Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum Is it possible to become an advance player at 30s?

BBM, practice more every day, dear, and then write us back. You are on the right track: studying with the guidance of a teacher, and practicing every day. But you have to double down on that practice time if you expect to learn your lessons faster than you forget them.

"...the belief that it is "much harder", in general, for older adults to learn is a very common misconception that has been contradicted by numerous studies..."

It sounds like you are not older yourself, or you would know better. The plastic, amazingly absorbent, relatively uncluttered and wonderfully energetic mind of a very young person does learn very quickly, and often almost effortlessly. This is an endowment of nature. We do have to make more of an effort to pick things up and remember them as we get older: that is nature's endowment of the older mind. But you're right that it is possible and very much worth the effort; idle brain cells rust up just as surely as idle fingers.

BBM, practice at least an hour a day, at least five days a week. There's a figure "cited by numerous studies" that it costs 10,000 hours to attain proficiency, not just in piano but in many endeavors. Having not reached 10,000 myself, I couldn't say for sure, but let's say it is (or something like it): divide 10,000 by however long you're practicing, then figure out how many years it would be. If it's longer than your life expectancy, better step it up if you want to get there and enjoy it for awhile.

I think the growth of your desire to progress is a natural feature of the learning process, and a sign that you are on the right track. The fact that you are wise enough to ask this question is another good sign. Your thirst for mastery and your open mind for knowledge will take you a long way.

Go for it. I agree, increase the practice time but just go for it. Other than probably not being able to become a concert pianist most of the repertoire will be playable by you in time if you persevere (but more practice will be required).

I don't believe in that 10,000 hour thing. More important is the quality of your practice. 10,000 hours practising with bad technique will make you really good... at playing with a bad technique.

Just focus on short term goals, learn as much as you can and put it into practice as often as you can. Read stuff on here but don't take anything for granted (including my post!), try stuff out but if it doesn't work for you just leave it behind. Ask questions of your teacher and don't be afraid to move on to another if you feel you've outgrown that teacher. Absorb as much piano music as you can whilst not at the piano. Develop a good ear too.

Another thing about the age thing. There are some people who say that it's easier for a child to learn to play the piano but think about the advantages you have. Self-motivation. Your own experience as to how you learn best. Better problem solving ability. Handspan! What you probably don't have as much of is time in the day, but you'll just have to work around that.

Good post. I just want to try and clarify one thing, since more than one poster has now mentioned the "10k rule". You bring it up here, as well: it is considered "understood" that someone attempting to achieve mastery, or proficiency as Jeff used, would attempt to practice correctly. You are 100% correct in saying that someone who practices something incorrectly will be a master at doing it incorrectly. The premise for the "10k rule" supposes that a person is practicing correctly.. and that it still takes 10k hours.

Although the 10,000 hr number gets thrown around a lot, there is anechdotal evidence based upon the experience of members of this forum that somewhere around 3,000 hrs one moves from student to practiced musician. So don't get scared off by the 10,000 hr number. We can debate what "advanced" means, but I like to think it is probably a skill level that is obtainable a lot sooner than at the 10,000 hr mark.

Maybe he was 39 when he posted, just had a birthday and now this subject no longer applies.

My thoughts, you're going to age anyway, might as well go for it. In response to the "Do you know how old I'll be when I finally get good at piano?" question, I always say, "Yep, the same age you'll be if you don't learn!"

Bingo - couldn't have said it better!

Hi BBM,

I use to think...... Nil volentibus arduum.....that's Latin for.... Nothing is difficult for those who really want....

Enjoy it and good luck.

Cheers,
Johan B

I think the key factor between an adult and a child's learning speed is resource. Adults have less time, financial limitations and life to worry about other than music. A child who is provided a piano and piano lessons has a lot less to think about other than music. If both are as motivated, a child progress quicker mainly because of the circumstances.

I don't believe an adult cannot learn something new purely because they are older. I envy those that has 3 hours a day to spend on practising. The most I can practise during the work week is 2, 3-5 hours on Saturday and 3 hours on Sunday.

Good luck!

The 10000 hour rule comes from the book
'Outliers' in which glad well claims that those musicians who reached 10000 hrs of practice by age 20 went on to become the elite.
Those with 8000 became good musicians.
And those with 4000 became music teachers.

Not my words :-)
Read the book for more details, great book.

The ears of a 4 year old are incredibly better than those of a 9 year old.
If a child learns English at age 10, he will forever have an accent.
If he does at age 5, he will not.
If he does at age 21, he will have a thick one.

It doesn't even need to be conscious practice or lessons. You can throw in all the 10s of thousands of hours you want. The 5 year old wins. Without a sweat. :-)

"Nil volentibus arduum.....that's Latin for.... Nothing is difficult for those who really want...."

Thank you for that; it is beautifully said.

Please excuse my not using the diacritical characters in transliterating the Sanscrit:

Tivra-samveganam asannah
"It is nearest to those whose desire is intensely strong." Patanjali Yoga Sutras, Book One, Sutra 21

Only if the five year old has the discipline, desire and support to keep on. This is where self determining adults have him beat hollow.

I think for every person who makes it to the advance level, scores of others do not. The important question to ask is whether you climb this mountain to get a view at the peak or do you enjoy climbing.

The 5 year old wins what though? People who learn English after childhood can still obtain native level fluency, irrespective of the thickness of their accent. (I know someone who did exactly this, coming from a completely unrelated language, and starting at 18). I think there might be a misleading assumption thrown in here that ease of learning determines how far one may advance. Because the reality is that to play at an "advanced" level and to be one of *the* elite pianists are two wholly different things. Can an adult learner develop true "fluency" on the piano? Of course. Piano is not such an impossibly complicated task that it is beyond the mastery of an adult learner. You just have to put in the time.

Also, regarding the 10,000 hours bit. The 10,000 hours study looked at the most elite performers in a given field. I believe the focus was chess (this is discussed in another thread). 10,000 hours reflects the amount of time spent by the best of the best (think grand chess masters and olympic athletes), not the time it takes to simply be good at something.

The 10,000 hours rule is not always helpful because the study focused on those who played competitively and not how long it took to obtain technical mastery of an activity. The "mastery" referred to competitive ranking, not simply ability to play well. When you are looking at an activity from a competitive angle, you get increasingly diminished returns for each hour spent practicing. If it were mapped out on a graph with time on the x axis and progress on the y axis, you'd see a curve that starts getting flatter and flatter after a certain point. People at the very top are putting in hours and hours of practice just to be able to execute a skill a hair better than the next person.

If you think about it in terms of something like the Olympics, the hours spent are not spent learning or even mastering skills so much as improving performance relative to their competitors. Similarly with chess, it didn't take the chess masters 10,000 hours to become good at chess. That's at least how long it took before they became better than everyone else. They were "good" at chess long before they became chess master.

So, this is not really a suitable comparison for something like learning to play the piano. It's not going to take you 10,000 hours to either learn or become good at piano, even at an "advanced" level. Most kids who stick with piano in no wise practice 4 hours a day, and they eventually get there if they keep playing through high school. If you decide to play professionally or in competitions, that's where your commitment is really going to have to ramp up.

You used to think that? In Latin? In a dead language? Really? And if so why "used to..."?

I'm thinking Absolutum Absurdum

I went from student to practiced musician at precisely 1,876 hours (I remember the remarkable transition clearly), and from practiced musician to advanced performer at exactly 4,732 hours (I can still feel the thrill of the surge of power & efficiency)...

But while this may be motivating & encouraging to some of you (especially those of you in a big hurry to get real good) you should not necessarily expect these results...outcomes will vary...log your own personal hours...

Trap

The correct answer is both...However, the trouble with a lot of students is that they don't want to do the hard work of the climb...that hurts too much...they want it all and they want it immediately...what they really want is to be dropped at the peak right away from a helicopter...but a fool and his piano (like his money) are soon parted...

There is simply no excuse for that...but we'll let you get away with it this once...especially since hardly anyone here knows the difference anyway...but don't let it happen again

My own experience:
In my forties now. I played for about 5 years as a kid. I hardly practiced more than maybe 2 hours a week in average. That would make about 500 hours. I learned some basics that are still helpful, but never got to anything worth playing.
Started again last year. Playing grade 4-6 stuff now and have a demanding classical teacher. Practice at least 7 hours a week. That will make about 350 hours a year. Most of my time still goes to trying to figure out how to play better technically, not to learning new pieces. At this rate I should be able to play some grade 8 stuff after a few years unless I reach a plateu. But to become good at it and have a decent repertoire will take at least 10 years I believe. 10 years of practicing 7 hours a week only makes 3600 hours. So I just hope that's enough.

I have a friend she spoke Vietnamese exclusively until she was 10 almost 11. Her family came here after the fall of Saigon. She has a thick accent its called a southern drawl! She has no discernible accent other than what every other southerner from the Florida - Alabama border has. She still speaks fluent Vietnamese but cannot read or write it.

I have met two very accomplished pianists that didn't start until their mid thirties. They each did have one thing in common, they had played other instruments (guitar,violin) and were exposed to music in grade school. They are both very very good and are teaching music. They aren't selling out concert halls, but they both earned Master's Degrees in music as pianists. Of course they were in their early 50's when I met them. They didn't become that good overnight!