Are scales necessary at this stage?

[i_am_joey_jo]

Hi all,

I'm just finishing up the 2 part inventions and working on some minor 3 part Gavottes right now but I have never studied scales with my teacher.  I do Hanon excercises and also Czerny but no Scales so far.

Is this a major issue for me?  Are scales not preparation for 2 parts and what would the benefit be?  I can recognize scales as they are written more and more just playing the music itself, I will always listen to a piece before I play it as well so I get a good feel of the scales anyhow.

Can a teacher offer advice?

[gerryjay]

Dear Joey,
this is a recurrent thread on the forum, and there are many views about that. Mine is: no Hanon, no Czerny, no scales. However, I would like to help in a different way: try the search engine, with keywords such as "scales", "technique". There are very useful threads, specially the ones in which Bernhard take a part.

However, the most valuable piece of advice is: discuss this issue with your teacher, and ask him/her about why you are doing the things you do. I don't mean s/he is wrong, but a sound argument of your teacher is fundamental to develop your understanding of your own learning, as well as a healthy relationship pupil-teacher.

Best regards,
Jay.

[nyiregyhazi]

I find practising Hanon but not having covered scales rather bizarre. If you can play all your scales fluently at the drop of a hat, you don't need to practise them. If you can't, then you do (unless you want to waste a lot of more time than necessary when trying to learn a lot of repertoire). It's really that simple.

[gerryjay]

If you can play all your scales fluently at the drop of a hat, you don't need to practise them. If you can't, then you do (unless you want to waste a lot of more time than necessary when trying to learn a lot of repertoire). It's really that simple.

Dear Nyregyhazi,
very precise. I just don't agree with the "waste a lot of more time than necessary", because you already wasted a lot of time studying the scales. I see that from a different angle: at some point, you will must concern yourself with a scale. If you will do that through the annoying process of repeating abstract patterns, or if you will do that through actual music, is up to you.

Best regards,
Jay.

[i_am_joey_jo]

I should also add that I am interested in Baroque and Early Classical Only.  I suppose this will cut down the number of scales that I am working with right now anyhow.  Anything outside of a Meantone are few and far between, even Bach who encouraged an Equal Temperament knew that most people didn't have their instruments tuned to that and wrote mostly in the common scales to avoid wolf.

[nyiregyhazi]

Dear Nyregyhazi,
very precise. I just don't agree with the "waste a lot of more time than necessary", because you already wasted a lot of time studying the scales. I see that from a different angle: at some point, you will must concern yourself with a scale. If you will do that through the annoying process of repeating abstract patterns, or if you will do that through actual music, is up to you.

Best regards,
Jay.

Acquiring a necessary foundation stone is never a waste of time. There are so many concerns when learning music, that only the ultra-talented will be able to devote necessary attention to both learning the proper technique while playing scale passages- AND covering all the other demands.

In the past whenever I tried to learn pieces by Mozart, I'd inevitably give up. There was way too much stuff to cover. These days I can sightread passages with more control than I could even have learned, a few years back (and I'm talking when I was studying postgraduate at music college- not when I was 5).

This may run contrary to what many claim- but it was BECAUSE I was thinking of musical demands that my scales were so poor before. I tried to exaggerate shapes and contrasts without having the basic means of evenness or comfortable movement. Now I have acquired a foundation of basic evenness, I can strive to exaggerate musical shapes without the result being a complete technical mess. There's a difference between actively unmusical practise (with random accents all over the place) and musically understated practise (with a continuous, but not especially interesting, musical line). The latter is a vital foundation. It's far easier to work that way in a pure scale than have to endure the ordeal of playing actual music over and over again in a monotonous way (which may for example, be for the sake of nothing more than getting used to a G major fingering that should have been a doddle from the very first playing). I believe the latter is actually far more dangerous to musicianship. I'd far sooner have the equipment to execute a passage first time around (allowing me to focus on the music at once), than be going through it for the 7th or 8th time- with my attention taken up primarily by having to learn how to put my thumb under, or why my fourth finger continually fails to sound cleanly etc.

These days I don't waste time playing the same passage over and over again and being frustrated by weird accents that I have no intention of doing but which I have no physical control over. I think of the result I intend and generally have a reasonable chance of coming rather close to that in the first place. I cannot overstate how much time is saved- not to mention frustration.

[pianowolfi]

Scales are not abstract patterns and they are very helpful, alongside with triads and seventh chords, for the whole repertoire. Understanding the circle of fifths is fundamental as soon as you proceed from elementary stages to more advanced ones.

[gerryjay]

Scales are not abstract patterns

Dear Wolfi,
Yes, by definition they are. My question is, anyway, very simple: in a scalar passage of music, you have many dimensions acting at once (the exact combination of pitches and their durations, articulation, dynamics, agogics). On the piano, we have extra considerations (particular to the instrument), such as touch, pedals.

When you study a scalar exercise, you do the scale one way. And stick it to your brain with many daily repetitions. There are teachers who like to solve this issue with "variations", which only creates a bunch of meaningless exercises that have no direct use in music making.

Well, of course that you can develop speed, etc, but you can do this as well without scales. Hence the open ended situation: scales, alone, are nothing. The issue is created by the way they are used. This is why I suggested a search, instead of the nth debate around this unsolvable question.

Best regards,
Jay.

[nyiregyhazi]

When you study a scalar exercise, you do the scale one way. And stick it to your brain with many daily repetitions. There are teachers who like to solve this issue with "variations", which only creates a bunch of meaningless exercises that have no direct use in music making.

Well, of course that you can develop speed, etc, but you can do this as well without scales. Hence the open ended situation: scales, alone, are nothing. The issue is created by the way they are used. This is why I suggested a search, instead of the nth debate around this unsolvable question.

Scales alone are not "nothing". If they were, having spent a lot of time on developing my scales would not have transferred into improving so many aspects of my technique. Sorry, but I find hyperbole such as the above extremely silly. There are more transferable elements in the ability to execute an evenly played scale (before you even go into the fact that they can be practise in so many different ways) than I could possibly list. Who even mentioned speed?

You say above that the issue is the way they are used. Well, you cannot use something you do not already have- which is what lies at the heart of the issue. The fact that scales should be a means to an end is most certainly NOT an argument for not doing them at all. If they were not done at all your own argument becomes obsolete.

[pianowolfi]

Dear Wolfi,
Yes, by definition they are. My question is, anyway, very simple: in a scalar passage of music, you have many dimensions acting at once (the exact combination of pitches and their durations, articulation, dynamics, agogics). On the piano, we have extra considerations (particular to the instrument), such as touch, pedals.

When you study a scalar exercise, you do the scale one way. And stick it to your brain with many daily repetitions. There are teachers who like to solve this issue with "variations", which only creates a bunch of meaningless exercises that have no direct use in music making.

Well, of course that you can develop speed, etc, but you can do this as well without scales. Hence the open ended situation: scales, alone, are nothing. The issue is created by the way they are used. This is why I suggested a search, instead of the nth debate around this unsolvable question.

Best regards,
Jay.

I don't teach scales in isolation. Usually I introduce the scale together with a new piece in the respective tonality. It's more about understanding than about velocity, at first. But as soon as you want to approach more advanced levels, or professional levels, scales, as many other modules, are necessary. Just imagine someone learning Chopin Ballades or Scherzi without knowing scales! it's just weird, to me. But of course, doing them only in isolation isn't helpful. Practice teaches that already if you tackle a piece like KV 545 you need to modify some of the standard fingerings. But if you got the standards you can always proceed from there, having a solid fundament.

[nyiregyhazi]

I don't teach scales in isolation. Usually I introduce the scale together with a new piece in the respective tonality. It's more about understanding than about velocity, at first. But as soon as you want to approach more advanced levels, or professional levels, scales, as many other modules, are necessary. Just imagine someone learning Chopin Ballades or Scherzi without knowing scales! it's just weird, to me.

I've been teaching one student for a while who has been playing some difficult Chopin Nocturnes and other pieces. I tried to get him doing grades- involving scales etc, but he wasn't interested. I can't overstate how frustrating it has been to see the countless occasions on which he has struggled with the most standard scale patterns- due to nothing more than the fact he has not learned them. Even having the fingerings written in didn't help- because a piece of music involves so many different things to worry about. It's so much easier to take these things outside and leave yourself free to think about the music. Fortunately that particular student has recently decided that he wants to start working for some grades now.

As you say, speed has nothing to do with it. It's just about knowing your way around the piano- so you don't spend all your time reinventing the wheel instead of getting properly inside the piece of music.

[pianisten1989]

So you're saying that it's unnecessary to prepare anything you are able to prepare?...


You know what, I've been trying to respond for like 20 minutes, without any success... it's like trying to convince someone wny knowing plus and minus might be a good idea if you want to become a maths professor...

If the person doesn't doesn't think it's necessary, then it's just no idea trying to convince him.

[sucom]

In my view, if you are serious about wanting to play the piano well, then scales should be  included.  In fact, I was quite surprised to read the question "Are they really necessary?" because I've always taken it for granted that pianists (and all other musicians) at least KNOW scales, even if they don't practise them regularly.

I don't see a need to practise them over and over, but they should at least be known and played from memory if not solely for the reason to improve sight reading skills.  I'm just picturing trying to sight read the last page of Chopin's first ballade without any prior practice or memory of the G minor scale in thirds.  Hmm, could be tricky!  If you have already memorised the scale of G minor in thirds then it will simply be a matter of zapping up those keys without having to begin learning from scratch. 

It's not worth pointing out other reasons for memorising scales - reasons have been logged all over the internet and elsewhere.  Why would so many examining boards add them to their exams if they didn't believe scales are important?  I don't advocate practising them for the sake of it, but I do feel that they should be studied and memorised at some point.  I can't help but wonder if there is an element of 'can't be bothered' involved somewhere.  Yes, they're a pain - I don't know anyone who enjoys practising scales in the early stages, although once they are learnt, they no longer feel like a pain but tend to be useful limbering up exercises.