playing scales (does it matter)

[beethovenopus2no3movt2]

Do you think scales become tedious the longer you waste your time with them? Perhaps they need to be played to reach a particular level of skill and to boost finger dexterity? What do you think? 

[ade16]

Sounds like you may have been doing too much scale practice recently, to be in the frame of mind for asking this question, and not playing enough real music which clearly contains these scales in context. (12 Major scales, 12 Harmonic Minor, 12 Melodic Minor, Chromatic starting on any note, similar motion, contrary motion; scales in thirds, sixths, octaves; not to mention the whole range of broken chord patterns, arpeggios etc etc etc) All of this is enough to do anyone's head in! However, they are important for the following reasons:

1) They will help to improve your overall technique (including finger dexterity, but not just this); co-ordination and stamina; as well as your memory for patterns as you meet them in actual music.
2) They are excellent for warming up and warming down along with other general finger exercises. (Same principle as the gym, but different of course!)
3) They will improve your sight reading immensely, as you start to improve your recognition of these scales and other patterns in the context of the actual music you are reading/playing. (Like it or not, virtually all music, in any style, contains scale patterns, arpeggios and similar patterns which crop up time and time again. They are not the only elements, but they constitute some of the most important horizontal ingredients, along with the vertical groupings of notes i.e. chords. Melodies are very important too, but a lot of the time the structure of a melody is just a random arrangement of some or all notes within a scale, whether major, minor, chromatic, pentatonic etc)
4) They are required for examinations, as well as the set pieces, precisely because examiners recognise all of the above points.
5) They are not designed to put you off playing the piano (or any other instrument for that matter, including singing), rather to help you improve. However, if you over do scales etc they can become annoying, boring and pointless in your own mind, even though they are not really! Therefore, just ten minutes here and there is more beneficial than just continuously hammering at them ad infinitum!  

[louispodesta]

I would like to raise two points regarding the daily practice of playing scales, but first I would like to say that the scale juries that some music schools have are nothing short of insane.

When I was at North Texas in the early 1970's, they would make you draw pieces of paper out of a small basket.   It would have the key, and the type, as in parallel, 10ths, or contrary motion.  I literally almost saw someone almost have a nervous breakdown over this.

Now then, back to my original point, my first major teacher told me that there are no more than a handful of pieces in the general repertoire that have scales, hands together, for more than an octave.   The point being is why practice what you are probably never going to play.

Secondly, since I started with my coach Thomas Mark, who teaches a whole body approach to playing, I do not warm up, play scales, or any other exercises.  You build your technique through the repertoire, and that is it.

Why should any one waste there time on playing scales, when the music will do it for you.

Trust me, if you can play the first movement of the Rach #2, the third movement of the Schumann, and the Prokoviev 1st concerto, you can play anything.

[ade16]

An interesting viewpoint. I respect that. Call me old fashioned but I do not think that is the generally agreed view, even these days. But if that works fine for you that's great. I do think however that most piano students are not quite ready for any of the piano concertos by Rachmaninov or Prokofiev; more likely the Schumann A minor.  

I agree that the demands of a piece in itself are very challenging in their own right, but I do not believe that this in itself is enough. Maybe some patterns only crop up now and again in actual music, but when they do, you have to be completely in control of them in a variety of contexts, not just in that particular section of a particular piece, sonata, concerto or whatever. For example the chromatic scale.

While on the subject of piano concertos, I have made a detailed study of several Mozart piano concertos, as well as Beethoven's 5 concertos + Choral Fantasia, Chopin's 2 concertos, Brahms 2nd concerto etc Granted I cannot play them all perfectly yet, but
I've had a really good go and I have not given up. Above all, I cannot imagine tackling any of these major works without my scale and excercise practice over the years. The same may be said of Beethoven's Waldstein's Sonata which is one of several solo piano pieces I am currently preparing for a recital.

Sorry, but we'll have to agree to disagree on that one!  
I do however agree that pulling a scale pattern out of a hat randomly is rather ludicrous. In England the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music Grade exams and Diplomas require the examiner to select what the candidate will play, not just leaving it to chance. That just seems so unfair. This is an examination, not a party game! If they were doing this in the 70s I find it hard to believe thay would be allowed to do this today. Unless just in a practice session for all students, but not in an actual exam surely?

By the way, the concertos you mention are not necessarily the most difficult to perform convincingly. It depends on your point of view! Have you tried the Beethoven for example?

[eric0773]

For some of us, scales are fun and nearly addictive. Since last summer, I have been playing scales every day for 5-20 minutes and love it. Scales and arpeggios are among the only exercises that do every practice session. By contrast, I rotate every week my Hanon exercises and Czerny small studies.

In addition to what ade16 says, I think that scales are good to practice tone control. For me, the goal when practicing scales is not only to play them fast (the "machinegun scales", as some call them here), but also to play them with perfect regularity, i.e. with the exact same volume on each finger, left and right hands.

Since earlier this month, I am also attempting to play them p or pp. This is much more difficult than I expected - my speed has to be decreased by 40% to produce the same regularity in sound. Nonetheless, I am already seeing the benefits of the p and pp scale practice on my current pieces, where I tend to play some notes too loud, at the expense of the melody.

[ade16]

That's great eric, I agree with all of what you have said. I particularly like the P and PP practice, and absolutely equal weighting on every note. Very difficult to achieve but extremely worthwhile. You sound like a 'scales junky'! LoL  But seriously,thanks for that, very helpful. Scales and exercises clearly work for you. I know the Czerny exercises but not the others you mention. There are obviously many out there, but have you come across the Brahms ones? 

[thalbergmad]

I do think however that most piano students are not quite ready for any of the piano concertos by Rachmaninov or Prokofiev; more likely the Schumann A minor.  

Precisely. It has been mentioned many times in this forum that scales and exercises are of no value as everything is contained within repertoire, but what if one does not have a repertoire??

Why not solve problems before we encounter them in real compositions??

Why treat a masterpiece as an exercise??. Is it not worth more than that??

Thal

[ade16]

I totally agree with you Thal! I can't be doing we these 'modern approaches'. Scale practice and exercises have worked for musicians for hundred's of years; how is it that a minority of modern teachers seem to think they know better.  

I can only imagine what C.P.E. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Brahms, Schumann, Liszt, Artur Schnabel, Alfred Cortot, Paderewski etc etc etc might have said! Great performers and teachers who insisted on thorough practising of scales, arpeggios etc and general exercises. C.P.E. Bach wrote a famous treatise on keyboard technique, Brahms published his own excercises/studies, specifically designed to address particular aspects of technique; as did many other great performers/teachers such Carl Czerny, a famous pupil of Beethoven and a teacher of Liszt.
Chopin's Etudes Op.10 and Op.25, are again designed to address specific technical problems, but they are, at the same time, also great pieces of music, unlike most studies/exercises. The list goes on and on.

Regards,
Ade

[virtuoso80]

If you get bored with scales, there are 1000 variations you can do, many of which help tremendously IMO to make the original, vanilla scale gain speed and accuracy. A basic one I give to me students is the gallop (Long-short-long-short) and the reverse gallop (Short-long-short-long). I also give have them try feeling the scale in triplets fairly early. Even basic ideas like that you can combine into something challenging (ie a compound meter like 3/8 + 2/8 + 3/8, combined with reverse gallop and a crescendo = fun stuff). I find going through a set of variations far more helpful than just playing the scale 100 times over.

[danhuyle]

Depends on what you're playing. If you're playing Sonatas of a lot of composers, there's plenty of scales in them.

You'll want to get the point where you can play scales at 4 notes at 100 per crotchet. You'll find yourself doing this in Chopin 10/12 and Moonlight Sonata 3rd movement among others.

[ajspiano]

You'll want to get the point where you can play scales at 4 notes at 100 per crotchet. You'll find yourself doing this in Chopin 10/12 and Moonlight Sonata 3rd movement among others.

Both the pieces you mention have a marked tempo of 160+ and semiquaver passages throughout.

[ajspiano]

Do you think scales become tedious the longer you waste your time with them?

What now!?

Scales are the foundation of everything. Understanding (not just playing) them and their musical application is critical to your development as a musician, you will spend your life working on/with them, and it will have nothing to do with your ability to play fast/accurate, so much as you're ability to understand and create music generally.

[ajspiano]

I do not warm up, play scales, or any other exercises. You build your technique through the repertoire, and that is it.

Why should any one waste there time on playing scales, when the music will do it for you.

I see your improvisation, composition and transposition skills really improving under this regime.

..and if you are capable of those things, it would be a little unreasonable to suggest that the skills don't rely on having studied and gained a thorough understanding of all scales in the past.

[piano6888]

Yes, playing scales (along with other technical exercises) are crucial for any pianist in general, especially serious pianists that want to achieve a high level of proficiency.  Scales imo not only helps the person develop better control over a series of ascending and descending notes, but also keeps the fingers in shape and helps with finger independence (e.g. the third and fourth fingers).  Scales are also a good way to warm up before actual practice.  Furthermore, they help with passages in classical works as well.  (Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn, Schubert, Clementi, to name a few.)
These are many other good reasons of why scales are important but these are the prominent ones.

[lufia]

Practicing scales help but practicing your repertoire is far more worth your time. Its where real technique is implemented and developed.

Any amateur musician knows how to figure out any scale and play it off the top of his head, its based on theory. I believe your time is better spent on your repertoire.

[pianist1976]

As the old Clint use to say, "opinions are like... ahem, everybody's got one". Danny Barenboim always says that he never practiced an isolated scale as he played every sonata and variations of Mozart and they are plenty of scales. This approach pushes you to learn the complete sonata and variations by this composer... Many other maestros has advocate for the use of scales and/or many types of finger exercises (I recall Rachmaninoff, for instance).

Personally I think that practicing scales and selected finger exercises made many good for me.

I love to see this video that shows the late Van Cliburn practicing. Guess what? At 0:45 starts doing scales! (and what scales!)

[ade16]

Practicing scales help but practicing your repertoire is far more worth your time. Its where real technique is implemented and developed.

Any amateur musician knows how to figure out any scale and play it off the top of his head, its based on theory. I believe your time is better spent on your repertoire.

I must disagree. How many amateur pianists do you know who can play EVERY scale off the top of their head??? Let alone completely accurately and with the correct fingerings??? All the major, minor, chromatic, in thirds, sixths, octaves etc not to mention arpeggios, broken chords etc etc etc in all their variety and complexity??? Knowing scales doesn't just refer to the obvious ones, i.e. 12 major and 12 minor (harmonic or melodic), ascending and descending. Also, there are the issues mentioned in earlier posts of speed, dynamics, tone, phrasing, contrasting legato & staccato and so on. Scales are connected to theory (knowing the correct notes), but practising them goes far beyond just theory into the realms of improving overall technique and stamina in performance. I'm talking about pulling off a recital of anywhere between an hour or two hours. Physically, mentally and emotionally draining. You cannot do this without considerable physical stamina and razor sharp concentration skills. Just playing the pieces through in practice is not enough, they will never be as secure as you think.

Not everyone aspires to being professional, giving long recitals and playing concertos. I accept that, nevertheless this section of the forum is to do with performance and teaching performance!

I absolutely agree with the idea of variations on scale patterns mentioned in another post, and also someone else's view of scales etc not just being about improving technique, but also about learning to understand and recognise the note patterns that are used to compose actual music. This makes you a much more intelligent and well rounded musician when you can recognise the
numerous note patterns, scales and otherwise, when you meet them in real compositions.

To practise your repertoire is extremely important of course, but I believe that if you have already gained considerable experience with practising the full range of scales, arpeggios etc you will stand a much better chance of making good progress learning music in which they are required, otherwise it can be like wading through treacle. You'll get there in the end, but you can get there far quicker and more proficiently with scale practise I believe; precisely because you will have trained yourself to recognise these numerous patterns before you meet them in context, albeit in various forms and guises. (Sometimes they are disguised but present nevertheless somewhere in the musical texture.)

I recognise the Daniel Barenboim quote. This has so often been misinterpreted. Yes he can play a vast amount of music by Mozart, Beethoven etc and this music in total includes a vast number of scales. He never said he had never learned pure scales in his formative years, just that he had reached the point where he could play so much music containing them that it was enough to play his repertoire in order to keep his technique at such a very high standard. But he had to get there first over many, many years. Very much the same can be said about many other great pianists including Brendel who I recall saying something rather similar. But how many of us are in that league??? Personally, I still need to practise my scales and arpeggios, as well as various exercises and studies designed to address specific technical challenges, in order to keep on top of my own technique! I recommend the same to my students. (Notice I say recommend, at the end of the day it is down to personal choice. As a teacher I can only suggest the best course of action in terms of improving general technique, in addition to offering advice in terms of tackling specific pieces.)

[ted]

Scales to me are just one subset of the keyboard, of no greater or lesser importance than any other subset. I don't like their sound played up and down in the usual way, possibly because I heard it in excess when young. If I use them in improvisation, I rarely use them in that way. I like to split them in all sorts of constantly varying ways, non-standard double notes, two keys at once, extra notes stuck in, use varying fingerings and grips; I use the imagination as with any other musical element.

As a technical exercise, their ordinary execution doesn't use the fifth fingers enough for me. Therefore I finger them in all sorts of odd ways using full hand grips. It is the finger striking sequences I like to practice for technique, so what notes the fingers actually strike doesn't matter that much for my purposes. In any case, I do my physical work on the silent Virgil Practice Clavier. Once at the piano I create music.

I have always found the ideal of glassy smoothness in finger technique - the type exemplified by traditional scale playing - exceedingly dull musically, especially rhythmically, and lacking the springboard of  unpredictable musical stimulus so vital to my improvisation.

Trust me to be different as usual.

[timothy42b]

I can't be doing we these 'modern approaches'. Scale practice and exercises have worked for musicians for hundred's of years; how is it that a minority of modern teachers seem to think they know better.  

Only a minority of modern teachers have thought about why one does scales.  The majority just do them because we've always done them, and cannot give a cogent reason why.  When questioned, they tend to get a bit defensive.  This is not the first "should we do scales" thread!    

That doesn't mean scales are bad - but it does leave the door open to ask the question.  And the answer may influence HOW we play scales, if we decide to.  

On other instruments scale practice contributes directly and immediately to facility.   At least, on instruments like flute, violin, trombone that mostly play one note at a time.  These instruments play largely melodic lines, the bulk of which is diatonic, and will use the same fingerings as the scale within a given key.

That isn't anywhere near true of piano, where all but a beginner is always playing more than one note at a time, and scale fingerings rarely apply to the repertoire.  

Gieseking and Leimer's book discusses scales.  It recommends them as the foundation for learning to listen, and requires scales to be done with very careful attention to precise evenness of tone and timing.  These scales are ALWAYS done HS;  he believes HT would destroy the value.  

Abby Whiteside is another pedagog well worth reading.  Her take was that no beginner is ready to benefit from scales, and they may be harmful by teaching finger centricity at the expense of whole body and rhythmic coodination.  (I've paraphrased broadly)  

All the cutesy scales variations like contrary motion, thirds, etc. are to make up for the fact that they're boring.  But these variations have even less application to repertoire than scales, and detract from focused attention.  Plus they neglect some obvious logic problems, like speed vs distance.  I'm sure you've all done that exercise where you play one octave in quarters, two octaves in eights, three in triplets, and four in sixteenths.  Isn't that exactly backwards?  The more octaves, the harder to play fast, so you're greatly limiting your top speed by doing the fastest scales for the most octaves.  

[ade16]

1) Only a minority of modern teachers have thought about why one does scales.  The majority just do them because we've always done them, and cannot give a cogent reason why.  When questioned, they tend to get a bit defensive.  This is not the first "should we do scales" thread!  
That doesn't mean scales are bad - but it does leave the door open to ask the question.  And the answer may influence HOW we play scales, if we decide to.  

2)On other instruments scale practice contributes directly and immediately to facility.   At least, on instruments like flute, violin, trombone that mostly play one note at a time. These instruments play largely melodic lines, the bulk of which is diatonic, and will use the same fingerings as the scale within a given key.
That isn't anywhere near true of piano, where all but a beginner is always playing more than one note at a time, and scale fingerings rarely apply to the repertoire.  

3)Gieseking and Leimer's book discusses scales.  It recommends them as the foundation for learning to listen, and requires scales to be done with very careful attention to precise evenness of tone and timing.  These scales are ALWAYS done HS;  he believes HT would destroy the value.

4)Abby Whiteside is another pedagog well worth reading.  Her take was that no beginner is ready to benefit from scales, and they may be harmful by teaching finger centricity at the expense of whole body and rhythmic coodination.  (I've paraphrased broadly)  

5)All the cutesy scales variations like contrary motion, thirds, etc. are to make up for the fact that they're boring.  But these variations have even less application to repertoire than scales, and detract from focused attention.  Plus they neglect some obvious logic problems, like speed vs distance.  I'm sure you've all done that exercise where you play one octave in quarters, two octaves in eights, three in triplets, and four in sixteenths.  Isn't that exactly backwards?  The more octaves, the harder to play fast, so you're greatly limiting your top speed by doing the fastest scales for the most octaves.  

1) HOW MANY PIANO TEACHERS HAVE YOU ACTUALLY MET, LET ALONE HAD A DETAILED CONVERSATION WITH??? WHAT AN UNSUPPORTED AND GENERALISED SLUR AGAINST MUSIC TEACHERS WORLDWIDE! WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE? DO YOU HAVE A RESEARCH BASE IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THIS VIEW?? I BELIEVE SOME TEACHERS/PERFORMERS IN PREVIOUS POSTS HAVE ALREADY DEMONSTRATED THAT THEY DO NOT ALL GET DEFENSIVE AND CAN AT LEAST TRY TO GIVE COGENT REASONS! IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO BE COMPLETELY PERSUASIVE AND CONVINCING, BECAUSE ON WHATEVER SUBJECT YOU CHOOSE, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE DISSENTERS! HOWEVER, IT IS UNFAIR TO SUGGEST THAT WE ALL RUN AWAY, COUGH COUGH!, WHEN CONFRONTED WITH A DIFFICULT MUSICAL QUESTION.


2) NONSENSE! BEGINNERS OFTEN PLAY CHORDS AND OTHER SIMPLE ACCOMPANIMENT PATTERNS. ANYWAY, YOU ARE ARE INTERPRETING SCALES IN A VERY NARROW SENSE INDEED.

3) I BELIEVE AT LEAST ONE OF US HAS ALREADY MENTIONED THIS POINT ABOUT EVENESS OF TONE AND TIMING.

4)CLEARLY YOU LIKE BOOKS; SO DO I. HOWEVER, WE CAN ALL TRY TO PROVE ANYTHING FROM QUOTING OR PARAPHRASING A PASSAGE FROM A BOOK. I PREFER TO BASE MY COMMENTS ON MY OWN EXPERIENCE AS A PERFORMER AND TEACHER OF PERFORMERS, AS WELL AS ON WHAT I HAVE LEARNED OVER THE YEARS FROM MY VARIOUS TEACHERS. YES, THIS IS ALL MY (AND THEIR) OPINION; BUT BOOKS ARE GENERALLY BASED ON ARGUMENTS/OPINIONS ARISING FROM THE WRITERS' EXPERIENCES.

5)NOW I REALLY HAD TO CHUCKLE AT THIS LAST PARAGRAPH!   That is the whole point isn't it? Scales may be boring (they're not great pieces of music, they're not meant to be) but they are functional in terms of facilitating vast improvements to your overall technique, including playing at tremendous speed. The variations are actually more useful than the basic versions, not less useful, and have a very positive impact on trying to attain higher speeds using a wide range of figurations.
One should aim to play different note divisions at different tempi, in all octaves, and not just in the more obvious and logical configurations. This not math(s), this is music, in all its infinite variation, beauty and unpredictability. Many great composers could not abide predictability, which is what made them highly original (Beethoven? Stravinsky? Prokofiev? just to name a few.)

Also, just as one of many possible examples, have a look at Chopin's Ballade No.1 in G minor Op.23. Perhaps listen to a recording and follow the score.
Then see what you think about scales, arpeggios etc being a waste of time!   It is a well known fact that Chopin sometimes struggled to play his own music. However, what is often not fully understood is that this was nothing to do with an inadequate technique, quite the contrary. He was rather frail and sickly all his life and lacked in stamina as a consequence. He died of consumption at the age of 39. This ballade is typical of a piece which requires great stamina as well as a rock solid technique; and yes, Chopin too recommended lots of scale practise, but he also advocated playing some music by J.S. Bach every day!

[dima_76557]

Scales may be boring (they're not great pieces of music, they're not meant to be) but they are purely functional in terms of facilitating vast improvements to your overall technique, including playing at tremendous speed.

I don't think so. Fluent scales are RESULT of good technique, not cause.

[timothy42b]

ade16,
Sorry, I'd be glad to address your points but it's just not legible.  Some of us older folk are vision challenged. 

It would appear you rushed through without checking the format, just as many people rush through scales carelessly and derive no benefit. 

I think you can edit a post.  Hope you will.

[louispodesta]

A great way to prove that scales are a waste of time is to learn the Mozart A Major Concerto K 488.  I am in the process of polishing up this piece, which is seemingly taking me forever.  Why?

Because I am having retrain my brain from the way I have always played A Major, and E Major Scales.  And, the truth of the matter is that rarely do scale passages in music start on the tonic.

They always come to that point from a contrary motion.  And, in Mozart, they most often start with a quarter note followed by two eighth notes.

So, if you want to practice scales and have it truly matter, then you can isolate passages from any Mozart or Beethoven Concerto, which you think you might one day learn.

And, as far as the Prokoviev 1st Concerto is concerned, the scales in the first section are mostly C Major, but they require the use of the fifth finger, which as has been mentioned before, you do not get with the practice of regular scales.

And, interestingly enough, who was Prokoviev's favorite composer?  It was Mozart, for whom he wrote his own editions.

Rachmaninoff used to teach a technique (recently taught to me by Dr. Dan Peak of the University of North Texas) where you are “playing in spurts.” That is, playing the long, fast parts in slightly faster spurts.  Overlap your spurts and try to get them to quasi-glissando speed.  Using varying degrees of loud/soft with weight from the shoulder.

This holds true whether it is scale-wise or arpeggiated.

For instance, a C major scale would be practiced by playing a glissando-like burst form 1 to 3, and then from 1 to 4 or 5.  You play three notes, and then you play four or five notes.  In the opposite direction, it is from 4 or 5 to 1, and then from 3 to 1.

Next, you play the burst one note further to include the first finger from the next group.  You do this with arm weight, and then without.  The end result is that you get speed and then some.

Because, the goal after all is to be able to "get around" on the piano, and just playing scales alone is not going to get you there.

[indianajo]

When one is a young student, scales are useful for learning key signatures and music theory.  They are not nearly as useful for learning finger coordination, espeically 4 and 5, as exercises by Schmitt, Berman, and Czerny.  I was put through all those exercise books, and found them boring but useful.  For strength and coordination these days, I use Scott Jopliin, which is a much more aerobic warmup routine.   
I find scales so boring I turn the radio off when they are playing Mozart pieces in which he seems to be filling out his contractual obligation to the patron by filling the page with them. See the other thread, why I hate most of Mozart. 
In the last 46 years the only use I have made of scales is the chromatic one, when I am trying out a piano or organ with a view to purchasing or repairing it. 
There are two scales I  hope to still learn, the blues one, and the predecessor Jewish one.  I saw the Jewish scale explained on a PBS program about Broadway shows at 11 pm one  Friday night but wasn't taping it and they never repeated the program here. I think Steve Sondheim was talking or somebody else very famous.  You hear a lot of the same notes within blues vamping at the WC Handy Blues festival (covered on KET Jubilee program) and I can't do that yet.  An important part of playing by ear with groups. 

[timothy42b]

There are two scales I  hope to still learn, the blues one, and the predecessor Jewish one.  I saw the Jewish scale explained on a PBS program about Broadway shows at 11 pm one  Friday night but wasn't taping it and they never repeated the program here.

The klezmer scale?  I watched a master class on klezmer last week.  Weird scale, like a myxolidiam mode with an added flat in the lower octaves? 

[timothy42b]

I don't know how authentic this site on klezmer is but I found it interesting.

https://sites.google.com/site/klezmerfiddle/what-is-klezmer-music-4/the-main-klezmer-scales-modes

[kchi]

"“Practise frequently the scale and other finger exercises; but this alone is not sufficient. There are many people who think to obtain grand results in this way, and who up to a mature age spend many hours daily in mechanical labour. That is about the same, as if we tried every day to pronounce the alphabet with greater volubility! You can employ your time more usefully.”

-Robert Schumann

[ade16]

ade16,
Sorry, I'd be glad to address your points but it's just not legible.  Some of us older folk are vision challenged.  

It would appear you rushed through without checking the format, just as many people rush through scales carelessly and derive no benefit.  

I think you can edit a post.  Hope you will.

Sorry, but the quotation text is exactly the same size as in all other posts. I have made the text of my comments just the same size as all other posts, and in upper case too. The confusion was that I was getting into rather a muddle trying to address each of your points in turn; so I have moved all my comments to the end, addressing all your points one by one. However, again I fail to see the problem with font size as its exactly the same as every other post; seems to be set by default so that those who are a bit ICT challenged like myself can cope!

I am new to all of this posting (but an old hand at playing and teaching the piano; sorry about the pun!), but despite getting into a muddle with the format, I did not rush through any of my comments, in this post or in any others; indeed, I actually gave them very considerable thought, going back and re editing the wording more than once in the interests of clarity and precision, in order to get my ideas across as best I could.

Also in reference to another post, I have never at any stage suggested that 'scales' (in the widest sense, covering a multitude of patterns as I have explained earlier) are the 'be-all-and-end-all' of piano technique; merely that they are a very important part of the whole package. I never suggested that technique arises from scale practise alone, rather that such practise can help to reinforce aspects of technique including finger dexterity as well as general strength and stamina. I also believe exercises and studies are really important too and that they work hand in hand with scales etc. (Again, sorry about the pun!) I have worked through many over the years including those of Czerny and Brahms.  

My main point is that I do not understand how scales, arpeggios etc can just be dismissed out of hand by some people. (Oops, there I go again!) Also, in another post (I have forgotten which) how can anyone say that they only ever need to play the chromatic scale whenever they try out all of the notes on a keyboard for purchase or repair? What repertoire are you playing? Whether Baroque, Classical, Romantic, Dodecaphonic, Modern Jazz etc etc the chromatic scale crops up reasonably often at least, or more often depending on the style and context. Anyway, why have you got it in for the chromatic scale rather than any other, what has it ever done to you? Actually, it is almost as useful as majors or minors. Depends on the context, but it crops up in real music fairly frequently actually! Not just Classical music (in the widest sense) either.

Also, with regard to scale patterns in real music often beginning part way through a scale, then just choose an appropriate finger to begin on!. Again, no one is saying that scale or arpeggio patterns, for example, are always going to occur in exactly the same way in every piece. Obviously there are always going to be variations on patterns, with fragments here and there. But at least having done pure scale and exercise practice some of the time will have given a pianist a starting point for understanding any modifications that Mozart, Beethoven, Prokofiev or anyone else has made in the context of any particular passages in their compositions. To recognise the nature of a variation on a scale or other pattern, you need to be familiar with the original generic version of it.

Also, thanks for the quotes, including the one from Robert Schumann, which seem to reflect a rather balanced view; that scales are very important but not everything. I believe that several of us have been trying hard to make this point in various recent posts.

Let us not forget however that Schumann did not always practise what he preached. He invented a contraption for his hands to strengthen the 4th and 5th fingers and make them work more independently, but in the process he permanently damaged the tendons, and consequently his prospects of being a great concert pianist. His wife Clara was a first rate pianist, by all accounts better than her husband, and performed his works in public including the A minor concerto, as he could no longer do so himself. His mental breakdown towards the end of his life may have been in part connected to this fact, who knows for sure? However, Brahms was a close friend of the family and suggested that it may possibly have been one of the factors. Sorry, I am now digressing!

I will read with interest the comments of others, on whichever side of the argument they fall, or somewhere in between? Happy practising and performing to you all!  

[kchi]

“Personally, I practice scales in preference to all other forms of technical exercises when I am preparing for a concert. Add to this arpeggios and Bach, and you have the basis upon which my technical work stands. Pianists who have been curious about my technical accomplishments have apparently been amazed when I have told them that scales are my great technical mainstay—that is, scales plus hard work."

-Wilhelm Bachaus

[dima_76557]

My main point is that I do not understand how scales, arpeggios etc can just be dismissed out of hand by some people.

I do not dismiss them because they are useful musical formulas (if you really know them, are able to play them fluently starting from ANY key in the scale) and they help understand certain relationships in music better, but as a technical exercise they are clearly overestimated. Good pianists don't really need them for technical practice, and mediocre or bad pianists will not be helped by practising them without understanding the deeper elements on which they are based.
P.S.: Two-note slurs over several octaves in all keys with all finger combinations (1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5) are far more essential and indispensable, because they really teach you something about piano playing that can readily be applied to ALL types of technique, including scales:
https://www.musicandhealth.co.uk/articles/slurs.html

[ade16]

I do not dismiss them because they are useful musical formulas (if you really know them, are able to play them fluently starting from ANY key in the scale) and they help understand certain relationships in music better, but as a technical exercise they are clearly overestimated. Good pianists don't really need them for technical practice, and mediocre or bad pianists will not be helped by practising them without understanding the deeper elements on which they are based.
P.S.: Two-note slurs over several octaves in all keys with all finger combinations (1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5) are far more essential and indispensable, because they really teach you something about piano playing that can readily be applied to ALL types of technique, including scales:
https://www.musicandhealth.co.uk/articles/slurs.html

I absolutely agree with you, particularly with regard to varying finger combinations. I have said in another section that fingerings should be experimented with in pieces, and the same can be said of scales and exercises. Always work the weaker fingers harder in practice. Also, you were not the target of my comment about dismissing scales out of hand, I was thinking of a couple of other posts which suggested they were a complete and utter waste of time.

I believe that I have tried to put across a balanced view all along in response to the original question. In my very first sentence I said, "Sounds like you may have been doing too much scale practice recently, to be in the frame of mind for asking this question, and not playing enough real music which clearly contains these scales in context." I have never said that scales (or indeed exercises) are the entire solution to improving one's technique; rather, that they are a part of an overall holistic approach to piano practice.

Best Wishes,
Ade.

[timothy42b]

P.S.: Two-note slurs over several octaves in all keys with all finger combinations (1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5) are far more essential and indispensable, because they really teach you something about piano playing that can readily be applied to ALL types of technique,

HS double thirds!  Very important, much more so than scales. 

[ade16]

HS double thirds!  Very important, much more so than scales.  

Double thirds are scales!!!  
Myself and some others have been saying all along that, when talking about the importance of scale practice, we actually mean scales in the widest sense, not just the more obvious major or minor, ascending, descending, LH, RH, hands together etc but also double thirds, double sixths, double octaves or whatever! The whole caboodle!!! Some posts have interpreted scales in a very narrow sense, but I certainly have been referring to the whole package all along! Including double thirds and the rest! I think that this is part of the problem that it needs to be agreed what we mean by scales, in the widest sense; otherwise there is a danger that we may be talking at cross purposes!

I have a general request linked to the above point (not exclusively aimed at you Timothy, nevertheless at some including you); it is this:
Before joining a discussion I always read through all of the posts arising from the original question, time consuming, but interesting and important; so that I get a flavour of the general debate on a particular issue; so that I avoid just repeating stuff that someone else has already said; and above all so that I can understand someone's comment, observation or opinion in the overall context in which it was meant, not just in the far narrower context of the last few posts in a much longer sequence of posts. Please, please, please do the same, instead of just picking out isolated sentences and interpreting them out of context, indeed sometimes completely misrepresenting them, unintentionally I am sure. Please read everything posted rather than just selecting a few bits for criticism, as I say, taken away from the wider context in which they were placed.
I am not being precious or overly fastidious about this, just practical.
This links to an important principle I have learned in life, namely, do not judge a situation or an opinion based only on the tail end of a conversation.  

Thank you.

[ajspiano]

To point out some basic extensions of the scale practice concept which are useful for developing improvisation skills..  far more than playing mozart is.

1 - extend to a 9th, then decend - creating a pattern that runs ascend ionian, descend dorian, ascend phyrgian, descend lydian etc. - which is done in one hand, while the other hand plays arpeggios and broken or blocked chords, alberti patterns etc. etc. in a similar fashion.

2 - acending 3rds, decending 6ths..  or variations on the concept.

eg
Upper voice
C D E F G A B C B A G F E D C B C
Lower voice
C B C D E F G A B C B A G F E D C

3 -

one hand plays a scale
other hand plays 2 notes from scale for every note of the other hand, following a set pattern of note options such as simplified second species counterpoint  - consonance, consonance or dissonance, consonance, consonance or dissonance.

...........

Such patterns being the things that actually appear in the real music, only this way you have to make them yourself based on a scale (they should not be explicitly written out, but rather created uniquely by every individual) - which is infinitely better for you as a musician than is being told exactly what to do.

[brogers70]

I find practicing scales both helpful and addictive. Because there are no notes to learn, you can focus entirely on tone production, evenness of the scales, bringing out one hand versus another, tiny details of arm, wrist and finger motions, ultra slow practice. You can play them in many ways, if you get bored, but even playing them hands separate straight up I find addictive. Every day I say I'll limit myself to 20 minutes of scales and arpeggios and every day, when I look up, at least an hour's gone by. I just find the opportunity to focus intensely on all the details of movement completely absorbing; every comment my teacher has made about my technique seems to lead to experiments and adjustments that I can work out while doing scales and arpeggios. It's fun to practice pieces, of course, but scales are great, too.

[dima_76557]

HS double thirds!  Very important, much more so than scales. 

I agree, but they are rather complicated and assume advanced technique and impeccable mastery of the more basic elements. I do them in the same "two-note-slur" fashion I described above because I believe exercises should be as simple as possible to make them really effective.

[m1469]

Scales are extremely important because they train your ears to hear the hierarchy of tones as they relate to each other within the Western musical language.  I actually know what it felt like to sit in aural skills class in college without this consciously in my ear, and having the teacher play "ti" and say ... "you see, it *wants* to move to do."  No, to my ear it didn't.  So, I became fascinated  .  Now, I hear myself saying the same sorts of things to my own students, who sit there wondering what I am talking about!

But, just like with anything, it's certainly possible to overdo them and to play them without knowing why or without feeling like you're developing anything in particular by doing so.  I actually try to have a fresh experience playing them every time I sit down, and I play them every practice session ... except when I'm naughty and skip them .  

[bronnestam]

I play scales, among other finger exercises, when I want to. In younger years I played them because I felt obliged to, as a part of my regular practicing schedule. Result? It soon became boring. I learned how to disconnect my mind from what I was playing- I would say that this damaged my motivation and my ability to develop tremendously.

When I, 1½ year ago, decided to pick up piano playing again, I was terrified by how stiff my hands were and how painfully unevenly I played ... so I spontaneously practiced a lot of scales and it helped. The difference was that I now practiced scales with a clear and specific goal in mind, and so I did not get bored.

Getting bored and feeling the sense of meaninglessness (is there such a word in English?    ) is one of the most dangerous pitfalls of them all. You will lose your interest and then your career is DEAD. So my best advice, from someone who really went there by herself is: NEVER practice any kind of finger exercise if you are not sure of WHY you are doing it at that moment!

When I'm learning a piece today, I will soon - or at once    - encounter parts which I find are technically difficult. I break them down, I try to analyze my difficulties, and sometimes I find that this or that separate exercise might help me resolving this problem. Then I play the exercise. I find Czerny etudes terribly boring, but I think Chopin etudes are very exciting. You can play them very slowly if you like. (I don't have the skill to play them fast anyway.)


I studied classical ballet for many years. Every lesson starts with a LONG session at the bar, where you warm up and do just isolated exercises, exercises, exercises. Right foot out, right foot in, right foot out, right foot in ... Up, down, up, down. It can be boring to death, and that is why children who start their first lessons don't spend much time at the bar, they need to play and DANCE first, to wake their interest. When you know why you do these exercises, though, they get a point. Afterwards you go out on the floor and start combining your boring exercises to real "steps" and then you combine the steps. And that's how you can dance. This is necessary because classical ballet requires an almost inbelievable control and coordination of every muscle in your body. There is a rule for almost every muscle you have, in every position, and they don't excatly "come natural" to many of us ...

BUT piano playing is, in fact, much easier in that aspect! You are using your whole body in one aspect, yes, but truth is that all what the rest of the world cares about, is how you hit the keys with your ten fingers. Or you can play with your feet and your nose if you prefer that, but most of us don't ...    It is about the MUSIC you produce, nothing else.
So don't confuse ballet exercises with finger exercises for a pianist. A pianist should concentrate on the music in first hand, and the exercises are just tools to support you - if you need them. The bar exercises for the dancer is, however, the dance itself, although broken down to its atoms.

[ted]

Scales are extremely important because they train your ears to hear the hierarchy of tones as they relate to each other within the Western musical language.  I actually know what it felt like to sit in aural skills class in college without this consciously in my ear, and having the teacher play "ti" and say ... "you see, it *wants* to move to do."  No, to my ear it didn't.  So, I became fascinated  .  Now, I hear myself saying the same sorts of things to my own students, who sit there wondering what I am talking about!

That is a very interesting point for me m1469. I completely lack that perception. The fact that you assert a time existed when you did not perceive things "wanting to move somewhere" seems to suggests the sensation is learned, and simply what you became used to. If such aural imperatives really are a property of human brains, then I am just a bad luck bear once again and have missed the bus. On the other hand, the fact that I do not hear this wanting to move, and cannot assign particular merit to certain directions might just be advantageous for improvisation. I don't mean I cannot differentiate between changes, I'm not that aurally dense, it's just that I cannot grade them according to merit out of musical context using external criteria such as scales, or even worse, theory, which has no meaning for me at all. This lack of mine, if lack it is, might partly explain why I cannot grasp the significance of much classical music. That has a vague ring of truth to it.

[m1469]

That is a very interesting point for me m1469. I completely lack that perception. The fact that you assert a time existed when you did not perceive things "wanting to move somewhere" seems to suggests the sensation is learned, and simply what you became used to. If such aural imperatives really are a property of human brains, then I am just a bad luck bear once again and have missed the bus. On the other hand, the fact that I do not hear this wanting to move, and cannot assign particular merit to certain directions might just be advantageous for improvisation. I don't mean I cannot differentiate between changes, I'm not that aurally dense, it's just that I cannot grade them according to merit out of musical context using external criteria such as scales, or even worse, theory, which has no meaning for me at all. This lack of mine, if lack it is, might partly explain why I cannot grasp the significance of much classical music. That has a vague ring of truth to it.

Yes, I realized also that it's something which is learned.  If somebody who grew up on pentatonic scales or in Eastern music, with quarter tone scales and their uses, were sitting in a Western music class, a diatonic scale would of course not instantly have the significance that people who grew up with that take for granted that it has.  Even though I grew up in Western music, since I did not have formal training in it, my perception of the sounds was organized completely on my own - since I was actively organizing them by intuition.  It was made up more of shades and feelings, I know that much, and since I was actually using an instrument that is tuned for Western music, there are most likely things that relate from my early years to my learned years, but that is a challenge for me sometimes because I most definitely had some system of my own, as well.  

For me though, I think of it as something similar to learning another language.  There is grammar and such, and I like to learn about how it works.  Overall, I feel it gives me something I've been hungry for my whole life, but I have a funny perspective on it.  I also like to figure out what my child mind was thinking, and there's a lot there.

[ade16]

Very interesting points m1469, particularly the comparison with spoken language. Reminds me of the work of Chomsky in relation to the question: Are our brains prewired for language development at birth? A bit of a can of worms this one, but I have often wondered if this might apply to musical perception too. Or are we just programmed according to musical environment, the musical styles/cultures/conventions and structures (such as scales and chords) that we have been exposed to in our early years growing up? It is worth pointing out also that it was in the music of John Dunstable in England hundreds of years ago that we first start hearing harmonies involving 3rds and 6ths; prior to that the taste in western music was for 4ths and 5ths. Many 20th century composers have again embraced 4ths and 5ths, at least on an equal par with other intervals such as 3rds and 6ths. Prokofiev for example?

[lonelagranger]

Being older, 66, I find that the practice of scales is somewhat stressful if I am also going to practice the pieces i am trying to learn.  I agree they are very useful.  My problem is that the playing of scales can be hard on older hands.  I do play them, but at a moderate speed and try to play them carefully.  I wish I could play as fast as I wanted but I am afraid I would put to much stress on my knuckles which have a bit of arthritis.  I use to play scales every day and do my Hanon.  Now I have to choose more carefully what I am going to play.  Usually it is just the pieces that I am trying to learn.  At least I am still playing and that is enough for me.  No big concerts in the future for this performer.

To all you young ones.  Enjoy it while you have it.  Use it while you have it, and don't complain to much.  The day will come when you will wish you could do what you were complaining you didn't like to do.

Music is a gift.  Some of us get bigger presents then others.

[ade16]

Being older, 66, I find that the practice of scales is somewhat stressful if I am also going to practice the pieces i am trying to learn.  I agree they are very useful.  My problem is that the playing of scales can be hard on older hands.  I do play them, but at a moderate speed and try to play them carefully.  I wish I could play as fast as I wanted but I am afraid I would put to much stress on my knuckles which have a bit of arthritis.  I use to play scales every day and do my Hanon.  Now I have to choose more carefully what I am going to play.  Usually it is just the pieces that I am trying to learn.  At least I am still playing and that is enough for me.  No big concerts in the future for this performer.

To all you young ones.  Enjoy it while you have it.  Use it while you have it, and don't complain to much.  The day will come when you will wish you could do what you were complaining you didn't like to do.

Music is a gift.  Some of us get bigger presents then others.

Many thanks for that. I agree wholeheartedly, and I'm only 12 years behind you! Also, I appreciate being included in the subset 'you young ones'! Ha ha. 

[lonelagranger]

Ade16, you have 12 years to fly the high wire, and then some I am sure.  Make the most of them.  I am sure you will.  I will continue to play until my fingers fall off, or I fall off the bench. 

Wishing you the best with your music.  We really are only as young as we feel.  Age is just a number.   

[pianoplunker]

Do you think scales become tedious the longer you waste your time with them? Perhaps they need to be played to reach a particular level of skill and to boost finger dexterity? What do you think? 

Yes it can be quite a workout and waste of energy at the same time.  I dont think it does a bit of good to play scales repetitively and fast. I do think it is important to be able to play them legato, staccato, accented just to practice those elements of music. But playing them fast is just using your energy to wear out your hands. I used believe that scales were the best thing for technique but looking back, there was never a reason to play all the scales everyday for an hour once you reach a certain level. However, knowledge of the scales is of the utmost importance for musical success. It helps you understand the music you are trying to learn. I would recommend learning all the scales but not necessarily doing them all the time. As others have said, you can use them in different ways . So you should learn them to the point that you can do them anytime.

[birba]

Have you noticed this beethovenop2no.2 or whatever hasn't posted in this thread since he started it? Doesn't that strike anyone other than me, as strange?  It's like he started up an argument, which was valid and not like that crankem cramem one, but hasn't given any feedback.  I think pianist1975's suppositions are right.
Beethovenop.2no.2 are you around?  What do you think of these educated responses to your question? HELLO!?

[ade16]

Ade16, you have 12 years to fly the high wire, and then some I am sure.  Make the most of them.  I am sure you will.  I will continue to play until my fingers fall off, or I fall off the bench. 
Wishing you the best with your music.  We really are only as young as we feel.  Age is just a number.   

Many thanks for that lonelagranger, I certainly will make the most of it and I totally agree with your positive view of life and music! Wishing you all the best too.

[ade16]

Have you noticed this beethovenop2no.2 or whatever hasn't posted in this thread since he started it? Doesn't that strike anyone other than me, as strange?  It's like he started up an argument, which was valid and not like that crankem cramem one, but hasn't given any feedback.  I think pianist1975's suppositions are right.
Beethovenop.2no.2 are you around?  What do you think of these educated responses to your question? HELLO!?

I have noticed actually birba, and furthermore I have only just made the connection that this Beethoven... I was duped by with regard to Horowitz, is the same person who has asked the question about scales which has provoked such debate. Yet, has not given feedback or contributed further to the argument. Indeed, it is very strange, I agree, in fact highly suspicious. I hope we have frightened them off given the fact that they have been the subject of several of our recent posts. However, I would not put it past them just to change their persona! Pretty predictable really! I have picked up from other posts that others have done it!

[ade16]

Do you think scales become tedious the longer you waste your time with them? Perhaps they need to be played to reach a particular level of skill and to boost finger dexterity? What do you think? 

Any thoughts yourself on this queston now that many others have expressed their opinions?

You seem to be very good at asking very open ended questions but not contributing very much, if anything at all, to the wider discussion yourself! You never even seem to respond to anyone else's posts which have arisen from your tantalizing questions!!!
 

[j_menz]

Any thoughts yourself on this queston now that many others have expressed their opinions?

You seem to be very good at asking very open ended questions but not contributing very much, if anything at all, to the wider discussion yourself! You never even seem to respond to anyone else's posts which have arisen from your tantalizing questions!!!
 

Hmm. Ade16 has found the cut and paste feature. Please don't use it.

On topic,there seems to be two different things going on.  (1) scales as technical exercise and (2) scales as the basic structure of music.  As to the first, IMO they are as good and as bad as any other exercise.

The second is a more interesting one. It seems to me valid enough as far as it goes, but the scales that are usually taught are not in fact taught in a way to make the best use of them in that context. Surely modes and non-traditional scales should also be taught; and it may show my lack of understanding here, but I'm not clear how it relates to atonal music that is not "tonal in a different scale system". Perhaps one of the boffins could elaborate?