scale learning

[drazh]

hi
what is the best method for scale practice?memorization or sight reading?
thank you

[smallville]

I'd like a decent answer to this. Playing them with the book in front of me is easy. Struggle to commit them to memory though.

[bleicher]

They should be from memory for two reasons. Firstly, we use them as a technical exercise so we want to be able to concentrate fully on what our fingers and hands are doing rather than having to look at the music. Secondly, they are a way of learning what notes are in which key, so memorising them means that we remember this piece of theory.

[nanabush]

Learn and REALLY understand the concepts of sharps/flats.  Start with only a few keys (C major, G major, D major, F major).  Look at the 'key signature' for each (no sharps, F#, F#C#, Bb respectively for those).  Practice the scale slowly, reinforcing the concept of the key signature.  If you try to memorize by 'white white black white black black' etc, then you will see music as a random series of patterns, rather than retaining a huge portion of the foundation.

So key signature is a huge must!  Also, practice scales in different orders.  I know some people that can play C major, then A minor, then G major.  But if I ask them to just play the G major, they're like "wait, which one's that again?"

[drazh]

HI
1.do you play scale with all 88 keys or only on middle octaves?
2. what about fingering? do you recommend hannon fingering?
sincerely yours

[gsmile]

HI
1.do you play scale with all 88 keys or only on middle octaves?
2. what about fingering? do you recommend hannon fingering?
sincerely yours

1. You should start with one octave scales to make sure that you have even tone and good fingering. Move onto two octave scales when you're sure that your scales are even and your fingers aren't heavy.

2. There are 60 Hanon exercises-- which one are you talking about? For smooth scales, you would alternate crossing under with 3 and 4 for the right hand, and crossing over 4 and 3 for the left hand. There are exceptions, though.

[drazh]

2. There are 60 Hanon exercises-- which one are you talking about? For smooth scales, you would alternate crossing under with 3 and 4 for the right hand, and crossing over 4 and 3 for the left hand. There are exceptions, though.

Dear gsmile
Exercise no;39  and after .all of them begin with key note and the thumb starts the key note
Thank you

[nyiregyhazi]

1. You should start with one octave scales to make sure that you have even tone and good fingering. Move onto two octave scales when you're sure that your scales are even and your fingers aren't heavy.

Is that really necessary? I don't see it as being notably more difficult to play two octave scales evenly than one octave ones. Personally, I always start beginners with 2 octaves- in order to reflect the full fingering. With the thumb simply coming under 3, 4 and then 3 (for standard keys) I've never had a student who found this too hard to grasp. If a student spends much time on one octave scales, it will just make it all the more alien to have to turn under 4, rather than use 5. While many people regard precise two octave practise as highly important, I've very rarely heard anyone advise practising a lone octave. I think turning under 4 should be an integral part from the very beginning.

[bleicher]

I practise my scales going down then up as well as up then down.

[fleetfingers]

Is that really necessary? I don't see it as being notably more difficult to play two octave scales evenly than one octave ones. Personally, I always start beginners with 2 octaves- in order to reflect the full fingering. With the thumb simply coming under 3, 4 and then 3 (for standard keys) I've never had a student who found this too hard to grasp. If a student spends much time on one octave scales, it will just make it all the more alien to have to turn under 4, rather than use 5. While many people regard precise two octave practise as highly important, I've very rarely heard anyone advise practising a lone octave. I think turning under 4 should be an integral part from the very beginning.

You may have a point here. I recently introduced two-octave scales to two of my students who have been playing single octaves for a while. They are both having a hard time with the fingering, which has come as a surprise to me. They will eventually get it, I'm sure, but right now they are finding the concept hard to grasp.

[gsmile]

Is that really necessary? I don't see it as being notably more difficult to play two octave scales evenly than one octave ones. Personally, I always start beginners with 2 octaves- in order to reflect the full fingering. With the thumb simply coming under 3, 4 and then 3 (for standard keys) I've never had a student who found this too hard to grasp. If a student spends much time on one octave scales, it will just make it all the more alien to have to turn under 4, rather than use 5. While many people regard precise two octave practise as highly important, I've very rarely heard anyone advise practising a lone octave. I think turning under 4 should be an integral part from the very beginning.

Well it does depend on how you see it. Learning to walk before you try to run is always a bit easier.
Having the thumb come under 3 and 4 is not much harder than just coming under the 3, I agree. So why would it be a problem adding the 4 cross under after?
New students have weaker 4 and 5 fingers, and tend to play those keys unevenly. It's better to get it down 5-4-3 (LH) and 3-4-5 (RH) down before elongating the exercise. This saves much more time as you only play an octave, not two. Then you move on after mastering the scale evenly.
Nothing really is necessary unless you make it. You don't even have to eat, unless you want to live.

[nyiregyhazi]

"New students have weaker 4 and 5 fingers, and tend to play those keys unevenly. It's better to get it down 5-4-3 (LH) and 3-4-5 (RH) down before elongating the exercise. This saves much more time as you only play an octave, not two. Then you move on after mastering the scale evenly."

Why do that in a scale? It can be more easily isolated with an exercise based on walking up and down five fingers. If you think the thumb under 4 is wasted time, why not save time by omitting the act of turning under 3 as well? It makes no logical sense to me. I think that full familiarity with 345 should come before turning the thumb under at all.

Doing only octave sets up the expectation of always going to the fifth finger- effectively creating a habit which must then be broken. If you do two octaves, you have both the act of turning under four and the act of using up every finger. I don't see anything notably difficult enough to justify anything less than two octaves at the outset. The only difference is that you turn the thumb under a couple of extra times. If you're ready to get 4 (which occurs anyway in one octave) there's absolutely no reason why you're not ready to turn your thumb under it and keep going.

[gsmile]

"I don't see anything notably difficult enough to justify anything less than two octaves at the outset. The only difference is that you turn the thumb under a couple of extra times. If you're ready to get 4 (which occurs anyway in one octave) there's absolutely no reason why you're not ready to turn your thumb under it and keep going."

Hey, let's try to keep it friendly here. I'm not attacking your philosophies, so please don't try to attack mine-- although debates are good fun anytime.

Like you said, there's nothing notably difficult about changing from 1 octave scales to 2 octave scales and beyond. So why not perfect the easier, shorter version before moving on to the longer, thereby saving time because the basics are perfected?

I also recommend alternating 1 octave scales and two octave scales, i.e. playing a 1 octave scale up and down, then playing a 2 octave scale up and down, repeat, etc. The 1 octave scale has all the basics, i.e. the cross under and the 3-4-5/5-4-3 steps, and by alternating the two, you effectively "remind" your fingers to play those evenly with the 1 octave scale, so that you can correct any unevenness quickly and easily!

[nyiregyhazi]

"Hey, let's try to keep it friendly here. I'm not attacking your philosophies, so please don't try to attack mine-- although debates are good fun anytime. "

I was just making a logical follow up to your point. Sorry if you found that less than friendly, but I'm just passing on an issue that is logically raised. Why omit 4 to "save time" but not 3? I see no logic to the premise. If you're worried about developing 345 directly and don't want to waste time turning under 4, why do you not also deem it a waste of time to be turning under 3? Why not develop 345 in a single five finger position, if time is a worry? Why not even just practise walking back and forth between those three fingers alone? Why omit one half of a scale to "save time", but not the other?



"Like you said, there's nothing notably difficult about changing from 1 octave scales to 2 octave scales and beyond."

That's not what I said at all. I said the opposite. I said that if you get used to only one octave first, it's harder to make the adaptation later. What I said was that 2 octave scales are scarcely harder at the outset. As another poster said, it can be problematic to change over if you don't learn to turn under 4 early. Student get over accustomed to turning under 3 and then going to 5, which makes the turn under 4 harder to introduce. They have to break a formed habit to do it.

"I also recommend alternating 1 octave scales and two octave scales, i.e. playing a 1 octave scale up and down, then playing a 2 octave scale up and down, repeat, etc. The 1 octave scale has all the basics, i.e. the cross under and the 3-4-5/5-4-3 steps"

No, it doesn't. That's the very problem I pointed out. The turn under 4 is one of the basics and this is nowhere. Any scale of two octaves or more requires proficiency in this fundamental element. To practise one octave does not only omit one of the key fundaments but it omits the slightly more difficult one. Why put so much attention on repeating the easier turn under 3, when 4 is the one that causes more problems? Even practising two octaves give you two turns under 3 and only one under 4. The balance is skewed enough as it is. Why tip the balance even further towards repetitions of the easiest bit and neglect the slightly more difficult part  even further?

We're talking about the inclusion of literally only ONE additional movement in each direction-  a movement that happens to be one of the most important ones of all.

[meganquinn]

I think that memorization is easier for me.

[gsmile]

I did find that less than friendly, but your apology is accepted.

Here, I'll quote you twice:

You said:
"I don't see anything notably difficult enough to justify anything less than two octaves at the outset." (nyiregyhazi)

Which I replied:
"Like you said, there's nothing notably difficult about changing from 1 octave scales to 2 octave scales and beyond."

And to which you replied:
"That's not what I said at all. I said the opposite."

You are contradicting yourself over and over again.

The two methods are both fine, as I learned it a different way than the method that I sometimes teach. (And my students' technique is fine.) I give students a choice for learning either method, but in the end they'll get to the 4 octave scale anyways.

"No, it doesn't. That's the very problem I pointed out. The turn under 4 is one of the basics and this is nowhere. Any scale of two octaves or more requires proficiency in this fundamental element. To practise one octave does not only omit one of the key fundaments but it omits the slightly more difficult one. Why put so much attention on repeating the easier turn under 3, when 4 is the one that causes more problems? Even practising two octaves give you two turns under 3 and only one under 4. The balance is skewed enough as it is. Why tip the balance even further towards repetitions of the easiest bit and neglect the slightly more difficult part  even further?"

The alternation helps the fingers' muscles become more versatile, becoming hardwired to neither while excelling at both. Then the student would move on to 4.

[nyiregyhazi]

"I did find that less than friendly, but your apology is accepted."

I'm just stating what I believe and backing it up with logic. There's nothing personal.


"You are contradicting yourself over and over again"

There's no contradiction whatsoever. I already explained this immediately after I pointed out that I never stated any such thing. Do I need to capitalise the significant words when repeating that explanation? CHANGING from 1 octave to 2 octave scales is difficult, once a player is accustomed to a habit of always going all the way to the 5th. I said that STARTING with two octave scales is not difficult. I never said a thing that agrees with your statement. However, I did agree with the other poster who observed students struggling to switch from one octave to two, due to the muscle memory acquired. I stated nothing other than the polar opposite of what you claimed I agreed with. Please check back in the thread.

"The alternation helps the fingers' muscles become more versatile, becoming hardwired to neither while excelling at both. Then the student would move on to 4."

I'm sorry? I have not the slightest idea what that means or how it relates to the quote it was placed under. There are plenty of ways of making the finger's muscles more versatile that do not require one of the two most characteristic actions of a scale to be omitted. Personally I train the muscles to be more "versatile" by making them work on turning under three AND turning under four AND proceeding up to the fifth finger (sometimes as part of a whole scale, sometimes separately as individual elements). If there's any reason why knowing all three possible moves at the outset "hardwires" the muscles in a bad way or makes them less "versatile" than beginning with one octave scales does, I'd be interested to know what it is. If you don't want to be hardwired to anything, it makes far more sense to start with two octaves and go back to one later- not to learn to go up to five and then have to change to turning under four instead. Hardwiring to only two out of the three necessary possibilities is basically guaranteed by starting with one octave. It gives zero awareness of the fact that one of the key movements that needs to be added CONTRADICTS what you are training.

[pianoplayjl]

I learn the fingering then the notes for the scales.

[mosis]

how can you possibly fail to memorize scales? it's only 7 notes for crying out loud!

actually, it's even easier than that. first and foremost, play them in chords. instead of memorizing 7 notes, you'll only need to memorize two chords.

for example, take a major (chosen because i'm learning a piece in a major). instead of fretting over which notes are which, how many sharps, flats, etc, all i do is memorize the two chords

A B C# (played with 1-2-3), and

D E F# G# (played with 1-2-3-4)

note also that this isolates the difficulty in playing the scale - namely, shifting fluidly from one chord to the other. the rest is trivial! this way, your scale practice boils down to memorizing two chords and practicing 4 notes.

similar principles apply to all scales, so long as you employ a fingering that lands your third and fourth fingers on the black keys (this kind of fingering is distinctly unorthodox - you won't find it in your scale books!)