T & G exercises

[Absoflutely]

As an adult beginner, my teacher just blessed me with the T & G exercise manual. I'm sure that Trevor Wye is just as good but my instructor is a T & G fan. In any case, I've begun on lesson 1 and after doing it for about a week now, I'm wondering if the time it takes for me to complete this exercise is normal. Right now to do the entire exercise, which is really about 7 1/2 pages of scales, is taking me over 2 hours. Am I really slow or is this normal? How long should it take? It's seriously cutting into my other practice time. Is it really worth it?
I have to say that I already see an improvement in my sight reading. But how long will I have to repeat this exercise before the time necessary to complete it becomes reasonable?

[deina-kun]

Is it the 17 Big Daily Exercise book? Larry Krantz has a nice page on how to practice it: http://www.larrykrantz.com/taffanel.htm

[MeLizzard]

These exercises take time to learn initially, but they're well worth the effort. I have several students plowing through some of T & G as we speak (I hope!!), and it's a lot of work for them now, but they're beginning to see the payoff in easier technical facility and quicker pattern recognition (great sight-reading improvements!). Unless they're willing to temporarily practice an extra hour each day, however, we kinda put some of the more frivolous concerns, like learning a brand-new, super-tough piece, on the back burner for a few weeks. I usually introduce these when no contests or auditions are coming up. Don't lose hope; the better our technique becomes, the faster we can play these. Therefore, the less time...

[Absoflutely]

Hi, and thank you both for your suggestions and insights. I checked out the link to Larry Krantz and it sounds pretty good. As for contests or auditions, I'm only competing with myself at this stage. But it's good to hear that the journey thru these exercises is challenging and time consuming for others as well -- at least initially. I'll hang in there with them and, hopefully, the rewards will become apparent sooner rather than later.

Any other supportive comments, experiences or insights are welcome.

[ick27]

I consider the T&G 17 big daily exercises to be pretty advanced material. It takes me 10-15 minutes to get through a longer T&G exercise (like number 4). When I first got the book I didn't really get a lot out of it because it was too hard for me and I didn't know how to practice it.

I first started getting good work done with scale exercises using Trevor Wye's technique book (book two). Actually, Trevor Wye's technical exercises are pretty similar to T&G, but are usually not as long. He also gives in-depth descriptions of how to practice, while T&G doesn't.

All of the T&G exercises can be really beneficial, but don't kill yourself working on them! It's okay not to do an entire exercise at a particular time. What is important is that you practice accurately, with correct fingerings, good tone, good rhythm, good intonation, etc. It's okay to play through them slowly. As long as you work accurately and frequently (once a day is great if possible) you'll rapidly improve.

As an adult beginner, you certainly don't need to spend two hours every day playing T&G. If you are serious about improving, I suggest maybe 30 minutes a day of exercises. If you get frustrated or tired, do less. If you feel like you are up for more, do more.

[MeLizzard]

I second the Trevor Wye recommendation. I'm not sure at what level you're currently playing, but I usually work my (mostly school-aged) students through some technical work, sometimes Trevor, before T & G. Otherwise, they'd get stupendously frustrated, though it's generally easier for an adult to maintain perspective. The technique practice book contains many ideas which seem to be based, at least loosely, on T & G and similar studies. However, they're presented, except for the couple larger scale sequences, in short ("managable"!), mostly two-bar chunks, with repeat signs to, I guess, go 'til you get it. The studies are very concentrated, focusing often on one specific fingering or fingering combination, and I'd much rather just do it that way than play pages and pages of longgggg nineteenth-century etudes created for the same purpose! They're a nice way to ease into technical study if you haven't previously worked at developing a very disciplined technique. Many of them are still quite challenging, depending on various factors. Good luck!

[fluteguy18]

My professor was taught both methods {T&G, and Trevor Wye}, and she prefers to teach Trevor Wye. This is the book I work out of the most. On occasion, she pulls out the HUGE T&G book that she has, and will photocopy parts of it if there is a specific excercise that she wants me to work on.

[Baz]

OK - can't resist sticking my 2 cents worth in here. These exercises remind me of the hours and hours I've spent relentlessly ploughing through Hanon and Czerny on the piano. The schools of thought are equally divided into two camps and debate the issue with equal venom. The first swears by them, the second swears at them and dumps them in the garbage. I belong to the second school, however I can only bow down before the wisdom of your teacher.

The main axiom of the second, enlightened, school is that there is a mountain of gorgeous, at least equally technically challenging MUSIC to be learned without recourse to inane exercises whose sole function is to bore the poor, miserable student to death. And the end result is that you can play the exercises, but not music.

So, my first piece of highly controversial advice would be to dump your teacher in favour of one who loves music and not exercises. My second piece of totally unquestionable advice would be to get your hands on some Bach. Bach can teach you more about music in one PHRASE than volumes worth of exercises. And isn't that the point?

[MonikaFL]

I teach Trevor Wye first... then give my advanced students T&G.

[Absoflutely]

WOW Let the games begin! I didn't realize that this was such a controversial topic. So far, it looks like the "Wyes" have it.

At least now I have a better perspective on how to approach these exercises and how much time I should devote to them before I meltdown.

Thank you all for your input. All other opinions and experiences are welcome. Please feel free to comment.

[sidekicker]

I wouldn't really classify this as a controversial subject, but I can see how it might appear that way. Basically, anybody who was actively studying the flute before around 1980 pretty much got stuck with T&G, Moyse, etc., in terms of technical and tonal exercises (I happen to be one of them) because those were the "scriptures" of flute technique at that time. Fortunately, other people -- probably most notably Trevor Wye -- added to that by producing newer and fresher perspectives on those issues. That led almost immediately, as I recall things, to somewhat of a 180 towards Wye mostly because teachers (and students) finally had something different to work with that was also very, very good at accomplishing the same deeds. The Wye methods, to me at least, are also a bit more "user friendly" in terms of the descriptions of how the exercises should be performed for maximum results.

T&G and Wye are both wonderful technique-building sets of exercises. I see them more as complimentary to each other rather than a "one or the other" type thing. I recommend that anybody seriously looking to hone these skills utilize both.

SK

[apleasuretoburn]

The main axiom of the second, enlightened, school is that there is a mountain of gorgeous, at least equally technically challenging MUSIC to be learned without recourse to inane exercises whose sole function is to bore the poor, miserable student to death. And the end result is that you can play the exercises, but not music.

So, my first piece of highly controversial advice would be to dump your teacher in favour of one who loves music and not exercises. My second piece of totally unquestionable advice would be to get your hands on some Bach. Bach can teach you more about music in one PHRASE than volumes worth of exercises. And isn't that the point?

I have to say that I really disagree with what you're saying here. The purpose of these exercises is not to "bore" students. Like others have said in this thread, scale exercises help with technical facility, which allows us to play these more technical pieces. It also helps with sight-reading. Maybe it didn't work for you, but to say that it wouldn't work for others is just not true. After learning Trevor Wye and T&G exercises I was technically MUCH better off than before. It allowed me to recognize patterns in music. These exercises allow you to know scales inside and out, so that when you come to a line of 16th notes it's easier to say, "hey, that's just an f sharp scale, and I know that already!" Instead of tediously trying to learn each and every note in the music. I've personally found that these exercises were an incredible help to me in allowing me to play technical pieces I never could have played before, so for some people it really does do much more than just helping them "play the exercises, but not music."

[MonikaFL]

The Wye methods, to me at least, are also a bit more "user friendly" in terms of the descriptions of how the exercises should be performed for maximum results.

T&G and Wye are both wonderful technique-building sets of exercises. I see them more as complimentary to each other rather than a "one or the other" type thing. I recommend that anybody seriously looking to hone these skills utilize both.

I definitely agree with you SK. Great points!

[MonikaFL]

After learning Trevor Wye and T&G exercises I was technically MUCH better off than before. It allowed me to recognize patterns in music. These exercises allow you to know scales inside and out, so that when you come to a line of 16th notes it's easier to say, "hey, that's just an f sharp scale, and I know that already!" Instead of tediously trying to learn each and every note in the music. I've personally found that these exercises were an incredible help to me in allowing me to play technical pieces I never could have played before, so for some people it really does do much more than just helping them "play the exercises, but not music."

Exactly -- and these exercises can help you advance faster, if you do them thoughtfully. What is it Trevor Wye says... "time, patience, and intelligent work." Exercises tend to work on something very specific - maybe a tone issue, or a technical problem - but because what you are playing is focused, you can think about that ONE thing you really need to fix, and you've got time to figure out how to correct it. My students are skeptical at first when I introduce them to Trevor Wye or T&G (lately I've been using the Paula Robison Flute Warmups Book, which has similar exercises but a fun layout!) -- but I explain why we are doing the exercise, what they need to be looking for. In lessons that follow, these students come back excited about the new level of progress they are now making. Technical studies don't have to be boring... but if you approach them with that attitude, they'll never be anything but boring, and you'll miss out on what they have to teach you.

I don't know any major flutists who would dismiss the importance of technical studies. James Galway once said, "I never fail to be amazed by the great number of people who do not practice scales and arpeggios, the very bricks and mortar of our everyday repertoire." When I audited a Rampal masterclass, he stressed the importance of practicing scales, arpeggios, using different articulations.

Being able to tap into the things technical studies can teach you doesn't mean you don't love music. There aren't only TWO schools of thought on this. There are a great many of fine teachers out there who have found a wonderful balance between teaching from T&G/Wye and teaching from musical examples.

The enlightened teacher does not subscribe to a specific "school of thought" and immediately shut out the possibility of any other -- the enlightened teacher figures out how each of his/her students best learns, and customizes the curriculum accordingly. And since everyone is different, there's not going to be a simple answer that you can place in a nice neat little box.

[sidekicker]

The main axiom of the second, enlightened, school is that there is a mountain of gorgeous, at least equally technically challenging MUSIC to be learned without recourse to inane exercises whose sole function is to bore the poor, miserable student to death. And the end result is that you can play the exercises, but not music.

So, my first piece of highly controversial advice would be to dump your teacher in favour of one who loves music and not exercises. My second piece of totally unquestionable advice would be to get your hands on some Bach. Bach can teach you more about music in one PHRASE than volumes worth of exercises. And isn't that the point?

Forgive me for adamantly disagreeing with your points here. You speak of two entirely different things, IMO. There is exercising; and there is performing. It is the exercising that allows you to perform better.

I liken this to working out in a gym. There, one does repetitions, increases weight and reps, and extends aerobics throughout the workout regime. These are pretty mundane things as well. But doing it regularly makes the body stronger and able to do more things. Someone who pumps iron 3-5x a week in a gym is going to be able to move a piano much easier than one who doesn't workout at all. It is the gym work that leads to being better able to do more things than others who don't put in that type of time investment.

As others have already said, the exercises we're talking about here -- as boring as they might be to go through -- allow the flutist to immediately recognize those patterns (scales, arpeggios, thirds, etc.) in the music they are playing (in pretty much the same way a gym rat knows the best way to lift something heavy and has the capability to do it). Rather than having to read each note, one immediately sees those patterns and playing is made much, much easier. You mentioned Bach, a good example of what I'm talking about. Take the e minor sonata, for instance. A flutist who has put in the time to learn scales, arpeggios, and other intervals in that key (and its relative major) is going to be able to play all of the movements with greater ease. They will know to anticipate C#s and D#s in scale patterns. They will also know that each movement, at some point, is probably going to modulate to G major, or -- as in the third movement -- begin there and move to e minor. I could go on and on, but I think the point is made.

No one disagrees that as flutists, we fortunately have a huge and wonderful concert repertoire spanning more than three centuries. But putting in the time to learn the mundane ultimately pays off greatly in the end by allowing the flutist to play more of those pieces rather than become bogged down in learning them note by note. It also allows him/her to focus more on one of the things you have stressed, phrasing.

SK