Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum Realistic Expectations for Adult Beginner

Originally posted by Gary D.:
If you practice 2.5 hours a day, average, 365 days a year for 11 years, you'll hit that number.

365*2.5*11 = 10037.5

I think that's enough time and effort for some people, maybe a lot of people, to play well enough to please themselves, and maybe quite a few people.

But I don't think it's enough to expect a career, performing in public. Not that much time alone, for the average person.

Originally posted by keystring:

Quote

I used Mozart's example as a surrogate for "unusual talent".

Which of the two Mozart siblings? The children were strictly and stringently taught under close supervision by their father, an expert in the field, from a very early age and both were considered little geniuses. This is our focused supervised practice. The connections were also there to make certain that they were noticed, because performances must also happen in front of someone who will appreciate and further you in public. Are there any 'Mozarts' whom we will never get to know about?

But the other question is this: is Jane Regular wanting to become the next Mozart, or does she want to become a good concert pianist? There was only one Mozart, but there are a lot of good concert pianists out there. Most of them are unknown, sure - such are the vagaries of fame. But they do play the piano very well. (note that Mozart was not considered particularly special in his time, either).

We tend to focus on the few extraordinary geniuses when thinking about music, and only when thinking about music. When I went to law school (at a moderately advanced age), no one told me "Well, you'll never be another Clarence Darrow; what's the point?" People seem to recognize that a mere mortal can become a good lawyer by putting in the effort and the practice time, and that one doesn't need to be arguing cases in the cradle to even think about succeeding in law school.

It's also true of music. If you put in the effort and the practice time - intelligent, focused practice - you'll get good. But it has to be focused and intelligent practice; you have to know what you're good at and what you're bad at, and tailor the practice to your individual strengths and weaknesses. If you do that, you'll succeed.

Originally posted by Larisa:
(note that Mozart was not considered particularly special in his time, either).

"If only I could impress Mozart's inimitable works on the soul of every friend of music, and the souls of high personages in particular, as deeply, with the same musical understanding and with the same deep feeling, as I understand and feel them, the nations would vie with each other to possess such a jewel."

Before God and as an honest man I tell you that your son is the greatest composer known to me either in person or by name: He has taste, and, furthermore, the most profound knowledge of composition

Originally posted by TonyB:
In this thread, this post of Larisa's is the most down to earth and straightforward response on this subject area that I have yet seen. We as adult learners spend so much time with this baggage, that I strongly recommend we each print this quote and put on our respective music stands as adult learners regardless of the approach we are each choosing to take. Then we can leave this baggage behind and just enjoy the journey.

Tony

Originally posted by TonyB:
There are man aspects to learning to play a musical instrument.

Originally posted by TonyB:
I wonder how many people REALLY "have no aptitude whatsoever". As Larisa pointed out, music seems to be unique in how people regard it as requiring genius to even pursue it. It is one thing to say that if a person puts in enormous hours, they are guaranteed to overcome any lack of "genius" and become a world class musician, and quite another to say that a person who puts in the effort could enjoy playing the piano at some level.

Let's examine the 10,000 hour idea, in this way.

If you practice 2.5 hours a day, average, 365 days a year for 11 years, you'll hit that number.

365*2.5*11 = 10037.5

I think that's enough time and effort for some people, maybe a lot of people, to play well enough to please themselves, and maybe quite a few people.

But I don't think it's enough to expect a career, performing in public. Not that much time alone, for the average person.

Originally posted by sophial:
However, there are some reasons I don’t buy the full argument that 10,000 hours is sufficient to turn anyone selected at random into a professional performing pianist.

Originally posted by -Frycek:
Learning is a satifying process in itself. My feeling is that by the time a serious student has put in enough hours to learn whether or not he actually has "talent," it will no longer matter. Lack of talent is I think most often an excuse given by those not willing to put in the time.

]Show me someone with lots of talent and I will show you someone who (also) put in lots and lots and lots of work when you weren't looking...

Originally posted by theJourney:
Which is not quite the same thing as becoming a professional concert pianist.

Monica also indicated she did not have access to the materials when writing. I can heartily recommend them as reading (and reflection) -- especially since they are based on real people, real lives and real habits.

Perhaps we can start a separate thread later for debate by those who have actually read and thought about the same research?

Originally posted by theJourney:
I was referring to the earlier comment that studies are narrowly defined and therefore somehow not extrapolatable to the real world (where many would-be expert pianists spend lots of time hanging out on internet fora instead of practicing intently?)

Originally posted by theJourney:
Show me someone with lots of talent and I will show you someone who (also) put in lots and lots and lots of work when you weren't looking...

Originally posted by keystring:

Quote

]Show me someone with lots of talent and I will show you someone who (also) put in lots and lots and lots of work when you weren't looking...

Having observed first hand for a number of years, and then discussed when adulthood was reached:
- a quest for efficiency from the beginning, wryly translated as a philosophy of laziness, i.e. the best and easiest way to achieve something
- starting the endeavour with intent and purpose from the beginning: wish to acquire proficiency
- keen powers of observation
- perfect pitch even before training, i.e. natural
- good physical coordination
- ability to plan, organize, set goals, follow through, willingness to do so
- ability to separate the chaff from the wheat
- practicing that was sufficient and appropriate (not excessive for the sake of filling hours)
- discernment
- ability to deal with stress of pressure, balance out life, realism
- working with teachers and getting the main point (again, discernment)

There was a strong philosophy that ran *against* long practicing, and toward sufficient and efficient practicing in order to achieve what you are trying to reach with as little effort (time use, straining, tension) as possible. I saw this in the beginner who only practiced 15 minutes if that is what it took, and 5 hours at university level if that is what it took.