I've gotten different opinions about this, and I'd like to know which is better to improve technical skills. Thanks.
 

Oh no, please dear God, not again.

Thal

Huh?? I really wanna know.

My very personal opinion: neither Hanon nor Czerny 

Oh, ok. So just practicing scales and arpeggios, and playing pieces will improve my technique you think?

In all seriousness though, I've been wondering myself. Though I do neither Czerny nor Hanon I am wondering if I should. Do/did proffessional pianists (Richter, Hamelin, Zimerman etc) do them and did the exercises have a documented effect on the technique in that case?

Unashamedly taken from Wikipedia:  

Piano students all over the world know of Hanon’s famous training exercises for pianists. Both Sergei Rachmaninoff and Josef Lhévinne claimed Hanon to be the secret of why the Russian piano school delivered an explosion of virtuosi in their time, for the Hanon exercises have been obligatory for a long time throughout Russian conservatories; there were special examinations at which one had to know all exercises by heart, to be played in all tonalities at highly advanced speed.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles-Louis_Hanon&oldid=404177545

This is another example of the little inaccuracies that can be found on Wikipedia. Anybody can contribute without any kind of filter or real obligation to demonstrate the sources. I'm sure this fragment was written by a Hanon fan. It's true that Rachmaninoff stated that he was obliged to do technique exams and that he was obliged to study some Hanon's in every tonality but It's false he stated Hanon's was the key to the "explosion of virtuosi". The book referenced in the article, 1917's Francis Cooke pianists, is now public domain. Lhevinne's pages have no reference to Hanon, and Rachmaninoff speaks about the need for a good technique but he doesn't speak in any moment as Hanon been the "secret", as Whiskypedia states. He only said that Hanon was part of the routine and exams. The other "facts" are interpretations and imagination of the wikipedists, they put in the mouth of Rachmaninoff some words he didn't say (just what one must expect of an encyclopedia, objectivity and accuracy )

And I read two or three times Lhevinne's book, that is also pointed as a reference in the Wikipedia article, and never found a single word about Hanon. He spoke about scales as indispensable. Another great virtuoso from Rach's generation, and an example of the "explosion", Jozef Hofmann, wrote in his books that he recommended playing scales and Pischna exercises. Not a single word about Hanon (again). I'm pretty sure that Rachmaninoff's phenomenal technique was given despite Hanon, not thanks to. Karl Leimer, the legendary teacher of Gieseking, wrote in his books the need to practice scales (again no one mention to Hanon).

There are opinions for all tastes. Sviatoslav Richted stated in the documentary "The Enigma" that he never did a scale or exercise. Also Barenboim.

Oh, ok. So just practicing scales and arpeggios, and playing pieces will improve my technique you think?

In my personal opinion, yes. I think that they improved my control and technique. I think that the best way that worked to me to improve technique were scales, arpeggios and chords exercises, plus some preludes and fugues of The Well Tempered Clavier and some selected exercises, not Hanon's, such as Brahm's, Dohnany and Pischna. Just my two cents

I think it's funny when people frame a debate of Hanon versus Czerny, as though proponents of technical exercises fall squarely into one camp or another (or as if they were the only two people who ever wrote exercises).

This is another example of the little inaccuracies that can be found on Wikipedia. Anybody can contribute without any kind of filter or real obligation to demonstrate the sources. I'm sure this fragment was written by a Hanon fan. It's true that Rachmaninoff stated that he was obliged to do technique exams and that he was obliged to study some Hanon's in every tonality but It's false he stated Hanon's was the key to the "explosion of virtuosi". The book referenced in the article, 1917's Francis Cooke pianists, is now public domain. Lhevinne's pages have no reference to Hanon, and Rachmaninoff speaks about the need for a good technique but he doesn't speak in any moment as Hanon been the "secret", as Whiskypedia states. He only said that Hanon was part of the routine and exams. The other "facts" are interpretations and imagination of the wikipedists, they put in the mouth of Rachmaninoff some words he didn't say (just what one must expect of an encyclopedia, objectivity and accuracy )

And I read two or three times Lhevinne's book, that is also pointed as a reference in the Wikipedia article, and never found a single word about Hanon. He spoke about scales as indispensable. Another great virtuoso from Rach's generation, and an example of the "explosion", Jozef Hofmann, wrote in his books that he recommended playing scales and Pischna exercises. Not a single word about Hanon (again). I'm pretty sure that Rachmaninoff's phenomenal technique was given despite Hanon, not thanks to. Karl Leimer, the legendary teacher of Gieseking, wrote in his books the need to practice scales (again no one mention to Hanon).

There are opinions for all tastes. Sviatoslav Richted stated in the documentary "The Enigma" that he never did a scale or exercise. Also Barenboim.

In my personal opinion, yes. I think that they improved my control and technique. I think that the best way that worked to me to improve technique were scales, arpeggios and chords exercises, plus some preludes and fugues of The Well Tempered Clavier and some selected exercises, not Hanon's, such as Brahm's, Dohnany and Pischna. Just my two cents

Ok thank you, I'll try that.

I'm trying to get my digits moving again after 20 years of total distraction and I'm telling you, any and all exercises, played regularly, are great for me. I'm not saying no to anything that comes my way. If it gets those pinkies flying then I'll play it.

Just spent a year doing Hanon for an hour or so each day, having had no previous experience of Hanon or Czerny. Definitely it helped my dexterity/finger strength, however in the end I just got bored with it.

In retrospect, I think a better approach and one which I am now following is to learn pieces such as the Scarlatti sonatas (or Bach preludes/fugues, etc.). Then make a "Hanon style" exercise out of the tough bars from Scarlatti (e.g. often the right hand plays a phrase which is then repeated by the left hand - put the two phrases together for an exercise in which both hands are playing the same notes).

Then I think you get the same benefits of a Hanon exercise but driven by a piece you actually want to play so it's not so mind-numbingly dull. Also the Hanon exercises rarely use the black notes unless you transpose them.

The good thing, no, the BEST thing about piano is that everyone is exactly the same. If I learn more from Hanon than Czerny, everybody else is like that to. Since everyone's hands are exactly the same (how far you can reach etc. is just fake) you don't have try anything out yourself. Just ask at a piano forum, and they will give you the One right answer.

The good thing, no, the BEST thing about piano is that everyone is exactly the same. If I learn more from Hanon than Czerny, everybody else is like that to. Since everyone's hands are exactly the same (how far you can reach etc. is just fake) you don't have try anything out yourself. Just ask at a piano forum, and they will give you the One right answer.

Thanks for the sarcasm......

I think I'll just try them both out, since I've got different opinions on this.

Well my teacher only gives my Hanon, so I just wanted more opinions about it.

.

i like hanon's exercises because it erases the need of learning those notes that are hard to sight read and actually working the fingers. it is simple and effective.

Czerny, in other side, is less boring BUT, why not work the same patterns im musical context? Like bach, mozart, haydn.... all this composers have pieces from easy to difficult!

Switching that statement around, why treat the works of great composers like exercises?

Thal

Simply you can learn the same skills in musical context!

That rather depends on the repetoire you are working on.

Why not gain the skills via exercises before you come across problems in repetoire?

Thal

Oh my goodness. Listening to all these posts makes my head spin.  Hanon, Czerny, Piscna, Crammer, Clementi  gradus, and any other exercise book, or method book, are tools. If you use them correctly they help you. If you use them incorrectly they can do the opposite.  Thats what a good teacher is for. To know what tool to use and how to use it.  Hanon vs Czerny is like asking Chopin etudes versus Liszt etudes.  It makes no sense.  There are no easy hard and fast rules.

I know that doesnt help much, but it does make sense.  Hope this sheds some light on this .

Cheers, Becky

There are no easy hard and fast rules.

Wise words and I would add that one must forge their own path.

Thal

Hum, I never tried Hanon, but I played Czerny because my teacher insisted when i got to level 5 and I hated it. I can't stand the nonsense of it. Scales at least sound like something while Czerny is just stupid. Now I just practice the piece I am doing now very well and that's it, eventually my technique improves from one piece to another. oh, and I so scales and arpegios.

Another thing, my body physically rejects Czerny, not the fingers themselves but there is something in my nervous system that goes literally bust. I will be like kicking the piano!

.

At one point in my life, I had developed a quite professional virtuoso technique, and I'll tell you how I did it. It is not the ONLY way, but it works and gives you a great deal of technical competence and "freedom" to express yourself musically.

My daily practice regimen was 6 hours per day 6 days a week.

Everyday, I practiced the entire Hanon book.
...

completely waste of time and energy...
http://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=46198.0

What to keep in mind, is to try to different techniques, until you find something that works for you. The key is to be mindful about what is working and what doesnt. What works for me may not work for someone else.

So the key is, to try, and if you dont see improvement right away, try something else.

I have found that when I try something different to improve a particular technique, I see improvement within one day, and if not one day, then at least within a week.

I use Hanon, Czerny, everything I get my hands on.

I find it funny when people argue, "THIS IS RIGHT, THIS IS WRONG!"  There is no such thing. Usually people with such definite positions, they usually invested in someway, (like maybe they wasted a ton of time and dont want to admit it, or they want you to struggle the way THEY did), etc.

I absolutely agree with you! c'mon, nobody came up with a different set of exercises since the 19th century?? what do music teachers at the Royal Academy of music research about? Are they just taknig on other people's work? Besides, there is so much 20th century and 21st century repertoire  including jazz that requires different skills!

These exercises might even be wrong from an anatomical point of view and nobody seems to question them.

There remain those who "talk the talk" and those who "walk the walk".

It seems that so far it is actually you, who "talks the talk" rather than "walks the walk". Indeed, you are so good in accusing others in snobbery and dilettantism, and constantly implying how awesome you are. Why wouldn't you start "walking" yourself?--post something worthwhile--recording, or write something nice...

Best, M

pts1, does your mommy know you're out?