daily technique practice

[moltar]

Hi, what  does your daily technique practice consist of? I need inspiration for my own practice. Would be nice if you were as specific as you can, maybe even tell why you chose that particular exercise.

I only practice 20 min a day on this. Every following exercise is from Cortot's book. My practice right now is:

All five fingers held, then I play the different patterns. Ch. 1, ser. A, ex. 1a - 1f (80bpm)
One finger held, rest of the fingers play a long pattern. Ch. 1, ser. A, ex. 2a - 2e (60bpm)
Five finger exercise with no fingers held, different patterns, chromatic. Ch. 1, ser. B, ex. 1a - 1e (80bpm)
Patterns for one finger only, with one or two notes held. Ch. 1, ser. C, ex. 1a - 2 (60bpm)
Patterns for the thumb, with one or more fingers held. Ch. 2, ser. A, ex. 1a - 1b (100bpm)
A chromatic exercise for the thumb.  Ch. 2, ser. C, ex. 1a (100bpm)

Plus I do an extension exercise where I play chromatic dim chords. (100bpm)

So as you can see, I've just chosen some different exercises from the Cortot book which I feel are relative, and also because I can manage them, while other exercises are too hard and take up too much time. This isn't very good of course.

Do you follow a book strict from first page to the last, or do you also just pick out random exercises?

[beethoven_fan]

I don't play exercises, only the pieces I'm currently working.

[rc]

One day I decided it would be useful to be able to play any scale, chord or arpeggio, at the drop of a hat, to the highest standard I could manage.  So that's been my daily workout routine for a while now and I think I could continue this method for a long time by adding different twists to the basic patterns (scales in different intervals, different figurations for chords and arpeggios) and after a while I envision the practice to start resembling improvisation.

I also sort of like the idea of being able to play all the Hanon exercises in any key.  I think anyone who could do that would be very comfortable playing quick figurations in any key, which would be useful...  But I might not have enough patience for that, there are other priorities.

From a book, I've recently been reading through CPE Bach's 'Essay on the True Art of Playing Keyboard Instruments).  So far on the first section, scoping out his fingering methods.

[slobone]

One day I decided it would be useful to be able to play any scale, chord or arpeggio, at the drop of a hat, to the highest standard I could manage.  So that's been my daily workout routine for a while now and I think I could continue this method for a long time by adding different twists to the basic patterns (scales in different intervals, different figurations for chords and arpeggios) and after a while I envision the practice to start resembling improvisation.

I also sort of like the idea of being able to play all the Hanon exercises in any key.  I think anyone who could do that would be very comfortable playing quick figurations in any key, which would be useful...  But I might not have enough patience for that, there are other priorities.

That's pretty much what I do. I do Hanon and scales etc. in triplets, or in groups of 4 accenting the second note of four, etc.

If you like opening up different alternatives, you might check out Slonimsky's Thesaurus of Scales and Musical Patterns. It's a real treasure trove. A lot of jazz pianists use it, to do exactly what you said, have various patterns ready to play at any time.

[rc]

Thanks Slobone! I have written that down.  I think I could still work on the basic patterns for a while yet, but I could probably be at a point to explore it within the next year.

[moltar]

Alright, yes I have the Slonimsky book, haven't used it yet though. I myself am a jazz pianist, and I've found out that technical exercises do help me alot with my improvisation. Especially the one where I play different patterns with five fingers.

What I was thinking about was, these books by Hanon, Cortot, Czerny, Dohnanyi etc., they seem to be written in the fashion that one should play through them everyday from start to finish at a set tempo. Does anyone actually do that, and how much does it benefit them?

[mike_lang]

Although I don't do it right now, I used to do a daily regimen of scales, arpeggi, chords (solid, broken, and voiced in root & inversions), thirds, sixths, and octaves.  Each week would be a different key, moving around the circle of fifths.

For scales, I play in four octaves parallel and contrary motion; legato and leggiero; eighths, triplets, and sixteenths.

For arpeggi, I play in the dominant, again leg. & legg. and the same subdivisions, parallel & contrary.  I also do these in [double] octaves.

Thirds are double, Each Hand only, subdivisions as above; same with sixths.

Chords are Each Hand only, in dominant, all inversions, each voiced.



Hope it helps,
ML

[dan101]

I find Brahms' exersices useful. Scales in thinds (one hand) are also helpful. Having said that, your routine looks thorough. Keep it up!

[lostinidlewonder]

I find Etudes are the way to develop your physical technique alongside with your musical playing. I think the key importance is not to separate technical practice with musical playing, although beginner-early advanced players can benefit from it now and then (not mindlessly every day I would hope).

This is a pet peeve of mine with the AMEB examination standards where all sorts of scales and patterns are tested in an unmusical context. I personally find much interest in cycling through Chopin, Liszt and Scriabin Preludes/Etudes they are beneficial to my physical technique, before I use to cycle through a lot of Czerny (School of Dexterity and Velocity) exercises. As for reading technique practice I find Bach Well Tempered Clavier and Shostakovich Prelude and Fugues invaluable.

[moltar]

Thanks michael_langlois, I should really look into scale practice actually, since I've never really worked on that. I can find the scales very quickly, but to execute them in an even, well fingered manner is another story.

lostin, I would like to start working on etudes, but I only have time to practice classical music about an hour a day, and so I consider those pieces that I work on then are my etudes.

[morninglory]

I have been reading this thread, which is very interesting to me.  My question about etudes - can these be definted as musical pieces which have a clear technical objective in mind?  Most of them sound so beautiful, I don't feel they are exercises at all.  So I never really know why an etude is called an etude.  I guess I should check the music dictionaries first??

[rc]

I believe it's called an etude because the composer set out from the beginning to focus on a certain aspect of technique.

[morninglory]

I think I had a temporary brain XX - here's the definition from dictionary:

'Etude \['E]`tude"\ ([asl]`t[.u]d"), n. [F. See Study.]

1. A composition in the fine arts which is intended, or may serve, for a study.

2. (Mus.) A study; an exercise; a piece for practice of some special point of technical execution.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

[pianisten1989]

I play Czerny. 40 daily exercises (op 337) atm. And I've heard many good things about Brahms 51 exercises.

[birba]

The Liszt excercises are neat.  So are the Cortot.  But SO complicated.  I found myself asking myself after a few minutes.  Do I REALLY need this?  I got the feeling that THESE excercises were good for developing technique for THESE excercises.  I think by that stage, one has already acquired the finger independence necessary for repertoire.  It just seems like so much wasted time.  When I've been away from the piano for a while, I warm-up with all the major and minor scales, hands separate and together.  Plus a couple of 4 and 5 finger excercises.  But when you're practising every day, I, personally, don't see the necessity.  But this is a VERY personal question and you will find your own necessities in time.

[hunkyhong]

honestly, people who had amazing technique: Richter, Gilels, Kissin, etc,
They never did any scales, arpeggios, or other warmups. They worked hard on the etudes and studies. i'm not saying that scales are bad, but that you'll grow more technicaly if you work on harder material. But don't overwork either, practice on technique for 30 minutes, then on ear for a few hours, then on technique again.

[franzliszt2]

Hunkyhong...Kissin did lots of excercises, as did most of the greats when they were young. Read any book with great pianists talking about their early years and MOST of them did a lot of excercises.


I try to do at least 30 mins a day now, but I used to do more when I was younger.

I vary it as much as possible, to keep it interesting, and to keep every different technique under control. If I am going to do scales....one scale will be enough for one session (if you really work on it, and solve problems)

I do Pischna (just the 1st 2) every day, becasue I find that great for 4-5. I do Phillippe held note studies, and some from Tankard and Harrison everyday. That usually takes 10 minutes.

I won't do Chopin for technical work if I have a problem, becasue they are to advanced to solve problems, you have to solve the problems with much easier studies, then apply them to Chopin.



Cortot excercises are great, but tend to scare a lot of people, because they highlight so many problems in simple things, like hand position...which a lot of pianists don't have a clue about. They really go at the problem, and are impossible to skim over. Because speed is not the end result, people avoid them, but if you perfect the 5 finger excercises he includes in the book, your independence with be much better.

Cramer is very good, and some are musical. One etude by Cramer could easily take up a few hours if you study it properly.

For raw dexterity, nothing beats Czerny in my opinion.

Moskowski School of double notes is really great if you want good double notes.

Brahms 51 excercises are really hard, but so helpful if you go through them with a teacher properly.


There are millions of great studies out there, which I think are absolutly necessary. 30 mins a day is not going to do any harm, and it can only help if you do it properly.

Work around the pieces you are playing, for example, if you are doing Liszt sonata, there is no point doing octave studies, there is enough octaves in the piece to start with. So practice a different technique....therfore maintaining an all round technique.

[lostinidlewonder]

Cramer-Bülow Studies are also great technique trainers. These have, amongst all the exercise type pieces I've played, some how stayed with me next to the Chopin Liszt and Scriabin etudes. Some Czerny are really fun to play too.

[dora96]

My teacher always asks me to practice my technique using  Hannon, Czerny, scale and arpeggio, tremolo, double sixth and and third. Recently, I have problem with tremolo because my hands are small to reach octave and getting my hands relax is a problem. I just don't understand why waste time to practice other exercise, while I am tackling from the piece I am working on right now. Honestly, most high level music already have lots of technical training anyway. I have made a photocopy and cut out most the problem spots in my music and glue them in a scrap book, for my daily technical exercise, like the Chopin Etude Op10. No.3,Fastasie op66, Beethoven sonata the arpeggio, tremolo in the moonlight sonata,  the middle part of the music, Liszt love dream ( cadenza), There are already plenty to practice on each day, alone to practice extra. When I learn a new repertoires and I will build on all the bars and measures that I have the problem, and practice them. When I practice my piano each day, I will get my scrap book and practice them first. Do you think it is enough?

[antoinedoinel]

Hi, what  does your daily technique practice consist of?

Just a few Hanon to warming the hands. Then I play.

[bernhard]

My teacher always asks me to practice my technique using  Hannon, Czerny, scale and arpeggio, tremolo, double sixth and and third. Recently, I have problem with tremolo because my hands are small to reach octave and getting my hands relax is a problem. I just don't understand why waste time to practice other exercise, while I am tackling from the piece I am working on right now. Honestly, most high level music already have lots of technical training anyway. I have made a photocopy and cut out most the problem spots in my music and glue them in a scrap book, for my daily technical exercise, like the Chopin Etude Op10. No.3,Fastasie op66, Beethoven sonata the arpeggio, tremolo in the moonlight sonata,  the middle part of the music, Liszt love dream ( cadenza), There are already plenty to practice on each day, alone to practice extra. When I learn a new repertoires and I will build on all the bars and measures that I have the problem, and practice them. When I practice my piano each day, I will get my scrap book and practice them first. Do you think it is enough?

You are right, your teacher is wrong. (Although Hanonists would be of the opposite opinion  )

See here for more information on this controversy:

https://www.pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,8981.msg91081.html#msg91081
(repertory x purely technical exercises to acquire technique)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2429.msg21061.html#msg21061
(Technical studies x pieces – the genesis of Studies and how Czerny derived his exercises from Beethoven sonatas - why scales are useless and at the same time essential – Chopin x Kalkbrenner story – Unorthodox fingering for scales

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2998.msg26268.html#msg26268
(Scales HT, why? – why and when to practise scales HS and HT – Pragmatical  x logical way of teaching – analogy with aikido – list of piano techniques – DVORAK – realistic x sports martial arts – technique and how to acquire it by solving technical problems – Hanon and why it should be avoided - Lemmings)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/board,4/topic,4880.3.html#msg46319
(discusses how to acquire technique and what technique actually is)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2948.msg25927.html#msg25927
(Czerny x Scarlatti to acquire technique – Ted gives an excellent contribution)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,4082.msg37362.html#msg37362
(one cannot learn technique in a vacuum. At the same time one cannot simply play pieces – comparison with tennis)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,4182.msg38775.html#msg38775
(Hanon: pros and cons – Robert Henry’s opinion)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,4385.msg41226.html#msg41226
(technique is personal and relative to the piece – Fosberry flop – the best books on technique)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,4734.msg44770.html#msg44770
(how to acquire virtuoso technique – aiming at 100 pieces in five years)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,4880.msg46339.html#msg46339
(definition of technique: quote from Fink, Sandor and Pires – Example of the A-E-A arpeggio)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,4887.msg47334.html#msg47334
(more on Hanon)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,5352.msg50998.html#msg50998
(Exercises x repertory – why technique cannot be isolated from music – analogy with warmup in the martial arts – dynamic flexibility and co-ordination – how to do high kicks without warming up)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,5375.msg51272.html#msg51272
(Defending technicalexercises – two different philosophies regarding exercises – chopstick analogy)

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,8112.msg113575.html#msg113575
(Scarlatti x czerny to acquire technique – quotes by Sankey and Kirkpatrick)

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,13208.msg143740.html#msg143740
(an account on how Cramer’s technique deteriorated with age)

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=13583.msg147163#msg147163
(Why Hanon is a waste of time – or not -  summary of arguments and many relevant links)

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,15701.msg171057.html#msg171057
(debunking Dohnanyi)

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=16273.msg181768#msg181768
(More Hanon: demonstration of 4th finger problem)

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,11699.msg122788.html#msg122788
(technical exercises – reply # 8 by xvimbi is most excellent)

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/board,6/topic,19043.18.html#msg206386
(Debunking of Cortot – real technique is easy and does not need to bo practised – Liszt´s story)

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/board,1/topic,19323.2.html#msg209430
(debunking of duchbag video with technical advice)

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=19226.new;topicseen#new
(developping finger independence – as if it was possible – examples of videos showing good technique – 4 books)

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=19145.new;topicseen#new
(Another debate on Hanon, Czerny and exercise X repertory to acquire technique – list of blunders by experts)

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=19310.msg209477#msg209477
(Nine year old girl with weak fingers - Yet another thread on finger strength and exercises)

Tip of the iceberg.

Best wishes,
Bernhard

[rc]

Back from the dead!

[aewanko]

Hanon Exercises is a waste of time, money and space.

[thalbergmad]

Hanon Exercises is a waste of time, money and space.

I am not sure, the book makes an excellent archery target.

Alternatively, you can read through all of Bernhards links and it would be time to retire when you have finished.

Regs

Thal

PS, There is now a Hanon for banjo players. I do not recommend this.

[m]

My teacher always asks me to practice my technique using  Hannon, Czerny, scale and arpeggio, tremolo, double sixth and and third.

If you approach Hanon, Czerny, scale, etc. as purely technical exercises, then it is better not to bother at all.

Whatever "anti-Hanonists" ( ) will tell you, trying to convince that the only way to acquire a good technique is just to learn repertoire  please remember, technique is a function of two things--musical image and physical sensitivity.
What Hanon/Czerny, etc... is good for is it gives you some repetative formula, so you can concentrate on physical senses of the process of how your fingers "sink" and embrace the keys, with no any physical tension, without worrying too much about interpretation or textual aspects.

If you play it with "strong fingers", or for sake of "building muscles"  then leave it alone--there are much better things to do in life. But if you play Hanon/Czerny, etc. as the most beautiful melody in the world (yep, it is possible), sing it, shape the phrases, be expressive, make musical directions, put all your mental energy to maintain evenness, engage your imagination you will be rewarded with a strong foundation--that ultimate physical comfort of piano playing, with perfect physical reflexes, cultivated senses of touch, and utmost feel of every pianistic and technical "formulae" only concert pianists can know. You will be rewarded by the fact that all the time of working on musical pieces will be spent not on struggle with technical challenges, but whole your attention will be payed to interpretation, mastering, and acquiring new repertoire. More here:

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,12347.0.html
(Motorics and technique)

Nedless to say, not for nothing Russian piano school (which I think with no doubt had a great and consistent success on the art scene and has been pretty much dominating in music world for well over a century) has been extensively using this approach.

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/board,6/topic,19043.18.html#msg206386
(Debunking of Cortot – real technique is easy and does not need to bo practised – Liszt´s story)

Bernhard,

Since you yourself posted the link to it, I'd greatly appreciate if you followed up the discussion (which BTW, you started yourself) and  "counter-debunking", instead of using a link you bookmarked long ago.

Also, here there is a debunking of many of the points you posted in the other links above:

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,24398.0.html

Thanks, M

[bernhard]

Bernhard,

Since you yourself posted the link to it, I'd greatly appreciate if you followed up the discussion (which BTW, you started yourself) about "debunking", instead of using a link you bookmarked long ago.

Thanks, M

  Do I have too? It is going to take a long time, and I am feeling really lazy...

Anyway, it is nice for people to read opposite, well argued opinions.

I think I said everything that was to be said on the subject.

It seems to me that you covered the ground pretty well yourself.

There is some nice balance in that thread.

I agreed with much of what you said, but not to the extent to start doing Hanon or thumb under.

Answering it would be mostly to repeat myself.

Perhaps I will feel different in a couple of days.

Best wishes,
Bernhard

[ramseytheii]

Whatever "anti-Hanonists" ( ) will tell you, trying to convince that the only way to acquire a good technique is just to learn repertoire  please remember, technique is a function of two things--musical image and physical sensitivity.
What Hanon/Czerny, etc... is good for is it gives you some repetative formula, so you can concentrate on physical senses of the process of how your fingers "sink" and embrace the keys, with no any physical tension, without worrying too much about interpretation or textual aspects.

If you play it with "strong fingers", or for sake of "building muscles"  then leave it alone--there are much better things to do in life. But if you play Hanon/Czerny, etc. as the most beautiful melody in the world (yep, it is possible), sing it, shape the phrases, be expressive, make musical directions, put all your mental energy to maintain evenness, engage your imagination you will be rewarded with a strong foundation--that ultimate physical comfort of piano playing, with perfect physical reflexes, cultivated senses of touch, and utmost feel of every pianistic and technical "formulae" only concert pianists can know. You will be rewarded by the fact that all the time of working on musical pieces will be spent not on struggle with technical challenges, but whole your attention will be payed to interpretation, mastering, and acquiring new repertoire. More here:

It sounds like you're contradicting yourself.  On the one hand, you say that the pieces are good because they are repetitive and formulaic, so they don't require interpretive skills.  Then you say that all the energy should be focussed on the interpretation rather than the idea of strong fingers.  But we focus the same thing on repertoire, and you clearly think that repertoire is not enough to obtain a technique.  In other words, it sounds like you are wanting to use technical exercises, which of course can be played melodically (everything can), as pieces of music in their own right.  But if that's the case, why don't people just learn pieces that they can perform and enjoy, not because they convince themselves to enjoy it by deliberately engaging their imaginations, but because the music is powerful enough to engage without effort.

I believe that the issue of technical exercises is based on concentration.  People have definitely practiced Hanon and Czerny, in both melodic and unmelodic ways, and have improved.  That is not because of the nature of the exercises, in my opinion, but because they are easier to concentrate on, for the reasons you mentioned - repetitive and formulaic.  The same concentration, when applied to any piece, will also yield results.  If one is lucky to have a teacher who can focus the concentration on all the divers aspects of a piece, since most music is not formulaic in a mechanical sense, then the technique will improve in all those ways.

I'm glad we can debate this subject once again.

Walter Ramsey

[m]

Do I have too? It is going to take a long time, and I am feeling really lazy...

Anyway, it is nice for people to read opposite, well argued opinions.

I think I said everything that was to be said on the subject.

It seems to me that you covered the ground pretty well yourself.

There is some nice balance in that thread.

I agreed with much of what you said, but not to the extent to start doing Hanon or thumb under.

Answering it would be mostly to repeat myself.

Perhaps I will feel different in a couple of days.

Best wishes,
Bernhard

 
Sounds pretty fair to me 

Oh, and for a record, I have to say, I am not a "Hanonist". The last time I played it was about some 30 years ago. I don't give it to my students, although MOST of them play scales, Czerny, Heller, and other etudes, etc., which in turn is also very individual thing.
Somehow, however, I feel the urge to defend the term, just for sake of historical fairness and once again to emphasise the idea that the most important is not "what", but "how"  .
Since I am into mental aspect of technique matters you can call me "mental Czernist", though 

Best, M

[m]

It sounds like you're contradicting yourself.  On the one hand, you say that the pieces are good because they are repetitive and formulaic, so they don't require interpretive skills.  Then you say that all the energy should be focussed on the interpretation rather than the idea of strong fingers.  But we focus the same thing on repertoire, and you clearly think that repertoire is not enough to obtain a technique. 

There is no contradiction here. First, not the "pieces" are good because they are repetative and formulaic, but etudes.
Second, I am strongly against of the idea itself of "strong fingers" and many times emphasised it here--this idea, as well as idea of "finger workout" is just against of any notion or physics of technique.
And third, cultivating the touch, as well as concentrating on musical playing (which includes ability to listen to yourself, expressiveness, eveness, phrasing (which in this respect is rather as repetative, as etude's formulae are)) are rather an instinct, and different from the art of interpretation and mastering the actual piece.
On the other hand, those go together and compliment rather than contradict each other.

Best, M

[pianisten1989]

If you approach Hanon, Czerny, scale, etc. as purely technical exercises, then it is better not to bother at all.

Whatever "anti-Hanonists" ( ) will tell you, trying to convince that the only way to acquire a good technique is just to learn repertoire  please remember, technique is a function of two things--musical image and physical sensitivity.
What Hanon/Czerny, etc... is good for is it gives you some repetative formula, so you can concentrate on physical senses of the process of how your fingers "sink" and embrace the keys, with no any physical tension, without worrying too much about interpretation or textual aspects.

If you play it with "strong fingers", or for sake of "building muscles"  then leave it alone--there are much better things to do in life. But if you play Hanon/Czerny, etc. as the most beautiful melody in the world (yep, it is possible), sing it, shape the phrases, be expressive, make musical directions, put all your mental energy to maintain evenness, engage your imagination you will be rewarded with a strong foundation--that ultimate physical comfort of piano playing, with perfect physical reflexes, cultivated senses of touch, and utmost feel of every pianistic and technical "formulae" only concert pianists can know. You will be rewarded by the fact that all the time of working on musical pieces will be spent not on struggle with technical challenges, but whole your attention will be payed to interpretation, mastering, and acquiring new repertoire.

I don't agree with you at all accually... Technique is technique, and doesn't have to be "the most beautiful thing ever", there are plenty of pieces just for that.  I use Czerny, and just to be able to play them as it says, in the right tempo and so on, has helped me a lot. They are "preparatory" for the real pieces, where you "show of" your musicality. There is no need to play a c-major scale up and down as any musical piece, imo.

[general disarray]

I've been reading and re-reading posts on the technique debate for months now and remain still confused.  (It doesn't help that the discussion is highlighted by the opinions of musicians whom I respect on this forum -- somehow, my gut tells me, I have to believe that you are ALL in agreement, but language, perspective, etc are just getting in the way.)

Trying to sum up the Argument through using my own training as a, well, "model" of sorts:

I'm an adult, advanced level, studying since I was four and had great teachers, all of whom, in my early training put me through the Czerny et al hoops that marik noted is the standard Russian background -- Walter Ramsey seems to fall in this camp as well).  I remember it all being teacher-supervised from the particular standpoint of what's-going-on with your hand position here?  How about relaxation?  Wrists?  Forearms?  Shoulders? Tone production?  Phrasing?  I can't help but think that good came from this, and probably at the expense of not working on repertoire that possibly could have given me the same outcome.  (This, I believe, sums up Bernhard's position.)

But, lately, with reduced practice time and using most of it these days to sightread four-hand stuff with friends, I've noticed that my double-stop mechanism is weak.  So, I took out my old Dohnanyi (which, I agree with Bernhard is a torture chamber and set-up for injury, particularly those "hold-this-note-down-and-twirl" exercises) and slowly, with great relaxation, worked on double thirds for about 45 minutes each morning.  At first, I noticed not mich improvemet and an actual sluggishness in playing in general.  But, after a few days, that sluggishness (which may not be related to Dohnanyi but over-consumption of beer) went away and I noticed that double note passages in pieces I was sightreading (Beethoven symphonies, etc.) were no longer stumbling blocks.

Could I have just isolated these passages in the four-hand repertoire for 45 mins each day and gotten the same results?  Of course.  But there was something psychologically liberating about being able to work out this problem without inflicting my klutzy thirds on Beethoven over and over again.  Let Dohnanyi deal with it!

So, if I understand Bernhard, he has no problem with this kind of specific, goal-directed approach to shoring up technical weaknesses.  What he opposes is the wholesale approach to solving all technical issues in this way before you even get near the repertoire.  In short, the repertoire is the thing.  So, conquer its problems and you conquer your technical issues.

marik (and Walter Ramsey) seem to indicate that this wholesale preparation is only a smaller part of the total practicing a student should do and the teacher should assign Czerny, etc. in light of what technical issues an etude will cover that applies DIRECTLY to the repertoire being worked on.

Now, you ALL agree that thumb under (generally speaking and as Hanon prescribes it) is counterproductive in fast scalar passages, correct?

Do I -- finally -- understand you guys?

[jaypiano]

I've been reading and re-reading posts on the technique debate for months now and remain still confused.  (It doesn't help that the discussion is highlighted by the opinions of musicians whom I respect on this forum -- somehow, my gut tells me, I have to believe that you are ALL in agreement, but language, perspective, etc are just getting in the way.)

Trying to sum up the Argument through using my own training as a, well, "model" of sorts:

I'm an adult, advanced level, studying since I was four and had great teachers, all of whom, in my early training put me through the Czerny et al hoops that marik noted is the standard Russian background -- Walter Ramsey seems to fall in this camp as well).  I remember it all being teacher-supervised from the particular standpoint of what's-going-on with your hand position here?  How about relaxation?  Wrists?  Forearms?  Shoulders? Tone production?  Phrasing?  I can't help but think that good came from this, and probably at the expense of not working on repertoire that possibly could have given me the same outcome.  (This, I believe, sums up Bernhard's position.)

But, lately, with reduced practice time and using most of it these days to sightread four-hand stuff with friends, I've noticed that my double-stop mechanism is weak.  So, I took out my old Dohnanyi (which, I agree with Bernhard is a torture chamber and set-up for injury, particularly those "hold-this-note-down-and-twirl" exercises) and slowly, with great relaxation, worked on double thirds for about 45 minutes each morning.  At first, I noticed not mich improvemet and an actual sluggishness in playing in general.  But, after a few days, that sluggishness (which may not be related to Dohnanyi but over-consumption of beer) went away and I noticed that double note passages in pieces I was sightreading (Beethoven symphonies, etc.) were no longer stumbling blocks.

Could I have just isolated these passages in the four-hand repertoire for 45 mins each day and gotten the same results?  Of course.  But there was something psychologically liberating about being able to work out this problem without inflicting my klutzy thirds on Beethoven over and over again.  Let Dohnanyi deal with it!

So, if I understand Bernhard, he has no problem with this kind of specific, goal-directed approach to shoring up technical weaknesses.  What he opposes is the wholesale approach to solving all technical issues in this way before you even get near the repertoire.  In short, the repertoire is the thing.  So, conquer its problems and you conquer your technical issues.

marik (and Walter Ramsey) seem to indicate that this wholesale preparation is only a smaller part of the total practicing a student should do and the teacher should assign Czerny, etc. in light of what technical issues an etude will cover that applies DIRECTLY to the repertoire being worked on.

Now, you ALL agree that thumb under (generally speaking and as Hanon prescribes it) is counterproductive in fast scalar passages, correct?

Do I -- finally -- understand you guys?

That's why I adore these exercises:

[thalbergmad]

Could I have just isolated these passages in the four-hand repertoire for 45 mins each day and gotten the same results?  Of course.  But there was something psychologically liberating about being able to work out this problem without inflicting my klutzy thirds on Beethoven over and over again.  Let Dohnanyi deal with it!

I love this example as it mirrors my experience with the first few pages of the Brahms Pag Variations.

I don't think one should wash ones dirty linen with the great masterpieces. Why should Brahms suffer because of my inability to play his notes?

Thal

[quasimodo]

Why should Brahms suffer because of my inability to play his notes?

Thal

Brahms is dead, he's not gonna suffer anymore...
Now if an Allistair Hinton's piece poses you technical problems, that might be a valid justification to play exercises.

[thalbergmad]

Brahms is dead, he's not gonna suffer anymore

Brahms turns in his grave every time i falter.

I am not going to take a chance. I learn the thirds from Dohnanyi.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Brahms is dead, he's not gonna suffer anymore...
Now if an Allistair Hinton's piece poses you technical problems

Only with my ears.

Thal

[m]

I don't agree with you at all accually... Technique is technique, and doesn't have to be "the most beautiful thing ever", there are plenty of pieces just for that.  I use Czerny, and just to be able to play them as it says, in the right tempo and so on, has helped me a lot. They are "preparatory" for the real pieces, where you "show of" your musicality. There is no need to play a c-major scale up and down as any musical piece, imo.

I have no idea what do you mean by "technique is technique".
If a person is musical, well taught, and is used to listen to him/herself, then that person will play c-major scale the way s/he plays any musical piece... or at least evenly, relaxed, and with a good sound.

Best, M

[general disarray]

Brahms turns in his grave every time i falter.

I am not going to take a chance. I learn the thirds from Dohnanyi.

Thal

Ah, the Brotherhood of the Dohnanyi Doublestops!

Here's our anthem set to the fugue subject of the Barber Sonata last movement:

"I play the Baarr-ber Sonata faster-than-you.  I do my Hanon.  I do my Czerny."

Now, y'all sing along.

[pianisten1989]

I have no idea what do you mean by "technique is technique".
If a person is musical, well taught, and is used to listen to him/herself, then that person will play c-major scale the way s/he plays any musical piece... or at least evenly, relaxed, and with a good sound.

Best, M

Yes, ofcourse the person will play it even and relaxed with a good sound, that's kind of the point with scales, it's not hard to play any scale with a crappy tone and uneven. That's also technique. Or atleast even. If your goal is to make your fingsers stronger, then you might have a bit hard tone, but still even, orelse it will make no point in practice them... Or maybe you meant that?

[bernhard]

 

from General Disarray

 So, if I understand Bernhard, he has no problem with this kind of specific, goal-directed approach to shoring up technical weaknesses.  What he opposes is the wholesale approach to solving all technical issues in this way before you even get near the repertoire.  In short, the repertoire is the thing.  So, conquer its problems and you conquer your technical issues. 

Yes, you understand perfectly.

However, instead of rereading posts (I know, I know, thery are so fascinating!) and going into an intellectual phrenzy (all this comparison!) just read them once, and try out what is in the posts. Most contradictory ideas can be easily sorted out by trying them out and figuring out which one works best for you. (I know, I know, people are different, what a nuissance ).


Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[bernhard]

I don't think one should wash ones dirty linen with the great masterpieces. Why should Brahms suffer because of my inability to play his notes?

Thal

WARNING
 

Although what follows is an answer to Thal´s comment above, It is not directed at him, but to posters who would like to see the counter argument. Far from me to annoy Thal (he is a big – slightly menacing guy – don´t be misled by his good looks!) or in any way stop him from pleasuring himself with technical exercises. So, Thal, if you think my answer below will make it impossible for you to continue with them, please do not read it. It does not concern you in any personal way, and I want you to continue to enjoy your piano practice. (Same applies to anyone who is susceptible to change behaviour because of logical reasoning. Do not read it, you have been warned).

 
END OF WARNING


Because technique per se is not that difficult to acquire. Acquiring repertory (memorising pieces) is what really takes time.

Your approach means that you have to learn an exercise to acquire the technique to play a piece/passage (and such technique may or may not be transferable to the piece – usually it is not), and then, you will have to learn the actual piece/passage (and adapt the technique you got from the exercise).

By skipping the exercise and using the piece/passage to acquire the technique, not only you will be acquiring technique that does not require ulterior adaptation, as you will be learning memorising the piece/passage straightaway. Now that you are in the splendour of your youth, time may not seem that important. But for fossils like me who may have only a few months left to learn all 555 Scarlatti sonatas, time is of the essence.

Given the urgency, I am quite prepared to use any great masterpiece as soap (it is better quality soap too).

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[rc]

AHHH! wrote a post then hit backspace and lost it!

Round 2.

My situation:

I began learning from repertoire, but found that it didn't quite fit with my schedule.  The problem is that my situation doesn't leave me with time to perform often enough.  I found myself learning piece after piece, only to forget most of them without performing.  To me performance is an important aspect of learning a piece.  Sure, it's a good challenge, and I learn from the piece, but without playing it for someone the circle isn't complete.  After a while I found myself losing motivation.

So I found practicing exercises a good way to learn general skills which I could apply to music, without the feeling of treating masterworks as a pointless checklist.

Scales/chords/arpeggios are my favorite, because they're so relevant.  I become familiar with all keys (maybe one day fluent ), fingering rules become ingrained, I can practice touch and dynamics on a simple pattern - all general skills with carryover into any repertoire.  I've found these basics to be a useful foundation.  Also, this sort of practice can often turn very experimental.  Sometimes I slip into a harmonic pattern, playing with different figurations, and throwing in little melodies here and there.

I've dabbled in Hanon, and found it good for what Marik describes.  It's a good feeling to get them up to speed, clean and easy...  I imagine the explosive viruosic1's suggestion of learning them in all keys would make one very comfortable in any key and perhaps develop some transposing skills, which is appealing, though I'm not sure if I'd have such patience

[thalbergmad]

Your approach means that you have to learn an exercise to acquire the technique to play a piece/passage (and such technique may or may not be transferable to the piece – usually it is not), and then, you will have to learn the actual piece/passage (and adapt the technique you got from the exercise).

I am only an amateur hack who rarely plays anymore anyway and i do bow to your knowledge, but i have always felt that by learning an exercise, i can apply the technique gained to any piece where i come across a similar difficulty. The same Hanon thirds drill that helped me play the Brahms Pag Variations also assisted me when i came across similar problems in a couple of Clementi Sonatas and that horrendous Liszt/Auber thingy.

Therefore, i submit (possibly completely wrongly) that i am solving mechanical problems in exercise before i ever encounter them in repetoire.

When i was a young man and fascinated by snooker, i remember a man coming to the club i frequented. He played almost the same shot for about 2 hours with only slight variations including applying differing amounts of spin on the cue ball. His reasoning was that sooner or later he would come across the same shot in a match and he would then know exactly what to do.

As i said, i am not a teacher and not really a player as i have given up piano for the delights of plectrum banjo. I am therefore prepared to admit that i am talking out of my ass.

Luv

Thal

[m]

Because technique per se is not that difficult to acquire. Acquiring repertory (memorising pieces) is what really takes time.

Well, this assertion is more than strange and makes one wondering if you mean what you write, you write what you mean, or you know what are you talking about. To memorise say Liszt Sonata, or something of similar difficulty takes about 10-14 days. Mastering to more or less performing standard as well as tackling its technical difficulties takes years. Mind you, this is when you got very solid technical background.
Or do you think somebody like Dinu Lipatti was completely out of his mind when he said that to learn Tchaikowsky 1st Concerto he needs three years? Do you really think he meant "3 years to memorize the piece"?

The memorisation is the least of the work. In fact, the whole work (musical and technical, which BTW, is the same) on the piece just starts after it's been memorized.

By skipping the exercise and using the piece/passage to acquire the technique, not only you will be acquiring technique that does not require ulterior adaptation, as you will be learning memorising the piece/passage straightaway. Now that you are in the splendour of your youth, time may not seem that important.

As nice as it sounds on paper (or looks on a screen  ), I do not see any relevance or correlation with reality.
Let me give you a few examples.

Somebody like Richter, Rubinstein, or Neuhaus were going the route you propose and did not get systematic technical rutine as kids and youngsters. As a result:
1) Richter had to spend 12-14 hours of practicing his technique to keep himself in the shape and to become who he is (Mind you, I strongly believe, if he would've gotten that technical foundation as a young kid, he would never have to struggle and had had much more time to learn even bigger repertoire).
2) Rubinstein's technique was quite lousy for the most of his life (except of late in his life, when he finally "found the touch")
3) With all his artistic genious and immense repertoire Neuhaus was just a lousy pianist.

To my knowledge MOST of the great pianist got exhaustive schooling as young kids.
Friend of mine graduated from Kharkov Conservatory, where he was studying with Regina Horowitz. From her words on one of technical exames her brother Vladimir Horowitz presented entire Czerny Op.740 (!!!).
Or do you think somebody like Rachmaninov had no idea what he was doing when before concert tours he'd play for a week only excercises and etudes?
Or do you think somebody like Heifetz was an idiot when if for some reason he did not practice for one single day of his life, the next day for 9 hours he'd play scales only?

Best, M

[general disarray]

.

[dora96]

I do admit that technical exercise is very important for young pianists. When I was kid, technical exercises like Czerny, Hannon, scales books (major scales, minor/melodic scales, arpeggios) are very important that's why I have to learn it and part of the exam syllabus. I have learned these stuff before when I was young and practised them each day. After passing grade 8 level becoming high level, technical skills are already built into my system .

Sometimes, I feel like I am building up my repertoires. There are plenty to doing and practice each detail of the repertoires each day. I just don't have time to tackle other technical exercises. I practice at least 4 hours each day. I feel that 4 hours each day still  not quite enough, I want to more fluent with articulation without hitting the difficult passage, stop and stumble.

I am just wondering is it bad if I don't practice technical exercises to train my fingers. Recently, I come across my Grade 8 scales and arpeggio exam book. I thought I should try out the scales and other double third and double sixth. Honestly, I can't do them  because I just don't practice them. I can do when I was in the exam. I was very fluent with my scales with 4 octaves. How quickly to get distance with the technical exercises if I don't touch them, but now I don't have exam, I just don't practice them.

What is the best way to gain more control and fluency besides my other repertoires, but I don't want to spend too much time on these sort of things?  

[thalbergmad]

Somebody like Richter, Rubinstein, or Neuhaus were going the route you propose and did not get systematic technical rutine as kids and youngsters. As a result:
1) Richter had to spend 12-14 hours of practicing his technique to keep himself in the shape and to become who he is (Mind you, I strongly believe, if he would've gotten that technical foundation as a young kid, he would never have to struggle and had had much more time to learn even bigger repertoire).
2) Rubinstein's technique was quite lousy for the most of his life (except of late in his life, when he finally "found the touch")
3) With all his artistic genious and immense repertoire Neuhaus was just a lousy pianist.

Both yourself and Bernhard make very good points and i respect both of you massively.

I just wonder if his method is not building a strong enough foundation on which to build a career. Perhaps he is right, but his way will only take you to a certain level and not to the top. Like a bus breaking down on the way to the seaside, he will leave you insight of your goal.

My teacher told me that an hours drilling at 6 years old is worth a thousand hours practice at 16. I am thinking that it might be required to pay the "exercise price" if one wants to maximise ones abilities.

Thal

[lostinidlewonder]

It is dangerous to say anything is completely useless. This means that you have tested the application of it in all areas possible. This is something I am sure not everyone has actually done, and thus call things useless in terms of their own personal experience.

[quasimodo]

It is dangerous to say anything is completely useless. This means that you have tested the application of it in all areas possible. This is something I am sure not everyone has actually done, and thus call things useless in terms of their own personal experience.

Well, in the same way it is 'dangerous' to say something's useful...

[m19834]

.