Returning to the Hanon

[faa2010]

I've played piano for around 9 years, and there was some time during those years when I practiced Hanon. 

I haven't practiced it for a time.  However, I have three goals in my mind right now:

- Re-learning the scales, cromatics and arpeggios.
- Make my pinkies (specially the right one) less rigid.
- Be less slow and rigid with my piano playing.

Is it fine to return to practice the Hanon or are there other options?

[gerryjay]

Dear Faa,
I don't want to spoil your thread, but I think you will get better results using the search engine. There are plenty of discussions about the merits/uselessness of Hanon, including one that is active right now.

Best regards,
Jay.

[faa2010]

Dear Jay,

Quite the contrary, I think you are fixing my threat.  It's only that if I don't mention the Hanon, the most probably thing is that they are going to mention it (someone is going to advice me to return anyway).

That is also why I put my goals or aims in which I want to work, I want to be specific in the points which I want to improve.  This threat is not only about Hanon, it is seeking for other's advice in the points I want to improve.

[gerryjay]

Dear Faa,
let me, then, present my suggestions. The first and most important is to find a teacher, the best you can afford. Then, after you rebuild a repertoire, keep looking for master classes and open courses in your area. Those are fantastic opportunities to engage and enjoy.

More specifically, I would suggest you to pick up pieces, not exercises. But I must be honest: I'd never suggest exercises, by any means. That said, your goals can be summarized as "improving my piano playing". To do that, I would use a piece that deals with scales, another one that have arpeggios, and so on. One at a time, because it will help you in your third issue (consistence).

If you want some specific suggestions, please let me know what did you play previously and how long have you been away from the piano. I will not concern about suggestions regarding exercises because there are people in this forum who are serious about this approach, and they will have better ideas about Hanon, scales, and the like.

A final word of caution: The idea of letting your pinkies less rigid is fundamental, but it is quite pointless trying to develop it by itself. The development of mechanics is tricky, hence the need for a teacher. And there is the danger of injury as well. The legend of Schumann is there to remember us about that.

Best regards,
Jay.

[nyiregyhazi]

A final word of caution: The idea of letting your pinkies less rigid is fundamental, but it is quite pointless trying to develop it by itself.

Why? If something is rigid, you need to practise moving it more. It's simple physiology. Are you aware of any reason why a musical context would make physical freedom in a joint any easier to come by? Does this also work for other parts of the body? Does someone with a locked up knee get more improvement if they ask a physiotherapist to attempt to move it around in a manner that serves more of more of an "artistic" purpose- rather than with a view to improving freedom and comfort of movement?

I'm all for the importance of remembering that everything is supposed to contribute to some kind of musical context in the long run. However, the idea that it's impossible to develop something like physical ease outside of a musical context is simply absurd. Of course it makes sense to develop something by itself- provided you go about it the right way. Just because our primary goal is something artistic, does not mean we have to throw out pragmaticism and rational thought.

[gerryjay]

Why?

(...)

the idea that it's impossible to develop something like physical ease outside of a musical context is simply absurd. Of course it makes sense to develop something by itself- provided you go about it the right way.

Dear Nyiregyhazi,
my point wasn't that. I agree with you: you don't need a musical context to develop your physical abilities, although I see no reason in doing it otherwise. However, my point was another: I mean it is pointless trying to develop the pinky by itself, without considering its close physiological relationship to the fourth finger, or the recurring use of the wrist, and so on.

In the end, the question is very simple: it is useless to push a finger alone, when your mechanics are not about a single finger movement.

Best regards,
Jay.

[sucom]

More specifically, I would suggest you to pick up pieces, not exercises

I must admit, I have to agree here with Gerry.  I can't see the point of pushing exercise after exercise; rigid little fingers or not.  I believe that pieces contain all the necessary exercises for gaining a good technique and allow musicianship skills to be built at the same time.

[carguy]

I have just started working out of Hanon! And yet I have learned SO MUCH!!! I can not describe how much better I've gotten from working out of it. It really is something great.

[ionian_tinnear]

One thing Hanon and other studies do provide is practice for patterns in every key.  You do play each excercise in keys other than what's written, right?  Patterns practiced until the muscles learn to do them without real thought is an important part of the excercises.

Still, I do agree that choosing pieces to learn that have scale and other patterns is a good, and less dull, alternative.

When I still did Hanon, I played them in the keys of the pieces I was working on at the time.  Now, most of 50 yrs later, I seldom think about fingering unless the patterns I know from the excercises don't work on the piece I'm learning.  Key signatures become almost insignificant, usually.

They can be a good warm up too.  I still do scales and arppegios in the keys of the pieces I'm working on, but I don't work them all that much anymore.

[sucom]

I have just started working out of Hanon! And yet I have learned SO MUCH!!! I can not describe how much better I've gotten from working out of it. It really is something great.

Hi Carguy
I'm sorry but I just have to ask this - what EXACTLY do you feel you have learnt from these exercises that you wouldn't have learnt from pieces containing similar technical passages?  It's true that the Hanon exercises do limber up the fingers, and build up patterns but do you feel this is not possible through other more .......hmm, how to say.........more musical means? I'm assuming, of course, that other regular scales are also learnt along with the pieces.

[nyiregyhazi]

"my point wasn't that. I agree with you: you don't need a musical context to develop your physical abilities, although I see no reason in doing it otherwise."

How about to develop a greater of ease of movement, that can then be applied to an artistic context? If a ballet dancer with a stiff knee receives treatment, do they need to think specifically about anything artistic or dancing-related while doing so? Would failure to think about dancing while receiving treatment render it useless? In a single word, no. It doesn't matter an ounce whether they have such things in mind while developing movement. If something improves freedom and range of movement that is all that matters. They can then apply the benefits to their dancing. To suggest that everything needs an immediate musical context is simply not accurate. Frequently, to develop movement for its own sake is to expand the range of intentions you can go on to realise. If a particular finger is stiff, the problem evidently lies in the nature of its movement. Who has "musical" problems that coincidentally cause just a single finger to give poor musical results? Such problems lie in movement and control- and must be dealt with on those terms, for any hope of progress.

"However, my point was another: I mean it is pointless trying to develop the pinky by itself, without considering its close physiological relationship to the fourth finger, or the recurring use of the wrist, and so on."

Why? If done wrong, I agree. If done well, it will be very useful. I've recently made tremendous progress on my motion with weaker fingers. Quite honestly, the less musical context I've applied the greater the progress. Many developments in my weak fingers are owed to exercises away from a piano. The more I allowed musical intention to enter the immediate foreground while doing the work, the more my arms wanted to press and the more I prevented better movement from developing. I had to willfully understate musical shapes to progress. Now I have a wider ability, I can return to what are naturally vastly more pronounced musical intentions with a hope of realising them. I don't believe Hanon is of any use without an understanding of what is required from the movement. However, I do believe that work on quality movement in general is extremely useful- regardless of musical context.

[bachbrahmsschubert]

One thing Hanon and other studies do provide is practice for patterns in every key.  You do play each excercise in keys other than what's written, right?  Patterns practiced until the muscles learn to do them without real thought is an important part of the excercises.

I still don't see the benefit in this. One is better off writing one's own technical exercises for problems encountered in the music. Practicing patterns until you don't have to think is bad. If the purpose of a technical exercise is to prepare the fingers for real music, then isn't how the brain focuses on said exercises just as important?

"my point wasn't that. I agree with you: you don't need a musical context to develop your physical abilities, although I see no reason in doing it otherwise."

How about to develop a greater of ease of movement, that can then be applied to an artistic context? If a ballet dancer with a stiff knee receives treatment, do they need to think specifically about anything artistic or dancing-related while doing so? Would failure to think about dancing while receiving treatment render it useless? In a single word, no. It doesn't matter an ounce whether they have such things in mind while developing movement. If something improves freedom and range of movement that is all that matters. They can then apply the benefits to their dancing. To suggest that everything needs an immediate musical context is simply not accurate. Frequently, to develop movement for its own sake is to expand the range of intentions you can go on to realise. If a particular finger is stiff, the problem evidently lies in the nature of its movement. Who has "musical" problems that coincidentally cause just a single finger to give poor musical results? Such problems lie in movement and control- and must be dealt with on those terms, for any hope of progress.

"However, my point was another: I mean it is pointless trying to develop the pinky by itself, without considering its close physiological relationship to the fourth finger, or the recurring use of the wrist, and so on."

Why? If done wrong, I agree. If done well, it will be very useful. I've recently made tremendous progress on my motion with weaker fingers. Quite honestly, the less musical context I've applied the greater the progress. Many developments in my weak fingers are owed to exercises away from a piano. The more I allowed musical intention to enter the immediate foreground while doing the work, the more my arms wanted to press and the more I prevented better movement from developing. I had to willfully understate musical shapes to progress. Now I have a wider ability, I can return to what are naturally vastly more pronounced musical intentions with a hope of realising them. I don't believe Hanon is of any use without an understanding of what is required from the movement. However, I do believe that work on quality movement in general is extremely useful- regardless of musical context.

I put in bold what I thought to be the most important, and I partially agree with you. I would also like to know what sort of exercises you do away from the piano that help improve your weak fingers.

While working at the piano, I have found no personal benefit from "non musical" exercises. There is one fact that cannot be dismissed and that is you can't find a technical problem in an exercise that you cannot find in a piece of music. So, while at the piano, working on anything other than real repertoire is, in my mind, a waste of time. However, that does not mean one should ONLY practice what is written on the page. I can practice whatever Hanon exercise that works on repeated notes, however when I come to a section in the music (let's just use the presto section of Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody 13) the context is entirely different. While the structure is the same, it requires a completely different form of movement that Hanon or any other exercise cannot properly prepare an individual for. So why did I bother practicing that portion of Hanon? There are many many pieces that offer "practice" in repeated notes, and the first thing that comes to mind is Scarlatti's K. 141. However, the argument is the same, if I can play Scarlatti's k. 141, am I a wizard with repeated notes? No. But now I have a Scarlatti sonata under my fingers and not some pointless technical exercise.

I think we all agree with each other minus a few details, but I am interested in knowing your thoughts towards what I wrote and your exercises away from the piano as I search for some of those myself.

Best wishes,

[sucom]

While working at the piano, I have found no personal benefit from "non musical" exercises. There is one fact that cannot be dismissed and that is you can't find a technical problem in an exercise that you cannot find in a piece of music. So, while at the piano, working on anything other than real repertoire is, in my mind, a waste of time. However, that does not mean one should ONLY practice what is written on the page. I can practice whatever Hanon exercise that works on repeated notes, however when I come to a section in the music (let's just use the presto section of Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody 13) the context is entirely different. While the structure is the same, it requires a completely different form of movement that Hanon or any other exercise cannot properly prepare an individual for. So why did I bother practicing that portion of Hanon? There are many many pieces that offer "practice" in repeated notes, and the first thing that comes to mind is Scarlatti's K. 141. However, the argument is the same, if I can play Scarlatti's k. 141, am I a wizard with repeated notes? No. But now I have a Scarlatti sonata under my fingers and not some pointless technical exercise.

This echoes my own thoughts - I have found the same myself.

[nyiregyhazi]

"While working at the piano, I have found no personal benefit from "non musical" exercises. There is one fact that cannot be dismissed and that is you can't find a technical problem in an exercise that you cannot find in a piece of music. So, while at the piano, working on anything other than real repertoire is, in my mind, a waste of time. However, that does not mean one should ONLY practice what is written on the page. I can practice whatever Hanon exercise that works on repeated notes, however when I come to a section in the music (let's just use the presto section of Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody 13) the context is entirely different."

Entirely? I find that argument extremely illogical. I can think of few more directly transferable things than repeated note technique. Of course every case is a little different. But it's certainly not 100% different. A pianist who has mastered repeated notes in general will have a far easier time. It can be useful BOTH to study external exercises and make up your own more specifically directed ones. To come to something like that without a prior background in the general skills of repeated notes would likely be disastrous.




"While the structure is the same, it requires a completely different form of movement that Hanon or any other exercise cannot properly prepare an individual for. So why did I bother p
practicing that portion of Hanon?"

You argue as if something can only provide 100% preparation or literally zero preparation. I can't make any sense of that. You might as well go on to argue that seeing as one has to adapt the movements slightly to play pieces on a different piano, there's no point in practising on anything other than the piano you'll do the concert on. Whether something gets you 40% of the way there or 99.9% it's still useful. I could see that kind of argument regarding Hanon in general- but I can't make any sense of it regarding repeated note exercises. Such exercises provide spectacularly transferable skills.

Regarding exercises away from the piano, I'm talking about various things- from Feldenkrais exercises to lifting weights. At the piano, countless movement issues are transferable- regardless of musical issues. In particular I've been developing considerably more support and freedom of movement in my r.h. fifth finger. This freedom is very notably transferring across between various Chopin studies. It's the product of various aspects- but I've had to do a lot of very dry technical work to get it to happen. It's a movement issue, not a musical one- which is exactly why developing it is providing quite so much transferable improvement that aids just about anything I'm playing.

[sucom]

It's a movement issue, not a musical one

I can see what you are saying in your post, but I find myself struggling to accept your sentence above because there is no way I can separate arm/wrist/finger movement from musical expression while playing an instrument.  For me, it is the movement (and touch) that produces the musical expression. The context of every single piece of music is likely to require different movements and touch.

For me, every movement a player makes is inextricably linked with musical expression. To concentrate on movement alone without any consideration of the musical energy produced (and the flow or fluidity of the energy) makes me think of the mechanical workings of a machine.  How is that going to improve musical performance?

[nyiregyhazi]

"I can see what you are saying in your post, but I find myself struggling to accept your sentence above because there is no way I can separate arm/wrist/finger movement from musical expression while playing an instrument. "

Who said I separate while playing in the end product? I don't. I separate sometimes (and only sometimes) as part of a balanced learning process and then reap the benefits of my expanded range of movements- in a musical context.

"For me, it is the movement (and touch) that produces the musical expression."

Of course it's the movement that produces the expression. That why it's so useful to improve your range of movements and touches and your general control over movements.



"For me, every movement a player makes is inextricably linked with musical expression. To concentrate on movement alone without any consideration of the musical energy produced (and the flow or fluidity of the energy) makes me think of the mechanical workings of a machine.  How is that going to improve musical performance?"

In exactly the same way that a ballet dancer with a stiff joint will have their performance improved by totally non-artistic work with a physiotherapist. To say that everything has to immediately artistic to have a value is simply ludicrous. A pianist would have to be a sorry musician indeed to suddenly lose the ability to play musically, simply because they spent some time improving their flexibility in a way that had no immediate musical context. Obviously the musical result is the end goal. But dwelling on that 100% of the time can be exactly what holds people back from realising it. It's absurd to throw out valuable means of progress, through dogmatic adherence to an irrational concept. Developing a wider range of movement does not suddenly make some into a bad musician. It gives them a wider range of possibility and hence a wider range of sounds that can be accessed.

[sucom]

Hi there and thank you for taking the time to respond to my post.  I appreciate your comments

"In exactly the same way that a ballet dancer with a stiff joint will have their performance improved by totally non-artistic work with a physiotherapist. To say that everything has to immediately artistic to have a value is simply ludicrous."

I'm not sure I would say that it would be 'simply ludicrous' for everything to have artistic value (although I'm tempted to think it should!)  but we could merely be arguing semantics here.  I don't tend to think of things in terms of being  'simply ludicrous' - I tend to be a little more laid back to have such strong thoughts, lol.   I'm not really saying 'artistic' value either because the word artistic has many general connotations which we could discuss for hours.  I'm thinking more about the natural flow of energy and the way it appears through movement and sound. 

The possibility of a ballet dancer having a stiff joint could perhaps occur as a result of not moving with the natural flow of energy, but rather more working against it as a result, perhaps, of a poor technique or injury (caused be overdoing things or again, a poor technique)   Overworking a muscle can lead to injury and I do tend to feel that strenuous exercises that overwork the muscles or ligaments, with page after page of the same repeated technical challenge, can cause more problems than they're worth.  This is less likely to appear in a piece of music, thereby putting less strain on the performer.  And the technical challenge is also likely to be interspersed with other musical ideas, providing some relief for the overworked fingers/wrists/arms.  Also the musical context may be different, offering further opportunities to improve the player's expressive technique other than that acquired through the repetitive patterns of notes.  Less boring too, methinks!

Quote "A pianist would have to be a sorry musician indeed to suddenly lose the ability to play musically, simply because they spent some time improving their flexibility in a way that had no immediate musical context. Obviously the musical result is the end goal. But dwelling on that 100% of the time can be exactly what holds people back from realising it. It's absurd to throw out valuable means of progress, through dogmatic adherence to an irrational concept. Developing a wider range of movement does not suddenly make some into a bad musician. It gives them a wider range of possibility and hence a wider range of sounds that can be accessed." End of quote

I'm not talking about 'losing' the ability to play musically.  I'm talking about learning 'how' to play musically. As a musician, I find myself having to think in terms of a musical context - that's where I'm coming from, a musical context. Playing the piano and a musical context go hand in hand for me, I can't separate them.  This is why I believe that even challenging technical passages can be learnt and executed in a musical setting.  Why remove the musical setting at all, especially as there are so many resources to retain it? If this is dogmatic adherence to an irrational concept then I'm guilty. 

On the contrary from holding people back, I believe that ensuring a musical context will drive a player forwards in the right direction. The end goal is the expression of the music, flowing with the natural laws of the flow of energy.  Developing a wider range of movement can be achieved by playing many different musical styles, which will in turn allow access to a wider range of sounds.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not against technical exercises as such, but I can't see a need myself for page after page of mindless repetitive patterns like those that appear in the Hanon exercises.  Enjoyable pieces full of technical challenges can be found in abundance everywhere, offering the opportunity to improve technique and musical expression at the same time.  If both can be achieved together, then I say, Go for it!

[nyiregyhazi]

"The possibility of a ballet dancer having a stiff joint could perhaps occur as a result of not moving with the natural flow of energy, but rather more working against it as a result, perhaps, of a poor technique or injury (caused be overdoing things or again, a poor technique)"

Exactly. So where is the artistic relation to this? Is it in any way a sign of inadequate attention to the artistic intentions? Or a flaw in their performance of MOVEMENT itself? I think the answer is self-evident. Treatment might have literally nothing to do with anything artistic- yet it would permit the artistic results to follow on. Why would piano be so different? I'm not arguing that technique and musicality should never be combined- not by a long way. I just find the idea that it's impossible to achieve benefits from anything other than immediately obvious associations totally irrational. All kinds of seemingly separate things end up spilling over into other areas. Cardiovascular exercise is extremely good for my playing- but I do not have to make any effort to do it in any "musical" way.

 "Overworking a muscle can lead to injury and I do tend to feel that strenuous exercises that overwork the muscles or ligaments, with page after page of the same repeated technical challenge, can cause more problems than they're worth."

Sure, I'm not big on Hanon myself. However, the problem you describe is again a problem in MOVEMENT. You can injure yourself playing the Erlkonig more easily than in countless exercises and that's music. What matters is whether you move with a good quality or a bad one. Also, few pieces tend to give the same distillation of a technique that suitable exercises can. Exercises can also be designed to ease into new techniques progressively- rather than throw you into what composers wrote without caring about easing the player in.


"I'm not talking about 'losing' the ability to play musically.  I'm talking about learning 'how' to play musically."

I gathered that. My point is- would a musician be so scared of losing his musicality simply by spending SOME of the time on movement based work? If not, what IS there to be worried about? Nobody ever said practising with focus on movement itself involves banning regular musical practise. Would devoting just 5 minutes of a long session to a particular issue of movement suddenly destroy a musician? How? What is so bad that those few minutes ought to be banned?


"Why remove the musical setting at all, especially as there are so many resources to retain it? If this is dogmatic adherence to an irrational concept then I'm guilty."

Because the musical intention often cause bad habits. Look at the average kid having a go at FF chords for the first time. There are countless areas where, if you don't have the right understanding of movement, the strongest musical intentions actually screw things up more. You have to learn the quality of movement before you can realise advanced musical intention- or suffer the consequences.

"Developing a wider range of movement can be achieved by playing many different musical styles, which will in turn allow access to a wider range of sounds."

Or not. I've heard pianists who play many styles with very few sounds and very few types of movemen. It doesn't happen by magic. You need to learn a quality of movement to apply it.

"Enjoyable pieces full of technical challenges can be found in abundance everywhere, offering the opportunity to improve technique and musical expression at the same time.  If both can be achieved together, then I say, Go for it!"

The question is whether both are necessarily achieved to the full. If not, it makes sense to separate some of the time. What I've learned recently is that doing work on dry technical exercises can be great- as long as the movements are done well and not badly. It's all about the quality of movement learned. None of this effects my existing musicality. Technical exercises should not be judged from mindlessly unmusical idiots who blast them out without paying attention to control or quality of movement. When I confine myself to music, my musical instincts trigger bad technical habits. I have had to prevent my musical instincts from kicking in- in order to fix those habits and create a better feedback loop. I can't easily do that when playing music, it's too hard. It's far easier to work on pure control much of the time, and then go on to apply that control to music too. With better habits, the musical results are vastly better than before.

[sucom]

After reading your last post I think it is likely we are in agreement about quality of movement but perhaps just approaching the subject from different angles or perspectives. Many thanks for a very interesting discussion