I was speaking to a music teacher today and we were talking about the 10,000 hour rule where that is the amount of practice one needs to be a master at something. She then said that she didn't agree with this philosophy as she felt some students did not have the ability to go beyond a certain level and eventhough they were diligent and worked hard they could never reach a certain level.

In some ways it must be true or the world would be filled with concert pianists but is there a ceiling limit to one's abilities and how can it be spotted? Would it be obvious for a teacher to spot or would it only become apparent after multiple failed attempts at a piece/exam etc? From a teachers point of view, would you ever tell a pupil that they had reached that ceiling?

I have to say that I completely disagree with that music teacher. It's not simply about working hard or diligently, both of which are required. It's more about how you're doing that diligent and hard work. It's hard to describe, but there's a certain edge that you need to be pushing, and you need to be working just beyond your comfort zone towards the next level. Usually this requires a teacher to show you the way, at least in the beginning. It's easy to want to be a master, but the little steps necessary to get there may not be so clear. I've seen this with my "students" and those I've tutored. Those that ask questions and constantly strive to be better than they are, and figure out what their problem areas are and work on them, always succeed after sufficient time. Those that hit a ceiling are usually happy just doing what they're told, and/or can't truly envision that next level to get to. I think the reason there aren't too many concert pianists (or whatever other talent you can think of) is that it takes a LOT of consistent, hard, focused work. It's not easy working in that zone that helps you to improve. Usually life gets in the way, and people realize that they have other priorities and don't want to or can't invest the necessary time and energy.

I do believe in natural affinity though (not talent), so some may get there well ahead of the 10,000 hours, and others may take longer. Sometimes experience in other areas can help you knock off some of these hours too.

I don't agree with telling pupils they've reached their ceiling. I think people should be encouraged to 'improve' whatever the circumstances and it's possible to cope with a ceiling with variations in repertoire so that someone still gains enjoyment.

I believe in unlimited ambition because it makes you push yourself. Does it matter if you 'spot' your ceiling?


My ceiling as a clarinettist was far higher than my ceiling as a violist or pianist. I was desperate (in my youth) to be a concert pianist but I gradually realised I fell very very far short. However I was well on my way to a successful professional career as a clarinettist. Now that I only play the viola my ceiling is clearly in the low ranks and I push myself very gently but accept my limitations and hugely enjoy what I do achieve.

But I refuse to place a ceiling on my full-time profession (I am a painter). There I am driven to improve each day regardless of what I might achieve long term and despite the fact I am already a professional.

Reach for the stars and you may reach the moon. Don't reach for the stars and you fall back to earth.

Ceilings are a tricky one. I think people can get to a point where they are not going to get a huge amount better - as you said, there'd be concert pianists everywhere otherwise! And perhaps there are different types of ceiling too, technical, emotional, mental, musical..
But there's always room for improvement too, within your 'limit', and of course so much repertoire at all standards that there's also the room for great personal achievement and fulfilment.

Absolutely there's such a thing as talent, but talent alone won't do the job.

I have never once told a pupil he/she had "reached their ceiling". I don't believe there is any such thing for each individual plays for a different reason with different aims. I can honestly say I am still learning and discovering musically and I'm not sure that should ever stop. I probably put in far more hours practising the piano as a youngster (and still do) whereas playing the flute/recorder is something I can just do. Alpha Male Jazz Cat is a professional performer but has never been the type to sit and practise solidly for hours at a time. Funnily enough we were talking about that just yesterday and he said he never did as a kid, nor at conservatoire and not now.

I dislike the term "ceiling limit". We are all different - I can run but if I trained for 10,000 hours would I beat Usain Bolt? Nah....

Ceiling-Bag x

I, for the one who always believe in 10,000 hour rule but that has to be backed up with dedication, proper mentoring, enthusiasm and physical / mental abilities. At young ages, we as parents has to motivate the children and manage the time accordingly (sometimes called as Pushy)

But ceiling (or brick wall), yes! Age and family commitments, IMHO

I would also never tell a pupil that they have reached their 'ceiling' because they can still get a lot of enjoyment from music at the level they have reached. Also they do sometimes surprise you with an unexpected burst of progress: have been teaching one girl the piano for probably 7 years now and she has been at about grade 4 standard for 2 years with hopeless sight reading and such slow work on pieces. All of a sudden she has been able to read new pieces hands together and quite fluently in lessons. She says it suddenly makes sense.

I do believe that you have to have natural musical ability to become an outstanding player, but this has to be coupled with dedication and hard work.

My views have changed a little in recent years. I would have said that anyone can achieve anything - until I started with the pupil who has tons of enthusiasm, time, money (lots of money - to take on an accompanist for extra practice sessions each week, and another teacher for theory despite me teaching theory too, and another teacher to help with aural tests, and another teacher for any singing that might come up in aural tests - but this pupil has no rhythm. No rhythm at all. We've even been to see a consultant on this in another city (money no object). Having scraped a grade 5 pass after nearly ten years I really despair that grade 6 will ever be possible - to be honest I suspect that there are more people out there with this problem but they generally give up before it becomes this silly.

I do not believe in ceilings as such because I think one can always be even just a tiny bit better. But I do have pupils who ceiling "for the moment". These are the youngsters who have put in as much effort as they are capable and willing to offer and who are then overtaken by things outside their control - that is tos say by the demands of school work and the fact here that many of them have to do their last three years in secondary education as boarders with no facilities at all for practice.

But rather than think of this as their ceiling I think of it as having put down roots, even if the leaves and flowers will not come up for a bit. What I mean is that later in life they may take up their music again - or they may encourage their own children to go a little further than they were able to go.

Geez. Telling someone to have reached a ceiling is outright stupid. I was told not once but several times by teachers that had no idea I had an IQ of 149, beat a chess fide master when I was 8 yrs old, read literature like Freud, Tucholsky and Stefan Zweig by age 9 (things I thought everyone could and would do) and am now diagnosed a multitalented overachiever by people who actually know what they are talking about.

Just because someone reaches in one opinion a ceiling does not necessarily mean that is a fact. In truth, it might just be that the TEACHER HAS REACHED HIS CEILING!

I was once told I would not get my highschool degree (aside from other things I would never be able to do). I not only got that, I got a university diploma as well. Two things can happen when someone is told such idiocy. One (worst case scenario), the person gives up achieving entirely. Second, the person actually achieves exactly that just because it was told it could not do it. That, however, is not necessarily a good thing as it well might happen that said person choses the wrong thing for pursue just because of such statement and not the thing it is actually meant for. It would have spared me much suffering, if I without bias could have chosen the thing I actually would have loved to do. Instead, I went for the thing others thought I could not do just because the statement had hurt so much.

PS:

The 10,000 hrs rule might be true. But true is also that one can practice 10,000 hours without ever achieving anything if not striving to get better. It also depends a lot on what one wants to do. If there is no need to overcome a ceiling (e.g. certain folk music bands) but the music is pleasing to the ear, why study advanced techniques to make complete use of the instrument.

Hmm... I don't know - Grade 5 in 10 years doesn't seem ridiculous. It sounds like progress is painfully slow but nevertheless it's there. I wouldn't say that this person has necessarily reached a ceiling. For a musical person such as you it might seem like this person has no sense of rhythm, but to achieve a pass at Grade 5, there must be something there.
In my experience, it is also possible to plod along for years, achieving very little, and then suddenly have a bit of an 'epiphany' and make much faster progress. I guess that's kind of what Aquarelle said about 'putting down roots' - perhaps the things you are teaching are getting through to your student but the benefits are just not obvious yet.

The research has shown that apparently, no one who has reached the highest echelons of success in sport, music, etc... has done so with less input in terms of hours.

However, it has not shown that if you do 10,000 hours of practice that you will automatically reach this level. It can't be interpreted both ways.

Relatively few individuals world wide have the internal drive to be able to keep up the pace, so really we impose our own ceilings. Though of course, you can practise all you like, if you haven't got a sound that someone wants to listen to, you aren't going to get very far....

A consultant? In rhythm???

There ARE ways of helping people develop their sense of pulse and understanding of rhythm - whole body movement is where to start, I think..

This person might have reached the ceiling, it does not mean they have reached their potential. Now is the opportunity to move the floor and continue to grow

Never heard such rot about people not being able to continue learning in my life. Maybe the teacher has not found the right key. Honestly I've had too many people put me down, and I ain't beat yet.

Knowing that is my attitude why expect anyone else to do the same.

No such room as failures, just those who have not thrived of succeeded yet!

I can't imagine a teacher would actually tell a student they've hit their ceiling..would they..?
But the problem, I suppose, is that if a teacher thinks this way they may change the way they teach this pupil, and not for the better.

This pupil with a different consultant in every county - sounds like a case of too many cooks to me

It would not necessarily be obvious to the teacher - else why would Einstein have got such poor school reports (for example), why would Perlman have been told he would never be a concert violinist after contracting polio?

The early 10,000 hours research (on musicians) placed the achievers as top=soloists, middle = orchestra and the lowest as likely to go on to be teachers not performers. Invariably their successes correlated to hours of focussed practice - so the evidence points to bog standard teachers as not being a great judge of future success having not made it to the top themselves. A top player who works as a mentor/teacher (eg Perlman) knows what's required and has been there too, so might have more idea.

The world isn't full of concert pianists because it takes a combination of determination, hours of practice and the availability of top class mentoring and playing oppportunities to get there. Many people may be capable of meeting the challenge but few are in the right place at the right time to get there as well as having the time to dedicate to practice. The only consistent predictor of difference in attainment in the musicians (in the study) was how much time they'd spent practicing, not fingure length or mythical talent. The vast majority of people do not have the opportunities drive and support to achieve world class status, but those that do, don't rely on the mythical talent - they work their XXX's off (fingers, lips etc).

The ceiling is mostly dictated by external circumstance - there are concert pianists with one arm who beat their physical circumstances, and two armed players who never get to achieve their potential because they only ever had mediocre teachers and so never knew what they could be achieving.

For those not at the extremes of physical and mental limitations the evidence points to "success" being correlated to hard work.

So true!

When it comes to the Concert/professional tip top level then maybe, just maybe there is a ceiling, but until that zenith most ceilings are in the imagination of the teacher and the pupil.

Certainly teachers should not wimp out on their pupils, but try their very best for them and help them to maximise their potential.

Putting ideas into peoples minds that they 'never will be any good' at a discipline' is soul destroying.

Later on in that individuals life if they have not been beaten down by criticism they may reach that goal, but they will still have their childhood demons. Far better to say, this is something that will not come easily to you. You can succeed, but you will have to be determined and will always be working against <whatever obstacle is in the way>.

I really despair at teachers who put pupils down rather than tell them there will be stiff competition, it will be hard, then leave it to the pupil to make the decision.

It demonstrates a lack of empathetic judgement that is really callous.

She is right. Everyone has a ceiling. But what seems to be overlooked is that the "certain level" that is the limit for each of us is so far beyond the level that most of us reach in reality that the argument is irrelevant. It may explain why pianists like Horowitz and Argerich were/are so much better than such world-class artists as ... say ... Murray Perahia, but for the rest of us it is of no consequence that there are limits to how good we can become, because we will never approach those limits.

And who is to judge when that level is reached? Certainly not teachers. It has already been pointed out how they had written off Einstein, and he is not the only late-flowering genius. I was told I would fail my GCE O-lvels. I passed all 9, mostly with top grades. Two years later I was told I would fail my A-levels. "You can't cram for them like O-levels". I got straight A's in all 5. (I am not implying that this makes me a genius!!).


It is also not necessarily true that 10,000 hours of practice enables you to "master" something. 10,000 hours of the right sort of practice is supposed to take you to a minimum professional standard. That is not the same thing as mastery. The top performers put in massively more hours, 20,000, 30,000. Just read Lang Lang's biography.

Furthermore the evidence for the "10,000" hour rule is flawed. Only those people that are achieving progress manage to put in that amount of dedicated work. There are no examples of people doing their 10,000 hours and achieving nothing, as those people gave up long ago. (Just playing all your life does not count - it has to be the right stuff). That is not to say that the 10,000 hour rule is not true, just that it has not been given the sort of rigorous test that would satisfy a chemist or physicist. On the other hand the theory that inborn talent explains all is even more badly flawed.


The logic here is flawed too. The reason that the world is not full of concert pianists (although there is an oversupply of very good pianists!) is that most people never get anywhere near the standard of which they are capable.

And I would never tell a student that they have reached their limit. For one thing you can never be sure. How can you tell the difference between a plateau and an ultimate limit? You can't.



Looking back on the earlier contributions ... BadStrad and jod say it better than me

How often have I (and I am sure many other forumites) thought, that I will never reach a special goal and after a while of working towards it, changed my mind and found out it is reachable?
There are several references of this in this forum.

I absolutly agree that part of it is having a really good teacher. But it is also the point of going for it and keep away any thoughts of ceiling.

Aha - the return of Mad Tom...

Is that meant as a compliment? I admit to being influenced by his Blog, and plagiarizing some of his old posts.

Hilarious. If you still want to post, it's a free country, but there's really no point trying to pretend you're someone else.

Pots and kettles! Well spotted though- this one slipped under my radar. You haven't seen sueHM around recently, by any chance? That was only supposed to be a temporary departure...

She never left but it would be inappropriate to expose her new pseudonym!

Fair point!

Have you ever worked out how many hours practise a day 10k hours takes to reach? I did. For a 10 year old child to reach 10k hours before they're 18, it takes 3.4 hours practice, every day, from the moment they start.

Now assuming, that for the first year a child learns, you're lucky if they get in 30 mins every day, that gives you
182 hours off the total.

If they're good, they might start doing an hours daily practice for the next couple of years, giving you a total of 730.

Add that to the first years total, and you have 912 hours completed. That pattern of practice, is more or less what my daughter did, although it was, in reality, five days a week, rather than seven if I'm being honest, got her 138 in her grade 6 flute.

Now, if she wants to get in 10k hours of practise before she's 18, she now needs to do 9088 hours.

Over the next five years, that equals to almost five hours daily practise. She'd get RSI!!! Although I do imagine kids in specialist music schools do that sort of practise. Btw, there is not a chance that she'll do that level of practise, it's an hour, and that's it. If I tried to get her to do more, she'd probably do something very nasty to the flute

However, for a really musical child who wants to be a musician, 3 or 4 hours practise is achievable. You simply can't stop them practising.

My point is that I doubt people reach a ceiling - it's more likely that they haven't completed anywhere near the amount of proper practise required to progress.

Both my children's teachers tell me that it's a pleasure teaching my children because they do the practise that they've been asked to do and covered the areas that have been specified. I think that if students do this, and they have a good teacher, they will progress.

The 10,000 hours thing derives from the traditional length of an apprenticeship - 5-7 years of full time work!

I also tried to work out how much practice would be needed for BB and concluded it was impossible, even more so on a wind instrument. He has his first day at Purcell today and I'm going easy on him with only 40 mins today. Tomorrow he's supposed to do 2 hours 40 and he'll definitely do 1 hour 40 (at school) but I just can't see how he could fit in another hour. We are going to go through reeds very fast.

It is not rocket science, it is elementary arithmetic!!

40 hours per week: about 5 years
20 hours per week: about 10 years
10 hours per week: about 20 years
5 hours per week: about 40 years

<5 hours week: probably never

It makes plain how great a commitment is needed to reach a high standard and how much persistence and stamina it takes. 40 hours per week is almost 6 hours per day. That would be impossible to keep up for most folk.

This concept is dealt with quite interestingly in "Outliers", by Malcolm Gladwell... well worth reading I think
I think that people misinterpret the 10000 hour thing - it simply means that (for musicians), at say a top conservatoire or similar, it is dedication - ie, number of hours of practice - and not 'talent' which separates the really top performers from the merely good ones. Talent can only get you so far.

Ceilings/painters- why am I thinking of Michaelangelo ?

Daughter has hit that target for past 3 years. It could be different story, when she moves to Secondary school next year unless she does home-schooling or a music specialist school.



I'm sure he will settle into that routine very soon, assuming his peers are doing the same!

Best wishes

I was thinking the ceiling is what the teacher hits when you do not do your practice!

There's 2 sides to this debate: Firstly, telling some people that they have reached their limit may spur them on to do better - This works for me (though not in music). But of course it may have an undesired result.

But sometimes it's the teacher that has reached the ceiling for the student. The teaching style for the student may be stopping him/her from progressing. It must be very hard on teachers who have pupils that are doing very well and have a good relationship with the teacher, yet have a few pupils which are 'going nowhere'. So the teacher just maybe, might be the wrong teacher.

However high the ceiling, there's still infinite space above it - if you know how to get there. If you're locked in the room then that's where your ceiling is.