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....

I think it's managable with a lot of hands separate practise as rote-learning. E flat minor is certainly more awkward. However, my point is that it requires very odd co-ordination of the hands. I've had students playing F sharp minor melodic fluently at once, with the A major fingering- without even needing to practise separate hands. However, the 'correct' fingering is not mentally straight-forward to conceive. It always takes more work to become ingrained. I recall spending a lot of time on that scale in my youth (with the 'correct' approach), where others didn't trouble me at all. I don't see any physical problems in the simple simple A major fingering that justify the effort on learning a totally unique coordination of the hands (to play what is an A major scale on the way down anyway!).

I don't feel it (the fingering of the A Major scale) is problematic enough to change - in fact, if one were to change it one would create new dilemmas for intermediate students in terms of natural emphasis and so forth. I had intended to suggest that the A Major fingering was not a natural starting point for the F sharp minor scale - but for those who find the A Major fingering the most physiologically appropriate approach then it would be commonsense to take this same grouping over into the relative minor.

But since I don't think the A Major scale is the most natural fingering I don't feel compelled to use it in other contexts, even when/if I choose to use it in A Major (for other reasons).

Sorry, just realised that you said harmonic before. It was the melodic I was referring to. The difficulty is certainly not massive in the harmonic. But the 'correct' fingering causes a complete mess virtually every time in the melodic. With no implict problems in the A major fingering (that I have ever noticed), it's a very simple solution to the difficulty.

Regarding changing, I don't mean changing the A major fingering. But (back to the harmonic now) why not use the same fingering to play a scale in which only one note is moved by a semitone? What about that single change from E to sharp requires a different fingering? The more I think about it, the less I understand why this single change justifies introducing a totally different fingering to perform a near-identical task- and the loss of the comfort of landing two thumbs together etc.

It's an interesting one - while I've been practicing scales which which I have no fingering 'history', I find I work towards a fingering for ease of movement, rather than any other consideration, and I look at the fingerings I use with major/minor scales and find these fingerings have other agendas at work!

I honestly think that the primary goal should be for ease/fluency before all else, but the coordination issue compounds this idea of 'ease'..... And some people struggle less with putting contrasting movements together than others..... It's partly about physiology and partly about choreography.

I agree with that basic principle. For example I can see why E flat and B flat depart. Any way of following one of the two regular principles would introduce negatives, with regard to comfortable hand positions. So physical comfort comes before the standard coordination between hands. However, I just don't see what negatives A major fingering brings to F sharp minor, physically speaking. While there's very little in it, I find the A major fingering for f sharp minor slightly more comfortable. Above all it's more logical and consistent with the 'choreography' of other scales, but I don't see physical pitfalls to weigh up against the positives.

EDIT- just realised that while G sharp minor departs from B major fingering, even that is 343 around B! I can't believe I never noticed this before. For some reason I always had this down as a 'different' scale. So you can cover 22 of 24 scales with just two fingerings (or 21 with the standard F sharp minor)!

Yes.

We adult students have noticed this too.

There is a risk when you try to use logic with an adult student. We now become authorized to spot the flaws in it. And most of what is said about scales contains some logic discrepancies.

If the point of scales is to recognize the concept of key center and relate it to key signature, then it seems silly to get hung up on any particular fingering that will never be used in the repertoire. On that basis there's no point in frustrating your adults, move them on.

If you use scales to teach fingering principles, you have a worse problem. Any set of rules you give them will be violated by the "standard" fingering. Personally I'd give them the rules, make them finger it themselves, then live with whatever they come up with. Just make them use it consistently.

My first teacher used the Alfred series. I made it through book 5. There is one and only one piece with a full octave scale in those, Alouette, and it is C major, right hand only. There are no two hand scales, even fragments, and no one hand scale beyond an octave. And no scale fragments fingered with that part of the "standard" fingering. So if you're telling your adult student there is musical application, you'll probably want to supplement with repertoire not in that series.

I'm writing as an adult. Is the purpose of playing scales that of recognizing the concept of key center, and that alone?

I spent a fair amount of time on learning to play scales in 2008, shortly after getting a piano. Granted, scales are artificial in the sense that in music we don't go around playing scales. However, there are patterns, including physical patterns.

For fingering scales, it was helpful to know of three groups of "black key patterns". The second = "scales having 3 or more black keys" such as F#/Gb major, B major. In these, the long fingers are on the black keys. It's all you really need to remember and everything else falls into place including when the thumb crosses. In one shot you get ease in scales of that group, and understand how piano keys and the human hand work for ease of music. It makes sense. When something makes sense, then it is easy to do and remember.

I practised my scales by grouping them according to those three patterns. They are also closely related to the circle of fifths. While it is true that real music doesn't always follow these patterns, the principle behind it holds.

Practising scales puts a physical map of the keyboard in the hands within the context of a particular key signature. It is also a chance to practice thumb under while shifting the hand, without needing to concentrate on much else.

Some of us play multiple instruments. There is a physical component to scales that is different from instrument to instrument. Our ability to form abstract concept can get in the way of physically absorbing the instrument. At least that is how this adult sees i.

N and Elissa's discussion may be a good illustration of what is frustrating about playing scales.
My experience as a not-often-enthusiastic-about-scales student, is that it would be a good idea to keep rotating through them even if the fingering is not yet consistent or "down pat". This achieves two important things: 1) the student gets to "read" through all the scales and experience the key signatures many of which he/she would not have yet encountered in their repertoire and 2) makes the "exercise" less frustrating or boring. Rotation means that the student will get back to a pesky scale sometime again and perhaps "get it" better the second time around, since he/she are now better equipped. If said student is preparing for exams (why on earth would an adult amateur do that is beyond me), then tough luck..

I have to confess that I am totally mystified by this discussion. Scales are so easy, both to learn and to teach. They use the same fingering, 1-2-3-1-2-3-4-1 over and over (and the reverse, depending on whether ascending or descending). Of course, they may begin and end at different points in the sequence, but that's not hard to learn.

The problem I most often see in students is not maintaining this sequence, and that usually comes from trying to play the scales faster than the brain can sequence the fingers. Once the student slows down to one beat every two or three seconds, they can get the pattern and then slowly increase tempo as them muscles take over for their brain driven motions.

The most common misfingerings I see are switching to 1-2-3-1-2-3 pattern, or skipping over the 3rd finger, as in 4-2-1-3-2-1, so that they come up short.

We teachers sometimes, in an effort to help students, or through laziness, don't start scales on the same finger as they will use through the rest of the scale. B Flat comes to mind. Many teachers and books start the RH using 2, then switch to 4 for the rest of the scale. Now that can be confusing. Just start with 4.

The second problem I encounter is students not practicing the scales at home. A week between lessons is a long time to try and remember fingerings. Usually doesn't happen.

And BTW, we've done a really nice job of hijacking Sparkler's thread. As I recall, she had 2 adult students who were having problems with 2 octave scales.


My answer remains - put the monkey on their back. We learn scales to be able to play fluidly, not to learn key centers, fingering principles, key signatures, etc. Assuming they want to learn to play well, they need to master and exercise scales.

So scales are for dexterity?

Pretty rare to see that stated explicitly. In fact, you may be the first to do so here.

Andromaque, you suggestion is one I hear very frequently. My experience suggests that constant practice of wrong fingering will reinforce learning of wrong fingering. Why not get it correct on the easier (not really) to play white keys, and be done with it?

At this point in your studies, you hands and nervous system simply do not know what to use. They never will until you decide to learn it. I would strongly urge you and others reading here to make a decision to "get it right, once and for all." Good luck to you.

Well, I've said it many times, but only once in this thread. Perhaps teachers don't say it often or often enough because it's so obvious.

John, Nice points.

Did anyone ever say if this learning is being attempted with written notation/fingerings? Sometimes my students find it less overwhelming to learn them from music first, then memorize them as they go.

John
You misunderstood or rather I did not express myself clearly.
I was not at all advocating playing them with the "wrong" fingering. I am only saying that IMHO it is OK to move on to the next scale even if the student is still making some mistakes in the one they are playing currently, with the caveat that they will continue rotatiing through..
I should admit to a disclaimer. I have only recently agreed to "do scales" per teacher recommendations and the reason was not dexterity. I work on plenty of etudes regularly, which incorporate scales in addition to much more technically challenging problems. I am doing scales and arpeggios because as my repertoire expanded my unfamilarity with the less common keys was becoming problematic. Greater "fluidity" with key signatures and tonal centers is also helping me analyze pieces and recognize wrong notes easier etc.. May be I am wrong but that is how it is for me now.
You are correct re: fingering though. I have not had a problem but I kind follow the book and do not spend much time pondering 3 or 4..

I know it sometimes comes across as picking on someone when we quote/reply, but that wasn't my intent. Many, many students have said the exact same thing and you just happened to have stated it at this point in the discussion, so I really wanted to use your comments as a springboard. I guess I need to figure out how to do that without making it appear that I'm castigating a fellow musician.

I don't like the term dexterity. When Tim brought it up, I used it, but I really mean fluidity and musically. We need to learn to play from one tone to the next with complete control. Dynamically, rhythmically, etc. Not just fast, although tempo is certainly a good reason for practicing scales. We also need to learn how to have independence of fingers, and having one hand play one thing while the other is doing something else is important. Scales are certainly one of the simplest and easiest ways to practice this independence of fingerings.

Dan, I've come to teaching scales without notation. I really want students to focus on their hands, not on what's on the printed page. If they get the major and minor tonalities in their ears, there is no reason to have notes in front of them. Same with chords and arpeggios. I give them a scale book as a crutch, but we almost never use it at lessons.

I'm curious as to what others think. It's so hard to be black and white (no pun intended) with things like this. Many students of all ages learn so differently. If the end result is that they can play scales without the music or anything in front of them and it does turn into a "hands-on" thing ultimately, I don't see what's wrong with that.

The written page can be a great aid to those that are so overwhelmed with other information UNTIL its in their memory. I'd teach it however its best for each particular student and search and search until we come up with a way they can learn them with the above criteria: fluidity, memory, correct fingerings.

Same results with a variety of means.

Dan, it probably comes from the way I teach scales in the first place. Students don't need music to start on C and play each white key to the next C. When they can play that scale correctly, we move on to G. Before we do, we look at B & C and determine that they are half-steps or neighbor keys (depending on student age). When we learn G, we play all the white keys, but we have to play the neighbor key to G or it doesn't sound right, so we play F#, not F. After they can play G major well, we move to D. Now, we keep all the keys we had in G, but we need a C# neighbor to D, to make it sound right, and so it goes.

I do provide notation to students, but it's more to use as reference at home if they are stuck.

A side question, Andromaque. Children are amateurs by definition since they are not yet professionals. So which group do you think should be preparing for exams - children preparing to become professionals plus adults who are professionals or preparing to become professionals? Why are exams taken?

The students Elissa and I teach are music majors at an undergraduate level who are required to take a piano proficiency test before they graduate. Scales are just one of the requirements.

My response related my personal experience, as I clearly indicated, and was in response to the OP who did not indicate she was teaching at a conservatory, a music school or a university..
Good luck to your students on their exams, though!

Which I still don't get, since there is no reason for adult students (any kind) not to take exams that include scales.

I don't really know which group should be preparing for exams, and I can't speak for children.
I imagine that people who "need" to show proof of proficiency (to themselves or a third party) might be interested. Not me!
What do you think?

A certificate means nothing. However, to dismiss exams on those grounds is to miss the point. Exams are there to make you work towards progress. I never seek to scrape a student through an exam for the certificate's sake. However, I very much like the idea of setting a goal and giving them a reason to push pieces beyond the standard they would otherwise settle for- and a reason to acquire the foundations that will aid them in everything. How many pieces do not depend on standard scales, chords and arpeggios? You can always tell which students have not gained the basic foundations.

The question is whether the primary goal is the certificate or the achievements and developments that will earn that certificate. If the goal is the latter, exams are invaluable.

I ALWAYS teach scales through notation. I too am after maximum dexterity, but I want said dexterity to be "fused" to reading.

By the way, I speak from particular experience here. I was one of those hackers who just fooled around playing pieces. Although I pulled myself together enough to get distinction in my grade 8 when I was 17 (after doing no exams for years) even then I was frankly just hacking around and scraping my way through with countless wrong fingerings and very sloppy, uneven fingerwork. My playing in general corresponded. So, other than disputing the 'correct' F sharp minor fingering as being an unnecessary divergence from the simple A major one, I now believe wholeheartedly in learning (but, above all, understanding) standard patterns fully. Then you can do whatever you wish.

A few years ago I could not sight-read Mozart at all, despite being a fair sight-reader. After having worked on scales regularly in recent years, I can often execute fingerwork by sight reasonably reliably. Perhaps even more importantly, I don't have to waste time playing scalic passage over and over again in learning such things- because my fingers know the basics already. In the past I would usually be so frustrated by trying to get the scales working in classical sonatas, I just gave up. My playing sounded so awful that it was never long before I couldn't face any more. I never finished a whole Mozart sonata until I was in my 20s (and that was pretty poor still)! Now I can finally do something bearable- because if I know what the notes are, I'm already most of the way towards actually executing them. As someone who has gone from truly pathetic finger technique to something that is now respectable at least, I can't emphasise enough how important foundations in scales was. Thinking in keys has has also vastly improved my analytical skills and understanding of harmony within pieces.

Those who say scales are unimportant generally fall into two categories- those who already know them inside out anyway and those who have audibly inadequate technique as a result. I don't think anyone who wants to make serious progress ought to be swayed by either example.

Gary, who knows, some day, I may drift back to that. They say things always go in circles!

Oh, but John, probably what I seem to be saying is misleading. I go with notation to teach them simply because it is faster for me, and for my students obviously. This reflects how I teach.

BUT: I aim to have students get them in their fingers, four octaves, hands together, and have them memorized.

N
It seems to me you did very well despite exams, not thanks to them.

My experience: I had all my scales nailed in high school, four octaves, major, different minors, contrary motion, and so on. What I did NOT have was a disciplined approach to fingering in music. I had not made a study of the kind of problems that are common in the music of different composers. I had not approached fingering as something between a science and an art. Furthermore, there was always a long lag-time between when passage-work would fall into place for me between the LH and the RH, and I blame that on too much Chopin, too little Beethoven, Mozart, and most of all too little Bach. This had to do far less with lack of scale-knowledge as a neglect of the composers who demand a mastery of more-or-less standard fingering patterns.

I think the study of scales is important, but I also believe they are merely a foundation. You probably won't find any fine players who do not play scales well, but you will find a lot of people who play scales well who are not fine players.

A couple of things: I also teach students from age 4 right through to that undergraduate stage (although not this year - between active three year-old at home with me and a full publishing schedule I've been working on a much reduced teaching load), so my scales experience matches suburban piano teaching experience to a pretty high degree.....

My students don't spend a lot of time practicing scales per se, but they are all excellent sight readers.

I teach scales by geography and choreography, not from notation.

I don't think dexterity is best achieved via scale practice - there are better mechanisms!

And what I really think about scales is detailed in my blog here: http://elissamilne.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/scales-as-propaganda/

And coming back to the F sharp melodic conversation: Nyiregyhazi, I've just realised (took me a while) that your 'changed' fingering is for the left hand not the right - have I got that right, now? I hesitate to go on until I know I'm talking to the actual fingering you mean!!!! ......I await your reply!!

Hey!!! I left you guys alone for 2 days and look what happened!

Thanks for the interesting thoughts... I've read through them... many things to think about.

Just to clarify, no I do not only work on scales with any students of course... scales are one component of what we do.

Also, the 2 particular adult students I'm talking about, actually are ones that practice regularly. Sure they've hit a couple of plateaus here and there and had a bad week or two, but overall they're some of my most motivated and hardest working students. Hence why I am considering as how long to belabor the point.

My method of teaching scales:

I don't use the finger 5, ever. (Unless they come to me from a transfer teacher and are too set in their ways.) For the first several regular scales, I only use 1231234 and 1432132. I have their scales book open for reference however I teach them without needing notation.

I usually take about 2-4 weeks to teach the very first scale (depending on the student). First I do RH 1231234 just 7 notes, and I drill this into them. Next week when they come back and can play this easily, I make them do the pattern twice (so, 2 octaves.) I never teach 1 octave with scales, I do not see the point.

Next I do the same thing with the left hand. Then I do the reverse with RH, then LH, subsequently. By this time they can easily do 2 (or more) octaves going up and down, hands separately.

Then at that point I make them do hands together, just the first 7 notes going up. Then next, hands together, 2 octaves. then next, going back down and then putting it all together.

This works like a charm for most of my students. I call it "C Major Bootcamp." C Major is actually not an easy scale to play since it's all white keys, and I find that they actually get better which each scale learned after that.

But for whatever reason my two hardworking adult students still have consistency problems when they do hands together. And they do not play them fast.

The kids I teach (age 5 to 17) do not have this problem.

My adult students seem pretty happy to practice scales, and I do explain to them exactly why it is I feel it is important to keep hammering at them. I did always wonder if I made a mistake in getting them to learn the first 5 scales before they were 99% consistently getting the fingering right in the first one. I just did not want to hold them back in learning key signatures and I found that learning scales on piano is a really solid way to learn key signatures. (Besides many other things.)

Ok I'll quit rambling now, but I will continue to read your replies with interest. Thank you!

It's so hard judging just from talking, words, but I would say the same thing about my students. It is terribly important to me for them to know WHY one fingering is better than another, and I also want my students to understand that no matter how long they play scales, those scales will not give them answer for something that is not based on a 7-note pattern. But it might give them clues.

For example, in the very famous first movement of the Mozart K. 545, beginning in measure 5 there is a perfect example of a scale using the standard 123, 12345 ascending, but needing 54321, 4321 for the descending patterns because of the extra note. However, in the recap, at measure 46, that same pattern works in some measures but not in others. So as we play real music, not just exercises, the many factors must be considered. In measure 50 and 51, something slightly inventive has to be done for the LH.

But that is pure child's play compared K. 576 in D, first movement, at measure 9. You can start off with the idea that the LH of a D scale puts thumb on D and A, and it's useless. You know that. I know that. Even advanced students will struggle with such a passage, because there are many possible solutions.

My point is that things that have *no* obvious, clearly better-than-any-other solution are the norm in very difficult music, not the exception.

In fact, the point you make about the "Simpsons" scale is the way I teach, and if we take the scale you used as an example, C D E F# G A Bb C, as something that is interesting to play with, my point would be that it is just one of a nearly infinite number of possible scales. The the real trick is to be able to play such a modified scale (whether we want to define it as a "modal" form of ascending melodic minor or just an artificial scale in the manner Bartok and so on) without tripping, then absorb the sound itself as a possible useful tool to put in our bag of "composing tricks" for the future.

By the way, nice blog, and I agree with your points.

g

You know, that's a seriously good point, Gary D.

As much as we might teach our students scales and the appropriate fingerings (whatever we deem them to be) this is not at all the same thing as teaching students to understand the principles involved in settling on the fingerings in repertoire that will produce the best result. I teach the two things quite separately, but it's only on reading your post that I'm thinking it might be worth my while spending some time thinking about a systematic approach to teaching students to think their way through fingering.

I suspect I have my students well inculcated in the principles, as we discuss things like this when working on pieces (rather than me simply saying, do this) but it is an interesting thing to think about 'teaching' fingering as a technique......!

(and, thanks: re blog!)

Why? To be honest, I can't even begin to see how that might logically follow on from what I said before. As I said, I hadn't done exams for a good few years before grade 8. Prior to that, exams were the only thing that made me practise scales. Hadn't done them in years and simply didn't know many of them. After a break of a few years (when I was playing more hours than ever before- but wasting this on hacking through many pieces, none of which I really 'practised' or played even faintly well) the same applied. I learned the scales because I had to for the exam. Frankly, I didn't do them very well even then (by the standards I'd expect now, even if they were not shabby by the exam standards), although at least I was forced to start doing them. Above all, I just didn't have much aim or understanding of how to develop, when I was young. Exams (during the time when I did actually do them) at least gave me a point of focus back then- even if I didn't really have much idea what I was doing still. Not having done them would have been infinitely worse. My grade 8 was also the first time I had ever practised a Bach Prelude and Fugue or Beethoven Sonata movement to even a semi-competent standard.

So, I'd say it's more a case of generally doing rather poorly despite sometimes taking exams- but doing a bit better, at least, as a result of the occasions when I did do them.

Presumably those who can sight-read pretty fluently to the level of Mozart sonatas at a reasonable pace already know their scales well though? While I've always read even thick chords rapidly I'd never thought that this type of thing would be possible for me, until I realised that my reading was not the problem but that fingers weren't keeping up with my brain.

And coming back to the F sharp melodic conversation: Nyiregyhazi, I've just realised (took me a while) that your 'changed' fingering is for the left hand not the right - have I got that right, now? I hesitate to go on until I know I'm talking to the actual fingering you mean!!!! ......I await your reply!!

Yes, that's it. What did you think I meant in the right hand? The right hand uses the A major fingering anyway, so there's nothing to change there.

EDIT- hang on, just realised you say melodic there. Above I meant I start with A major fingering for both, for the harmonic. But you have to adapt for the melodic. The principle is identical to Csharp minor/E major. You make the same adaptation of using 1234 from A in the right, before the the thumbs land together. THen go back to the relative major fingering on the way down. So both scales are your bog standard thumbs always together principle going up, switching to your bog standard 343 on the way down. It keeps it very simple. If you can do standard C sharp minor, you can do F sharp minor this way, with scarcely any effort at all.

This is why I conceive of thumbs together scales primarily from the thumbs, before the black key geography. The thumbs apply here but the black key issues do not. If you want to cover as many scales as possible with the fewest consistent and comprehensive co-ordinations of fingering possible, this gives you the chance to finger 22 of 24 keys with only two fingerings. You could argue that everything is only a 123 and 1234 anyway (in either order), but that says nothing of the co-ordination between two simulataneous hands. It's that coordination where students fall down- otherwise they'd never have a problem putting hands together. If they understand that sometimes they're just basically starting in the middle of either of the two schemes instead of at the beginning, it becomes much less confusing.

Why no fives? What about the next note? Presumably the tonic note is played by both thumbs, before descending? I think this can be a useful way to practise, but what are they going to do at higher speeds? It's rather cumbersome to turn the thumb under, before coming back. There are thousands of situations where the most practical way to play five notes in succession is from 5 to 1 or 1 to 5. What is the reason to avoid that?

Nyiregyhazi, it took me longer than it should have, but now I *get* what drives your fingering principles - yay!! Makes sense to me.

And you know, I suspect that my students aren't ever required to sight read Mozart sonatas, so it genuinely never comes up.... They sight read accompaniments for their friends playing other instruments, song accompaniments, new pieces they are learning, all sorts. But my piano teaching is firmly rooted in the principle that at least half the material students learn should have been composed within the life cycle of their extended family - that is to say, over the past 100 years at the outside. So Mozart has to compete with all the other museum music there is to choose from. My view on sight reading is that the pitch is the least of the student's worries in creating a good 'reading', so I suspect that might be a further point of difference in approach. But my students are really terribly good sight readers overall, and I don't think they'd struggle with Mozart, should they choose to go there.

Woo!!

Yeah, I see your point about the sight-reading issue. There are loads of different aspects to weigh up. I just think it's good to remember that there are issues beyond scales themselves, in terms of the benefits they bring. A lot of students see them as something to be tested on, but fail to see what wide benefits they can bring. I always stress to them that scales are not for their own sake. In the past, my foundations were so weak that I found it unbearable to practise classical sonatas. To struggle through the music was horrible to the point where I would just quit when I hit a dead end- because nothing I did made it sound good. Practising scales has meant both that I can learn things to higher standards more rapidly and sightread reasonably well in the first place. I think it's always worth bearing these things in mind. I don't think there are many students at even musical college level who wouldn't benefit from spending a few mintues each day on the foundations of scales. And I don't mean blasting through them, but working ultra-slow, on the quality of movement.

A lot of people talk about the benefit of practising scales musically and I don't dispute that. However, the fact that they are less obviously musical really carries a benefit. To work on a scale is not frustrating in the way working on a scale in music is. In music my expectations had always been beyond what I could manage. So I just got frustrated with my poor control. In scales, it's just a scale. Sure, aim for crescendos/diminuendo etc. But its still just a more musical scale, rather than real music. Strange as it may sound, I think that gives the opportunity for a person with a critical ear to make progress more easily than when they hear themself butchering a passage from their favourite sonata and gradually starting to hate it- as they end up playing the same passage for the tenth time, because it still isn't even.

In that respect, I think it's very good to set foundations outside of an immediately musical context. When you have a good background, it makes it much easier to focus on the musical side of new pieces, without being bogged down.

PS. I'd always been a firm believer in music and technique being interrelated in everything. However, I've completely changed my mind- after seeing how much more easily I can achieving something approaching my aims, since I started doing a lot of very dry technical work. If someone has no ideas in the first place, scales won't help. But if they do, setting technical foundations saves a whole lot of frustration.

Yes, when one plays a scale pattern in a piece of composed music it carries far more expressive contents than simply the pitch pattern - it comes in a context that is both dynamic and articulated, structural and emotive, whereas in 'scale practice' one can focus on the abstraction that is the pattern and examine the practical approaches to its realisation on the keyboard with one's own hands!

But I think the enjoyment of technical mastery is one that develops in maturity. Few children under the age of say, 11, enjoy assigned technical exercises. On the other hand, children of any young age will happily work away at mastering something that has captured their own imagination already.

I suspect that in adults a wider proportion of the population finds their imaginations conceiving of the benefit of enhanced technical capacity, and hence the adult takes a delight in analysis (of movement, technique, what-have-you) that we often do not see in the child....

Some tangental thoughts on the scale issue....

I've just noticed something. The emphasis has been on fingers and finger numbers. What if the perspective shifted to the piano keys? Previously I mentioned the grouping of traditional scales among three black key patterns. The second of these groupings is "scales that have 3 or more black keys". What this does for me is to see the physical logic of fingering. I put my three long fingers on the three black keys, and it is as simple as slipping your hand in a glove or picking up a telephone receiver. Isn't that what we do? We shape our hands to the object by focusing on the object. We do not focus on the shape of the hand.

In advanced music, numbers are clues for shifting the hand into a new position, or playing keys with certain fingers. We do need to identify numbers with fingers. However, what we do in playing is to place our fingers in convenient, practical positions. What if something were done along that direction?

Hm - food for thought.

A child is guided in the motions, and doing the motions he will absorb all sides of the patterns - even theory is absorbed as an experience first. If he is well guided the there is probably little for him to fix as an older student. Technique, proficiency, as music becomes more difficult, work together.

I learned to play instruments untaught as a child and so did not get that guidance. Then as an adult I learned my first taught instrument, and discovered the importance of technique. Subsequently I went back to piano, aware of this. I got some principles, such as that fingering is paramount in piano, and other things dealing with location and movement along the keyboard. I've been handed the music that I played self-taught as a child, including that K525. This time I pay attention to fingering, and it is easier physically because sensible fingering allows for fluid motion. It was very interesting to have in my hands the music that I played self-taught as a child, and to experience the difference that this makes.

I am not in love with analyzing things. I would rather just absorb whatever. But experience has taught me that paying attention to such things makes a huge difference in what I can produce on an instrument.

In fact, I think that too great an emphasis on abstract concept can get in the way of learning because we need to experience it physically and probably simply.

I certainly see this, and I do tend to reference it in many cases. However, it does have many exceptions- whereas only 3 (or two, if you use my alternative for f sharp minor) of 24 keys depart from the two formulae of regular 343 around one position of meeting thumbs, or two positiions of meeting thumbs. So if someone understands primarily around black keys, exceptions can look weird. However, if they understand the two overwhelmingly prevailing trends as the foundation, it's very valuable to also notice that many fingerings also correspond with black key formations. By the way, the thumb approach is also geared towards the key-board- in terms of what notes they land on. This is a very easy point of mental and physical reference- for both hands at once. And I always complement it with learning two hand positions per scale- so it's far from abstracted overall. It's just such a staggeringly prevalent trend that I cannot see a better, simpler or more consistently unifying reference point than two thumbs meeting.

I basically see it in terms of gearing your understanding around the strongest trend of all (which is the meeting of thumbs as reference points) but then complementing it with seeing various other trends that are notable, but less dominant.

I suspect that in adults a wider proportion of the population finds their imaginations conceiving of the benefit of enhanced technical capacity, and hence the adult takes a delight in analysis (of movement, technique, what-have-you) that we often do not see in the child....

Yeah, interesting thoughts. That could certainly make sense. However, I'd just say that, if you can enable the child to understand the fewest necessary unifying concepts for the largest number of scales possible, wouldn't they still be in the best position to practise accurately and consistently? As long as they can be drawn to knowing what to look for via formulas, they don't necessarily have to actively enjoy them to learn faster with them- or to have a better understanding of what to strive for in practise. I always feel that giving a child a written down fingering (most of which look vastly different to each other) and asking them to play it over and over again until they can just do it is going require more effort on their part. They may not enjoy the formula for its own sake, like adults, but they may still save themselves enduring an awful lot of thoughtless rote-learning, assuming you can reveal to them what is actually the same thing in a scarcely different guise.

PS. In my experience, I would say that some kids (but not all) actually take delight in understanding a wide-ranging formula. I recently accompanied a very young violinst who was doing Suduko puzzles. I found that a little surprising for a girl under 10, but when children like such things as solving puzzles, it would make sense for them to want to understand the patterns and workings behind the notes- rather than just read off a page and do what it says.

Yes, that way you have to remember three different patterns out of context. Children may have it easier because they are used to being told the world doesn't make sense (and it's not fair!)

What if you did this? Take your student, make them come up with their own scale fingering following two rules: 1) must go 1231234 but can start on any finger, and 2) must use the 2-3-4 on black keys to determine the starting point.

Now there aren't three patterns to remember. There's only one, and you can rediscover it any time you need to.

Will this give you the classic fingerings out of the Hanon or the standard scale charts? No. Well, yes for 9, no for 3. But those three will be so close in efficiency (maybe even better) that it may make no practical difference.

Ah. But it defies tradition. Well, then we're stuck with it. But if we never use the same fingering in repertoire, and if it teaches John's fluency just as well, why not go with efficiency over tradition?

(I did it this way, and my teacher just shook her head. Then laughed. Since I was one of the few students who actually spent time on scales, she probably thought it wasn't worth arguing. )

I know there's an approach that defines everything by black keys. But there's a major problem with this. What happens when you change direction on a scale? There's good reason why EVERY white note starting note has a fingering where you start and finish at the end of a position (okay, 4 for F and B rather 5, but still largely the end). So what happens when you get one of one thousand and one situations where a scale ascends to the key-note and comes back? The standard fingering is invaluable in such things. Changing direction is harder midposition- which is why virtually everyone finds the reversal of direction harder in black keys scales- where it is actually necessary. Classical composers arguably conceived many of their groupigns around it. Yes, there are many departures. But the knowing the standard fingering is simply vital, before you do variants. Changing position so often would often be unnecessary work. That's why many advanced fingerings put thumbs on black keys- to reduce positions.

Also, this only looks at separate hands. There are actually many coordinations when the hands are put back together. Many are totally different in how the hands relate. A good exercise in coordination for an advanced player- but for a beginner? It's less consistent, not moreso. Standard fingerings rarely use any coodinationr other than two simple ones based on thumbs coinciding. I think totally black key based thinking that contradicts having the key note to start and end positions is better as a variant for advanced players, not a foundation. I hardly begin to imagine what a mess would ensue when grade 8 students attempted scales where the hands are a third and sixth apart....

There is nothing "merely" about scales.

The way that they are a "foundation" is seen in the construction of the piano keyboard. The fingering system is a logical choice of according to the design of the keyboard diagram. It is clearly stated as to what the fingering choice needs to be.

The designs work for everything one would want to do in any piece of music to play fluently through scales.

As I see it there are two "rules": one about white keys and one about black keys.

WHITE KEY FINGERING
C is the natural white key scale with no black notes - think of a C octave from Middle C upwards. Explore with the RH:

CDE (3 white keys in front of 2 black keys)
Fingers 1-2-3
|_|_|_|

FGAB (4 white keys in front of 3 black keys)
Fingers 1-2-3-4
|_|_|_|_|

Starting with both thumbs sharing Middle C, using the RH to duplicate fingering for the LH, play in contrary motion away from Middle C stopping on the next further C with fingers number 5 of each hand acting as the "brake" which stops the action.

This shows the design of scales: C,G,D,A,E with the alteration of the 7th degree of the scale being raised (#)in each new scale. The #'s accumulate and are carried along with each new scale.

BLACK KEY FINGERING
23 234 RH
UU UUU (black key groups)
32 432 LH
At B, (enharmonically Cb)the fingering changes in one of the hands while maintaining the established fingering in the other hand.
LH changes to 4-3-2-1-4-3-2-1

At F, the fingering changes in one of the hands while maintaining the established fingering int he other hand:
RH 1-2-3-4-1-2-3-4

Thereafter, in Db, Eb, Gb,Ab,Bb the fingering uses the black key "rules".

Where there are exceptions to fingering choices in the parallel scales, it can be seen in the contrary motion examples of scales, that the black key "rule" is being taken into account.

I'm referring to Alfred's Basic Piano Libary: The Basic BOok of Scales, Chords, Arpeggios and Cadences (Includes all Major, minor, natural, harmonic, melodic and chromatic scales)

So, I'm saying teaching the entire concept of fingering choices at one level can be "planted by seed" at the first lesson while giving the student a "Keyboard Orientation" by touching the two white groups |_|_| and |_|_|_| and 2 black key groups UU and UUU
with the fingering indicated in the examples WHITE KEY FINGERING and BLACK KEY FINGERING.

You will simply be reviewing "known fact" when you teach the scales and fingering.

It does not matter that the keys are unnamed to create the recommended fingering choices.

It does matter that the student must know keyboard letter names and can read the music staff accurately oriented to the keyboard locations.

I believe this particular teaching as described here does more to facilitate scales knowledge better than any other approach. One would use the scale building construction according to the needs of the student to know them in the music that has been assigned to them.

I don't understand 99% of why the topic took the direction it took. Scales are extremely easy to understand when presented in a theory concept in every way that one could explain them, the facts hold true. Cognition is everything. The minute one makes one error in scales, much like an entire stack of dominoes falls over, it creates a mishap. The error in thinking must be corrected or all else that follows is doomed.

I hope teachers will see the advantage and simplicity of this first lesson synopsis for those who are at the age to handle the information. It can be done with just diagrams drawn on a piece of blank paper and the playing out on the keyboard of what is seen. Stored for future use, and extremely valuable to the student in seeing how the keyboard is designed in groups of notes, not just endless and meaningless black, white, black white, ooooppss, two white together. What does that mean? Our students really wonder what they are seeing on the keyboard for a very long time. A-B-C-D-E-F-G is not enough explanation.

I would definitely have your guys:
a) learn "key signature knowledge" (what do you mean by that ?)

b) learn the structure of a major scale, minor harmonic scale, relative major-minor, minor natural, minor melodic ... all in a lesson or so.

c) learn all the major and minor scales in one lesson or so, two at the most.

d) Have them understand what we call "une belle mechanique": a nice mechanical movement, like a cookoo clock. Very important, in my view, extremely important.

No need to waste your time or theirs, they are capable to understand, give them the tools they need. Show them how to work. One octave with quarter notes, 2 octave 8th notes, 3 octaves triplets. Contrary motion. One octave, going from C to G and so on by fifths, one after the other until they get back to C, the entire circle of fifths. Or C to C#, to D etc.

I should add, I'm not teacher at all.

Betty, what about E major, r.h. A flat major and G sharp minor left hand, E flat major l.h.,. B flat major l.h., C sharp minor r.h. and F sharp minor r.h.? There are many exceptions to black key layout based thinking. In fact, of the ten keys that begin on black keys, only 4 follow your 'rule' in both hands! D flat, B flat minor, F sharp and E flat minor. That's less than half. With thumb based thinking there are scarcely any divergences. Only B flat and E flat (plus F sharp minor in the standard fingering, but not in the one I personally use).

With the numbers in mind, it is clear that is siomply not accurate to state that the fingerings were specifically geared towards the layout of black keys- or at least, that it was not even close to being the foremost factor in mind. Based on overwhelming trends, statistics would suggest that the fingerings are geared towards togetherness of thumbs before fitting the black keys according to your groupings- of three fingers for two black keys and four fingers for three. In many cases both apply. However, coinciding thumbs are overwhelmingly more prevalent. They define all white note scales and they define more of the black note scales than the groupings do. I believe in observing the black keys, but I cannot see how something with so many exceptions can be the soundest way to conceive the basis for groups.

The more you get into two hands the further you get from applications to music. Single handed scales are rare, and rarer still the occasion where you might use a standard fingering; I submit there is no place in the repertoire where a two hand scale uses the book fingering.

Your point about two hand coordination is valid, but I suggest that is no reason to drop the most efficient one hand fingering to facilitate an easier two hand pattern.

I use a (very) slightly nonstandard fingering for scales. It isn't unique to me; you can find it in various references, and bernhard over on the other forum used to recommend it. If you only do scales Doh to Doh, the advantage is slight; if like me you do scales starting on every degree, some of the modes line up much better. Kind of surprising. But anyway, my point is that the "traditional" fingering is just that, traditional. It's not necessarily the only correct one, nor superior to all alternatives.

Not in all cases, but as a foundation it really is. If you can't do a standard scale fingering for scales that start on white notes, you will be still be guaranteed to end up needing it in music. It's the soundest point from which to depart and then do everything else. None of the patterns I use are uncomfortable in any sense. I would depart from them gladly when the musical shape of a line requires it. They are a foundation, not a rule. The soundest means of comfort is to execute something with as few unecessary thumb turns as possible. I'll frequently abandon a textbook fingering to avoid extra thumbs. But if your starting point means starting a white note scale on anything other than the thumb, you'll often end up needing more turns and more positions- hence more effort. That's where you need the foundation fingering.

PS. Chopin's G minor Ballade. You'd have to be crazy not use a standard G minor fingering. I'd have nothing against alternatives in certain places, but you really need the standard fingering. Doh to Doh is not rare and the standard fingering offers the fewset positions and thumb turns.

We've already done all this in theory. That is not my problem... they understand the concepts behind all the scales,key signatures, circle of 5ths etc and how they work.

I don't have a problem playing them at higher speeds. You really only use 5 at the very beginning and end anyway. Everything in between is thumbs. So if you can play the in between octaves at a high speed with all thumbs there should be no reason why you also can't start and end on thumbs high speed.

I just found that for beginners it is so much easier for the fingering pattern to click if I just omit finger 5.

Eventually when they have all scales down perfectly and for quite awhile, to where I can tell it won't mess them up to use 5, then they are free to use 5. Doesn't seem like a big deal at that point.

Good ! So spend a lesson to look over all of the scales, establish a sort of practise plan and it's up to them. Have an occasional look at their "progress", correct their mechanical movement.



Do they play 1 octave, then two, then three, going from quarter notes to eighths to triplets, one after the other?

Do they play in contrary motion, once again passing from one octave to two to three, quarter notes to eighths to triplets?

This with a carefully controlled mechanism?

Nyiregyhazi,

My posting was based on using the rules as per Major Scales.

And I would not try to define the 5 black keys as 10 major scales because I was not naming them per se, only playing through them from one key to it's octave to show the fingering. It's sound and fingering I'm exploring: 7 white keys and 5 black keys, irregardless of their key name which is only clearly identified when it appears on the piano grand music staff. B major in sound and fingering is the same as Cb in sound and fingering - on the music page it shows the pitch and key.

Since I am showing the student movement around the piano keyboard in a simple way they will remember when they become students of scales. For children this will be one new scale at a time, and my preference would be established by the Circle of 5ths. Once the 12 locations are learned they could easily be put into all white key starts followed by all black key starts of by chromatic presentation.

I certainly was not attempting minors in any way.

E Major is one of the white key fingering groups.

Only Db/Eb Gb/Ab/Bb Cb (and any enharmonics you label them with) are going to use the BLACK KEY FINGERINGS

Of importance, I think are the scales in which one hand has kept the 1-2-3-1-2-3-4 fingering and the other is now using the 1-2-3-4-1-2-3-4. Knowing such little tidbits sets our fingering choices into play with determination, understanding, and the possibility of "mastering" them.

I think the way I do it in the 1st lesson helps the students possess an "inate sense" of how the keyboard is fingered.

Always? I didn't say that. I'm happy with the majority of the time. And, some of my own fingering skills represent the way I see the organization, not the way the scales have been standardized. If I'm comfortable and the fingering is efficient and effective for me, I feel I have acquired something special. I used to feel that many standard fingerings felt like "contortions" to me. I don't feel that way anymore since adapting my own where needed to fit my hand.

Just an idea:

I demonstrate the C scale as 1234, 1234, up and down four octaves with the RH, then show that fingering against the traditional fingering for the LH, not as the correct way to play the scale, but to show, in principle, that when the scale is played for four octaves, any difference in speed or ease of playing is at most negligable.

But I explain that for only one ocatave, 1234, 1234 (RH) is not nearly as logical, so we go with 123, 12345. Then I explain that our choice of 123, 1234, 123, 1234 is based on a one octave model PLUS the fact that other RH scales demand that fingering (such as D and A).

I do this even for little kids: "Look, we COULD do it this way, but the way I am teaching you usually works better, overall. However, we ALWAYS have choices."

I see this as situational. I'm sure you adapt to what is appropriate for the lesson and the student!

Add to that two sweeping octave scales in the Brahms Rhapsody in B minor, F major and F# major, the A minor scale in the Grieg Piano Concerto, and so on.

Or the opening of the Beethoven 3rd Piano Concerto, one octave C minor melodic.

All both hands, all do to do.

But it doesn't have to be do to do. Chopin Ab Polonaise, sweeping Bb minor, melodic, starting on "ti" but ending on do.

This just scratches the surface.

As for one-hand-only scales, they are all over the place.

They are beginner level. They both came to me knowing nothing about music whatsoever. They would feel lost at this point without me doing scales weekly and guiding them still on proper technique. This sort of thing (independent study with occasional spot check) only work with my more advanced students who've already mastered most of the basic scales.



Yes, except, I never do just one octave per se. We do the first 7 notes in each scale, going up, coming down, and then move right away to 2 octaves. Over the yrs I have found this to be the most efficient way for most people. Otherwise they have a lot of difficulty jumping mentally from 1-2, whereas jumping from 2-3 or more (often I have kids going from the lowest key on the keyboard all the way to the highest with ease) is no big deal.



Yes... We also do arpeggios, and chords... any other questions?



No, I think sloppy scales promote better musicianship and rarely hold students to any kind of standard with scales... they play them at whatever tempi and I encourage them to be as uneven & unprecise as possible.

(Sorry to be tongue in cheek but this question puzzles me... are there any teachers out there who do not strive to teach proper technique?)

Do you mean you follow this on E flat, B flat and A flat too? So the thumbs always meet up on F and C? I can see how this could work, but that would certainly be an unusual approach to take. For me, B flat and E flat are the only two keys that I feel justify adaptation away from having any thumbs landing together. Although I use one of the two thumb formulas for every other key, I do like the comfort of turning onto black notes, in accordance with the official fingerings.

What do you do with the minors though? I can see how your system works for majors, but how many different types of principle do you need for all 24 keys? The thing I like best about primarily judging from thumbs, is that you cover major and minor alike, with only two exceptions. In fact, if you used your fingering for E flat and B flat then every single one of 24 keys would only require two different patterns of coordination to be explained. Either C major fingering or thumbs always together.

The way you are grouping these seems totally illogical to me. In the Eb scale, 1 always meets with 2, which makes it unique and a problem..

Eb:
RH. 3123412(3)
LH: 3214321(3)

Bb is also unqiue:

Bb
RH: 4123123(4)
LH: 3214321(3)

Fingers 1 and 2, then 3 and 1 meet.

There is no way, logically, that I can group Bb and Eb with Db, Gb/F# and B...

I'm just checking terminology, Betty.

By "white key scale" you mean a scale with a tonic being one of the piano's white keys?
majors: C,D,E,F,G,A,B(Cb)
By "black key scale" you mean a scale with a tonic being one of the piano's black keys?
majors: C#(Db),Eb,F#(Gb), G#(Ab), A#(Bb)

OK, OK, you can take your tongue out of your cheek, I'll quietly back out. Good luck.

I have an odd question but it might have significance.

I suddenly realized what people meant by "thumbs together". It didn't make sense to me because I was picturing the thumbs being side by side or on the same key like when you play a C scale in contrary motion. But now I realize you folks mean it in the sense of timing! And this is where the question starts.

Ok, so obviously on piano you are playing notes with the LH at the same time as with the RH. In playing scales I might be playing D with 4 (LH) and D with 2 (RH), but I'm not thinking "when I use 4 LH, then I will use 2 RH". I'm not thinking about how the fingers of the two hands relate to each other. So I am also not aware of when my thumbs are playing at the same time. I don't know when any of my fingers are the same or different as I play. My question is: do pianists usually relate fingers this way? Or just thumbs, knowing when they are playing together and not? Is it part of teaching scale playing? (I had to learn on my own)

I think it's very much a part of teaching scales hands together. Relating fingers of each hand provides useful points of reference so a student can check their own progress throughout the scale. If you look at the fingering for C major (also G, D, A, E majors and minors) you notice that both RH and LH 3rd fingers always play together on the 3rd and 6th degree of the scale. Thumbs should only play together on the tonic when playing more than one octave. I find that this helps to avoid mistakes when learning the basic pattern especially when fingers have to cross over the thumbs.

Reference points are absolutely invaluable. Without it, there's a danger of suddenly panicking and feeling as if your hands are going on autopilot but could slide off course any second. The thumbs together always form the primary reference point for me- although I also see the sense of noticing 3s together in the rgular fingering. If the student is not observing at least one point of reference- how could they know when the fingering has gone wrong? I don't generally have a 'strict' attitude as a teacher, but one thing I'm extremely intolerant of is when a student misses landing their thumbs together on the tonic note, but has no idea anything went wrong. When the thumbs land together once only, it also shows the ONLY place where fourth fingers are used- i.e on either side of the meeting point. Everything else must always be 3. So you can cover the fingering with 100% certainty based on that reference point alone. No need for cumbersome charts of 123123412312345 etc. Far better to think soundly than get bogged down in so many numbers..

Personally I don't like learning methods where you just play separate hands over and over until you can get both working simultaneously without a sense of the interrelations- either for pieces or scales. At least some of the time, it pays to go so slowly that you are conciously aware of EVERY relationship between the sensations of simultaneous fingers in each hand. I don't ever want to suddenly think "hang on I'm playing that finger with that one. I never noticed that before. Is this what I normally do?" in a performance. It's so easy to panic and collapse from there. This kind of practice is where I could see playing scales from the score could sometimes be a useful step but I generally prefer to have students aim for that same awareness without needing to see it written down.

PS. I bet you do have a less conscious awareness of this type of stuff- even if its not in the forefront of your mind. It inevitably develops to some extent subconscious. However, to do it with even more conscious awareness can only add to the stability, in the long run.

That does make sense, of course.

I don't know how far I should go in exploring this. It's also a matter of what relates to what. I have related my hands with the keys, and that is where I feel the relationship. I can play HT, and the LH is relating to the map it's sitting on, while the RH is relating to the map it's sitting on. I just tried this idea of knowing 3 of both hands coincide at 3 and 6 of a C major scale. So my attention shifted to the two hands relating to each other, and the keys of the major scale which is a constant. But even though the middle finger is in the middle of the hand, my hands are still mirror images, and in no time I was totally disoriented. By the time I had played the C major scale twice, I landed with 2 on C with the LH because I was that disoriented. Obviously this is not for me. It just seems to make more sense to be oriented to the keys with each hand, rather than relating the hands to each other. That is my raw reaction.

The next relationship that I have is from sound to keyboard, or from written notes to keyboard.

I do have a reference point, but it is a relationship of fingers to key-map, not fingers to each other. My orientation is toward the keyboard and the notes.

Now what happens when you play in thirds and sixths, or contrary motion? By sixths I mean that you play C major, starting on C with the LH, and on E with the RH. That association doesn't work. When I did my first scales playing 2 years ago, I used Cooke, and from the beginning you played a scale contrary, parallel, and then in sixths parallel, and then contrary. This would not have been possible. I began scales HT by the second day at the latest - no 2 week period of HS.

I think my question also goes toward coordination, and independence of the hands. How do these relate. It's the same: if I am playing stacato with one hand, legato with the other - quiet with one, loud with th other - Am I directing each hand independently, or am I thinking in relationship (this hand is smoother/quieter than that hand - lift the notes sooner here than there)? Is it a bit of both?

Thank you Chris. That was very clear. Now I understand both what is done, and why it is done.

Interesting thoughts, keystring. Regarding the one hand loud, I'd still feel the same associations and reference points. For me it's not just numbers or fingers, but simultaneously about thumbs and a location for that on the keyboard. Arguably, I just think about the C when running at speed and my thumbs get there. But at slower speeds I always insist on thinking consciously ahead to the that note and how to get my thumbs there. Indeed, at slow tempos I always conciously plan thumb notes before even beginning, not matter how accustomed I am to the scale. I want to be thinking WHY the fingering arises any time I do slow work, not just repeating movements.

But, anyway, I wouldn't be directly associating this with the dynamic issues. That feels like something different, going on at the same time. Not sure exaclty what goes on in the brain, but I wouldn't feel that awareness of interrelations would compromise the ability to play one louder, in any way. Arguably, with such complex dynamics, I'd need to feel even more aware of a thumbs together reference point- to bond it all together while doing something strange.
Regarding the reference points, did you try the thumbs, instead of threes? I'd be all for noticing the 3s, but I definitely wouldn't have hugely in mind. Also, regarding 3rds and 6ths, it's a good point. However, I'd still have a reference point based on each octave. It's no so much about thumbs here, but I still have to feel togetherness and a sense of returning to something familiar. Also, despite starting in different places, the way fingers relate to each other is very consistent- just not in terms of thinking from the first note. However, the two basis fingering patterns still apply. So you simply need to carry across the physical foundations from elsewhere, but go patiently enough to notice the new relationships along the route.

I did build my scales very deliberately and slowly two years ago, in fact. The only thing is that I related it to key patterns in the way I described. At the end of the scale, my thumbs are on the tonic.

I should mention that I have a learning disability in the area of visual space perception. If I got disoriented by considering finger 3 of the two hands, it may be unique to me due to that difficulty. For that reason, when I acquired an internal map of the keyboard, I visualized the keys in my mind, felt them with my fingers, but did not look at the keyboard.

On a similar note, have you tried just closing your eyes and playing two octaves ultra slow- stopping to sense EVERY finger of each hand on the way? By doing this alone, you are building the kind of thing I'm talking about. Once you have the familiarity, you don't need to keep everything in the forefront. Only the thumbs landing together (or perhaps even just the note on which they land) would be in my conscious mind, at high speeds. Everything else is just a matter of having noticed it before, to the extent that it won't surprise you.

I would use the reference points when the need arises rather than point them out directly when teaching a scale in the first place. If someone is playing with the correct fingers already then it's not worth drawing attention to something which might over complicate things.

Keystring, you have found a way to finger scales which works perfectly well for you. Focusing on 3's together is not what you usually do so it's no wonder you had difficulty. If it isn't broke, don't fix it!

More reference points can be added when thumb on the tonic is not enough. For example it's possible (and common) to see:

RH 12341231
LH 54321321

The thumbs land on the tonic but the fingering isn't correct!

But......the more reference points you use the slower you need to go to avoid overload.

complicate things? I don't think there's any thing complex about knowing that the thumbs only meet on the tonic note and that fourth fingers should only ever occur next to it. I can't think of a simpler way to cover everything in the fewest possible terms. That single sentence precludes the wrong fingering you described in two different ways. The thumbs met nowhere near the keynote. And the fourth finger occurred nowhere near the keynote. If that fingering occurs, it's because they didn't use this simple thought process in any respect whatsoever. Not because it's complex. A single point of reference on the tonic would prevent that very easily indeed. Noticing the threes could add confusion, but the thumbs on tonic thinking is as basic as it comes.

Even if someone is playing the correct fingers already, they may be thinking 1231234123 etc. That's not simple, that's complex. To break it down to the most signficant fingers (based on the understanding that elsewhere you simply walk from finger to finger) is to simplify the thought process, not to make it complex.

I agree. If you mention that the 4th fingers only occur next to the key note it should help to avoid the problem but you didn't say that before, you simply said thumbs together on the tonic. Bringing in the 4's is yet again another useful point of reference.

When I teach scales hands together for the first time I tend to have them play one octave only in which case thumbs don't go together at all.

These reference points are just tools which are useful when first learning the pattern or correcting mistakes (especially with those students who have been using the wrong fingers for a long time). Once the fingering is secure it shouldn't be necessary to think about them at all.

Ah okay. I did mention that in one post, but it wasn't always specified. I think of it as the same point of reference even, rather than an extra one. If you take turning under 3 as being the 'normal' fingering then every thought processes centers around the thumbs meeting- plus 4s on either side. It's quite easy to conceive as just one principle.

I don't fully agree with the last paragraph, to be honest. I'd say that if you think of threes coinciding on the way, that should certainly be an incidental reference point, that disappears beneath the surface. I'd never think around those at speed (except for the 3s meeting on the tonic in E flat major) I'd say that most things work best if you have noticed them in slow practise, but then allow yourself to stop worrying about them at speed. However, the faster I play a scale, the more I think of it around togetherness of the thumbs, while everything else disappears underneath. You have to be careful not to end up accenting them, but I think it's one reference point that can continue to be beneficial. I suppose I could live without it, but it certainly doesn't hold anything back.

Sorry, I didn't notice where you mentioned the 4's in the earlier post but have found it now.

I do think that scales are very easy to teach in general. The biggest problem is getting people to practice them between lessons. I know for a fact that all my students know how to correctly finger their scales and how to use reference points in slow practice because we go over it week after week. If they practiced them every day they would have no difficulty. When someone has found a solution to this please let me know!

And, the more reference points you use, the more specific this exercise becomes to performing two handed scales.

And nobody cares about that abstraction - we don't train to play scales, but music. The point of scales is that it teaches a skill, or multiple skills, useful for playing music. I have trouble seeing how altering a fingering to have a consistent thumb line up can possibly do that.

One thing a scale can teach that remains unmentioned is the difficult art of listening.

I know this is true in my case. I started doing it grudgingly at first but lately I've been enjoying them. I am still only doing one octave at the time because I'm trying to memorize them.

Kim in IL

Big mistake, Kim.

Speaking as a student, few topics are as confusing as scales from the point of view of the teacher.

I am just of a completely different persuasion. Scales are simply about the musician learning to execute movement around the keyboard and to have the fingering be efficient and effective. Scales are exercises to create a pathway in your brains circuitry to be prepared to music literature that uses scales.

If you love music to the point of loving the theory (math and science of it) you are going to tackle such things as scales with zeal. All the information is there for us to follow.

It's our weaknesses in reading music and orienting ourselves to the grand piano staff and registers of the keyboard that creates problems. One simple misunderstanding of a concept might throw a devastating error our way. But, we can usually hear it, back track, figure it out. There is more potential for getting it right with a teacher. But, I'm finding that many teachers don't know now to teach scales, they might be able to do them, but where is the explanation and background information put into place in a constructive, structured, sequenced way? It's not the book that teaches you what to do. It's your working with your body to establish impulses that flow through your fingers to the keyboard (action!) that is the falling apart place. Learning to think and behave like a musician is an acquired skill, lots of time and effort put into place, drilling, storing, knowing and doing. If you don't see it like I do, I'd love to encourage you to get into the "driver's seat". It is not something you do because it's on the page, it's something you do because you fully understand the concepts, the utility of it, and can make it come through your brain and fingers competently and confidently.

I've read some really outrageous posting about scales here and I simply ask what is the relevancy of a lot of this complicated thought. Shame on us for making it difficult to satisfy our desire to intellectualize about it. I'll regret saying this, but here goes: "It's like listening to a snake oil salesman" reading on the dilemma of scales. I need an aspirin.

Scales are like reading maps, not searching for the "Holy Grail".

I sort of agree. But I'd always approach it from the point of view of aligned thumbs as being normal. After all, 21 of the 'correct' fingerings have either one or two instances of this per octave. That's an overwhelming trend. So I think you need to think whether you have good reason to be breaking with that trend- rather than whether you have good reason to break with the 'correct' fingering. Personally I see very good reason to break away from aligned thumbs in B flat and E flat. I take the notably improved physical comfort over the thumbs together concept. However, there's almost nothing in it, when it comes to 'correct' fingering for F sharp minor or aligning the thumbs on A. I feel marginally more comfort on the latter if anything (despite having grown up with unaligned thumbs). So I only feel good cause to depart with the thumb logic in B flat and E flat. The basis of every other scale uses one of only two fingering coordinations.

So while I agree with the principle, I'd just ask whether changing the E in A major to an E sharp justifies a totally different fingering (that demands unique coordination and is hence more difficult) for performing a near identical task. I really can't see that it does.

I can't believe it, I find myself in wholehearted agreement with Betty !

This might the beginning of a beautiful friendship !

Yeah, it seems really simple to each of you.

Yet from the outside it appears no two of you share the same simple.

That may indicate it is more complex than apparent.

Plus, there is a religious element here.

But it really is simple. WWH, WWWH, that's all there is to it. Hee, hee.

Hmm, you may be right.



I agree with you, that's all there is to it.

But wait a minute: a whole what ? A whole step, or a whole tone?

Landoranno, I can't believe that either, funny!

Tim, I'm sorry to say: a tetra chord has 4 symbols - and when you add 2 tetrachords together for the formula of a major scale, you need 8 symbols. Yours has only 7 letters, sir.

* W W H + W W W H is the formula/equation. So many people miss the accuracy of it.

* = Keynote - the Tonic of the Scale
w = whole steps (same as 2 half steps)
h = half step (from one note to it's closest neighbor in either direction)

There is such a thing as tetrachord fingering when creating the major scales on the piano keyboard: LH 5-4-3-2 + RH 2-3-4-5 (no thumbs). Start on any black or white piano key and do the formula using this fingering. It may help people see that using the Circle of 5ths becomes possible because the long string of tetrachords overlapping.

CDEF-GABC-DE#FG-AB#CD-E#F#GA-B#C#DE etc......

CDEFGABC
GABCDE#FG
DE#FGAB#CD
AB#CDE#F#GA for # keys

Do your own mental exercise for b keys.

Please no cursing!

Just when you thought the topic might be done....a correction in calculations being made by this tireless piano teacher. (he, he)

Betty

Tim, without having a very thorough understanding of all these scales from both the viewpoint of a player and a teacher, *I* would be lost.

My teacher told me to buy the Hanon book, then go home and learn them all, and I did. So it CAN be done.

I think what is being discussed here is all about different ways of approaching teaching the scales, *as teachers*.

For instance, I teach them about the way Chris does, I think, at least for C, D, E, G, A and Ab. Emphasis finger three together. But I also stress 4th finger crossover after the tonic (ascending LH, descending RH) and stress that 1 meets with 2, always, in the "middle" of the scale (fa, sol).

Also, I have all of this carefully notated and move from notation to memory ASAP.

Altering a standard fingering requires flexibility, and there are many times such flexibility is demanded by music itself. Quite obviously changing a standard scale fingering, when the hands are together, could either be advantageous or confusing to the brain, depending on how it is done, where—and why...

I think that's a good point. Also, what seems slightly complex written down is abundantly obvious when demonstrated to a student at a keyboard- where it actually serves to simplify For example, despite Betty's comment:

"I've read some really outrageous posting about scales here and I simply ask what is the relevancy of a lot of this complicated thought."

I'm a little perplexed by the jumbled mass of letters that she wrote- which basically does little more than very slowly give the order in which sharps arise via the circle of fifths. Sorry, Betty, but this strikes me as the single most complexified explanation I've seen in this thread. Everything else has been clear to me at once. Now, I'm sure this is clearer in practical demonstration, but from someone who can't see the point in something complicated, I'm rather surprised to see such an elaborate procedure. I see how it works. But if you want to keep it simple, all you need is to teach the order of tones and semitiones and then explain that if you know the order of sharps, it does the work for you. Basically, *WWHWWWH and FCGDAEB would have sufficed, if you add 343 for fingering order. Why finger in such a long-winded way when they all lead to simple 343? The fingering is derived from a consistent pattern, not from whether an interval is a tone or semitone (as is proven beyond any dispute by minor keys on the same tonic notes). If you're casting stones against needless complexity, I'd start there. Tetrachords occur of their own accord. They are defined by fingering, NOT vice versa. Only the raised 7th need be stated for each new key (as the newest sharp), as the rest is simply a given.

Good point about the one and two. I primarily approach it just with the thumbs meeting only on the keynote and fours either side (which is often enough in itself) but it certainly can't do any harm to also draw attention to that aspect- and make it even more certain that thumbs won't come together in the wrong places. From a teachers point of view, this type of thinking is extremely handy. Different students work in different ways. When mistakes creep in, different students will benefit from drawing attention to different components. So while you need a sound basis that may not always involve every element, a good teacher can never understand scales from too many angles. The more angles a teacher can view it from, the better they can establish foundations and the better they can make specific fixes, when necessary. "Outrageous" or "complicated"? It really shouldn't be when you think through.

A same confusion has come up repeatedly since I've been here. It took a while to figure out its source. The W's and H's refer to intervals, meaning the spaces between the notes, or the distance from one sound to the next sound. There are 7 intervals between the 8 notes. The * refers to a note. You can't really have a space without an object on either side of it. One space requires two objects.

C(W)D(W)E(H)F(W)G(W)A(W)B(H)C

One can count 8 notes in the octave, and 7 intervals between the notes. That is where the confusion has been coming from.

Also, why view in fours, Betty? Regarding the theory, it makes more sense to think of sixes. All of the first six notes are the same. So outside from fingering there would be no casue to even view fours. Look at sixes, followed a necessarily raised 7th note and you have a simpler answer. So it's simply not the case that tetrachords are a basis to define fingering. You have it in reverse! The reason you work in tetrachords is because the fingering PRODUCES them, as a synthetic construct to match predefined fingering groups.

I can't see anything more needlessly complex and indirect than going through this procedure. It's like multiplying X by 5 and then dividing it by 5. The fingering is the first step in the whole thing- tetrachords not even exisiting without it.


EDIT- Actually, I'll go back on that a little. The tetrachords display interesting recurrence, mathematically speaking. So they do have a basis for existence outside of theory. However, the fact that the fingerings corresponds is clearly not the product of that. Just look at the minors. Intervals and mathematical symmetry did not define the fingering. The fact that it's a very comfortable and efficient formula for the notes did. We'd use exactly the same fingering for all white key modes. Would you finger the dorian mode on tetra-chords? Of course not. Whether it could be analysed in two recurring segments would never even come into the equation. It's from the comfort of fingering 8 notes in the least positions possible.

A few points:

Mastering scales to pass exams and mastering them in order to become the best player you can are not the same thing. There may be an overlap. There may be a huge overlap. On the other hand, it could be potentially destructive. Let's say, for instance, the the one scale you use an alternative fingering for (I forget which one, and there may be more) works great. You teach it to a student. Then some moron, judging, decides to grade your student down merely on a deviation of fingering even if the scale is played very fast, very evenly, flawlessly.

So far, when I have taught alternate fingerings, my students have never been "caught". My theory is that those judging are primarily listening for dexterity, evenness, control, etc., and when scales are played very VERY well, they don't even notice when a "trick" is thrown in". I teach both the Eb and Bb scales with an alternate RH fingering. But this is based on my experience that tells me my LH never quite ever "catches up" to my RH in terms of speed and total ease. So when playing such scales, I am employing a principle of "misdirection", where all of my concentration is on the LH, allowing it to lead, and this allows me to use a second-best fingering for the RH, which senses it is not going at full speed (since the LH is always marginally slower), allowing the RH to sort of "shadow" the LH. However, I would NEVER teach such a fingering to a left-hander, because then the slightly more difficult RH fingering would become a major factor, both slowing the whole thing down and introducing a noticeable unevenness.

Next point: regardless of HOW they are taught, it is necessary to spotlight such scales as Eb and Bb, for exams, to out-fox judges who ask for them and, logically, expect them to fall apart from lack of special practice.

Last point: the standard fingerings for the LH for G, D and A are flawed because they set to principles against each other. The first is to always cross from a black to white key, never white to white, when there is choice. The second is to start white keys with the 5th finger on do, the principle being least possible number of thumb turns.

This makes the default fingering for G, D and A faulty for passage work, when stress is not on do but used the scales modally.

I don't agree that's necessarily a sound premise in all cases, myself. If it were always true, B natural minor (just with F sharp and C sharp) would lie easier than D major. Even without the awkwardness of the A sharp, I still find this a harder scale, by a long shot. I'd suggest that when the interval is a semitone, like in E flat, left hand. it's usually easiest onto a black key. But not always when it's a tone. I use plenty of variants elsewhere (more based on groupings than to get on black keys more often), but not in the foundations for the scales (other than F sharp minor).

In ABRSM you can do any fingering that works.

By the way, if the left hand leads, why not leave the right hand on the same old autopilot of 4 on b flats and 3 on E flats? Surely changing that makes it require more concentration on the right, rather than less? Wouldn't that detract from concentration on the left? I make sure my right hand always does the same for all flat keys, so I can focus on the differences in the left.

WHAT premise? I made a lot of points. Let's be sure, first, that we are talking about the same thing. First of all, nothing I said is meant to be carved in stone. I just threw out things to think about, dynamically, while playing music itself, and things to consider while deciding what will work best. Fingering is such a personal thing, it *has* to be changed in many ways for different players, which is why fingering is more art than science.

I agree. My point is that default fingerings for the LH when played from do to do change for the "set" of notes associated with a scale like D according to starting and terminating, in passage work. And that we balance different principles, such as most comfortable turns against least number of turns...

I was hesitant about even mentioning such ideas. I assumed that whatever I said would be taken too literally.

Last point: the standard fingerings for the LH for G, D and A are flawed because they set to principles against each other. The first is to always cross from a black to white key, never white to white, when there is choice. The second is to start white keys with the 5th finger on do, the principle being least possible number of thumb turns.


Sorry, the black key one above is what I meant. I basically agree with all you say in general about weighing things up and adapting based on such things within music. I just feel that there's a notable flaw in that premise for foundations, because it introduces many difficulties of coordination- but doesn't necessarily provide more physical comfort (which is usually the justification given for turning onto black keys). While going to the extent of taking a C major fingering for B flat major scales probably would not happen, I'd always weigh up whether it's comfortable to do the fewest positions possible positions before worrying whether I turn onto black keys or not- that is, when fingering real-life things in music and the basis for 'exam' scales. When departing from 'reference' fingering, it's usually to avoid extra positions- rather than because of black keys. Even in music, I don't think that should be hugely high up within the priorities to consider.

I just realised that even for E flat major and B flat major, the benefit of standard fingering is not necessarily about turning onto black note. If you have the l.h. thumb on C, it's not easy to get 3 and 2 across onto D then E flat. I suspect that this cramped position is the main reason why the thumb together principle is traditionally scrapped here. This would slow me down tremendously at high speeds. It's not specifically turning onto a white note though, but the awkwardness of getting to the e flat that follows. If you compare with F sharp minor however (the one other scale that departs from thumbs together) I don't see any analogous position of discomfort at any point. I think that's where following the idea that it's necessarily an advantage to be on a black note doesn't noticably hold up.

Um, has anyone seen these "piano plates" for scale fingerings? They were designed by a 9-year-old boy. Perhaps we teachers do intellectualize about this a bit...

Here's the link: Nate's Piano Plates

I think I might order these for my studio . . .

That just encourages the student to do things without thinking or understanding why. Maybe they could just do it first and learn to understand later. But I'm always skeptical about anything that promotes mindless rote learning without awareness. I don't think that's a very quick approach. I can see why a 9 year old would want this- because it allows him to relax his brain rather than use it. But will 24 different keys (plus the issue of melodic scales) sink in by just moving your fingers according where you've been told to put them? Frankly, a child would have to be a genius to independently recall all the different patterns at will. Understanding the tiny number of principles that unify the patterns is far more useful than a crib sheet.

Wow! It had not occurred to me you and I would look at the same thing 180 degrees different - I thought this was probably the one element of the entire conversation for which there wouldn't be controversy.

And yet, the way my mind works, I thought only of the interval between notes. Of which there are 7.

And you thought only of the notes. Of which there are 8.

And though both of us are right, the difference in viewpoint could lead to misunderstanding.

Uh oh, those three scales are the same ones I do nonstandard, for the same reason (though I didn't come up with it on my own.)

Great minds think alike? Or, we both make the same mistakes? <grin>

I do understand what you mean, but I don't think these tools necessarily promote mindless repetition. If I use something like these plates in my studio, it is as an aid. I wouldn't be planning to just hand them off to a student (or hand all 24 off at once, yikes!) without preparation. If I did that, then I agree it would be essentially a "cheat sheet" of fingerings, and there would be almost no way the student could retain the fingerings from memory.

I think something like these plates or the various graphical scale diagrams out there can be helpful. I have students who prefer to just see the notes of the scale on the staff, and students who also truly need to see the fingerings on the keys. We identify recurring fingering patterns and circle them on the key diagrams and on the staff, and probably the best thing is to let the student find the patterns. As they discover the patterns, they internalize them . . . and then they're secure.

I'm also curious: over what period of time does everyone think students need to learn scales in all 30 keys? I would think that by the time a student is learning melodic minor scales, the major keys and most likely the natural & harmonic minor scales are going to be fairly secure. Then it's a matter of relating the top ascending portion of the melodic pattern to the major scale and the entire descending portion to the natural minor -- something the student already understands.

Maybe we could each type up our scales curriculum and post them somewhere for comparison (half-kidding; actually, some of us already have posted our methods here, it seems).

Ah, OK.

That was a horrible generalization. For one thing, different hands may not feel exactly the same thing. Let me go out on a limb here and suggest a possibility. The more black keys my 2nd, 3rd and 4th fingers play in major scales, the more effortless my thumb movement feels to me. Obviously this will extend to relative minors (or parallel, depending which way we prefer to link them), and it holds true for me for melodic minor. Harmonic minor feels different to me, so I'd like to skip making any generalizations about it, for the moment.

For that reason, the Db scale is fastest for my LH (two half-step white to black crosses ascending), but the same scale, with the right hand, is almost as effortless as the B scale, which logically should be the fatest/easiest/smoothest for the RH.

In comparison to the black note scales (so also Gb/F#), C is uneven, and my LH descending shows it the most. Even with the RH, if I play up four or five octaves, maximum speed, my wrist is noticeably less still than with the B scale.

So obviously, if other people experience this in somewhat the same manner, some of this ease is lost in the LH even in the key of E, not so much because the crosses are whole steps, E/F# and B/C#, but the 2nd finger (on A) is not extended a bit and elevated as it would be if we added A# (E Lydian). If you play both the regular scale and lydian, in E, you might notice a TINY bit of difference. It's small, so many may not be able to detect it, if it exists.

However, if I then switch to E natural minor, LH, up and down several octaves fast, and compare that to D major, LH, several octaves, for my hand the E natural minor is just a wee bit smoother. This could be the length and shape of my 4th finger, which enjoys the slight feeling of "freedom" on F#.

I think the feeling of comfort/smoothness has to be explored, individually. It's fine to say that something should or should not be faster/smoother/less effort, but it needs to be tested over time. I think the most important point is that even if all 12 keys are practiced with major and all traditional minors, also in 3rds and 6ths, with different kinds of contrary motion, this is only a foundation and a limited one when we consider how scales of all kinds are played separately and together. This is why I said earlier that I have never met a really fine pianist without a thorough mastery of scales, but I've met pianists with good scales who were at best mediocre players. This is also why I oppose learning scales just for the SAKE of learning scales, to pass tests or exams, because the value of scales comes from what we can borrow from them and put to use in real music.

That's an extreme example, but I take your point. As for exam scales, I still claim that when the scales asked for are played flawlessly, people will not criticize us or our students and in fact will usually not notice.

Sure, but there are many situations in which we are "in a key", but the passage work is doubling back and forth, or going up 8 notes but down 9, and on, and on. If I am in D, but not playing a scale from do to do but moving around in a more complex way, I will consistently keep 3 on C# and 4 on F# in the LH.

Yes, but if I use the standard fingering for Eb, LH, and change the RH so that the thumbs also fall on G and D, this does not slow me down at all, hands together. The reason is that the slight decrease in speed for the RH, for me, does not cause my LH to slow down, and the security of the thumbs together feels rather good. I would end with 13 (3 for the top Eb). I am not recommending this fingering, just stating that for me, personally, it's shocking how comfortable it feels.

(I would never even consider this fingering for the RH in any other situation.)

However, at the moment I'm thinking of the end of the Emperor Concerto, which has Eb passage work, hands together, that would probably make practical application of that non-standard fingering clumsy. I've never played through it, so I'm guessing from memory. Another real-life application of the Eb scale played hands together is escaping me at the right now.

I originally disagreed with you about this, but after playing it both ways, I tend to think that when playing hands together, the advantage of thumbs together twice is the deciding factor. For my RH alone, however, the traditional fingering feels a bit more natural. That may be nothing more than habit.

Just had a look at those "piano plates".

Don't like them at all.

It is the scale, the scales, that are important. Playing them, with "correct" fingerings without understanding what it is that you are playing, is useless in my book.

In this sense, I disagree with the analogy with running when you want to play a sport. Doing scales is more than just a technical exercise that serves to build pianistic stamina.

WWHWWWH, that is what is important. That is the place to start.

Start from the very beginning, a very good place to be.

Landorrano, I agree with your post above, apart from your final comment - the very beginning is a very good place to start, but probably not a great place to *be* for too long.....

It's about understanding 'major-ness' (or whatever other tonal variant) in your fingers in any position, and that's why playing contrary motion or 6ths apart highlights weaknesses in our total understanding of any one pattern - it's not just about fingering, it's about conceptualising the keyboard and it's about being able to physically work your way around the geographies of various patterns.

For a laugh today in my practice I worked my way through all the Major-Harmonic scales. This is simply the Major scale with a flattened 6th. The B flat permutation took me 10 minutes before I played with [what I regard as] fluency, whereas the E pattern needed less than 1 minute to be fluent.

I'd be interested to see what teachers in this forum make of their experience trying to play the Major-Harmonic pattern (which is only one semitone different to the Major pattern).....

In my view, scales are the way to take physical possession of the instrument, of the keyboard, and to take possession of the tonal structure of music. Playing one octave is thus useless, even negative, even for little tykes. Especially for little tykes.

The direct applicability of scales in playing is very limited.

For a pianist to be good he has to take possession of the instrument, as he has possession of his own voice. He cannot become good if the instrument is not his. This begins the first day.

And this is why in the Russian method books discussed in another thread these last days, there is no question of the five-fingered C position. In Russia one starts from the whole.

I am in wholehearted agreement. Very nicely said.

deleted because way too confusing when written out.

Could you expand on this a little? My teacher thinks it's good. I read your comments and find them interesting (the parts I could understand).

TIA,

Kim in IL

I personally LOVE the idea of the piano plates. Experience -- correct experience -- can precede understanding. Just because someone learns something essentially by rote does not preclude the eventual learning of the theory or its ultimate application.

I think any number of you are talking past each other and ignoring that fact that people have different ways of learning, different paths to take. What does the path really matter if, in the end, the destination is arrrived at?

I just looked at them, and I agree.

They instantly illustrate in a visual manner the principle of 1231234 (or reverse). They also show how this principle remains unchanged when you start on a different finger, and which other fingers are possible. The 213 and 214 left hand families are obvious. I could only see the one plate, so I don't know what they do about the G, D, A problem mentioned, but obviously the teacher could change which plate to use if desired.

It doesn't teach WWHWWWH, but maybe you'd get that ingrained in your ear just by playing them?