Rachmaninoff's Thoughts on Hanon Exercises

[kchi]

While flipping through James Francis Cooke's "Great Pianists on Piano Playing," I came across an interview with Rachmaninoff in which he speaks of the usage of Hanon exercises in the "Russian School." I thought it would be interesting to post an excerpt of the interview here, being that Hanon seems to be a very controversial topic in the world today.

"It may be interesting to hear something of the general plan followed in the Imperial music schools of Russia. The course is nine years in duration. During the first five years the student gets most of his technical instruction from a book of studies by Hanon, which is used very extensively in the conservatories. In fact, this is practically the only book of strictly technical studies employed. All of the studies are in the key of "C." They include scales, arpeggios, and other forms of exercises in special technical designs.

At the end of the fifth year an examination takes place. This examination is twofold. The pupil is examined first for proficiency in technic, and later for proficiency in artistic playing- pieces, studies, etc. However, if the pupil fails to pass the technical examination he is not permitted to go ahead. He knows the exercises in the book of studies by Hanon so well that he knows each study by number, and the examiner may ask him, for instance, to play study 17, or 28, or 32, etc. The student at once sits at the keyboard and plays.

Although the original studies are all in the key of "C," he may be requested to play them in any other key. He has studied them so thoroughly that he should be able to play them in any key desired. A metronomic test is also applied. The student knows that he will be expected to play the studies at certain rates of speed. The examiner states the speed and the metronome is started. The pupil is required, for instance, to play the E flat major scale with the metronome at 120, eight notes to the beat. If he is successful in doing this, he is marked accordingly, and other tests are given.

Personally, I believe this matter of insisting upon a thorough technical knowledge is a very vital one. The mere ability to play a few pieces does not constitute musical proficiency. It is like those music boxes which possess only a few tunes. The student's technical grasp should be all-embracing."

[mmro]

Sounds like a tough conservatory!   

[cmg]

LOL!  Try Curtis.  Juilliard.  Mannes.  I could go on...

What I love about this Rach quote is the debunking, much needed, of a poster known as "Bernhard" who passed as the technique expert on this forum for the LONGEST time.  

"Bernhard" basically trashed all approaches to technique and advocated that one could derive everything he/she needed by working on problematical issues solely found in the repertoire.  He amassed a huge following here.   He was completely wrong.  And countless great artists would testify to this fact if they found his silly position even remotely worth criticizing.  They, of course, did not bother.  The evidence, that Rachmaninov provides, is sufficient.
 
He's not alone.  Other great pianists agreed and those who wrote exercises were, of course, Czerny, Brahms and Dohnanyi, etc.

If you bother to read Amy Fay's (a very gifted American pianist) seminal work on 19th century piano education, in her book, still in print, entitled "Music-Study in Germany," you'll see the firm tradition that technical studies have in piano training from the early 19th century to our present day.

In short:  don't burn your Hanon.  Use it.

  

[j_menz]

don't burn your Hanon.  Use it.

On that I agree. Mine is used as a very useful prop for an otherwise rather dodgy bookcase.

There are two school of thought on the usefulness of these sorts of exercises, both with their star performers and apostles. They will never agree.

And I am firmly in the camp that maintains Hanon is a rather painfully dreary way to learn what can be learnt elsewhere equally well and rather more pleasantly. Not useless, but neither necessary.

[lostinidlewonder]

Hanon is mostly useful for beginners and intermediate and we had a discussion on that many years ago. https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=13583.0

When you are more advanced pieces are many times more useful. Hanon also DOES NOT go through all technique one finds in piano so it is only logical that once you get to an advanced level you will not learn anything from Hanon.

[p2u_]

The pupil is required, for instance, to play the E flat major scale with the metronome at 120, eight notes to the beat. If he is successful in doing this, he is marked accordingly, and other tests are given.

I'd like to add, that one was required to play scales (and arpeggios) starting from ANY key (for example ALL scales and arpeggios in ANY possible major and minor key starting from A). Rachmaninov describes this in one of his articles: novoe o pianizme. It's in Russian. Please read the Google translation here.
Essential, and that is something people tend to forget so often, is the work on beautiful and artistic sound while working on them. Without that element, technique becomes purely mechanical exercise and therefore useless.
P.S.: In bernard's defense, I'd like to say that Heinrich Neuhaus writes in his famous book "The art of piano playing" that his teacher Leopold Godowsky did NOT believe in this regimen, NEVER practised scales, arpeggios and mechanical exercises, but still had a flawless technique; to such an extent that Rachmaninov even idolised Godowsky. Important, of course, is not WHAT you practise, but HOW you do it.

Paul

[outin]

There are two school of thought on the usefulness of these sorts of exercises, both with their star performers and apostles. They will never agree.

Which is logical because there is no reason to agree really...

People are different. There are those who can benefit from these exercises and do them in a way that helps build better technique. Then there are those who can't.

For every pianist that went through the concervatory system in Russia or any other country to become great there are countless of others who flunked at some stage. No-one can tell if they would have done better with another method of study...

[p2u_]

While flipping through James Francis Cooke's "Great Pianists on Piano Playing," I came across an interview with Rachmaninoff in which he speaks of the usage of Hanon exercises in the "Russian School." I thought it would be interesting to post an excerpt of the interview here, being that Hanon seems to be a very controversial topic in the world today.

The complete interview Rachmaninov gave to magazine "The Etude" in March 1910 is available on-line: Ten Important Attributes Of Beautiful Pianoforte Playing. S.V. Rachmaninov. I believe one should read it in that context only in order not to fall into the trap of "first technique and only then art"; they should be developed simultaneously.

Paul

[p2u_]

If you bother to read Amy Fay's (a very gifted American pianist) seminal work on 19th century piano education, in her book, still in print, entitled "Music-Study in Germany," you'll see the firm tradition that technical studies have in piano training from the early 19th century to our present day.

Books with scales, arpeggios and technical exercises are merely a result of the 19th-Century academic approach to developing technique, when teachers tried to make machines out of people (Industrial Revolution). The idea was that, since the music of the Old Masters contains such formulas, vocabulary, we should know them all. Besides, in the 19th Century, many thought that scales, arpeggios, and technical studies were the REASON of a good technique. Fortunately, there were those (Chopin, for example) who realized that they are merely the RESULT. It's high-quality movement one shoud aim for. Without that, any of those exercises will make matters just worse. I would go as far as saying that they are not necessary for the talented and certainly not very helpful for the untalented.

Paul

[rmbarbosa]

J.S.Bach didnt play Hanon... He didnt know Czerny... However, he was a great performer.
When Bach wanted to teach, he wrote a lot of wonderful compositions, even to beginners (the famous 6 small preludes, for example).
When I was young, the small prelude in C major put to me one dificulty: the articulation of the 4º and 5º fingers, namely right hand. Hanon has a lot of exercises to the 4º and 5º fingers, but I was asked by my teacher to play the bars where 4º and 5º were needed. I did so. A lot of times. Untill I could play well those bars. At the end, 4º and 5º fingers well trained. And - the last but not the least - a wonderful small prelude to play to my listeners. Could I play Hanon exercises to the public? That`s why Bernhard is right...
Even Lechtivsky, from de Czerny school, spoke about "the senseless repetition" of exercises...
In short: Hanon may be useful, if one chooses one specific exercise to one specific difficulty. But only that, I think.
 

[cmg]

Books with scales, arpeggios and technical exercises are merely a result of the 19th-Century academic approach to developing technique, when teachers tried to make machines out of people (Industrial Revolution). The idea was that, since the music of the Old Masters contains such formulas, vocabulary, we should know them all. Besides, in the 19th Century, many thought that scales, arpeggios, and technical studies were the REASON of a good technique. Fortunately, there were those (Chopin, for example) who realized that they are merely the RESULT. It's high-quality movement one shoud aim for. Without that, any of those exercises will make matters just worse. I would go as far as saying that they are not necessary for the talented and certainly not very helpful for the untalented.

Paul

Okay, this is the classic argument against technical studies.  Very valid, I must say.

I just know this:  I was raised on Hanon -- and only practiced it two minutes before a lesson to keep out of hot water -- so it did me no good because I wouldn't let it.

In conservatory, I had no option, because of jury exams, to get out of playing all scales, all kinds of arpeggios in all keys at all tempi, thirds, sixths, tenths, etc.  For reference, I used Hanon on occasion.  Did it help?  Don't know, because I was working on beefy stuff from the standard repertoire at the same time.  Maybe THAT built my technique alone.

Flash forward.  Quit piano for years to build a profession.  Returned five years ago to the piano with a vengeance.  Reached the technical point where i had left off as a very young man.  Disappointed because I felt I was on a plateau.

Found a great teacher.  Royal Academy trained.  He urged Pischna and Dohnanyi exercises for strength and independence.  Just did 30 minutes daily for 8 months.

Result?  Huge leap forward in technical command.  Revisited old repertoire from student days (Chopin "Etudes," Rach 2nd concerto, etc., etc.) and found I was quickly doing with these works what I couldn't do in my younger years:  i.e., finally playing things at tempo.  Not half-tempo.  Not slowing down for the grotty bits.

I know this is not scientific, but it has it's own logic.  As I've written before here, dancers do daily "class," basic barre work (senseless repetition?  Not if you concentrate as you repeat).  Athletes of all stripes do strength and agility training.  Why not pianists who use muscles, too?

Are there artists and athletes who don't need to train?  Baseball players who never need batting practice?  Yes, I'm sure there are.

But, as for pianists, I doubt there were many among the highest ranks who went through early childhood training without a strict technical regimen enforced on them by teachers.  Is their incredible virtuosity the result of 10 and 12 hours a day working on technique along with repertoire?

We'll never know.  But with just 30 minutes a day, my technique has improved markedly. My interpretations, that once were only in my head and not realizable through my fingers, are now evident with, I can only imagine, the more secure mechanism I have developed through technical exercises.

[p2u_]

Found a great teacher.  Royal Academy trained.  He urged Pischna and Dohnanyi exercises for strength and independence.  Just did 30 minutes daily for 8 months.

Result?  Huge leap forward in technical command.  Revisited old repertoire from student days (Chopin "Etudes," Rach 2nd concerto, etc., etc.) and found I was quickly doing with these works what I couldn't do in my younger years:  i.e., finally playing things at tempo.  Not half-tempo.  Not slowing down for the grotty bits.

I know this is not scientific, but it has it's own logic.  As I've written before here, dancers do daily "class," basic barre work (senseless repetition?  Not if you concentrate as you repeat).  Athletes of all stripes do strength and agility training.  Why not pianists who use muscles, too?

Nobody denies the need for physical exercises (see my signature, for example). It's actually the stretching of your fingers that made you move and play better, not those printed exercises themselves. You could have done those in silence in a Zen-like fashion and saved your ears and your nerves. I am all for exercises, but they are usually better done away from the piano. If you want some real development at the piano (training of your mind), then you should certainly try symmetrical inversion of certain passages. I described that in another topic right here.

EDIT: another topic you may like to read is Technique ratio when practicising. The two-note slur I mention there as THE most essential exercise in piano technique that easily renders all the other exercises redundant is described here and should best be practised in all keys, also with double notes as soon as you make progress with it. It is not a physically taxing exercise, though; it does teach you the essentials of how the piano works and how your fingers work. Strangely enough, it is the PREVIOUS finger that is the cause for all the trouble, not the one that has to play now.

Paul

[keypeg]

Or ... work with an observant, knowledgeable, astute teacher, who will give you those things that suit where you are at right now, who you are, etc.  Avoid formulas of any kind.  Be self-aware.  Trust your teacher's judgment but also trust your own instinct, making sure that it is instinct.

[p2u_]

Or ... work with an observant, knowledgeable, astute teacher, who will give you those things that suit where you are at right now, who you are, etc.

That is not so easy though; such teachers are as hard to find as the winning ticket in the lottery. From what I see, they mostly give you what they have been through themselves, and if you can't do it, you are either "not talented" or "lazy". 

Avoid formulas of any kind.  Be self-aware.  Trust your teacher's judgment but also trust your own instinct, making sure that it is instinct.

I wonder how one could do the instinct thing, though, without the necessary experience. I have no formula. Even a general feeling of convenience while practising on your own is not always the right road to progress. A certain minimal instruction from at least an advanced friend seems advisable if your teacher is not ready to do your "dirty linen" ((c) F.Liszt) with you.

Paul

[pianoman53]

Why do you keep arguing about Hanon?! Many pianists has different approaches on how to practice technique. In the same book, Bachaus claims that he only needed scales, arpeggios and Bach. Harold Bauer claims that he never practiced technique, since he was a late starter and didn't have the time. Rachmaninovs says that Hanon is important...

Why do you have to come up to a certain correct answer to this? Only by quickly looking, one can find 3 completely different views, from three greats in piano playing.

Just leave it alone, and accept that some people might like it, while other people doesn't.

[teran]

Tbh I find Hanon far more entertaining than standard scales and arpeggios. Personally I've found the exercises to be pretty good so whatever.

[keypeg]

quote from: keypeg
Or ... work with an observant, knowledgeable, astute teacher, who will give you those things that suit where you are at right now, who you are, etc.

That is not so easy though; such teachers are as hard to find as the winning ticket in the lottery. From what I see, they mostly give you what they have been through themselves, and if you can't do it, you are either "not talented" or "lazy". 

I qualified for that very reason, and agree.  And even if you do get a decent teacher, other factors can get in the way.  I had my first lessons when I was close to 50, on a string instrument.  Since then I've talked to a number of people who became professionals, either teachers, or performers or both.  I think every one of them had poor teaching or misteaching along the way, and had to spend time in between working out the damage.  The good news in this is that they made it by persevering.  The idea that if you "start wrong" then you are doomed is not correct.  It's just that a good start is a nice thing to build on.  Those who had to struggle, however, built a greater awareness than if they had sailed through.

Based on my own experience I suggest that adult students actually state that they want to get skills, because this goal cannot be taken for granted.  Also, if you did music in any kind of capacity, it will be assumed that you have skills at the basic level which you may not have.  These are the kinds of things that caught me out first time round.  When everything stopped I went to the forums to figure out the learning equation.

I had played piano self-taught some 35 years before and got one again just before my music journey stopped.  I was then with a piano, aware of the importance of technique, and no teacher.  I spent several years playing simple things, and concentrating on sight reading and theory.  I began working with a teacher on playing in the year that just passed.  Addressing technique on Skype is far from ideal, but the rarity of a good teacher makes this preferable.  I am lucky that I also know how to work as a student.  But the really good teacher will also be trying to guide the student.  We need to learn how to learn.

Avoid formulas of any kind.  Be self-aware.  Trust your teacher's judgment but also trust your own instinct, making sure that it is instinct.

I wonder how one could do the instinct thing, though, without the necessary experience. I have no formula. Even a general feeling of convenience while practising on your own is not always the right road to progress.

Formula first of all.  While the teacher was a student he encountered a problem, and found a solution in the X method.  He then adheres to the X method.  All students must (fill in the blanks) regardless of the student's makeup, way of using the body, way of interacting with music.  Maybe step 1, step 2, step 3.  I ran into this kind of thing, and there was a fair bit of harm.  I've also heard from people who had to undo that kind of training, and ditto.

The instinct thing is tricky.   Some good teaching is counterintuitive.  It can make you seem to play worse before you can play better.  Take, maybe, sight reading if you have memorized (I didn't) - you will certainly play more smoothly be memorizing chunks, so your sight reading will sound clunky in comparison.  But the long term result is something else.  But in terms of instinct: if something feels wrong, either it's this "temporary worse" thing, or there is actually something wrong.  Or if your instinct is pushing you in a certain direction very strongly, there may be something to chase.  Maybe, if you have this mythical beast of a good teacher, your question will elicit something, because he may know where this is heading.  We do have instincts that guide us, as well as nonsense and misconceptions, and to deny these instincts altogether seem wrong.

A certain minimal instruction from at least an advanced friend seems advisable if your teacher is not ready to do your "dirty linen" ((c) F.Liszt) with you.

I'd like to understand what you mean by "dirty linen".

I also suspect that "instinct" on my part has not yet been understood how it was meant.

[p2u_]

I'd like to understand what you mean by "dirty linen".

This is a quote by Franz Liszt and expresses his pedagogical ideas. As soon as he freed himself from the influence of his teacher Carl Czerny, Liszt no longer subscribed to any particular methodological school, and was no longer ready to teach the mechanics of piano technique, something he had been doing before but with rather poor results. Whenever a student with technical problems asked for help, he would say: "Wash your dirty linen at home".

So "dirty linen" is the mechanical side of it all, the problem of planning and coordinating movement at the instrument, etc.; something many people need help with, even when they are already advanced.

Paul

[keypeg]

Ok, now I understand.  This came about originally in your response to my thought on instinct:

Trust your teacher's judgment but also trust your own instinct, making sure that it is instinct.

I wonder how one could do the instinct thing, though, without the necessary experience. I have no formula. Even a general feeling of convenience while practising on your own is not always the right road to progress. A certain minimal instruction from at least an advanced friend seems advisable if your teacher is not ready to do your "dirty linen" ((c) F.Liszt) with you.

We're not at all on the same page.  Here are a few examples of what I was thinking about:

Supposing that an adult student is given music instruction superficially because of assumptions about that age group.  After half a year the student feels "something is missing".  He won't be able to name it, but his instinct may be on track.  Pursuing it might lead to changes in his lessons if his teacher recognizes that he does want foundations.  (This is a common thing btw).  Depending on the teacher, of course.

Or, you're practising as you think your teacher instructed you, but it doesn't seem to be working, and there's a niggling thought that you didn't really get it in the first place, and you should ask about it even if it makes you look a fool.

Whenever a student with technical problems asked for help, he would say: "Wash your dirty linen at home".

So "dirty linen" is the mechanical side of it all, the problem of planning and coordinating movement at the instrument, etc.; something many people need help with, even when they are already advanced.

I am not advanced, which is why this did not occur to me.  The "dirty linen" is the MAIN focus of what I need to learn.

I played various instruments self-taught most of my life with a huge gap of decades of not playing anything at all.  My first lessons were on a technically difficult instrument, and I could "wing it" and appeared to know more than I did.  So I "advanced" fast.  I got into a mess.  Then I got back to piano decades after I had played piano self taught, with those habits, as well as being tangled up by the first thing.  Both my experience and my instinct told me foundations mattered.   So if a teacher would want to primarily work on creating beautiful interpretations of a piece, no thank you.    That is the kind of work I've been doing since around mid last year.

[uhoh07]

I realize this is a very old topic but it deserves some attention, as it has many views and comes up on many google searches for Hanon.

Professor John Mortensen, and expert and active teacher of historical improvisation, published by Oxford Uni Press notes in this recent video "....Hanon was a total Amateur"

I have cued to start at 3:50 but it's not long and might be interesting from the start. He references Dr Robert Gjerdingen who consulted in the training of Alma Deutscher, and uncovered many aspect of how great players in the 17th-19th centuries, including Rachmaninov, were trained in improvisation from the beginning and regarded the learned skill as essential. It may have been easier to say: "get Hanon", than explain Hexachordal sofeggio or the Rule of the Octave, which perhaps the Russians, influenced by many Neapolitans, simply took for granted. Here is an in depth interview with Gjerdingen, which some find revalatory:

The point is not: "Hanon is of no value" It's to become aware of the very rich world Hanon "replaced" to some extent, perhaps to the detriment of all of us.
   

[ego0720]

Nice dig!  I enjoyed reading something of ten years old and probably timeless topic that should be marked.  This is a very “old school” way of teaching and it’s the discipline I’m use to. However, I wasn’t in the piano universe but elsewhere. It’s the -exact- same scenario but I can let u in on this, the people who study every little detail and memorize meticulously all information to the point of reciting pages and principles (in other endeavors but applicable to study of piano hardcore) are doing it from passion, zealously. They are geeks so to speak and nobody forced them. You ask them they would know all their books and sources AND apply those rules in their art. 

So the problem I see is implementation.  When somebody has gollum-like obsession with an art, the parameters mentioned sound crazy to read about but are things that -naturally- happen when someone is passionate about it. When forced, the way the memorization and application happens as legislated in a curriculum is not quite right.  And perhaps this is the X factor that separates the MEGA pros from the pros&joes.  One really has to love doing it to the point whence they dream about it. That I seen in the megastars.  Not saying the curriculum is wrong, but that depends how the practitioner sees the challenge. If they don’t want to do it from within, those conditions should be from a strong desire.  And it’s different when it comes internal (Czerny etc) versus when it’s conditioned as a test or requirement (if it had to be stated).  The practitioner should see the value of a way of practice and the curriculum, by coincidence, matches their understanding. But if the curriculum is leading them to that understanding, it’s not quite right.  This isn’t to implicate that there is a right and wrong route but more of a definite right route and the right route. Language sometimes produces an illusion that isn’t the reality due to the limitation of it as a system of communication. Thus, when someone states that it’s an innate quality, that’s the angle they were going at. That the practitioner understands the value of the parts that make up for the long journey and it resonates with them. In their case the system re-energizes them but for us normal people, it can lead to fatiguing and burnout.  One cannot try to understand, the understanding has to make sense. Megastars can do 17-21 hours and have to be told to stop .. but for the rest of us we have to ritually, habitually keep 6-10 hours regimen and that’s enough for the day. I do not envy to be in that position but supposedly it’s a point at which can be self-generating once reached. I don’t think I can be obsessed about anything, it’s sort of against my spiritual practice.

Hanon sounds like the “Faber” of their time. Probably when more wanted to become students. A way to popularize the art to the many.