Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner 10,000 Hours - Enough?

Can’t really argue against this either. I like to use the word facility over talent though. It just sounds a little nicer.

I play in an extremely competitive adult baseball league in Cincinnati. It's not your typical beer league - we have many ex-professional players in it including a couple Rookies of the Year and All Stars from the MLB. The average competition level is probably somewhere around a Division III college team, with the best teams in the league being somewhere between Division I college and Single A professional ball level.

I'm one of the smaller people in the league. I would say your average guy is 6'2, 200lbs. I'm 5'8, 150. Through hard work and being smarter than the average player, I've managed to scrape by and keep a roster spot. I'm not one of the better players, but I'm not getting cut either. But there are guys in this league that are dumb as a box of rocks and just pick up a baseball and throw 88mph without thinking about it. Me? Just to hit 75mph I'm reading every pitching mechanics book at Barnes and Noble, watching every advanced analytics youtube video from Driveline, working out, video-taping myself during practice, etc.

Maximizing my potential is still not as good as their baseline minimal potential.

They are just more physically gifted than I am. I can compensate to some degree by out-working and out-smarting them, but there is simply no substitute for the bodies they have vs. the one I have when it comes to throwing a baseball hard.

I believe the same principal applies to piano. I know some people that are seriously not intelligent on a general level that are simply prodigiously gifted with technique and musicality - a true, innate talent. Others I know are merely average from a physically gifted level, but are able to compensate to a degree with hard work and intellectual rigor.

But giving some generic hour amount to master a craft? Sorry, I'm never going to be Pedro Martinez even if I practice pitching for 50,000 hours.

I don't always think of it in terms of shooting too low or shooting too high, actually. The idea is to really try and understand the hand motions required in order to play a wide variety of repertoire. I started out wondering how one could play HR2 and La Campanella. I tried it out, and by doing that, got some idea of what the required hand motions were. For example, in order to play a scale extremely fast, you need two things: (1) to be able to play notes under a single hand position in quick succession, and (2) to be able to shift hand positions very fast, accurately, and without unnecessary accents.

Of course, there is also a lot more to it in terms of hand relaxation, etc. However, once you have this idea that you want to be able to develop these two aspects of your playing, it will direct your practice in such a way that it primes you to succeed in getting better at those individual competencies. And hand relaxation also arises as a corollary of the two requirements, because it's physically impossible to play notes in quick succession while tensing up.

So, the idea is to basically try and "know" things upfront. Acquiring the actual skills will take time; however, you want to acquire prior knowledge of the intricacies of the things you want to learn, and of traps you shouldn't fall into. Relying on a teacher isn't enough even if you have one, because there is only so much verbal instruction can convey. And the best thing about all of this is that it doesn't necessarily take a lot of time -- in a few days, you can attempt sections of your favorite dozen virtuosic pieces, get a hold of some rudimentary music theory, listen to hundreds of performances, watch videos of how incredibly good pianists use their body to create the sounds and avoid tension. Survey the waters before plunging into them.

The practice comes afterwards, and is absolutely necessary. However, the speed at which you learn things will be greatly affected by how accurate of a mental conception you have of them. If you somehow intellectually manage to get a very good idea of how you want to position your hands and play in order to create a sound, all that is left is to practice those necessary motions as many times as required in order to be able to execute them. It is why master pianists, once they have to regain their technique after a debilitating incident, can do so very quickly and effectively.

I think, especially with adults, there is very often an unnecessary mental block which results in them aiming too low. This is seldom the case with children until they become self-aware at a certain age. So they do need to compensate by setting their bar higher than they normally would, and not settling for less. Also, the adult brain is more "averse" to learning, and there are imo a number of subtle psychological tricks which it plays which make it harder to actually engage in deliberate practice. However, it is my experience that you can get close by making sure that you have (1) purpose -- as in knowing the end goal of every practice activity you perform, and (2) engagement, by revving yourself up to the highest level of concentration/determination you can muster. Both of these things send the signal to your brain that this activity is IMPORTANT. And that makes it much more likely that it will devote the necessary resources to change itself.

I think what some are saying here is given that there are limitations to how far one can advance based on a late start or genetic disposition do oneself a favor by being a more active participant in your learning rather than being a passive participant relying on yet unproven methodologies for adult learners. Taking tests and doing mindless drills waiting for a miracle to happen is just silly in my opinion. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

I completely agree.

It is not "hard work = success" - please note my writing "on average" which is really important.

If an averagely talented person practices 10000h in a reasonably non-stupid way they will very likely be very good. In fact so good that more than 95% of people will say "whoa, she's good". Probably not good enough to make a living. Why? Because the gifted people also work hard.

So here's a better statement: Hard work beats talent until talent decides to work hard.

And here's an entry point for your research to discover that this is actually true: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...-talent-only-if-talent-doesn-t-work-hard

Of course if "success at something" to you means that you're better than 99% of people who work equally hard... well, that's a different discussion and I certainly wouldn't agree with the statement that "you can do anything if you just work hard enough" because it's just not true and doesn't make much sense anyway for all sorts of reasons.

Now back to my statement and my definition of success - keep in mind, we're mostly amateurs here.

1) Go practice 1h a day and do it methodically, at least some of the time. Get a teacher to guide you or work with a peer for maybe 10-20h a year - just get some feedback occasionally.
2) Do this for 5 years.
3) Sit down at a public piano and start playing popular pieces (no Stockhausen or Ligeti for you!).

Very likely, you will gather a small crowd and they will stay with you for a couple of pieces.

Success!

And that's not even close to 10000h.

Slightly off topic and purely anecdotal but it's along the same lines on a topic where many people say that talent beats everything: mathematics.

I always kind of like mathematics but in school a had really bad grades in high school.

At university I discovered that you actually get better if you study I got a degree in science and later (at age 31) went back to university to get a maths degree.

There were talents around me like you wouldn't believe but I worked really really really hard and got an above average grade. I'll never get a Fields medal but at my current workplace there were occasions when people looked at me like I was a #&$%ing wizard.

If you are using this anecdote as an example of hardwork resulting in success, I have a counter math example for perspective.

I've always been good at math and freshman year in college, I was taking a higher level engineering math class. Being young and optimistic, I picked an 8am lecture thinking that I would be able to go to class. Of course, what ended up happening is me literally not going to a single lecture after the first day orientation.

Luckily for me, I became friends with the one other guy in the dorm that was in the same math course, albeit at a different time slot. In the the beginning of the semester, I just did the homework and had my friend turn it in for me. I got 90+ on the first couple of midterms. Average grade in the class was hovering around 60%. My friend got slightly above average with mid to high 60s. Towards the end of the semester though, I've long since abandoned any illusion of effort and simply copied my friend's homework.

This of course meant I had very little clue what was actually going on in the class. So for the last midterm, I ask my friend to help me cram in everything the weekend before the test. When the results came out he came to me very excited expecting to definitely have done better than me on this midterm. I got a 90%, he got a 67%. I ended the course with an overall average of around 92% before any curves. He had ~65% average and passed with the curve.

Talent doesn't get you anything for free. However, the amount of effort required can be vastly different.

Talent, success, all of these type of things are subjective. So discussions on what is required to reach these arbitrary measures is kind of pointless.

Let's take another example. Many Americans feel that making a six figure salary is a measure of success. I would think the someone like Jeff Bezos would consider dropping to a six figure or even nine figure salary to be a massive failure for himself. However, there are well above average talented people that can work hard their entire lives and never come anywhere close to a nine figure combined salary for their entire family.

I totally relate to that math anecdote, though I was on the receiving end of the stick haha.

I think that trying your best to work smart, challenging yourself, and trying to actively change the way you approach things can help. Taking an active role in thinking about and refining your practice strategies can be immensely helpful imo. The reason I say this is because you see a lot of people who think they just don't learn fast, but you realise that it's just because they aren't applying efficient methods. It's easier said than done however, and for some reason we as people have a very strong tendency to take the easy way out and default to old methods, which will NOT work when it comes to improving the speed of your learning in the first place.

https://home.cambridgebrainsciences.com/en/public/tests

The above link - while certainly not a vetted measure of IQ - illustrates just how wide the gulf is between "talented" and "average" pretty well I think. Over 75,000 people have taken these tests, and you can take them as many times as you want at home to see where you fall on a percentile basis vs. the rest of the population.

On some tests, like Reasoning (Polygons, Odd One Out, Rotations) I am able to score in the 99th percentile. I look at the scores considered average and I do not understand how people could go so slowly on these tests - they are super easy to me.

In others where working memory is tested (token search, paired associates) no matter how many times I try to take it I simply cannot break past the 50th percentile, and sometimes get as low as the 40th percentile. I look at the scores in the 99th percentile range and realize that some people are memorizing sequences TWO TO THREE TIMES longer than I am. This seems absolutely unfathomable to me. I do not understand how that is even possible. This is not a matter of "practice" - I have even tried techniques like chunking, etc. My short term working memory is simply limited.

What does this mean? In some areas my brain is simply worse than average no matter how much I practice or try, and in others my brain is above average. I think this goes for most human beings.

Piano is no different. Certain people's brains are simply better evolved to perform well in the cognitive skills that piano playing requires (hand-eye coordination, spatial awareness, speed of movement, fine motor control, pitch recognition, melodic memory, etc, etc, etc). Given the same amount of time (1 hour or 10,000), people will progress much differently even if they both work to their maximum potential.

And much like my short term working memory deficiencies prevent me from being able to memorize 20 digits in a row, some people will never be able to master piano even if they practice for 10,000 hours.

It's definitely true that there is a genetic component, but I think you're underestimating the gains you can get just by practicing and applying certain techniques. If you see some of the Ted talks by memory champions, you see that there are certainly techniques which they practice. Also, practicing those tasks does make you better at them (not just for a day but over several weeks). However that ability does not usually generalize.

It's definitely true that there is a genetic component, but I think you're underestimating the gains you can get just by practicing and applying certain techniques. If you see some of the Ted talks by memory champions, you see that there are certainly techniques which they practice. Also, practicing those tasks does make you better at them (not just for a day but over several weeks). However that ability does not usually generalize.

We also have to remember that playing the piano is such a complex task that it requires the involvement of so many skills and physical abilities. As such is very difficult to assign a singular trait that would give a person a genetic advantage to playing the piano. There is no "pianist" gene. One may argue that the greatest pianists has genetic advantages in all the right places, but history has shown us many examples where people were able to overcome genetic disadvantages but were able to overcome that specific disadvantage and supplant it with a specific genetic advantage they had in their arsenal. Take Michael Jordan for example. His high school coach told him to give up his dream on becoming a professional basketball player because he was too short. We all know how that played out.

Similarly for those here who argued that they were not the greatest of mathematicians but were able to overcome their supposed deficiencies with other intelligence who is to say they are not great mathematicians in their own right. Was Michael Jordan any less of a basketball player because he was a little under the average basketball player height? It's the results that matter.

Much like any sport or performance art, playing the piano well requires good hand/eye coordination, a sense of rhythm, fast reflexes, good memory, intelligence, emotional sense, and analytic ability. Not all of us have these genetic traits in equal measure and many of us are able to overcome weaknesses in certain areas with strengths in others.

It can be argued that if he have none of these traits that they could never be a good pianist, but how many people out there don't have at least some of these traits?

I do believe that there is a genetic predisposition to end up being a great pianist- that those individuals who are phenomenal talents have all the traits needed to becoming a world class pianist. But most here at PW have no expectations of being great pianists. Many, such as myself, just simply want to enjoy the experience. I happened to speak with accomplished pianist Ian Hobson ( former Leeds Competition and Chopin grand prize winner and judge at the Van Cliburn Competition) over the past couple of weeks. I told him I play the piano to sample the experience. I get a greater appreciation of what the great pianists are capable of doing by struggling through and trying to learn the pieces I play. He seemed to understand.

The music academy I attend has a banner on it's website that read's, "Talent is just an excuse, we all have the ability to play the piano at some degree of proficiency". I agree with this statement. It is not how great a pianist you become that matters because there will always be someone better than you or at the very least your equal, what matters is the journey and that you are enjoying that journey.

I totally agree with your sentiment. I was merely answering the OP's question, which was "is 10,000 hours enough to master the piano? and "if everyone practices for 10,000 hours, will you be an excellent pianist?"

Ignoring the obvious elephant in the room (which is that "mastering" the piano is an extremely nebulous and undefined term), the answer is some people can master it in less than 10,000 hours, some people can achieve mastery in more than 10,000 hours, and others are simply not able to achieve mastery.

Work ethic matters - a person of average talent who works hard and practices more than someone who is talented and lazy may wind up a better pianist.

Talent matters - someone who is extremely talented can practice less than an average person to achieve the same level.

Work ethic and talent combined, on the other hand, opens up entirely new possibilities.

I see a lot of people mentioning this, but why would playing the piano require fast reflexes? Doesn't it consist of pre-planned movements which presumably have nothing to do with reflexes?

By "fast reflexes" people usually mean fast reaction time or great hand-eye coordination. I could imagine that this relates to superior motor control in general.

Yes, that makes sense, but from my experience playing the piano, by and large, requires pre-planned and learned hand motions. The speed with which it is executed doesn't depend on reflexes because it's already in memory, so it's a matter of getting the sequence of actions right.

I've also found that hand-eye coordination isn't exactly needed, it's mostly proprioception.

We rely on proprioception and kinesthetic sense for hand eye coordination but we do rely on our reflexes for most motions we make volitional or not especially explosive ones or quicker reactions such as the finger motions we make when we play the piano. Our brain, as advanced as it is, is simply not fast enough to control every movement we that at times it must rely on lower level control centers at the spinal cord level to create efficient movements.

How this relates to playing the piano can be somewhat complicated to explain but I could try.

So what is a reflex? Basically a stimulus such as a sudden stretch on a tendon causes a signal to back to the spinal cord, hit an interneuron and then send a signal back to the source causing the muscle to fire. Think of the knee jerk reflex. How this works is the doctor hammers your patellar tendon causing a quick stretch to the tendon. This stimuli travels back to your spinal cord and routes its way right back (never reaching the brain) and causes your quadricep muscle to fire you make that kicking motion.

This type of response happens all the time in our body anytime we have a sudden stretch to any tendon in our our body. The former Soviet Union scientists were brilliant in using this reflex arc when training their sports athletes to achieve greater results than their competitors. Do you remember watching these athletes jumping off of walls and then immediately jumping off the ground when they landed? This is plyometric training that basically utilizes the reflex arc to facilitate improved muscle recruitment and performance. (Plyometrics).

Think of the broad jump event. An athlete crouches suddenly to the ground causing a "quick stretch" of his gluteal muscle tendons, his quadricep tendon, and his calf tendons as those muscle go into stretch and then the athlete explodes into his jump. This is very similar to the moment a doctor hits your patellar tendon causing a "quick stretch" stimulus that cause the reflex arc to engage and all those muscles whose tendons were stretched (quadriceps, gluteals, calves) suddenly go into contraction causing an even greater broad jump forward. If he just jumped without engaging that quick stretch he/she won't achieve the same result.



It may be hard to believe but these same motions happen when we play the piano in the arms, wrists, and fingers especially when we are playing fast. Think of when your arm has to jump from one end of he piano keyboard to the other to quickly play a note or octave and then return to starting position. Some of the passages for example in the D major section of Busoni's Chaconne has me doing this. I have to back and forth quickly playing octaves from the lowest region of the keyboard and back to the middle in the blink of an eye. In such an example if we just took the arm and let's say I was moving from left to right and back to the left again. In this case as my arm moves from left to right my triceps fire rapidly and as my arm fully extends this causes a quick stretch of the bicep tendon which allows me to then rapidly contract the bicep tendon so that I may rapidly return to left side of the keyboard.

This only works if I were relaxed BTW. Did you ever have your doctor tell you to relax because they couldn't get a knee jerk reflex from you? Did you ever wonder why people tell you to relax when you play the piano? Well it is for these physiological reasons. One, if you're not relaxed you have opposing muscle groups fighting against each other (agonist/antagonist) rather than having just one muscle group fire while the other is relaxed. If you have both muscles firing because you are tense you get muscular co-contraction and your movements are somewhat blocked and you can't play fast. Secondly, if you are tight you can't facilitate your movements using the reflex arc as described above and you can't play even faster.

You use your reflexes at the finger and wrist level all the time especially when you are playing fast. Again, your brain simply is not fast enough to control each individual muscle firing event if it did not rely on reflexes at the spinal cord level. As each individual finger depresses each key there are quick stretches occurring all the time allowing improved the performance. Think of playing repeated quick staccato notes. Those are basically miniature broad jumps that allow faster motions that possible otherwise. You are basically bouncing off the keys causing quick stretches at the finger and wrist levels that allow to return quickly to the next note. Every time you see even a slight slight bounce of the wrist or finger there is a quick stretch occurring there.



It's not just good reflexes or should I say efficient reflex arcs that may affect a pianist's performance but also the ratio of fast twitch muscles to slow twitch muscles that may come to play. We all have those to varying ratios as well.

That's about as good as I think I can explain it. Hope it makes sense.

Speaking of how Michael Jordan overcame his "shortness" genetic disadvantage- It was beautifully timed quick stretch reflexes that helped put the AIR in Air Jordan! Watch for those springy quick stretches before each jump.

Just for the record, Jordan was 6'6. There is big difference between someone that is 6'6 instead of 6'9 in the NBA vs someone who is 5'7 excelling. Jordan really didn't have a genetic height limitation that would prevent him from being a great basketball player. Someone who is 5'7 does.