Martin
Administrator
Posts: 11,866
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"http://mandocello.org/lytebox/images/adirondack.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0a530b
Mini-Profile Text Color: 4f3517
|
Post by Martin on Apr 8, 2013 10:14:49 GMT
Reading an magazine article recently which leaned heavily on research discussed in Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers, I was reminded of various success stories in different fields which mostly had the same thing in common - it was estimated that those successful people had each put in roughly 10,000 hours worth of practice.
For example, Bill Gates practising programming on a computer for years or more notably, The Beatles playing 12 hours a day in Germany for years, both allowed them to accumulate the 'magical' 10,000 hours practice.
So, do you think this 10,000 hour figure is realistic in terms of becoming an expert? Is it more or less relevant based on natural ability or talent? How much do physical limitations play their part?
Importantly, have you managed to log 10,000 hours playing guitar yet, and if so do you feel you are now 'expert'?
If you haven't, is it something you are aiming to do?
To put it in perspective, for someone coming to the guitar fresh, it would take them practising for three hours a day, seven days a week for ten years to attain this level of experience.
|
|
ocarolan
Global Moderator
CURMUDGEONLY OLD GIT (leader - to join, just ask!)
Posts: 33,696
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"c0cfe1"}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 182a3f
Mini-Profile Text Color: 733a1c
|
Post by ocarolan on Apr 8, 2013 10:51:00 GMT
Makes me weary just thinking about it Martin!
I'm sure it's true that there's no substitute for hard work, but it's a difficult thing to quantify. The numbers only tell part of the story - I'm sure the quality of the time spent is also hugely relevant. I can quite happily waste several hours just bumbling around on a guitar, playing things I know how to play; maybe having an occasional stab at improving something I'm working on but soon giving up and reverting to what really amounts to messing about, albeit pleasurable messing about. Dedicated serious and consistent practice sessions over a number of years will only come about when the players level of dedication, determination and driven-ness are very high indeed.
I always find it strange when people say of a player - "oh but they must have a huge amount of natural talent, I could never play like that." Well, possibly they couldn't, but if they put in the work that the great player has done, they'd play a good deal better I'm sure.
There are so many different requirements a truly excellent player must have - musical, physical, mental, psychological etc. Each of these will vary from person to person (presumably in a "normal distribution" across a large sample)giving every potential student player a different starting point, and hence a different learning journey, and a different amount of time before they achieve a certain standard. Though even determining a meaningful measurable standard is a bit of a problem - how can "musicality" be measured for instance?
10,000 hours is a very big elephant to eat. Best done one very small mouthful at a time, savouring and enjoying each mouthful. Doesn't really matter then how much I eventually manage to eat. Unless, of course, I genuinely want to be a professional elephant eater. Which I never have.
Fate and choice.
That's more than enough drivelling from me. Time to get back to messing around some serious practice on my guitar!
Good topic Martin! Keith
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2013 11:04:58 GMT
I really don't think practice is a quantitative thing: it's about quality and your state of mind at a given moment. I can doggedly worry away at something over a period of weeks, then come to a purple patch where even things I haven't tried before seem to fall into place as if by magic.
Which is not to say that some graft doesn't help. For me some of the best technical practice comes from playing scales and arpeggios while watching the telly, so that I get used to teasing them out almost without thinking. Also, I think intense listening to music and reading up on the technicalities is a part of practice.
10,000 hours? Maybe, but after starting in my teens onwards I stopped playing stringed instruments completely between 1984 and 1999. When I finally bought a guitar again I couldn't play at all, so I guess I threw those years away. As for feeling that I'm expert, well, I'm pathologically self-critical, so I never will.
"You're always learning [something about] music. I learned something new yesterday, and I hope to learn something tomorrow." Mickey Baker.
|
|
|
Post by dennis on Apr 8, 2013 11:21:15 GMT
If I was a sportsman I would indeed have to put in an enormous amount of time training on a regular basis, i.e. everyday. If I were learning something new, such as a foreign language, I would also need to allocate a lot of time for study. For me music has never been a thing for that kind of practise. I've always played purely for enjoyment. I've only practised various technique purely to enhance my playing, not for any other goal but purely for the enjoyment. Over the years I've easily gone way past 10,000 hours, but it has been simply a leisure pursuit. Dennis
|
|
leoroberts
C.O.G.
Posts: 24,342
My main instrument is: probably needing new strings
|
Post by leoroberts on Apr 8, 2013 13:13:37 GMT
I reckon I've practiced breathing for 10,000 hours or more and think I've got the general hang of it now...
|
|
|
Post by Mike Floorstand on Apr 8, 2013 20:04:42 GMT
oh cr*p, no one ever said I was supposed to practice!!!
|
|
brianr2
C.O.G.
Posts: 3,041
My main instrument is: Brook Lyn guitar
|
Post by brianr2 on Apr 8, 2013 20:14:46 GMT
Beware the illusory mystique of round numbers and simple point estimates from distributions with high variation.
Doing the basic sums, 10,000 hours equates to 2 hours every day for 14 years, or 1 hour for nearly 30 years. So start young!
Expertise is also a relative term, open to a wide range of interpretations. From where I sit at the bottom of the fingerstyle heap - with at least another 10 years before reaching the magic 10K - the great majority of people are more expert than me. True virtuousity should, however, be evident to all, and is generally the product of both extreme talent and extreme hard work. For those of us without the gift of real talent,, 10,000 hours will not be enough.
|
|
Martin
Administrator
Posts: 11,866
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"http://mandocello.org/lytebox/images/adirondack.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0a530b
Mini-Profile Text Color: 4f3517
|
Post by Martin on Apr 9, 2013 8:20:02 GMT
I don't particularly believe that putting in the 10,000 hours practice in itself would make you an 'expert' at playing guitar for example (assuming such a thing is easily quantifiable). I'm sure it would make you more than competent, but the points raised here are certainly valid:
- the quality of the practice is important - the structure of the practice is important - the drive to practice efffectively is essential - the ability to learn quickly helps - the talent to be able to assimilate knowledge and translate it to mental and physical co-ordination plays a big part
I think the only constant in much of the analogous evidence for this 10,000 hour 'rule' is that for a lot of highly successful people, considered 'experts' in their field, they seem to have this background of long-term hard work behind them. Of course, the mainly modern phenomenon of the overnight success, brought to you by television and Mr Cowell for instance, disregards this requirement, but maybe that is why much of it feels so superficial and shallow...
|
|
|
Post by sigmadel on Apr 10, 2013 0:55:41 GMT
I don't particularly believe that putting in the 10,000 hours practice in itself would make you an 'expert' at playing guitar for example (assuming such a thing is easily quantifiable). I'm sure it would make you more than competent, but the points raised here are certainly valid: - the quality of the practice is important - the structure of the practice is important - the drive to practice efffectively is essential - the ability to learn quickly helps - the talent to be able to assimilate knowledge and translate it to mental and physical co-ordination plays a big part I think the only constant in much of the analogous evidence for this 10,000 hour 'rule' is that for a lot of highly successful people, considered 'experts' in their field, they seem to have this background of long-term hard work behind them. Of course, the mainly modern phenomenon of the overnight success, brought to you by television and Mr Cowell for instance, disregards this requirement, but maybe that is why much of it feels so superficial and shallow... Id say this would be about right Martin . What you actually do during the practice would be important , but also if its just strumming together half a dozen or so chords to accompany you in your singing /songwriting then probably less . I also believe their is a lot to be said about playing live to people, that develops your skills much quicker ie in a local folk club or open mic evening . If however you aim to master finger style in the comfort of your bedroom or lounge and practice for said 10,000 hours you technically should master it but again , play with someone or a band and its another ball game getting used to timing and not being distracted by what the rest are doing . I once years ago played with a mate for a local youth church band , we were thrown in at the deep end as the band in question had been let down last minuet and we only had one practice session to nail the songs we were to perform . at said practice another guitarist was to join us on electric , my then girlfriends dad on bass and another chap on drums . On the night half way through the set which was going ok, but pretty simple stuff the other guy cranks up his amp and goes all Steve Vai on us lets just say he was way short of 10,000 hours .
|
|