Lots have been said in other threads about learning those scales.
Let me ask you: How really important it is?
Given that most of us are amateurs, having very little time to practice, it seems that emulating the leasrning process of how it's done in the concervatories would be silly.
Unless you practice 4-6 hours a day, every day, with proper instruction and regular new challenges from the teacher, without a goal to become professional who must pick the tune or accompaniment in any key on a fly, why would self-teaching amateur waste his precious hour, stolen from sleep?
I am of the opinion, that the more clever way to work it out would be just learning pieces of music, each new one presenting, as you Anglo-speakers say, "challenge". Then gradually you'll learn larger scope of the instrument without doing mindless scale excercises, done hastily, improperly, without much theoretical backing.
I'm learning fairly challenging arrangements, with little control of the key (whatever I can find), and these come in various keys randomly. I am getting better, my finger dexterity, reading, accentuation - everything is very slowly coming into shape, without a second spent on scales or etudes.
I even don't warm up, as it is 15 minutes lost. After all, when you'll be out and asked to play, you woldn't spend 15 minutes warming up.
To resume, future amateur should be taught differently from future pro, distinction must be made early on and their ways part.
For most of us, to get better and use time efficiently, we must select new pieces, so each new one is above the old.

What's you takes?

I have never done scales; I followed exactly your regime of choosing pieces that stretched me. Sometimes I have had to learn a run as part of a tune and then I have to tackle it anew just like any other sequence of notes. It's encouraging to be working on a piece of music you actually want to play and perhaps makes you practice a little longer and harder each day because it is more fun. On the other hand I wonder if scales would have got the keyboard layout fixed in my head quicker and I'd be further on by now? (Not sure either way there; just know my system works for me. Practice is always interesting.)

I don't usually warm up; sometimes I find I have to, and play something I know better to get started but not always.

I also think any time spent handling the instrument is valuable. Even if I loaf in the sofa and knock out jolly tunes with a busked accompaniment I think it all helps.

I play for pleasure and just enough challenge to make it interesting, but I started with the basics. Mike

Hi

If anyone has seen my previous posts they'll realise I'm a rank beginner at concertina, I've never played any instrument before and I'm slowly working through Mick Bramich's excellent starter book. I dont know whether I'll be able to play by ear, I suspect that only comes with time, so for the sake of a few minutes everyday ( and at the moment I only practise for 15-20 mins a day ) I start with the scales. If it turns out I'm not so good at playing by ear it'll perhaps have been time well spent.

I dont know for sure but the scales possibly helps my brain 'tune in ' to the notes again, limbers up my fingers and gets my brain going on finger positioning. I'm sure the procedure of doing the scales has to help subconsciously, I'll certainly carry on with it, though it strikes me from the forum posts here, that with the concertina there is no one recommended way of learning.

David

Learning scales on the anglo isn't rocket science (in 2 keys, anyway ). But I find the odd one useful, to practice the staccato thing, and to help with not relying on the bellows to change notes. Also, playing scales in octaves is a handy thing to practice, I've found. As is playing (simple!) tunes in octaves. Even though I'm not a "tunes" player.

Scales are what many tunes have in common. If you learn scales, then you already know large chunks of most tunes, and are that far ahead of someone trying to learn a tune from scratch without already knowing their way around scales.

I agree that scales can be important. There are other execises based on scales that are good: do a scale but in between the notes of the scale go up a third. C-E-D-F-E-G etc. Then do that in octaves. Do it for different scales.
At least I did that kind of thing for piano.
Arpeggios are common exercises, too. Easy on an anglo in the root keys, but what about the off-root keys? Try for those, and then try them in octaves or in minor keys. Run a set of arpeggios around the circle of fifths. C-G-D-A-E-B-F#-C#-G#(Ab)-Eb-Bb-F-C. It makes you think about what each note is (and this will hit them all) and the relationships between them all.

Ah but is that more valuable than learning a piece of music? We're not talking in abstract here; the question asked isn't actually the heading, it's about the choice between using your time on scales or music. I would be deeply embarrassed if someone expected me to do some arpeggios I'm sure; but does that matter? On the other hand I have a couple more pieces in my repertoire, learnt when others might be doing scales.

For me the clincher is that scales are boring, learning a new piece is challenging so I would expect to practice the latter with more concentration and enthusiasm. Keeping a good practice regime up is helped if I'm not inflicting tiresome exercises on myself. Others are almost certainly more disciplined.

I would never try and dissuade anyone from practicing scales if it suits them. I'm just not convinced that there is a true gain.

The Hayden Duet concertina is an odd case. It's trivially easy to play Major scales in the keys of C, D, E, F, G, and A. The relative minor scales of these keys are just a little tougher. But they're all the same fingering pattern, just starting on different buttons.

But scales in other keys, that "wrap around" or "fall off the end" of the rows, are tricky, and well worth practicing, if for no other reason than to get you accustomed to the location of funny notes like Eb/D# and the like, and how to handle the long hand reaches needed to get a wrap-around note.

So I do practice scales once in a while on my Hayden, to remind me how much work it is to play in those remote keys.
--Mike K.

This is one of the rare occasions that I agree with you! When time is limited, practise what you enjoy playing. I often only play for 10 minutes a day - just before I leave for work. If I fit in a reel, a jig and a hornpipe I leave with a happy buzz inside. Somehow I don't think playing scales would do the same for me. I've no doubt that if you have the time, playing scales are beneficial - I have worked my way through most of Mick Bramich's book and it did help to play scales before tackling a different key. However if you don't have the time, play for fun - isn't that why we picked up the concertina in the first place?

I think playing scales can be valuable, even for an amateur. I try to start my playing by playing a scale up and down the entire length of the instrument. If you have aspirations to play in any keys that are less than common, it helps to get the spatial locations in your fingers. I'd imagine there are a lot of English players who can play very comfortably in keys like G, F, and D, but might have more trouble when reading something in F# or Bb minor. My routine doesn't take a lot of time, but I think even the minute or so it takes me to run a random scale up and down will do me benefit in the long term, especially since it has helped me familiarize myself with the extreme upper range of the instrument. The other benefit of scales has already been mentioned: when you learn a scale really well, you have in effect learned small parts of many tunes, which means you'll learn music faster and be a better sight-reader.

My experience with other instruments (trombone and piano) has led me to believe that while scales are boring (and I never practice them enough), they do produce tangible results when you practice them diligently, even if it's for very brief periods of time.

The other thing, is I'm not saying Noel Hill or anyone else with a solid technique would benefit from doing scales over and over. For a beginner whose greatest musical accomplishment is Mary Had a Little Lamb, though, doing scales is not at all a waste of time or effort.

While I agree with you in general, I think we don't need to bring other instruments here.
English Concertina is stand-alone thing, fingering is very straight forward and easy. I too, would practice scales on chromaic accordion, because even Cmaj diatonic scale is not so easy and one has to aquire enough dexterity.
Another benefit of Piano and Accordion is their wider useful range, so one can comfotrably practice scales in 2, 3, 4 and 5 beats. On EC, esp. on instruments with compromized upper range, like Jackie or Albion, just wrapping the scale around takes solid skill, that is redundant, and practicing only in 2 octaves is a one time exersise. Perhaps those with rare high level instruments can enjoy playing in upper register, so practicing there makes sense, but majority of people with $2000-$3000 instruments may not even bother.
Anglo is even worse, why practice difficult scales, when you will never play in those keys? Familiarity comes with experience, and if you need exersise, make it out of tunes in your repertore. If your piece requires stacatto, practice it, if legato, practice it, and what's the point of running up/down the keyboard, practicing some fancy rhythm, if it's not a part of your music? Exersice becomes futile thing on it's own. It was the biggest problem with my accordion teacher. He insisted on my warming up for 15 minutes, playing extremely boring routine that was not part of my music. Sure, down the road it will pay off, but I haven't arrived at that spot, and where exactly is it? It doesn't exist. So practically you'll need to take lessons all your life. This becomes idiotic, if you don't get enjoynment now. The Russian system of musical training is very selective, it's designed to produce small number of professionals, and accepts alarming number of drop-outs as a norm. I think mistake many people make is when listening to some professional and deciding they want to play like that. So they hire this type of teacher and then get disappointed, believing it's their fault.
Which makes me think that American way of learning things, through short and non-obligating "workshops" is the best way. Of course it's nice to have one-on-one lessons for a year or two, but then, it is my believe, such lessons become a hindrance. If in two years a student is not taught to pick up simple tunes and express himself, these were 2 years wasted. it's espesially true with adults.

I don't agree with this statement at all. Playing a scale in Db is going to have an entirely different feel than playing a scale in G on an English concertina, because of the placement of accidentals. Furthermore, the presence of doubled enharmonics means that it is necessary to figure out which hand you will play certain notes on (for example, when playing in the key of E, it makes logical sense to take D#5 in the left hand, but when playing in Eb, it makes sense to take Eb - the same note - in the right hand), so that it becomes reflexive when reading. It's my goal to be fairly comfortable at playing in many keys, because when transcribing music for the instrument, I often find that I end up in an unusual key (for example, the key of Ab works fairly well for many things, because that way you get the lower G as a leading tone to tonic, and you often find pieces where ti is the lowest note).



It depends on what music you want to play. If it's folk, then yeah, range might not be an issue. If you're doing transcriptions of things, the extra range is necessary. I plan on eventually upgrading to a tenor-treble or (ideally) baritone treble, so it makes sense for me to practice, even if, as it stands, my Stagi makes my ears bleed.

Scales and exercises do pay off - but you do have to be diligent. It is fallacious to say that just because you never had luck with it on accordion, it's useless. You have to believe in what you're doing - if you don't then it's absolutely a waste of time, because you're not giving it real practice.

What I'm finding is that no matter how you play the scales, real fingering is going to be different, depending on the phrazing and the way you play the piece. It takes quite an trial and error to find which fingering gives better result soundwise, and as you learn the piece more, the fingering may change a few times. I found using the accidentals on both sides regardless of how I played that scale before. So to me it's a minor element.


That's a valid point, but again, how difficult will it be to just learn a piece and as you learn it in particular key, practice a scale a few times. If it has relevance to your music, it'll make sense. Otherwise you'll ran out of time without getting to learning pieces, or will do exersises in haste, wasting time.



Always down the range for me, never up the range. The whole idea of transcribing pieces for EC is to move them down. And again, as you moved them to unusual key, practice that key, not all the scales in existence.



I did that and the result was bad. After all, with two kids and a job it's hard to justify doing something without immediate result. Loundry and dishes seem to have bad habit to accumulate when I practice.



As it happens, I agree with you. I just don't think that one has to emulate a pro and turn wold be life saving habit of playing music into erroneous game of always feeling incompetent.
I didn't have expected luck with accordion precisely because I spent too much time practicing three scales in every key, plus arpegious, plus chords in all inversions, so I got pretty good at them. My music didn't reflect that, and I had a chocking discovery that most of early jazz musicians couldn't even read, yet nowadays learned composers arrange their works and make a living out of it.
So again and again, to each it's own, and we need to carefully examine which of each is ours. One of the ideas is to be very practical, realistic and efficient. Sounds like good business plan, doesn't it?

Fair enough. I'll certainly grant that there's a lot of context involved, but I like to have a "base" way of doing things, which can then be changed as needed. I think systematizing makes for a more efficient process, and helps to make the best time out of limited practice time.



Which is exactly why I only play maybe two minutes of exercises each practice session. It's absolutely true that you will get nothing out of such exercises if you do them without any thought. The benefit comes from doing the exercises very mindfully - paying attention to how each sequence feels, and how you interact with the instrument. You will often find passages in classical music (particularly of the more modern sort) that are in very different keys from tonic, so if you can familiarize yourself with all scales, it will make learning these passages more easy when you get to them. It really comes down to establishing a familiarity with your instrument. Ideally, you don't want your instrument to get in the way of making music. That comes with comfort and familiarity, and even a few minutes of scales, practiced mindfully, can help with that process.



Absolutely you transcribe them down when possible. But what happens when you run into something written below your range? You have no choice but to transcribe it up. This happens frequently with keyboard music.



Again...we aren't talking about tons of time here. In a minute or so, I run up and down a scale, and each time, I get a little more familiar with the upper range (even if it's just by degrees). Keeping conscious of the nuances of the instrument will lead to a bigger payoff, faster. Believe me, as a grad-student, I don't have tons of time either...



I think we more or less agree here. Everyone should do what works for them. My point is only that even very limited amounts of scales or exercises can pay off if you adopt the right mindset. If you pay attention and don't consider it drudgery, it will do you good.

I would also say that while early jazz masters might not have read, they sure understood the nuances of their instruments. The instruments became extensions of themselves, and simply provided the way to express the musician's ideas. I for one don't practice or play concertina as much as King Oliver or Kid Ory played their instruments, so I need all the help I can get in mastering the nuances - which scales help with.

My point is that an hour spent learning a tune may take you an hour closer to learning that tune, but an hour spent learning scales takes you perhaps 15 minutes closer to learning each of hundreds of tunes. The savings add up quickly.

I am reminded of a comment I heard many years ago (1980 or 81?). It was at a benefit concert for Caffé Lena, held at Proctors Theatre in Schenectady, NY. Many big stars of the folk music world performed. After David Bromberg played, Michael Cooney came on. At one point, he said (paraphrased through years of memory): "A lot of folks tell me 'I don't need to learn scales, I just want to be able to play [guitar] like David Bromberg.' Let me tell you. If you want to play like David Bromberg, learn scales."

Agree 100%.
What if you have only 30 minutes a day, if lucky?
That's the whole point of been realistic. Setting the unacheavable goal is sure way to disaster.
I don't understand how it is possible to do even one single exersise in only 2 minutes. If you play one scale, on 2 beats, on 3 beats, stacatto and legato. Varying stacatto and legato, playing softly and increasing volume, then back to softly - it's 15 minutes easy, and you're not done yet.
Just running up and down the keyboard calling the notes aloud to memorize them is not really an exersise I'm talking about. Sure you need to do that once in a while, even every time will not take much effort.
But as far as "playing like David Bromberg" is concerned it is not that kind of "playing scales".

An exercise can be as short or as long as you want. What you describe is fairly comprehensive and time-consuming, and will practice multiple facets of your playing. Great if you have time for it, but if you don't there's no need to eschew it completely. Technique building exercises are not an all or nothing thing. The reason I practice the way I do is that it gradually builds my familiarity and ease with the instrument in a fairly general way. Just because it doesn't take 15 minutes doesn't mean that it isn't building technique - it just takes longer to see results.

You're absolutely right that you can't do every single technique exercise in 15 minutes or 1 hour or even 2 hours - you can always find more fundamentals to practice. But ask any teacher - any time at all you spend practicing those fundamentals is time well spent, and will pay dividends. Why not create a warm-up routine that varies from day to day(maybe one day - scales, another - broken thirds, another - staccato practice, etc., with a rotation that you stick to), but always lasts about three minutes? It takes discipline, sure (more discipline than I have, sadly), but if I did that, I'm sure my playing would be better than it is now, and it isn't a huge time investment. Technique exercises cam be tiresome, no doubt, and if you don't like them, don't do them. But there's no point in trying to rationalize that not doing them is making you a better player. That is simply false.

Which led me to another thought: What if instead of doing excersises everyday skippingly, dedicate one sesson a week to only exersises, putting the tune playing aside.
This way you can calm down, spend your time "leasurely" on etudes, scales, stacatto...whatever. May be putting a tune aside for some timem will help to distance yourself from it, and then you'll see how it sounds sort of "anew", and your mistakes may be more obvious to fix.
As Colonell Hathy said: - "Discipline is the thing!"

I love that idea, but I fear I'm not nearly disciplined enough to carry it out . I remember from my days as a trombone performance major that I would often over-practice difficult passages. Putting the piece away gave it time to work it's way into my muscle memory, and when I'd pick it back up a few days later a lot of the problems would have worked themselves out, without killing myself practicing.

It should also be noted that I'm really not trying to say you're a bad player if you're not doing your scales and so forth. As was your original point, most of us aren't playing concertina to be professionals, but for fun. If you have more fun not playing scales, then by all means, don't play scales - that's the reason I do so little of it. The problem is that it's more fun for me if I'm getting better and feel like I'm making progress with the instrument, and technique exercises help with that. It's always a struggle between just wanting to play more real music and the knowledge that I'd really be getting better faster if I did more technique stuff...

Reading over the posts on "practising scales etc" vs. "practising tunes", it struck me that there are two ways of looking at "learning to play the concertina" (or any instrument, for that matter).

Some peole's definition is obviously "learning to play set arrangements of specfic tunes". these would be the ones who eschew scales.
The other definition is "putting yourself in a position to be able to play any tune that comes into your head" (or, for the non-angloists: any new score you put in front of you).

As a by-ear player, I go for the second definition. Like the singer that I am, I perceive a tune as a series of intervals, and playing scales and arpeggios helps to couple specific musical intervals with specific movments of the fingers. Also, when playing in keys outside C and G on the anglo, where the notes I'll need are scattered all over the place, with "wrong" notes strewn in among them, it's a great help to know which buttons belong to the scale of D or F or A, and which don't.
Playing harmonised scales is a good exercise for harmonising on the fly - and that's part of "knowing how to play" the concertina, in my opinion.

We're really talking about two different things: learning to play the concertina vs. learning to play tunes on the concertina. Whichever we do, we should do it to the best of our ability. The complete concertinist probably does both.

Cheers,
John

What is more beneficial to learning tunes on the the concertina:

1. Practicing scales?
2. Spending the same amount of time debating the benefits of practicing scales?

Looks like it.
The two ways definitely collide, and not in the future, but every day, it's just a matter of us noticing it.
I guess the main issue is not to create a situation from one Russian joke about mental institution, where chief doctor decided to teach patients to dive first, and fill pool with water later.

Oh dear....all this talk about staccato and legatto and I have no idea what that means! I looked it up on Wikipedia and it said Quote "Legato, like staccato, is a kind of articulation. There is an intermediate articulation called either mezzo staccato or non - legato.

Well that's cleared it up for me then

Staccato and legato are two ways to play a series of consecutive notes. Staccato (Italian: detached) means you play them clipped, each individually, with space between them. Legato (Italian: tied) means you play them flowing, each note following the previous without space between them. A violinist would (ordinarily) play stacatto notes with seperate short bow strokes and play legato notes on one continuous bow stroke. On the concertina, the difference is usually made by finger control rather than bellows work.

Thanks David......I think it will be a while before I get the hang of all this, but it's great fun trying!

Oh no! You have to start now. It's not that complex, only smooth playing, when you release one button while depressing another (legato), or depressing buttons very quickly and releasing them (stacatto).
It's better to try your tunes both ways, then vary them. Otherwise your music will be a mush, uninteresting to listen to. And even if you are a raw beginner, nobody said your playing should be un-interesting from the day 1.
The alternative, unfortuantely, is learning to play un-interestingly, and keep it up to the day you depart this world.

I don't think a bellows reversal is really legato at all; it is a distinct kind of articulation, though, being neither staccato or legato. On an anglo this means you need to know your alternate buttons, so you can choose to play legato or with bellows-reversals to match the phrasing of the music.
An English/Duet you just want to be able to tie your reversals in with the phrasing, you don't have to sweat alternate buttons so much. Or so I would think -- I'd defer to those who actually play those instruments, since I don't.

No, you're quite right; you change direction only with the phrasing (unless things are getting desperate!)

First thing Noel taught us was a few scales and then tunes to go with them. The scales helped us get over the hurdle of remembering the bellows direction and helped to familiarize our fingers with the Keys we were playing. Treat your scales like tunes and do them a couple times before playing other tunes or tunes in the key you are learning. Soon you'll be speedy at them and will find it much easier to learn the new tunes since you won't have to be searching so much for the notes. YOu don't have to put hours into it, just a little bit each time until you are relatively comfortable in the key. Then things take care of themselves.
Dana

Don't know what would it take to play 30 button C/G concertina in D, but English don't need the scale to just remember the notes.
I found that learning pieces gets me there quick enough and scales stay just scales, not bringing me any closer to anything.
I'm finding it is more challenging to practice legato-stacatto and forte-piano with the piece I learn. EC is so easy to read, it releases me from the necessity of doing many exersizes. And I believe that after a while playing by ear will become just as easy as with learning various scales. I spent 5 years practicing scales on B system, my daughter spend some 4 years with the piano - I just don't see the benefit as great as the time spent. A little here, a little there - sure. But I'm talking about the classic approach, created for upper class with leisure time abundant, that is probably incorrect in the world of vast number of middle class amateurs.
BTW, that Noel Hill thing, you say he "taught you a few scales and then the tunes that go with those". But that's exactly my position, to learn only what is immediately necessary for your repertore. Just don't get put off by the word "scale". There is a world of difference between practicing "a few, and then put them to work" and practicing scales as a thing in itself.

Oh dear! An uninteresting mush? I'd better get cracking with this staccato and legatto business now!

Cheers M38 and thanks for the advice
Angie

Hmm.
maryhadalittlelamblittlelamblittlelamb - thats just reading the dots or picking buttons.
Then we go into:
mary had a little lamb little lamb little lamb
Then:
Mary had a little lamb
little lamb
little lamb
Then:
Mary had a little Lamb
little Lamb
Little Lamb
Then:
mary had a little lamb
little lamb
little lamb

After you are done with this, you'll be sweating, but not profusely.
But after on top of this you'll work in stacatto and legato, you'll be sweating profusely, I guarantee. Personal experience.
Some people are naturally born with the feel - talent.
Not me.

Except that it was actually, "Barbara had a little kid."

Barbara is a friend's goat, who gave birth yesterday.
She (Barbara, the goat) had difficulty, so my friend and I had to assist.

Mother and kid are now doing fine.

As Dana noted, Noel Hill starts people out playing scales. I think everyone has at least been exposed to the D and G scales after they've been to his class series a time or two. I think I recall that he did D and G scales in the first series I attended and added the A scale in the second. Of some note perhaps, I've heard Noel say that in his opinion everyone should practice scales, and that he himself should do it more than he typically makes time for.

As to my own practice, I usually do scales just before I stop playing and I consider it to be something of a mental stretching exercise. I started with the D, G and A scales with Noel, and eventually added E on my own. In the last few years I've expanded on that and now end my practices with at least two scale runs in the keys (in order) of G, A, B, C, D, E and F. I usually do three octaves in G, two in A, B, C and D, and just one in E and F. I do still make mistakes; I'd call them miss-fingerings or drops in that I run the scale but either miss a note or don't hear all the notes evenly. My criteria is to play up and down each scale “correctly” twice in a row before I move on to the next. Some days, especially if I'm tired, that doesn't go nearly as easily as I think it should.

I make no claims regarding the quality of my playing, but will comment that since I started doing scales on a regular basis it seems to me that I find it much easier to play tunes in keys other than the one I first learned them in. It also seems easier to learn new tunes in various keys since I'm more familiar with where to find the proper notes in those keys.

Let's test it's thoroughness, I really am missing something here. I think if you learn to walk, you can't learn to move just one leg, and next month add anoter.
Which scales Noel start people on and which scales he continues people on. Which scales he complains he should practice more?
Are they diatonic in D, G, A etc.? Or does he add three minors (as he should, to claim even to the existence of the fact of "practicing scales") to each major? And then there are these interesting modal scales, that I have faint idea about, but Americans seem to have good grip at?
There is nothing traumatic about learning Bb/F/C/G/D/A/E/B scales. Is it the same "trick" as playing sequence of E-B-F on English? Or is it the same when people call learning to read a "theory"?
It is easy to prove that learning scales in exotic keys futile and harmful and whoever engrosses in it will likely to not learn anything useful and filally be overwhelmed and drop out either from playing or from those exotic scales. Life is ran by realism and practicality. There is this wonderful song I found on the Internet, from Russian (well, you have to excuse me) Court composer of Soviet Era, Pahmutova, "White Tower Woods"
And I found the music for it - darn! Four flats!
Either I'm going ot transcribe it into some more sane key, or lean the scale of Ab major and...what? F# minor? How can F#minor have four flats? Or is it Gb minor?
Anyways, here is an example of necessity to learn and practice that "difficult" key.

Wow! Forget Mary and the Lamb, I'm feeling better already!

I try to play like this anyway, it adds to the fun Thanks for the demo M8

Cheers Angie

Aw Heck, I didn't mean to call you M8! I must have been thinking about traffic jams Sorry M3838!

I thot U were abbreviating "mate".

I would be very interested in hearing you prove (easily, as you say) that learning scales in exotic keys is harmful and futile. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, that's exactly your position. Practicing "exotic scales" (as you call them) can help build your awareness of the instrument, so that the instrument doesn't stand between you and making music. The more comfortable you are playing in all key areas of your instrument, the more comfortable you are will all aspects of playing the instrument, because you understand the mechanics better. Chromatic passages fall more easily under your fingers, and you can make quick transitions to other keys. Obviously there is a lot more that goes into being a good musician than just practicing scales, but the sentiment that learning scales in remote keys is harmful is just so wildly unfounded...I don't want to rehash the discussion we had at the beginning of this thread, but I can't let that sentiment go unchallenged.

Also, four flats is Ab maj or F minor.

Easy-peasy!
Consider an amateur with 1 hour a day practice time.
Consider he picked up and instrument at the age of 45.
Till the end of his playing due to old age (arthritis, what not?) at, say 75yo he has 30 years. So he roughly has 300 hours a year to practice and 9000 at all. It's far less then discussed earlier 20 000 hours of practice before the age of 20.
Of all 9000 hours he can dedicate reasonably 3-6 years to just learning, after which he must feel proficient enough to just play and must accumulate reasonable repertory or non-stop playing of, say, 15-60 minutes worth of learned tunes and pieces.
Let's take 5 years of pure schooling - it's only 1500 hours of practice.
Let's consider a "typical" practice session:
5 minutes warming up
Scales in one key - up/down, on 2s, on 3s, on 4s. Legato-stacatto. Major/parallel minor - 10-15 minutes.
Dynamic exercise - loud-quiet, on counts. - about 10 minutes.
Arpeggios and chords in that key - about 5-10 minutes.
A few etudes to build proficiency in the key and dexterity. - 10-20 minutes.
A new piece of music by parts, if written, or just from memory if heard, and working on arrangement, if it's not provided - from 10-20 minutes (if disciplined and not doing it for all 60 minutes, then some more).
A piece from repertory, that is learned well enough and needs some working on
A few pieces from earlier repertory, just to refresh them and have some fun.
Now just where do you fit those scales, that have no application to your immediate needs, to the pieces you learn? You'll likely to spend hours of practicing them, believing it's benefitial, only to find that your playing is not getting any better, you didn't build repertory you hoped, and after 5 years of studying you only play 5-10 minutes of easy tunes, but you know where all the notes are.
It's like learning to drive, having no need for a car. Do it, if you like, by all means, but it will not help you to ride in buses.



Thanks.

Well, forgive me if I'm not convinced by one flawed hypothetical anecdotal example.

For one thing, I have to ask what he's doing to "warm up" for those five minutes at the beginning if he isn't playing scales, technique exercises, etc.

For another, you seem hell-bent on denying the possibility that you can practice scales for less than 20 minutes at a time. I believe even 5 minutes of scales, practiced mindfully, will do a player good.

You have completely ignored my my reasons for why scales are beneficial. They do far more for you than apply directly to pieces in the same key as a scale.

For example, In classical music from Bach to now, composers frequently will modulate to a new key for short amounts of time, or suddenly slip into a different key and slip back. Say you are playing a piece in D (a common enough key). The dominant of D is of course A, and composers will frequently treat this dominant as a mini-tonic. This means there will often be passages in the key of E. If you play more romantic and modern literature, you get more and more remote key areas, so it pays to know your scales. If your hypothetical protagonist is really trying to learn all this repertoire, he would notice patterns like these, and the scales practiced will help learn more repertoire faster.

On a larger scale, they help you understand the patterns on your instrument better, so you will learn chromatic passages more easily. It helps in creating a more global muscle memory for the notes on your instrument, which makes learning new repertoire much easier.

As I said before, you have to practice scales mindfully of why you are doing it to have any benefit. Most people forced to play scales for lessons probably don't - they go into autopilot trying to get done so they can play real music. I have no doubt that they aren't getting benefit from this practice. However - this is not the only way to play scales, and it is ridiculous to condemn scales entirely based on this type of experience. Your example is not only one tiny way of practicing and learning, it completely ignores all my previous points.

I realize scales aren't fun - that's why I do so little of it. However, it's no good trying to fool yourself into thinking that eschewing technique-building exercises (like scales) are making you a better player. Just because your limited experience has led to to believe that scales are useless doesn't mean that practicing scales is universally wasted time.

That's a good one. You can win 5 minutes on this. The way I generally have done them is different from practicing scales. I will not discuss this here, because different people may have different ideas about it, but my warm-up exercises involved ve-ery slo-ow scale up/down with some dynamic applied. Appeared to be better for "warming-up" specifically, than to practicing a scale, but it used the scale indeed.


I'm not "bent" I've given you specific exercises, and from my experience they took as much time as I mentioned. I can't see how you take less time, when you practice the way I described, and if taken less time, I fail to see the usefulness of such "practice".
Just give me your scheme with timing. May be I'll adopt it.



No, but you try to ignore the 1 hour limit.



Good point. If you have enough time to actually do that properly. But if you don't, the wiser approach is to learn simpler music, folk and pop pieces. It will not make you gastrolling musician, but will sweeten you life and make parties merrier.



That's the most important point. Just where are those clever talented teachers, specifically for concertina, who will provide such wonderful thoughtful guidance? Been left without them, we have to invent our own ways, and have very strong chance of falling in the above mentioned category of "most people".
A Ferrary is probably better car than Saturn Cupe, but for "most" people Ferrary is only a glossy cover of Motor Trend Magazine.



I disagree with you assessment of my opinion. I don't condemn scales neither entirely nor partially.
I just am tired of biting more than I can chew.

On relative note, I think it's a mis-statement to say that music is based on scales.
It's not. It's based on some melodic chunks, and in each style the chunks are pretty much the same.
Like in a language, and I call these "Bricks". You can build your phrase out of these bricks and even sets of bricks. A scale is more elementary thing. What's better, playing scale for learning the notes, then a tune, or a tune and learn the notes, as you go? Gradually you'll start recognizing some patterns, and that's the time to go to scales and see what exactly these patterns are.
Otherwise - learning to walk first, anatomy later.

This seems to be the crux of our disagreement. I'm not sure why you think that your described way of practicing scales is the only viable model. Consider a ten minute warm-up: Pick a scale, play it major and minor the length of the instrument. Play it in broken thirds and then as arpeggios. Really concentrate on developing muscle memory while you are playing. I just did exactly what I described in the key of Eb in 8 minutes. Switch to a different scale scale every day, and in 12 days you'll have come back around. Over time, this will get you thinking in keys that are not normally played, and you will get more comfortable how the instrument handles. You won't be as bound by music that is similar to what you've already played. Seeing as you've never tried to practice in the way I've described, it seems unfair for you to dismiss it as useless because you "don't understand" how it would help.


There's nothing wrong with learning pieces that are easy, be they classical, pop, jazz, trad, whatever (after all, if you make fast progress on something it's encouraging, and helps to motivate), but it seems like a lot less fun to limit yourself to them and aspire to mediocrity.


I think someone without a teacher can get a lot out of playing scales (and of course, other technical exercises). They just need to adopt the right mindset. Rather than assuming failure, why not try to aspire to success?
Again, what I'm talking about is practicing in a way that familiarizes yourself with the instrument instead of only playing tunes in D, G, C, F, and Bb. As someone said earlier, it's the difference between learning tunes and learning your instrument. I'd rather learn the instrument.


I guess I'm reacting to this quote:

That sounded to me like a rather wholesale condemnation.


However you want to think of music conceptually, you can't escape the fact that tonal music has a large number of ascending and descending passages drawn from the same material as scales. Practicing scales is a means to an end. The exact sequence of notes is almost beside the point, because having the muscle memory in as many key configurations as possible will make you a better player. To be successful, you have to change your mentality from "I'm just playing a scale" to "I'm expanding my knowledge of how the instrument functions."

I realize that my arguments are mainly for those looking to play classical-type music on the English, but it seems like other traditional-players have similar feelings. And certainly, if I were an anglo player and Noel Hill told me to play my scales, it'd be a pretty strong argument for me to practice my scales.

The water here seems far deeper than I expected, guess I didn't appreciate the intensity of the topic when I stepped in to respond to the initial question. I'm going to offer some clarification on my prior post and then slip out of this thread.

For clarity I'll say that Noel Hill doesn't advocate devotion to scales, rather just that spending a few minutes a day working on them is beneficial in developing familiarity and agility with the instrument. He suggests that one should strive to play scales with a light and even musical flow rather than as simple exercises in button sequences. He starts people on the simplest forms of the key and doesn’t discuss variations, but I suppose it'd be of some value if one wanted to explore the variants once they have the basics down.

Also on the topic of clarity, I've heard Noel promote scales most actively in his beginning-player classes where people are new to the instrument, the music and the keys tunes are played in. Even then, he only spends a few minutes on the topic in class, demonstrating his recommendations for how to play them and then leaving it to the individual to pursue on their own. They are not a theme of his instruction, rather just a subtext under the heading of “suggested things to do for improvement.” I spent some time with John Williams several years ago and he also suggested that playing scales would be beneficial but didn't dwell on the subject. I've also spent time with Gearóid Ó hAllmhuráin on multiple occasions but haven't as yet heard him comment on the topic so don't know where he stands on the matter.

As to my current approach to scales and practice, some time back I found myself thinking that I did little to challenge and stretch my abilities by playing familiar material month after month. So I made a point to devote more time to learning new tunes, but eventually concluded that once one gets the common button combinations down and becomes fairly good at picking up new tunes, you can memorize and play a lot of material without necessarily improving as a player. I suppose one could debate what "improving as a player" means, but I felt I was succeeding mechanically without necessarily improving my ability to make music.

As a consequence I started looking for ways to stretch myself on other levels. I began learning an expanded range of scales beyond the D, G and A I'd been working with previously. I started playing tunes in keys other then the ones they are typically written and played in. In a visit with Bertram Levy he pointed out the value of refining one's bellows control to increase dynamic range and so I started making a point to play at different volumes while still maintaining an even flow and sound. I try to make the music more interesting in ways other than just ornamentation.

I don't suggest that others should follow my approach or seek validation of what I'm doing, rather I'm just reporting what I'm doing.

Seems to me like valid approach.
I don't think that not aspiring to play pieces of top complexity necessarily means aspiring to mediocrity, disagree that playing in many keys makes you a better player, and would argue that knowing what one is doing theoretically is beneficial to the expressiveness. I also don't thing that simply playing the same piece, but in different key is of any significance. It will teach you some knowledge of the instrument, but if you are not going to play in that key, or if your playing in multiple keys lacks expressiveness - it's a make-belief challenge.
I disagree that there is a difference between "learning an instrument" and "learning a tune". One can't learn an instrument without learning a tune and by learning a tune one necessarily learns bit of an instrument.

I'm sure I will be corrected, but I actually believe that 95% or more of the readers of this forum. are amateurs who intend to remain that way.

This being the case, most players are in it for the fun of making music. Playing scales can become very tedious and cause some to forgo practicing because of the guilt that can come from not following the recommendations of some self appointed sages.

Those thusly put off will be happy to know that some of the best musicians in the world do not play scales, as such! What they do, is to practice interesting scale like passages from pieces they are learning, or from their repertoire.

Don't worry about being able to play in every key. If you find a piece in a new key, you can learn it then. But be aware that most instruments play comfortably in a limited number of keys and so pieces are often transcribed and available in many different keys. This is especially common in classical style pieces and vocal music. In early times composers expected their music to be arranged in various ways and keys for all sorts of instruments. This is absolutely, 100 percent acceptable, especially in the light of the fact that you are making personal music for your own enjoyment and hopefully, but not necessarily, to be shared with others.

The idea is to play "these scale like" passages slowly and carefully a couple of times as a warm up. Then when you get to the piece in your practice routine, that passage will be a little easier.

As a matter of fact slow practice is a lot like slow food. It is more enjoyable and actually is the trick to playing rapidly. Just relax and listen to the music you are making.

Don't worry too much about expression, it will come through all by itself as you play. All the tricks in the world can't hide a boring person"s playing! But don't confuse boring with shy. The shyest people are sometimes the most exciting players, and some of the blowhards can bore everyone to death with their overbearing playing and non-stop patter.

enjoy,
w.campbell

A lot of good points in this posting, in my opinion!

I share your assessment that most of us here are amateurs. However, amateurs and professionals have one thing in common: they want to play as well as they can, given the time, talent and resources at their disposal. Professionals play for money and recognition, amateurs play for personal satisfaction. These are equally strong motivators, to my mind.

Yes, we must realise that "practising scales" is not just playing "doh, re, mi, fa, so, la, ti, doh'" and back down again. When I was learning to sing, my teacher had me sing broken scales like "doh, mi, re, fa, mi, so, fa, la, so, ti, la, re', doh'". Or "doh, re, doh, mi, doh, fa, doh, so, doh, la, doh, ti, doh, doh', doh" (try that one along the rows of your anglo - you may discover some interesting alternative fingerings!)
These are the "scale-like passages" you wrote about, and they can be used to practise phrasing, too (e.g. "DOH-mi, RE-fa, MI-so ..."). you can give the notes different time values; you can do the whole exercise in 3/4 time or 4/4 time; you can build up the volume and take it down again, etc.
If you then put a chord under each note (or phrase) of the exercise (probably easiest on an anglo), you've got a pretty little etude, which does not have to be boring, but still gets your ear and fingers accustomed to finding all the right notes and the appropriate chords.
Make up words to it, if you like. Even if you only sing them mentally, they will help to shape the music.

I've heard top-class musicians recommend slow practice, too. If you always play fast passages up to speed, your brain tends to delegate them to the fingers, and if the fingers get knotted, the brain no longer knows what to do, and you crash out. Playing slowly, concentrating on each note, keeps you in charge of affairs.

And yes, expression is not a matter of skill or tricks or neat fingerings. Skill has to do with producing the right notes in the right sequence. This is instrument-specific. Expression has to do with the music itself - with finding the coherent phrases and making them audible by accentuating the appropriate notes and glossing over others (using your instrument-specific skills, of course). This is something that a musician can transfer from his first instrument to a subsequently learned instrument. And remember, the first instrument that most of us learn is The Voice! A pretty good guideline to expressive phrasing is to sing the passage through, and then try to play it like that.

Whether you do all this for four hours a day, like a pro, or for ten minutes each evening, like an amateur, is to my mind only a matter of degree.

A famous French Impressionist painter once said that the secret of being a good painter was never to let a day pass without putting pencil to paper at least once. By analogy, even the amateur concertinist with a demanding day job can usually find the time (say, 5 minutes, including unpacking and repacking the concertina) to run through one of those "scale-like passages", just to remind his fingers of where the notes are. I've done this with difficult passages in tunes I've been learning - notably that descending scale passage in "The Sailor's Hornpipe" - and it works wonders!

Cheers,
John

Wow! I'm really impressed with the amount of serious, structured practicing so many people seem to do.

I've taught myself to play a number of instruments besides anglo concertina. I'm very well aware that he who teaches himself has a fool for a a master, but back then it was impossible to get lessons on these instruments, so it was the only way. In most cases it wasn't even possible to get hold of a decent printed tutor book.

As I've never had formal lessons on any instrument (apart from recorder at school) I have no idea how to structure a practice session. Like m3838, I don't "practice" in that sense, I pick up the instrument and run through tunes I need to consolidate, or simply enjoy playing. I try to think about what I'm doing and to try out different approaches, but that's it really. Some weeks the only time I find to play is when I sit down in my weekly session, or play a gig.

In theory, I would have loved to have had the benefit of formal tuition when I was younger. I suppose I could try to follow the regimes suggested above, but for me the point of playing an instrument is to make music, not to do exercises. It's the same attitude that makes me prefer to do something which requires me to be active, rather than go to a gym. Exercises for their own sake may be good for you, but they're not what it's about.

I'm not saying there's no benefit from doing them, and I admire those with the patience to work on their technique. I prefer to develop the techniques I need as I go along in order to to be able to play the tunes I like. I'm not necessarily saying that's the best approach, or even a desirable one, simply that it works for me - and I suspect a lot of other ear-playing angloists