Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner It's not so simple as the 10,000 hour rule.

http://www.pianofundamentals.com/book/en/1.III.6.5

Perhaps hreichgott is referring to working memory and not short term memory?

It's very possible that what hriechgott learned in a graduate level course on pedagogy is more accurate than what you learned in a neuroscience web search (or undergraduate class, for that matter).

It's possible but not very possible. Pedagogy courses are filled with all sorts of this nonsense that directly contradict known facts. It's unfortunate, really, but there's progress in getting all of the crap out.

You aren't nitpicking for not distinguishing between 'short term memory' and 'working memory' are you?

Of course not, but that doesn't change anything. Feel free to cite research that suggests such a 15-20 minute "magical point of transition" exists; I'd be interested.

I'm going to go with "her graduate class is better than your random musings" lol

Also known as "I like to believe in things without evidence"

I'd like to see evidence to support the following generalization:
"Pedagogy courses are filled with all sorts of this nonsense that directly contradict known facts"

Take pedagogy courses, watch technique seminars, read technique books; there are direct contradictions to modern science everywhere.

It's not a deliberate act against knowledge, it's just leftover material from when before we had the knowledge to know better. Already we're seeing, for example, the idea of "strong fingers" rapidly decreasing in proliferation. That's "progress of a kind".

hem... Atrys?

"Evidence" as in not your opinion.

Perhaps, but I'd still like to see the evidence rather than take your word for it that there are contradictions, but as I don't have the time, I might as well keep an open mind towards both sides.

It's not just "my opinion", it's literal contradiction. For example, some pedagogy may teach something like "you can look at your hands when learning to sight read. it's better this way", yet research has shown that sight-reading (and the transferable skillset) is improved much quicker when you don't look at your hands.

These are the sorts of contradictions I'm talking about. Things that any thinking person, with the prerequisite knowledge, could identify objectively and independently of their opinion.

Sorry? You expect me to spoon feed you? The information is there, all you have to do is read it.

You are always citing Chuan Chang who often points out falsities in traditional pedagogy. Sounds like you should read Chang fully and understand where he's coming from instead of citing him without reading his work first.

Nope, I don't. I'm relatively new at all of this, and I'm okay with taking my time and going a step at a time.

Yes, I am in the process of reading it, I'm almost done with it. I have found it extremely helpful. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm not saying that others are wrong. There are many ways to look at the same thing.

Even if you have a point in everything you are saying, you forget the fact that it's a fact that facts actually cannot prove everything. Everything that turns into a generalization will always have flaws in one way or another.

You suggest I favor some random musings over a graduate level class?

Pro-tip: When someone in an internet forum says they learned something in a graduate level class, and you come in saying, "that's wrong and there are studies that prove it if you only go look for them," it only makes you look like like a college sophomore.

Please, you do college sophomores a disservice by saying this

lol The word sophomoric exists for a reason!

sophomoron? hmmm... :P

Protip: I don't have to spoon-feed you evidence; it's there and is readily available to curious minds. Deal with it. Ignorance sure is bliss, ain't it