Is The 10,000 Hour Rule Myth or Reality?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 тра 2024
- In his 2008 book Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell argues that success is tightly married to opportunity and time on task. He states that it takes approximately 10,000 hours to master something. In this episode I examine whether there is any truth to this.
THE BEATO EAR TRAINING PROGRAM: beatoeartraining.com/
BUY THE BEATO BOOK HERE → bit.ly/2uTQFlo
*Advanced Harmonic Concepts for Composition and Improvisation Video Course* → bit.ly/2nl5Qky
GET THE BEATO UA-cam TRANSCRIPTIONS VOL.1 HERE →
bit.ly/2jfkyaB
SUBSCRIBE HERE → bit.ly/2eEs9gX
--------------------------------------
My Links to Follow:
UA-cam - / rickbeato
Artist Facebook - / rickbeatopro. .
Personal Facebook - / rick.beato.1
Instagram - / rickbeato1
Follow On Twitter - @rickbeato
www.nuryl.com
First Rule: Have passion for what you do. Second Rule: Practice, Practice, Practice. Third Rule: Pray it all works out.
Third rule doesn't work.
@@anmol3Don’t say that
I would argue that being successful does not always equate to mastery. Or vice versa.
44 years putting it in ,wheres my fame
I agree, I would consider myself a successful musician if I can sustain a comfortable living off of it. Nothing complex either, afford an apartment, afford a working vehicle, and having a savings account.
Who's that current musician who taught himself to play guitar by watching UA-cam and is now successful?
@@mloftin6472 shawn mendes
It's also about having great contacts.
Doesnt matter if I dont master guitar, I'll still have had fun playing for those 10,000 hours
You'll do well Sam...music should be fun.
You should definitely still be a great guitarist if you practice it right
Absolutley right mate
That's all that matters friend
thats the spirit
The whole point of the 10,000-hour argument is that to master something (not necessarily be famous) you need continuous practice while seeking out advice from experts and new experiences and reflecting on your work so you can adjust. One cannot blindly work at something incorrectly and become great at it. One must care and allow that care to guide you.
The problem with the 10k hr rule is that it's severely misunderstood and taken out of context.
In Outliers, Gladwell mentions the rule as part of an exploration of "what makes the greats great". He doesn't state it as an absolute or isolated fact.
Also, the rule actually says it takes 10k hrs of DELIBERATE PRACTICE to master A SKILL.
People ignore the deliberate practice part and think it just means "if I play the guitar for 10k hrs, I'll be a master!" and that's far from true.
I'd also say it's hard to define what "a skill" means. I, for one, think songwriting is not just a skill. It is a very complex activity that requires a series of skills.
Also, I'm not sure I agree that having a number one song means you've mastered songwriting. I'm not trying to diminish the merit of your achievement, which I admire and respect (hey, who am I to question you?), but we must consider there are some very crappy songs that have sold hundreds of thousands of copies and reached #1, and I wouldn't say they're all masterpieces, as much as they have commercial success.
Anyways, the rule is debatable and almost impossible to conclusively confirm or deny, but it makes much more sense when it's well explained, well understood and not taken out of context.
Really, liked your comment!
Subscribed!
Yeah, there are some amazing musical acts who've never had a song reach #1 on the Billboard chart (like Creedence Clearwater Revival and Bruce Springsteen) yet it's stiil obvious they mastered their craft. Whether a song was a hit at the time of its release matters a lot less than whether that song has stood the test of time.
Yes, but that distinction won't generate click bait worthy content.
"deliberate practice" is still quite vague. This rule of his has too many holes in it to be taken seriously. The closest thing you could say when concerning duration to reach mastery is. "It depends"
@@forfreedom.3570 why? He only has like 48 subscribers
What counts it's what you do within each hour. You can mindlessly practice excercises for 3 hours, and just half an hour being fully dedicated, concious about what you're doing; and it will be worlds of difference.
And luck within this also, maybe you meet some teacher that changes your perspective on things, or guides you in some way that will take you less time for some things.
Past experiences also help a lot. Before studying music, I've was a software programmer, and I went 2 years to Math college. The logical thinking I've develop over the years helped me understand and analyze sheet music, and a lot of theory concepts, patterns. And I've noticed with my mates at music school, some things I find easy to understand and conceptualize, find "the math", the logic, behind it. And I see my friends struggle, like they don't see some of the patterns, or really think about them at all.
I agree, I think a great teacher can make a HUGE difference. I wasted a lot of time trying to learn on my own getting bits and pieces from more advanced players and trying to cop licks off Albums
So my 30 minute guitar lesson once a week is not enough to master the guitar?
If you practice at home everyday, yes, it is enough.
Lol,funny.
With that speed it will take century 🤣
Try 2 hours. At least.
you need to factor in the quality of that 30 minutes
I stopped playing for a couple of years. When i started playing again, my level started to increase radically. I found that what i learned in the past i assimilated and digested and i could see things more clearly and analyse what i was doing.
Sometimes long breaks help a TON
Probably easiest skill to master: procrastination.
I am actually still practicing procrastination every day since the conservatory.
ehh maybe I'll try mastering procrastination later on
Mastering a skill does not automatically mean success!
Hard work does not automatically mean success!
Having the right skill, at the right level, at the right time and in the right place and be willing to work hard, together with the confidence to take a risk, will probably result in success of some sort.
Nailed it !
you are correct, they - he is making a mistake, he is confusing MASTERY with SUCCESS and genius, I am a great fan of him but he is not a psychologist and it is not his field. Besides, I am a great fan of his kids too but having absolute pitch does not mean being a great musician at all. I am sure they are , but it is like being strong and being a great boxer. Strenght is not enough, body builders are not boxers.
Right time, right place. So critical. How many undiscovered talents are out there in the world? Skill, ability, talent, confidence, hard work, and myriad other things still don’t guarantee success or being discovered. I don’t believe we ever truly master anything.
What is success?
TRUE BITCHES
Great video Rick!!! I really liked your references and your point about mastery being hard to define. :)
it is precisely because mastery can not be defined that the 10, 000 rules is correct. In fact, he is confusing MASTERY (expert) with SUCCESS (gaining from your activity). I am a great fan of his, but neuroscience is not his job and the book " Frans Johansson's book " The Click Moment."""is wrong for making the same confusion between mastery and success.
andrea inzaghi exactly. There is no way to quantify these things.
andrea inzaghi
No, the 10,000 "rule" is not correct. It was based on guesswork and faulty research (like when people try to diagnose long dead people with Asperger's or whatever). It's exactly as valid as the Meyers-Briggs personality test. Neuroscience has nothing to do with any of it "precisely because mastery cannot be defined". Don't talk out your ass.
True..I just done a quick calc..came to about 5000 hours..but I am now writing hit songs (IMHO)..theres alot more to it
Except his definition is 100% wrong. He confuses mastery with commercial success. Rembrandt, rich in his youth, could not sell in later years despite maybe being the greatest master in history because morons did not support him. At times, Leonardo had to do other things to support himself (and wrote famous letter about it). Monet was an absolute master, and broke, before his paintings started to sell. Horrible definition equating dollars earned to Mastery. And a lot of hacks make fortunes.
It's not just 10,000 hours of doing the activity. It's 10,000 hours of DELIBERATE practice. That's the word which is often left out when people quote the 10k hour rule. Deliberate practice is purposeful, systematic. A deliberate practice session has a specific purpose. It means you strategically choose what you do to tackle your weaknesses, you practice out of your comfort zone, you practice at the edge of your abilities in order to push your skills a step further.
And of course, 10k hours is just a rule of thumb. It gives you a rough idea of what it actually takes to become really really good at something.
On the other hand, there's also that thing about the beginner's hunger. It is commonly associated with the energy, drive and intensity of youth. You see how often it is that the debut album or first batch of albums by a band hapens to be their best? Later on in their careers they would only try to revive that power but very few succeed. It is the sort of thing that happens in the moment and cannot be replicated even if one later on tries to redo it with presumably more experience/ skill. For some reason nothing can beat the first shot.
Yes, practicing a good long time to the point that you become very well-versed in your craft is perhaps a very logical way of looking at how virtuosity is developed -- but there's also that something else, that other domain which does not necessarily correlate with how much time was put into doing something. Furthermore, there is that issue of getting "past your prime". You see, there will always be a point of decline even if you continue to practice hard. This leads me to surmise that time spent in honing skills as a prerequisite for becoming really accomplished perhaps only tells a fraction of the story...
I've had very similar experiences, albeit in some different fields. Playing guitar started as a passion with zero foresight or vision. In the beginning I just wanted to experience creating certain tones, which meant endlessly repeating riffs and tweeking knobs. This drove my dad nuts and he finally said: "maybe you should learn to play songs". I took it to heart and started working on chords and changes. Then a new friend taught me the minor pentatonic scale and I suddenly "saw" the connection between riffs/soloing and chord progressions and began to learn songs and write; that seemed to happen overnight. Next up, my wife got tired of me experiementing with bands in basements and told me to get out and play, even if it meant solo shows. When I did, I realized three things very quickly: 1) I needed to learn a lot more songs 2) I needed to change how I play (mostly right hand technique) in order to sound "bigger" than just one guy. 3) I needed to learn more about singing technique/s. This also seemed to happen relatively quickly. For me, each improvement came with a kind of compulsive desire to practice (sometimes orderly and/or with guidance, often without either), some type of imagined larger context or vision, and access to technology and/or information that enhanced my experience. Each of these elements were present when substantial gains were made in my experience.
Happy New Year Rick ! Thanks for all your work =) Your book is really good to spend tons of hours studying it!
I'm close to spending 10k hours watching Rick Beato videos.
Happy new year Rick. I love topics you bring up, always interesting. Thank you !
I had worked in a bookstore for about 18,000 hours when Gladwell's third book, Outliers, arrived and a stack was immediately placed on the bestseller table due to the success of his previous books, The Tipping Point(2000) and Blink (2005). Each of those had a stack in permanent residence on our paperback bestsellers table. I had sampled them way back when, but had not been drawn in. One of my colleagues and I were stocking the table the day Outliers arrived. We had never discussed these perennial sellers. I pointed to The Tipping Point and Blink, and asked her, "What do you think these?" Her two word reply: "Mental popcorn."
10.000 hours of effective practice. Not just practice.
I play my instrument about 4 hours a day, but i don't think that I get any more than 1.30 hours of hyperfocused, effective practice a day. I have goals and practice towards them, but some goals I reach before others. I think this is because those are the goals I was truly focused on while practising.
My point is that I think it's a stretch to just count all the hours spent on an activity as good practice, you have to take in to consideration that a lot of those hours were spent not as effectively as they could have been.
Good food for thought Rick. Wishing you and your family a happy and productive new year.
Many thanks for the content you post.
I agree with you. The 10,000 hour rule is bogus. I have played guitar since I was 8 years old. Im 64 now and haven't mastered the instrument.Can I play well? YES Can I play like the best of the best Hell no. Yet I have seen young children in their early teens who can shred on guitar and sing too!!! They just have that special thing. "Talent" is real.
Same here! I took up guitar when I was 15 . I'm 55 now and on a really, really good day I'd describe myself as competent. I'd say I improved when I realized that the only way I'd ever become even a halfway decent shredder would be to mix cocaine into instant coffee, eat it with a spoon and wash it down with a gallon of Red Bull. Translation: it ain't happening! Talent is *definitely* real...!
I guess if you just played the Pentatonic scale for 50 years you may "Master" it. lol :) Of course, I like many others wanted to learn and play songs of many Genre's I started with Blues, ala Bluesbreakers moved into Cream then Allman Bros and Skynyrd all the Classic rock stuff then Van Halen blew my mind and the shredders came Satriani , Malmsteen and so on. I also realized I didnt have the finger dexterity or consistancy to get through a long fast tune without mistakes and it seemed NO amount of practice helped that. Its a frustrating thing to want to Master something you LOVE then find out you dont have what it takes. Ha Ha ask any Football, Basketball, Hockey player who was a star in school but couldnt make PRO. We are not alone as Guitar players.
I've been playing over half a century myself. There seems to be this ridiculous mindset that if you aren't a "PRO" or play like a "PRO" then you are just wasting your time. Music has been my mistress through a long and sometimes difficult journey; sometimes comforting, sometimes mocking, often (mostly) frustrating. It is part of the fabric that is me. Will I ever 'master' the guitar? No. Will I be it's slave trying to reach impossible heights? Nope, that's not happening either.
But unlike a 'pro' I don't have to play when I don't feel like it. There is a joy to picking up an instrument just because you feel like it- not because you are compelled to practice because _______________ (fill in the blank).
The key part is 10,000 hours of _deliberate practice_. Not just noodling around or playing stuff you already know.
@Bob Boitt You build good finger dexterity by working on your technique. No one is born with amazing finger dexterity. What you practice is more important than how much you practice. You sound like someone who just didn't have enough determination to follow their dream
I disagree with your premise. You didn't master the art of record producing the day you achieved a platinum record. You mastered it long before that. Having a platinum record require a lot of things to come together that are mostly out of your control ... the right songs, the right artist, the right moment in time. It's not all on your mastery of production. Other examples you offer contain the same flaw in logic. I think the 10,000 hour rule is more right than wrong.
I am a great fan of him but he is confusing mastery with success, different notions.
yes, but the problem isn't with his lingo. it's in the nature of sociology. a lot of it is coming up with a legit (enough) way to quantify something that generally is undefinable. you're both right, but so is he. and he had to pick some defining trait. that's were the sketchyness of the 10,000 hour rule comes into play. it is very easy to pick you're subject and then set the definition of mastery at the some 10,000 hour spot they achieved. i could do it for 5,000, or 1,000, or 20,000. the neat thing about 10,000 is the rough amount of time that takes is a completely 'doable' time period, that loads of examples can be fabricated from. (as we see by comparing it to rick's examples).
Which brings us to the question, "how do you define mastery?" Is the 10,000 hour rule even a relevant definition of mastery?
According to the study Gladwell got his numbers from, the 10,000 hours only appeared for musicians. They got 10 years for chess and music, and between 16.5 to 22 for science and literature.
This is outstanding information, Rick! Thank you!
You work at your own pace. Some of the top virtuoso musicians reported practicing for 10 hours and others for 2 hours. It really depends on the individual. Some people are faster learners than others. Find your own pace and work at it and practice and you’ll get there! It’s not about talent but hard work and dedication. Of course there are people that learn really fast and are way better than you in far less time but if you work 10x as hard as they do you’ll exceed them. And remember there’s always gonna be someone better than you so don’t get discouraged and give up.
I honestly don't think you can become a 'virtuoso' by practicing 2 hours a day. Not trying to to nitpick on your post. I get your point that you should go at your own pace. You may become very good with 2 hours a day, but never a genius.
Michael Park I was just giving a point . You’re absolutely right . Few if not none have achieved virtuoso status with just 2 hours of practice everyday. I was making a point by putting an exaggerated range. I’ve watched interviews by concert pianists , and some of them say anything after 5 hours is too much and some say 10 hours. So yeah.
Michael Park you don't need to be a genius. Having pleasure when making music and considering yourself adequate is enough when we accept most humans fall in the middle of the talent spectrum
Sena Erdem yes exactly! And I don’t think all virtuosos are geniuses . To me geniuses are innovators. Most Virtuosos just have high instrumental prowess and dazzling technique on their instrument but don’t really do anything new with it (Well to be fair some do) .
Really? Do you really believe that if you work 10x harder than someone else you'll be better than them? Is that a fact? Honestly, I truly wish that's how the world worked - it would be a much fairer world - but unfortunately there is no guarantee that you will be better than them. I could have worked 10x harder than Michael Jordan and I was not going to surpass him. I get the positive thinking, but let's not be unrealistic either.
Rick, your UA-cam content is great, and worthwhile. Substance gives you staying power. I subscribe to too many channels, but yours continues to reward.
I’m posting to thank you, but also to throw shade on whoever is hitting thumbs down on your videos. Anybody in the music business has to have a thick skin to withstand reviews. But I’m left wondering what factor petty jealousies of other musicians play in all this. Seems like, no matter what the level - local bands to top tier professionals - the music business is rife with insecurity and envy.
“Nothing you can do that can’t be done, nothing you can sing that can’t be sung...” I’ve never been one to pick favorite colors or rank great efforts, but something about this Beatles song resonates more and more with me. Thanks again.
Great video and totally on point. Hard work, diligence and time... Great vid.
Love your stuff Rick - and your delivery!
Great topic for discussion. I feel there has been some misinterpretation by some. Gladwell doesn't say "10,000 hours and you become a master at your 'thing", the research across a number of case studies pointed to approximately that number. Obviously it will depend on the individual, he does acknowledge that. Also the definition of 'Mastery' is a very grey area. There is no way (in my opinion) that having a disc go Platinum, or scoring a number 1 hit is the benchmark of compositional mastery. That was achieved way before that point.
The other major misconception from a lot of the comments below is that Gladwell does not saying just doing the 'thing' for 10,000 hours makes you a master, but deliberate, focused practice with constant reflection and planning. I would bet that the large numbers quoted by Rick and others below could easily be trimmed by a significant amount if time taken 'noodling', making a coffee, bathroom trips, and over -repetition of things while practicing were taken off the number.
I am currently participating in a friend's Doctoral research on the topic. As part of his thesis he has 4 people undergoing 'skill development', one with coding, 2 on musical instruments and a golfer. I am learning the Chapman Stick (having specialized and 'mastered' the trombone, playing professionally in orchestras and West End shows) and I am up to 457 hours (I still suck! I have videos on my page at various stages of the time). It's an interesting process. I am part of the 'cross-over theory' section where skills in a related area should carry over to the learning of the new area. The golfer started literally from nothing and at approx. 9000 hours in he is applying for his PGA tour card.
Sorry for the long post. A great topic. Rick, your stuff it literally my favorite thing on the internet.
Paul Wright for sure, putting in the time will bare more fruit than not. Some people get so hung up on words and numbers they miss the point. 10,000 hours is not a detailed engineering rule to land a person on the moon. It is a thought that putting in the time helps to bring results.
he is simply confusing mastery-expertise with SUCCESS and genius, he is a great musician and I am a great fan of him but psychology is another field.
Could you please post a link to the paper if it's ready?
Adding to this clarification, the premise is not that 10k hours of even high quality practice inevitably leads to mastery. Rather, the whole concept was an argument against the idea of people being natural born genius prodigies. At least in some fields, you may need a natural predisposition (aka talent) in addition to the hours of practice. 10k hours of good quality practice is necessary but not sufficient for mastery.
That said, I have always had some of the same objections to this idea that Rick laid out. First, there is obviously a difference in the rate of accumulation of mastery in some fields between young minds and adults or even older kids. Many skills can't be mastered by adults at all.
Then you have the question of what counts as a field for purposes of mastery. I am am attorney. Does it take 10k hours to master the field of lawyering? And if so, what counts? Practice as a licensed attorney? What about the 10k hours of training and education during law school? Or is lawyering a combination of several skills that all need their own 10k hour requirement (mastering the English language, logical reasoning, the skill of researching, oratory, and learning the procedural and substantive law itself)? In golf, do you need to spend 10k hours practicing golf or 10k each on driving, putting, irons, woods, wedges, etc.?
I assume there are answers to these questions in the underlying research that Gladwell draws from, but his book didn't give me much indication of what they are.
The 10,000 hour number is not only approximate, is an average of drastically variability in the amount of practice required.Ericssons own data showed expertise can be aquired in as little as 2000 hours, or not at all, even after 26 000 hours of deliberate practice. What severely complicates this matter, is that the concept of "deliberate practice" is inherently poorly defined.The definition can only be approximated in practice, as none of the tenets are accurately quantifiable. For example, what is feedback? If I swing a tennis racket at a ball and subsequently miss, my own observation of the missed hit fullfils the definition of "feedback".Hence we can see that nobody ever practices without feedback, and subsequent adjustments to their approach. If a coach gives the feedback, what assurance is there that the nature of their feedback will be beneficial in any way? What if the student cannot improve by taking on board the feedback from a reputeable coach?
All in all, the concepts promoted by Anders Ericsson are riddled with flaws, and not very well supported by the evidence. The evidence very strongly supports inherited factors as crucial determinants of ability, a fact Ericsson refused to acknowledge during his career.I believe Anders suffered from an obsession, due to being brainwashed into this belief by his father.
What about the 1 Second Rule? You know, the amount of time it takes me to like your videos. You're the best dude on YT! You've taught me more than I'll ever know. Have a Beato New Year!
You can practice for 10,000 hours and be super technical on the instrument you pick. That doesn't mean you will be musical, does it?
Chris Hamm Depends on what you practice but yeah, I agree.
You can also avoid practicing technique and theory and not be musical.
If you master the art, so why you wouldn’t be musical
@1234 yeah i agree, but if they are doing wrong in that particular thing. they would understand the mistakes instantly ,cause he is investing time in that thing,
@@hellomotherfuckers53 He is talking about technical aspect of a musical instrument. I can tell you based on personal experiences, he is correct 100%. Learning how to play the notes, or being able to read sheet music is not enough, you have to be able to interpret it, you have to be able express it, you have to be able to infuse emotions and thoughts in your music...the best way to understand what I am trying to say is to have a sheet music played by a computer (very easy to set up), and then to compare it to live musicians performing it..there'll be quite extreme difference even an average person would be able to tell apart and, I dare to say, they'd like a live performance better.
I followed this 10,000 rule for Piano skill in about 4 years. Yes, I works like a charm if you do it right. Playing piano required muscle memory, and definitely need good amount of practise. I put 4 to 5 hours a day for practise and am happy with the result. It's a mindset goal rather than exact amount of 10,000 hours. It varies on many variables such as the quality of practice, teacher involvement, time of practice, thought process in practice, etc.
The more variables involved the more skill and less hours I got.
I've seen incredibly hard-working, talented friends spend their entire lives chasing passions and get nothing and I've seen talent-less hacks show up and be given careers. Because we live in a word of "gurus" and survivor bias it's very hard not to beat yourself up over lack of success. I've had success through hard work but goddamn do I realize how much luck and circumstance have played.
Always interesting topics that make us think, always, in this channel. thaks, man.
Informative and Thoughtful Video, Thanks for Sharing
There could be a delay between mastering something and the world recognizing that master-mint.
Learning how to practice deeply and efficiently is the key. You can play a song for 10,000 hours but if you continually make the same mistakes you are only mastering mistakes. Great video! Love it!
Greatness! Ditch your lighting. Warmer lighting. Love everything you post!
BEATO!!!
I THOUGHT ABOUT THIS SOO MUCH, ESPECIALLY TO MUSIC AND THANKS FOR THIS VIDEO!!
Awesome stuff. Thanks for the inspiration.
Thank you fir sharing your perspective on this. It helped me make a decision.
My favorite channel. I can listen to anyone talk about music for hours if they know what they are talking about.
Love your videos! about this topic I read Robert Greene’s Mastery is an excellent book. Happy new year!
Interesting thoughts on the topic, Rick, as usual You addressed this in a live stream when I asked you about it, but you've done a wonderful job of expanding on your ideas and tackling the issue. It also gives a lot hope to those of us who might be late bloomers...though maybe not in the world of chess! Still, that could be another possible topic for you. One finds a great many late bloomers in the world of art, whether it be painting, music, writing, etc. Thanks for another insightful video.
I always took the 10k hour rule as kind of way to de-mystify how someone gets really great at something complex. It takes A LOT OF TIME. Some people think that's just too simple of an answer, and they are sort of right. It doesn't just take time, it takes deliberate practice. That means the person organizes their learning with lesson plans and a good teacher. They don't just stare at a piano for 10k hours and all the sudden they are a master at it. I always took it as encouragement... If I'm not nearly as good at playing drums as I want to be, I can think to myself "well, I'm nowhere near 10k hours of practice, so how can I be that angry at myself that I'm not as good as Neil Peart yet?" Not that I'd be as good as him at 20k hours! But it gives you perspective on talent and ability and the work needed to achieve mastery at something.
practice, practice, practice, and practice some more!!
Yeah but what if you practice the wrong things in the wrong way based upon wrong foundations?
Then you need to start watching Rick Beato's vids ASAP! lol
Linguistically and logically laid out...well done!
Great video Rick! You should make a video explaining your life, and what you did in music. You seem like you have an amazing track record, and some people like me don't really know what you've done. I've learned a lot from your channel, but I'd also like to learn about who's teaching me. Keep up the good work!
To actually master something is impossible, mainly because once you´ve reached the level of a grandmaster you find completely new avenues of attaining even more skill in your selected field of expertise .
Same goes for perfection .
In short : we humans don´t even live long enough to get close to attaining mastership or perfection in any way or form .
Ericsson does not like his work mentioned by Gladwell ;)
K. Anders Ericsson wrote in "The Danger of Delegating Education to Journalists".
"In fact, the *10,000 hour rule was invented by Malcolm Gladwell* (2008, p. 40) who stated that “researchers have settled on what they believe is the *magic number for true expertise* : ten thousand hours.” Gladwell cited our research on expert musicians as a stimulus for his provocative *generalization to a magical number* "
If you need a silly vague formula to motivate you, you're doing something wrong!
Happy New Year!
Devane2012 Thank you, I was about to say the same thing. Malcolm Gladwell's interpretation of Ericsson's work basically amounts to 'click bait' in the form of a book.
Justin Cauble Another of his shitty books is Blink, the crux of which that if you repeat something many many times, you'll eventually get to a point where you no longer have to consciously think about a process.
Legend has it that he asked people walking in a park if they know how they're going to 'take the next step'.
I was going to say exactly this - I would strongly recommend Ericsson's book 'Peak', it sets out his findings brilliantly.
Exactly my thoughts. My friend introduced me to these stuff when I was younger. Nowadays if I find anything technical (book/ted talk) I first find out the authors credentials. If he/she's just a journalist I will look up the original source material or move on.
First of all, I love your videos. Thank you for making them.
What Gladwell says in that book is that you need at least 10.000 hours to master a skill. Not that after you practice for that long you will automatically master your skill, you my require more practice. He also says that to be successful you don't need to be the best, just good enough. That's why there are some people who may achieve success in less time. Basically, the message of the books is that if you want to master a skill, you need to put a lot of effort, at least some natural ability and even then you may be great, but it doesn't mean that you will be successful. It's a really good book. I don't know if you read it completely, but I would definitely recommend it!
Thanks Rick! That really encouraged me:)
You’re welcome Luke!
excellent topic, ive been looking into music independently for years, never heard of this before, thanks alot Rick!!!
its also new years 5am here, just outta work, im gonna sleep and try this again later but thanks again!! haha
and Happy New Year!
Great video! 🤘🤘
Happy new year💐
Rick,I come from a family who all wanted to learn to play music and did.However,I became the most accomplished player,not because I was the most gifted,but because I spent years and years dedicated to learning. I had to practice ten times as much as one of my brothers in order to master something. Not all players are created equal. If you have a certain gift for a task you advance at a very different rate. All people have to dedicate a certain amount of time,but it is much less for some than others. Talent is everything when it comes to learning.
Nice video!!!
A different point of view on something so familiar; practice makes perfect.
I completely agree with the comments on distinguishing mastery and success. This is my attempt to define success. I think we can all agree on what is mastery without much debate: being better than almost everyone in some skill. It's like a competition, you wanna be at the top 1% of the class, then 1 in 1000, then 1 in 100,000, etc. But success is much much harder to pin down. Here is a definition that works for me: success is achieving your goals. So if you set the bar low enough you can become automatically successful, right? The trick is that achieving easy goals in not at all satisfying. Success that does not bring satisfaction and foster self-esteem is not complete.
I think when we call someone extremely successful what we implicitly mean is that that person set their dreams/vision as their goals and achieved specifically those goals. You know the question "what would you do if you knew you could not fail"; if you can answer for yourself it reveals your core values and your vision. The people we think of when we are talking about success are those who looked liked from the outside they set goals in line with their core values and set them without putting any constraints on the goals whether they thought those goals are achievable or not.
Being successful in the computer industry may indicate that you are a master entrepreneur, business leader, manager of people, etc; it does not necessarily mean you are a master programmer or designer or engineer. Did Steve Jobs himself invent the products that made Apple the brand that it is or he had an unrelenting crystal clear vision about what he wanted and he was a master at managing talented people to design the products he envisioned? Anyway we can all think of numerous examples on mastery, talent, success, etc that we can dissect. Wow, you are still here 😊
well done Rick, i don´t car about all the thoughts you have done it!
luv it! had heard of this.
Great analysis, thank you! :)
Great video Rick. I think more than how many hours it's probably what to study and how to study.
This is an interesting concept. I’ve never thought about rating the number of hours spent creating and learning, but this makes a lot of sense.
Roughly 10,000 hours combined with talent. Guys like Jaco Pastorius, Yngwie Malmsteen and Steve Vai are/were very talented and obsessed with playing their musical instruments. Remember Vai's 12 hour workout that was published in a magazine years ago?
Someone who is not as talented and puts in the hours will improve obviously, but won't become as good as the top guys. Hard work beats talent, but only if talent doesn't work hard.
What is talent though? Can it be defined only as 'not hard work'? It sucks because we can only kinda look at it afterward and say oh there he HAD talent when he began to master the bla bla... When we try to pinpoint it in the beginning it's too easy to lose objectivity, or what we think is talent doesn't go anywhere or lead to anything... There's a compelling argument that the only difference between me and Steve Vai is actual hours of practice as driven by passion. It may not be a nice neat 10000 hours, but we still don't know whether Steve Vai has something that 'most' people don't... except for time + commitment or passion...
Intelligence, memory and physical prowess are as important in music as they are anywhere else, so people more 'gifted' in those areas have what... more talent? So it takes less hard work to get to certain level than someone less 'gifted'? I dunno, it's a complex head scratchy mess lol!
_I love this line, _*_"Hard work better talent, but only if talent doesn't work hard."_*
Such is true for most *_skill-based_* talents. However, for scholastically or academically or intellectually leaning talents, a large portion to it is attributable to *Nature." Nonetheless, the *Nurture* aspect of honing skills is without argument; and even the _mechanical_ aspects of manipulating math problems, or improving on one's _memory._
If skills, talent, and intelligence primarily spawn from *DNA,* then genetics new field of study called *epigenetics* will surely shed light into _The Great Human Potential Beyond Your DNA!_
In summary, the *10,000-Hour* isn't really a _rule_ as it is more of a _figure of speech_ that *constant and correct practice makes you perfect!*
The Rule really is:
*No. of Hours of Practice* _is inversely proportional to_ *DNA predisposition to such talent, skills, or intelligence*
*S U C C E S S,* however is a relatively *subjective matter* which live in the *_City of Perception._* He actually used to live in the *_State of Rules_* in the *_County of Objectivity._*
Zippy Leroux talent is when someone can do easily what may take time for others. I’ve seen it in too many musicians I grew up with. 2 people pick up an instrument at the same time and one of them just naturally able to create beautiful melodies from thin air while another can just to the solid basics. But no matter where we are we all enjoy music and strive to bring our best when we perform.
Talent is a natural aptitude. We all have them and they're all different. Some kids can start dribbling a basketball almost immediately while others can try for years and still never figure out how to not bounce the ball off their foot.
Honestly, The next Jaco or Steve Vai is playing guitar/bass right now instead of watching youtube videos and that's what separates the greats from the average. In their free-time all they do is play whereas many of us spend our time doing mindless things.
While i can't necessarily agree nor disagree with that theory,which i heard of some years ago and never knew the origin of(thank you!),i do know that in the years i've been playing,writing performing,etc. ever so often,ill hit these plateaus in my playing where i get "the AHa moment" where a whole lot of information just kind of gels together all at once and sends me further along.these days,it mostly happens in the area of my understanding of theory and composition,which is great for my students.whatever it can be attributed to,be it 10,000 hrs. or prodigious talent or LSD in my earlier years,all i know is its a blessing and a gift to be passed on to those that want to learn.your videos are great,man.keep up the good work.i point all my pupils your way.
Most really good guitarists i know fell asleep with a guitar in their lap every night...waking up when guitar hits the floor....i personally believe 1 hour a day MINIMUM.
Great video and 100% true!Greetings from Crete !!!
Very interesting discussion. I think there is a difference between mastery and professional success, and the relationship between the two differs depending on the specific field. With chess, the correlation between mastery and professional success is quite high. With other professions such as music or acting, one's professional success depends on many other factors other than mastery. There is natural talent, of course, but there are also factors like good looks, good marketing, or just good luck which have nothing to do with mastery. Also, if an actor or musician has a reputation for being difficult to work with, it will be harder for them to achieve professional success even if they achieve mastery. That is why I believe that coupling one's mastery level to the awards one has received is problematic.
Wish you all the best for 2018, Rick.
The last post of 2017, (last but not least), was a killer! Bravo.
I've never heard of this 10 000 hours rule before, and learned a thing. Anyway, I really like the way you teach things.
I think you may be missing the point here Rick.
Gladwell is merely throwing down a generalized view of mastery across various disciplines...and is attempting to
provide a measure...that will produce his result if stretched across x number of areas of mastery...
Just as his book “Outliers”...alludes...this standard will not apply to everything...and there will be “outliers” that will demand much more time.....”quantum physics” comes to mind...or anything that possibly changes over time...through new knowledge or technology...so that you end up “chasing it” well across the 10,000 hour benchmark....
Hey Rick,, got to thinking. In my very, very, very limited time learning to mix and record my tunes(mostly covers admittedly) I have have come to realize that the different tools (ie. Compressors, Limiters, Upward expansion, noise gates, gates in general, saturation devices etc.) all affect each other in the mix and often may satisfy some of the same needs or requirements as another plug in. But, are there any 'almost set in stone' approaches , say, using compression and expansion simultaneously that are do's and don'ts. Some of it is common sense (when to use a limiter vs compression and still,,,overlap in some functionality) but have you covered any of this subject in previous videos? Thanx Rick. Happy New year to you and yours!
I agree with you Rick… But I always love to hear Malcom’s ideas. Love that guy!
Saw an interview with Macca the other day, where he points out that because the Beatles had to play 8 hours a night in Hamburg, they learned thousands of songs to keep it interesting. I think that was the key ingredient to the success of the Beatles - they learned so many songs in so many different styles (think "Taste of Honey" or "Besame Mucho"), it was much easier for them when it came time to write their own songs. So it wasn't the number of hours they practised their craft, it was how they spent the time.
Happy New Year Beatians! The thing is everybody is different. People pick up certain things quicker than others. What quantifies mastery? Some of the jazz masters say they're still learning music in their 70s and 80s. Also it is very important what you do with your time. Noodling for 6 hrs a day is unlikely to produce the same results as 1 hour of applied learning. You could develop more in one month with applied, focused learning an hour a day than a year of noodling. Work hard and try to be consistent and the results will begin to show, 3hrs a day for ten years you should at least be very good at what you do!
That 10,000 hour thing does seem fishy. It has been debunked by many since then. Maybe he picked a couple of examples of achievers, did a quickie time estimate, decided he liked picking a round number, and thought no one would check. On another subject, where he really lost me was when he cozied up to Nathan Myhrvold, the Microsoft tycoon and severe patent troll, who buys up patents and then sues anyone who has a product that in any way resembles the patent, especially when there's no merit to it. Nice business plan, eh? Nathan invited Gladwell to his compound, wined and dined him, and got Gladwell to write a glowing tribute to him, in which Gladwell quickly dismissed the patent troll accusation with a 1-line non-denial denial.
I suppose Gladwell's right about one thing. It takes a long time to be good at stuff. But as you point out very effectively, this concept isn't exactly brand new, nor can it be precise across all activities.
sorry, it has never been debunked. You are confusing mastery with success like the books that claim to have debunked it, and beside, the 10. 000 theory is not so simple. Great fan of him, but he is over simplyfing.
Fantastic videos
It's not about the time someone puts into their practice, it's about the quality of practice they put when practicing.
I hope it does not take that long... I'm starting late... ;)
Franck Martin i feel you
Ditto that - picked up guitar at 57, but have a lifetime singing in choirs. Many things like reading music, matching pitch & rhythms, hearing scale degrees/intervals, etc., seem to be "transferable" skills. But playing songs on the guitar, that's all new, and has been a real exciting journey so far. Perhaps that's the point - I have goals for guitar, work toward them, but I could care less about reaching some 'pinnacle' of ability. I do track practice time, but my heart and focus is on real specific tasks; limited number of songs, tone, sound, and techniques - Like Rick's "3 Things To Practice (And 3 More Things To Practice) to Improve Your Guitar Playing Fast".
Never is too late...
Find a mentor, ( You have UA-cam use it)
Me too.... I might not have 10,000 hours left!!!! ;)
Great video Rick, I agree that the concept of 'Mastery' is hard to define. It is also very flexible in my opinion. If you taught a five year old child the chords C, F, G, Am, and Em on any instrument they would be able to play a heck of a lot of songs and would probably consider themselves to have mastered the instrument. Add some dedicated and thoughtful practice to then get the child to start using the chords Dm, and B Dim, thus enabling them to play even more songs, they then realize that they had not actually mastered the instrument and that there was an awful lot more to learn, but they believe that have now cracked it.
Let's introduce the concept of different keys, and once again the delusion of mastery has been shattered. After much practice in different keys the child once again believes that they have mastered the instrument. You then start to teach this child about music theory. As the child's understanding of music theory increases they realize that they have not actually mastered the instrument and that there is still an awful lot more to know. The child (now no longer a child? Let's call them the student from now on) then repeats these cycles as you introduce the concepts of modes, transposition, harmonies and dissonance, etc.. At each stage of learning the student suffers from the delusion of mastery, but is soon brought back to reality as they are introduced to further concepts.
There is much truth to the saying 'The more we learn, the less that we know'. I believe that the only way someone could be considered to have mastered anything at all is when they themselves realize that they will never actually master it, although they will never stop to strive for continual improvement, but observers of them will think that they are masters of their subject, whatever that subject might be.
In conclusion; if you think that you have mastered something, in all probability you haven't really. If you know that you will never master something but continue to try and improve your ability anyway, you might just have mastered it, but you'll never accept that that you have.
I do hope that the above makes sense to someone out there.
I had the headmaster of an arts school in a major city tell me that one must pracctice 8-10 hours a day, seven days a week for ten years in order to become a professional. He then said it requires a devotion of about 60% of that to maintain your level.
One day, Gregg Allman heard his kid brother Duane 'messing around on his guitar. Gregg immediately realized he was the second best guitar man in the family. No art master school necessary.
Well stated at the end. Luck really has a lot of impact. As well as, of course, the hours...
I’ve gotta read that book! 📖
A lot of people think it´s about practice time but it´s not.
There´s a lot of talent and intelligence involved. If it was only about time everybody would be a virtuoso.
What all this kind of supervirtuoso musicians have in common is that they learn and assimilate in a day what a normal musician would learn in a month. They are very efficient with their practice time and are constantly learning.
Talent, intelligence and efficiency > Time.
Time has always been the eternal excuse of the not accomplished musician.
Jim Morrison is a great example. Yes, he probably had wrote poems for quite awhile, but started writing great songs right from the start.
The key is to be passionate and perseverant and put in the work. Also, do things that you have more of a predisposition for. That's not to say we shouldn't strive for things we are not naturally gifted at, but certain things come easier and yield better results.
The most important thing is to start. "Doing" opens the door to serendipity.
you cover all bases, thank you 😊
Leo hit the nail on the head. Trying to reverse engineer success is nearly impossible. That's what this bloke in the video tried to do to disprove the 10,000-hour idea. Even people with immense talent need an unknown amount of practice to become masters. Why hasn't there been another Beetles? Another Michael Jackson? Another Elvis? Another John Williams? Certainly, there have been many masters besides these few I mentioned, but there are a whole lot of mystical factors that come into becoming the best of the best. What Gladwell was saying is putting in many hours of deliberate hard work is probably the most common denominator in all cases. Remove the number. Forget about 10,000 hours. If one wants to argue that you can be great or a master without putting in the work, good luck chasing that dream. Here is the bottom line, what difference does it make. If you don't want to put in the time why are you even pursuing that endeavor? Do something else. Because it is all about the doing. That's why people who are great are not concerned about their greatness. They just do. So if you're questioning the 10,000 hours chances are you'll probably never be a master or great at anything. It may just not be who you are. You'll always be average at best. And by definition, that means like most. Not special. Welcome to reality.
You have to be obsessed with your passion. 💎🌈 those who do the correct practice gets the cookies 🤴(time isn't real) 🌅✨
I have the odd experience of growing up in musical family and “preforming” for the first time at the age of nine. Singing and playing guitar most of my life, on the couch and in bar bands. Recently, I took a long break- about seven years. Didn’t play more than 30minutes a few times a month often going weeks without playing at all. I was never great but I was a solid player with a decent musical vocabulary. I have recently gotten interested (and have the time) to play more again and have found the muscle memory isn’t there as solid right now so it feels clumsy at times but more interesting is that my tastes have changed and the patterns and fills I used to play are still there, but new stuff is coming to the surface. Sometimes its like “where did that come from?” Or “why didn’t I go here before?” To get back to the subject, It’s sort of like even though I wasn’t practicing, I was still learning somehow. I’m sure some of it is that I had grown tired of playing the same stuff, took a long break, and have just been paying attention to what I was listening to but my playing has changed significantly in a good way. Hopefully the speed and dexterity comes back quickly because I’m enjoying my new found vocabulary I’m trying to play now. This makes me think there is a difference between skill and knowledge and they aren’t tied together in lockstep, one can advance even as the other is falling behind. It feels like previously my skill was improving while my knowledge was getting stale and then my knowledge increased as I let the skills go away.
I may be odd about this but I have heard other people describe their relationship with playing music as progressing in steps like going up stairs, periods of quick learning interrupted by periods of little improvement. This feels like a big step, almost like I had to unlearn some old ways that had become automatic in order to “make room” for something new. I hope I’m not sounding too weird or personal about this but it’s an interesting time in my musical life and I’m looking forward to getting my callouses back! Lol, right now my fingers are just sore.
Ah talking about ear training I'm kinda lost on that department, I hope you release your ear training course soon :) Happy new year Rick!
great points, not everyone does and focuses on just one thing
I would be interested in hearing how you accomplished the UA-cam subscriber feat in one year. Any videos on that?
Practice makes BETTER. Nothing is perfect.
Greatness requires true passion AND practice
I practice martial arts most of my life , you never have the feeling of mastery ..it becomes an inner journey which never ends !
read a great book on this earlier this year, The Talent Code
Read it too. Really interesting
Links to that Book and/or the Author?
The Talent Code: Greatness Isn't Born. It's Grown. Here's How
Daniel Coyle
Have you read Talent is Overrated? I read that this past year and it felt the key to success in anything was 'deliberate' practice.
The 10 000 hours rule is a rule of the thumb, not an absolute thing. Of course if you are lame, you won't ever be an olympic sprinter, and in many disciplines the competition is so tough (in chess, in music, whatever) that simply mastering the stuff isn't enough, you need to be nearly superhuman.
Taking it as a rule of the thumb works fine in the real world: if you spend 10000 hours practicing something, you'll be competent in it and from the POV of the general public, an expert, a master. As a musician, I'll never be as high as you are; however I've worked for years, played on stage or worked in studio with world class bands, made records, etc. Compared to 99.9% of people who can't even play "happy birthday", I'm clearly an expert, a master, though I'll always be ridiculous as a pianist compared to the actual famous "masters".
Thats not totally true. I've seen people sing for years and they still suck at it. It's not their fault though. I give them an "A" for their effort and dedication.
if you learn when you are a children before puberty normally you will master some tecnique, but MASTERY does not equal SUCCESS or GENIUS. Mr Rick Beato is a great person but now he is confusing two different notions.
Quality and Quantity combined is what matters. If you drew a circle for 10,000 hours and nothing else then you would have only expertise toward drawing circles and no other form of art. This applies to all fields and you should never exclude those to methods because they are both valuable.
Nice Buddy