Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum The Simple Truth to Mastering Piano

Armchair guesses?

That's like saying art isn't subjective, but purely objective.

Of course there are certain qualities we approve of wholely and comparatively, but you can't assess these types of things purely based on the mathematical assignments by some study.

Answer my previous question and THEN we'll talk about it. Until then: BALONEY.

I like this study. It is really a good news/bad news story for those of us that are adult beginners. The bad news is that unless you have completed extensive training and practice before age 20 the cards are stacked against you ever reaching the peak of the profession. But I don't think that is really news for most people who take up piano after age 20. The good news, and where I prefer to focus is that the study finds very little correlation between some sort of innate talent and becoming really good at something. Becoming good takes training, practice, and dedication. It keeps the door open for all of us, it remains within our grasp.

Why not read Kenny Werner's book and just become a master right away ?

It's really that easy !

I have no illusions about reaching the peak of the profession. I just want to enjoy playing a little piano. After 520 hours of practice, I've reached that goal. Plod, plod, plod...

The general rule that we (piano teachers) use is simply this:

It takes 10,000 hours of practice to become a pianist capable of performing in a recital or on stage. That translates to: 1,000 hours/year and that translates to (about) 3 hours/day - - - and that means EVERY DAY!! But if you want to be a good Chopin or Liszt interpreter, it takes even more than that! But - - it's a start!!
Donn Xavier

I'll take that as "I've not seen the study, I'm not able to evaluate the results, and I'll offer no factual support for my statements."

You're fixated on the number. The studies have important things to tell anybody who wants to master a skill. You're simply blowing smoke out of your ass (yeah, I'm serious) without actually challenging either the methodology or the results. You trying to find an excuse for mediocrity or something?

You say that as if it bothers me. Believe in the number all you want. In the end, it's just a number that means absolutely nothing.

Do I believe there is some merit to the study (which, yes, I have seen)? Of course. But it simply doesn't apply in the same fashion you'd wish. Especially when the outliers against it are one-too-many - ie, the hundreds of thousands of kids who are well above "mediocrity" - as well as the sample pool the data is taken from. There are too many variables and subjective reasonings (like the ones I mentioned before, which apparently to you are just smoke out of my ass - welcome to the world of the arts, buddy, where you are sure to fail) to find a true value in this analysis.

10,000 hours of dedicated hours will make you 10,000 hours better. They won't make you a master, and are not the threshold for becoming a master - whatever the heck that term means.

Technical skill does not make one a 'master.' Nor does 10,000 hours. Why? Because you can have 50,000 hours under your belt and still give a performance that does not communicate.

A real master is able to combine intuition and intellect into one resulting in a communication that transcends technique. Sure, technique is needed and required, but it ain't the holy grail many seem to think it is.

+ a billion

Well, let me tell you. I have been playing piano for 10 years and I have certainly not "mastered" it.

That's unsupportable.

Do you know ANYONE who has 50,000 hours of practice under his belt? I can't. It would take 8 hours of practice EVERY SINGLE DAY for 17 years!

No days off. No holidays. No slacking off. (Fall below 8 hrs/day and you have to make it up with extra practice on another day.)

I'd guess that only the greatest of dedicated greats could achieve 50,000 hours before the age of 40 or 50.

I dare say that anyone who has practiced that much would be a fine pianist. Or, if he/she couldn't hack it, he'd drop out LONG before the 50,000 hours. Indeed, probably before 10,000 hours.

Just for the record I'm about to hit the 2500 hour mark and I still suck...

Please return to your scheduled program...

But you suck less than you used to!

(Sorry, that's one of my band's mottoes - "Damn, we're not as bad as we used to be" )

Cathy

Yes.

This^

The problem is not really with the study, but from the conclusions that come from trying to generalize it, and the use of fuzzy words like "master" and "just about anything."

Has there ever been anyone who can truly claim to have "mastered" piano? In the history of the world? Maybe one of the first inventors of the piano could have claimed to be able to play every piano piece ever written, which at the time may have been just one. (Even still, there were harpsichord pieces, organ pieces, etc.)

No matter how good someone gets, there is always another challenge, another difficulty. The piano field is, relative to a human lifetime, infinite, for all practical purposes. Maybe you master classical piano, well you still need to learn jazz. Or how about ragtime?

On the other hand, I bet most could become a tic-tac-toe master in a matter of hours, if not minutes. You can't say "just about anything" and really mean it.

Uhmm...

Where did you all read the term "master"?

Ericsson is talking about "expertise" - which I think is a bit different, since it does not have the same absoluteness to it ("mastering" something seems to imply there's nothing left to improve or learn).

The number 10.000 might be a bit arbitrary, however it hints toward the rough dimension of what it takes to become an "expert". Furthermore it suggests that "talent" is a largely undefined concept. Although I do not doubt that some human beings are more inclined to learn specific things faster than others, I believe that behind many of those child prodigies there is a complex system of affection, motivation, opportunity and encouragement - which ultimately results into spending a lot of time doing something.

And I wouldn't even be to hard on the "deliberate practise" requirement. I think someone spending 10.000 hours into something and not dropping out of it, one can assume that a good portion of that time will be spent purposeful. A person so immersed in one activity will educate himself/herself even when not practising: by being surrounded by people with similar interests, by reading stuff, by thinking about music (or whatever it is) in every spare minute etc...

From the title of this thread: "The Simple Truth to Mastering Piano."

EddyBoston said, "The problem is not really with the study, but from the conclusions that come from trying to generalize it, and the use of fuzzy words like "master" and "just about anything."

I suppose he's including the OP as someone who drew conclusions from generalizing, and used fuzzy words like "master."

My response never received a reply, so any dialog wasn't considered important.

It seems people's joy to play the piano is more timeless than anything else. When it comes to passions like this, quantification sometimes dilutes it.

Glen