> It is not important, how many hours one studies one thing. > But it is very important how effectively practice time is used.
I wouldn't argue with any of that - I fear that I'm not a good 'practicer' myself. My point is more that 10,000 hours has always seemed to me to be a number plucked out of thin air and I don't immediately see why it should be 10,000 hours rather than another figure. On the other hand, at the top levels human potential is perhaps not so very different. If anybody wants to be exceptional at an endeavour, in comparison with 'competitors', they need not only to practice productively, but also to practice a great deal. Both are necessary but not sufficient. I don't see any conflict in what we're saying here. But my interest in this is largely academic. Personally I started enjoying the horn a whole lot more when I remembered that I was playing for fun and didn't need to compare myself to anyone. If I can play better today than I did yesterday, then I'm satisfied. Obviously for the pros on the list, this may be different. > If you have a very good teacher, NEVER question his advice. This interests me. As a scientist, my teachers welcomed it when I questioned them. Indeed, I don't think they would have respected me if I hadn't. Should matters really be so different in music? Kit _______________________________________________ post: [email protected] unsubscribe or set options at https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
