The Voice Science Podcast

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

Keep Singing Smart.

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:

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.

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.

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

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

Not all students want the same thing — and assuming they do is one of the most common sources of frustration for both teachers and students.

In this episode, contributor Timothy Wilds introduces a diagnostic model developed by Juilliard-trained violinist and educator Fedor Ouspensky that helps teachers identify what a student actually wants from lessons. Built around two simple questions about goals and mastery, the model produces four distinct student types — Dedicated, Hobby, Casual, and Experience — each requiring a different teaching approach and a different kind of relationship.

Timothy walks through each type in depth, shares how his own teaching assumptions have had to evolve over four decades, and offers practical guidance for the most common scenario teachers face today: the student who wants the result without the skills — and what to do when that student is standing in front of you.

Whether you’re a teacher trying to retain students while holding your standards, or a student trying to figure out why lessons haven’t been clicking — this one is for both of you.

voicescience.org

Ready when you have the link! 🎙️

Vocal strain is one of the most common complaints singers bring into the studio — and one of the most misunderstood. In this episode, Drew walks through the mechanical cause of most strain, why the advice to “breathe deep and support” can actually make things worse for contemporary singers, and what to do instead.

The episode covers the hyperfunction loop, the relationship between breath pressure and vocal fold closure, why singing softly is more physically demanding than it sounds, and how redirecting tension into the torso changes everything. Practical, science-grounded, and immediately applicable.

If your throat gets scratchy on certain passages, if high notes feel like a fight, or if you hit a wall somewhere in the middle of your range — this episode is for you.