Usefulness of Hanon and Czerny

[braintist]

I personally feel that they are a waste of time, technique will eventually be built up as you improve your repertoire. I got uninterested in piano cuz of them. What are your opinions

[antichrist]

its usefulness because your already interm. level

[gyzzzmo]

It is useful because it handles technique WAY more effectively than normal repetoire does. In 'normal' pieces you encounter tons of different type of technical difficulties wich you cannot practise by those pieces alone, simply because a technique requires repeatitive practising before its properly mastered. That is what etudes are for.

By the way, Hanon is very different from Czerny and should have another approach. Czerny can act like a 'side-repetoire' wich you play to keep your technique up (or improve). Hanon is more like a reference book, where you can grab some etudes from if you need them for a movement of some piece.

[rmbarbosa]

During the last 5 years, I`ve played Hanon and Czerny. I can play Hanon very fast but when I try to play Mozart or Chopin or Bach, there are a lot of things Hanon or Czerny don`t give me... Chang does not recomend Hanon and Czerny because they are not meant to be performed: "Practicing something that wasn`t meant to be performed is not only a waste of time but also destroys any sense of music you originally had" (Fundamentals of piano practice" - Chuan Chang). Leschetizky recomends Czerny (namely op.740, 399, 337) but not Hanon. By the by, Hanon spends a lot of your time, surely not only one hour to be done. On your case, I think you must leave Hanon. Practice scales, Harps, third scales, trills, etc... and go to Bach Inventions (two voices, of course), Clementi... Dont be the slave of perpetual preparatory exercises. By the way, download the "Fundamentals of piano practice" (Chang) and read it. It`s free download. You may also download, in this Forum, the "Fundamental principles of Leschetizky method" by Marie Prentner. In my humble opinion, both may be very usufull for you.

[iroveashe]

How many more threads like these do people need?

So far I haven't seen one good argument to convince me that purely technical exercises are necessary.

[iroveashe]

It is useful because it handles technique WAY more effectively than normal repetoire does.

Exercises don't handle technique, the pianist does. You can play them with bad technique, so the technical exercises on their own are no guarantee of them being effective unless they come with instructions of how to play them. Have you read Hanon's and do/would you follow them?

But I get it, you mean it is easier to acquire technique through them because exercises are repetitive. But do you really need an etude to repeat a certain phrase or pattern while you're practicing?

[thierry13]

Have you read Hanon's and do/would you follow them?

That of course is the exact thing you shouldn't do.

[kay3087]

It is useful because it handles technique WAY more effectively than normal repetoire does. In 'normal' pieces you encounter tons of different type of technical difficulties wich you cannot practise by those pieces alone, simply because a technique requires repeatitive practising before its properly mastered...

Then repeat the technique in "normal repertoire". Surely it is more fullfilling to overcome any difficulties in the real piece one wants to play?

I've never used Hanon or Czerny, my teacher has never mentioned them to me, and I'm certain my friends have never used these studies either. I do not see any purpose in playing exercises, besides scales.

An example: If I'm having trouble playing a passage from a Mozart sonata, I'm going to practice the few preceding and subsequent measures, along with the passage itself, for an hour or however long my fingers allow; not Hanon. To me, this makes sense. Repeating a Hanon study relentlessly would only drive one half-mad in the process and force the habit of playing the passage mechanically later.

[gyzzzmo]

But I get it, you mean it is easier to acquire technique through them because exercises are repetitive. But do you really need an etude to repeat a certain phrase or pattern while you're practicing?

Sometimes your technique isnt good enough to play a certain phrase or pattern good enough. Then you could use a technical etude as support for gaining that technique.
I myself dont use Hanon at all, i make up my own etudes, thats way easier. Making your own etude up is also much better than reading Hanon notes because an etude is most effective when you play it with your eyes closed and with your brains. Technique is for 90% in your head afterall.
But Hanon is for the students who dont understand how to gain technique and need brain-dead excercises, and Hanon is for bad and lazy teachers who dont want to explain good students how to get technique.
The only useful thing about Hanon is the fingering of scales etcetera. But who am i

(Gyzzzmo)

[rc]

How many more threads like these do people need?

So far I haven't seen one good argument to convince me that purely technical exercises are necessary.

Maybe not necessary but I've heard a good arguement for their utility, from Thalmad.  Something along the lines of preferring to work out the skills on a throwaway exercise than commit injustice on a masterwork.

No, not necessary, but not useless either.  There's much more than one way to skin a piano.

Anyways, they can be useful if used properly.  Hanon in C is nothing special (though maybe some beginners could benefit from it), but add one accidental to the pattern and it opens up another level of difficulties.  You can't be so mindless with that black key to consider.  Bottom line I think any pianist worth their salt ought to be able to handle simple exercises like this (whether they develop the technique through hanon or other means).

[iroveashe]

Maybe not necessary but I've heard a good arguement for their utility, from Thalmad.  Something along the lines of preferring to work out the skills on a throwaway exercise than commit injustice on a masterwork.

I'm sure the masterworks don't mind, especially if they were intended as exercises in the first place like Bach's Inventions or Scarlatti sonatas. Besides, no matter how much Hanon/Czerny you do, you still have to get your hands dirty practicing an actual piece of music. In fact, the ability to avoid "committing injustice on a masterwork" by playing it properly right away (or at least not butchering it over and over) is not gained through exercises, because these are 100 times more repetitive and predictable than pieces, but through experience in playing repertoire and a good and solid mental image of the music, which is definitely not achieved by mindless Hanon/Czerny repetitions.

I never said they're completely useless, but they are not the most effective way to spend your time at the piano.

Anyways, they can be useful if used properly.

Depends what you mean by properly. Technically, the proper way to play Hanon is following his own instructions, which could lead to injury.

Sometimes your technique isnt good enough to play a certain phrase or pattern good enough. Then you could use a technical etude as support for gaining that technique.
I myself dont use Hanon at all, i make up my own etudes, thats way easier. Making your own etude up is also much better than reading Hanon notes because an etude is most effective when you play it with your eyes closed and with your brains. Technique is for 90% in your head afterall.

I think making up your own exercises is a great idea. But you don't need an etude if you're not able to play certain piece, you could look for an easier but similar piece and use it with the same purpose as the etude, and instead of spending time on an exercise and then learning your desired piece, you'll add 2 (or more, if you need) pieces to your repertoire.

[thalbergmad]

After reading through the 9,000 threads on this subject on this forum, I have come to the conclusion that for some it works and for some it does not.

I do not place myself in either the "it is useless" camp or the "it is essential" camp. I belong to the "try it and see if it works for you" camp.

I feel myself that Hanon/Czerny might be of more use to those in the early stages of their pianistic development, since the repetoire played might not be sufficient in itself to build a firm base.

Personally, i am still unwilling to play passages of a masterpiece a thousand times over to perfect it. I would rather wash my dirty laundry on approproate exercises.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

I would add that i do not use any exercises when i am in good pianistic condition, which is not very often. Sometimes, i might ratlle a few off to warm up.

When i have not touched my piano for months, i find exercises useful to get me back into shape.

I do not believe in all of this stuff about exercises giving you injuries. If you do use Hanon, your hands will not fall off and you will still be able to pick your nose when you are 90.

Thal

[iroveashe]

I do not believe in all of this stuff about exercises giving you injuries.

It's not what you play that'll give you injuries, it's how you play it. Repeating the same passage over and over again for a long period of time has more chances of leading to injuries, which is what most exercises do.

[gyzzzmo]

I think making up your own exercises is a great idea. But you don't need an etude if you're not able to play certain piece, you could look for an easier but similar piece and use it with the same purpose as the etude, and instead of spending time on an exercise and then learning your desired piece, you'll add 2 (or more, if you need) pieces to your repertoire.

My experience is that people (and me too, even though i'm a professional pianist) sometimes DO need a little extra excercise to get a certain passage exactly like we want it to be. Playing that passage over and over, with dozens of variations sometimes just isnt enough to get it right.

[gyzzzmo]

I do not place myself in either the "it is useless" camp or the "it is essential" camp. I belong to the "try it and see if it works for you" camp.

Thal

Theres also not much point in these black-and-white statements you see alot here on the forum. Theres huge variation in students. Their age, their talent, character, technique etc. means that theres no 'standard' or 'best way'.
The only thing you CAN say about Hanon is that if you do use it, that it is (technique-wise) only effective if you play it concentrated. Wich is also the problem of Hanon: Its so dull that its hard to stay concentrated.

[m19834]

They have as little or as much usefulness as you give them...

[go12_3]

They have as little or as much usefulness as you give them...

*dito*  I agree!   

[thalbergmad]

It's not what you play that'll give you injuries, it's how you play it.

Therefore exercises are no more dangerous than playing the same bar in a Beethoven Sonata a thousand times.

Thal

[daro]

I think the usefulness of Hanon comes from not playing it simply as written, mindlessly repeating dull patterns. The value comes from using it to isolate any number of technical problems. Alter the rhythm, for example, by playing each group of 4 as 2 eighths followed by 2 sixteenths, or any combination you can think of. Work on accents by emphasizing just the 2nd note or the 4th etc. Work on dynamic control by playing it through as pp and repeating as f. Play 8 bars as a smooth and even crescendo followed by 8 bars of diminuendo etc. etc. etc. Obviously, you can and should also do this while practicing repertoire, but Hanon lets you zero right in on whole categories of technical issues without having to worry about what note is coming next.

[iroveashe]

Therefore exercises are no more dangerous than playing the same bar in a Beethoven Sonata a thousand times.

Thal

Pretty much. But there is no point in playing one bar thousands of times, with less it should be more than enough.

[thalberg]

It matters not whether you do Hanon or Czerny, it matters what you do with them.

For example, if I wanted to teach a student a particular hand/arm motion for arpeggios, I'd give them perhaps Czerny Opus 299 #3.  It's a great etude for teaching how to move the body and it gives a lot of repetitions of the same pattern.  Then when one encounters such a pattern, say in Beethoven Op. 2 #3, then one already has the technique in place and is free to worry about the music.

Mindlessly playing the exercises is worthless.  But an inspired teacher can make them profitable.

[rc]

I never said they're completely useless, but they are not the most effective way to spend your time at the piano.

I know, I saw that you chose your words carefully, my remark wasn't directed at you specifically but there's a general attitude that implies that they're useless, or harmful.

All the same, there are times where I think a technical drill IS an effective way to spend time at the piano.  Having nothing to do with the musical image, but the basic mechanics of getting finger to keys, with clarity and ease.

I've encountered other situations that have made technical drills desirable.  When I'm very limited for practice time, I don't want to get into the details of a piece but it's easy to sit down and iron out the mechanics of a simple drill for 10 minutes.  There have been times where I would be working on repertoire, but without opportunity to perform I became demotivated with the situation of learning pieces only to gradually forget them, and I felt my time was better spend working more on technical exercises.  When working on general skills, frankly it makes no difference to me whether the pattern practiced is abstracted from a piece or an exercise.

As for the musical image, one thing I'm finding to be very useful to that end is singing.  It's rarely mentioned around here, but producing a pitch ourselves and being able to manipulate it in ways physically impossible for a piano, i find is good for the musical imagination.

[slobone]

Hanon is certainly not a complete guide to piano technique, and neither is Czerny (although C. wrote thousands of pieces and probably covered everything somewhere).

I use Hanon as a warmup to get my fingers going at the beginning of a practice session. He's also excellent for the left hand, which is neglected in most etudes and pieces. But I never do more than 20 minutes a day.

I tend not to do Czerny, although I did a lot of him with my last teacher. His pieces can be useful to develop certain specific techniques, but I don't find them worth the time for the most part. I'd rather spend the same amount of time on Slonimsky.

[donnxavier]

Hanon  =  Waste of time; they are garbage;  throw it in the trash!!
Czerny =  "Schule der Geläufigkeit"  is slightly useful; study it a bit
The BEST technical studies BY FAR are the Opus 10 and Opus 25 Chopin Etudes!!  STUDY THEM!! If you master them you will be a VIRTUOSO!!!

Donn Xavier (pianist and teacher for 63 years)

[iroveashe]

I get the feel that a lot of people think that if the pieces are fun and sound good (like the Chopin Etudes or Bach's WTC) they're not exercises, they're just music and you can't "wash your dirty laundry on them" even if that's basically part of what they're meant to. Yet if they're dull and repetitive they must be great for "strengthening fingers" or "maintaining technique".

[gyzzzmo]

I get the feel that a lot of people think that if the pieces are fun and sound good (like the Chopin Etudes or Bach's WTC) they're not exercises, they're just music and you can't "wash your dirty laundry on them" even if that's basically part of what they're meant to. Yet if they're dull and repetitive they must be great for "strengthening fingers" or "maintaining technique".

Chopin etudes and simular are STUDIES, Hanon are exercises. You cannot study Hanon since theres not much to study about, theyre just a bunch of notes afterall and Hanon wrote them as a bunch of notes.
Therefor the Chopin etudes are called 'melodical etudes', and Hanon 'technical etudes'. Hence you cant treat them the same way and have another effect.

[communist]

The Debussy etudes and Kalkbrenner grandes etudes are very useful, I suggest people who play Chopin etudes take a look at them.

[mad_tom]

Czerny: Czerny was a star student of Beethoven, one of the best pianists of his time, and the teacher of Liszt.  I think he knew a little bit about piano playing. A lot of his etudes may not be deeply meaningful like Beethoven'sonatas, but they can make good recital pieces.  They do not deserve their bad press.

Hanon: Rachmaninoff was a great pianist. Some rate hims as the finest of the twentieth century.  Rachmaninoff used Hanon in his daily practice.


So it is very arrogant of anyone to dismiss Hanon and Czerny out of hand.  It is arrogant, but understandable in a student with just a few years of experience.  It is downright irresponsible from the author of a well-known, influential, but appallingly badly written e-Book, especially one that peddles a dangerous mixture of good and bad advice, and makes overinflated claims for a method he claims as his own, but that is in fact a combination of methods that have been known for 200 years or more!!

The truth is that you can become a top class pianist without such exercises (e.g. Schnabel, Rubinstein) or with them.  What works for you depends on your character, your personality, your aspirations, and also on what methods work well for your teacher.  No-one on this forum can advise you what will work for you unless they know you personally.

But please don't say that they are "rubbish"  or "useless"

[weissenberg2]

Hanon: Rachmaninoff was a great pianist. Some rate hims as the finest of the twentieth century.  Rachmaninoff used Hanon in his daily practice.

Where did you hear this?

[iroveashe]

Hanon: Rachmaninoff was a great pianist. Some rate hims as the finest of the twentieth century.  Rachmaninoff used Hanon in his daily practice.

So if Rachmaninoff used a hat while practicing, that means the hat made him what he was as a pianist?

Czerny: Czerny was a star student of Beethoven, one of the best pianists of his time, and the teacher of Liszt.  I think he knew a little bit about piano playing. A lot of his etudes may not be deeply meaningful like Beethoven'sonatas, but they can make good recital pieces.  They do not deserve their bad press.

Liszt learned more from watching Paganini play than from years under Czerny. Czerny was Beethoven's student, Beethoven didn't teach any exercises.

It is arrogant, but understandable in a student with just a few years of experience.

Argerich and Barenboim tell students not to waste time with Hanon, and they have more than just a few years of experience.

It is downright irresponsible from the author of a well-known, influential, but appallingly badly written e-Book, especially one that peddles a dangerous mixture of good and bad advice, and makes overinflated claims for a method he claims as his own, but that is in fact a combination of methods that have been known for 200 years or more!!

If you're talking about Chang, the book kind of starts making it clear that it's a compilation of practice methods, not invented by him.

The truth is that you can become a top class pianist without such exercises (e.g. Schnabel, Rubinstein) or with them.  What works for you depends on your character, your personality, your aspirations, and also on what methods work well for your teacher.  No-one on this forum can advise you what will work for you unless they know you personally.

But please don't say that they are "rubbish"  or "useless"

If you can become a good pianist without them it means they're not necessary. If Richter practiced Hanon everyday I doubt that he had time to learn over 1500 pieces. The truth is that Hanon's instructions, which should be the point of the exercises, are impossible. Where is the usefulness in something that can't be done? Well, in playing them the way you want and not as Hanon intended you could say. Then what is the point of doing Hanon if you're not going to do it as he tells you to? Why not pick something else instead?

At least we can assume that they're not needed for the person who actually started this thread anyway, since they said they make them want to quit piano.

[go12_3]

I personally feel that they are a waste of time, technique will eventually be built up as you improve your repertoire. I got uninterested in piano cuz of them. What are your opinions

If you are not interested, then don't use them and learn from the pieces you enjoy.  Each pianist will have a different approach about the Hanon and Czerny exercises as this thread has been weaving on about.  Whatever works for the pianist is his own personal agenda. 

best wishes,

go12_3

[iroveashe]

Chopin etudes and simular are STUDIES, Hanon are exercises. You cannot study Hanon since theres not much to study about, theyre just a bunch of notes afterall and Hanon wrote them as a bunch of notes.
Therefor the Chopin etudes are called 'melodical etudes', and Hanon 'technical etudes'. Hence you cant treat them the same way and have another effect.

Chopin etudes are both 'melodical' and 'technical' at the same time, that's what's so wonderful about them, and they're much more revolutionary and versatile in the technical field for that matter.

[gyzzzmo]

Chopin etudes are both 'melodical' and 'technical' at the same time, that's what's so wonderful about them, and they're much more revolutionary and versatile in the technical field for that matter.

Thats why theyre called 'melodical ETUDES' (as i already mentioned).

[thalbergmad]

Hanon  =  Waste of time; they are garbage;  throw it in the trash!!
Czerny =  "Schule der Geläufigkeit"  is slightly useful; study it a bit
The BEST technical studies BY FAR are the Opus 10 and Opus 25 Chopin Etudes!!  STUDY THEM!! If you master them you will be a VIRTUOSO!!!

Donn Xavier (pianist and teacher for 63 years)

It amazes me that a pianist and teacher of so many years can have such a closed mind. One of the only things I am certain of is that there is no single method that applies to all.

Concerning the Chopin Etudes, you are in the students thread here. Some might be at the stage where they can play them, some might not be and some never will. This is why Hanon & Czerny "CAN" be useful.

Please do not state such definates, when in fact there are none.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Argerich and Barenboim tell students not to waste time with Hanon, and they have more than just a few years of experience.

Judging by what i heard about some of his Beethoven cycle performances, Barenboim might want to try some himself.

Thal

[iroveashe]

Judging by what i heard about some of his Beethoven cycle performances, Barenboim might want to try some himself.

Thal

Judging by hearing the performances myself, I don't think that's necessary, especially considering he learned the whole cycle by the age of 17.

[mad_tom]

Where did you hear this?

In a biography of Horowitz.  I'd need to revisit the library to get the author/publisher details.

[thalbergmad]

Judging by hearing the performances myself, I don't think that's necessary, especially considering he learned the whole cycle by the age of 17.

He might still have it in his brain, but perhaps not always in his fingers.

Thal