoso concerto who doesn't yet have the skill required to earn $60 an hour accompanying hymns for a local church.

 

That's a very authoritative statement.  I am not so sure we know the answer, or that your example fits very many of the cases.  I have a family member who works hard and fails to improve, and he is certainly not in that category. 

I would like to think that I could work with him and identify specific weaknesses with specific approaches to fix - but there again I am making some huge assumptions that may be unfounded.  Really, I DON'T know why he doesn't progress. 

[awesom_o]

I am not so sure we know the answer, or that your example fits very many of the cases. 

You don't think there are thousands of pianists learning Chopin Ballades, Beethoven Sonatas, and Rachmaninoff Concertos who cannot competently sightread hymns? Reading hymns at sight with 200+ people singing along takes quite a bit of musical skill, that few 18-20 year old piano majors possess! Many hymns are quite fast, with four independent voices. You have to be very quick to play them well at sight.

[timothy42b]

You don't think there are thousands of pianists learning Chopin Ballades, Beethoven Sonatas, and Rachmaninoff Concertos who cannot competently sightread hymns? Reading hymns at sight with 200+ people singing along takes quite a bit of musical skill, that few 18-20 year old piano majors possess! Many hymns are quite fast, with four independent voices. You have to be very quick to play them well at sight.

Hymns are deceptively hard.  They look so easy.  Only quarter notes usually, only a couple of common key signatures, normally 4/4 with little if any syncopation.  You'd think anybody could play them. 

Yet we've had substitute organists at my church blaze through an impressive prelude, then crash and burn on a "simple" hymn.

However, this does not really fit your example of people who do not succeed while struggling with works beyond their ability.  These are successful players who never bothered to learn the specific skill of playing hymns.

I can't play the harder hymns either.  But I can fake it, simplifying the harmony.  Now that nobody in church reads music anymore, they probably can't tell. 

[awesom_o]

However, this does not really fit your example of people who do not succeed while struggling with works beyond their ability.  These are successful players who never bothered to learn the specific skill of playing hymns.

Playing hymns isn't a specific skill. If you are really good at sight-reading, you can play anything.

Many people aren't really good at sight-reading, but still think that they can play anything, with enough 'old fashioned elbow grease'.

Like I said, these are the folks who are busy trying hard to be incredible, long before they are actually just plain old 'credible'.

[dima_76557]

@ cwjalex

What if the problems people have are not directly related to coordination and dexterity? There are many, many young people who have an abundance of that, but who are still unable to actively process, shape, and follow more than 1-2 simple layers of music. That's only one of the reasons their playing sounds dull and uninteresting when they start "playing" (rattling off on auto-pilot that is) the core concert repertoire, notwithstanding the enormous "technical" reserves and tiger mom "guidance".

What if the problem lies in other processes in the brain? If that is the case, then even 100,000 hours of training can't help them unless they themselves or their teachers/parents/therapists or whoever diagnose the problems correctly and find a solution to those particular problems. It takes a genius to do that, really.

P.S.: It also takes humbleness on the part of both the over-ambitious teachers/parents and the desperate student to admit that they are not ready for the repertoire they are "playing", even if they can manage the material quite easily on a superficial level.

[Bob]

Playing hymns isn't a specific skill. If you are really good at sight-reading, you can play anything.

Many people aren't really good at sight-reading, but still think that they can play anything, with enough 'old fashioned elbow grease'.

Like I said, these are the folks who are busy trying hard to be incredible, long before they are actually just plain old 'credible'.

I just aim for solidly competent anymore.

[timothy42b]

@ cwjalex

P.S.: It also takes humbleness on the part of both the over-ambitious teachers/parents and the desperate student to admit that they are not ready for the repertoire they are "playing", even if they can manage the material quite easily on a superficial level.

I will accept your observation that this is a problem.  (it's not one I have personally!)

But people who manage this material easily, however superficially, are really not the group of people I'm talking about who never achieve a level of competence.  There are people who work hard and just never get to minimal levels. 

[dima_76557]

I will accept your observation that this is a problem.  (it's not one I have personally!)

But people who manage this material easily, however superficially, are really not the group of people I'm talking about who never achieve a level of competence.  There are people who work hard and just never get to minimal levels.

I'd like to highlight another problem for both groups: inflated ego or the reverse. From what I have seen, this seems to hamper success and growth quite seriously. Many people don't seem to realize that they should concentrate 100% on this or that task, both during practice and performance, and not one bit on themselves in order to be more successful than they are now. How do you cure that? I have no idea.

[awesom_o]

P.S.: It also takes humbleness on the part of both the over-ambitious teachers/parents and the desperate student to admit that they are not ready for the repertoire they are "playing", even if they can manage the material quite easily on a superficial level.

+1000!

I would say that humility and musical maturity go hand in hand. Both tend to be sorely lacking among many young artists these days. Many people spend thousands of hours hammering away on big, half-hour long pieces, when they lack the perspective to make 2-3 minute pieces exquisitely beautiful. And nobody wants to be told that they need to go back to studying smaller, simpler pieces!

[dima_76557]

Many people spend thousands of hours hammering away on big, half-hour long pieces, when they lack the perspective to make 2-3 minute pieces exquisitely beautiful.

Which brings me to the following: music is essentially poetry. Even for native speakers of this or that language, learning how to read and appreciate poetry can take a lifetime (a lot more than 10,000 hours!), let alone learning how to recite it in public and be understood (required for us instrumentalists).

Too many young pianists sound as if they have a huge vocabulary but they don't know what the words mean, they are not able to time them within sentences to communicate thoughts, they are unfamiliar with the culture as such, miss the symbolism behind what is written, don't feel how the composer uses silence, etc. etc. If you don't have this intuition in you from early on, you will have a very hard time getting recognition as a musician.

As an aside: Any musician, especially one that pursues a concert career, should also be able to recite poetry, at least in his/her own language, but preferably also in the language of the composers whose works they want to perform. Here are 5 tips on how to do that:

[cwjalex]

@ cwjalex

What if the problems people have are not directly related to coordination and dexterity? There are many, many young people who have an abundance of that, but who are still unable to actively process, shape, and follow more than 1-2 simple layers of music. That's only one of the reasons their playing sounds dull and uninteresting when they start "playing" (rattling off on auto-pilot that is) the core concert repertoire, notwithstanding the enormous "technical" reserves and tiger mom "guidance".

I am not saying everyone will be able to interpret pieces beautifully and play them with feeling.  They should however, be able to play them like a computer would in reference to your "auto-pilot" comment.  I think the people who are struggling to succeed aren't concerned with the interpretation, feeling, and dynamics of pieces, but rather are struggling with playing them at all.    I imagine the struggling pianists would love to be able to play La Campanella even if it sounds like a computer playing back the composition. 

Even in the case of a player being able to technically play a piece but it sounding dull and uninteresting, I believe that is also able to be fixed by virtually anyone.

[swagmaster420x]

I think if your technique is good, your playing will sound good.

 I'm guessing part of why 'great' musicians sound so good in a 'talented' way, as in 'this person has a special gift that transcends the physical abilities of everyone else' is just psychology. Your preconceptions of a renowned performer will  probably lead you to pay closer attention to all their musical details and interpret them with more effort, which of course will lead to a better listening experience. And when you hear someone else without a reputation who sounds really, really good, you will be inclined to subtly discredit them, i.e. even though you acknowledge they are good, because they haven't achieved 'legend' status yet you feel like you can't place them on the same level as the 'greats.'

I believe this supports the hypothesis that assuming brilliant musicality to be the result of inborn talent results from your own preconceptions.

[cwjalex]

I think if your technique is good, your playing will sound good.

 I'm guessing part of why 'great' musicians sound so good in a 'talented' way, as in 'this person has a special gift that transcends the physical abilities of everyone else' is just psychology. Your preconceptions of a renowned performer will  probably lead you to pay closer attention to all their musical details and interpret them with more effort, which of course will lead to a better listening experience. And when you hear someone else without a reputation who sounds really, really good, you will be inclined to subtly discredit them, i.e. even though you acknowledge they are good, because they haven't achieved 'legend' status yet you feel like you can't place them on the same level as the 'greats.'

I believe this supports the hypothesis that assuming brilliant musicality to be the result of inborn talent results from your own preconceptions.

Although some people might be biased toward famous performers, I believe a lot of people are not swayed at all by this fame.  I personally am not that familiar with many famous pianists so when I look up a piece to listen to I almost always don't recognize the pianist and just base my opinion solely on my ear and whether I like the playing.  I think at the end of the day it doesn't matter how famous the person is and skill at a particular activity will be evident.

[pianoplunker]

i have had this discussion many times and i believe that with the correct practice that anyone, besides for medical reasons, is able to reach a very very high level of skill.  Of course people learn faster than others and not everyone is going to be able to be world class, but I believe the skill level that we are all able to reach is much much much higher than most people think. 

i am often met with a response like "I have tried _________ so hard and so long and no matter how hard i practiced or tried I couldn't get good or even decent.  I got better but I could never become proficient."  The reason I believe many of these people are not improving is because they have poorly developed prerequisite skills and are approaching the activity the wrong way.  Almost every activity or skill is not a single skill but is actually the coordination of many skills into one. 

the way I think about it is imagine you asked a toddler to juggle.  no matter how hard or long a toddler tried, 10,000 or 100,000 hours, they most likely would never be able to juggle.  the reason is juggling requires many prerequisite skills:

-need to be able to accurately throw a ball with your left hand
-need to be able to throw a ball with your right hand
-need to be able to catch a ball with your left hand
-need to be able to catch a ball with your right hand
-need the hand-eye coordination to perform these actions simultaneously

i believe that many people who have extreme difficulty at learning something, like the toddler, have poorly developed prerequisite skills that are needed.  Some people are unable to simply start juggling, play the piano, or learn algebra.  Maybe if they tried breaking down the activity into components of required skills and work on developing those skills they might be able to finally succeed.

the reason I believe so strongly in this is because of myself.  I have done a lot of competitive activities and played a few instruments and often have been able to compete nationally in many things.  People think I am naturally gifted but that couldn't be farther from the truth.  Every activity that I started I was bad in the beginning.  Not only was I bad, i was worse than just about anyone I knew who was also starting.  Gradually I improved, put in a TON of practice and was able to succeed.  Furthermore once you get good at one thing it becomes easier and easier to get good at other things considering many things require the same skills of hand eye coordination, speed, and dexterity. 

When I was younger I entered a lot of video game and karate tournaments and also learned to type at about 150 words a minute.  During highschool I spent 3-5 hours a day playing guitar for years.  I just started playing piano a year ago and my teacher thinks I am some amazing talent but I'm not at all, I just already have developed a lot of the skills necessary to play the piano.  I am not trying to brag and say how awesome I am.  I am trying to say the opposite and that I am the most ordinary person and I just put in a TON of practice and set out to master many things.  I strongly believe that if people approached whatever they were trying to master in the correct way they would most certainly be able to reach an extraordinary level of skill.

You did not mention your true gift -  "confidence".  That is what you get by doing karate and practicing guitar for years.  Many people do not have confidence to start with which is why they dont succeed. Only if one achieves confidence within 10,000 hours will they be able to master anything

[cwjalex]

it is true that confidence is important but I did not always have confidence.  I gained confidence once I showed myself that I could succeed and accomplish anything I put my mind to.  I believe many people don't put in the proper effort because they are convinced that no matter how hard they try they won't achieve the level of mastery they want.  If people held strong to the conviction that they CAN accomplish what they want then they would put in more effort and gain confidence. 

i believe the biggest thing that prevents most people from succeeding is themselves.  they hold the view that because they are not born a certain way or have enough talent (whatever that means) that no matter how hard they try they won't succeed.  if they hold that view then there is no way they are going to put in the required effort since they believe it won't accomplish anything and will be a waste of time.

[swagmaster420x]

i believe the biggest thing that prevents most people from succeeding is themselves.  they hold the view that because they are not born a certain way or have enough talent (whatever that means) that no matter how hard they try they won't succeed.  if they hold that view then there is no way they are going to put in the required effort since they believe it won't accomplish anything and will be a waste of time.

Agree

[amytsuda]

I feel like you guys are talking about the competency after 20,000 hours not 10,000 hours!    I think most people already had 10,000 hours when they get to a Conservatory. And then, they spend 2,000 hours a year on music for 4-5 years, and then, play La Campanella like a master.

Of course, there are tons of prodigies who play La Campanella like a master at age of 18. But for a normal mortal, I don't think so. I now have many nieces and nephews and they always have to learn piano whenever they see their auntie. I can tell you, there are big differences. Some can not even tell 3 notes no matter how much I try.  Even among my siblings, all of us tried piano (it was that time in Asia), and it took for one brother three years to play both hands together, another brother suffered so much, he tried to break his hands as well as the piano. I was like the gifted one, oh wow, surprise! I can never dream of being able to play La Campanella, to be honest....

There are differences of gift. But it's just matter of life, no matter what you do. I don't think I want to slack off just because I won't be able to play La Campanella. I think I'd be very happy to play Mozart Sonatas really really really well in my own way.

[dima_76557]

Even in the case of a player being able to technically play a piece but it sounding dull and uninteresting, I believe that is also able to be fixed by virtually anyone.

i believe the biggest thing that prevents most people from succeeding is themselves. 

Please be aware that it is very easy to talk that way when you have already acquired the necessary pre-requisite skills yourself. I find it rather disturbing that whenever the question of "hard work" vs. "genes" comes up, that people often start blaming the less gifted for their own shortcomings. Purportedly, they don't "will" enough, they don't work "smart" enough, they don't work "hard" enough. It doesn't work that way, even if we exclude medical problems completely.

[cwjalex]

Please be aware that it is very easy to talk that way when you have already acquired the necessary pre-requisite skills yourself. I find it rather disturbing that whenever the question of "hard work" vs. "genes" comes up, that people often start blaming the less gifted for their own shortcomings. Purportedly, they don't "will" enough, they don't work "smart" enough, they don't work "hard" enough. It doesn't work that way, even if we exclude medical problems completely.

You say it doesn't work that way but I believe that it does.  What I mean is there is some way for these people to improve and they aren't doomed to failure by their genes.  There might be an extremely rare case of someone actually not being able to succeed no matter what they did but I believe the vast majority of the people claiming this are just not utilizing a certain resource or method for improvement.  I'm not blaming people for their shortcomings I am just suggesting that there is a way for these people to succeed. 

[cwjalex]

duplicate

[dima_76557]

I'm not blaming people for their shortcomings I am just suggesting that there is a way for these people to succeed.  

I already wrote that sometimes, it takes a genius to determine what way is right for what person. Either they must be geniuses themselves or they should come across such a genius teacher/therapist and have the money to pay for qualified help.

[cwjalex]

I already wrote that sometimes, it takes a genius to determine what way is right for what person.

well ideally they will find a great teacher that will be able to guide a person in the right direction

[dima_76557]

well ideally they will find a great teacher that will be able to guide a person in the right direction

I added something to my previous post. "Ideally" is "utopia" in most cases. So sorry.

[cwjalex]

I added something to my previous post. "Ideally" is "utopia" in most cases. So sorry.

but the point is that there exists a way for people to succeed.  whether they are able to identify the method is a different matter.  In today's age of information it often does come to a form of "will" because if a person can't discover the way to improve then they can still find teachers or seek ideas in this forum for instance for the way to overcome a plateau in skill.

[dima_76557]

but the point is that there exists a way for people to succeed.  whether they are able to identify the method is a different matter.  In today's age of information it often does come to a form of "will" because if a person can't discover the way to improve then they can still find teachers or seek ideas in this forum for instance for the way to overcome a plateau in skill.

You are more optimistic than I am. Good for you, and I won't try to ruin that optimism. Let's wait for the post/thread Tim promised on the topic. He seems to know people that don't give in to any tried methods, "hard work", "smart work", etc. at all, although the wish to succeed is there.

[cwjalex]

You are more optimistic than I am. Good for you, and I won't try to ruin that optimism. Let's wait for the post/thread Tim promised on the topic. He seems to know people that don't give in to any tried methods, "hard work", "smart work", etc. at all, although the wish to succeed is there.

let's take my earlier example of an adult with the coordination and dexterity of a 4 year old,  or i guess any adult with extremely poor hand eye coordination, dexterity, and speed.  i am guessing this is probably the main reason that prevents people who try hard but fail to improve from succeeding. 

i believe people with horrible coordination dexterity and speed are still able to play the piano but they need to improve these skills away from the piano.  i am not exactly sure what kind of activities or exercises would be optimal but something away from the piano would be necessary because trying to play the piano would be too difficult.  Like i said before, these people trying to play the piano are like toddlers trying to juggle.  there is no way they can juggle because they don't have the coordination.  they need to first learn how to throw and catch a ball with both hands before they can even think about trying to learn how to juggle.  likewise, i think people with horrible coordination need to first learn how to coordinate their hands and fingers with more basic tasks before attempting to engage in a complex task such as piano playing.

[dima_76557]

@ cwjalex

You assume too much.

Let's take a VERY well-known example: Sergei Rachmaninoff. He had everything anyone could ever hope for in all the elements you mentioned but he felt he wasn't capable of anything. In his situation, he had two choices: either start drinking vodka or have the courage to get pep talk from a psychiatrist. Luckily for us all, he opted for the latter, came out of the depression and wrote his second Concerto. This is just one single unexpected element that hampers success. There are more. That's what the first sentence of my signature is all about.

[cwjalex]

@ cwjalex

You assume too much.

Let's take a VERY well-known example: Sergei Rachmaninoff. He had everything anyone could ever hope for in all the elements you mentioned but he felt he wasn't capable of anything. In his situation, he had two choices: either start drinking vodka or have the courage to get pep talk from a psychiatrist. Luckily for us all, he opted for the latter, came out of the depression and wrote his second Concerto. This is just one single unexpected element that hampers success. There are more. That's what the first sentence of my signature is all about.

what does that have to do with people who try hard but can't play the piano?

[dima_76557]

what does that have to do with people who try hard but can't play the piano?

Their mindsets, their guiding philosophies may be hampering them, even if objectively, they do everything "right".

[cwjalex]

Their mindsets, their guiding philosophies may be hampering them, even if objectively, they do everything "right".

what do u mean that someone's mindset or guiding philosophy is preventing them from playing?  i dont think your example is good because rachmaninoff might have been frustrated with his own playing but he could still play.  i dont think that is a good analogy for the people who are struggling to play fur elise.

[dima_76557]

what do u mean that someone's mindset or guiding philosophy is preventing them from playing?  i dont think your example is good because rachmaninoff might have been frustrated with his own playing but he could still play.  i dont think that is a good analogy for the people who are struggling to play fur elise.

Why Your Mind-Set Affects Success

You can find other links to see how and what in the mindset may hamper success, even in trying to play "Für Elise".

Question remains: how do we determine what the problem really is - lack of craft or something else? It may take a genius for that kind of self-analysis, or it may even take a genius that may not be directly related to piano pedagogy.

[swagmaster420x]

Their mindsets, their guiding philosophies may be hampering them, even if objectively, they do everything "right".

What's meant by this part?: Avoid losers like the plague, and gather with and learn from winners only.
I know someone who I feel like fits this description, and while he is very successful, he comes off as selfish, elitist, and overly willing to consider his needs first at the expense of others.

[dima_76557]

What's meant by this part?: Avoid losers like the plague, and gather with and learn from winners only.
I know someone who I feel like fits this description, and while he is very successful, he comes off as selfish, elitist, and overly willing to consider his needs first at the expense of others.

Winners have a certain mindset that makes them win all the time, even if competitors may have far better skills. You can learn a lot by observing them. Important is not so much WHAT they do, but HOW they do it; the attitude they have while they do what they do.

[cwjalex]

Why Your Mind-Set Affects Success

You can find other links to see how and what in the mindset may hamper success, even in trying to play "Für Elise".

Question remains: how do we determine what the problem really is - lack of craft or something else? It may take a genius for that kind of self-analysis, or it may even take a genius that may not be directly related to piano pedagogy.

i couldn't help but laugh when i read that link you sent.  it reminds me of a motivational speaker that came to my highschool to make kids feel better.  as far as identifying the problem it's hard to say because i dont know a lot of people who have tried very hard but still failed at the piano.  the people i know who have claimed to try hard but fail all cite physical reasons why they cannot play which i believe can all be remedied.

by the way i couldn't help but notice this part in that link you sent:  

"If our core inner beliefs do not support us, then often whenever we are faced with a difficult situation or hurdle to overcome, instead of seeing it as a normal road-block to success, we can surrender and admit failure, when in reality all that was required was to try harder or differently. All that is required is the proper frame of mind."

all that was required was to try harder or differently...that's exactly what ive been saying.

[cwjalex]

Winners have a certain mindset that makes them win all the time, even if competitors may have far better skills. You can learn a lot by observing them. Important is not so much WHAT they do, but HOW they do it; the attitude they have while they do what they do.

having a positive attitude is great and all but the reason winners win come down to tangible skills.  take any sport or even take the best piano players.  what makes them be the best is because of their skill.  if what you say is true then you should be able to point to "winners" and famous performers who have less skill than others that aren't as famous.

[swagmaster420x]

Why Your Mind-Set Affects Success

You can find other links to see how and what in the mindset may hamper success, even in trying to play "Für Elise".

Question remains: how do we determine what the problem really is - lack of craft or something else? It may take a genius for that kind of self-analysis, or it may even take a genius that may not be directly related to piano pedagogy.

Imo the distinction between craft and art is over-romanticized. I perceive art as the projection of your individuality into the medium, but without craft your art is bad. Everyone inherently has unique tendencies and aspects to their character, so in a sense everyone already has 'art.' It's just the expression of it through finely honed technique, e.g. craft, that makes non-practitioners go 'never in 100 years would I be able to do that,' and that's what takes so much effort and dedication. Art, which is above all immaterial, requires personal liberty and experience. Not so much the grueling work spent in being able to communicate it. So at least in my view, craft is in a sense much harder to achieve than art. And I think it is evident that art is nothing without craft. Therefore I have at least the same amount of respect for craft as I do for art.