How Hard Should Practice Be?

Duke, Simmons, and Cash watched 17 college piano majors learn the same three measures of a Shostakovich concerto. The pianists chose how to practice and how long to spend. The next day, each played the excerpt 15 times. In this study, neither total practice time nor the number of practice attempts was significantly related to next-day performance quality. Only the three top-ranked pianists used all three of these strategies: Pinpoint the error. Identify where it happens and what causes it, then rehearse the correction. Adjust the tempo systematically. Slow down enough to play accurately, then increase the tempo in manageable steps. Check that the correction holds. Repeat the passage and see whether the error returns on subsequent attempts. The top three made mistakes early in practice, too. What stood out was how they handled those mistakes. For singing teachers, that raises a question. How often do students get to watch us work through a problem and check whether our correction holds? Chapters 00:00 What makes practice effective? 00:36 Assigning a task or assigning minutes 01:07 The Shostakovich excerpt and next-day test 01:46 How the performances were ranked 02:39 Three strategies the top pianists used 03:12 What happened after early mistakes 03:28 Practice time and number of attempts 03:41 Teaching students to correct mistakes Study Duke, R. A., Simmons, A. L., & Cash, C. D. (2009). It’s Not How Much; It’s How: Characteristics of Practice Behavior and Retention of Performance Skills. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56(4), 310–321. Keep Singing Smart.

How much challenge helps a singer learn—and when does difficulty get in the way? In this episode, we explore Guadagnoli and Lee’s Challenge Point Framework and its implications for singing practice. The same exercise can present very different demands depending on the singer’s skill and the conditions in which they practice. We consider how attempts provide useful information, why too much difficulty can interfere with learning, and how blocked and interleaved practice can serve different needs. We also explore why an advanced singer learning an unfamiliar task may still benefit from blocked practice. The practical question is how much challenge this singer needs from this task at this point in their learning—while remembering that performance during practice and retention afterward are different outcomes. Research discussed: Guadagnoli, M. A., & Lee, T. D. (2004). Challenge point: A framework for conceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 36(2), 212–224. https://doi.org/10.3200/JMBR.36.2.212-224 Explore more voice science: https://voicescience.org Keep Singing Smart.

What counts as deliberate practice—and why does the definition matter? In this episode, we explore K. Anders Ericsson and Kyle W. Harwell’s 2019 response to research questioning how much practice contributes to expert performance. Their argument centers on a distinction: activities grouped together as “practice” may have very different goals, feedback, and teacher involvement. We unpack four types of practice—deliberate, purposeful, structured, and naive—and consider why a performance test needs to match the skill being practiced. We also examine their reanalysis, which linked accumulated practice to 29% of performance variation, rising to 61% after statistical correction for estimated measurement error. Finally, we return to the genetics debate and ask how the musical abilities researchers choose to measure shape their conclusions. Featured paper Ericsson, K. A., & Harwell, K. W. (2019). Deliberate Practice and Proposed Limits on the Effects of Practice on the Acquisition of Expert Performance: Why the Original Definition Matters and Recommendations for Future Research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2396. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02396 Season 3, Episode 5 · The Voice Science Podcast https://voicescience.org Keep Singing Smart.

Practice Does Not Make Perfect The Voice Science Podcast · Season 3, Episode 4 What can identical twins tell us about practice and musical ability? Following our episodes on Ericsson’s deliberate practice research and Macnamara’s meta-analysis, we examine a different perspective: Mosing and colleagues’ 2014 study of approximately 10,500 Swedish twins. Across the sample, more practice correlated with higher musical ability scores. Within identical twin pairs, however, differences in practice were not associated with statistically significant differences in the abilities tested—even when estimated lifetime practice totals differed substantially. Understanding that finding means looking closely at what the researchers measured. Their tests assessed pitch, melody, and rhythm discrimination. These auditory abilities differ from skills developed through practice, such as playing an instrument, reading music, and memorizing pieces. In this episode, we explore: How participants’ reports were used to estimate lifetime practice. Why comparing identical twins helps investigate the relationship between practice and ability. What the musical discrimination tests measured. How genetic influences may help explain both musical discrimination and the inclination to practice. How these findings fit into the wider discussion of deliberate practice. Research discussed Mosing, M. A., Madison, G., Pedersen, N. L., Kuja-Halkola, R., & Ullén, F. (2014). Practice Does Not Make Perfect: No Causal Effect of Music Practice on Music Ability. Psychological Science, 25, 1795–1803. Read the paper Keep Singing Smart.

Deliberate practice matters—but how much does it explain? Following our two episodes on Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Römer’s influential 1993 paper, we explore Macnamara, Hambrick, and Oswald’s 2014 meta-analysis of deliberate practice and performance. Across 88 studies involving 11,135 participants, the researchers found that deliberate practice was an important predictor of performance. For musicians, it explained 21% of the variation in performance between individuals. The remaining 79% was not explained by deliberate practice in this analysis; it should not be interpreted as a measure of talent. In this episode, we discuss why the relationship was stronger in more predictable activities, how retrospective practice estimates introduce uncertainty, and why differences in the definition and measurement of deliberate practice matter. Practice matters. It does not explain everything. Keep Singing Smart. References Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363 Macnamara, B. N., Hambrick, D. Z., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). Deliberate practice and performance in music, games, sports, education, and professions: A meta-analysis. Psychological Science, 25, 1608–1618. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614535810

In Part 2 of our exploration of Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Römer’s landmark 1993 paper, we turn to Study 2 and its comparison of expert and amateur pianists. The experts practiced more and performed better on piano-related tasks. But their advantage did not extend to general reaction-time and cognitive-motor tests. That distinction helps us understand what years of practice may develop—and what these studies can actually establish. In this episode, we explore: The 5.2-hour overestimate: Both expert and amateur pianists overestimated their weekly practice compared with their practice diaries. 7,606 versus 1,606 hours: Estimated cumulative practice by age 18 differed substantially between experts and amateurs. These were group averages, not a universal threshold for expertise. Task-specific advantages: The experts’ stronger performance appeared in skills related to piano practice, rather than a general motor advantage. Starting early and catching up: Earlier starts create more time to accumulate practice. Closing that gap becomes difficult when experienced performers continue practicing too. Expertise as something acquired: We examine the authors’ argument that extended deliberate practice can explain abilities often attributed to innate talent, including their discussion of physical adaptation and perfect pitch. The causality caveat: A strong relationship between practice and performance does not establish that practice alone caused the observed differences. Starting later does not put improvement out of reach. The authors’ model allows for substantial gains when deliberate practice begins, while recognizing the demands of closing a large accumulated practice gap. Next, we’ll continue this series with more contemporary research and responses to the original paper. Until next time, Keep Singing Smart. Referenced research Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406. Read the paper via its DOI.

The Voice Science Podcast is back, and we’re kicking off the new season by dismantling one of the most repeated ideas in learning theory. The 10,000-hour rule is everywhere. And it’s a misreading of the original research. In part one of this two-part series, we go back to the source: the 1993 Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Römer paper that started it all. The real finding wasn’t a magic number. It was that the most accomplished violinists had accumulated substantially more highly relevant, effortful practice over the course of their development, and that the quality and structure of that practice mattered as much as the quantity. This episode breaks down what deliberate practice actually is, how three groups of university violinists differed in their practice habits and cumulative hours, and why the 10,000-hour figure has been so thoroughly misunderstood. Part two looks at a wider range of skills and ages through the lens of amateur to expert pianists. Sources: Ericsson, K.A., Krampe, R.T., Tesch-Römer, C., 1993. The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review 100, 363–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363 Gebrian, M., 2024. Learn Faster, Perform Better: A Musician’s Guide to the Neuroscience of Practicing, 1st ed. Oxford University Press, Incorporated, Oxford. voicescience.org

A quick but important update from the VoSci team — and a preview of what’s coming in September.The Voice Science Podcast is taking a summer break. When we return, expect a more frequent and more focused series with some topics we’re genuinely excited about: how to maximize your practice time, what baritones can learn from trombones, and how a 500-year-old vocal exercise may be the best tool for developing your mixed voice.In the meantime, the full episode archive, the VoSci Lexicon, and all the practice tools are waiting for you at voicescience.org.See you in September.

Last episode, the premise was simple: when it comes to breath, more is almost always the wrong answer. This episode makes good on the promise — finding the leak and fixing it.In part two, Josh Manuel gets diagnostic. The episode traces breath waste back to its most common source — the onset — and explains how the way you start a note largely determines how much air you’re about to burn through. From there it covers the full diagnostic tree for “I keep running out of air,” how to build toward firmer fold closure in singers who need it, why what you feel while singing is often the opposite of what’s actually happening, and a deep look at what breath support actually buys you once the work is done.This one goes deep. It’s built for singers who want to understand the instrument, not just survive the phrase.voicescience.org

“More air. More support. Bigger. Push more. Give me more.” If you’ve spent any time in a voice lesson or choir rehearsal, you’ve heard it. And according to Josh Manuel, founder of VoSci — it’s almost always the wrong answer.In part one of this two-part episode, Drew Williams-Orozco walks through Josh’s ground-up breakdown of how breath actually works, why the “more” instinct betrays singers, and what’s really happening when a phrase falls apart. The episode covers the mechanics of inhalation and exhalation, what breath support actually is and which muscles are doing the work, why tension isn’t the enemy, and the subglottal pressure principle that reframes everything singers think they know about air.Part two goes diagnostic — finding the specific leaks that are costing you air and what to do about each one. But first, the foundation.voicescience.org