I have a very methodical way that I teach scales. It has worked with 95% of my students to the point where they can play them, correct fingering, in their sleep.

I usually start with C (I call it C Major Bootcamp) until they get the fingering down pat, then we begin going down the circle of 5ths.

I have 2 adult students who understand the concepts of key signatures very well and have actually learned the keyboard topography of the first 5 keys - CGDAE - HT, 2 oct, to the point where even if their fingering messes up, they can still compensate on the spot and play all the correct keys.

I know how important it is to get fingering down for scales but I wonder if I'm holding them back from learning the other keys. It's been over 6 months, slowly adding each key in.... we're still not consistently getting the fingering right, mostly it's the left hand going back down when we're playing hands together. (2 octs) Tried many dif things but nothing seems to work consistently.

My Question:
Should I keep them stuck on CGDAE until they can consistently fix the fingering at the risk of holding them back on key signature knowledge that they can easily handle intellectually?

I'm not a music teacher, but I am a language teacher and a piano student. I am increasingly finding parallels between developing the two skills.

If my teacher kept me at something for six months when I was pretty much there and could find my way around the keyboard I'd be going insane.

I understand the importance of being able to do the scales but let's be realistic -what are your student's goals? I bet you sure as anything they don't want to be playing scales, they want to be playing music.

It seems to me you already have a pretty strong gut feeling about how to handle this, and I would agree with you. With adult learners (in any context) keeping the intellectual stimulation going is as important, sometimes even more important, than making theim focus on a sticking point. (I teach adults too btw).

Why not try moving forward (maybe even with pieces that incorporate the technique into the music )- tell the student in advance that you're trying a new strategy - leave the troublesome scales for a bit and then come back to them in a few weeks - I bet 10 to 1 you will see they come back to it refreshed, the info may very well have settled at the sub-concious level, and they'll be ready to tackle it again.

No, you need to put the monkey on their backs.

The primary problem is probably they don't grasp the importance of scales and thus are not working on them at home to any great degree.

What I do really depends on the student, but here are a couple of suggestions.

For older students, appeal to their intellect: Point out that scales means steps and what they are doing is learning how to play from one note to the next, quickly. The fastest way is playing 1-2-3-4-5, but unfortunately, an octave has 7 notes, so we have to use combinations of 1-2 and 1-2-3-4-5, or 1-2-3 and 1-2-3-4. Which do they think is easier?

From there, I point out that certain key patterns work better with certain fingers than others. That's we pianists have had two plus centuries to experiment, and we're pretty sure we've solved the problem. However, if they wish to experiment, go ahead. But if they want to save time and energy, I'll show them what we've learned.

Point out to them that the 4th finger is used only once per octave, so as they practice a scale, they should focus on that 4th finger note.

I also use block groups of notes initially, so they can get a feel to where the hands go.

We also do slow practice together, gradually speeding up, but stopping if they make a fingering error.

Hope some of these ideas help.

John

I'd try some other scales. There's no harm in it, and depending on how they learn (left brain vs right brain -- linear vs holistic) many people are helped by having as broad an overview as possible.

Question - are they learning these reading off music or by memory? I can understand memory is the ultimate goal but what about having them use music or some sort of visual reminder if they aren't already?

Thanks for posting this. At the risk of offending you, which is not my intent, but rather to use your post as an object lesson, I don't think you really understand why your teacher has you learn scales. If you want to play the piano well, scales, which are playing key to key up and down the keyboard, are foundational.

Consider the soccer coach who has a student refusing to run laps, because "I just want to play the game." Sure, that student will be able to play a mediocre game, but will never excel. What do you think the coach would say? Learning and executing scales is pretty much the same thing. It will help you even out your playing, both rhythmically and tonally.

I've tried something new lately. I'm experimenting on the 6 year old student that I've built from the ground up (she came to me at 4, she's never had any other teacher). Thanks to teaching group piano at the university, and thanks to Chopin's beliefs on scales, I started her on the grouped black key scales first: B, F#, C#. They're easy to see and understand and they're also easy to pick up. My student has caught on very quickly and we can even play scales with a metronome on because of how easy it is to play.

If this works out; that is, if I can take these black key scales and extrapolate to the white key scales without too much problem (and we've already done C in contrary motion, as well as chromatic scales) then I'll definitely teach the so-called "more difficult" scales first from now on.

I used to think that eb and bb were the toughest minor keys, but after teaching group piano, that belief has been tossed out the window. g# is a toughie now.

This is an oft stated sentiment, but I've always found it strange that while it sounds reasonable in music, if you turn it around and use the same analogy in sports, it sounds a little ridiculous. For example:

"I understand the importance of being able to do push-ups, but let's be realistic - what are your player's goals? I bet you sure as anything they don't want to be doing push-ups, they want to be playing football."

In other words, the importance of fundamentals in sports is usually taken for granted. Good physical conditioning strengthens the players' performance on the field.

In music, people often think of fundamentals as taking time away from the real music making.

Just some food for thought...

I don't take offence - and I do see your point (great analogy)- I just feel that there has to be balance. The kids run laps, and they play - they don't only run laps, right? If you never let a child on the field, he'd (or she'd) never understand why the laps are important.

I think that by getting people to play pieces that contain the target technique, you get them to realize on their own that they don't have it and they'll likely be more willing to try.

I compare it to teaching grammar and teaching peole to speak English. You can give them all the rules you like, but if you don't get them to move out of the exercise, they never get how important the exercise is.

....and yes, my teacher does make me do scales I grin and bear it.

But that is my point - you have to get on the field, you can't ONLY do the sit ups.

From what the OP said it sounds like she has these students drilling away at scales and not doing anything else. She said she's worried about holding them back. I think there has to be a reasonable compromise that gets you to the same result - albeit in a different (slower possibly) fashion.

If I see an adult student struggling with something, I move on to something else for a while, then come back to the problem point. Otherwise you build frustration and resentment.

I certainly don't deny the importance of learning these things, just the approach and timing .

Balance

Just explain 343. It's unbelievably simple and covers every single one of those scales for both hands. Under 3 under 4 under 3 one way. 3 over, 4 over, 3 over the other. If that's understood then everything is virtually guaranteed. It's a complete waste of time be looking at it as 1231234123 etc.

If a student cant do it right still, then make them go slow and shout out every one of these numbers- but not any other fingers. If they can't do this out loud (and it must be out loud, regardless of whether they can sometimes get it right or not), they haven't go used to the necessary thinking.

Also, as a complementary approach, explain that fourth fingers only ever come next to the key note. The thumb on the keynote should be a major point of focus. Three is the 'normal' finger . Whereas 4 has no business coming anywhere other than next to the keynote (in these standard scales).

With such simple premises underlying everything, anyone can grasp this is seconds. Once the premise is understood, the only issue is to go slow enough to be sure that you actually think about these rather than run the fingers. Personally I wouldn't use the book for this at all. You need to understand the pattern. Only a complete simpleton would need to read that off a page. Having someone else understand it for you is no use.

Yeah... N, that method doesn't always work, especially once students put their hands together. They get confused. There is only so much hacking and repetition you can do before you need to move on.

Not at first necessarily. However, it always works in the end when I get them to go slow. It's still 343 (well, 334433 now) and you still only ever take 4s next to the keynote. I especially make them shout out 3s and 4s when doing it with both hands. If they can't do that, they're just running their fingers with no landmarks on the way. That's just leaving it to chance and offers no means of fixing anything. Half the time students don't even know when they've taken the wrong fingers- if they only run them without thinking. The simplest solution is to stop and take notice of 343. You have to a guaranteed way of getting it right, before you start running your fingers and relying on habit.

Perhaps most important, a student who follows this approach will always spot a mistake (assuming they really are following). And be able to fix it straight after. When the student has no means of feedback, they can spend a whole week between lessons with the wrong fingering- without the teacher being there to point it out. Knowing whether you get it right or not is absolutely essential.

I find that clustering and having a visual of where the finger groups should go works much better than brute force drilling of the 3-4 pattern. It's also beneficial to the student to see black key groups and know appropriate fingering, or to see CDE/FGAB groups and know the appropriate fingering.

I use the clusters myself. However, it makes every scale look different- hence massive scope for confusion if this is all you have. If you also show what is absoltuely consistent in all cases, you have a much more rounded understanding. Many things are almost the same but not quite. There are also tonnes of exceptions to the black principles. It really pays to have a more consistent foundation, but to use such things on top of that. I think one of the biggest problems in scales is how different 24 keys can look. With the 343 or thumbs always together approach to fingering (eg. F and B where thumb always coincide) you can use only two consistent fingering principles to cover over 20 of the keys with identical fingering (exceptions being only B flat, E flat and G sharp minor- and F sharp minor with standard fingering although I personally use a 343 variant). There are virtually no exceptions at all. It really simplifies the foundations, if you understand how.

For me what usually works is relying on three things:

1. 3-4 pattern (standard fingering applies: C, G, D, A, E which is a trick scale, E, 2 white, 2 black, E, repeat ad nauseum)
2. CDE/FGAB clusters (works for flat keys like Bb, Eb, Ab in the RH, because LH always does 3-4-3-4 except F)
3. Black key clusters (B, F#, C#)

24 keys don't look all that different, considering some of them look exactly the same! :P

If you use the thumbs together principle it covers F major and minor, B major and minor, D flat major, B flat minor, F sharp major, E flat minor. One third of all the keys in a completely consistent single principle! Also, A flat major fall under 343 if you think around C.

I see your point for the 2nd group, but my problem would be that it doesn't aid the co-ordination between hands. It just gives ideas the separate hands and then you have to rote-learn putting them together. I think that by conceiving the fingerings in relation to both hands, it makes it much easier to get a solid foundation. I like to base everything on understanding the two guiding principles and leave as little down to rote-learning as possible. In the 3 remaining exceptions, I also seek to base the principle on relating the hands together. Only G sharp minor falls down and needs to be learned outside.

casinitaly - I think scales are just part of her lessons, not the totality, and she is discussing two adult students.

Adults can reason and grasp the whys. The do as I say approach won't work very well with most adults precisely because we can think and analyze. Many of us are independent, perhaps even a bit too independent. The adults in question should probably be asking "Why scales every week" and she should have a darn good answer ready to go. If it's not convincing, they won't work on their scales and in the end, punish themselves!

That's... exactly what the black key grouping is. Group of two black keys gets 2-3. Group of 3 black keys gets 2-3-4. Or CDE gets 1-2-3, FGAB gets 1-2-3-4. Hands can work together all the time because as soon as you get to a group, you use the appropriate fingering (and of course the theory should be known).

You could also say that to prepare for things like f# or c# that all you need to do is play the relative major with the appropriate fingering, then instead of ending on the tonic, end on the 6. Then play again, starting from the 6. Instant natural minor scale. Then simply alter.

Edit: This philosophy will most likely change once I quit teaching group piano at university to non-pianists who need to pass a proficiency test.

I teach piano proficiency classes regularly, so I work with adults on scale playing all the time. I typically use a fingering chart that looks like this:

RH 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5
LH 5 4 3 2 1 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 3 2 1

This works for almost everyone. However, there is always at least one student who needs to look at it this way (reading bottom to top):

1 5
2 4
3 3
1 2
2 1
3 3
4 2
1 1 etc.
L R

There's something about how they perceive the pattern that makes this easier.

Regarding the numbers- why not just say 343 and save all those unnecessary numbers though? At the least, I would put those in bold, to show the most significant ones to focus on. Ultimately the rest is just running from finger to finger. As soon as a student understands how to walk from finger to finger, it simply detracts from the most important numbers by hiding them amongst a series of others that ought to go without needing to be said. Personally I just explain it as 343 from the very first lesson- and give a clear visual demonstration of how the thumb always precedes or follows these key fingers.

Regarding the black key rule, I see the point. It's a different way of describing the same thing. But other scales run rather contrary to it. If it's a habit based on being physically drawn towards groupings of black keys- couldn't that be dangerous in the exceptions? Conversely, if you have two mental anchor points for thumbs landing together, it's less likely to throw you in other scales. I can see how both can work, but I favour focus on the thumbs as the primary aspect, personally.

I totally agree on F sharp minor. I use A major fingering and teach that as standard- just like C sharp minor and E. I don't see any great benefits that would justify the weird coordination of the official fingering for F sharp minor.

Some incidental thoughts:

One reason people struggle with scales is that it *seems* like an arbitrary collection of notes and fingers - even when you have principles regarding thumbs together or the 4th finger and so forth, and even when you work on acclimatising the eye and the hand to the shapes via cluster work. It's only when the pattern (in the ear) makes sense that the student deeply wants to play the right notes and then experiences an urgency about flowing through the pattern.

I like starting with the black note keys too - no drama with the thumb, reduces where things can go wrong, improves the odds that things will go right.

Regarding the F sharp minor fingering - it's more straightforward than the A Major fingering, if you think about it - the groupings match the shapes of white/black notes much better!

I see that way of thinking for the F sharp minor fingering. However, seeing as that premise is departed from all over the place elsewhere (eg. G sharp minor left hand, but most notably in the right hand of the very same F sharp minor scale!) I see no reason to adhere to it for its own sake. Also, I see no justification to introducing a complex and unique coordination between the hands, rather than to stick with the principle of coordination that works so well elsewhere. A major fingering means only 3 scales require an exception from the two patterns of coordination (343 or thumbs together). 21 of 24 scales covered by two fully consistent principles of identical fingering! I give those two overwhelmingly simple and consistent trends priority over a trend which is so variable, that it doesn't even occur in the right hand of the scale.

If turning over the fourth onto B in the left were a 'problem' A major would be a problem. It's actually one one the easiest scales. So no problem there at all. Also, I personally find the position very cramped when turning over the thumb to C sharp from B. A major fingering glides far more easily. I learned it this way and can execute it that way if I choose to. But the A major fingering actually lies under my hand more comfortably. And this is still to say nothing of the sheer mess that comes with F sharp minor melodic- a scale that ALWAYS causes students problems if they try to follow the 'correct' fingering. I've weighed it up a lot and see very few advantages. The only reason I can see is to follow a principle that is broken left right and centre elsewhere anyway. That's not enough to justify a werid coordination that confuses many students, in my opinion- when the alternative is so simple and comfortable. Anyone who can understand C sharp minor in relation to E major can do my alternative a the drop of a hat. It's identical in principle. However, the 'correct' fingering is a frequent source of problems.

Hang on - G sharp minor follows the same principle - 2 black notes then a white (LH 3 2 1) 2 black notes then 2 white notes (LH 4 3 2 1), and the RH is the same in reverse. And the only reason you find A Major 'easy' is because you are used to it - not because it actually comes naturally to the hand.

And the only reason to learn a melodic minor scale is for an examination - there's no technical benefit whatsoever that can't be accomplished via other patterns.... So I wouldn't use a melodic minor 'problem' to define my choices overall.

No, I find A major fingering approach easier because it lies under my hand better. The 3 to 2 on c sharp to D is slightly awkward, coming after a thumb on B. When you have a preceeding 4 to prepare the position, this slight awkwardness vanishes. This comes after years of playing the "correct" fingering and after a considerable amount of time alernating between the two at the keyboard. After which I realised not only than it was easier for me but, above all, that it would also be vastly simpler for students to grasp.

Have you actually stopped to try this? Believe me, I have put substantial time and thought into this before employing it and would hope you would give me the courtesy of considering that I just might be as "used to" the official F sharp minor fingering as that for A major. I'm not a beginner and this is the result of considerable thought. Not of laziness or lack of familiarity with 'correct' fingerings. Have you tried both fully (spending many hours on each) or is it maybe that you are the one who is just 'used to' the standard fingering?

As for two black notes then two white, how many scales does this work for of 24? Hardly a terribly all-encompassing principle for scales in general compared to just two principles that fully cover the fingering for 21 of 24 scales surely? Anyhow, my fingering is actually more consistent in that respect- as it starts 3214 etc also.

As for exams, do you suggest I would be better off to routinely give a very confusing fingering that is especially prone to problems- or an extremely straightforward one that actually lies in a way that scarcely causes more difficulty than A major (a scale that very basic students play with ease)?

In our studio we start with the "V W" scales right away, and use the "twins" and "triplets" ideas from the Well Prepared Pianist method (N. Jane Tan). We do a lot of blocking with 23 and 234 on the black keys for B, F#, and C#, noting where thumbs play together. For the white-key scales, we block "twins" 1&2 (e.g. FG in the C Maj. scale).

Aside from that and pointing out when 1s or 3s play together, I also find that having student be aware of where their left thumb should go helps a lot. At least two of my students have told me that this is what helped them the most.

Your suggestion that I am discussing these things without forethought is quite an imaginative leap, but leaving that aside, yes, I have tried all kinds of scale positions and fingerings, not just for majors, harmonic and melodic minors, but all the modes of the same, and for the major harmonic pattern and all its modes, as well as the melodic minor pattern with a flattened 5th in all its modes and the harmonic minor pattern with a flattened 5th in all its modes, playing all these patterns in each of the 12 semitones (a total of 504 different patterns) in similar and contrary motions, in 3rds and 6ths and using a variety of touches and articulations and my conclusion is simply different to yours.

I was merely asking to what extent you might think your preference was based on history, and I do thank you for explaining that it is to no extent at all based on history, but rather based on your physiological preference for the white note preceding a black note having a 4th finger on it when the black note has a white note following - that makes complete sense to me even if I do not have the same experience.

Again, this simply reflects different experience - I've never had students struggle with F sharp harmonic minor! E flat harmonic is a different story, but no, I've never had any trouble with my students (since I first started teaching in 1982) learning the F sharp harmonic minor scale.

playing all these patterns in each of the 12 semitones (a total of 504 different patterns) in similar and contrary motions, in 3rds and 6ths and using a variety of touches and articulations and my conclusion is simply different to yours.

Could you explain why you feel the A major fingering is problematic enough to need to be changed though? What specifically troubles you about it- enough to break with those two unifying principles that can otherwise cover 21 of 24 scales (or 20 if you do choose to depart)?

I was merely asking to what extent you might think your preference was based on history,

Actually you were not "asking" anything:

And the only reason you find A Major 'easy' is because you are used to it - not because it actually comes naturally to the hand.

That sounds rather more like "correcting" my statement that I find the position more natural (with an unevidenced assumption that I might not be as 'used to' the very fingering I was brought up on) but let's leave that aside...

I stand corrected - my wording definitely was that of a statement - I had intended it as a suggestion, but you're quite right, it doesn't read that way....