Hanon

[BoliverAllmon]

what are your thoughts on Hanon and why?

thanks

[LaVirtuosa]

well, i purchased the complete revised edition, and in the preface they promised all sorts of things one would gain from playing all of them(60). in this particular edition they also tell you how to practice each one. i found that after following the instructions, my playing was notably rhythmacally stronger. it also helps to make each finger completely independent. i think that hanon will have different effects on people. worked for me...if you want to spend $20 and just try, do, because if you do get  a result, it is a good one.

[mound]

refer to this thread:

http://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,4704.0.html

[chozart]

I didn't really like the Hanon exercises (whatever they were, with the insanely repatitive things.. going up the piano, then back down.. then a bunch of others with basically the same technique.. maybe a variation in like 1/2 keys..)

They weren't really useful, IMO..

I mean, a few are ok ~ help with warming up, etc.. build some finger dexterity, but not really all that much. I think just a few are fine, but spending time on more than 5 or so is just sort of a waste, I think.

Rather do some etudes.. like Czerny's.
They're really quite nice, although sometimes annoying 
but they're rather lovely for regular etudes (i'm not even gonna start with Chopin & Liszt on the other hand..), and they ARE useful because they emphasize techniques that often appear in many other works (like sonatas etc.).
Plus, they don't drive you insane with the repatitiveness.. they're just like 'songs.'

[janice]

ummmm......Hanon is a basically a dirty word here at Piano Forum.  lol  It's true.  Do a search.

(Personally, I play his book 2 almost every day ONLY as a warm-up, and to get the blood flowing!) I DO NOT play them according to the instructions written in the forward!  Thank goodness, I read the posts from the Hanon-haters here, before I read the forward.  So therefore, I would not do them as Hanon advised, if I were you.  (My opinion! )

[Spatula]

ummmm......Hanon is a basically a dirty word here at Piano Forum.  lol  It's true.  Do a search.

(Personally, I play his book 2 almost every day ONLY as a warm-up, and to get the blood flowing!) I DO NOT play them according to the instructions written in the forward!  Thank goodness, I read the posts from the Hanon-haters here, before I read the forward.  So therefore, I would not do them as Hanon advised, if I were you.  (My opinion! )

I use Bernie's style: hot water and 360 degree arm pendulum swings

[BoliverAllmon]

hanon Haters? WOW. I knew alot of people didn't agree with them, but holy cow. I am up in the air. My teacher swears by them. He had to work with that year solely for 2 years while in school in Vienna. He says that nothing builds strength like Hanon. Rachmaninoff also swore by the book. He himself spent 5 years mastering the exercises. I have been doing a query of other instrumentalists about Hanonesque exercises for there respective instrument. Most have some form of finger exercises that they go through. Why the difference with piano is then my question? again I don't know. I am just investigating. has anyone been able to get up to speed on the exercises? I know the M.M is around 108 or so, but to get the thing done in an hour with repeats you have to get alot faster than that. 150 or so easy. I can do the first exercise so far, but the second one still needs speed.

boliver

[mound]

I have been doing a query of other instrumentalists about Hanonesque exercises for there respective instrument. Most have some form of finger exercises that they go through. Why the difference with piano is then my question?

When I was playing bass, I did alot of exercises that weren't part of any specific musical piece, rather, exercises for the sake of exercises. None however were founded on the principle that every finger should be as strong as the other and be completely independant of each other.  Such a principle simply couldn't be applied to an instrument where the hands work together (i.e. a single note is produced by using the left and right hand together.) This is the core of Hanon, that each finger can be developed to attain equal strength and complete independance.  Bernhard has gone at length (See the link I posted above) about why this fails with our current understanding of the physiology of the hand (it's physically impossible and could lead to injury to try), as well, he has written at length in other threads as to how you can spend your time developing the same technique working on actual repertoir.  I'll also note that since starting studying classical piano, and learning what I have learned about technique acquisition from these forums, from my teacher and from my own experimentation, I can tell you with certainty that when I go back to bass (I haven't given it up, it's still very much a part of me, I'm just focusing on piano now) I won't waste any more time doing worthless finger exercises.  (aside: I've learned so much about acquiring technique and efficient practice since diving into piano, I'm kinda excited about trying to learn some advanced bass repertoir just because I know how much easier it would be with these same techniques, than piano, what with 10 fingers to deal with 

I know the M.M is around 108 or so, but to get the thing done in an hour with repeats you have to get alot faster than that.

That seems like a wonderful way to waste an hour to me! 

-Paul

[faulty_damper]

hanon Haters? WOW. I knew alot of people didn't agree with them, but holy cow. I am up in the air. My teacher swears by them. He had to work with that year solely for 2 years while in school in Vienna. He says that nothing builds strength like Hanon. Rachmaninoff also swore by the book. He himself spent 5 years mastering the exercises. I have been doing a query of other instrumentalists about Hanonesque exercises for there respective instrument. Most have some form of finger exercises that they go through. Why the difference with piano is then my question? again I don't know. I am just investigating. has anyone been able to get up to speed on the exercises? I know the M.M is around 108 or so, but to get the thing done in an hour with repeats you have to get alot faster than that. 150 or so easy. I can do the first exercise so far, but the second one still needs speed.

boliver

Yes, there are a lot of anti-Hanon thoughts on this forum.  I provide some of them.

Anyway, if you are playing them significantly faster than 108 per crotchet, then you are not following Hanon's directions.  Good for you!  Anyone who completely disobeys his directions can play the exercises faster than that.  There are other reasons, aside from speed, that Hanon is a waste of time.  But if you insist on playing them faster than 108, you must ignore his directions.

[Spatula]

Hanon is the baroque musical terminator.  He would be the "made for piano monkey training supervisor" of his age.

He'll be back. 

[BoliverAllmon]

so today I asked my theory teacher about Hanon, finger exercises, and his experience with trumpet. He considers Hanon, Pischna, and Czerny as the Bible of piano technique. He says that in his 40+ years of working at the school he has learned to immediately recognize if someone studied with these exercises. He says you can't tell when they play a first piece, but if you give them something new there technique falls to pieces unless it is familiar or they have worked with these "Bibles". He says that when learning trumpet they everyone plays certain finger exercises to develop coordination and also lip and tongue exercises to develop those techniques. He says that it is a must to do these exercises if you want to be a good trumpeter. You have to be able to learn pieces at quick speeds and sight read very well. He believes the same goes for piano. If you want to be able to learn quickly and also be a good sight-reader. Exercise books are a must.

Some other food for thought. I read that Liszt was required to work for 4-6 hrs a day on finger exercises before he was allowed to touch a real piece when learning from czerny. Beethoven was concerned about his nephews piano playing and sent Czerny (who was the teacher) several exercises to give to his nephew. So though Hanon was written after these composers had passed. Technical exercises were still be used during there lifetime.

boliver

[Piazzo22]

Boliver is totally right. The thing is that there´s to much people now that say excercises are not good, but they´ve practiced hundreds of hours in their childhood (I´m talking about today teachers). And those who never did technical excercises, probably don´t have a good enough technique.
So, you don´t want to do it, don´t do it. But don´t expect agility will come faster just but practicing your pieces.
For example, Richter did never practice scales... he´s my favourite pianist, but please...
never in his whole life? So his fingerings were totally natural?

[bernhard]

so today I asked my theory teacher about Hanon, finger exercises, and his experience with trumpet. He considers Hanon, Pischna, and Czerny as the Bible of piano technique. He says that in his 40+ years of working at the school he has learned to immediately recognize if someone studied with these exercises. He says you can't tell when they play a first piece, but if you give them something new there technique falls to pieces unless it is familiar or they have worked with these "Bibles". He says that when learning trumpet they everyone plays certain finger exercises to develop coordination and also lip and tongue exercises to develop those techniques. He says that it is a must to do these exercises if you want to be a good trumpeter. You have to be able to learn pieces at quick speeds and sight read very well. He believes the same goes for piano. If you want to be able to learn quickly and also be a good sight-reader. Exercise books are a must.


boliver

Your teacher is quite clearly approaches music study in a  “religious” way. And a religion person “believes” and follows whatever they regard as “Bibles” (or Korans, or Vedas), no matter what.

I do not regard these matters with a religious attitude. I have no particular “devotion” towards any of these methods. Nor do I rely on hearsay. The only things that matters to me are: “Does it work?” “Will my playing improve?” “Are there better alternatives out there for me to try?”. I suggest that it is in your best interests to adopt the same attitude. Do not concern yourself with who said what. It is of no relevance what your trumpet teacher said, or even if he has any authority to say it. It is of no relevance what I say or if I have any authority to say it. Instead, look at the moon, and not at the finger pointing to it.

Do you want to spend 3 hours a day doing Hanon? Sure why not. It is your life, what do I care?

Also keep in mind that I have never said that one should not work on technique. Technique is a must. But Hanon, Czerny and Pischna are very misguided ways to go about it. Has your trumpet teacher selected two groups of students (randomly sampled), and then proceeded to teach one group using Hanon, Czerny and Pischna and the other groups according to a different method? Has he done the necessary statistical analysis and compared results? Somehow I doubt it. So his opinion is based on tradition, hearsay and superstition.

Some other food for thought. I read that Liszt was required to work for 4-6 hrs a day on finger exercises before he was allowed to touch a real piece when learning from czerny. Beethoven was concerned about his nephews piano playing and sent Czerny (who was the teacher) several exercises to give to his nephew. So though Hanon was written after these composers had passed. Technical exercises were still be used during there lifetime.

Yes, human stupidity assumes many forms and guises. The important question here is not how many hours of finger exercises Liszt was required to do (something we will never truly know), but rather if it was necessary. As for Beethoven’s nephew, what good did all those hours of Czerny exercises ever do to him? A suicide attempt and never got near a piano (or Beethoven for that matter) again.

In March 1750 J. S. Bach had both his eyes operated from cataracts. The English Oculist John Taylor was touring in Germany and did the operation. The operation began with the application of hot boiled apples to Bach's eyes to soften the cornea. Bach was then tied to a chair. Taylor's assistant  - a pretty strong guy - clamped Bach's head in his arms so that he would not move it. There was no anaesthtic or sterilisation of any kind. Taylor lanceted Bach's eyes. But this was nothing compared with what followed. Post-surgery treatment consisted ot blood letting (using suckers), and laxatives used in conjunction with Belladona (The deadly night shade) to combat the evil humours. Bach was left to convalesce while Taylor continued his tour of Germany. In April Taylor returned and realised that the operation had been unsuccessful. So he operated again and applied the same follow-up treatment. Bach was blindfolded for the next four months, and basically blind. On July 18, he could not take it anylonger and took the blindfold away. He could see again. The operation had been a success. Ten days later he died from the effects of the follow-up treatment.

So, if you have eye problems are you going to submit to the same treatment? I doubt very much. You are going to take every advantage of the advancement of medical science since then. So why should Liszt's practice regimen be adhered to blindly? (if that indeed was his practice regimen)

Understand that I am always prepared to go out of my way to  explain something that I may have not been very clear about. I have no interest whatsoever in a purely intellectual discussion based on “my teacher said the moon was made of cheese”. Or “during Liszt’s times everyone believed the earth was flat”. Contrary to religious people – and publishing houses who have a vested interest in selling copies of Hanon and Pischna – I have no interest whatsoever in convincing you of anything.

Try it out. Then come back with some real data.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[BoliverAllmon]

sounds good. i will work on hanon for the next say 3 months? (or you can give the time table) I will then give you the results? I would be curious though as to what you would consider good results.

boliver

[BoliverAllmon]

have you even worked and found the effects of Hanon besides what logic would elude too? I mean you have shown on many occassions that logic isn't always correct.

boliver

[glBelgedin]

Hanon IS the logical thing to do.

[BoliverAllmon]

Bernhard has used logic to disprove its value. Logic would tell us that we should have learned something better regarding technique since Hanon was created (though in a related field no one has been able to produce greater counterpoint writing than Bach). he mentioned other things also, I just mentioned that one first.

boliver

[Rach3]

1) Hanon is not a 'related field' to J.S. Bach and his contrapuntal writing... I am personally offended by the analogy.

2) Not to continue our second-guessing of Bernhard, but I think he meant that, as opposed to have an intellectual discussion and using 'logic', we should actually try Hanon and see for ourselves how helpful it is?

[glBelgedin]

Sorry, that came out kind of argumentative. I do see what you're saying, logic with logic as it were. In my mind there are two kinds of logic, the kind of logic that makes sense right awat and the kind that makes no sense until you understand it.

When I first began learning I rarely touched a piece, instead I'd play scales and later Hanon(only for a very short period), to me it made perfect sense to do this(). Then I read Dr. Chang's book and found this forum, and the ideas put forth, although strange in some ways, made a lot of sense.

I'm really not qualified to be arguing on either side of this discussion, I really shouldn't have replied, but I've had successes with the methods Bernhard and CC describe.

I prefer Dr. Chang's description of "intuitive" regarding Hanon

[BoliverAllmon]

1) Hanon is not a 'related field' to J.S. Bach and his contrapuntal writing... I am personally offended by the analogy.

2) Not to continue our second-guessing of Bernhard, but I think he meant that, as opposed to have an intellectual discussion and using 'logic', we should actually try Hanon and see for ourselves how helpful it is?

it is related in that is music that or at least notes that were written hundreds of years ago. bach is a billion times a composer than the hanon exercises. No offense intended.

I do plan on trying Hanon myself. I admit I haven't read Chang's reasoning against Hanon, but have listened to Bernhard.

[sznitzeln]

I also started doing Hanon. I think it seems good. It makes my playing more even and comfortable. I think this along with scales is excellent for technique. Lhevinne recommends practicing a lot of scales, and for young players 2 hours of technique each day. Scales, Hanon, etc is certainly not bad, since we have many great pianist that developed good technique this way (I have heard the arguements that they succeeded "is spite of Hanon, etc"). Maybe there are better ways, who knows, I agree with Bernards trial and error approach...

One very important thing about Hanon, as most of you probably have thought about:
Play it in all tonalities... And stop if you notice exessive fatigue, feel your muscels and figure out why you are tensing them too much. Its important to be instructed by a good teacher about how to use your body...

[sznitzeln]

[this was part of the first post, but I was a bit wordy, so I split it]

Another thing... many wise people say "you always have to use your brain while practicing" ... I think its true, but you dont always have to use your conscious part... the subconcious can (and should) take care of a lot of things... and no-body has a complete intellectual view over their reflexes... In my opinion the reflexes are a mysterious link between the musical idea and its execution, thinking too much about them can infact impede the motions. One example... a trill is often easier to do if you think about something else. The important thing is to know what things you have to think about and what should be taken care of "automaticly" by the nerves and subconcions. In Hanon I think that the brains simultaneos-capacity will not be overloaded...I dont think you have to worry very much about your tone, etc...
 Hanon has some meditational effects... I pretty much enjoy it...

[mikeyg]

Hanon lovers unite! 

[c18cont]

Friends,

Whatever,.. you will have some who see through a glass is if it were empty... But I say to you from 60 years of high school and university work,

Don't discard your Hanon or other older methods book too quickly, on the basis of a false pretense of someone knowing what is best for you....

You may well be sorry, as the entire area of rigorous training has slipped in the last few decades, as noted by many...check them out yourself; don't ask me to do so...

John Cont

[thalbergmad]

Friends,

Whatever,.. you will have some who see through a glass is if it were empty... But I say to you from 60 years of high school and university work,

Don't discard your Hanon or other older methods book too quickly, on the basis of a false pretense of someone knowing what is best for you....

You may well be sorry, as the entire area of rigorous training has slipped in the last few decades, as noted by many...check them out yourself; don't ask me to do so...

Well said sir. I have used it for 30 years and i will continue to do so.

John Cont

[aerlinndan]

Mr. Cont,

So far I see that you have replied to two threads on the subject of Hanon. But your replies have been vague at the least and condescending, if I am to be more harsh.

And that may be excusable. If you do indeed have 60 years of teaching backing you up, you're a whole lot further ahead of me, an 18-year-old kid who just graduated high school.

However, there are certain parameters that one just follow if good discussion, debate, and argument is to be upheld. So far all you have done is respond in vague generalities and prophetic-seeming warnings to all the Hanon naysayers. I think that Bernhard, and xvimbi, and many others (and myself, if I may say so - I wrote a short paper on Hanon and Pischna and started a thread somewhere on these boards) have provided some really good arguments as to why Hanon may indeed be a big waste of time.

You've provided nothing.

Would you care to state your position with a little more behind it? If you're right, you should be able to verbally defend yourself, especially if you have the experience backing you up.

Sincerely,
Mike

[c18cont]

I havn't any idea Mike,,

My friend, why you find my comments to be a problem. If you dislike Hanon that is fine, however I have covered as well as the other respondants here, and answered well the comments they took issue with. You simply happen to be on the other side...

I  have studied with many persons versed in Hanon as well as many other methods, and my only suggestion is that some do very well indeed on Hanon; I was one, and I once played very well in major recitals. I used Hanon for many SELECT students, many of whom have completed university programs...

Holding a masters and having been taught by persons with credentials from the major music schools in this country, I believe I have a good understanding of the issues..I have been clear in reminding, that OTHERS listing here, (and also including historical subjects that there would be no purpose in my repeating), show the success of Hanon. I needed no support for the material..it is here already...within this forum...

Frankly I suspect you are unable to back your material any better than the others I have read; All depend on non specific material gleaned from other writers on this forum, and from surprising sources, showing something else altogether..(an example is the sheath of the three smaller fingers cited by one as the tendons....(zvimbi) )

But even more important is where you are coming from, and I suggest that you might have just ignored my posting if it was not important to you: instead you choose to denigrate me, in spite of my education and background...When you say I have provided nothing you do yourself and others a disfavor...I provide from the same types of sources, just the other side of the arguement...None I have seen is convincing, that Hanon is wasted energy, and I have proved otherwise in my career.

I wonder that you are pleased to your response under those conditions, but suspect you simply have had a problem with respect. In fact, I have a minor in debate, and have no problem in presenting myself; it simply is no longer worth the effort here...as just as you cannot know my background, I cannot know that of the ones who denigrate Hanon either...Few of us are willing to meet on common ground, but I do accept private messages should that interest anyone....

In any event, it is not necessary for you to answer...you will not be further acknowledged by me should you reply in this thread, nor am I likely to continue as a respondant.

John Cont

[aerlinndan]

Eek.

Perhaps I do have a problem with respect.

Or maybe my problem lies in getting myself across in a manner that is both effective and does hurt anyone.

I did not mean to insult, overlook, or otherwise devalue all your years of music- I hope 50 to 60 years down the road I can say I've led a musical life full of teaching, performing and creating, as you have - and perhaps you will consider forgiving me. It's obvious that I'm new to these forums by my number of posts, and I didn't know that you have defended Hanon elsewhere. I am a very skeptical and meticulous person by nature, and I place great value on logic and evidence, for only with both combined can we ever arrive at anything that is more than anecdotal.

I have a friend named Yi-Ju Lai from Taiwan - sixteen years old and playing brilliantly Chopin's fourth ballade, Rachmaninoff's Corelli Variations, and so on. She is an incredibly accomplished musician, and very good at what she does. She started her musical journey at age five, playing only Hanon for the first six months.

The point is, I am aware of the anecdotal evidence out there that Hanon is indeed incredibly beneficial. My previous piano teacher swore by it - but he and I had so many issues that oftentimes it is difficult to differentiate between pianistic, philosophical, and personal problems there. I got truly serious about the piano two years ago and started taking lessons with him. He assigned me an amount of Hanon and Pischna that required me to use about a third to a half of my available practice time to have it ready to play for the next week.

Now that I have freshly graduated high school (and therefore know everything about  everything  ) I am no longer held to those standards. I find that the time spent learning repertoire instead of playing repetitive exercises is much more rewarding, satisfying, productive, and helpful. I feel that my technique is getting better daily because I can spend time on the Bach preludes and fugues, Mozart and Haydn sonatas, and other great works.

The thoughts of Bernhard, xvimbi, and all the other people on these boards that have ever cried out against Hanon have only gone to support the conclusions that I came to on my own. Of course, I didn't get everything on my own the first time around, and others' opinions have sort of filled in the gaps.

If my response was harsh, Mr. Cont, it's only because I'm actively searching for something universal out there that we can all apply to this thing called piano playing. I want to know, you see...and shame on me if I will ever defend any opinion of mine so strongly that I will not listen to anything that anyone else might say contrary to it. (Especially at age 18!) I know what my choice of opinion is at this moment, and it is derived from a combination of personal anecdotes, research, good thinking of others, and my own experience at the instrument.

So please, forgive me! Sometimes my thirst for knowledge makes me forget that there are people behind the names and the posts, and that the written word is a powerful thing indeed.

[xvimbi]

I havn't any idea Mike,,

My friend, why you find my comments to be a problem. If you dislike Hanon that is fine, however I have covered as well as the other respondants here, and answered well the comments they took issue with. You simply happen to be on the other side...

You should have more confidence in us. We can easily be convinced of something when there are good arguments. Sadly, you have indeed provided little in this respect. You only keep mentioning that Hanon has worked for you and that one would be wise to do Hanon, Czerny, etc.

You mentioned that one needs to have proper education and a solid background. So then please explain how to approach Hanon to get good benefits from it without getting injured. Make a case why Hanon is superior to Bach and Scarlatti.

I  have studied with many persons versed in Hanon as well as many other methods, and my only suggestion is that some do very well indeed on Hanon; I was one, and I once played very well in major recitals. I used Hanon for many SELECT students, many of whom have completed university programs...

Now I need to become a bit more assertive: I have seen many people who complete university programs do the stupidest things one can imagine. I speak from personal experience. The bottom line is that students completing university programs does not validate a teaching method per se. This does not impress me at all. I am teaching at a University. I constantly ask myself whether my students succeed because of how I teach or despite of it. Do you know whether your students were successful because of Hanon, or despite of Hanon? Do you really know the answer to that question? Do you know for sure that Hanon is superior to alternative approaches as outlined by Bernhard, me and others? If you do, tell us the reasons. Also, since you seem to have a lot of experience, please tell me how many of the pianists you have come in contact with have injuries, either minor ones that prevent them from practicing only for a short period, or serious ones. I would be very interested in an honest answer. Has ever anyone of those with injuries investigated the causes for their problems?

Holding a masters and having been taught by persons with credentials from the major music schools in this country, I believe I have a good understanding of the issues..I have been clear in reminding, that OTHERS listing here, (and also including historical subjects that there would be no purpose in my repeating), show the success of Hanon. I needed no support for the material..it is here already...within this forum...

I assume with historical subjects you mean the likes of, for example, Rachmaninoff. If Rachmaninoff told me that Hanon is good, I would point out the health status of his hands. If Gould told me that hunching is good, I would show him the X-rays of his back. Sorry, but you have not diffused any of the arguments presented against Hanon. Instead, you ridicule everyone who presents arguments against Hanon and call them an "expert". Yet, now you reveal yourself as an "expert", somebody with many degrees (even in debate), having studied with many masters with great credentials.

Frankly I suspect you are unable to back your material any better than the others I have read; All depend on non specific material gleaned from other writers on this forum, and from surprising sources, showing something else altogether..(an example is the sheath of the three smaller fingers cited by one as the tendons....(zvimbi)