Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum Why learn scales?

I'd like to understand better what you mean by this. Do you mean "study" in the sense of music theory that is done on paper? I'm familiar with harmony, but less familiar with keyboard harmony.

Sorry for my late hour typo. I meant to write "take" a course of keyboard harmony. One has to take it with a private teacher. Usually it is one-on-one instruction. You study how to play chord progressions in all keys that include all kind of chords, sequences and modulations.

I see what you mean now. It strikes me that this is not dissimilar to playing scales. In both cases you are doing something outside of music or pieces, in order to get a handle on theoretical things which also have a physical component, which you will use inside pieces. I see as either having a place, and also that teachers will have different angles and choices toward either.

The early currawong bird catches the worm (me) ...
sorry you don’t like my C# major fingering ...
with my big hands any stretch is a doddle ...
do tell how you handle C# major (with small hands)

The standard fingering is 2312341 (RH), 3214321 (LH). The thumb plays the white keys, 23 on the 2 black keys, 234 on the 3 black keys. Similarly with F# major and B major.

Of course, a scale passage in an actual piece may require a different fingering according to the context, but that's the standard fingering.

Keyboard harmony is an exploratory and creative method of studying harmony. Yes, one does it on the piano. But that's where the similarity to scales ends. Logical step to prepare a student to learn harmony is through studying basic rudiments.

Oranges and apples are round in shape and both are fruit but they are not the same thing.

Exploratory activity in playing scales is minimal. The purpose of practicing scales, how people usually perceive it, is to build someone's technique and there are IMHO better ways to do it.
The keyboard harmony is a part of Royal Conservatory of Music curriculum. In my opinion, it is a much better way to study harmony than doing it on paper.

Yah! Basta! End of discussion! Hasta la vista baby!
I cannot argue with JC. If JC said the discussing is complete than it is. JC knows better... I know my little place in the darker corner of this Universe...

I'd like to explore what you have written here from another angle.

There are the skills we want to have for playing music at the piano: facility in chords and scales, a quick gut level feel for chords and progressions so that we can anticipate them in written music and also use them in improvising. Then there is the student: what his natural strengths and weaknesses are as well as where they are because of the point in his studies. Then there is the way to transmit these skills. This is where it gets varied, even if the skills are always the same.

Teachers will have different approaches, and this can be a long term process in stages. Maybe one draws it out of music, turns that into technical exercises, and inserts the theory later (if ever). Another may begin with technical exercises, be overt about theory, and link it to music. Then there are method books, exam systems like the RCM with its suggested books which experienced teachers may use in a variety of ways. The nature of a particular student may suggest one approach or another.

What I've seen you do a couple of times now is to describe a particular approach. In one it was what your teacher did in college. Here we have an "exploratory and creative way of studying harmony" vis-a-vis scales for building technique. In other words, very particular ways of doing each, which I suspect is how you experienced them yourself. In this kind of forum we must leave room for imagining the many ways others may be approaching these things, in ways we have not experienced or known them. That is not an easy thing to do.

I suspect - in fact I'm almost sure of it - that a few of the teachers here are approaching both scales, and keyboard harmony, in rich and very different ways. I suspect that the scales are being approached in a manner similar to how you describe the harmony, by one or two individuals here.

Time and again I see arguments that shouldn't be, because it is so hard to imagine something being said from an unfamiliar viewpoint. The arguments shouldn't be, but they persist for that reason.

You mean part of the exam syllabus, so that in order to pass this part of the exams, you need to do these kinds of studies? (Someone whose compositions are featured in such exams once straightened me out on that. )

I have some definite thoughts about music theory, and I have taught the three levels of RCM rudiments at one time. Here goes. Music theory (written) is a codification of the patterns that we have in music, the V7-I cadence being a simple and obvious one. It is to music what grammar and syntax are to language. We listen and speak before we learn grammar, and that way we also have a feel for the exceptions and what "feels right". There is also the idea that physical experience precedes abstract theory: that's why kids use counting blocks and then learn arithmetic - skip that and you have problems with algebra later. .... And then the theory has to be tied in with music, integrated with it. The danger is that people get (written theory), they get music, and maybe they get exercises, and each is a separate thing.

So I do want written theory. But I want it after having rich experiences at the instrument, so that the theory relates and completes it. Theory has its place, because you can sketch out things that are in front of your eyes. But it becomes a cross between geometry and algebra if you haven't experienced the music end of it first. I'd also say that when music itself (pieces) is taught, theory gradually gets inserted. If a student plays a cadence, maybe the fact gets mentioned?

keystring - Thank you for your reply.


This comment sounds confusing to me. Exploring harmony on the piano and building piano technique (like dexterity and evenness of playing runs, double notes and octaves) are quite different things. I do not understand why are you trying to join them together? If we mix different concepts up and give them a good shake then we will never be able to come up with any clear conclusion. Let's keep the ideas clear.

About the original topic

A couple of things that haven't been looked at. There is the regular teacher who has been teaching this child for two years, and the child has done music for five. This teacher is giving classical training, and believes in bringing scales in through music.

Now there is a second teacher, the jazz teacher for summer courses. In regards to two teachers at the same time, the rule of thumb is usually that if the student is advanced enough (= 5 years?), can handle the extra work (regular lessons kick out in summer?) it's ok, IF the second teacher is teaching something totally different - otherwise there can be a conflict. What the one teacher is doing has nothing to do with the other.

But here the jazz teacher expects major scales to be mastered, and the first teacher doesn't believe in it. For classical maybe it's not needed in the same way as it is needed for jazz. What is the relationship between the two teachers? Does the main teacher have any role in preparing the student for what the jazz teacher needs? Can the jazz teacher's take on music impact the what the main teacher is doing? If the main teacher doesn't know how scales work in jazz, should she, even? Should these two teachers be talking to each other?

When my child was still in school, he was in an arts magnet program, and there they had to produce a monthly etude which ws graded, and had a performance exam each semester. What happened in school affected the private teacher, who had to prepare the student for these things. There was some kind of relationship between the two programs however fuzzy.

I have nothing against studying harmony both on the keyboard and on paper. The harmonic analysis of the works of great composers would be also very beneficial. But this is going away from the topic Re: Why learn scales... Unless somebody believes that you can also improve your harmonic analysis skills by playing scales

Didn't someone upthread mention that by learning to play scales, you learn what notes are in a key? (Actually, it's possible to learn scales just by fingering and not retain much imprint of which notes are in the key without concentrating on that and learning it separately, as I can report by sad experience, but let's assume that one does learn the key by learning the scale): It seems to me that understanding the notes in major and minor keys is a fundamental starting point for doing harmonic analysis.

[ETA: I say this from the student's point of view from having studied harmonic analysis. As a teacher, balalaika, perhaps you see or approach it differently.]

But that takes, what, a week? Is it really necessary to play scales daily for any length of time to learn what notes are in a key?

Just rent Sound of Music. Doh, a deer, a female deer.........

(a great example of both fixed and movable do!)

I'm not arguing that scale practice isn't valuable, just that for this particular purpose it seems a bit inefficient. If you can play E major scales fluently, can you automatically spell chords in E major? Can you play pieces in E major and remember all the sharps? And if not, will more scale practice help?

Chords and scales interrelate. Working with either does not have to be rigid. Just because a method book, or an RCM or ABRSM course, or a given teacher, did routine things with them, does not mean that these are the only ways they can be approached. Nor that any member here, whether teacher, musician or other, is limited to such approaches.

Yes!

For me, learning each scale (and mode) thoroughly - so we can see them as well as we see C Major - is a greater reason for playing scales then technical proficiency, and both classical and jazz players need that level of scale knowledge - jazz players much more so.



Harmonic analysis is of little use without the ability to improvise in the appropriate mode - which requires a great familiarly with it. You just need to know the scales.

You can figure out what notes are in a key by learning important chords in a key.

You can figure out chords using the notes in a key (or scale).

The two are interrelated.

C chord, F chord, G chord, C E G F A C G B D, there is the C scale.

Chicken/egg...

In the end you need both. Each reinforces the other...

I am curious how are you doing this amazing thing? Are you pronouncing notes out loud while playing a scale?

What a wonderful insight! I totally agree with this observation. Understanding the notes in harmonic analysis may not be overlooked!

I learn by any method that works.

I am left in the dark on your method of learning scales thoroughly. No matter how much I learn the scale I still cannot see it (C Major included). Could you please provide with some assistance on how you are doing your shtick?