Building speed.. scales... etc.

[opus10no2]

You can't learn to play a scale in 16ths at quarter=200 in a few minutes.  

At my previous level of mechanique, no I couldn't.

But I do believe if I had never played a scale, and had my present level of mechanique, I could manage just what you said.

[m]

Well, teachers have to know about *other people's* techniques, I only have to know about my own, and I feel I do.

Any chance to listen to any of your recordings?

I say I think I know more than the average teacher because I believe in different ideas and principles than the majority of teachers who follow (IMO) misguided methods.

How would you know the principles and methods of majority of teachers if you don't even have a teacher?
How do you believe in different ideas when in fact, for many years you repeatedly posting here only one, which BTW, is completely dumb?

In fact, I don't care. The only reason I argue with you is that you give wrong messages to less experienced folks here. Otherwise, you are fine.

[kevink]

hee hee... well, what a mess.  Poor alb-d, I wonder what informations s/he can use out of this thread ?


No, if you read upward amelialw is suggesting that alb-d use a similar "method" as you are suggesting, and s/he is agreeing with you . 

Along those lines, I will say that kevin, I can understand what you say, to some degree, about feeling like you have "missed out" on developing a technical foundation when you were first starting out; I did, too.  So, to "remedy" the situation, in preparation for my first concert, I decided to spend the months before it in literally *at least* 2-3 hours a day in purely excercises and so on.  I got really, fantastically good, actually -- at playing scales and certain exercises  . 

I still had big problems in my technique that I hadn't been able to solve until just recently, and I still had major gaps in my overall conceptualization about the piano that I also have not been able to get to the root at until just recently.  Sometimes I could play quickly back then, but it was always hap-hazard and caused a lot of tension in my body.  Basically I was a complete mess despite my time in the beloved exercises and, honestly, despite the fact that I had been unequivocally inspired during the years before that point,  I got *completely* burned out ... go figure ?  What a rip off !!   


Unfortunately, I think that being divorced from the literature CAUSES technique to be seen as an obstacle to musical expression.  I am freaking out a little bit now because, well, I have never done Hanon and never intend to and also, I am never again going to spend hours in a week on mere exercises like Czerny and Brahms (unless I like the musical value ) -- I am just realizing at this very moment that because of not spending the time in exercises that you are mentioning, I am obviously never going to reach my full musical potential since I just won't have the technique  .  I guess I will just have to settle for teaching instead  .
 

And you boiled all of my thoughts down to :
Are you actually even reading my posts   Anyway, I guess we'll just both have to find a way to get over it, eh ?

So, I think there is actually some merit to this statement above, IF that is what the individual needs at the precise time in order to mentally and physically cope with a given passage (I can think of one of my current challenges that I might benefit from this kind of thinking).  But, to tell a person that they ought to spend the next ___ years studying scales and excerises for ___ amount of time everyday before they will be able to express themselves musically is just plain blind belief (been there, done that) and artistic murder as far as I am concerned.  Personally, I am generally more motivated by the music.

Earlier you took the liberty of graciously letting us all know that there are not any good teachers in the world who would teach lit practice over exercise practice.  That brought to mind a pannel discussion I once observed with Julliard, St. Petersburg and Moscow conservatory trained masters (all of whom have *definitely* gone the whole scales and exercises routines), answering questions on practice-methods.  These guys hold teaching positions in University and well-known conservatory, and they balance their teaching out with performing careers as well.  Their closing advice was as follows :

(I will paraphrase)

"And, kids, do yourselves a big favor and instead of spending hours in technical exercises, take the sections from your music and from pieces that you would like to play, that are particularly challenging, and use those as exercises."

I think that's interesting in light of your words of wisdom regarding how silly and wrong all teachers who think this way are.  I am also quite curious as to how many people actually took their advice ?  I am betting that most of them were too scared to divorce themselves from whatever regime they had set up with their teachers (and, I can understand this, too). 

I appreciate your thoughts, kevin, because they have helped me to become more clear on mine.  I guess eventually we will all just get over our bluddy selves since we are all going to die anyway ... LOL.


Cheers ! 

Seems like you've been personally offended by my posts.  I'm sorry.  When I said that there's no greater transgression against art, yaddah yaddah, I was thinking about my own years of experience in looking at pieces of music from a technical execution standpoint instead of an emotional standpoint--although I can see my statement was easily interpreted as an indictment of your approach.  I'm sorry.  That wasn't my intention.

IN all, it's hard for me to see what you're arguing against, since you seem to agree that it's important to have good scale technique, and scales are a good way to go about this.  IF anything, it seems to me that we're approaching this discussion with opposite kinds of baggage:  I am embittered by my lack of technical foundation, so I rail against the technique-through-the-rep philosophy... and it sounds like you found technique studies to be a force of burn-out in your musical life.  

As for me, technical studies have been my savior.  I thought for a long time that there would be some things that I would just never be able to do on the piano--some kinds of hand movements that I would never be able to execute, which would keep me from playing the music that I love.  It is a terrible, tragic feeling.  I've spent hours crying bitter tears over this sense of inadequacy--it didn't seem fair that some sort of logistic problem of moving my hands around should keep me from singing what I feel in my soul.  

For the last year, I've been exploring tons of technical exercises.  I've gone through the Hanon book entirely, I've practiced scales each day in a variety of forms, I've fiddled with Dochnanyi and a bunch of others that I can't think of off the top of my head.  I found that the repetitive nature of the Hanon exercises helped me to concentrate on releasing tension everywhere in my body while I practiced... but most recently, I've abandoned following the books, because my understanding of the nature of how my body works to create the sounds I want is so much greater as a result of undertaking these studies, that I now make up all my own exercises.  I can target exactly what my weaknesses are with the exercises I make up, and they are much more expedient than the technique books.

In the process of all this, my technique has dramatically improved.  Now, if I find a technical obstacle in a piece of music, I have most often already explored it in-depth, and so I know exactly how to practice it because of my new-found knowledge about piano technique, which I gained only in this last year through all my exercise explorations.  

Neither you nor I are advocates of mindless, blind and deaf piano practice, in exercises or anywhere!  I have not stressed adequately enough in my posts that it is the interest and determination to explore technical exercises that made them so profitable for me.

It almost brings tears to my eyes to think about what the improvement I made means to me now--it means that I KNOW there are no obstacles I cannot overcome, there is NO MUSIC IN THE WORLD THAT I CANNOT LEARN TO PLAY--my musical imagination and my emotional investment is now the only question, NOT my hands.  I feel that this is not at all because I am a talented pianist--on the contrary, I was a late starter and I'm a rather clumsy fellow--but I know that this is true for EVERYONE, and I feel it is a personal mission to help people who feel constrained by technical limitations to break those bonds.  

Those bonds are too often reinforced by the innumerable voices that criticise technical study.  I had teachers in college who advocated against technical study--and I trusted them because they were such technical gods--you know, the type that went to Curtis and played the Waldstein when they were 12 years old, that sort of thing.  Well, I've come to realize that many of these phenomenal players probably never faced--or don't remember facing--the sort of challenges that I did, as a late starter.  Perhaps they were just more naturally adept, as well.  But it was only when I found a great artist-teacher that had been a late starter himself, that I learned that technical study was what unlocked his technical abilities--and it was only at this point--after college (and before grad school, thank goodness) that I began to look differently at technical studies.

It is excellent advice to study technically challenging passages from the literature--but if in order to accomplish them, you must work on abstractions--such as a scale, or a run, or a rotational figure--you've just moved back into technical exercise territory.  Do whatever is most expedient!  And I can only advise based on my own experience, which is that exploring technical studies and finding out what all the "hubbub" is about, is the way I found out what worked and what didn't--and why!

Nobody should ever feel like they won't ever have enough technique to be a great artist.  

[opus10no2]

Any chance to listen to any of your recordings?

How would you know the principles and methods of majority of teachers if you don't even have a teacher?
How do you believe in different ideas when in fact, for many years you repeatedly posting here only one, which BTW, is completely dumb?

In fact, I don't care. The only reason I argue with you is that you give wrong messages to less experienced folks here. Otherwise, you are fine.

Unfortunately I don't have any new recordings.

I have read the methods, that is all, books and this message board among others.

I have quite a few ideas, which *one* are you talking about? and how is it in any way dumb?

[m]

I have read the methods, that is all, books and this message board among others.

It is impossible to get any idea about method from books. Even greatests teachers (like Neuhaus, Goldenveiser, Cortot, etc.) look kinda funny on paper. It is just contrary to what they are used to in real life--i.e. real person, in a real classroom situation, with real problems, and individual solutions.

I have quite a few ideas, which *one* are you talking about? and how is it in any way dumb?

The one about fast and fit fingers and "mechanics" of piano playing.
Many many years ago been there, done that. Also, had many examples of folks who went that direction.
The only thing I can say--DEAD END, trust me on that.

I'd highly recommend you to find a GOOD teacher, who would explain you how things work.

[m1469]

Seems like you've been personally offended by my posts.  I'm sorry.  When I said that there's no greater transgression against art, yaddah yaddah, I was thinking about my own years of experience in looking at pieces of music from a technical execution standpoint instead of an emotional standpoint--although I can see my statement was easily interpreted as an indictment of your approach.  I'm sorry.  That wasn't my intention.

IN all, it's hard for me to see what you're arguing against, since you seem to agree that it's important to have good scale technique, and scales are a good way to go about this.  IF anything, it seems to me that we're approaching this discussion with opposite kinds of baggage:  I am embittered by my lack of technical foundation, so I rail against the technique-through-the-rep philosophy... and it sounds like you found technique studies to be a force of burn-out in your musical life.  

As for me, technical studies have been my savior.  I thought for a long time that there would be some things that I would just never be able to do on the piano--some kinds of hand movements that I would never be able to execute, which would keep me from playing the music that I love.  It is a terrible, tragic feeling.  I've spent hours crying bitter tears over this sense of inadequacy--it didn't seem fair that some sort of logistic problem of moving my hands around should keep me from singing what I feel in my soul.  

For the last year, I've been exploring tons of technical exercises.  I've gone through the Hanon book entirely, I've practiced scales each day in a variety of forms, I've fiddled with Dochnanyi and a bunch of others that I can't think of off the top of my head.  I found that the repetitive nature of the Hanon exercises helped me to concentrate on releasing tension everywhere in my body while I practiced... but most recently, I've abandoned following the books, because my understanding of the nature of how my body works to create the sounds I want is so much greater as a result of undertaking these studies, that I now make up all my own exercises.  I can target exactly what my weaknesses are with the exercises I make up, and they are much more expedient than the technique books.

In the process of all this, my technique has dramatically improved.  Now, if I find a technical obstacle in a piece of music, I have most often already explored it in-depth, and so I know exactly how to practice it because of my new-found knowledge about piano technique, which I gained only in this last year through all my exercise explorations.  

Neither you nor I are advocates of mindless, blind and deaf piano practice, in exercises or anywhere!  I have not stressed adequately enough in my posts that it is the interest and determination to explore technical exercises that made them so profitable for me.

It almost brings tears to my eyes to think about what the improvement I made means to me now--it means that I KNOW there are no obstacles I cannot overcome, there is NO MUSIC IN THE WORLD THAT I CANNOT LEARN TO PLAY--my musical imagination and my emotional investment is now the only question, NOT my hands.  I feel that this is not at all because I am a talented pianist--on the contrary, I was a late starter and I'm a rather clumsy fellow--but I know that this is true for EVERYONE, and I feel it is a personal mission to help people who feel constrained by technical limitations to break those bonds.  

Those bonds are too often reinforced by the innumerable voices that criticise technical study.  I had teachers in college who advocated against technical study--and I trusted them because they were such technical gods--you know, the type that went to Curtis and played the Waldstein when they were 12 years old, that sort of thing.  Well, I've come to realize that many of these phenomenal players probably never faced--or don't remember facing--the sort of challenges that I did, as a late starter.  Perhaps they were just more naturally adept, as well.  But it was only when I found a great artist-teacher that had been a late starter himself, that I learned that technical study was what unlocked his technical abilities--and it was only at this point--after college (and before grad school, thank goodness) that I began to look differently at technical studies.

It is excellent advice to study technically challenging passages from the literature--but if in order to accomplish them, you must work on abstractions--such as a scale, or a run, or a rotational figure--you've just moved back into technical exercise territory.  Do whatever is most expedient!  And I can only advise based on my own experience, which is that exploring technical studies and finding out what all the "hubbub" is about, is the way I found out what worked and what didn't--and why!

Nobody should ever feel like they won't ever have enough technique to be a great artist.  

Okay, so perhaps we are reaching an agreement ?  

If anything, my *ultimate* desire is for people to see that they are not dependent on one person's saying over another, but rather that they are free to explore various ideas and discover for themselves what works for them.  I am not the most experienced teacher nor musician around, but I have seen *enough* of several different approaches to know that there is not just one way (in terms of note-patterns) to go about becoming an artistic pianist -- and for that matter, there is not just one way to become a very frustrated pianist.

And, so, yes, I have a difficult time when people say to "just do this and the world of piano playing will magically open up to you" -- which, I realize is another boiling down of more than just that sentence.  The point is, though, that I think what we *must* learn to explore is the motions themselves (no matter where they are found) and then be aware of the feedback we are recieving during these explorations (awareness aids in understanding; understanding the feedback aids in recognizing and then fixing the problem).  The crux of the matter is that the freedom a person might be looking for is not actually in the page nor in the piano keys, per se, but rather within oneself (I know, pretty cheesy, but it's really true).  

My point is that these motions can (and must) be explored in both exercises as well as repertoire -- it just takes an awareness (which often times needs the special supervision of a teacher) of what is really happening in order to develop whatever control we are looking for (which is also very much linked to our ability to hear and aurally understand what we are hearing).

There is a mental game, though, to be reckoned with -- and that is different for different people.  For some people, perhaps addressing an exercise helps to ease a mental obstacle (which it sounds like it did for you) whereas for other people, sticking within the context of the music is the only thing that will keep them motivated.  

The focus, however, as I see it in either circumstance, needs to be on the motions (and that being related to the sound and everything else  ), and what kind of experience those motions are producing for us, rather than focusing on where or what the pattern has come from. And, it is very easy to lead somebody astray by just having them sit down with exercises (or anything) without them really knowing what they are "supposed" to be focusing on and learning from it.

[opus10no2]

It is impossible to get any idea about method from books. Even greatests teachers (like Neuhaus, Goldenveiser, Cortot, etc.) look kinda funny on paper. It is just contrary to what they are used to in real life--i.e. real person, in a real classroom situation, with real problems, and individual solutions.

The one about fast and fit fingers and "mechanics" of piano playing.
Many many years ago been there, done that. Also, had many examples of folks who went that direction.
The only thing I can say--DEAD END, trust me on that.

I'd highly recommend you to find a GOOD teacher, who would explain you how things work.

Thing is, I'm making satisfactory progress, and I'll see where it takes me.

If I reach a dead end, you're welcome to say I told you so

[m]

Thing is, I'm making satisfactory progress, and I'll see where it takes me.

How do you know what is a satisfactory progress, if you don't know any different?
If you are playing piano for 5 years, it means you should be already an accomplished pianist. That's the reason I asked you for ANY recording of yours.

If I reach a dead end...

The thing is, you won't know it... just because you don't know any different. But there is a good chance an experienced  teacher will let you know.

You don't have to trust me, but just for reference, every week in Moscow conservatory, where we had to sit on all the lessons, I saw lessons with some of very best virtuoso, many of whom were my classmates. Just some of the names include A. Sultanov, S. Babayan, B. Berezovsky, etc. etc.
For your reference, I witnessed lessons of A. Gavrilov with our mutual dear teacher L. Naumov, before his recording of Chopin Etudes.
For your reference, when I was younger I could play Op.25/6 in 1:35 and Op.10/1 easily at m.m.=200, with 100% accuracy.

So you would give me a permission to say what you told me to say?

[Kassaa]

I think that proves his technique, as good as your 25/6, no?












no.

[opus10no2]

For your reference, when I was younger I could play Op.25/6 in 1:35 and Op.10/1 easily at m.m.=200, with 100% accuracy.

Impressive, no doubt.

Lets say I achieve the same, would that mean I'd still need a teacher?

[amelialw]

your teacher never asks to listen to your technique? I am doing my ARCT's Performers, technique is not required for that exam, but my teacher still listen's to my technique.


This is a funny way of thinking.

this is not a funny way of thinking..an excellent teacher will enforce that technique is extremely important.

[opus10no2]

Technique is heard seen and felt in every note we play, be it real music or any scale figuration.

[Kassaa]

your teacher never asks to listen to your technique? I am doing my ARCT's Performers, technique is not required for that exam, but my teacher still listen's to my technique.


This is a funny way of thinking.

this is not a funny way of thinking..an excellent teacher will enforce that technique is extremely important.

Not separated from the music. If you can play all the passages perfectly and exactly like how you have them in mind who cares about a scale?

[m]

Lets say I achieve the same, would that mean I'd still need a teacher?

It depends what are your goals.

You, and only you should answer this question.

[opus10no2]

It depends what are your goals.

You, and only you should answer this question.

My primary goal is to satisfy myself.

Masturbatory art is always the most sincere.

[m]

My primary goal is to satisfy myself.

There are so many different ways of self satisfaction... including desire to selfexpress yourself, or just become better or excell in something.
If you can and are completely satisfied with, let's say, ability to play Op.25/6 in 1:35 or Op.10/1 with m.m.=200, then I guess you don't need a teacher, anymore.

Masturbatory art is always the most sincere.

I don't think so. In my book the most sincere art is creative one.

[opus10no2]

Well, what I meant by that is that an artist should play to please oneself foremost.

You can say that art can be communicative, but it doesn't converse(except if playing with other musicians, of course), and therefore it can only reveal something about the artist, not the person(s) they are playing to.

[mcgillcomposer]

this is not a funny way of thinking..an excellent teacher will enforce that technique is extremely important.

Yep, technique is important...but good technique is not necessarily achieved through monkey-like repetition of scales and exercises by inferior composers (e.g. Hanon, Czerny).

Any claim that these two things are ESSENTIAL to good teaching is ideology and nothing more.

[m1469]

Any claim that these two things are ESSENTIAL to good teaching is ideology and nothing more.

Well, to an extent this is true, but to an extent it is not.  If the person claiming this has found an ease of movement through them, and is able to help others through that, then it is not "ideology and nothing more," it may just be the way they feel they can best help the student (and it can still be helpful). 

However, if a teacher has actually figured out how to move easily around the instrument, s/he would know that learning about it is not *limited* to such exercises.  I once met with a prospective teacher whose backbone to teaching rest in Hanon.  He was taught by Artur Schnabel (whom apparently used the same approach with him) and Myra Hess and felt very confident in his teaching. 

He made the mistake of asking me, at the close of our lesson, if I believed in this particular method of teaching.  I gave him my thoughts, of course  , telling him that I think each teacher has found something that they feel works for them.  He agreed, admitting that there is not just one way (though, he taught this certain way), and at my discomfort with the Hanon, he said that Hanon was not the only way to learn these things, but that it was the "easiest" (which is a huge pile of worms, sitting and squirming around in not just a can, but in a barrel, in my book).

Well, LOL ... I could "go off" about that ... hee hee, but I won't.  The point is, he obviously discovered something essential that he knew applied to piano playing in general, but he was very limited in how he was willing to teach it.  Rather than sheer ideology, it may simply have been a sense of fear of uncharted territory (for him) which prevented him from doing it differently (and I can understand why, too).   As for me, depite this teacher's desire to work with me, I just wasn't a willing student so I saved us both the trouble-to-come and I never went back  .

[amelialw]

...but good technique is not necessarily achieved through monkey-like repetition of scales and exercises by inferior composers (e.g. Hanon, Czerny).

haha, this is true as I said I never did any Hanon or Czerny. I do use hanon for my younger students though because I makes scales a little more interesting for them.

[kevink]

Well, to an extent this is true, but to an extent it is not.  If the person claiming this has found an ease of movement through them, and is able to help others through that, then it is not "ideology and nothing more," it may just be the way they feel they can best help the student (and it can still be helpful). 

However, if a teacher has actually figured out how to move easily around the instrument, s/he would know that learning about it is not *limited* to such exercises.  I once met with a prospective teacher whose backbone to teaching rest in Hanon.  He was taught by Artur Schnabel (whom apparently used the same approach with him) and Myra Hess and felt very confident in his teaching. 

He made the mistake of asking me, at the close of our lesson, if I believed in this particular method of teaching.  I gave him my thoughts, of course  , telling him that I think each teacher has found something that they feel works for them.  He agreed, admitting that there is not just one way (though, he taught this certain way), and at my discomfort with the Hanon, he said that Hanon was not the only way to learn these things, but that it was the "easiest" (which is a huge pile of worms, sitting and squirming around in not just a can, but in a barrel, in my book).

Well, LOL ... I could "go off" about that ... hee hee, but I won't.  The point is, he obviously discovered something essential that he knew applied to piano playing in general, but he was very limited in how he was willing to teach it.  Rather than sheer ideology, it may simply have been a sense of fear of uncharted territory (for him) which prevented him from doing it differently (and I can understand why, too).   As for me, depite this teacher's desire to work with me, I just wasn't a willing student so I saved us both the trouble-to-come and I never went back  .

Egad, I would have stuck around to try it his way--I used to have a negative opinion of Hanon, but, like I said before, I got turned around when I decided to try a good teacher's advice.  In the end it wasn't Hanon, but the knowledge I gained through my experiences in exploring Hanon, that helped me most.

Out of curiosity, who was this teacher who had been a student of Schnabel and Hess?  You can private message me if you want.  I'd be interested to know...

[m1469]

Egad, I would have stuck around to try it his way--I used to have a negative opinion of Hanon, but, like I said before, I got turned around when I decided to try a good teacher's advice.  In the end it wasn't Hanon, but the knowledge I gained through my experiences in exploring Hanon, that helped me most.

hee hee... I had a feeling somebody might say this.  But, no thanks .  It was 5/6 hours of driving round-trip, and I would have been doing that each week and payed the same amount for the month of lessons whether I was snowed in or not (I actually have the same policy), which to get to where he was would have been very possible since it involved driving over the highest mountain pass for thousands of miles  . 

For the right teacher, it's completely worth it -- for a teacher who is going to use Hanon (a book I have two copies of myself and could learn it all on my own if I want) as my main focus and wants me to teach my students this same way, no thanks, I'll pass.  If I am going to make that kind of effort and spend that kind of money, sorry, but he's got to bring on something more than Hanon ... LOL. 

I gave him a chance, that's what the one lesson was for ... hee hee.  I already knew how I felt and what I would be in for, what more do I need to be convinced of, really ?  Besides, at the time, I was leaving the teacher that I had been studying with for about three years, feeling like I needed my independence -- so, along with not wanting to do Hanon, I didn't want somebody else telling me what to do ... hee hee. 

I was "ready" to be more or less on my own after a couple of years with my University teacher, actually (but then some stupid things happened that changed my mind) -- which was several years ago by now.  After I graduated, I thought I still wanted a teacher, and I thought I wanted to meet with them once a month -- my former Uni teacher wasn't willing to do this.  So, I went a' searching and ended up letting myself be talked into something that I knew deep down I didn't want or need, and then took lessons every week for about 3 years (as I said) with another teacher.  It was fine and I got stuff out of it, but it became obvious to me that I needed to trust my own self more.

Also, honestly, I wasn't even convinced that "Hanon-man" really knew what he was talking about regarding Hanon , afterall, he wanted me to play Hanon the way Hanon describes it to be played  -- which caused tons of tension and fatigue just in practicing for the little bit that I did after I initially saw "Hanon-man."

[kevink]

Who was myster hanon man?  I'm dying here.... : )

[m1469]

Well, there are two reasons I won't say. 

1.  It is too close to home, still, for me to want to announce to anybody on this crazy forum.

2.  I don't actually want to bad-mouth the individual.  Somebody might really like him and I wouldn't want to spoil that for anybody -- you know -- code of honor  .

[sassafras]

HANON: its usefulness depends on where you are "at" musically. I need it and other technical exercises to get back my speed and technique. I never used Hanon -- nor even heard of it -- until I was level 10! Now, I need it and recommend it to anyone who needs to work on technique -- the little I have done with it and the other exercises  have helped me progress twice as fast as just playing music alone. In April I had not played in years and started with a Level I book -- I remembered the technical aspects but my fingers would not go there. Now, after Hanon and only the first 20 exercises, I can handle music that is Level 5-7 with no problems. I was able to sight read with no errors the Alfred Adult Level Three I got from Amazon as soon as I opened it. I credit exercises for getting my flexibility and pinkie fingers in shape.

My fingers are starting to remember all those songs I used to play years ago. Three months ago I could not get my kinetic memory to first base.

What works for me may not work for anyone else, but given the reason I am on disability is due to traumatic brain injury I am happy my fingers and brain are in sync.

Scales/ Hanon  are no substitute for music but for an aid to technique development they can be useful.

[cmg]

As for me, technical studies have been my savior.  

For the last year, I've been exploring tons of technical exercises.  I've gone through the Hanon book entirely, I've practiced scales each day in a variety of forms, I've fiddled with Dochnanyi and a bunch of others that I can't think of off the top of my head.  I found that the repetitive nature of the Hanon exercises helped me to concentrate on releasing tension everywhere in my body while I practiced

I think Kevink has captured the aspect about technical exercises that demonstrates their value.  Namely, for late-starters (i.e. mature individuals) they are a wonderful way to play catch-up, if, and ONLY if, a pianist has Kevink's good sense to know that these exercises can only be beneficial if they expose the TENSION the pianist experiences when playing isolated, demanding passages.

Tension is the obstacle to technique.  Not so-called "weak fingers,"  in my experience.

Personally, I can't say for sure whether Hanon and Czerny did much for me as a kid learning to play.  I began at four and my teacher exposed me to all the classic drills, which, by the way, I never practiced at home and only sightread at lessons.  As a youngster, they were way too boring for me.  I preferred to dig into the real literature. 

I got a degree in piano performance after my earlier formal education in another field, because I was writing professionally about music.  I had a brilliant conservatory teacher who was a child prodigy himself, studied with Gieseking and Casadesus, and had no interest in exercises whatsoever.  He never needed them with his fluid, relaxed, Arrau-like approach to the keyboard.  Studying with him, I learned to rid myself of tension that blocked my technique by analyzing the places in the works I was stumbling over.  If I couldn't play them up to tempo, it was always about tension.  I would ask my teacher to demonstrate.  Watching him, I learned instantly.  So, back to the practice room where I worked slowly concentrating intently on relaxation.  No finger-breaking exercises.

So, I suppose the point I am making is that exercises work for those who can approach them with enough maturity to understand that tension is the culprit -- not weakness.  The repetitions in the exercises can easily reveal that tension.

But, then, again so can repetitions of problem passages in the literature one is working on.  That's always been my method and, so far, there's nothing I've attempted to play that has eluded me so far.  But, then, there's always Rach 3 looming out there like Everest!            

[jinfiesto]

Wow... An hour of scales and an hour of Hanon! Dude... Unnecessary. You should ideally work in a 3:1 ratio, of repertoire to technique work. So 45 minutes practicing and 15 minutes of scales.... I practice way more than an hour, so I end up doing about an hour of scales and stuff, but that's scales and hanon put together.. Jeez. Just perfect one scale at a time. You'll never forget them anyways. Once you've gone through all of them and learned all of them well, you can run through them all in a day.