Response to the "10,000 hour rule" by the original researcher

[SincereCorgi]

Some people here might find this interesting, as the idea of the '10,000 hour rule' comes up relatively often on the Cafe.

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/10/malc...versimplified/

[JeffD]

I have read two or three Malcolm Gladwell books, and at the time of reading I am all yea yea yea, but upon more sober reflection afterwards many questions come to my mind. I read "Outliers" and have even quoted the rule myself, but I always thought something like what was shown in this article was more likely the case.

Especially in light of some of the things Chris Thile has said about practice. About figuring out how you want to sound, and working towards that. And then there is measuring your progress towards that and adjusting your practice as necessary; as opposed to practice drills to exhaustion that make you mostly better at practice drills. And exhausted.

And a deep deep knowledge that I would have had to start about 10 or 15 years before I was born to get anywhere close to the genetically endowed super musicians we all love.

Luckily everyone agrees that if you play a lot you will get better. So just play a lot. Face it, that is what you want to do anyway. (Oh, and your instrument might just open up too. )

[paul dirac]

At times, I'm as naturally, predictably, and self-assuredly titillated with the contrary as I was with the original premise (not saying that's what anyone is doing here). But thanks for this- it points to that old touchstone: "World tends to be more complicated than one thinks"

[BJ O'Day]

I found this article interesting but missing some basic, (in my opinion), insights. I have not read Gladwell's books so I don't know if he mentions this.

A tradesman typically works a 5 year apprenticeship. That's 10,000 hours of learning and practicing a craft. I do not feel this is really different than learning an instrument. Challenging work for a plumber, carpenter or mason will pay off with more skills learned or gained. More challenging musical practice will reward the student with better skills and abilities.

I served two apprenticeships in lithography. The first took 5 years. I was producing good work after the first year, but there was still a lot I learned over the next 4 years. The second apprenticeship was in a related field and was only 2 years long. I think this is similar to a musician picking up a new instrument. They are not starting from scratch so they can "master", (maybe become competent is a better phrase), in less time.

My last comment on the article is a pet peeve. Who cares about someone who is skilled in memorizing a string of digits? I don't see any practical application for this skill. I can record a string of digits with a pencil and paper and recite it whenever, (if ever), there is a need. Rant over.

BJ

[Roger Moss]

I can think of some strings of numbers I don't want anyone else to memorize. Social Security number, credit card number, bank account number, etc.

[Jim]

My last comment on the article is a pet peeve. Who cares about someone who is skilled in memorizing a string of digits? I don't see any practical application for this skill. I can record a string of digits with a pencil and paper and recite it whenever, (if ever), there is a need. Rant over.

Is memorizing a string of digits very different than memorizing a string of notes that make up a scale or tune? Knowing the tune makes remembering the notes easier, but that is a memory function too.

[Petrus]

Several different points seem to be sort of mixed up together here.

One, I never took the "10,000 hour rule" literally. I don't know if Gladwell meant it exactly or just as an approximation. I think it varies depending on the complexity of the topic of study. 10,000 hours is a full time job (40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year) for five years. Not impossible, but it's a lot for what is a pastime for most of us. Now, if you stretch it over 20 years, it's only about 10 hours a week, which seems more reasonable.

A serious musician like Thile, for instance, might start at age five and if he practices just two hours a day (leaving time for school, etc.), 300 days a year (leaving time for a two-month vacation from the dang thing every year) by the time he's 25 he'll have about 12,000 hours under his belt. He's probably got a lot more than that, in actuality. So the figure itself is not crazy, but it is real work.

Two, in contrast to the old saw "practice makes perfect" is the slightly more subtle point that "practice makes habit." If you practice wrong habits for 10,000 hours, you'll really crystallize some very bad playing. So it's not just amount of time spent in a study, it's correct study and practice that matter. This is where having a good teacher comes in. But even putting that aside, it's quality as well as quantity of practice.

Third, even correct practice won't lead to growth unless you're continually expanding your practice. There's a difference between having ten years of experience versus having one year of experience repeated ten times. If you only practice scales and nothing else for ten thousand hours (to take a ridiculous example), you may be the world's best scale player, but you'll be at a loss for playing anything else.

This is a problem many neophytes fall into and I'm guilty of it. I can play about 25 little pieces very well on the mandolin, but I've gotten lazy and haven't learned a new tune in many months, so I find myself getting bored playing the same stuff all the time.

[Petrus]

Is memorizing a string of digits very different than memorizing a string of notes that make up a scale or tune? Knowing the tune makes remembering the notes easier, but that is a memory function too.

They're probably very similar but I suspect they utilize different parts of the brain (aural memory vs. number memory.) Now, if you memorize a tune by reading the notes or the tab on a page, then it probably uses the same visual portion of the brain, but it still has to be translated into the finger musculature.

I've had pi memorized to about thirty decimal places since I was a kid. It's kind of a neat trick, but useless for anything other than showing off. And it's nowhere near the actual record, either (which is way up in the thousands, iirc.) Another neat point: I can rattle it off very quickly, but I have to start at the beginning. If I try to start anywhere else in the string, I get lost and stumble. I also have to do it in groups of three (314 159 265 358 etc.), otherwise I get lost again. This is probably because that's how I originally memorized them. (I can also remember my house's phone number from when I was a child forty years ago, but not any other ones since then except for my current number. This is also pretty common.)

I've noticed the same memorization phenomena when playing tunes on the mandolin. I learn a tune in discrete segments or clumps. If I stumble somewhere, I usually have to start at the beginning.

[Jim]

I've noticed the same memorization phenomena when playing tunes on the mandolin. I learn a tune in discrete segments or clumps. If I stumble somewhere, I usually have to start at the beginning.

Me too, at least until I know it quite well.

[TEvans]

I started playing music on bass, and my first teacher, who is a very good player, told me, "Practice doesn't make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect."

I think that 30 minutes of "perfect practice"...intentionally doing things the right way: Playing it slow, getting your tone, then speeding up, using a metronome, learning things that you can't play and practicing them till you can

...Is far more effective than however many hours of just fiddling around and playing things you already are able to. And not focusing.

So I guess it's possibly to put in 10,000 hours of not so perfect practice and still be just an alright player. Hah

[Ivan Kelsall]

Doesn't it really depend on a persons 'individual' talent & ability to learn ?. Some folks can have a talent,but are slow to develop. Others can learn quickly,but can be slow to put what they've learned into practice. Others are quick to do both,& others will never make it. IMHO,you can't generalise. Personally,being self taught,as i was on banjo & guitar,i knew what i needed to do on mandolin - practice,practice practice ....... !. In the 10 years i've been playing,i've put over 12,000 hours into doing just that,mainly working on learning tunes & songs & developing as i went along. My main goal was to learn to be a good 'group' player (even though i play by myself). I wanted to be able to pick up on a tune pretty quickly & to have the ability to put together a break 'on the fly'. My 'ear training' in playing banjo sorted out the first bit,but it's been a real learning curve in learning how to do the second bit,but so incredibly enjoyable.
As i said,we can't generalise. All we can do is to practice as much as possible,to have a 'goal' in mind & a real sense of our own expectations. None of us will turn into Chris Thile clones overnight - although a lucky few might come pretty close,
Ivan

[mrmando]

My last comment on the article is a pet peeve. Who cares about someone who is skilled in memorizing a string of digits? I don't see any practical application for this skill.

What do you mean? If you memorize a string of digits, you can do this:
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk...76822.display/

[Bertram Henze]

Who cares about someone who is skilled in memorizing a string of digits? I don't see any practical application for this skill. I can record a string of digits with a pencil and paper and recite it whenever, (if ever), there is a need.

When, in a job like mine involving logging in to several customer systems and crawling through VPN tunnels, you have to type some 40 different passwords per day (and half of them changing on a regular basis), you wish they were easier to remember. And writing them on pieces of paper is exactly what you are not supposed to do.

[Tobin]

I'm glad they have finally clarified how misleading the 10,000 hour rule is. It is a constant source of frustration and despair for some people.

It need be no more complicated than this: the more you practice, the better you get. This isn't a race where you reach a finish line. It's not a game where you get to dunk the ball, or run into the end zone, or slide across home plate, or kick a ball into the net at the end. We humans tend to want to think in terms of concrete, measurable goals, but music really isn't that way. Which isn't to say that we can't have mileposts or short-term goals along the way (like learning certain tunes or playing at certain speeds). But there isn't any measurable standard to say when you're a "good" mandolin player versus an "excellent" or "outstanding" player. It's just a cumulative progression, like a savings account. The more you put in over time, the more you will have by the time you die. Proficiency at an instrument is the same, but it's not measured in dollars and cents.

[usqebach]

While I understand the point surrounding the refutation of Gladwell's claim, I still think the "10,000" rule has its usefulness. It's a cold wake up call to dilettantes such as myself who think they ought to be able to master an instrument in 10 hours (OK, maybe 12) of practice!

I started tracking my hours of practice, both on fiddle and mandolin. I could initially cover over 50 hours/month on fiddle, and 20 or so on mandolin. After the mad rush of determination faded, other factors of life (work, wife, kid, body) told me they weren't nearly as pleased with my obsessive dedication as Gladwell would have been, so I had to back off. Now, I'm darned lucky to get in 1 hour on the fiddle and maybe half of that on mandolin per day.

This understanding has also "freed me up" from the burden of feeling like I have to become an accomplished musician, because now I understand the realities of what it would actually take, and have made the conscious decision not to make the sacrifices.

Maybe 10,000 hours isn't enough to guarantee mastery, but it's a darn sight more than myself (and most of us) are prepared to commit. And thus, I am happier seeing myself as an enthusiastic hobbyist rather than a (50 year old) " master in progress."

[Emmett Marshall]

Doesn't it really depend on a persons 'individual' talent & ability to learn ?. Some folks can have a talent,but are slow to develop. Others can learn quickly,but can be slow to put what they've learned into practice. Others are quick to do both,& others will never make it. IMHO,you can't generalise.

I agree with you Ivan. I've haven't examined the 10,000 hour theory in detail, but I do get the "gist" of it. It reminds me of another theory that I've also heard, that "It takes 21 days to develop a new habit." I don't "like" either of these theories because it can make a person think, "It's gonna take me 20 years to be good at this?" This kind of thinking can paralyze an otherwise blossoming artist. We've all heard people who, with very little mastery of their instrument, can nevertheless produce music that seems to carry us away to another universe. Fact of the matter is that this is why I chose the mandolin in the first place! In my mind, instrument mastery (in the 'established', technical sense) will always be secondary to creativity - not forsaking mastery at all, but it can catch up with me in it's own time.

PS: Chris Thile (and others) sounded, and played great - way, way before reaching adulthood. He just keeps getting better.....and so does everyone else with practice. Do we ever "arrive"?

[Emmett Marshall]

duplicate post, sorry

[Jeff Mando]

Comparing oneself to Thile is usually asking for disappointment. Same with Van Halen on guitar. These guys love to practice! Most of us don't, but we know it is how songs are learned and how we get better.

While I'm no Thile, I have been playing for 50+ years, since I was a kid. I didn't like practicing, and only did it in spurts, most successfully when I was learning songs with friends or playing in various bands. That is when I saw real growth and development.

There was one time about 30 years ago, I moved to a different city, didn't know anybody, and had enough savings that I was able to not have a job for an entire year, concentrating only on my music. Some days I actually practiced 15 hours a day and in that year I became 10 times the musician I was before, and I had been playing 20 years at that point. SO IT DOES WORK, if you have the time and focus. OTOH, these days I have the time, but can't seem to focus for very long..........

[Beanzy]

There are dangers associated with this need to quantify the effort and time required to attain a level to which you may aspire. One is ignoring the fact that you'll be a pretty good player long before any mythical milestone is reached. Another danger is falling into the "eternal student" trap, where you never allow yourself to just go for it because you 'aren't at that level yet'. Then there is ignoring the time and effort spent practicing away from the tools. Time studying, learning structure and form, and especially time listening are all part of your musical apprenticeship too. Don't write them off when you consider the time and effort you are putting into becoming a better musician.

[Mark Gunter]

I'm glad they have finally clarified how misleading the 10,000 hour rule is. It is a constant source of frustration and despair for some people.

It need be no more complicated than this: the more you practice, the better you get. This isn't a race where you reach a finish line. It's not a game where you get to dunk the ball, or run into the end zone, or slide across home plate, or kick a ball into the net at the end. We humans tend to want to think in terms of concrete, measurable goals, but music really isn't that way. Which isn't to say that we can't have mileposts or short-term goals along the way (like learning certain tunes or playing at certain speeds). But there isn't any measurable standard to say when you're a "good" mandolin player versus an "excellent" or "outstanding" player. It's just a cumulative progression, like a savings account. The more you put in over time, the more you will have by the time you die. Proficiency at an instrument is the same, but it's not measured in dollars and cents.

Hear, hear! Between this and what Ivan wrote, nothing else to add here.

[farmerjones]

I think the dude basically threw out a slightly educated guess number to scare off the dabblers.
I was darn lucky. I found myself in a situation where I was allowed to build up a bunch of hours.

At first I thought it would be interesting to know as folks answer this thread, if they have invested at least 10k hours to an instrument. On the other hand, my opinion has not changed prior to dedicating a ton of hours, and hasn't changed after, so it stand to reason other's would be similar.
I really think it depends on the person, and their environment. There I go tainting my opinion with my own experience.

[Ivan Kelsall]

Going back around 45 years,i worked with a guy who was possibly the finest all round musician i've ever met. Both his grandparents & parents had been professional Classical musicians & an Uncle of his was an orchestral director. I'd been playing banjo for 7 years & i could play well,but still struggled on a few tunes. I remember airing my frustration to him one lunch time,& he told me that it was a selfish attitude to expect to be able to play as well in 7 years, as well as the musicians i was listening to,who'd taken far longer to reach their high standard. That's a point i'll never forget. That's why i said in my last post,that we need to have a reasonable understanding of our personal expectations. In all honesty,possibly due to my background in playing banjo & having developed a 'quick ear', & due to the amount of practice i've put in,i've made more progress in 10 years than i'd ever have thought.
Right now,the best thing that could happen to me,is to get playing with a band. That is the only way that you can figure out just how competent you are at putting into practice what you've learned,& to find out 'what fits & where'. Unfortunately,that's not going to happen,except maybe at any of the UK Bluegrass festivals i care to attend. So,i'll carry on plugging away & hopefully learning,
Ivan

[Petrus]

On the other hand ...

There's the well-known phenomenon among creative types where they produce a bunch of good stuff in their early years, then seem to level out or even decline and start repeating themselves or just seeming to lose inspiration. You seem to hear of this more commonly with artists and writers (composers too I guess.) Stephen King can still crank out those 800-page potboilers, but I don't think he's come out with anything like The Shining or Carrie (a rather short novel actually) in years (imo.)

There are creative types who seem to peak too early. I mean, where could David Foster Wallace have gone, creatively, after Infinite Jest? (I read his unfinished novel about the IRS audit processing facility, but it wasn't quite up to the level of IJ.) It's impossible to say if creative stultification contributed to his suicide or not. And this isn't the sort of problem that can be solved by just typing for practice six hours a day for a year.

BTW, there's a thought-provoking article somewhat related to these issues on another subforum:

http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/sh...voking-Article

[Jeff Mando]

I think geniuses are a separate category and maybe the "rules" don't apply, like ya say. Had he lived, where could Hendrix have gone with his music? (besides making another 45 years worth of great rock'n'roll? ] Weird, experimental jazz? Or would he have become boring? Keep in mind, I'm from that generation that waited outside of Peaches records all night to be first in line to buy the new Rollings Stones LP.....................so, I would hate to think that I would not look forward to hearing material by an artist I admire or become complacent and say, "I'll pick up his new CD later.............."

I think the practice/hour thing is for the rest of us mere mortals. Practice is like exercise. Not fun, but if you do it you will see results.

[JeffD]

I don't think of it in terms of "investing time" in the instrument. Perhaps it is that way for some, perhaps most. But its as if you are "putting in" and awaiting the "taking out" at a different time.

I dearly love doing anything on the mandolin. Practicing included. It is still and always amazing to me that such great gobs of sound come out of such thin light pieces of wood and wire. I am still and always will be delighted watching the fingers of my left hand do all that stuff, almost like on their own. And if I had that camera set up to watch the pick against the strings I would go nuts.

I enjoy it in a different way than I enjoy, say, jamming, but I have never not looked forward to getting some time behind the instrument. Even a frustrating practice where I seem to have slid back a bit, is better than, say housework. After a particularly frustrating practice, I have never said, "darn, I could have been repairing the shingles on the roof, or mowing lawn."

So for me, the "investment" really is a "payoff". I am taking out joy every time. It is pure magic that the activity of taking out also assures that there is more to take out later.