10,000 Hours

Submitted by Jim Hirsch on Wed, 09/19/2007 - 10:03am.

I have just finished reading Daniel J. Levitin’s interesting book, This Is Your Brain on Music. There are chapters on the physiology of how our brains work (or in my case, don’t), what sections of our brains are involved when we listen to, or perform music, and a bit about the evolutionary evidence of whether music was a survival trait or not.

The section that caught my interest was about whether musical talent is genetically-based or developed. It’s the old nature versus nurture discussion. Levitin cites research that suggests that to do anything – music, sports, writing, etc. – at an advanced level one needs to invest 10,000 hours of practice.

I have put in at least 20,000 hours on the practice tee and the golf course over the last 15 years, and this summer’s results have proven that Tiger Woods has absolutely nothing to worry about from me (unless he’s on the fairway next to me and I am teeing off). On the other hand, as a young guitarist, I made significant strides as a musician with far less than the suggested number of practice hours logged.

As a music teacher for many years, it was always my opinion that musical ability was innate to certain people. I could usually tell after 5-10 minutes if someone was going to be a good player or not. True, lots of practice could make anyone better than they were. But no amount of practice could make certain people play at my level or above.

We have a good number of musicians who visit this site. What are your thoughts about musical ability?

Posted in

Are you the music equivalent of Tiger Woods? There's a difference between being at an "advanced level" and being the best in the world. Levitin's 10,000-hour estimate is difficult to evaluate if you don't know what "advanced level" means. To be world-class definitely requires both inspiration and perspiration.

If you practice an hour a day it will take you about 30 years to reach 10,000 hours. Or you could do 3 hours a day for 10 years. Or 10 hours a day for three years. That's a lot of practice, much more than most musicians ever achieve (although arguably music teaching, conducting, and rehearsing, and in some cases listening, all count as practice also), certainly more than almost all college graduates. Does "advanced level" mean "play in a top-tier symphony orchestra"? Or do music teachers who give private lessons and play professionally in local gigs count as "advanced level"?

And does being a top-40 performer count as advanced? Your guitar experience probably isn't that unusual.

Hi Wahoofive,

Thanks for your comments. I agree with your statement about inspiration and perspiration - both needed to be among the greats. Do I detect a bit of snobbery here with the comments about "local gigs", "top 40 performer" and guitar players? Either way, it comes down to your own definition of what advanced level means. To me, it signifies doing something better (yes, subjective, especially when it comes to music) than 99% of the rest of the population. I have no problem including a great pop singer in the discussion.

Jim Hirsch

How do we evaluate "advanced level" musicians?

To me, an advanced level musician is anyone who can create something meaningful for another person in a musical setting.

The level of a musician doesn't need to be classificed in a scientific way- who cares if an advanced musician is a professional gig-er or "the best in the world."

Music isn't a sport.

Hi Guest,

Thanks for your comment. I agree with your premise. It really is about touching people through music, and while great technique helps, it isn't the end of the world.

Jim Hirsch

10,000 hours makes sense for a violinist whose been playing since age three but for horn players (such as Miss Mussel), that number is prohibitive due to the much later start most brass players get. Of course, for anyone who has suffered through a dodgy high school or university horn section, the difference is obvious, but most times it all evens out in the end. Somehow the brassies manage to catch up in time for professional auditions. Another issue is the quality of the practising. Many a time Miss Mussel has sat in her cubicle for two or three hours and noticed no discernible improvement while on other occasions, a quick fifteen minute session produced miraculous results. You may be interesting in reading this somewhat tenuously related post.

Hi Miss Mussel,

Thanks for your comment. I agree that the brass players do seem to catch up. I think the 10,000 hours is the baseline needed to become great, at least that's how I read the section. Maybe we need to get everyone started early as possible. Why don't the brassies start earlier??

Jim

Because the world doesn't make 1/4 size french horns.

Starting brass instruments when you are too young can be damaging to development. Its easier to start fresh than try to undo bad habits.

Chicago Classical Music

An online community for classical music enthusiasts

10,000 Hours

Comment viewing options

Comment viewing options

Participating Organizations