If not Hanon nor Czerny then what?

[stephenv]

If not Hanon or Czerny, then what? 
I stongly recommend looking at the Thinking Fingers books, vol. 1 and vol. 2 by Guy Maier and Herbert Bradshaw.  In these books you will find excellent approaches to developing facility with carefully written instructions included. 

Virtually all areas are covered including a fantastic section on thirds which will give your student's a solid base to play thirds well.  How do I know this?  From personal experience in working these exercises myself. Simply put They Work!

If you following the instructions carefully, using Maier's "impulse" approach, you'll make great progress in developing facility, with less wasted time.   

Maier wasn't so much against traditional exercises..he just wanted to find a way to develop technique without wasting precious time in gaining the facility needed to play well...Finding a shorter way which truly produced the same results is what he strived for.

I am amazed that his name is almost forgotten now since he contributed so greatly to the cause of piano and Music education in this country.   I think he was an American "original" and certainly still relevant.

[chopinaninoff]

They are not a waste of time in the sense that it does not do harm to you...The Chopin etudes on the other hand...have a skill for every pianist to improve. Octaves...Scales...left hand...thirds...pretty much everything

[gerryjay]

They are not a waste of time in the sense that it does not do harm to you.

My problem with Hanon is that his studies are potentially harmful. And useless, but that is another story...
Best regards,
Jay.

[mike_lang]

My problem with Hanon is that his studies are potentially harmful. And useless, but that is another story...
Best regards,
Jay.

I hate to involve myself in this thread, but . . . I must point out that Chopin études are also potentially harmful (as are many pieces in the repertoire - emphasis on "potentially").  The money (which should be spent on a competent teacher!) is in the "how."

As for useless: Speaking for the first twenty or so: I find the benefits in terms of development of legato, wrist movement, finger independence (in the healthiest sense of the term), and establishment of a basic vocabulary of keyboard topography to be worth the effort.  Again, usefulness lies completely in the "how."

Remember, Lhevinne and Rachmaninoff practiced Hanon (as did most of Russia at that time), so maybe before dismissing the exercises as useless, we should ask how they were practicing them that helped to develop their technique and supplemented their study of repertoire.

Best,
Mike

[mike_lang]

They are not a waste of time in the sense that it does not do harm to you...The Chopin etudes on the other hand...have a skill for every pianist to improve. Octaves...Scales...left hand...thirds...pretty much everything

I'm not sure I grasp your point . . .

[gerryjay]

I hate to involve myself in this thread, but . . . I must point out that Chopin études are also potentially harmful (as are many pieces in the repertoire - emphasis on "potentially").  The money (which should be spent on a competent teacher!) is in the "how."

As for useless: Speaking for the first twenty or so: I find the benefits in terms of development of legato, wrist movement, finger independence (in the healthiest sense of the term), and establishment of a basic vocabulary of keyboard topography to be worth the effort.  Again, usefulness lies completely in the "how."

Remember, Lhevinne and Rachmaninoff practiced Hanon (as did most of Russia at that time), so maybe before dismissing the exercises as useless, we should ask how they were practicing them that helped to develop their technique and supplemented their study of repertoire.

Best,
Mike

Dear Mike,
you are right, and I'm not forgetting these facts. But let me comment my reasons to think Hanon is harmful and useless notwithstanding.

I'll use your Chopin example: I agree that the etudes can destroy a pianist if the approach is wrong. It goes the same to most of the repertoire, by the way: it is, as you said, all about how. However, Hanon is a particular case: is the kind of stuff that could help, in a limited way, an advanced student with proper supervision. Is that the practice? As far as I did witness, no. Hanon is used in a daily basis by teachers who do not have a clue about its pros and cons (the basic answer is: "Everybody uses and always have used Hanon, so why shouldn't I?"), and by beginners who don't know yet how to study the piano, or to develop mechanics and technique properly.

Everything goes much worst if the fellow teacher or student reads Hanon's introductory text.

Furthermore - and here I reach my second objection - it have a poor investment-return relationship. Of course, that is highly based on how, but even if you use it correctly, it does not pay the effort. This is just my opinion, but it is based on many years of experimentation.

If others find useful results in Hanon or the like, it is fine to me. Your examples are very much stronger than mine, by the way, but I think it is important to begginers and not-so-begginers that Hanon is not the only way around, and there are people who think it is a very bad idea.

Best regards,
Jay.

[mike_lang]

Dear Mike,
you are right, and I'm not forgetting these facts. But let me comment my reasons to think Hanon is harmful and useless notwithstanding.

I'll use your Chopin example: I agree that the etudes can destroy a pianist if the approach is wrong. It goes the same to most of the repertoire, by the way: it is, as you said, all about how. However, Hanon is a particular case: is the kind of stuff that could help, in a limited way, an advanced student with proper supervision. Is that the practice? As far as I did witness, no. Hanon is used in a daily basis by teachers who do not have a clue about its pros and cons (the basic answer is: "Everybody uses and always have used Hanon, so why shouldn't I?"), and by beginners who don't know yet how to study the piano, or to develop mechanics and technique properly.

Everything goes much worst if the fellow teacher or student reads Hanon's introductory text.

Furthermore - and here I reach my second objection - it have a poor investment-return relationship. Of course, that is highly based on how, but even if you use it correctly, it does not pay the effort. This is just my opinion, but it is based on many years of experimentation.

If others find useful results in Hanon or the like, it is fine to me. Your examples are very much stronger than mine, by the way, but I think it is important to begginers and not-so-begginers that Hanon is not the only way around, and there are people who think it is a very bad idea.

Best regards,
Jay.

Hi Jay,

I meant to include a little disclaimer about Hanon's introductory texts, which are problematic: these ideas are relics of another era, with a different type of instrument.  The instructions themselves seem to be linked to a French keyboard tradition evolved out of fortepiano and harpsichord playing.  Today, they should be largely ignored!

Those who have found success with the exercises are those who have adapted the exercises to modern piano playing.

I do agree with you, however, that Hanon is NOT the only road to Rome.  As I said, though, because it has been utilized to great effect by such masters as S. Rachmaninoff, V. Horowitz, J. Lhevinne, etc., it should not be discounted.

What is most important is the fact that we are all constantly reëvaluating the best path for our students toward a solid technical foundation (which is often an interdependent web of exercises, études, scales (and their ilk), and repertoire)!

Best,
Mike

[bachbrahmsschubert]

Those who have found success with the exercises are those who have adapted the exercises to modern piano playing.

Hi all,

I have a problem with this. If we have to change the premise of the book to adapt it to the modern piano, what's the point of studying from the book in the first place?

I am a huge advocate of Bach, and I've mentioned this in the thread before, so I'll try to add an extra point. EVERY mature pianist has studied Bach. Not EVERY mature pianist has studied Hanon. That is the underlining factor, while Hanon can be disputed, Bach cannot. So why bother with a technique book whose premise is outdated and exercises, not surprisingly, derive from the music of J.S. Bach?

As a side note, I don't include Chopin's etudes in this topic because I find those to only be useful to pianists who have already reached a very advanced level. If a beginner or intermediate is using a Chopin etude to "refine technique" that is the quickest way towards a hand injury.

Best wishes,

[gerryjay]

What is most important is the fact that we are all constantly reëvaluating the best path for our students toward a solid technical foundation (which is often an interdependent web of exercises, études, scales (and their ilk), and repertoire)!

Dear Mike,
That is the fundamental aspect: reevaluation. Music, then the classical repertoire, then the academic approach, and, finally, the piano, are much about the past, the tradition, the establishment. Music industry, by the way, was able to transform the outsiders into mainstream, but that is another discussion.

What I think it is of uttermost importance here is the fact that for more that Hanon was used, he is no law. The reason is simple: there are no strict laws in music making other than the physical boundaries of sound and the human body. As you said, the instrument changes, the music changes, the human body changes. It is difficult to sustain that something must be only because it was someday.

Even Bach - to pick up BBS example - is not something absolute, although in this case I think there is no reason to argue with the tradition.

Best regards,
Jay.

[mike_lang]

Hi all,

I have a problem with this. If we have to change the premise of the book to adapt it to the modern piano, what's the point of studying from the book in the first place?

I am a huge advocate of Bach, and I've mentioned this in the thread before, so I'll try to add an extra point. EVERY mature pianist has studied Bach. Not EVERY mature pianist has studied Hanon. That is the underlining factor, while Hanon can be disputed, Bach cannot. So why bother with a technique book whose premise is outdated and exercises, not surprisingly, derive from the music of J.S. Bach?

As a side note, I don't include Chopin's etudes in this topic because I find those to only be useful to pianists who have already reached a very advanced level. If a beginner or intermediate is using a Chopin etude to "refine technique" that is the quickest way towards a hand injury.

Best wishes,

Hi there,

I just wanted to address a couple things:

1) I don't believe that adapting the exercises to our modern conceptions of wrist movement, arm and hand weight, balance, and so forth disintegrates the premise of the work . . . What do you perceive to be the premise of Hanon (or sections of it)?

2) I don't recall saying that every mature pianist has studied Hanon; only that enough "known commodities" have done so to merit a close examination.

3) I mentioned Chopin's études to illustrate the point that just about anything can cause injury if done incorrectly. I of course do not presume to put them in the same category as the Hanon exercises.

Best,
Mike

[sucom]

The question in this thread reminded me of my own teacher's views of Hanon and Czerny.  I remember taking a czerny exercise to a piano lesson once and my teacher, a Hungarian concert pianist, ousted it immediately, replacing it with a Chopin study.

I tend to agree with him that Hanon and Czerny exercises are not necessary to develop technique, although Czerny is slightly more interesting to play than Hanon.  If music by a wide variety of composers of different eras (styles) is studied (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Liszt, Rachmaninoff, Brahms, Debussy, Ravel, and so on)  pretty much, if not all, of the technical development required is easily covered; octaves, thirds, tenths, sixths, large jumps, chromatic scales, broken chords etc, etc.  And they provide a lot more interest and fun as well as developing skills in expression and general musicianship at the same time, which I feel Hanon, in particular, lacks.  My motto is that if technique has to be studied, which obviously it does, then at least make it enjoyable and valuable and improve your musicianship at the same time.

[ella1980]

I agree with fellow members on Dohnanyi. Best set of exercised I ever used. They increase finger strength like no other exercises; helping to make fourth and fifth independent by constant lifting and pressing while others are held. It does tire a lot but very worth it for technique. Hanon and Czerny are musically more interesting to play, but if technique is what you are looking to improve, Dohnanyi is the best.

Ella

[pianoplayjl]

probably Liszt or brahms.

[mosis]

if you play Hanon, you're retarded (not an insult; mere point of fact )

try Scarlatti

[pianoplayjl]

If  you don't play hanon you're a retard. Hanonis a fundamental book on technique that is abuilding block for harder ones like Liszt.

[mosis]

lol

some things never change 

[pianoplayjl]

Some exercises will replace others.

[lukebar]

Are Hanon and Czerny a waste of time?

There is probably some benefit that can be derived from them. Actually, I'm fairly certain that there is definitely some benefit that can be derived from them.

The bigger question is, is it the best use of your limited practice time?

There are only so many hours in the day, only so much time to practice. Could the hours spent plodding mindlessly through these types of exercises be better spent in other ways that give us greater returns on our overall pianistic development? Such as playing etudes (at whatever level) that also have musical interest to them as well.

[pianoplayjl]

You have a point too, luke bar.

[mcdiddy1]

Are Hanon and Czerny a waste of time?

There is probably some benefit that can be derived from them. Actually, I'm fairly certain that there is definitely some benefit that can be derived from them.

The bigger question is, is it the best use of your limited practice time?

There are only so many hours in the day, only so much time to practice. Could the hours spent plodding mindlessly through these types of exercises be better spent in other ways that give us greater returns on our overall pianistic development? Such as playing etudes (at whatever level) that also have musical interest to them as well.

I think you are exactly right. Too much of anything can be detrimential or at least time wasting to your development. Spending your entire practice on scale study or on etudes you have achieved mastery that is not intended for performance is a waste of time. Practice should be stimulating, creative, inventive, and active rather than mundane, tedious, and predictable. If you find ways to be achieve a balance in your practice and variety then you will get better results and actually enjoy practicing. Scales, etudes, and repertoire are all elements of the piano learning cycle and is incomplete with the others. The disagreements come because you have multiple people coming to piano with no experience to these with multiple experiences who say one is useless over the other. But the truth is always somewhere in the middle I think.

[49410enrique]

Hi all,

I have a problem with this. If we have to change the premise of the book to adapt it to the modern piano, what's the point of studying from the book in the first place?

I am a huge advocate of Bach, and I've mentioned this in the thread before, so I'll try to add an extra point. EVERY mature pianist has studied Bach. Not EVERY mature pianist has studied Hanon. That is the underlining factor, while Hanon can be disputed, Bach cannot. So why bother with a technique book whose premise is outdated and exercises, not surprisingly, derive from the music of J.S. Bach?

As a side note, I don't include Chopin's etudes in this topic because I find those to only be useful to pianists who have already reached a very advanced level. If a beginner or intermediate is using a Chopin etude to "refine technique" that is the quickest way towards a hand injury.

Best wishes,

BINGO!

[pianoplayjl]

I've played Bach and Hanon. I also discovered Brahms exercises. what about that?

[_achilles_]

I don't get people. Just play what you want to and if it helps good and if doesn't stop. Why all this comparison to others (live or dead)?

[pianoplayjl]

Probably because teachers and students want to compare and advice on what did work and what did not work.