Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum When practicing scales, do you count or say key designations

I say in my mind the note names so that I get to learn which notes you play in that tonality (C♯ could also be D♭, etc), and to learn the association with the key and the name in that tonality.
But you can do countless things in your mind; I don't think it does matter to count or say or think something, the most important thing is doing what Cargary Mike talked about here:

This should improve your control, your fluency, etc.

Don't play scales - play Bach.

It's virtually the same thing - but then you can brag about playing Bach. Nobody brags about playing scales.

And listen to Richard - there is much wisdom in what he says...

Why not play scales? You have to do them for exams and when top pianist play top pieces, that is when scales fall into place as I think it makes the playing easier and I think it makes your fingers more flexible

You need to know how to play scales.

It won't be some magic technique booster, but it is something you should do well. It's just like walking; everyone should know how to walk.

In any type of music, you'll see some sort of scale. Like, when you play any sport, you will have to do some sort of walking. Even when you're swimming, you'll walk to the pool.

If you like doing scales, add in some arpeggios, motion patterns, etc. with your scales.

If you don't like scales, there are other things that help you get stronger. I'm not sure what level you're at, but A Dozen a Day finger exercises are great for beginners.

Hanon is the intense/focussed version of A Dozen a Day. Czerny is more musical, pieces that work technique. Both of these are early intermediate and up.

You can also find etudes (pieces that work on technique) that are at your level.

===

To answer the original question: before I start playing, I say the sharps/flats to myself. Then I play. I feel the rhythm; I don't really say anything in my head, but I've been playing these for years.

I get my students to learn the notes properly first, then work on counting and making the scales even.

So, if we're doing B major (which, by the way, is the easiest scale of all-- it fits the shape of your hand) then we'll make sure the notes work fine, the fingering fits, etc. Then we'll work on counting, 1 - 4, to get it even.

Does that help?

Excellent post.

I will add that scales also build into one's ability the "thumb under" movement, which is prevalent in all genres of music as a device to move the hand through a passage. And thus is a very important component of smooth and workable fingering.

When I get a transfer student who has not learned scales, they often do not naturally do the thumb under in passages where it should be used, and thus their fingering schemes can be unnecessarily awkward. People drilled in scales are more apt to automatically do the thumb under move where needed.

No you don't...






If it won't then why bother at all (let alone doing it well)?

If you practice scales a lot you'll become very good - at playing scales. If this is your ultimate objective then fine...go for it. But, if your goal is to play music then practice playing music...

Hence Bach - there are enough scale-like passages in Bach to satisfy even the most ardent scale practitioner - and you too can someday say you've mastered the works of a genius!

Wow, you guys/gals are great. Thank you so much for the excellent advice!!

While I am not focussing per se on scales now, I am doing a few mixed in here and there just because I know that eventually once better I will be doing them a lot more. Currently I am doing them just for the memory aspect. By that I mean so that I remember where the fingers are supposed are supposed to go without having to manually place each finger with forethought upon each key correctly. Simply put, so that my hands know where to go in a scale automatically.

One of my biggest problems is that with my current, uneducated skill level, I have a repetoire (term used very loosely) that is redundant. I have a bunch of measures (again term used very loosely) that I am trying to make into a song, or composition but I have no idea how to bridge them properly if that is the correct term. Meaning so that they sound like a continuation of the previous measure. They are like separate measures with no cohesiveness or fluidity. Initially I thought that learning scales would help me find a way to bring them together as it makes your fingers walk up or down to a different key, but that doesn't seem to be the case for me. I find myself when practicing scales just glazing over and going 'finger, finger, finger, thumb, finger, finger finger finger, etc. with no inspiration nor soulful enjoyment nor musical or melodious ideas of where it could take me. It becomes as Richard said, purely mechanical.

Thank you all, all of your advice is invaluable to me.

No, if you are good at scales then you will be able to play Bach, Mozart, Chopin, Rachmaninoff, and any other composer who decides to make a piece with notes that go up or down side by side.

In other words, pieces that use a part of a scale, or notes that go up and down.

If you practice Bach, you will only know how to play Bach, but not very well, because Bach isn't great for starting off technique with.

No one brags about playing scales but anyone worth their salt will not brag about playing Bach either.

Like, no one brags about being able to walk but professional beach volleyball players don't brag about how well they can run in the sand and how fast they can go without spraying sand up their butts either.

Come to think of it, you don't have to brag if you're worth your salt.

Like, "I can play Bach and you can't?" Come on. Bach isn't even my favourite composer.

Hey Sozo, why don't you try playing other people's pieces first, and getting the feel for the sound of the notes? Composing comes with time; play around with the order of the notes.

Hi Bluoh.

Ah if only! It then comes back to me not yet knowing how to read music, I can't play someone elses music yet, nor can I play a song that I've heard by ear, leaving only composition. I just started to try to learn to read music yesterday via youtube.

There are helpful tutorials and quizzes on note reading at
http://www.musictheory.net
http://www.teoria.com/
There are quiz/games where you name the note, as well as ones where you find it on an on-screen keyboard.

Thank you Tangleweeds! I am on Teoria right now.. the info I am getting off of it is great! Better than the tutorials that I watched yesterday thats for sure and I don't have to keep pausing. Much appreciated!

Not so - mechanically playing scales well doesn't necessarily mean that you can thus play the complex music of the great composers well also - this requires interpretive ability, which is a totally different and advanced skill...

However, if you can handle the music of those guys then knocking off a few scales with alacrity should be no sweat at all...

Scales - like posture rules - are inventions of teachers without imaginations...




It's not bragging if you can do it...

If you can't master the mechanics of something, how can you expand on it?

If you can't move your legs, how can you learn to run in the sand without spraying sand up your butt?

If you can't play scales, how can you play Bach?

There are reasons we do things; there are reasons that examination boards around the world still test scales after hundreds of years.

People are not stupid. Maybe you don't care about being smart with piano and saving time, but that's not true for everyone.

Interpretive ability is not advanced. Anyone can interpret. A two year old can tell you how to sing Mary Had a Little Lamb.

Having musicality is advanced.

You are implying that Bach doesn't require musicality nor interpretive ability. That is wrong and shows that you do not have much experience with music, so I will not call you out harshly. Maybe other people will do that.

You hate scales and you think they're stupid, but they're not.

I don't practice scales anymore because I've done them for years; I can do whatever I like and still keep up because I know myself and the technique that fits me. I haven't practiced scales in over two years. (I've played them during lessons, but practicing isn't the same.)

The point is, I know how to play scales, and I get the freedom that comes with it.

Playing scales, and technique, opens up possibilities for you. You can play Liszt, Beethoven, Rachmaninoff.

Playing just Bach is not good for beginners because Bach isn't great for developing technique from the ground up. Scales and other technique do that for you.

Like I said, there are other alternatives (see my last posts) to scales, but when you know how to play scales and other standard technique, doors will open for you, because you'll be able to play all sorts of music.



Please read your own words below.



Again, you're saying Bach is mechanical and doesn't require musicality. That doesn't explain why pianists with PhDs will spend two hours dissecting three bars.

Why do we analyze Bach's work? If Bach is so basic and stupid, then why do we spend so much time on his work?

[Edit] Actually, no, apparently not everyone spends so much time on Bach's work, as you have shown. But then again, not everyone is amazing at piano.

If I may mediate, Bluoh, I think trapperjohn is trying to get across the point that scales and other technical exercises can effectively be argued to be useless when practiced in the absence of music (see Here). Obviously you can't play a large percentage of the piano repertory if you're unable to play scales back to front and trapperjohn isn't trying to argue this (I don't think anyone would, because it's obviously a losing argument).

What I believe he's trying to argue is that while practicing scales is necessary, it's simultaneously worthless (http://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,2758.msg23889.html#msg23889), or rather, it can be when they're already thoroughly learned. And while I don't mean to take sides, Bluoh, you obviously know well that mastery of scales alone don't open the doors to the aforementioned piano repertory which contains them in unbroken format (I don't presume you don't, but I'm simply clarifying your post that, "when you know how to play scales and other standard technique, doors will open for you, because you'll be able to play all sorts of music"). I've learned well from your posts (here and on your site) among others that there's far more that's necessary in regards to practicing music for performance - or just to play in general - than overcoming a few simple difficulties in the form of scalar passages (why else would you have assimilated all the neat information Here ). Also, there's no need to make farcical and outlandish extrapolations that trapperjohn thinks Bach is "mechanical, doesn't require musicality, or is stupid."

And trapperjohn, while - I presume - you tried to argue that scales aren't necessary as technical exercises, it's likely irrelevant as I'm not sure that Bluoh was ever implying that she thought that this was the case. Hopefully this is evident from her last post.

I think that there was simply a misunderstanding from where both sides are arguing from.

One plays Bach (or any other composer) by playing Bach (or any other composer) - one doesn't have to master scales (or even play them at all) in order to take on the study of musical compositions in general, and become very good at it - but if one masters this real music one sure as heck could play any scale one wanted to, if one wanted to...although why one would want to is beyond me...



How can wasting one's time playing scales instead of real music "save time" - and why is this smart?



Musicality is just another name for "interpretive ability" - but it's like political opinions - while everyone has them, a very few are definitely far superior to the vast majority of the "run of the mill" - and one sure doesn't get into that "few" by playing scales until one's brain explodes...



Playing scales opens up the possibility that someday one will be able to play scales amazingly well - but who wants to hear a concert of selected scales? If one works hard enough and long enough one can play the music of the Great Composers, and without ever having attempted a friggin' scale!



Not so - of all the Great Composers he's the absolute best for that...

Edited to add: Teachers who browbeat their students into practicing scales should be flogged or tarred and feathered - and forced to listen endlessly to those students practice them!

DOWN WITH SCALES!!!

Hey Bob - actually I'm trying to argue that scales are irrelevant.

And I'm surprised to find out that "he" is a she - not that it makes any difference - just a little surprised - not sure why - but I'll bet she has an opinion on that!

Hey Bobpickle, it's good to see you here. Thanks for your efforts.

I am saying that you should know how to play scales. I do not understand how a beginner can play Bach well but not know how to play scales. That's like saying you can run in the sand but you can't walk on the ground.

As you know, I never look to start arguments; I clarify things so people who read after will make the right choices for their piano journeys.

Sometimes I get worked up because it means so much to me-- I've made so many mistakes and I want to help people get through that.

I remember being in tears, because I could not play a Bach passage evenly at my lesson. My teacher made me play the same scale, going up, for five minutes straight in the lesson, before I even got a slight nod to continue the piece. This was at the performer's level.

So you should know how to play scales before you try to perfect Bach. Because scales are more basic than Bach, and Bach uses scales.

Once you know how to play scales, you're open to things like Hanon, Bach, Czerny for technique. All of these have scales but you shouldn't use these to learn scales.

You can always tell, though. When a beginner plays Bach without knowing how to play scales first, the notes are uneven and there are weird accents everywhere. You can bet that 99% of the time, the notes aren't smooth either.



TraperJohn did, though. It's not outlandish at all.

For example:



He says scales = Bach.



Then he says scales are mechanical.

So Bach is mechanical too, since Bach is the same thing as scales (and scales are mechanical), would you agree from his statements?

Plus, he also implies that Bach's music is simple, since he says that "complex music" requires "interpretive ability" and that's "advanced".

We are talking about whether a beginner should learn how to play scales or jump into Bach.

Apparently Bach is not advanced enough to need "interpreting".

So, maybe people who pore over Bach's scores are idiots and TrapperJohn is a genius, who knows? And I'm an idiot when I paid my teacher to yell at me for Bach.

There is technique, then there is using technique to play dazzling pieces. The point of technique is to be able to play other pieces.

Like, why do basketball players bother running laps when all you need to do is shoot baskets to win a game? Because you still have to run back and forth during games, and keep up with the other team, or else you'll lose.

If you've read my writing, you probably know a bit about the way I think (although I'm revamping my blog soon). I'm just like everyone else; I've made lots of mistakes. I'm not perfect, but I know how to make the smart choices for my goals and I hope to help others too.

I am surprised. Is it because I talk about sports? Are girl pianists supposed to be delicate and not play sports? I only talk about the sports I play, so I'll never talk about golf.

I am genuinely curious. I was just living in the forest a few weeks ago. I wrote a blog post about it actually, I can even share it with you if you want.

I looked over my posts here and I don't see anything that gives any hints.

Anyways, I think I'm done debating.

I'm not interested in convincing you that scales are worth learning, since you don't seem to see Bach as a final product, but more like Hanon or Czerny-- things that help you build technique. (No one performs Hanon, like no one performs scales.) Which is fine. I performed Bach but I don't go out of my way to polish Bach pieces, so I see how you'd think that way.

I hope that whoever reads this next will make a smart choice for their goals, from our discussion.

my understanding of scales is they are just the notes that make up a certain key. For example I know the key of G major means you have to hit F# instead of F unless its natural'd out. I don't understand how playing those notes up and down really does anything for me except help ingrain a sort of "geography" of the keys depending on the key you're playing in... which i guess could help with improv so you know whats safe to hit and will sound good. But can't you gain that same geography type training just thru experience with playing musical things instead of just doing a scale? I know the C major scale both hands with the right fingering. I don't know how it helps me tho. can't you also learn this using basically a textbook due to the nature of how it works?