HELP!!!!

I want 2 do my grd 6 clarinet soon because i can play all of the pieces perfectly but i cant play scales Do you think I should move over to trinity just for this one exam ( because you dont have to play scales) or stick and try and play them. As i have failed my scales everytime I have done a clarinet exam(piano im fine............so unfair!)

Someone pleae give me ssome advise!

xxx

hey im doing Ab and i cannot do the g6 clarinet scales to save my life!

I don't think there's really much difference between the boards. I think that both AB and Trinity are QCA acredited so they must be the same standard.
David

I think i will probably go for trinity then but i will need to do something for improvisation and im paart of a clarinet ensemble so that will do fine for the ensemble piece!

I *thinK* you'll have to do some sort of scale study for trinity, definitely some form of scales unless I'm very mistaken, and do check that you can actually play all the trinity pieces before you decide to switch as you can't just use the AB ones...

QUOTE (stacetheace8 @ May 24 2005, 07:19 PM)

I want 2 do my grd 6 clarinet soon because i can play all of the pieces perfectly but i cant play scales Do you think I should move over to trinity just for this one exam ( because you dont have to play scales) or stick and try and play them. As i have failed my scales everytime I have done a clarinet exam(piano im fine............so unfair!)

I'd suggest actually (although I don't play the clarinet) that if you're playing the clarinet to be good at it you learn the scales and then do the AB exam; not because there's anything wrong with the Trinity exam, just because in order to progress you need to work on your weaknesses. There's no point in changing boards to dodge something you can't do unless all that you want to do is get a piece of paper. Change boards because you prefer the pieces, yes; because you prefer the format of the exam, yes; but not because you want to avoid doing something that's important. Also if you then want to move back to the AB you're going to have lots more work to do when you get to grade 7: you're starting a future problem.

If your only reason for doing it so soon is that you've learnt the pieces I'd suggest giving the pieces a rest and working on some others whilst your scales catch up: the pieces are worth less than 2/3 of the marks for the exam.

Good point...

I am transferring my advanced students to Trinity because there is no grade 5 theory requirement acting as a bar to progress through the practical, usually at a time when they are heavily into GCSE'A' level study.

As an extra incentive for me, there are a fraction of the scales set by Trinity for pianists, when compared to AB. There is a study replacing a mass of scales, so it is not an 'easy' option; I just know that kids will find it more interesting.

I am going to experiment with early grade candidates as well. The syllabus offers flexibility. Candidates can even avoid scales altogether if they can handle the keyboard musicianship option.

I like the viva voce; this will give candidates at the lower end of the scale an incentive to learn the underlying theory behind the pieces.

Stacetheace8, I am lucky in that I believe scales are of little value to pianists. My understanding is that they are vital to just about everybody else for working at things like breath control, bow control etc. Perhaps your best interests as a clarinettist might be best served by learning the scales properly.

Then again, I am a pianist, so what do I know? Feel free to shoot me down, clarinettists, if I am talking rubbish.

I would do AB cos then you have to learn the scales and I guess you will need to learn them at sometime in your life.

Yes, scales are very useful on the flute at least, although possibly not when just learned for exams and not used any other way.

QUOTE (SteveHopwood @ May 25 2005, 11:00 AM)

I am transferring my advanced students to Trinity because there is no grade 5 theory requirement acting as a bar to progress through the practical, usually at a time when they are heavily into GCSE'A' level study.

Are you suggesting that G5 theory is not important? Don't you think the content in G5 will help any instrumentalist/vocalist at a higher level?

Makes one wonder why the AB decided to make it a prerequisite. Perhaps to prevent rote learning and scurrying through the grades with no other facility but to churn out notes.

(grand choeur descends soapbox in bewilderment akin to an alcohol induced stupor)

QUOTE (grand choeur @ May 25 2005, 07:09 PM)

QUOTE (SteveHopwood @ May 25 2005, 11:00 AM) I am transferring my advanced students to Trinity because there is no grade 5 theory requirement acting as a bar to progress through the practical, usually at a time when they are heavily into GCSE'A' level study. Are you suggesting that G5 theory is not important? Don't you think the content in G5 will help any instrumentalist/vocalist at a higher level? Makes one wonder why the AB decided to make it a prerequisite. Perhaps to prevent rote learning and scurrying through the grades with no other facility but to churn out notes. (grand choeur descends soapbox in bewilderment akin to an alcohol induced stupor)

"Are you suggesting that G5 theory is not important?". Yes, I am.

"Don't you think the content in G5 will help any instrumentalist/vocalist at a higher level?" Yes, I do, if I thought for a moment that any of them actually remembered any of it for long enough for it to make a difference.

Learning theory will not, "...prevent rote learning and scurrying through the grades with no other facility but to churn out notes." Expert instrumental teaching will stop that.

Students remember only what is important to them subsequent to the exam they 'learned' the material for.

I learned most of the theory I know as a result of having to teach it.

Recently, I provided the answer to a query about unprepared 7ths in Baroque trio sonatas in a forum posting. I was able to do that not because of what I 'learned' (and then promptly forgot) as a music student. I was able to provide the answer because I had 'taught' unprepared 7ths to 'A' level students for several years; originally researched info became a natural part of my knowledge. I could not have answered the question as a student, even though I 'learned' the necessary info during my second year. It held no relevance to me, so I forgot it.

Teachers learn theory, not students.

stacetheace8 - whichever board you use for Grade 6 and beyond, you will need to learn the scales eventually, so you might as well bite the bullet and learn them now, even if you do eventually switch boards for the exam (although alot of the same pieces crop up on both syllabi). Alot of the pieces you will now find yourself playing have loads of scales and arpeggios in them anyway, so making sure you're fluent in the scales is going to be a good investment of your time.

If you don't believe me about arpeggios cropping up in pieces, have a look at the second movement of the Mozart concerto, which is on the ABRSM Grade 6 syllabus. It opens with an F major arpeggio.

QUOTE (SteveHopwood @ May 25 2005, 04:11 PM)

I learned most of the theory I know as a result of having to teach it.

To whom do you teach it? After all you did say it is not important to learn it did you not?

I sniff inconsistency in your speak.

I find it difficult to see how someone gets to that level of playing proficiency without managing to actually know most of what is required for grade 5 theory.
By the time someone is playing at that level it should be almost a formality to run through all theory workbooks just to plug any small gaps (I found it useful to formally cover things like official ways of grouping notes) if they have not taken any previous grades in theory.

QUOTE

Yes, I do, if I thought for a moment that any of them actually remembered any of it for long enough for it to make a difference.

I found that grade 5 level theory consists (mostly) of such everyday knowledge that it doesn't really need remembering as such... it is just stuff that you know (like how to get dressed or make tea...)

The idea of people progressong that far in playing and not picking up the basics of theory suggests to me either a teacher who never explained anything or a student who is not really interested enough in their playing to be bothered to switch on their brain.

And as this post is in the piano forum then this is more especially so.

argh I can't write this without getting angry and het up so I give up for now...

QUOTE (sarah-flute @ May 25 2005, 05:57 PM)

argh I can't write this without getting angry and het up so I give up for now...

QUOTE (grand choeur @ May 25 2005, 08:25 PM)

QUOTE (SteveHopwood @ May 25 2005, 04:11 PM) I learned most of the theory I know as a result of having to teach it. To whom do you teach it? After all you did say it is not important to learn it did you not? I sniff inconsistency in your speak.

Actually, I didn't say that. You asked a specific question, which was, "Are you suggesting that G5 theory is not important?". I answered that question.

"To whom do you teach it?" Everybody who comes for piano lessons. It is the underlying theory behind the music they play: notation; rhythm; harmony; key colour; key signature; time signature; dynamic markings; performance directions; historical context. It takes up little time and has obvious relevance to the music.

By the time these kids (and adults) get to the point at which grade 5 becomes an issue, it is a doddle to breeze through what is left of the syllabus; it is hardly difficult, after all.

A lot of it is also irrelevant to pianists. Many are taking this wretched exam at a time when academic pressure on them is heavy. They come to me to make music at the piano, not write pointless exercises in a book.

Trinity recognises this. You watch the AB recognise it if a significant number of candidates transfer boards.

QUOTE (SteveHopwood @ May 25 2005, 08:11 PM)

Students remember only what is important to them subsequent to the exam they 'learned' the material for.

This is surely a generalisation rather than a rule, because my personal experience has been different!

Theory of Music, as tedious as it can be, does teach musical literacy - especially perhaps to the second echelon players, not those with Mozartian gifts.

I have retained all significant theory learned throughout my life. I have seen how constantly working with time signatures, key signatures and intervals etc can improve the reading of music and in particular sight reading.

On the other hand, those that have not got their "hands dirty" with some good solid transposition work and other theory can be amazingly vague about the basics.

Theory will benefit some students a lot more than others. I am always open to suggestions though of how the same benefits could be realised without the drudgery!

QUOTE (SteveHopwood @ May 25 2005, 03:00 PM)

I am lucky in that I believe scales are of little value to pianists. Then again, I am a pianist, so what do I know?

Sorry Steve, but I have to disagree with you on this one! Can I ask you a few questions?

1. How do you teach the issue of thumb going under / 3rd / 4th finger going over? I would have thought scales were the ideal exercises to do this.

2. How do you get your students to really focus on evenness of tone / balance between the hands?

3. How do you encourage neat and nimble fingers?

I have always believed that scales really help all of these issues and are therefore of very high importance to pianists. They are technical exercises one always comes back to in order to refresh or improve one's technique. I know one can also use studies to work on technique, but if one wants to 'get back to basics' then surely scales are the most straightforward method? You don't need music (necessarily) and so you can really put all your focus into what your fingers are doing.

And secondly, what did you imply by saying "Then again, I am a pianist, so what do I know?" On your signature it says you have 30 years' piano teaching experience! I'm just confused now.

What do other people think?

Mrs M

QUOTE

1. How do you teach the issue of thumb going under / 3rd / 4th finger going over? I would have thought scales were the ideal exercises to do this. 2. How do you get your students to really focus on evenness of tone / balance between the hands? 3. How do you encourage neat and nimble fingers?

and 4 - what better way is there to help understanding of the tonal system, upon which much of western music is based? Memorising the facts in the abstract is much less accessible for many students.

Maggie

I'm thinking that we are engaging a cog in the [certificate] factory which produces semi-literate musicians. i.e. Brill players but have precious knowledge on how to play/interpret the music.

I think I will ignore further posts since it might not be possible to have a leopard change its spots.

Bah.......................

QUOTE (SteveHopwood @ May 26 2005, 06:04 AM)

By the time these kids (and adults) get to the point at which grade 5 becomes an issue, it is a doddle to breeze through what is left of the syllabus; it is hardly difficult, after all.

So why bother changing boards to avoid what is a trivial hurdle?

Personally I like grade 5 theory, I'd be incredibly disappointed if someone claimed to be a grade 6 pianist but didn't know how to write rhythms properly and count the number of beats in a bar (sightreading can be failed and the exam still passed...)! Furthermore if a grade 6 pianist couldn't play a C Major scale I'd be slightly worried too....

I'm sure that reputable teachers, like yourself, would not allow this to happen but the fact that grade 5 theory is there makes sure that people can't get away with this (to a certain extent anyway, certainly better than not having it).

QUOTE (AnotherPianist @ May 26 2005, 08:26 AM)

QUOTE (SteveHopwood @ May 26 2005, 06:04 AM) By the time these kids (and adults) get to the point at which grade 5 becomes an issue, it is a doddle to breeze through what is left of the syllabus; it is hardly difficult, after all. So why bother changing boards to avoid what is a trivial hurdle? Personally I like grade 5 theory, I'd be incredibly disappointed if someone claimed to be a grade 6 pianist but didn't know how to write rhythms properly and count the number of beats in a bar (sightreading can be failed and the exam still passed...)! Furthermore if a grade 6 pianist couldn't play a C Major scale I'd be slightly worried too.... I'm sure that reputable teachers, like yourself, would not allow this to happen but the fact that grade 5 theory is there makes sure that people can't get away with this (to a certain extent anyway, certainly better than not having it).

I broke my promise but I wish to align myself with your post.

Thank you Maggie!

Very important reason indeed. I am sure there are many more as well!

Mrs M

QUOTE (Mrs M @ May 26 2005, 09:36 AM)

QUOTE (SteveHopwood @ May 25 2005, 03:00 PM) I am lucky in that I believe scales are of little value to pianists. Then again, I am a pianist, so what do I know? Sorry Steve, but I have to disagree with you on this one! Can I ask you a few questions? 1. How do you teach the issue of thumb going under / 3rd / 4th finger going over? I would have thought scales were the ideal exercises to do this. 2. How do you get your students to really focus on evenness of tone / balance between the hands? 3. How do you encourage neat and nimble fingers? I have always believed that scales really help all of these issues and are therefore of very high importance to pianists. They are technical exercises one always comes back to in order to refresh or improve one's technique. I know one can also use studies to work on technique, but if one wants to 'get back to basics' then surely scales are the most straightforward method? You don't need music (necessarily) and so you can really put all your focus into what your fingers are doing. And secondly, what did you imply by saying "Then again, I am a pianist, so what do I know?" On your signature it says you have 30 years' piano teaching experience! I'm just confused now. What do other people think? Mrs M

I have been asked a number of questions. Here are my answers.

"1. How do you teach the issue of thumb going under / 3rd / 4th finger going over? I would have thought scales were the ideal exercises to do this. " Any context in which it arises. It arises every day.

"2. How do you get your students to really focus on evenness of tone / balance between the hands?" I teach them to listen to themselves playing. This is an aural issue.

"3. How do you encourage neat and nimble fingers?" By encouraging practising. I present children with wonderfully attractive music by a wide range of superb composers. This makes them want to practise. From this they acquire 'neat and nible fingers'

I have a staggering technique - I have given live performances of Rachmaninov's 3rd and Brahms' 2nd concertos . I did not acquire this technique playing scales. I acquired it by playing Bach's, '48' , a third of Beethoven's piano sonatas and most of Chopin's Etudes + misc virtuoso piano pieces.

Scales get pianists nowhere. Only the unimaginative think they do. I will happily defend my point of view until the unimaginative get bored and give up.

Having said that, I do not claim to have all the answers. I have been teaching for more than 30 years, though, so I bet I have more than most.

Arrogant? You bet.

All of the above is very interesting...!

...... and this is why I have always thought that doing performance assessment is not really the real thing,,, cheating a bit really,,!

QUOTE (SteveHopwood @ May 26 2005, 10:04 PM)

And secondly, what did you imply by saying "Then again, I am a pianist, so what do I know?" On your signature it says you have 30 years' piano teaching experience! I'm just confused now.

Sorry, Mrs M

I meant to reply. I was saying that my opinion of scales applied to pianists only. I was adding to a thread: " Stacetheace8, I am lucky in that I believe scales are of little value to pianists. My understanding is that they are vital to just about everybody else for working at things like breath control, bow control etc. Perhaps your best interests as a clarinettist might be best served by learning the scales properly."

I was admitting that I do not know exactly how this may be true.

QUOTE (SteveHopwood @ May 26 2005, 10:04 PM)

Having said that, I do not claim to have all the answers. I have been teaching for more than 30 years, though, so I bet I have more than most. Arrogant? You bet.

Well as someone who's been playing for nearly four years and teaching for none I'm the perfect person to argue .

QUOTE (SteveHopwood @ May 26 2005, 10:04 PM)

I have a staggering technique - I have given live performances of Rachmaninov's 3rd and Brahms' 2nd concertos . I did not acquire this technique playing scales. I acquired it by playing Bach's, '48' , a third of Beethoven's piano sonatas and most of Chopin's Etudes + misc virtuoso piano pieces. Scales get pianists nowhere. Only the unimaginative think they do. I will happily defend my point of view until the unimaginative get bored and give up.

I can't deny that one would learn a lot of technique from playing Chopin Etudes, the Bach WTC etc.; however in order to be able to get to the standard of even attempting those pieces one needs to have some techniques gained from easier excercises in the first place. Maybe at a high level proffesional pianists don't need to regularly do scales for technique if they can rattle through the WTC or something to warm up but they had to get there somehow. I doubt that they couldn't play the scales if asked though.

Surely being unable to recognise and play a scale patterns would also hinder sightreading, and efficient learning of pieces. I bet that you could play any scale I care to name if I asked you...

QUOTE (AnotherPianist @ May 26 2005, 10:23 PM)

Well as someone who's been playing for nearly four years and teaching for none I'm the perfect person to argue

Look, AnotherPianist, I know when I am beat. There is not one of my pupils does not have the measure of me.

All I can say to you is: scales have nothing that the music of Bach, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven do not offer in a much more interesting form. Try them.

QUOTE (Silver pianist @ May 26 2005, 10:14 PM)

All of the above is very interesting...! ...... and this is why I have always thought that doing performance assessment is not really the real thing,,, cheating a bit really,,!

As I understand it, you can play an own-choice programme of up to 15 minutes in length. The examiner will then give hisher assessment of your performance. This should give you pointers towards further study.

This sounds ideas for someone in your position (and, yes, I am making assumptions about someone naming themselve 'SilverPianist').

It is not 'cheating'.

QUOTE (SteveHopwood @ May 26 2005, 10:39 PM)

All I can say to you is: scales have nothing that the music of Bach, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven do not offer in a much more interesting form. Try them.

Steve .. fun taking opposite side of the argument from you, just for a change. But really!

Haydn in particular is just full to the brim with scale passages and scale extracts and scale variations. Maybe it is just my lack of supreme talent, and a similar lack in those I have taught (??) - but I would have said experience with scales would be almost the perfect foundation for playing Haydn.

If the piece is in A major - I think A major - I think the hand positions of the scale (which can often be employed). Even if I can't use the hand positions, I analyse why/how to make them different.

It is the harmonic minor scale that I think is the red herring. I find that knowledge of that does not translate to any significant extent.

QUOTE (AnotherPianist @ May 26 2005, 12:26 PM)

QUOTE (SteveHopwood @ May 26 2005, 06:04 AM) By the time these kids (and adults) get to the point at which grade 5 becomes an issue, it is a doddle to breeze through what is left of the syllabus; it is hardly difficult, after all. So why bother changing boards to avoid what is a trivial hurdle? Personally I like grade 5 theory, I'd be incredibly disappointed if someone claimed to be a grade 6 pianist but didn't know how to write rhythms properly and count the number of beats in a bar (sightreading can be failed and the exam still passed...)! Furthermore if a grade 6 pianist couldn't play a C Major scale I'd be slightly worried too.... I'm sure that reputable teachers, like yourself, would not allow this to happen but the fact that grade 5 theory is there makes sure that people can't get away with this (to a certain extent anyway, certainly better than not having it).

To answer your questionsassumptions:

"So why bother changing boards to avoid what is a trivial hurdle?" To save students having to spend time unnecessarily. Some more assumptions posed there, but every body else does it, wo why not me?

"I'd be incredibly disappointed if someone claimed to be a grade 6 pianist but didn't know how to write rhythms properly and count the number of beats in a bar". I would be surprised too. All of my students can do this. What has it got to do with grade 5 theory?

"...but the fact that grade 5 theory is there makes sure that people can't get away with this (to a certain extent anyway, certainly better than not having it)." Thank you for your kind comments. I have some sympathy with your sentiments, but object to the idea that my students are expected to go through unnecessary hoops to make up for the inadequacies (sorry about spelling) of others.

By changing boards, my students can avoid an exam I regard as unnecessary. They can avoid an exam they do not want to take. I will still make sure they acquire knowledge relevant to the music they play.

I would be happy to bet that the AB agrees with me within 5 years. Market forces, and all that.......

QUOTE (George Burrell @ May 26 2005, 11:20 PM)

QUOTE (SteveHopwood @ May 26 2005, 10:39 PM) All I can say to you is: scales have nothing that the music of Bach, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven do not offer in a much more interesting form. Try them.  :D Steve .. fun taking opposite side of the argument from you, just for a change. But really! Haydn in particular is just full to the brim with scale passages and scale extracts and scale variations. Maybe it is just my lack of supreme talent, and a similar lack in those I have taught (??) - but I would have said experience with scales would be almost the perfect foundation for playing Haydn. If the piece is in A major - I think A major - I think the hand positions of the scale (which can often be employed). Even if I can't use the hand positions, I analyse why/how to make them different. It is the harmonic minor scale that I think is the red herring. I find that knowledge of that does not translate to any significant extent.

George

This is great, isn't it?

I think that the perfect preparation for playing Haydn is playing Haydn. Playing Haydn is a pretty terrific preparation for playing everybody else (along with Bach, Mozart and Beethoven - I am repeating myself, sorry ).

I understand what you say about "If the piece is in A major - I think A major - I think the hand positions of the scale". So do I. I did not do so as a student, despite rigorously practising my grade 8, then music college scales (I say 'practising'; I really mean 'playing', an activity that took upwards of an hour a day). My understanding has been gained as a professional pianist whose 'training' is long behind him. My 'understanding' of A major was not gained by playing the scale.

'Education' is a different matter. I am happy to look at opposing, intelligent points of view. I look forward to your rebuttal of my opinions.

Steve

The original post referred to clarinet, so I'm not quite sure why it's in viva piano, but never mind.

I did all of the ABRSM clarinet exams, in order, learning all the scales, and even now, 15 years after taking my Grade 8, 11 years after graduating, still play a few scales every day. I find it a great way of warming up both instrument and fingers, and if I get music out which has scale passages in it, the fingers can go into automatic pilot whilst I concentrate on the more musical aspects of the piece in question.

But, that's just me and my blowy thing. Other people may have a different attitude to scales, and surely part of the challenge of teaching is to find the approach which suits your pupil best. There have been several posts across the whole of the fora recently along the lines of some people not getting on with their teacher. I've had inspirational teachers in the past, and also some real dead losses.

As for avoiding learning theory, if you intend to do Grade 8, you need Grade 5 theory even for Trinity Guildhall. I hadn't had formal theory lessons when I embarked on Grade 5 theory, but was impressed by what I knew (transposition was a doddle, must be related to playing a transposing instrument!), but ashamed by what I didn't already know.

I make no claims to be an expert or even CLOSE! (just working my way back up to grade 3 standard although my scales are a good deal better than my pieces right now) Musically I'm fine, (piano is at least 4th on my list of competency!) but my technique lets me down just yet.... and you know what's helping to change that? Playing my scales...!

I have found that playing scales does help on the piano... Maybe it's only us lesser mortals who are not natural pianists (I'm definitely not!) who need this help, but... scales in thirds, chromatics in contrary motion (on keys other than Ab and D - they're easier than similar motion ones!), actually any scales in contrary motion, ditto chromatics in intervals other than the octave, I have found very helpful to get my hands working independently without having to worry about performance directions/sudden changes of key etc as one does in playing "real music" as it were.

Chromatics in general I have found helpful for getting my fingers moving more quickly and nimbly. Melodic minors in flat keys, that generally have a change of fingering, I found terribly awkward at first, but the fact that you can't just "mirror" the image coming back down has really helped me again to have both hands working independently and dealing with more awkward fingerings.

Dominant 7ths and Diminished 7ths I have found less useful as yet, but maybe it's just that I haven't come across any piano music which uses them as yet! They and arpeggios do help though with understanding how chords lie on the piano - and as someone who naturally thinks horizontally in terms of musical - ie lines of melody rather than chords - that has definitely helped me.

My piano teacher also suggested I practice my scales slowly and firmly and LOUDLY to help gain the confidence for real fortes, which has certainly helped. And it helped him when he was at uni, too - to his great surprise, as he would be the first to admit, he was sceptical when his teacher suggested it.

I use scales as warm up - again, you may well be able to whip through a couple of preludes and fugues as a warm up, but for me, to get back to pieces where I could just play them as a warm up, we're getting into pretty simple territory!

Certainly scales have helped me to get my finger technique better whilst not worrying (again) about "real" music as such... that's the POINT of technical exercises, to enable you to concentrate on technique and not have to worry about musical directions, so your technique is good and becomes invisible when you play the music - because you are busy playing the music and not worrying about technical things like "getting my fingers even" or the thumb passing under the fingers - all these things are automatic and second nature because of the time spent learning the scales.

Others have given certain pieces before as practising these things and being not so boring as scales... but to me, the whole point of scales and arpeggios is so that you get these things into your head and your fingers, to make the playing of the music easier. I'd much rather have the things in me already and then when it comes to a piece with lots of scale passages, not have to think about it because those things naturally fall under my fingers, than to come to a piece and use it to make those things come under my fingers... that's just as much hard work as learning the scales in the first place, and instead of a little drudgery making the learning of a piece easy and pleasurable, the learning of the piece becomes the drudgery. Ugh. Where's the pleasure in that? It's all very well saying the perfect prep for Haydn is Haydn, but most of us at the beginning have a way to go before we can play Haydn - any Haydn! - and scales can be immensely helpful in providing the groundwork for being ABLE to play him. Some people can learn pieces without drudgery even having not practised their scales. Lucky them! I ain't one of them.

Technical exercises aren't there as an end in themselves, they're there to help you get technique SO engrained that it becomes second nature. Someone with superb technique doesn't make you go "Wow, that person has fabulous technique" - no, they make you say "Wow, what beautiful music!" When technique is really good it becomes invisible.

as Deborah said:

QUOTE

if I get music out which has scale passages in it, the fingers can go into automatic pilot whilst I concentrate on the more musical aspects of the piece in question.

- a head start!

Scales help me to get to grips with different keys as they are on the piano... I don't have any problem looking at a key signature and knowing what key a piece is in, but quite often have a blind spot when it comes to playing in that key on the piano. Knowing my scales means that unconsciously I have an idea of where the keys fit on the piano in terms of the "shapes" those keys form on the keyboard.

As I say, it may well be different for the natural pianists out there... which by the sounds of it, YOU are... good for you and I'm happy for you that you don't need them...but I for one have found scales to be immensely helpful. Even without going downstairs and looking I can think of many many pieces that I have learned over the last year that have had scale passages and arpeggiated sections which I could play more readily and with less difficulty because I know my scales - not just in my head, but in my fingers, and not having to think very hard about them at all.

I do completely agree that "playing" scales it pretty pointless. I would say that "practising" them is extremely helpful. When I learned piano as a child, my teacher never helped me understand what scales were for, and I basically learned them for exams and promptly forgot them. They didn't help a great deal in learning pieces and I struggled. My current teacher helped me see the sense in learning them (not to mention being considerably older and having seen the value of scales on other instruments), helped me find ways to use them productively in my practice - and yup, they sure help when I am playing, sight reading, and learning new pieces, in all sorts of ways. Especially with Haydn

QUOTE (SteveHopwood @ May 26 2005, 10:59 PM)

QUOTE (Silver pianist @ May 26 2005, 10:14 PM) All of the above is very interesting...! ...... and this is why I have always thought that doing performance assessment is not really the real thing,,, cheating a bit really,,! As I understand it, you can play an own-choice programme of up to 15 minutes in length. The examiner will then give hisher assessment of your performance. This should give you pointers towards further study. This sounds ideas for someone in your position (and, yes, I am making assumptions about someone naming themselve 'SilverPianist'). It is not 'cheating'.

Must come back to you on this one!

The 'pointers towards further study' would in my case, and in a great many other cases, steer us towards the value of having the scales 'at the tips of our fingers' as an aid to technique, fast passage work, even touch, better ability to sightread proficiently in any key etc etc, the list goes on. Of course you find these scale-runs in Haydn, Bach, Mozart, but this is precisely why people at the level of playing that most of us are on these forums, need the scales, and need to work on them continuously so that they can aspire to play these kind of pieces well (not the other way round!) And it is precisely why they are an integral part of the exams, the building blocks, if you like, for a good and basic technique.

That's why I think that performance assessment is cheating for someone at my stage of learning- cheating myself really - a bit like ignoring the need for good foundations when building a house - it will all come falling down one day and you have to start all over again.

What, I suppose, I am really saying is that performance assessment is probably only useful for the person who has come back to an instrument after having learnt it properly in the past and wants an independent and objective assessment of their playing. I am sure that a great number of teachers find it useful, too!

QUOTE (SteveHopwood @ May 26 2005, 10:59 PM)

QUOTE (Silver pianist @ May 26 2005, 10:14 PM) All of the above is very interesting...! ...... and this is why I have always thought that doing performance assessment is not really the real thing,,, cheating a bit really,,! As I understand it, you can play an own-choice programme of up to 15 minutes in length. The examiner will then give hisher assessment of your performance. This should give you pointers towards further study. This sounds ideas for someone in your position (and, yes, I am making assumptions about someone naming themselve 'SilverPianist'). It is not 'cheating'.

I did performance assessment a couple of years ago.
As a person who has REALLY bad nerves in exams I found it a very positive experience.
I played a varied program of 3 pieces around grade 7 standard.
The examiner was really helpful and I played better than I think I would have in an exam at that time. He even thanked me for the nice start to the day (I was about the third person of the day).

This has made my approach to preparing for grade 8 (November/December according to my teacher) more positive. I DO get moments of panic when I think about it... but mostly I feel that it is actually a possibility.

QUOTE (SteveHopwood @ May 26 2005, 10:39 PM)

All I can say to you is: scales have nothing that the music of Bach, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven do not offer in a much more interesting form. Try them.

I agree with you on that point; however I have the view, as Sarah does, that scales allow us to learn these pieces more efficiently. I don't think though that scales are only required by people who are naturally somehow bad at piano, probably just useful to everyone at the earlier stages of learning (i.e. pre-diploma level, and maybe beyond). Suppose I was learning a piece with a scale pattern and couldn't play any scales then I'd struggle with the scale passage so practise that section. Then I'd be learning scales in just the way I would independently of the piece. Maybe you think this is better because it's linked to a piece but it's still ultimately the same thing.

I could then wait until I've come across a piece with every scale in (some being only partial scales in which case I'd have to spend time learning the whole scale on another occasion) and take a long time to learn every piece; or I can learn the scales up front and be able to learn the pieces with greater ease (also being better at sightreading which contains the scale patterns I've already learnt). I will agree with you though that if one has a repertoire that contains a piece with every scale in it then one can substitute playing all of those pieces for playing scales, however it'll take longer to get through them all!

QUOTE (SteveHopwood @ May 26 2005, 11:21 PM)

By changing boards, my students can avoid an exam I regard as unnecessary. They can avoid an exam they do not want to take. I will still make sure they acquire knowledge relevant to the music they play. I would be happy to bet that the AB agrees with me within 5 years. Market forces, and all that.......

Sadly, I think that you may be correct on that one, but I suspect it would be market forces pushing them to do it; rather than a deep changing of their principles as a lot of people seem to do the exams just for the bits of paper, and now with the UCAS points for those too, not truly to discover and enjoy the art of piano playing. The theory and scales (plus sightreading and aural) are the AB's only possible way of even attempting to make sure that people are not learning three pieces and just taking grade 8 without really having to learn anything else. Whilst it's clear with your approach that they really don't need to check that for you; it would be unfair if the AB allowed the qualifications that your students had worked so hard for to be devalued by people doing this (they can't stop it completely but they can have these measures in place to at leas make it more difficult).

QUOTE

to me, the whole point of scales and arpeggios is so that you get these things into your head and your fingers, to make the playing of the music easier. I'd much rather have the things in me already and then when it comes to a piece with lots of scale passages, not have to think about it because those things naturally fall under my fingers, than to come to a piece and use it to make those things come under my fingers

exactly ......... if you are writing a letter or an essay, and you have to stop every other word to look up the spelling in the dictionary, it's going to be a long hard slog.

Fluency will be much easier to achieve, and communication less frustrating if the building blocks are already there.

I think ?

Maggie

QUOTE (maggiemay @ May 27 2005, 12:49 PM)

QUOTE to me, the whole point of scales and arpeggios is so that you get these things into your head and your fingers, to make the playing of the music easier. I'd much rather have the things in me already and then when it comes to a piece with lots of scale passages, not have to think about it because those things naturally fall under my fingers, than to come to a piece and use it to make those things come under my fingers exactly ......... if you are writing a letter or an essay, and you have to stop every other word to look up the spelling in the dictionary, it's going to be a long hard slog. Fluency will be much easier to achieve, and communication less frustrating if the building blocks are already there. I think ? Maggie

Well said both of you!

Ah well, back to my scales...and arpeggios, and thirds, sixths, contraries, chromatics.. to say nothing of staccatos. And after that I may have time to do some sightreading and have a look at the pieces..!

I am aware of the unpopularity of my view. This is not the first time I have stirred up this kind of fuss. I suspect it will not be the last.

I was not a child prodigy - nothing came naturally to me. I can play some fantastic music. I acquired my basic technique by playing the music of Bach, Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven. I added to it by tackling the great Romantic repertoire, including the likes of Chopin's Etudes and some horrifyingly difficult concertos.

I have not just developed my own technique this way. I have developed the techniques of countless pupils the same way. Try it. It works. Promise.

sorry if i'm ignorant...but i see this problem more as a rigid, more "guaranteed" (although i will admit that it is more work) vs more flexible but if i may say so, risky approach.
no intention to argue...sorry if i have offended some.

QUOTE (davidyko @ May 28 2005, 02:09 AM)

sorry if i'm ignorant...but i see this problem more as a rigid, more "guaranteed" (although i will admit that it is more work) vs more flexible but if i may say so, risky approach. no intention to argue...sorry if i have offended some.

There is nothing risky about it. It works, I promise. I know it works because I do it with my pupils.

Nobody minds you arguing here. Call it 'discussing' if you want a gentler term. Either way, it is what a forum is for

i know just how u feel!

im doing g6 clarinet and i find the pieces frustratingly easy, but my scales are appauling. I every exam ive done, ive stumbled through my scales and failed them spectacularly!

i wish there was a way of avoiding them, or making them fun to learn, but i dont think theres any substitue for just knuckling down and learning them.

I used to have the same problem on the piano but since i just took a month to learn them well, my technique and sight reading has improved draumatically. So maybe thats what we should both do on clarinet!