Things to improve upon, technical exercises

[maul]

Are you satisfied with your level of playing? What technicalities would you like to improve? For me, I'd like to get my left hand to play as an absolute equal to my right. Although it's pretty close, it's not as fast and not as versatile. Thirds are another area I'd like to master; trills with each third, fast legato scales, etc. Although most of you are opposed to the idea, I think the only way to conquer these obstacles is to use technical exercises such as Hanon *gasp*.

For me, Hanon gives my fingers a good workout (playing through the entire book front to back), and does increase my abilities for when I want to play actual music. I honestly don't know why some people are so opposed to it. Is it because they are too lazy to do the exercises...or maybe because their technique doesn't allow them to do certain things...so they have to combat it in order to rid themselves of their own insecurities? I really don't know. Maybe it just doesn't help them. That's fine. For others, it DOES help. So why oppose it? Why have such a hatred for something that isn't being forced upon you? Just let it be. Let those who it does help use it at their own will.

Yes, I do create my own exercises for certain challenges within pieces, but I tack on Hanon as an extra boost that I want for full technical control. Thirds and scales can't be mastered simply by playing a range of pieces. You have to work at them. You HAVE to do exercises to fully equip yourself. Maybe you'll encounter some obstacles in a certain piece; thirds for example. You master the measures at hand, but do you truly have control? No. Hanon and other exercises allow you to prepare yourself for anything you may run into. Liszt also thought this way:

"You see, one must not be hindered by anything, for when one desires to express all that one feels, the fingers must be so technically proficient, so supple, and must have such a combination of nuances in readiness, that the heart can stir freely, without ever being handicapped by finger obstacles."

F. Liszt

All technicalities must be conquered by studying octaves, tremolos, thirds, sixths, and scales in order to fully express one's self. You can't get this level of understanding by simply playing pieces. It's not possible.

So I ask you to please stop with the constant bashing of technical exercises. If it doesn't work for you, fine, but it does and has worked for many other people...including Liszt. Look upon things with an open mind, and don't discourage those who it might actually help...and back to my original question, what technicalities would you like to improve upon? I leave you with some quotes:

"During the first five years the backbone of all the daily work in Russian music schools is scales and arpeggios. The pupil who attempted complicated pieces without this preliminary drill would be laughed at in Russia"

Josef Lhevinne

"I believe this matter of insisting upon a thorough technical knowledge, particularly scale playing, is a very vital one. The mere ability to play a few pieces does not constitute technical proficiency"

S. Rachmaninoff

[Kassaa]

You know, Liszt wrote 12 books with technical excercises, which pwn Hanon's ass.

[maul]

Yes, I know this (and I use them as well), but that's not the point. I use Hanon as the example because it is the most debated form of technical exercises. When using Hanon, I make it more suitable by changing the rhythm, increasing tempo, and applying dynamics to the exercises.

[raffyplayspiano]

i like technical excerizes.  I dont like hanon,  I prefer other books.  I just dont feel that i should spend more than 20 minutes on them a day.  Etudes are a different story, but exercises that lack musicality bore me personally.  They work for some people, and thats great, but for me, I space out and it becomes unproductive and a waste of time. To each his/her own! 
 

raffy

[xvimbi]

For me, Hanon gives my fingers a good workout (playing through the entire book front to back), and does increase my abilities for when I want to play actual music. I honestly don't know why some people are so opposed to it. Is it because they are too lazy to do the exercises...or maybe because their technique doesn't allow them to do certain things...so they have to combat it in order to rid themselves of their own insecurities? I really don't know. Maybe it just doesn't help them. That's fine. For others, it DOES help. So why oppose it? Why have such a hatred for something that isn't being forced upon you? Just let it be. Let those who it does help use it at their own will.

Strong words, my friend.

So, then let me speculate as well about the mental make-up of the typical, general "exerciser": to me, it looks like the "exercisers" have much more extreme views than the "non-exercisers". It seems they like to cling to rigid guidelines, perhaps because they believe that it gives them stability and security. They equate doing exercises with having good technique, and not doing exercises with having bad technique. They end up doing exercises just for doing exercises, not realizing that once a technique is mastered, it doesn't have to be practiced again through exercises.

I am wondering if there is a positive correlation for being a Hanon-follower, conservative and Christian, and being a Hanon-basher, liberal and non-religious. Any comments?

So I ask you to please stop with the constant bashing of technical exercises. If it doesn't work for you, fine, but it does and has worked for many other people...including Liszt.

I am certain I'm considered a Hanon-basher...  To spare others from having to go through old posts, let me summarize what this Hanon-basher thinks:

- If carried out properly, one can do any technical exercise without causing harm ("carrying out properly" includes not doing certain exercises that are impossible to carry out in a healthy way)
- because of their highly repetitive nature, technical exercises can easily lead to injury

- If technical exercises work for you, go ahead and use them
- There are other, musically much more fulfilling, ways to acquire technique, and they work as well. They do however require more brain work than technical exercises.

Now, the Hanon-basher statement of the month: "Hanon? It's not my cup of tea."

That's really it! There is nothing unreasonable about it, is there?

"I believe this matter of insisting upon a thorough technical knowledge, particularly scale playing, is a very vital one. The mere ability to play a few pieces does not constitute technical proficiency"

S. Rachmaninoff

No one denies the utility of scale playing, not even Bernhard (he is actually a strong proponent of scale playing).

However, when it comes to technical exercises, let me stress that pulling Rachmaninoff out of his grave to justify them is not useful. He was most severely injured. He should definitely not be used as an example to do exercises.

So, let me summarize again: If technical exercises work for you and/or you like doing them, by all means, go for them. However, make sure that you absolutely know what you are doing. Beginners without proper instructions should stay away from them.

[Siberian Husky]

i use czerny once in a while..i like his school of velocity series...

its just retarted to sit at a musical instrument and wrench out something no nonmusical..but then again..i dont practice simple scales either...

[pianistimo]

dear xvimbi,

wait a minute!  first i am accused of random posts - and now i read this.  this is a very random assumption that christians usually like hanon exercises (whispers to mayla, could this be true?)  ok.  before i went on the forum i was thinking i would always use a little hanon for beginner students to sort of brush up on evenness of playing and all.  but, now that i read your posts and others (and listen to my teachers opinion) you are right!  it doesn't help with musicality.  it makes things more 'mechanical.'  czerny at least puts some sort of melody in or something more interesting than measures that repeat over and over.

although, one particular exercise (not hanon) i still cling to.  that is one that is a five finger exercise that i learned from my last college prof.  it started out by playing the major chord, minor chord, diminished chord, then V/V and on to the next chromatic chord - until all were gone through.  then, in several weeks you go on to teach single notes 123454321 in major chord, minor chord, etc.  then 12123434545432321 and so on (with different exercises for five fingers in all 12 keys).  this gets the student used to thinking about what key they are in.  also, there was a  double thirds exercise in this pattern.  this WAS helpful to me.

with beginning students, starting with exercises of this kind, helps them play from memory instead of having to learn sightreading AND exercises at the same time.  they are easy and can be learned with right hand and left together (instead of learning hands apart).  but, after a year of small exercises like this, it's probably better to focus on newer exercises.  i wish that someone would write a book of updated kinds of exercises.   maybe i will sit at keyboard and make some up.

[thalbergmad]

I do use Hanon and have done for 36 years.

I know i am going to be shot down for this but mostly i play a chord of g# b d f g#. I then play one note at a time for about 50 repetitions whilst keeping the others still.

My own piano teacher who is an astounding concert pianist with a set of fingers as good as anyone (he has played all of the Horowitz transcriptions live), does this every day and it is the only exercise he does.

[xvimbi]

I do use Hanon and have done for 36 years.

I know i am going to be shot down for this but mostly i play a chord of g# b d f g#. I then play one note at a time for about 50 repetitions whilst keeping the others still.

How can you? I think I have to shoot you down

My own piano teacher who is an astounding concert pianist with a set of fingers as good as anyone (he has played all of the Horowitz transcriptions live), does this every day and it is the only exercise he does.

This must serve as the most extreme example for the delusional power of exercises. I am sure you have good technique, and I am also sure you don't attribute it to this exercise, so you understand that I don't mean to offend. But for the sake of the young ones who believe in exercises, let me point out two things:

First, you are doing an exercise that is very silly. You play one chord with certain variations. This touches on a miniscule portion of what constitutes piano playing. So, your exercise doesn't cover any real ground.

Second, you are invoking an authority, saying that your teacher does only this one exercise, and he plays fabulously. Surely, your teacher didn't get his fabulous technique from this one exercise. However, it would seem that one should attribute his fabulous technique to this single exercise, because it's the only one he is doing. What it should tell you is that he doesn't have to do any other exercises, because he already has fabulous technique, and as I said above, once a technique is mastered, one doesn't have to practice it anymore. Merely playing repertoire is sufficient to maintain it.

So, your exercise isn't really an excercise aimed at advancing technique. It is there to make you feel good, to give you a sense of security, like "I've done my exercise, nothing can go wrong now". It is superstition! If your teacher told you that, every morning, he stands on his left foot and jumps up and down for five minutes while scratching his left ear using his right hand, and that's the only exercise he does, you would probably be doing the same. And you would say "everybody, go jump up and down, because it works for my teacher."

Again, I am sure you realize all this, and everybody can see the silliness in this particular, extreme example. What many people can't, however, is to recognize the same silliness in more complicated settings. For example, someone who plays through Hanon every day may not feel silly at all and may also say "my teacher is doing this, and he is fabulous". Yet, it is still as silly. It becomes even harder to recognize for those who say "I play Czerny and Pischna, and Rachmaninoff said it's a good thing." What they don't tell you is all the other stuff that helped them gain excellent technique. They play through a lot of repertoire and prepare it for performances. It is hard, or even impossible, to pinpoint which of the thousands of movements throughout a day actually did advance their technique. But it is easy to point to Hanon, or Czerny, or Pischna, because those are well-defined entities, and they are furthermore designed to advance technique. So, advances in technique are attributed to those exercises. Is it really true? I think most of it is superstition (there might perhaps even be some self-cheating: "I have spent two hours on these stupid exercises. I'd hate to believe that I have wasted my time. Therefore, I simply claim that they have helped me advance my technique.") In addition to this component, there is probably indeed a small amount of improvement in the technique that people gain from these exercises. But I am personally convinced that the same, and even more, improvement can be gained from playing repertoire. And you might again be the perfect example for this type of approach: the exercise you are doing is certainly not responsible for your technical abilities, so it must be your attentive playing through regular repertoire. QED

Thanks for this very illuminating example

(I am beginning to think you are pulling our legs and only wrote this to reveal the silliness of exercises by makig up this extreme example...)

[thalbergmad]

Neither of us gained our technique by doing this, it is more than a warm up than anything else.

It helps with flexibility and strength in the fingers and maintains e technique that is already there. I see nothing silly about it at all.

Of course playing repetoire is the greatest way to gain technique, but technical exercises help you solve problems before you encounter them in repetoire.

I will carry on as i have always done despite any lengthy posts to the contrary.

[xvimbi]

Neither of us gained our technique by doing this, it is more than a warm up than anything else.

It helps with flexibility and strength in the fingers and maintains e technique that is already there. I see nothing silly about it at all.

Of course playing repetoire is the greatest way to gain technique, but technical exercises help you solve problems before you encounter them in repetoire.

I will carry on as i have always done despite any lengthy posts to the contrary.

I said my comments weren't meant as an offense

I meant to say that it would be silly to expect to acquire technique from this one exercise. We also agree that playing anything will maintain technique that is already there. You use it as a warm-up. Fine.

The gist of my post is that people who do Hanon often believe they acquired their technique by doing Hanon. They don't realize that their technique predominantly comes from playing real pieces, not doing a small set of exercises.

You are doing a single exercise every day. To apply the logic of the Hanon-followers, one would have to say that your technique came from that single exercise, because it's the only one you are doing. But you say that playing repertoire is the greatest way to gain technique, which is exactly what I am a proponent of, and you are a perfect example that it works

Keep on doing your warm-up

[maul]

Well, as I said, Hanon gives my fingers a good workout, and I can play better after I've done the entire book. Basically it's a warmup if you read my post correctly. All I said was that in order to improve thirds and other things, you have to work at them with exercises. You can't fully master them through pieces alone. Thirds, octaves, and all that are in Hanon. I never said that you require technique completely through Hanon. That's ridiculous. I said that I add it on to other exercises, and obviously the playing of pieces. It's a combination.

[BoliverAllmon]

I don't think the coorelatoin fits.

[maul]

Correlation? How does it not fit.

[raffyplayspiano]

I do understand what you are saying about hanon can help you on your thirds, and sixths for example.  But you can also work on a piece that has thirds,and this will require you to practice thirds in a more musical setting.  Either way works, I just rather learn a piece in the process. 

my 2 cents

raffy

[jeremyjchilds]

Strong words, my friend.

I am wondering if there is a positive correlation for being a Hanon-follower, conservative and Christian, and being a Hanon-basher, liberal and non-religious. Any comments?

Definitely not a co-relation.

I have to admit xvimbi, I really had a lot of respect for all of your posts, up untill this one...

I'd love to see you use your highly developed reasoning skills to keep posting valuable points, and to keep readers' minds fresh and open....not to take overt digs at what is currently the least "stylish" religion in first world nations of our time.

[xvimbi]

Definitely not a co-relation.

I have to admit xvimbi, I really had a lot of respect for all of your posts, up untill this one...

I'd love to see you use your highly developed reasoning skills to keep posting valuable points, and to keep readers' minds fresh and open....not to take overt digs at what is currently the least "stylish" religion in first world nations of our time.

I didn't mean to imply any of that, and I didn't mean to attach any values, or take overt digs at all.

I have been on this forum for quite some time, and the personality of the people involved in discussions about exercises has shown trends that made me wonder whether there was such a correlation as stated. In fact, I find this a rather interesting aspect and wonder if people adhering to disciplined and streamlined practice regimens (for piano playing or any other activity) have certain political and/or religious preferences. Nothing more, nothing less. If you felt insulted, then I apologize, but would encourage you to think about it. For example, why did you find my hypothesis so outrageous?

[pianistimo]

i think sometimes it's what you are taught.  if you learn something from one teacher and then are shown a better way by another - you take the better of the two.  but, it's not really discounting what you learned before because that was helpful at the time.

to me, this is like any form of discipline.  even martial arts (which i know nothing about - but respect people who can use it to scare people off).  i mean, if jackie chan played the piano, it would be quite entertaining.  he and bruce lee would be the philosophers of piano technique and show people how to bow once and for all.

now, in regards to hanon exercises, i've never really prayed over them.  am sure that if i tried the paganini variations in public i would probably pray and then still mess up.  sometimes if you take technique too far, you are focusing on something other than the true essence of what most people like to hear.  i mean, i personally do like to hear the paganini variations played really well - but it probably sounds like hanon when i play it.

from what i've learned last year and the year previously, the more you kung fu it (become one with the piano) or in Christian terms - relax and let go (after putting in decent practice time) - you don't worry about technique (since you should have at least some from all the hours of practice).  whether you are a scientist or someone who goes by faith more than not - you can still have discipline.  i have learned to order my thoughts almost as much from piano lessons as sermons.  many piano teachers have a logical order to the steps they show you in learning a piece.  you take that, and say - oh, i could use that in another area of my life.  one might be relaxing, period.  i mean, today i was stressing out over losing my key to the car, then a credit card was missing and as i get older if i freak out too much i could have  aheart attack.  so, i say to myself, 'who cares' and then i find them right away.

[xvimbi]

...
whether you are a scientist or someone who goes by faith more than not - you can still have discipline. 
...

Not to divert even more, but why in the world do people believe that scientists are agnostics? The scientific process is agnostic, scientists themselves may or may not be! It is not science OR religion, they do co-exist quite nicely. Sorry for that little remark on the side, but if religious people would let go of this mis-conception, there would be a lot less friction.

[jeremyjchilds]

For example, why did you find my hypothesis so outrageous?

I think that it is a popular misconception among liberal-minded intellectuals to think of Christians as "dumb sheep" (this is a term that I use)

The idea is that Christians just listen to the preacher and do whatever he says, with mindless obedience, caught up in the choruses, emulating, rather than developing. If you were to apply this train of thought to mindless hanon rituals, propogated by teachers who do not stop to actually test thier worth, you get a really nice similarity. (and popular too in our "zeitgiest")

So what's outrageous about that...right??

I find it outrageous because the bible (the basis of Christianity) condemns mindless obedience to spiritual leaders on many occasions. we are to "test and approve" what has been said to us in our spiritual development.

Your hypothesis and comparison was based on popular opinion, rather than fact

That doesen't make me mad that you say that, but I just wanted to make this clear since so many people on this forum respect your opinion.

[jeremyjchilds]

Not to divert even more, but why in the world do people believe that scientists are agnostics? The scientific process is agnostic, scientists themselves may or may not be! It is not science OR religion, they do co-exist quite nicely. Sorry for that little remark on the side, but if religious people would let go of this mis-conception, there would be a lot less friction.

I agree, science and religion co-exist nicely.

I hate the false sense of mistrust of any science that can be seen in a few peripheral christian circles. wouldent it make sense (if you are a christian) to believe that if God created the world with such obvious order, that we should endeavour to understand and study this order, in an attempt to become closer to God? he gave us intelligence right?

I'm glad that most christians are on the same wavelength as me on this one..

[pianistimo]

yes. xvimbi, i didn't mean to categorize scientists.  i just know that for myself, i wasn't born so logical and don't always have physical answers to things (even though many exist).  i prefer to pray a lot if the garbage disposal isn't working.  would you believe, once some junk was stuffed in it, i couldn't get it to work - and i really needed to get some things cleaned and do something other than worry about the disposal.  i prayed to God and said "can you please just help me, because i'm no good at fixing things"  then reset the thing as before andi turned it on again and something spit out, and it worked (was super jammed before). can a scientist explain that?

[xvimbi]

I think that it is a popular misconception among liberal-minded intellectuals to think of Christians as "dumb sheep" (this is a term that I use)

The idea is that Christians just listen to the preacher and do whatever he says, with mindless obedience, caught up in the choruses, emulating, rather than developing. If you were to apply this train of thought to mindless hanon rituals, propogated by teachers who do not stop to actually test thier worth, you get a really nice similarity. (and popular too in our "zeitgiest")

So what's outrageous about that...right??

I find it outrageous because the bible (the basis of Christianity) condemns mindless obedience to spiritual leaders on many occasions. we are to "test and approve" what has been said to us in our spiritual development.

Your hypothesis and comparison was based on popular opinion, rather than fact

That doesen't make me mad that you say that, but I just wanted to make this clear since so many people on this forum respect your opinion.

My hypothesis is based on (my own) observation, not popular belief. I grew up in a Christian environment. In fact, I went to a school for catholic priests for 9 years. Most people get thrown into their system of belief when they are toddlers and never take the time later to reflect on what they are actually "believing". I know many who indeed blindly follow what is preached to them. I also know many who do reflect on their beliefs and come to the conclusion that they indeed believe and not just react.

It is my observation that people outside systems of belief are often quite independent thinkers (many people within systems of belief are capable of that as well, but fewer - my observation). I find that there is a larger percentage of religious people who mostly react than there is among non-religious people. It is also my observation that there is a positive correlation between being catholic and being conservative as well as being Christian and being conservative. I always got the feeling that Hanon-followers were rather conservative. That made me wonder if there is a positive correlation for all three of those. It's a statistics, my own statistics. I was wondering what others had to say.

[pianistimo]

well, if you spent nine years in catholic school, what you have to say might be valid for catholics because they are often more rigid in prayers and rules, etc. than the average christian.  but, yet there are other groups *ie jewish and jewish/christian which are quite conservative as well.  and, yes, some very conservative christian groups, too.  i think they are the minority, and most christians are more 'free thinking' int he usa.  the great thing, i believe, is that God is able to take so many different understandings of his Word, and work with people no matter where they are.

same with piano teachers.  you have some that are quite narrow and then you meet one that lets you have more freedom and tells you things you never heard before.  but, one thing about religion and piano is that you ahve to have a firm foundation.  you can't play piano unless you understand the basics.  that's why children are taught one thing upon another, and christians are taught one precept upon another.  but mature people realize that you have to go beyond rules into an acceptance of randomness, too.  if you can't handle a little bit of the unexpected, then you remain sort of static. 

to me, the best technique at the piano (whether played by non-christian or christian) is an ability to 'forget' the technique and think more about the 'flow' and how it affects the listener.  this gets into some psychological stuff about physiology and tenseness (probably even constipation) that may affect stuffy people vs. unstuffy.  if you just accept that you might make a mistake and you play for all it's worth - it probably sounds better to the audience than a perfect computer- sounding rendition at a 'safe' tempo.

ps  i attend a church/synagogue that is quite free thinking.  many people come together to worship and praise God, and we always look to His Word to direct our thoughts, but we have many different viewpoints.  we discuss (after the service and lunch) many things.  if someone has a different view - we don't argue and get them to change their mind.  we just listen and let everyone take a turn.  it is a very freeing experience.  for instance, one lady attends the presbyterian church also, and is used to reading scripture and being active in the service (so she is), she does not wear a covering over her head (neither do i) and is quite modern in her thoughts, yet, i've seen her prayer answered just as much as a more conservative woman.  i've thought about this, and recognize God's love isn't conditional on how perfect we think we are by keeping rules.  also, some people don't eat kosher in that church and are just as happy eating shellfish.  they don't go around offerring it to everyone at the service, though.  i think there's a place in paul's writings that he talks about not offending people on purpose. 

[jeremyjchilds]

My hypothesis is based on (my own) observation, not popular belief. I grew up in a Christian environment. In fact, I went to a school for catholic priests for 9 years. Most people get thrown into their system of belief when they are toddlers and never take the time later to reflect on what they are actually "believing". I know many who indeed blindly follow what is preached to them. I also know many who do reflect on their beliefs and come to the conclusion that they indeed believe and not just react.

It is my observation that people outside systems of belief are often quite independent thinkers (many people within systems of belief are capable of that as well, but fewer - my observation). I find that there is a larger percentage of religious people who mostly react than there is among non-religious people. It is also my observation that there is a positive correlation between being catholic and being conservative as well as being Christian and being conservative. I always got the feeling that Hanon-followers were rather conservative. That made me wonder if there is a positive correlation for all three of those. It's a statistics, my own statistics. I was wondering what others had to say.

well then all I guess I'm saying is that I disagree...
Thanks for explaining yourself...I'm through now
Sorry to take this topic elsewhere

Back to our riveting discussion on the merits or pinaistic slave labour.