Scales HT WHY?

[rlefebvr]

I have been reading posts in the forum tonight and came across one for scales and one with Bernard talking about finding Solutions to problems or something like that and it got me thinking about scales.

I understand the need to teach and play them, but what purpose is there to play them HT.

I have yet to see a piece that would do this. (I am problably wrong and there are tons of them)

It makes it difficult to hear your mistakes in tone HT compared to HS so why do it?

[faulty_damper]

What's "HT" and "HS" mean?

[bernhard]

What's "HT" and "HS" mean?

Hands Together
Hands Separate

[bernhard]

I have been reading posts in the forum tonight and came across one for scales and one with Bernard talking about finding Solutions to problems or something like that and it got me thinking about scales.

I understand the need to teach and play them, but what purpose is there to play them HT.

I have yet to see a piece that would do this. (I am problably wrong and there are tons of them)

It makes it difficult to hear your mistakes in tone HT compared to HS so why do it?

Yes, you are right, there are very few pieces with scale runs in both hands (chromatic scales are more common though). However, they do exist, so if you are playing a piece that has such a passage then you may need to tackle scales HT.

There are however other purposes to play scales HT:

1.      If you are doing grades, they are part of the exam. No point squirming about it.

2.      If you are teaching a student who is doing grades, likewise you have to know them.

3.      Scales hands together are ultimately a feat of co-ordination. So it is a good way to develop co-ordination (as opposed to technique which should be acquired HT). The passing of the thumb (over or under) occurs at different spots on each hand, so mastering this skill will also further and develop hand independence.

4.      It is also surprisingly difficult to play both hands together, that is, so that one hand is not ahead (or behind if you prefer) the other. Scales HT will teach you that.

5.      Exactly because it is difficult to hear each hand when playing them together, playing scales HT is a good way to develop selective hearing – an invaluable skill for contrapuntual music.

6.      Finally, there are many interesting variations you can do when practising scales HT (play one hand louder than the other, for instance), but my favourite is to play each hand at different rhythms: for instance, LH in quavers, while the RH goes in semiquavers, so for every two notes of the RH you have one note of the LH. This is quite exhilarating. Try it.

The problem is that students are usually not very clear about what is it that they want or will get out of a certain practice procedure. For instance, although all the above reasons for practising scales HT are sound, the student must understand that this is what s/he is aiming at.

At the same time, there are many wrong reasons to practice scales HT. One of them is to save time: instead of playing LH and then RH, why not practise HT? It will half the practice time. Wrong. It will not save time. Instead it will create bad habits – mostly because the LH will be playing beyond its technical capacity, while the RH will be playing below its technical potential.

So as you can see it is surprisingly easy to do the wrong thing while apparently doing the correct thing. In fact the more I think about it, the more amazed I am that people can learn to play the piano at all, and that babies are (mostly) born perfect.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[rlefebvr]

I have thought about the reasons you mentioned for HT, but would it not be more advantage to use Exercises by Czerny or even .....(I have to say it) Hanon to tackle these problems head on instead of you using scales to do it.

I in fact have used scales HT to do most of the points made in the previous post, but now I wonder if I have not wasted valuable time using scales when there could be a better way to tackle these problems.

Or do the simplicity of scales simply help you concentrate on the problems you are tackling, be it sound, coordination or other techniques instead of the exercise itself.

[Hmoll]

I have yet to see a piece that would do this. (I am problably wrong and there are tons of them)

Lots of concertos, lots of chamber music.

Oh yeah, Chopin's Ballade #1, Brahms Rhapsody #1 opus 76 (not sure of the opus #).

Good question. Bernhard answers it very well.

[Motrax]

Just as when performing a scientific expiriment, you don't want to test out to many variables at once. Even written excercises will distract you slightly from a single specific goal - if you make a mistake, you'll be less certain of whether the mistake is from unfamiliarity with the piece, bad fingering, simply slipping, or whatever.

When you play scales, you can be rather certain of the cause of any mistakes you make, and so you can concentrate on improving single, specific areas of technical performance.

However, this doesn't mean you should neglect technical excercises - 5 minutes of scales will be perfectly sufficient in most cases, after which your hands will be more prepared to play more complex excercises.

[bernhard]

I have thought about the reasons you mentioned for HT, but would it not be more advantage to use Exercises by Czerny or even .....(I have to say it) Hanon to tackle these problems head on instead of you using scales to do it.

I in fact have used scales HT to do most of the points made in the previous post, but now I wonder if I have not wasted valuable time using scales when there could be a better way to tackle these problems.

Or do the simplicity of scales simply help you concentrate on the problems you are tackling, be it sound, coordination or other techniques instead of the exercise itself.

Now you are asking a completely different question from why work on scales HT as opposed to HS.

If I understand correctly you are now asking why work on scales as opposed to technical exercises.

There are two distinct kinds of technical exercises: purely mechanical exercises (e.g. Hanon, Schmidt) and technical exercises where a mechanical aspect is repeated exhaustively within a piece of music (Czerny, Cramer, Burgmuller, Heller, etc.)

The purely mechanical exercises usually include scales and arpeggios(e.g. Hanon nos. 32 – 43, Plaidy section V, Pischna nos. 24, 31, 32, 33, 39, 40, 46, 47, etc.), so I do not see how this would save time: you still would need to go through the scales if followed these methods.

Likewise with the more “tuneful” technical exercises. Many of them just disguise the scales within a more musical context (e.g. Burgmuller op. 109 no. 2).

As you can see I am quite conversant with these exercises: I did all of them during my youth. It did not do me any good. My technique was terrible and I could not play anything well. It was only after I dropped them that I started to see any improvement. You see, this kind of exercise was invented based on a completely false premise: that piano technique ultimately has to do finger independence, dexterity and strength. Just read the preface that Hanon wrote for his exercises and his directions on how to use the book.

My technique really took off when I discovered that the fingers are the least important link in the chain. I have talked about his extensively, so I will not repeat myself here. Can you do Hanon and Czerny with these new directions and new philosophies of technique. Certainly, but why bother?

Can you ignore technique and concentrate purely on musicality? Not at all. Technique is paramount. But the way to acquire it, in my opinion (just in case people get offended I repeat, it is just an opinion – I actually believe it to be the truh, but hey a disclaimer here and there will not hurt) is not through Hanon and Czerny.

The way to acquire technique is pragmatically, that is, find out a technical problem and solve it. Go to the next technical problem. Solve it. And so on and so forth. You will find out that the number of technical problems to be solved in piano playing is not that large. After a couple of years (or even less if you have a good teacher showing you the shortcuts) you should have mastered all the technique you will ever need.

It is at this point that you will look back and notice that there is a pattern: you can actually organise all these technical problems in a logical order and the temptation to write a method will be overwhelming. That is how Hanon et al. came into being in the first place.

Unfortunately, as I said elsewhere, this will be useless because no one learns logically, everyone learns most effectively pragmatically. Does that mean that the logical system is of no use? No, quite the opposite, it is very useful as a tool for organising knowledge that would otherwise look chaotic. But it is useless for learning. In other words: Hanon et al. are a tool for the teacher, not a resource for the student.

Finally, scales have an advantage over all these exercises: they familiarise you with the concept of key. Exercises cannot do that unless you play them in every key (I am still to meet someone who actually did Hanon in all keys – I came close!).

By the way, Motrax is absolutely right when he says:

Just as when performing a scientific expiriment, you don't want to test out to many variables at once. Even written excercises will distract you slightly from a single specific goal - if you make a mistake, you'll be less certain of whether the mistake is from unfamiliarity with the piece, bad fingering, simply slipping, or whatever.

Which is one of the reasons why you should always simplify the piece you are learning (outline, HS before HT, work in small sections and so on and so forth).

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[janice]

After a couple of years (or even less if you have a good teacher showing you the shortcuts) you should have mastered all the technique you will ever need.  

Can you list the technique's that should be mastered?  In a separate post, I will ask you how you advise that we go about teaching that.  But for now, could you just list the techniques that should be mastered?  Thanks!!
      -- Janice

[bernhard]

Can you list the technique's that should be mastered?  In a separate post, I will ask you how you advise that we go about teaching that.  But for now, could you just list the techniques that should be mastered?  Thanks!!
      -- Janice

Yes and no.

But before, I go on, let me give you an analogy. Bear with me, there is a point to it.  

You may have heard of the Japanese martial art of Aikido. It was “invented” in the 1930s by a guy called Morihei Ueshiba.

Of course, he did not invent it. He learned it from another martial artist called Sokaku Takeda. In those days, martial arts were taught pragmatically. The student would ask:”What if someone punches me?” Ah, here is a problem, so the teacher would go on to supply a number of solutions (evade and punch back; evade, grab his wrist and lock his wrist; evade, redirect the punch and throw him; etc.). Moreover the teacher would be paid per technique/solution taught. So, Ueshiba spent a couple of years and a lot of money (remember, he was paying for each manoeuvre) learning from Takeda some 2200 techniques to respond to 2200 possible attacks. And this would probably have continued, but Ueshiba was an intelligent guy. He started noticing that many of the movements he was being taught were variations of some previous movement. In fact, one day he had and “enlightenment” (which he describes in very mystical terms), and he figured out that the whole of what he had learnt from Takeda could be summarised in only eight movements (or techniques). Ueshiba had discovered the “logic” behind what Takeda had taught him.

Takeda called his art “Daito-ryu”. It was an effective and highly dangerous form of combat, handed down – in the pragmatic way (that is one technique as an answer to one problem) – for 700 years from master to pupil. Daito ryu practitioners were feared and considered pretty much invincible.

Ueshiba called his logically formulated synthesis “aikido” and contrary to tradition started teaching it the logical way: Work endlessly on the eight basic movements, and vary them according to different situations. As a consequence instead of leaning 2200 movements (probably much more) all you had to do was to learn 8 basic movements. Nice is it not? Surely it is worth listening to logic.

Unfortunately, aikido practitioners (disclaimer: if you practise aikido and are going to be offended by the next paragraph, do not read it. And remember, it is just my opinion he he – what else could it be?) taught by Ueshiba’s logical system cannot defend themselves in any realistic situation. They keep getting beaten up for all their prowess in aikido.

Does that mean that aikido is an ineffective martial art? No it means that the way it is taught is ineffective: the logical way. If you want to get its effectiveness back, you must drop Ueshiba’s ideas and relearn it the pragmatic way: one technique at a time, and totally related to the problem at hand. If you do that, you will be very effective defending yourself and on top of that you will appreciate Ueshiba’s logic system and even benefit from it.

Moreover, you may come up with a completely different set of organising principles – a different logic so to speak. At this point you will feel tempted to create your own martial art just like Ueshiba did (one of the reasons there are now at least five styles of aikido being taught under different names). And it will result in equally ineffective students, because they have been taught by the logical method, not the pragmatic method.

But you must not misunderstand me here. Logic is very important. But as a way to organise and systematise knowledge acquired by the pragmatic method, not as a way to impart knowledge to a student (can you understand why it should be so?) So logic is a teacher’s tool, not a student’s resource.

Likewise with piano.

The pragmatical way to teach piano is to present the student with a solution to his problem: He wants to play a piece and he cannot. As a teacher you will provide a solution.

The pragmatical way to learn the piano is to have a problem that you are dying to solve and follow the teacher’s instruction for that problem.

Won’t this take a lifetime? Yes if the teacher does not know what s/he is doing and just leaves it up to the student to randomly jump from problem to problem. No if the teacher has a logical system and uses that to direct the student from problem to problem. (So you can see the – important - place of logic).

So you must resist the temptation to study the logic by itself. If you cannot see the problem, you will never be able to appreciate the solution, or worse, you will think that the problem is something it is not.

Consider Hanon exercises. They are the typical logical system. What problem are you solving by practising Hanon? Hanon himself says it in all letters for all who want to read: To give each finger complete independence and strength. But this problem – besides being impossible to solve – never ever occurs in real music. When playing real music you use your whole body. Hanon got it wrong it is as simple as that. If you are using a logical system, and you get it wrong that is it. Nothing will ever work. If you are using a pragmatical system (work on the technique required for a real piece) it does not matter if you get it wrong, first because it is only a piece, and second because you will be able to know straight away that it is not working.

To go back to the aikido analogy. If you follow Ueshiba’s logical system, you will be training for years – maybe the wrong thing – before you can try to apply that to any real situation – and as it happened recently to a friend of mine who proudly holds a 6th dan black belt in aikido – when in Morocco he was mugged by two 14 years old who proceeded to beat him up to a pulp. 35 years of Aikido training and there was nothing he could do. Because he was trained logically, not pragmatically. If he had been trained pragmatically, he would know the instant someone threw a punch at him if his defense was working or not. But when you are trained logically you spend year after year performing movements that may or may not be useful to you. Movements that originated from a synthesis of someone (with a different body from yours) who actually went through the pragmatical method himself. But once a tradition is established it is almost impossible to get rid of it no matter how ineffective it is.

Now back to you original question. You are asking for the logical system.

Well take your pick. Any pianist that has gone through the trouble of learning a varied repertory will start figuring out that there are patterns. That many pieces have similar technical requirements. Then they will come up (if they are so inclined) with a “system”. And then the temptation to teach through that system will be irresistible.

In the past systems tended to describe technique in terms of the passages themselves. So you have Liszt saying that in the end the only technical problem is “trills”. Master trills and you will master everything else (the problem here is that this reflects his personal experience – maybe for him trills were the only technical problem). Or you have Czerny describing the basic technical problems as

1.      octaves
2.      scale runs
3.      double thirds
4.      trills
5.      etc.

More recently the trend has been to dissociate the technique from the musical figuration (while all along disclaiming to do so and assuring us that technique is only a means to musicality) and concentrate on the movement themselves – many times away from the piano.

Hence Sandor’s logic:

There are only five techniques to be mastered in order to play the piano at top level:

1.      Free fall
2.      Five fingers
3.      Rotation
4.      Sttacatto
5.      Thrust

Or  Fink’s logic:

1.      Arm extension with pronation
2.      Pendulum swing
3.      Arm rotation
4.      forearm push stroke
5.      lateral motion
6.      finger stroke
7.      hand scoop
8.      pulling fingers
9.      unfolding fingers
10.      arm cycling
11.      pulling arm legato
12.      pushing arm strokes
13.      gravity drops
14.      finger stretching
15.      forearm bounce
16.      forearm skip
17.      forearm rebounds
18.      hand bounce
19.      scoop chords
20.      thumb adduction, flexion and lateral movement
21.      overlapping legato
22.      unfolding finger
23.      sidesaddle walking
24.      joggle movement
25.      forearm finger groupings
26.      finger length adaptations
27.      Lateral extension
28.      Walking rebounds
29.      Fake legato
30.      Hand releases
31.      Hand finger staccato
32.      Finger releases

So one does not mention octaves anymore, but “Walking rebounds”. So the whole process becomes more and more abstract, and the consequence is that people start to believe that you can learn and practise technique on its own. Someone in one of the threads in this forum once asked: Would it be a good idea to spend a month just doing finger exercises and scales to get the technique sorted out and only then move on to pieces (or something like that). I cannot even begin to tell you how wrong this sort of thinking is.

At the end of the day the only truly effective method of teaching the piano is the pragmatical one: Select a piece the student is dying to play (then he will be motivated enough to do the work) and work on each technical problem as it appears. Then proceed by giving the student one piece that has similar technical problems (so it will be a piece learned in a fraciotn of the time and reinforce the technique he just learnt with the first piece)  and one piece that has completely different technical demands (so that the student’s technical repertory is increased). If you proceed like that I promise you that after 20 – 30 pieces you will start to formulate your own logical system.

And if you do not believe me, try this: get two students of similar talent/willingness to work. Teach one by the pragmatic method outlined above. Teach the other one by any logical system (Hanon, Alfred method books, Sandor, Fink). Video them at the beginning of the course, and video them at the end of one year. Then watch both videos.

And do please tell us the results.

Also, have a look towards the end of this thread, where I say more about pragmatic way x logical way:

https://www.pianoforum.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=teac;action=display;num=1083060519

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[cellodude]

Yes and no.

...ad infinitum

Hey Bernhard. You have too much time on your hands or what? I take back what I said last time. That wasn't your longest post this one is.

I told you to write a book. Please think about it seriously. So we don't have to go searching all over the place for your words of wisdom. Thanks.

I'm glad there's no limit to how long a post can be here, there is over on the cello board.

TTFN (Ta Ta For Now)

dennis lee

[bernhard]

Hey Bernhard. You have too much time on your hands or what? I take back what I said last time. That wasn't your longest post this one is.

I'm glad there's no limit to how long a post can be here, there is over on the cello board.

Actually, Denis Lee, this forum has a limit to the size of the posts it accepts (it is pretty big though). You may have noticed that in certain threads, I have posted my answers in two parts. Yes, I reached the limit and I had to break down the original post in two.

Basically I do not have a life . (And I type fast, very fast).

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[donjuan]

Actually, Denis Lee, this forum has a limit to the size of the posts it accepts (it is pretty big though). You may have noticed that in certain threads, I have posted my answers in two parts. Yes, I reached the limit and I had to break down the original post in two.

Basically I do not have a life . (And I type fast, very fast).

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

I know this is off topic, but how fast do you type, Bernhard?  If I typed as much as you, I would be at the computer for 4 or more hours everyday.  How long does it take you? (pls dont say 4 or more hours).  You also manage to state things like facts-even listing them.  How many hours a day do you devote to piano forum?

donjuan

p.s. if you do type fast, can you suggest ways of improving typing speeds?  I hope you do the listing thing...

[shas]

I wouldn't have thought that playing scales HT would only help peices that do so. loads of peices have runing semiquavers in both hands. I also see it as a progresion to more advanced things you'll never play scales in intervals (compound 3rds for example) in less you'v alredy mastered them in simple octaves first.
Also. It's not just about developing your technical abilaty, but also to familorise you very thourasly with the scale and understanding of it.

[shas]

I wouldn't have thought that playing scales HT would only help peices that do so. loads of peices have runing semiquavers in both hands. I also see it as a progresion to more advanced things you'll never play scales in intervals (compound 3rds for example) in less you'v alredy mastered them in simple octaves first.
Also. It's not just about developing your technical abilaty, but also to familorise you very thourasly with the scale and understanding of it.

[bernhard]

I know this is off topic, but how fast do you type, Bernhard?  If I typed as much as you, I would be at the computer for 4 or more hours everyday.  How long does it take you? (pls dont say 4 or more hours).  You also manage to state things like facts-even listing them.  How many hours a day do you devote to piano forum?

donjuan
p.s. if you do type fast, can you suggest ways of improving typing speeds?  I hope you do the listing thing...

I assume you can type (I mean with ten fingers, looking at the screen, rather than at the keys, this sort of thing). If not, get a good tutorial software (Mavis Beacon is a good one).

If you already can type, then the single thing that will improve your speed by a factor of ten (I kid you not) is to use DVORAK (the keyboard layout, not the composer!). If you have no idea what I am talking about, ask again. The main disadvantages are that you will need to retrain yourself (again, some of the Mavis Beacon packages include dvorak), and that your computer keyboard will be customised to it (and it will be a drag when you need to use other keyboards than your own).

Finally, I actually do not spend that much time at the forum. As in everything else I strive for organisation and efficiency. So I will look at the forum, copy and paste subjects that I feel I can contribute, and answer the questions during the day – outside the forum – during 5 - 10 minute breaks in lessons/practice sessions. Last thing at night I will send the posts worked out during the day. Many of the questions have already been asked from me during the years by students, so things like lists of repertory graded by difficulty I already have. They do not need to be typed (or researched). It is more like copy and paste.

I actually spend less than one hour a day (on average) on the forum.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[donjuan]

Hmm, interesting.  Ive never heard of "DVORAK".  yes, I can type- you know, without looking at the keys- Im just really quite slow.  It was interesting to know how one of the great minds of the forum works..

inspired as always,
donjuan

[bernhard]

Hmm, interesting.  Ive never heard of "DVORAK".  yes, I can type- you know, without looking at the keys- Im just really quite slow.  It was interesting to know how one of the great minds of the forum works..

inspired as always,
donjuan

Ok, do you remember the old typewriters? And how they would jam if typed too quickly? Well the typewriter layout was designed to slow you down so as to make jamming less frequent. The reasoning was that even though an inefficient keyboard layout would make your typing slower, in average it would still not be as slower as having to fix jamming all the time from typing fast.

However, a computer keyboard has no such problem. You cannot jam no matter how fast you type. Hence DVORAK (as opposed to the inefficient QWERTY). It is just unbelievable how fast you can type once you change your keys around to a DVORAK layout. And Windows support it. In order to change your keyboard to DVORAK,:
1.      Go to control panel, click on keyboards
2.      click on properties.
3.      Click on languages.
4.      Click on change.
5.      A “text service” window will appear. Select the line at the top (in my case: Default language: English (UK)), then click on “Add”
6.      A new window will appear (“Add input language”). Tick the keyboard/layout IME, and then from the list select DVORAK.

That’s it! Now all you have to do is to pry all the keys loose and swap them around so now they are in the DVORAK layout (google “DVORAK keyboard layout” to get the layout).

Finally retrain yourself to type in this new keyboard (Mavis Beacon will teach you, get her software).

In a couple of months you can be the Franz Liszt of typing!

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[faulty_damper]

HOLY HORSE DUNG!  That's is some enlightening stuff!  HOLY sh*t!  And I thought I came here to learn about piano related stuff.  DVORAK, here I come!

[donjuan]

If I do DVORAK, ill be screwed if I have to type on someone elses computer.  unless, the whole world switches over...
donjuan

[bernhard]

If I do DVORAK, ill be screwed if I have to type on someone elses computer.  unless, the whole world switches over...
donjuan

You can always setup someone else's computer to DVORAK, and change the keys around. Then they will have to learn DVORAK to use their computer, and when they need to use someone's else computer they can do the same. This way the whole world soon will have switched over!

On the other hand, think of it as learning a second language. Do you forget English just because you are learning French? Likewise, when you learn DVORAK, you will still know QWERTY. It will not be erased from your mind. It will still be there. You will just feel frustrated by the slow speed.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[StoreBrand]

Wow! This forum is awesome. Bernhard your two posts that I have read are very thoroughly written and informative. They are awesome.  I read them last night and have been thinking about them since.  I just had to register to this forum just respond to your post!

Anyway, I'm new to the forum and am a beginning piano student. Bernhard, I fully understand what you are saying about learning in a pragmatic way and I bet that you are a superb teacher.  On what you said of math, I couldn't agree more.  I used to really love math until they began to cram down my throat for years different methods of solving the same odd problems only to have me in the end to do it on calculator!  I still to this day do not fully understand what problems I was even working on a solution to (so my answer to this was to cheat on all of the assignments and get A's on the tests!).  Also, I'm pretty sure you would not be surprised at all if I tell you that I really hate math now.  In fact, I'm willing to talk very passionately for long periods of time why math beyond the basics is useless to the average person.

So my question to you is this...  As a beginning piano student, I can at least surmise that there are many things in piano playing that are purely technical (and not exactly a fun learning process).  And technical exercises have a very obvious use in this area because they isolate a problem and attempt to solve it.  I can understand a child not comprehending the purpose and value of any particular technical exercise but certainly not an adult.

It is on this note that I ask you -- Are there any technical exercises that you can think of that are "inherently pragmatic"?  I believe you may have either slightly underestimated a student's desire to properly perform technical exercises, underestimated a student's ability to understand the purpose of a technical exercise, or not so slightly downplayed the practical/applicable use of technical exercises in general.

My other completely seperate question is -- What technical exercises do you feel have helped you the most in your life at the piano?  What rhythmic exercises do you feel are the MOST helpful and that any beginning pianist could use (and please keep in my that I am asking you this even if you feel that none of them are really helpful if they are not solving a piece-related problem)?

I also believe that technical exercises alone can not be defined as the study of an experienced person's logic system.  I guess you could say what few Hanon exercises I have done have helped me enough for me to defend them!  Certainly, some of the exercises you have done have helped you.  Even if you can not clearly see the problem at hand, if you can not perform the exercise then that in itself could be argued an obvious problem that needs to be addressed.  Bernhard, it just seems that you are turning a blind eye to the success of (for example) Hanon exercises--as if you have lost the sense of their use.   In other words, there is absolutely no way that Hanon "got it wrong" if his exercises have long withstanded the test of time.  It would be very hard to convince me of this.  : )

Jonathan

[StoreBrand]

To go back to the aikido analogy. If you follow Ueshiba’s logical system, you will be training for years – maybe the wrong thing – before you can try to apply that to any real situation – and as it happened recently to a friend of mine who proudly holds a 6th dan black belt in aikido – when in Morocco he was mugged by two 14 years old who proceeded to beat him up to a pulp. 35 years of Aikido training and there was nothing he could do. Because he was trained logically, not pragmatically. If he had been trained pragmatically, he would know the instant someone threw a punch at him if his defense was working or not.

Irrelevant to the topic but it is something that I feel strongly about. Bernhard, I must say that I do have a serious problem with the contents of this example.  It seems to be very unfair to your friend for you to have reached the shaking conclusion that you have, in the manner that you have, of your friend's situation.  One thing that I want to point out that a one-on-one fight (as I'm sure you know) can be incredibly dynamic, explosive, and unpredictable.  A two-on-one fight can be even worse.  

You seemed to have reached the conclusion that there were "35 years of Aikido training and there was nothing he could do".  I not only fully disagree with this but I also fully disagree with your reasoning for reaching this conclusion which is "Because he was trained logically, not pragmatically."  If there is any thing that is wrong with your friend's training (which I'm not saying there is), it would be that it lacked effective technique and realistic training.  This would be a bold statement considering I don't know aikido or your friend!  It would have nothing to do with logic, being pragmatic towards aikido, or any sort of thinking because all of this is out in a street fight.  Of course there is a system in use but it must be tested realistically. Some may pick up on it well and other's may not but this doesn't mean that their skill level in the art will not improve.  True direct fight training is "realistic" or actual 80-95% fighting your training partners (this includes stomping on their head, kneeing them in the face, kicking them in the ribs, slamming them with the intent of hurting them, knocking them out, etc).  If this isn't done in aikido then you are not really fighting so don't expect to magically and certainly do it right in a street fight.  Who besides aspiring professional or professional full-contact fighters wants to train in this manner?

I don't want to go on and on into this but I will say that there are many things that someone can teach you that could be immediately applicable, useful, and very deadly if successfully executed in a street fight situation but that is not training.  It says nothing for the fact that a person can spend years of his life studying fighting and/or self-defense training thousands of techniques and be absolutely lucky to pull of JUST TWO of these moves in a dynamic street fight. It also says nothing for the fact that there are so many variables in a street situation that it is impossible to train for all of them.  For example, there is no way for dealing with fighting on concrete or grass, or slipping in oil or mud, and being against a fence or a tree, or the use of dirty tactics (such as biting, eye gouging, groin attacks, etc.), there is no way to deal with being taken completely by surprise and caught off guard, there is no universal way in dealing with the fear of not knowing what your attacker may do (i.e. will he try to stab you), there is no real way of dealing with being completely intimidated by an attacker (a highly effective fighting strategy), there is no way of dealing with an opponent who is of an unknown level combat capability (in fact, it could be difficult to accurately assess a person's combat capability even after you have faught them), there is no way to judge the incredible strength a mad attacker may possess, there is no way to warm up before the fight, there is no way to accurately assess your own physical conditioning vs. your opponent, there is no method for dealing with fighting on stairs or running into objects, there is no method of dealing with "freak" attacks or having your shirt covering your face, there is no set way for dealing with having your hair pulled, there are no ways to make a physical size or strength disadvantage disappear, there is no way to have one set way of using your body against an opponent of a completely different body frame, etc. etc. etc.  Can you see the point that I am trying to make?

So what does this have to do with aikido?  Well, though I believe I have laid out that it is impossible to train for all of the variables in a street fight there is something that you can do to better prepare yourself and aikido alone definitely is NOT the answer.  A person must crosstrain if he or she realistically expects to perform with any amount of satisfactory in a street fight.  In other words, you MUST be fully capable of both stand up and ground fighting.  To my knowledge, only a combination of ground fighting (either Brazilian jiu-jitsu, wrestling, shooting fighting, sambo, etc) and full contact standup fighting (i.e. kickboxing, Muay Thai, etc.) are the real answers to physically defending yourself in a street fight situation.  Even then something can easily go wrong. For example, Renzo Gracie was mounted by an average Joe in a street fight before.  This would be about the equivalent of me scoring, for just a second, a higher score from a judge in playing the piano against Horowitz!

My last example is boxing.  A very good boxer is very much so in a position to do serious damage to someone in a street fight.  Heck, a person with no fight training at all is in a position to deal serious damage to another person.  But what if a boxer is faced with a kickboxer or someone that just likes to throw kicks?  Boxers do not train for this.  What if a boxer is taken down to the ground by a wrestler?  All of those years of training will suddenly be of no use.  What if a wrestler (grappler) tries to wrestle one of two opponents in a fight?  He may be beaten to a pulp by the second opponent.  What if the wrestler can't take the boxer down to the ground?  Or what if the boxer knocks out his opponent... did he really win the fight?  How much damage did he sustain in the process (i.e. did he break his piano hands?).  In a fight both sides can lose catastrophically but you train to win, of course.  But if you really want a true shot a winning then you must crosstrain completely separate yet solid standup fighting and ground fighting (grappling) styles then comine the two in realistic training. Your friend was not in a fight--he was mugged.

The point that I am trying to make is that it is impossible to really train for the street-like situation that your friend was in and you are deluding yourself if you think your own personal aikido will be the end-all kill-all for two people attacking you.  It is very insulting for you to reach your conclusion of your friend with his 35 years of aikido training.  Aikido is not designed (and it would be surprising to learn if it is even remotely close) to deal with the uncontrollable variables of an actual dynamic street fight so you shouldn't tell or even think that your friend was beaten to a pulp by two male (essentially) kids because he spent 35 years doing something with ill or ineffective philosophy.  That is not right!  

But having said this, I do believe that your friend would have had a much better chance had he crosstrained but probably only slightly (going back to the unpredictable dynamics of a street fight--let alone a mugging).  Those two b astard 14-year olds (if that really was their age) that attacked your friend were very much so in a position to do so physically irregardless of your friend's aikido training.  Any two physically fit male attackers are capable of beating a lone person to a pulp (possibly killing him) if they attack him right.

I can assume that aikido is an art (though a "martial" art) that has many benefits that have nothing to do with fighting two attackers on the street.  To say that your friend got beaten to a pulp because of something being wrong with his approach to his martial art is insensitive.  There is no fault for a bear to lose in a fight against an alligator or vice versa!  Completely different animals at hand there.  Aikido is not "fightwomuggers".

Sorry to go on and on but Bernhard you made such a good post I just thought that I spend several hours posting a reply! : )

[faulty_damper]

But having said this, I do believe that your friend would have had a much better chance had he crosstrained but probably only slightly (going back to the unpredictable dynamics of a street fight--let alone a mugging).  

Erm, aren't you now contradicting your point?  You said that he should have trained in realistic ways.  That was the pragmatic way.  But since he was trained logically, he had no way to defend himself because he wasn't trained pragmatically.

Brazilian jujitsu is taught pragmatically.  In brief, when grappling and in a position, you have the opportunity to perform any technique based on the current position and taught those techniques in that current position.  You are not taught techniques separately and then it is up to you to apply it when grappling.  It is almost impossible to teach Brazillian Jujitsu logically AND effectively.

Contrary, having also taken Northern Shaolin Kung Fu, it was taught logically.  After two years of practice, I still did not have the confidence in my abilities.  Practicing punches and kicks outside of actual combat was worthless to me and all the other students.  And when we did spar, it was done in the horse stance positions.  Who fights that way?  One of the students had to give up her CD player to a thug because she couldn't defend herself.  Her father was angry at the teacher.  The teacher blamed it on the fact that she only came in to practice one day a week.  She quit.  I quit.  She came to learn self-defense and was never taught it.  Nor I.

Pragmatically teaching technique is the most effectice.  Another example:  My friend who also took Brazillian Jujitsu and the Kung Fu class was in a fight.  He didn't rely on his Kung Fu at all and instead, took out the other guy and performed the "Paintbrush" technique - a technique that dislocates or breaks the arm.  Technique worked though he said he did it wrong - he didn't hear a *snap*.  Now this is after taking more than 2 years of Kung fu and only a few months of Jujitsu.

[willcowskitz]

Speaking of keyboard layouts, I once made one myself.  I told my friend to code a program that will go through a text file and give output of how many times each letter had appeared in the text, then I copied loads of ordinary blahblah from the Internet and pasted it into a file, ran the program on it and picked the letters in the order from most common to least used and constructed the keyboard in the way that the least used keys were in the middle, whereas the most used ones were on the sides right under my hands, and arranged vowels for left and consonants for right.    (I'm right-handed and there are more consonants than vowels.)
It worked great after a week's practice, but at some point I spilled coke on it and forgot to copy the order of the keys, d'uh.

[faulty_damper]

In other words, there is absolutely no way that Hanon "got it wrong" if his exercises have long withstanded the test of time.

You mean the test of the teacher's limited amount of time?  It's much easier for a teacher to assign to you a few Hanon or Czerny exercises than it is to sit down with you and actually show you how to tackle a particular problem.  I have also read the beginning of the Hanon and of what it says his exercises will accomplish.  It's a complete lie, at least now with the vast repetory not limited to the style of playing of the 18th century.  The "finger independence" of Hanon will never help you out with playing Chopin or Liszt or any other composer of the 19th century.

Hanon is great for getting the feeling that you accomplished something by remembering a simple one bar phrase and then repeating it over and over, each time one whole step up.  But it's completely worthless to apply to pieces that you could be playing.

But back to the quote.  He did in fact "get it wrong".  Read the beginning of Hanon - read what it says his exercises will accomplish.  Then do the exercises and also take note of the notes that he has written above the exercises, if any.  At the completion of the exercises, ask yourself has it accomplished what it set out to do?  And if yes or no, so what?  He says that practicing his execises will render your fingers capable and dextrous without practicing any pieces of music (or something in that tune).  Is this true?

"Pianists and teachers who cannot find time for sufficient practice to keep up their playing, need only to play these exercises a few hours in order to regain all the dexterity of their fingers."

Hanon is worth something.  According to the back of the cover, it's worth $3.95 for book 1.

[bernhard]

Irrelevant to the topic but it is something that I feel strongly about. Bernhard, I must say that I do have a serious problem with the contents of this example.  It seems to be very unfair to your friend for you to have reached the shaking conclusion that you have, in the manner that you have, of your friend's situation.  One thing that I want to point out that a one-on-one fight (as I'm sure you know) can be incredibly dynamic, explosive, and unpredictable.  A two-on-one fight can be even worse.  

I agree wholeheartedly with the fight situation evaluation. However most of the Aikido people I have met over the years advertise their art loud and clear as an efficient system of self defence Moreover they adopt a moral high ground that their art is not only effective as morally and ethically superior, since they aim to defend themselves without causing harm to their aggressors (usually a speech on blending and harmonising with the opponent's energy follows). I have been arguing with my aikido friends now for many years, that the only thing superior about aikido is the degree of unrealism of their selfdefense techniques. So I do not think I was unfair to my friend. Quite the opposite I had a very jolly time observing how well his nose had blended and harmonised with the mugger's fist.

Otherwise I agree with everything you said in regards to the differences between real fight, and what passes for self defence these days.

And Faulty, thanks for the post, it was exactly what I was going to argue.

The martial arts that really work are all taught pragmatically. In fact 150 years ago this was the general state of affairs. As I mentioned before, the precursor of aikido was a very powerful system indeed.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[bernhard]

Wow! This forum is awesome. Bernhard your two posts that I have read are very thoroughly written and informative. They are awesome.  I read them last night and have been thinking about them since.  I just had to register to this forum just respond to your post!

Thank you.

So my question to you is this...  As a beginning piano student, I can at least surmise that there are many things in piano playing that are purely technical (and not exactly a fun learning process).

Everything in piano playing is technical. Even if you define technique – as I do – in a somewhat limited way as “movements” and “movement patterns” necessary to play the piano you cannot get away from it.

Technique is completely taken for granted by definition. However technique does not exist in a vacuum. It fulfils a function. It is not an end in itself. In fact if you go to a piano, and do what little children do: bang your fists on the keys, this is technique. If you play with all joints misaligned, this is also technique. But is it appropriate? What function does it fulfil?

Learning technique in a vacuum (which is what you end up doing if you start doing the likes of Hanon, Schmidt and Pischna) is worse than useless. It is actually nocive.

So how do you acquire an “appropriate” technique? Well first you have to decide “appropriate” for what? The answer of course is in your repertory. You must acquire whatever technique is appropriate to play superbly the pieces in your repertory. And each piece will require a different technique. In fact different passages within a piece will require different techniques.

And technical exercises have a very obvious use in this area because they isolate a problem and attempt to solve it.  I can understand a child not comprehending the purpose and value of any particular technical exercise but certainly not an adult.

The number of technical problems is pretty much infinite. If you are going to tackle them by using technical exercises, when are you going to stop? You will be forever doing technical exercises and never get to play the repertory.

It is on this note that I ask you -- Are there any technical exercises that you can think of that are "inherently pragmatic"?

Yes, your pieces!

My other completely seperate question is -- What technical exercises do you feel have helped you the most in your life at the piano?  What rhythmic exercises do you feel are the MOST helpful and that any beginning pianist could use (and please keep in my that I am asking you this even if you feel that none of them are really helpful if they are not solving a piece-related problem)?

Any exercise that furthers one’s playing is useful. Unfortunately I do not believe that you can start from the exercise side. This is turning the whole issue on its head. You must start from a piece. The technical difficulties (for you, for that piece) in the piece will guide the choice of useful exercises.

Now I am answering you is a very short way because I have already written about his subject in many other threads. I suggest you have a look at this thread where I describe the way I taught Schubert’s Impromptu Op. 142 no, 2 to one of my students. This may answer your questions, or it may create even more questions. If so, come back and ask! Here is the thread:

https://www.pianoforum.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=teac;action=display;num=1083060519

I will however answer in full your next comment:

I also believe that technical exercises alone can not be defined as the study of an experienced person's logic system.  I guess you could say what few Hanon exercises I have done have helped me enough for me to defend them!  Certainly, some of the exercises you have done have helped you.  Even if you can not clearly see the problem at hand, if you can not perform the exercise then that in itself could be argued an obvious problem that needs to be addressed.  Bernhard, it just seems that you are turning a blind eye to the success of (for example) Hanon exercises--as if you have lost the sense of their use.   In other words, there is absolutely no way that Hanon "got it wrong" if his exercises have long withstanded the test of time.  It would be very hard to convince me of this.  : )  

[continues next post]

[bernhard]

First my usual disclaimer: What follows is just my opinion (what else could it be?) and it is not my purpose to convince anyone of anything. Piano playing cannot be improved on the basis of verbal argument. Instead, think of it as experiment suggestions. Choose two pieces of similar difficulty. Learn one following your own ideas. Learn the other following my suggestions. Compare results. Use what is useful, discard what is not. People are different. What may work for me or my students may not work for you or anyone else. However, if I do make a suggestion (you will notice that although I post  a lot, I will not get involved in any threads to which I feel I cannot contribute) it is usually because it yields spectacular results. Can you afford not to try? Beliefs are just unnecessary limitations. Do not worry about beliefs. Go after the facts.

Now for Hanon.

1. The Virtuoso Pianist was published in 1873. Could we have learned something about technique since then? But more to the point, did Hanon have at his disposal all the knowledge needed to write a collection of technical exercises that would still continue to be valid even 131 years later?

2. Have you ever read the preface Hanon wrote for his exercises, where he gives directions on how to practise them? It makes for a most intriguing reading. Here are a few excerpts (but I suggest that you read the full preface):

[..]To attain this end, it sufficed to find the solution to the following problem: If all five fingers of the hand were absolutely equally well trained, they would be ready to execute anything written for the instrument and the only question remaining would be that of fingering, which could be readily solved.

We have found the solution of this problem in our work “The Virtuoso Pianist in 60 Exercises”. In this volume will be found the exercises necessary for the acquirement of agility, independence, strength and perfect evenness in the fingers as well as suppleness of the wrists - all indispensable qualities for fine execution; furthermore, these exercises are calculated to render the left hand equally skilful with the right. […]

Now, in 1873 it was not the practice of piano pedagogues to be fully acquainted with human anatomy. In fact I doubt that the full details of anatomy and muscle physiology were available then. In particular, Hanon seems completely ignorant of two anatomical facts – one obvious – the other not so obvious but nevertheless there. Fact number one: fingers have different sizes. Fact number two the fourth finger shares a tendon with the third finger, so it cannot move independently. Therefore the whole Hanon project and directions for practice are based on a completely false premise: that it is possible to acquire equal strength on all fingers, and moreover that you can acquire finger independence. From that false premise he jumps to a now hopelessly false conclusion: that the way to do so is to do his exercises.

If a salesman knocked at your door and proceeded to try to sell you a book of instructions that-  if followed  -would allow you to fly like superman would you buy it? You would not even need to read and try the instructions in the book, because no matter how reasonable and compelling they may appear, it promises something you know to be impossible.

Likewise I do not need to even enter the merit of Hanon exercises, because their final aim (equal finger strength and independence) is anatomically impossible no matter how much you repeat them.

3. But it gets worse. Hanon directs you to keep all the playing apparatus (shoulder girdle/arm/forearm/hands) motionless and move only the fingers. I kid you not! Here are his very own words:

Lift the fingers high and with precision, playing each note very distinctly. (Exercise 1)

We repeat that the fingers should be lifted high, and with precision, until this entire volume is mastered. (Exercise 5)

Lift the fingers high and with precision without raising hand or wrist (Exercise 44)

Lift the fingers high and with precision throughout this exercise without raising hand or wrist (Exercise 47)

Strike the octaves without lifting the wrists, and hold them down while deftly executing the intermediate notes with a good finger movement. (Exercise 58 )

Neither wrist nor hand should be moved in the least while playing this exercise (Exercise 59)

Do any of these exercises in the way prescribed and you end up with a serious injury.

Only in six of the more advanced exercises the wrists are allowed to move at all, and  specific directions are given to that end. Here again in his own words:


Lift the wrists well after each stroke, holding the arms perfectly quiet; the wrist should be supple, and the fingers firm without stiffness. Practise the first four measures until an easy wrist-movement is obtained. (Exercise 48).

The wrists should be very supple, the fingers taking the octaves should be held firmly but without stiffness, and the unoccupied fingers should assume a slightly rounded position. At first repeat these three first lines slowly until a good wrist-movement is attained, and then accelerate the tempo continuing the exercise without interruption. If the wrists become fatigued, play more slowly until the feeling of fatigue has disappeared, and then gradually accelerate up to the first tempo. (Exercise 51).

We cannot too strongly insist on the absolute necessity of a proper wrist-movement; it is the only means of executing octaves without stiffness and with suppleness, vivacity and energy (Exercise 53).

This highly important exercise (broken octaves) prepares the wrists for the study of the tremolo (Exercise 56).

To begin with practice the first arpeggio in C which must be played cleanly and distinctly, with a good wrist-movement, before passing to the next in minor (Exercise 57).

Finally, by oscillations of the wrists, the rapidity is still further augmented up to the tempo of the drum roll (Exercise 60).

Nowhere in the whole book do we find reference to forearms, arms, shoulders, back or even posture. One gets the impression that Hanon’s ideal is for the pianist to remain motionless while his fingers - and in a few instances - his wrists do all the work. There is simply no piece in the entire piano repertory where such a way of playing would be appropriate. There may be a few pieces that you may be able to play like that, but even the Hanon exercises can benefit from using the whole of the playing apparatus. So what can possibly the point of endless practising something that will never be appropriate? Whatever technique you may acquire from Hanon will be pretty much useless.

I play the recorder. Even when playing the recorder the whole body must move (although a careless observer may get the impression that all you are doing is moving your fingers up and down). So Hanon’s technique is inadequate even for the recorder – an instrument which is far more limited in terms of arm movement than the piano.

Now of course, this is what Hanon tells us in his writing. Maybe in his personal teaching he would say more. So apart from developping finger strength and independence (two impossibilities as we have seen), what else are they good for?

4. What about equalizing the hands? Hanon promises that in no uncertain terms:

these exercises are calculated to render the left hand equally skilful with the right.

Not if you play them as directed, that is with hands together. Assuming that your left hand is weaker, as you play through the exercises hands together, the left hand will always be playing beyond its capacity (and therefore getting tense, making mistakes and developping bad habits) while the right hand is never playing at its full potential (since it has to wait for the left).

Cold you play the exercises in a way that it would equalise the hands? Yes, practise them hands separate.

This of course would defeat the main goal of the book, as Hanon tells us:

This entire volume can be played through in an hour

Well,  not if you are going to do it hands separate as well, more like three hours…

5. What about Finger coordination?-

This is – in my opinion – the only saving grace of these exercises, the only level where some benefit can be derived. By finger coordination I mean the movement of each finger in turn according to a preestablished pattern. So in exercise number 1 each finger follows the other in the order 12345 (rh) and 54321(lh) when ascending and 54321 (rh) and 12345 when descending. In Exercise 15, fingers follow one another in the order 12132435 (rh) and 53423121 (lh) when ascending and 53423121 (rh) and 12132435 (lh) when descending. Such coordinations are by no means trivial, and may elude the practitioner for many weeks. The way to master them is through repetition and slow playing. Yet you have to play fast enough do that you do not have to “think”, for this will slow you down.

Is Hanon good for this purpose them? Undoubtedly. But so is every piece of music ever written! So why, for crying out loud, practise these musical monstrosities in order to acquire something that can be acquired playing pieces from the repertory?

6. What about speed and agility?
Hanon suggests (for the majority of the exercises) that one starts on MM ´ = 60 and progresses to MM ´ = 108.
Is 108 beats per minute the fastest one can play the exercises? No. However if one is to follow Hanon’s injunction of not moving the wrists and lifting each finger high and with precision, 108 beats per minute is about the limit speed. If you try playing faster one of two things will happen. Either you will tense and the fingers will loose their precision and cramp, or you will start moving wrists and forearms around in order to help with the finger movement. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the later as will be discussed later on. However there is something very wrong with tension. In the best scenario you simply will not be able to produce the best tone the piano has to offer. In the worst case scenario, insist on playing as fast as you can with tense wrists/arms/back/etc. for hours on end, repeating the same pattern over and over in the hope of eventually improving (no pain, no gain), and you may end up with a very nasty injury (eg. repetitive strain syndrom, carpal tunnel syndrom, focal dystonia). And this will mean not playing for 2 - 3 years (and in some cases never again).

Hanon must have been aware of the potential dangers, since he set the limit at 108 beats per minute.

The point here is that you cannot develop speed and agility with fingers alone. Velocity is a function of the upper arm. So once again, Hanon is pretty much useless for true virtuoso technique, since such technique demands the co-ordinated use of the whole body. How are you going to learn and practise such co-ordination from a set of exercises that allow you only to move from the wrist down?

7.      All of the above leads us to an interesting question: can we salvage these exercises? Can’t we ignore Hanon’s suggestions and practise the exercises in a more appropriate way (hands separate for equalizing the hands, moving the whole playing apparatus and not only the fingers, etc.)? Of course we could.Hmoll, who disagrees with me on my rejection of Hanon has said that Hanon is good but should be used under the guidance of a teacher. I suspect that he is very aware of all the shortcomings above, but still thinks that with the necessary modifications Hanon can still be useful.

Although I agree that it is possible to modify Hanon so that it becomes sort of useful, there are two problems with trying to salvage it. The first is the serious one. If your teacher is aware of all these problems – and therefore knowledgeable enough to modify the execution of the exercises so that they add up to something -  most likely he will not assign you Hanon. Which means that a teacher who assigns Hanon most likely has not even reflected on all the above, s/he is just following tradition. Therefore you are facing a huge waste of time in the best case scenario and some nasty injury in the worst case scenario.  The second argument about salvaging Hanon is much simpler: Why bother? Instead play Scarlatti sonatas, or Bach 2 voice inventions. They will give you all the technique Hanon promises (without delivering) and much, much more.

Best wishes,
Bernhard

[StoreBrand]

Bernhard, wow you're on fire man!  You can bet that I'll be prowling through all of your posts for some time to come.  And what city do you teach in?  

My aikido post has been rendered moot by your comments of aikido's unrealistic self-defense techniques.  Geez, I thought you were also a black belt aikido practitioner charging that your friend was beaten simply because his philosophy was different from yours!  This was the backbone of my point and has turned out to be an incorrect assumption.  In other words, I made that long post for nothing (sigh)!   Oh ...well.

Ok Bernhard, I will confess.  I'm not going to lie to you.  A guy was showing me aikido techniques a couple of days ago and I listened to him for about 15 minutes.  He showed me some exotic (for lack of a better word) techniques for use in a street fight and all I did was listened.   Some of the moves could probably qualify you for a government check if you were ever documented attempting  them in an actual fight.

Well, I hope it is not mean for me to be saying this (sorry, aikidodians! I couldn't resist).  I really don't know anything about aikido.


Jon

[Legato]

Yes and no.

But before, I go on, let me give you an analogy. Bear with me, there is a point to it.  

You may have heard of the Japanese martial art of Aikido....

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

Bernhard,

I wish you were my teacher!  

Rob

[Drillyourtechnique]

Reading your posts of HT scales is interesting. What I find most interesting about technique is not just the actual training of the technique to be implemented into a piece, for example practicing broken 4 hand chords for the moonlight sonata 3rd movement, but for the general betterment of your piano abilities as a whole.  Clear as mud?

I find that technique is not only for the “technical” skill for virtuosity and dexterity, but teaches you patience in listening for a correct tone, touch, feel of the piano keys, and making your actual pieces sound just more “nice” for a lack of a better adjective.  I practice scales HT with PEDAL (sounds crazy, but wait), but it really does help to listen when to lift up the pedal, using it generously to create a rich warm sound, but applying with caution as to not totally destroy the essence of the technique.  Practice it like it’s a “concerto” or a sonata, not just finger drilling.  I know I’m guilty of daydreaming while doing scales, but I find that technique is the perfect thing to do when you want to play the piano but don’t have the time for mastering a sonata.

For example, I just picked up an old Nobou Uematsu number, FF-IV, The Battle, which I haven’t touched for months!  But anyhow the technique somehow triggered my long term memory and parts which did not have any real resemblance to actual technique just seemed to come back.  I can’t totally attribute the entire process of memory of this song respectively to technique rather than the actual musical notation, but I find it helps especially in passages that look like technique.  

That’s my 2 cents for technique.  

[fnork]

Bernhard,

So, Hanon is for no use for pianists (since there are better stuff out there, according to you)... why don't you tell Rachmaninov that? I heard that he could play any of them at double than Hanons highest recommended speed, in any tonality. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I think everyone in those conservatories in Russia at that time had to play them..

[bernhard]

Bernhard,

So, Hanon is for no use for pianists (since there are better stuff out there, according to you)... why don't you tell Rachmaninov that?

Haven’t you heard? He died in 1943, so no use telling him now. So I am telling you guys, who are still alive.

I heard that he could play any of them at double than Hanons highest recommended speed, in any tonality. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I think everyone in those conservatories in Russia at that time had to play them..

Yes, I guess you are right. 100 000 lemingues cannot possibly be wrong (specially if they are Russian lemingues…)

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[bernhard]

Here is another thought.

Hanon published his exercises in 1873. This means that keyboard virtuosos like Scarlatti, Haendel, J. S. Bach, C. P. E. Bach., W.F. Bach Mozart, Clementi, Dussek, Cramer, Field, Kalkbrenner, Weber, Moschelles, Beethoven, Chopin, Liszt, just to quote the most well known never had the benefit of learning Hanon by heart in all keys. What a terrible lack in their musical education! Just imagine how much better pianists they could have been if they had been born a century later!

 

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[Spatula]

Bernie-Sempai, lemingues wa nani desu ka?   

[BoliverAllmon]

so if scales are good, then why not mechanical exercises? Hanon promotes coordination between fingers which is something that happens in all music.

[xvimbi]

so if scales are good, then why not mechanical exercises? Hanon promotes coordination between fingers which is something that happens in all music.

You gave the answer yourself: If it happens in all music, why wasting your time playing Hanon. Are you going to perform it? The idea is that finger independence - as if there ever was something like this - is developed by playing "normal" music, therefore there is no need to use brainless exercises. In addition, "normal" music is not highly repetitive, so the danger to injure yourself is small, whereas it is high when playing the same thing over and over again (unless one already has perfect technique, in which case, one does not need Hanon anyway).

[BoliverAllmon]

then why scales? just work on them when you see them in music.

[mound]

then why scales? just work on them when you see them in music.

That actually is exactly what Bernhard suggests doing - playing scales in the key of the music you are working on.  - not playing scales "as they appear" in a piece of music (as if they ever appear straight up in a piece)  but playing scales in the key of the piece.

[bernhard]

Bernie-Sempai, lemingues wa nani desu ka?   

Alternative spelling: Lemmings.



Awwww!

Lemmings, family Cricetidae, are rodents that are closely related to voles and meadow mice. The animals burrow to make underground nests, which they line with grass or moss. They eat grass, roots, sprouts, and other plant materials. The mating season lasts from spring to fall, and the female bears up to 9 young after a 20-day gestation period.

From time to time for reasons not yet clear whole populations run to the top of a cliff and throw themselves into the sea committing mass suicide. Cold they possibly be wrong? Nah. Let us join them!

(The story maybe a myth: see here for more information –
https://www.encyclopedia.com/html/l1/lemming.asp
https://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/smgame/lemmings.php
https://www.saskschools.ca/~gregory/arctic/lemming.html)


Wakarimasu ka?

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[mound]

From time to time for reasons not yet clear whole populations run to the top of a cliff and throw themselves into the sea committing mass suicide. Cold they possibly be wrong? Nah. Let us join them!

wow, they actually do that? I thought that was urban legend!

[faulty_damper]

Why do they do that?

Why do dogs lick their "out" hole?

Because they can.

Because Lemmings can swim, that's why they do it.

[fnork]

Here is another thought.

Hanon published his exercises in 1873. This means that keyboard virtuosos like Scarlatti, Haendel, J. S. Bach, C. P. E. Bach., W.F. Bach Mozart, Clementi, Dussek, Cramer, Field, Kalkbrenner, Weber, Moschelles, Beethoven, Chopin, Liszt, just to quote the most well known never had the benefit of learning Hanon by heart in all keys. What a terrible lack in their musical education! Just imagine how much better pianists they could have been if they had been born a century later!

 

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

Here's another thought.

YOU said in one of your messages something in the lines with "Hanons excercises were published in 1873. Don't you think we've learned something about piano technique since then?". If you are right, it must mean that since Chopins etudes were published many decades before Hanons excercises, they are even more useless than Hanons stuff But seriously... As challenging as the etudes might be, they usually have a focus on a single technical problem, just as Hanons excercises usually have. We have op 10/1 with arpeggios in the right hand from the first to the last bar. The next etude is chromatics all the way. The difference between Chopins and Hanons works is that there is a lot of music in Chopins etudes, and they are more difficult to learn. I think it's great to practice Chopin etudes, but if I want to do something less demanding (memory-wise and musically speaking), I'd rather play Hanon. Overuse is probably bad though, but I can tell you that it feels much easier to play after practicing a bit of Hanon. I usually play the excercises that relate to the pieces I happen to be playing at the moment - the technical problems in those pieces - and after my Hanon practice, it feels easier for me to just play the music instead of thinking about technique.
¨
Here's another thought about one of the things you've said, which was that it's better to learn a lot of new pieces and develop your technique that way. It's a nice idea. But in another post, you wrote that when developing your technique, the "old and bad" technique which you had before it improved, is reminded in the old pieces you play. I understood this as that even though your technique develops with the new pieces you play, you might still have problems with the old pieces. And it's probably true in a way, too. But with that said, don't you think it's better to have some kind of okay technique in the first place (through excercises) rather than improving your technique while learning pieces? Because that way, it will be harder to improve technique in your old pieces.

Do you see what I mean? I'm asking because I'm not 100% certain myself But anyway, I do think that using excercises such as Hanons TO SOME EXTENT, is very good for your technique. But I agree with you that some of what Hanon writes in his excercises is wrong.

[Spatula]

From time to time for reasons not yet clear whole populations run to the top of a cliff and throw themselves into the sea committing mass suicide. Cold they possibly be wrong? Nah. Let us join them!

Hajibe Hari-Kari no seppaku Onegaishimasu!!!

Wakarimasu ka?

hai! wakarimash1ta

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

Oi! arigatou.

[ChristmasCarol]

I had to go back to the question to remember what this thread was about. lol.  Anywho.  I type 120 wpm.  The secret to fast typing is a steady rhythm.  So, no kidding, try using a metronome and see what your speed is.  As long as you keep it steady and moving you will pick up speed exponentially.  The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog typed at a regular speed a few times over and over will get you there too.   

[mound]

my typing speed was tested a few years ago, I think it was around 127 words per minute!

sometimes I'll be typing, and somebody will start talking to me, and I'll look at them and talk back to them, all the while continuing to type what I was typing in the first place..  which tends to freek them out, so I stop

I can't say I've ever used a metronome for typing! It's just a skill that I have developed gradually over the years spending so much time on a computer.

(ahh, the joys of typing for a living.. I'm a software engineer by trade.. so while tests are running and things are compiling, I have time to check for forum updates