Reading through Hanon discussions, most of the arguments were anecdotal:'i did X and it worked for me';'i didn't do X and i came to no harm';'Z did X and he was very good'.Have there been any methodical studies comparing different teaching approaches?I'm think of something like:'We took 30 students of similar ability, and randomly assigned 15 to practise repertoirefor an hour a day;15 to practise Hanon for 15 mins, and repertoire for 45 mins.After 3 months we compared their progress.'It would appear reasonably straightforward to set up such a series of experiments,and that having a such an evidence base would be generally useful for educatorsbut i can't find any sign of such research.
I wonder how possible it actually is to find 30 student of similar ability though. And then... They're all going to practice Hanon for 15 minutes each day? Uh huh... Can they even practice pieces for an hour daily? Even at the college level, piano class... Are they going to do that?
It would appear reasonably straightforward to set up such a series of experiments,
Piano students are not lab rats
But the converse is sometimes true....
I wonder if the rats would choose to study Bach if given a choice?