UK Piano Page Piano Forum

Looking through some books on the topic of piano practice, I notice how most recent authors on the topic are severely critical of traditional methods. The constant repetition of scales, arpeggios and broken chords are, as they see it, little more than time wasting - little is learned of musical value, in the short term, and the development of essential skills are unecessarily delayed for years.
This viewpoint was echoed by somebody I was talking to recently - he asked me why his two daughters, after four years of formal piano lessons, could could hardly yet play anything noteworthy on the piano. He obviously felt let down, he had payed for the lessons.
I didn't have an answer, though I was tempted to blame the daughters - now I'm not so sure!
Any comments?

The problem as I see it - and it is prevalent in the education system too - is that there is little opportunity be it due to effort on the part of the pupil or provision on the part of the teacher, for the student to apply skills being developed in music lessons. Music students that are typically taught an instrument plough through scales, arpeggios, studies, and even music pieces for examinations, but there has been little emphasis on developing musical skills and even musical tastes by looking outside set music.

If you think, memorising doubles table facts at school (i.e. 2+2, 3+3....) would have been useless to us and probably would have grown dim had we not had a use of motivation to use these number facts in the world around us. Teachers have a responsibility to enthuse and enrich children's learning by being sensitive to their pupils' technical needs BUT in the same way, children do need to have an interest and motivation also if anything is to be gained from music lessons. It is frightening how many people I know that have Grade 8 piano, but can't play anything for peanuts - why? Because they never had an application or extension of their musical ability outside the traditional private piano lessons which made their experience more of a chore than a pleasure.

In the case of the two girls you mentioned, Geelan; I wonder how much music they are playing OUTSIDE of the stuff they are doing for exams. Are they looking for stuff that they can play themselves? Is their teacher giving them something that relates to their interest and ability? Based on what you are saying, the answer is "Probably not"... Exams should only ever be used as an endorsement of skills you possess or at the very most, a target or benchmark to which a well-rounded and fully developed musician at that level can campare themselves. Problem is that people see exams as hurdles rather than targets which leads to all manner of wacky learning habits, memorisation be the main one. This is also how we get Grade 8 pianists who go through the exam and come out with a distinction, but would be hard pushed to play 'Happy Birthday'. To be frank, this type of pianist is no better than the people who buy their degrees online and pass themselves as academics.

Parents are rather naive about this point too and have to shoulder some of the blame for this also. Many parents fall into the trap of thinking that the sooner their child gets through to Grade X, the faster they are on their way to becoming a better musician and so, you get parents saying "I don't want any of that repertoire stuff. Just get him through these next few grades". Any musician can coach someone through a grade, but few people can teach someone on their journey through a grade. What we have today among too many private music teachers is piano coaching NOT piano teaching.

Geelan wrote:Looking through some books on the topic of piano practice, I notice how most recent authors on the topic are severely critical of traditional methods. The constant repetition of scales, arpeggios and broken chords are, as they see it, little more than time wasting - little is learned of musical value, in the short term, and the development of essential skills are unecessarily delayed for years.

That's because there isn't really anything musical (in the sense of appreciating timbre, mood, tone, etc) in these activities. Many musical styles and structures are based on a scale or arpeggio or even a broken chord. Improvisation stems from these foundations as well as an awareness of chords. If you take these into consideration, I can hardly see how this could be branded as "little... learned of musical value". These also have important links to developing hand control and makes one more sensitive to fingering. No doubt, scales and arpeggios will not give you a musical appeciation of the style and ethos of music performance of music from the baroque period but they're not meant to! They are only part of the process of developing the musician.

I am SO ready for an argument tonight!

Blimey quick.. Mark needs a higher soap box !!!!

Linzy x

louttrim wrote:Blimey quick.. Mark needs a higher soap box !!!!

Linzy x

Smart Alec!

Do you want me to start on you next?

Oh no! This looks really interesting, but I've got to go do lesson plans for next week!!

So just to give my tuppence worth... I think scales and arpeggios q43 necessary, but as part of a wider context of piano technique. Being able to play scales perfectly does not make someone a good pianist. Though most good pianists are likely to be good at scales!!

Hi Dave

Yeah, been teaching from 3.30 til after 9. Wee bit frazzled! Thursday is little kids night for me, so have to be super enthusiastic and focused!! Although, I'd probably say the same thing about the adult lessons too!! I do love teaching, but because I love it so much I put in so much energy, which leaves me a bit knackered when I'm finished. Plus I had my flute lesson today As Mark said on the other post, it's the breathing! Plus, I keep trying to dynamics with my fingers - as if it's a horizontal blown piano. Deary me.

How's the practice going today? I should probably move this to the chit-chat forum shouldn't I!?

Erm, yeah, scales..... Oooh! I taught one 8 year old her first scale tonight. It's good to get little ones out of the five-finger position as soon as possible, I think, in order that they don't fully associate notes with finger numbers rather than pitches.

Well I have "little kids day" five days a week, during the day which is why I opted to keep my evenings free completely!

dave brum wrote:Well, he is a teacher, and consequently well used to Markymarking other kids' essays!

Precisely! A teacher who sat through a two hour staff meeting this afternoon, listening to two female colleagues go emotional over the head of a commercial literacy scheme. I was just in the mood for a direct oration this afternoon!

Marky - Looks like I sure yanked your chain with this one!

I don't interpret either author as criticizing scales, arpeggios and broken chords in themselves. As both yourself and Dave point out, they are essential building blocks. But the authors are certainly critical of the emphasis placed on the the constant repitition required in traditional teaching methods. The endless hours of repetitious practice could be more wisely used, they believe, in developing musical appreciation and in the actual making of music, by putting 'present skills' to immediate use.

The Cannel/Marx book emphasises the way music is put together. They would see the appreciation of chordal relationships, harmonic and non-harmonic, as the better way to learning to play the piano and understanding and teaching musical structure.

From "How To Play The Piano Despite Years of Lessons" by Ward Cannel and Fred Marx.
"As already noted, there is very little you can do for people who prefer to go through all that work, learning and practicing all the basic scales just so they can pull out the basic chord from each."


Chang's book is similarly critical of traditional practice. Because of the complexity of piano playing, traditional teaching embraced intuitive methods of teaching. Chang argues that it is precisely beacause of the complexity involved in piano playing that non-intuitive methods prove 1000 time more fruitful.

From the preface of "Fundamentals of Piano Practice" by Chuan C. Chang:
"In summary, this book represents an unique event in the history of piano pedagogy and is revolutionizing
piano teaching. Surprisingly, there is little that is fundamentally new in this book. We owe most of the major
concepts to Yvonne (Combe), Franz, Freddie, Ludwig, Wolfie, Johann, etc. Yvonne and Franz gave us hands
separate practice, segmental practice and relaxation; Franz and Freddie gave us the “Thumb Over” method
and freed us from Hanon and Czerny; Wolfie taught us memorization and mental play; Johann knew all about
parallel sets, quiet hands, and the importance of musical practice, and they all showed us (especially Ludwig)
the relationships between math and music. The enormous amounts of time and effort that were wasted in the past, re-inventing the wheel and futilely repeating finger exercises with every generation of pianist, staggers
the imagination."

As for techniques of playing, Gyorgy Sandor in his book "On Piano Playing" criticises what I had believed infallible - the placing of the thumb under the palm:
" One of the most damaging technical errors is the habit of placing the thumb under the palm."

As Marky points out, the Grade system is exam driven. I have it in my own school - if it's not on the syllabus, we don't want to hear it. Parents are likeminded.

I can see a lot of worth in what the above authors are saying but, though an instinctive traditionalist, I now need good reasons before I will feel comfortable in either camp.

The point about the father and his daughters really yanked my chain!

Educational practice is the same. Concepts and practice change like the swing of the pendulum. They go with the new idea, but always come back to the traditional practice to greater or lesser extents.

To an extent, I think that they may be making mountains of mole-hills here. I know what they are saying about creativity, but I would say that the exam-driven teaching approach, narrow repertoire, restricting music teaching to legal music reading only without exploring improvisation and other music styles would be even more detrimental to the creativity and expressive development of musicians.

Markey - Billy the Kid wasn't as quick- just back from the loo and you're there!

Yes. I have a similar attitude. For self-teaching the eclectic approach is, perhaps, the better way of finding a middle path here - long live Socrates and his Golden Mean!
By the way, the Kemble will arrive tomorrow morning. I'll certainly be putting all of those teaching concepts to the test!

It's called efficiency, Geelan!
I'm the paperwork god at school!

still in fighting mode, Mark?? Bring it on!!

I've been battling with my scales this week, but I do understand the necessity of doing them. Good warm up practise for my fingers if I'm feeling lazy, but good for getting my ears listening properly too.

I'm interested in Mark's deity status....

Linzy

Geelan wrote: The constant repetition of scales, arpeggios and broken chords are, as they see it, little more than time wasting - little is learned of musical value, in the short term, and the development of essential skills are unecessarily delayed for years.
Any comments?

''I believe this matter of insisting upon a thorough knowledge, particularly scale playing, is a very vital one. The mere ability to play a few pieces does not consitiute to musical proficiency.''
Rachmaninov

''I condsider the pratice of scales important not only for the fingers, but also for the discipline of the ear with regard to the feeling of tonality (key), understanding of intervals, and comprehension of the total compass of the piano.''
Josef Hofmann

Here! Here! Most things are learned through repetition anyway, as an arty person I like to think of scales as the paints, the piano as the brush.
Scales are your colour palete...not that I'm much of a musician, but I'm beggining to see the importance of them as the building blocks of music.

Well it does stand to reason that repetition is the best and the most effective way to learn. At the end of the day, if "repetition" is being used properly, then it's not morbid repetition at all. It's reinforcement!

You only need to examine the vogues in teaching kids to read; they come and go, but they keep coming back to the tried and tested methods eventually....

Oh don't go there Gill! My colleagues are going neurotic over the head of that topic at the moment!

Still, it is true. Guided reading is just managed a different way, but going through a book in class and then reading at home is a common practice used in schools and it backs up the reinforcement of language. Books in the scheme will reinforce the same languag but in a different context which is why I am keen for repetition of a skill in music, but within the context of different pieces of music so that pupils develop an awareness of the skill but within a variety of musical applications and contexts.

I have no reason to believe those authors (subversives to some, obviously ) are dismissing or undermining the fundamentals of well established teaching practice ie, reinforcement, pattern recognition, skill development, testing etc.
They are addressing, as I see it, the inefficiencies and shortcomings inherent to any general curriculum and its widespread implementation.
As you know, a general curriculum is devised for a population based on that population's norms of ability, age, motivation, projected skill development and so on - it is not devised for the individual. Each individual will be uniquely and unequally targeted by the curriculum. And for each one the curriculum will have its efficiencies and inefficiencies.
This is quite evident in the school context - there are some students who lag behind, some who are always two or three steps ahead, while the majority cope well with the demands made on them.

Traditional methods of piano practice, according to subversive theory , when blindly accepted will certainly not be the most efficient and effective methods for everyone. That such methods have stood the test of time, says nothing about their efficiency for specific individuals - it would be interesting to see a ratio, since Victorian times, for those who were successful against those who gave up in boredom. Because somebody enjoys practising scales, like I do, makes no statement whatsoever as to how efficient that practice is for me to become a pianist. A half hour at the scales, delightfully running up and down the full length of the keyboard, may well be time inefficiently spent. Supposing I spent fifteen minutes of that half hour tackling some legato - might I have better spent my time?
On the other hand, a complete deviation from traditional methods is a ridiculous suggestion - simply because they embrace all of the fundamentals of good teaching practice. Yet, the question of efficiency in personal piano practice, addressed by those authors is, I believe a very valid one. Each individual should be attempting to discover what is best for themselves - the problem, though, is how to assess the effectiveness of such deviations from the norm?

Well, again this is where the teacher comes into play also. The LTCL in instrumental teaching gears itself towards developing this skill. Good classroom teachers are doing this on a daily basis, however, assessing HOW people learn is something that seems fairly new to instrumental teaching training, speaking specifically about the diplomas of course. B.Ed. and P.G.C.E. holders will have been trained and assessed rigorously on this point.