Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum I hate scales!

Certainly a valid option. I choose to apply the guiding principle to those scales as well, resulting in a different fingering pattern than you would use. I would contend that both fingering patterns are rational and should both be called standard. (and since as been pointed out, scales are not in the end interesting music anyway!.....)

But something you might not have noticed. I play one scale a week, but I play it in all modes. (E.g., when I do a C scale, I practice it C to C, then D to D, then E to E, etc.) If you do this, you'll play the modal scales in the guiding principle fingering and not in the so-called standard fingering.

Are you absolutely sure about that? I agree that a keyboard is far better as a universal reference point- compared to the position of the fingers on a clarinet. However, it's simply a case of there being 12 pitches. The easiest way to understand sharps and flats is in relation to a piano keyboard, sure. But other than the names that are used for notes, it's simply a case of 12 different notes being used.

That's not about which fingers come on which notes though. It's a classic example of the benefits of playing scales from the thumb with a standard 343 pattern, unless one has a very good reason to break from this simple model. Would you do the above exercise with reference points on the keyboard- with a different fingering for every one? Or would it make good sense to run from the lowest finger to the highest finger- encompassing exactly the number of notes required without the wastage of unnecessary shifts? Such an exercise exposes the limitations of drawing positions from regions of the keyboard. It doesn't expose any limitations to the idea that the thumb is a sensible starting point for a scale.

You say that both fingering patterns are rationsl? What is rational about using various fingerings for scales that can all be accomplished with a 343 pattern- without any physical or mental difficulty? Why start a simple scale in the middle of a hand position and why finish it in the middle of a hand position? The simplest way to achieve an octave scale is in two single hand positions. You cannot do this when starting on a black note, but why go to such an unnecessary effort when you're not starting from a black notes? I don't follow the logic of these variant patterns in any sense at all. It is neither more efficient (in fact it is considerably less efficient- as it requires more shifts of position) nor is it mentally easier to start mid-position. This is why scales that start on black notes have the illusion of considerably greater difficulty- C sharp minor and F sharp minor are really very easy, when you practise starting from the thumbs, before leading back in. So why?

You seem to be criticising conventional fingerings. The point is that they are a very simple and consistent means of accomplishing a task (at least for all 343 scales). It's the EASIEST way to play scales that start on a white tonic note, not a mere tradition. That's why the pattern gets dropped for F and B. Your replacement seems to be a case of keeping your hands in the same positions for the sake of nothing but a convention, regardless of whether there are easier ways to navigate between two octaves.

I'm all for alterations, for the sake of context, but the most standard pattern is there for a basis for maximum convenience, not for tradition. When it's not convenient (say if you start on the third degree of the scale, rather than the tonic note), you can change to whatever is.

Um, Betty, I quoted your post exactly as you wrote it, typo included. So,yes, you DID say "because." I wrote my post because your statement was not, strictly speaking, correct, and I thought it important to be accurate for archival purposes. It is simply not true that an octave consists of black and white notes. An octave consists of the span of tones encompassed by taking a pitch and doubling it. In Western music, that interval is divided into 12 logarithmically equally spaced tones. These tones are sounds and do not possess color, black or white. They are represented on a piano keyboard as a span of black and white keys, but surely you would concede that an octave would still be an octave even if the keys were painted blue and red. That is what I meant by saying that "black and white" keys were arbitrary.

I'm sorry if my comments cause you to become defensive. I believe in clarity of writing and meaning, and because these threads stay in the archives indefinitely, I feel it is important to be as accurate as possible in writing.

Sarah P., is that you in there?

Actually that's not true, either, at least for strings. It is similar to piano in the sense that the place where a particular note is found can be played by any particular finger, depending on what position the hand has taken at that moment ("shifting"). There is a nice cross-over between piano and strings in that sense. The part that is new to me in regards to the piano is the fact that the length of the fingers vis-a-vis raised black keys and lowered white keys is a factor. That does not exist in strings. In piano, for example, I understand that you want to avoid playing a black key with the pinky or thumb, but there is no particular note that you would avoid playing with the pinky in strings.

Oh, I'm not really arguing for one over the other. I'm just pleased that I appear to have retained what I learned when I was younger, and hope it means that I'll have a less abysmal time getting it to come back. :-)

Since I don't know if Betty Patnude actually has me on her official PW ignore list or is just ignoring me in the pre-computer style of ignoring, I didn't click on a reply button from one of her posts, so this comment will look as if I'm responding to J. Cortese - hi! - but I always think of comments in threads as being kind of free-for-all anyway, so I've never paid much attention to the reply-to-an-individual line above my post. I generally quote someone or address them by name. I'll be more aware of it in the future.

However that may be, since she is, apparently, ignoring me, I suppose I will never get an answer to my question about mathematics, science, and physics, which she keeps invoking while implying that some of the rest of us are woefully ignorant. I'll admit I haven't gotten an answer when I've asked it before, either, so I didn't really have high hopes.

I suppose I also wouldn't get an answer to a couple of questions I had about this, from her post on the C major scale:



I've read some of Betty's posts about tetrachords before, and as far as I remember they were correct (although I don't use them in my conceptualization of the keyboard - alas, that's one thing I've just read about in a book). But this looks odd to me. I thought for awhile she had just made a typo on the last W, but then I saw that she used a scale degree of 9 underneath, so thought there might be something I was missing. It wouldn't be the first time I've missed something :\

I'm really curious about the answers to my questions, so I'm sorry I'm probably not going to get answers. Life is full of small disappointments, I suppose.

I have found the discussion about alternate fingerings for scales interesting. There have been times when I've found myself working out fingering that wasn't "standard" and, while I'm not silly enough to believe I'm the first one to do that, I'd never seen it brought up in polite company before I really like seeing the teachers here on this forum being open to discussions like this. Thanks - I learn a lot.

Cathy

Monica: Um, Betty, I quoted your post exactly as you wrote it, typo included. So,yes, you DID say "because." I wrote my post because your statement was not, strictly speaking, correct, and I thought it important to be accurate for archival purposes. It is simply not true that an octave consists of black and white notes. An octave consists of the span of tones encompassed by taking a pitch and doubling it. In Western music, that interval is divided into 12 logarithmically equally spaced tones. These tones are sounds and do not possess color, black or white. They are represented on a piano keyboard as a span of black and white keys, but surely you would concede that an octave would still be an octave even if the keys were painted blue and red. That is what I meant by saying that "black and white" keys were arbitrary.

Betty: And, again, I am referring to the visualization of looking at the keyboard and making sense of it. In my teaching, the one octave C Major Scale is the basis of teaching major scale formulas through graphic visualization combined with hands on the keyboard. The process of how I teach this is not being explained here. What is said is that it is possible

In the Key of C Major C to C: there are 7 white keys and 5 black keys. The notes of the C Major Scale include only the white keys used because of the tetrachord spellings. The group of 2 black keys and 3 black keys are clearly seen as to establising fingering concepts (0 flats/0 sharps, a totally 'natural' major scale spelling). Visualize this again. From this octave range (C to C) using tetrachords, all scales have their start by selecting each one of the keys (black and white) to build a major scale upon.

Monica: "It is simply not true that an octave consists of black and white notes."

Betty: I have already previously stated the definition of an octave, put the component parts into my presentation, I am not responsible for defending the comments that you choose to make. As for being defensive, for your information, I am the one merely trying to set things straight. I don't have a learning difficulty problem. And, you say you are correcting for archival referances? What a gem that is! This ends any further communication between us Monica. I have no need to participate in dissection. When I post, I mean what I say. If I make a mistake I am thankful to set it straight. This is not that situation. People can only perceive in the way that they already perceive - perhaps there is something missing in our individual perceptions that would greatly change our perceptions if it were already known to us. Really the message of Steven Hawking that I've referred to before.

Mathematics? Physics? Who cares. It's about music ... hopefully. Scales are necessary and should be practiced, but once the scale is known - and the chords from that scale too, I advise students to stop practicing scales and start making music.

Of course, this will not apply to the classical pianist who won't learn automatic fingering but instead must play exactly as told.

Nope, just a typo. I'll fix it tonight.

Again, I couldn't agree more.

Cathy

In the interest of full disclosure, I did not learn all the "standard" scale fingerings until my senior year in college. A systematic study of technique wasn't really something my teacher and I were interested in, so we just addressed things as it came up in repertoire.

In 20 years of teaching, however, I've noticed that it seems to be a matter of personal choice - some people like to be very systematic in their approach to technical training, others tend to look for it in repertoire or exercises chosen or invented "as needed."

I haven't noticed anything to suggest one way is better than another.

The same goes for how one learns scales. Some prefer starting with black key scales (B, F#, C#) because of the way they fit the hand. Others prefer starting with C Major, because the keyboard topography is less complicated and it's easier to visualize. Still others work well using the tetrachord approach Betty described above.

I don't think it's particularly helpful to debate which approach(es) are superior. All have been proven effective in certain circumstances. What is helpful is to understand how each of the approaches works so that we can apply it in the studio - with our students or with ourselves.

I appreciate your postings, Kreisler!

The circumstances are such that there are many choices of if, when, and how to work music theory into the scheme of piano lessons.

Some people love being random and abstract, a characteristic that I have had my whole life time. It was, for me, the beginning of a good music education when I learned that the concrete and sequential part of music and of teaching music was an extremely important process to learning. And, I wanted to learn to incooperate both ways for myself and in my teaching.

What to do with any one student depends on their attention spans, abilities to learn, analyze, memorize, and the present quality of their playing along with their potential and the information that will help them reach their goals - whatever they may be. Curiosity is a virtue here. Otherwise, it can feel like feeding a toddler pablum one spoon at a time. With a students interest and capacity to absorb, the job of instilling music theory and techniques are much easier and actually fun.

We proceed accordingly.

Now that I've been able to absorb it, I am very interested in preserving the gems of thinking and observing relationships and patterns hidden to us in our music. I didn't learn them until age 27 and Kreisler is saying his last year of college and I know he had certainly become a fine performer by that time. My pursuit of music was interrupted for 12 years! I was one of the adults returning to music lessons when I restarted!

So, we all make the journey at the pace we encountered. One can go leisurely in a random or abstract way, or one can gobble up the information using concrete and sequential. If one uses both simultaneously I think he or she is operating with a fully utilized musical brain of which the content is derived from the many things we are exposed to in learning. The time and effort at the task cement it for us.

The other option is to play music and to be unaware of the underpinning of the "who, where, what, why, when and how of it. It is essentially, each of us choosing to take music to the maximum of our enjoyment and abilities....and sometimes to the maximum of our budgets! I think it can also be done on a dime if one has lots of curiosity, exposure, and sense of direction.

I do not intend to say that any one way is right for every one - piano students come with many different learning styles, aptitudes and goals - and we certainly must take their preferances into account while helping them develop their musicianship.

I believe it is the hallmark of a successful teacher to understand the learning style and objectives of a given student and design a learning program that plays to their style.

The teacher's approach to technical training should not just follow from the teacher's belief system but from what works for a given type of student.

Recognition that some students will not all be "ripe" for certain approaches at the same pace is part and parcel of designing an effective, personalized curriculum.

Golly, Jotur, do you think I can have a dispensation for a typo "9" like Kreisler got for the error in his pdf document?

And, my answer to the "math/science" is that the principles exist in music theory. I do not add to the complexity of music by trying to discuss the actual processes of math/science involved. It is in referance to math and science not directly applied. Just as there is accountability and proof in math and science there is accountability in music theories.

Yes, I am ignoring you and a few others. Since you asked a direct question I'll give a direct answer. It might be easier for "you" (collectively) to ignore my posts. There would probably be other posters who would like to avoid the confrontations that don't have to be.

To ignore someone: where their name appears on the left of their post, click. One of the options there is to ignore. Very helpful invention that Frank thought to include. I am taking advantage of it since it works for some of us. But, I do see the content from any watched topic when it is sent to my home email. So, it isn't completely flare proof. My other option, which I have explored before, is to stop posting altogether.

May I pull rank and mention I've been teaching for 40 years?

I absolutely agree with you. This is another example of "All Roads (should) Lead to Rome".

I learned my scales later too, although probably about 9th grade. My teacher gave me a Hanon book, said to learn them, and I did. I do think they are a big help in building a firm foundation, but as I've said elsewhere, knowing the standard fingers for all major and minor scales (the standard forms taught) is the beginning of solving passage work, not the answer to it.

Which is an excellent idea.

Also an excellent idea, depending on age, level and learning style.

Wise words. I had given up seeing some sanity in the middle of so much heated debate.

Absolutely you can have dispensations for typos. It's just that the last W in the line above it seemed to indicate something besides the last note of a major scale, and so I thought maybe the two together meant something I wasn't aware of.



So you don't directly use the information you have, information which you imply that the rest of us are ignorant of. I have no problem with that. But I'd still prefer that you be accountable, here, for what you apparently know. Walk the talk, as we say. What do you know of the math, science, and physics, and how does it inform your teaching, even though you don't directly use it (which is fine)? And if it doesn't even inform your teaching, why do you bring it up here so often, and what difference would it make even if most of the rest of us were ignorant of it?



It would be easier for you, I suppose, if I ignored your posts. But, as for others, clear writing and accuracy of information is important to me. I'll admit I also don't agree that the rest of us are ignorant because we sometimes disagree with you. And your invoking of math, science, and physics "cuts no ice" with me unless you actually post about it.

Don't know how you need to deal with the fact that you get my posts in your home e-mail. Perhaps you'll think of something. Maybe the minute you know it's mine you can quit reading. Just a thought.

Cathy

God, I'm getting sick of the back-biting, posturing and basically catty comments here.

Why don't you guys give it a break and contribute instead of engaging in this endless and unproductive sniping.

Really? I'm enjoying the show.



Nothing like a good old-fashioned cat fight to get the juices flowing!