Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
She said something to the effect it’s more important how you practice rather than how you learn technique.
How do you separate practising from learning technique? How you practise is how you learn technique. (I suspect that the word "technique" itself may need to be defined. .....)
Adding: In the post after mean I see mention of scales and exercises. I have often seen "scales", "arpeggios", exercises being called "technique". I do not see these as technique. How you do them physically, that to me is technique. That may demystify the question I asked above.
I remember that Daniel Baremboim's father who trained him on the piano commented somewhere that he saw no purpose in Hanon, Czerny, exercise, and scales when there was plenty of that already in the music he provided his son.
With some experience and a strong desire, everyone can do this, by the following procedure:
Passage from Sonata No. 15 by Mozart
And transpose to all keys:
After all transpositions, the original passage will come out much better than if you worked only on it.
Reasonable for a very advanced student but IMO not appropriate for the overwhelming majority of students.
She said something to the effect it’s more important how you practice rather than how you learn technique.
How do you separate practising from learning technique? How you practise is how you learn technique. (I suspect that the word "technique" itself may need to be defined. .....)
Adding: In the post after mean I see mention of scales and exercises. I have often seen "scales", "arpeggios", exercises being called "technique". I do not see these as technique. How you do them physically, that to me is technique. That may demystify the question I asked above.
Well, like I said I paraphrased poorly.
"the technique of practicing is more important that the practicing of technique."
To me I interpreted that as the manner in which you practice ie. with proper form, relaxation, concentration, appropriate tempo, evenness etc... is more important than just practicing your technique through scales, arpeggios, exercises, or the repertoire itself which can sometimes be mechanical or mindless.
My understanding from her conclusions is that she made much greater improvements in her playing because just working on (in particular) difficult pieces made her concentrate more (she called it hyperconcentration) and because the practice of her technique was in context with all the unexpected physical challenges you find in repertoire unlike exercises which are often linear and predictable- often leading to just mindless busy work. She changed the "task"- repertoire over scales because it was more engaging and challenging and she obtained improved motor control.
Does anyone remember that thread where the concept of Dynamics Systems Theory was discussed? The improvement in this violinists motor control and performance was predictable based on this theory. Her teacher intelligently forced her to change from the practice of a task that was quite linear, predictable, pretty non-engaging (scales) to one that was more dynamic and full of constraints and in context (repertoire)
Some may remember this video:
Mindlessly doing scales, exercises, arpeggios is analogous to doing squats like the football player in that video. It can be engaging but if the task is too simple and repetitive it can become quite mechanical. It's also out of context. If you have them bend their knees while catching a football- a more "dynamic" task, it's in context, it introduces constraints which are more challenging, more engaging and almost always results in better performance. This is what Argerich was trying to say (and others like Schiff, Horowitz, Barenboim and to my understanding Bach) though they most likely never studied modern theories in motor control). They understood from experience, or their teacher's experience that these exercises, scales, argeggios out of context often times do not produce as good a result as repertoire. Repertoire adds constraints that makes the task more challenging, engaging, mindful, and in context results in better performance gains. It also tends to be less mindless exercise and as this violinist found out forces you to concentrate harder. This is what Argerich observed when she commented that just because you can perform a certain exercise or scale from an exercise book does not mean you can do it while faced with the challenges (constraints) found in actual repertoire. Just because you can squat well does not mean you can squat well while catching a football because its out of context.
So this violinists findings were not so "strange" as she thought, quite expected actually.
Also to expand on my last post, dynamical systems theory/ecological theory of motor control applies to every aspect of piano performance including the question the OP asked in this thread: "Why is increasing tempo gradually recommended so much?" Well, I'm sure it because it got some results over the years and because of that, like scales, exercises, and arpeggios it became tradition. But we have that article in regards fast playing in context intermingled with slow playing to work out the details resulting in better performance. That again can be explained by dynamical system theory. Playing a piece too slow is oftentimes "out of context" so like scales that tasks might not carry over to the actual speed required. Also increasing tempo incrementally is "linear" which research shows is less effective at improving performance. So in theory, sometimes changing the task to play fast to put in back in context and slow to work out the details (varying tempo non-linearly) is a better way to optimize performance.
So when it comes to improving piano performance, dynamical systems theory says to constantly and non-linearly vary or address the task, the environment, and the individual.
In the violinist case her teacher already varied the task, made in challenging and unpredictable but even more could have been done to improve her overall performance (and may have been done).
For the task her teacher simply got rid of the repetitive, out of context, mindless scales practice and just handed her bunch of challenging material that had all sort constraints that forced her to problem solve and adapt resulting in better performance. She could have also varied tempo requirements/rules as the violinist practiced in a non-linear way as the recent article suggested. There are many ways in which teachers already have their students practice complex passages in music using varying rhythm patterns or other specific techniques that vary the task because it's effective.
For environment she could have had her play on different violins which offer their own different constraints on how they respond. She could have also had her play sometimes in front of an audience and sometimes by herself. Imagine a student pianist used to practicing alone in a practice room on a digital or an upright piano. His performance would obviously different if he had perform in front of an audience on a concert grand. The audience and the grand piano were constraints that would have not been anticipated by his teacher in this case. So you have the student practice on different pianos with different actions, with different seat heights, with the music in front of you and sometimes not, vary the tempo requirements, sometimes in front of an audience sometimes not. The musician will have to adapt and in the end should be a better performer.
For the individual, sometimes the constraints are structural. Maybe he needs to stretch his fingers or improve his posture because they have an upper crossed pattern with a forward head rounded shoulder posture which produces stiff and uncomfortable playing.
Anyways, this is just a brief of how motor control theories can help us all become better musicians. This example of this violinist making incredible progress in just 2 years is not surprising to me but sometimes it requires us to challenge tradition and that makes some people unfortunately very uncomfortable.
Also to expand on my last post, dynamical systems theory/ecological theory of motor control applies to every aspect of piano performance including the question the OP asked in this thread: "Why is increasing tempo gradually recommended so much?" Well, I'm sure it because it got some results over the years and because of that, like scales, exercises, and arpeggios it became tradition. But we have that article in regards fast playing in context intermingled with slow playing to work out the details resulting in better performance. That again can be explained by dynamical system theory. Playing a piece too slow is oftentimes "out of context" so like scales that tasks might not carry over to the actual speed required. Also increasing tempo incrementally is "linear" which research shows is less effective at improving performance. So in theory, sometimes changing the task to play fast to put in back in context and slow to work out the details (varying tempo non-linearly) is a better way to optimize performance.
So when it comes to improving piano performance, dynamical systems theory says to constantly and non-linearly vary or address the task, the environment, and the individual.
In the violinist case her teacher already varied the task, made in challenging and unpredictable but even more could have been done to improve her overall performance (and may have been done).
For the task her teacher simply got rid of the repetitive, out of context, mindless scales practice and just handed her bunch of challenging material that had all sort constraints that forced her to problem solve and adapt resulting in better performance. She could have also varied tempo requirements/rules as the violinist practiced in a non-linear way as the recent article suggested. There are many ways in which teachers already have their students practice complex passages in music using varying rhythm patterns or other specific techniques that vary the task because it's effective.
For environment she could have had her play on different violins which offer their own different constraints on how they respond. She could have also had her play sometimes in front of an audience and sometimes by herself. Imagine a student pianist used to practicing alone in a practice room on a digital or an upright piano. His performance would obviously different if he had perform in front of an audience on a concert grand. The audience and the grand piano were constraints that would have not been anticipated by his teacher in this case. So you have the student practice on different pianos with different actions, with different seat heights, with the music in front of you and sometimes not, vary the tempo requirements, sometimes in front of an audience sometimes not. The musician will have to adapt and in the end should be a better performer.
For the individual, sometimes the constraints are structural. Maybe he needs to stretch his fingers or improve his posture because they have an upper crossed pattern with a forward head rounded shoulder posture which produces stiff and uncomfortable playing.
Anyways, this is just a brief of how motor control theories can help us all become better musicians. This example of this violinist making incredible progress in just 2 years is not surprising to me but sometimes it requires us to challenge tradition and that makes some people unfortunately very uncomfortable.
Your post assumes practicing scales or some other exercise has to be mindless. For 99% of pianists two hours of technical work(like the violinist was doing) is not done, but I think 10-15 minutes of purely technical practice(scales, for example) seems quite easy to do in a mindful way for a serious and motivated student.
In addition, the violinist in question probably already has scales that were better than 99% of violinists, so what works and is relevant for her is not necessarily relevant for most violinists. Kind of like saying what works for Argerich is what works best for normal musicians.
Before writing more, I'd like to know whether you play the violin. I'm asking because that determines the kinds of things one can explore (reference, and such).
I'm also back to what is meant when writing about "technique". I'm asking because the discussion has turned to scales. Are scales being considered "technique"? I know sometimes they are. If discussing something, we need to be on the same page as to what we're talking about.
Also to expand on my last post, dynamical systems theory/ecological theory of motor control applies to every aspect of piano performance including the question the OP asked in this thread: "Why is increasing tempo gradually recommended so much?" Well, I'm sure it because it got some results over the years and because of that, like scales, exercises, and arpeggios it became tradition. But we have that article in regards fast playing in context intermingled with slow playing to work out the details resulting in better performance. That again can be explained by dynamical system theory. Playing a piece too slow is oftentimes "out of context" so like scales that tasks might not carry over to the actual speed required. Also increasing tempo incrementally is "linear" which research shows is less effective at improving performance. So in theory, sometimes changing the task to play fast to put in back in context and slow to work out the details (varying tempo non-linearly) is a better way to optimize performance.
So when it comes to improving piano performance, dynamical systems theory says to constantly and non-linearly vary or address the task, the environment, and the individual.
In the violinist case her teacher already varied the task, made in challenging and unpredictable but even more could have been done to improve her overall performance (and may have been done).
For the task her teacher simply got rid of the repetitive, out of context, mindless scales practice and just handed her bunch of challenging material that had all sort constraints that forced her to problem solve and adapt resulting in better performance. She could have also varied tempo requirements/rules as the violinist practiced in a non-linear way as the recent article suggested. There are many ways in which teachers already have their students practice complex passages in music using varying rhythm patterns or other specific techniques that vary the task because it's effective.
For environment she could have had her play on different violins which offer their own different constraints on how they respond. She could have also had her play sometimes in front of an audience and sometimes by herself. Imagine a student pianist used to practicing alone in a practice room on a digital or an upright piano. His performance would obviously different if he had perform in front of an audience on a concert grand. The audience and the grand piano were constraints that would have not been anticipated by his teacher in this case. So you have the student practice on different pianos with different actions, with different seat heights, with the music in front of you and sometimes not, vary the tempo requirements, sometimes in front of an audience sometimes not. The musician will have to adapt and in the end should be a better performer.
For the individual, sometimes the constraints are structural. Maybe he needs to stretch his fingers or improve his posture because they have an upper crossed pattern with a forward head rounded shoulder posture which produces stiff and uncomfortable playing.
Anyways, this is just a brief of how motor control theories can help us all become better musicians. This example of this violinist making incredible progress in just 2 years is not surprising to me but sometimes it requires us to challenge tradition and that makes some people unfortunately very uncomfortable.
Your post assumes practicing scales or some other exercise has to be mindless. For 99% of pianists two hours of technical work(like the violinist was doing) is not done, but I think 10-15 minutes of purely technical practice(scales, for example) seems quite easy to do in a mindful way for a serious and motivated student.
In addition, the violinist in question probably already has scales that were better than 99% of violinists, so what works and is relevant for her is not necessarily relevant for most violinists. Kind of like saying what works for Argerich is what works best for normal musicians.
That is a good point. If you approach scales purposefully, mindfully with an objective in mind they are just as good as any other manner of gaining technique but the technique would still be out of context.
Before writing more, I'd like to know whether you play the violin. I'm asking because that determines the kinds of things one can explore (reference, and such).
I guess it didn't have to be a violinist, it could have been a ballerina, or football player, or an olympic curler. They all require practice techniques. The brain doesn't know any different.
I'm also back to what is meant when writing about "technique". I'm asking because the discussion has turned to scales. Are scales being considered "technique"? I know sometimes they are. If discussing something, we need to be on the same page as to what we're talking about.
That's also a good point. Scales are not a technique. How you practice them is.
I'm also back to what is meant when writing about "technique". I'm asking because the discussion has turned to scales. Are scales being considered "technique"? I know sometimes they are. If discussing something, we need to be on the same page as to what we're talking about.
How could scales not be technique? Isn't technique the mechanical/physical part of playing?
I'm also back to what is meant when writing about "technique". I'm asking because the discussion has turned to scales. Are scales being considered "technique"? I know sometimes they are. If discussing something, we need to be on the same page as to what we're talking about.
How could scales not be technique? Isn't technique the mechanical/physical part of playing?
I don’t consider scales to be a technique, but rather a musical element that can be used to develop varied techniques: hand independence, smooth transition between notes, dynamic control
I don't consider scales = technique. Scales are perhaps a sub-set of technique, or useful in developing technique, but technique is much broader than scales.
It has been my impression that the people practicing scales for several hours a day are usually (1) self-taught and (2) under the mistaken impression that scales equal technique. Perhaps when they discover that all that time spent on scales didn't teach them how to play, they do in fact quit.
Yamaha C3X In summer, the song sings itself. --William Carlos Williams
I'm also back to what is meant when writing about "technique". I'm asking because the discussion has turned to scales. Are scales being considered "technique"? I know sometimes they are. If discussing something, we need to be on the same page as to what we're talking about.
How could scales not be technique? Isn't technique the mechanical/physical part of playing?
This is why I asked - to make sure what we were talking about. Ok, so:
Technique, for me is similar to what you said - the mechanical/physical part of playing. How do I move vis-a-vis my instrument in order to produce the sounds that I need to produce? This involves (1) physical (how do I use my body effectively without tension etc.), (2) the nature of the instrument (once a piano's hammer flies at the string, that's it, as one example; but we have dampers etc.), (3) understanding the kind of sound we are aiming to produce (loud, soft, even from note to note, legato etc.), and the ability to hear whether we have produced that sound. Would you agree?
A scale, in essence, is a sequence of notes spanning an octave with a set arrangement of tones and semitones between them. You could even call it a kind of melody that we want to be able to play in all keys. In and of itself, a scale is no more technique, than a melody is technique. For example: You can "learn your scales" by memorizing the "tone-tone-semitone etc." array; or memorize "1 sharp = G major, 2 sharps = D major" etc. and blithely poke out "all your scales" in some kind of fashion. You "go through your scales" and you "know them all". You can ignore jsut about everything (or everything) in what we set out as "technique" as you poke out your scales.
Technique practice is inherent in scales, if you choose to practice technique while working on scales. You yourself may have learned to always practise technical elements while doing scales, so that the two notions are fused as a single element. But many people simply learned "to do scales" without that, and possibly mindlessly just to get it over with.
I don't consider scales = technique. Scales are perhaps a sub-set of technique, or useful in developing technique, but technique is much broader than scales.
It has been my impression that the people practicing scales for several hours a day are usually (1) self-taught and (2) under the mistaken impression that scales equal technique. Perhaps when they discover that all that time spent on scales didn't teach them how to play, they do in fact quit.
I certainly didn't mean to imply scales were all there was to technique or think that was what the poster's question meant. Of course they're only a subset of technique. There are many other aspects e.g. arpeggios, playing legato, trills, playing staccato, dynamic control, octaves, thirds, jumps, playing fast, chords, voicing, bringing out contrapuntal lines, and countless others.
I'm also back to what is meant when writing about "technique". I'm asking because the discussion has turned to scales. Are scales being considered "technique"? I know sometimes they are. If discussing something, we need to be on the same page as to what we're talking about.
How could scales not be technique? Isn't technique the mechanical/physical part of playing?
This is why I asked - to make sure what we were talking about. Ok, so:
Technique, for me is similar to what you said - the mechanical/physical part of playing. How do I move vis-a-vis my instrument in order to produce the sounds that I need to produce? This involves (1) physical (how do I use my body effectively without tension etc.), (2) the nature of the instrument (once a piano's hammer flies at the string, that's it, as one example; but we have dampers etc.), (3) understanding the kind of sound we are aiming to produce (loud, soft, even from note to note, legato etc.), and the ability to hear whether we have produced that sound. Would you agree?
A scale, in essence, is a sequence of notes spanning an octave with a set arrangement of tones and semitones between them. You could even call it a kind of melody that we want to be able to play in all keys. In and of itself, a scale is no more technique, than a melody is technique. For example: You can "learn your scales" by memorizing the "tone-tone-semitone etc." array; or memorize "1 sharp = G major, 2 sharps = D major" etc. and blithely poke out "all your scales" in some kind of fashion. You "go through your scales" and you "know them all". You can ignore jsut about everything (or everything) in what we set out as "technique" as you poke out your scales.
Technique practice is inherent in scales, if you choose to practice technique while working on scales. You yourself may have learned to always practise technical elements while doing scales, so that the two notions are fused as a single element. But many people simply learned "to do scales" without that, and possibly mindlessly just to get it over with.
What do you think?
Agreed— scale practice needs to be mindful, focused on development of technique. Scales, of themselves alone, are not technique, but a tool that can be used to develop technique. I agree that many pianists just play them ‘to get them over with’ . I recall reading of pianists who read a book while playing them. Certainly not focused execution and listening.
A scale, in essence, is a sequence of notes spanning an octave with a set arrangement of tones and semitones between them. You could even call it a kind of melody that we want to be able to play in all keys.
Here's one example where a scale was used as the melody:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIFoAwJPtm4
I think 99% of professional pianists and piano teachers would say that scales are one part of technique. Just like trills, octaves, dynamic control, etc.
I think 99% of professional pianists and piano teachers would say that scales are one part of technique. Just like trills, octaves, dynamic control, etc.
Where do you get the 99% number?
I don’t agree that trolls are ‘technique’. A pianist needs the proper technique to play them
![[Linked Image]](https://i.ibb.co/yBxnV8p/Moz.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://i.ibb.co/T2c5R2W/untitled-2.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](https://forum.pianoworld.com//gallery/42/medium/15854.png)
Ok, so: