I love scales too! My teacher recommended me the introduction and I found a new outlook on the whole thing.

I think Carl Flesch is way more fun than abrsm scales. I've only been practicing them for a month but there's so many new patterns compared to the boring abrsm scales. Really enjoyed working on patterns 1 to 4.

@@adambe1126 is abrsm scales enough for all the grades? or we really have to complement with extra scales from flesch for example?

@@ElsweyrDiego The only scales required for the grades are the ones that are specified by whatever your exam board has decided. This being said, if you want to progress as a violinist rather than just grinding grades, flesch and galamian scales patterns will do wonders for you and they will make the scales in whatever your exam board is way easier.

@@adambe1126 thanks. i asked because i don't have much time to practise and i already started late on the violin (35 years old now ), so i don't have much time left alive to reach the highest grades anyway 😅

Stop😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

naw 💀

Imagine if that were possible, haha

When I discovered this it changed my life. Really wish someone had showed this to me back in my conservatory days

Glad someone got it, haha

I can confirm. I started playing the violin at age 59 with Suzuki and I still play the scale of every piece I am going to play.

😅

Ptsd lol

🤣

😂😂😂😂😂

Sound Encounters?? Wow, that takes me back.

@@tonebaseviolin oh, the memories! ❤️

second grade and already doing 3 octaves scales? is it really benefitial? because on 2nd grade i think you barely reach 3rd position

@@ElsweyrDiego no, it depends on the student. I reached all the positions in the first grade. If it is easy for the child, it's not a problem, but it is very individual.

hahahahhahahhahahaha

😂😅😂

Anyway I play fiddle instead of classical now 😂

Let's see, so far I've gotten Miles Teller Tom Holland and now Errol Flynn I have no idea what I look like now

@@tonebaseviolin lmaooooo they're all attractive so that means something

The Galamian system is even better 😅 Instead of being organized by scale, it is organized by type. So turn to page 1 and you see a page of scales in 1 position. They a little strange, because you see nothing but note heads, and here are no key signatures. And there are cryptic remarks about B3, R6, etc. More about that later. Each approximately 2 octave “scale” starts with 1st finger on a different note, going up 16 notes, a two note turn, and back down, 32 notes in all. The starting notes systematically march up the fingerboard on the G string, from A to G. You mentally apply a key signature which does not necessarily correspond to the starting note of the “scale” although you can start with the ones that do while you get accustomed. OK, fine. That’s page 1, what is on the remaining 74 pages? Page 2 is scales on 1 string. 12 notes up, 12 down. Starting on different notes and fingers, using 1, 2, 3 or even 4 fingers. Flesch skips 1 finger scales as I recall, although they are an excellent building block for say scales in octaves and tenths. And you’re going to know where every note is on the fingerboard when you are done! This takes a couple of pages. Next up is 3 octave scales, and the acceleration exercise. Here the contrasting organization of the material really becomes clear. With Flesch, the first scale in the book is C major, in all of its twisted forms that he provided. Then down a third to the relative minor, then down another 3rd to the next major key, and around and around we go until we would get back to C major at the end of the book. Galamian instead provides all of the 3 octave scales in one section, bumping the tonic up a half step after playing the associated minor keys. so G major, G harmonic minor, G melodic minor, G# major, G# harmonic minor, G# melodic minor, etc. When you have mastered the scales of a given type, it is easy to scamper through the whole lot, which is inconvenient in Flesch. Then we have 4 octave scales. The process repeats with arpeggios - in one position, on one string, 3 and 4 octaves. Again laid out so you can march through as many of the keys as you have learned, or you can concentrate on one. Broken 3rds, 4ths, 5ths, 6ths, across the violin or on one string. Chromatic scales. Whole tone scales. The whole book has the same “no stems” approach, with each scale organized to be a convenient number of notes long. The B and R stuff mentioned earlier is another example of Galamian’s systematic approach. B3 means a bowing pattern of 3 notes. R4 is a rhythm pattern of 4 notes. The second volume in the set is nothing but a systematic compilation of just about every’ pattern imaginable. Flesch writes out a bunch of patterns, but “hard-codes” into text. Galamian gives you a toolbox that you apply as you need it. The 3 octave scale is 24 notes up, 24 down, so it can have patterns of 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 24 easily applied. Every time you master one combination, you pick another set, so that your brain stays engaged. Galamian felt that the most important part was training the brain, not mindless repetition. And once you were familiar with the concepts, scales provided an excellent workplace for mastering technical problems in repertoire. Zukerman uses the 1st page 32nd note passage in the Saint-Saens Intro and Rondo Cap as an example. Down (2 notes) up-up, down (2 notes) up-up. That’s a B4 pattern for the bowing. You do your 3 octave scales and arpeggios for a week or two with that pattern and you have effectively practiced that bowing at the same time. This organization makes it easier to focus on the technical area(s) that most need immediate help, but doesn’t hinder the eventual acquisition of fluency in all of the scales and patterns. There is a separate volume, similar organized, that handles double stops. In even more detail than Flesch, and broken down to a greater degree, I think. My teacher used both books, dipping into different aspects of each. I think the Galamian is easier to use, and customize, once you’ve figured it out. Flesch writes out bowing and rhythm patterns for you, but I doubt many people apply them to scales other than the one where he wrote them, and that seems like a flaw. FWIW, the Heifetz book is organized somewhat similarly to Flesch in that you get all of the scales on a given tonic together, but with less emphasis on working on strings individually. Heifetz felt scales should first be mastered legato, and only then should bowing and rhythm patterns be applied as needed. One thing he supplies which is notable by its absence in Flesch is scales in 5ths. Rodney Friend has a very interesting book which argues that practicing scales and repertoire passages in 5ths promotes a superior hand position and sound - there are some videos here on youtube where he demonstrates, too. I hated doing scales as a kid, and mostly avoided doing them. At a later, wiser age, I realized that you could usually tell the people who played scales from those who did not - the ones who played them regularly were better players. Now I enjoy playing them, and I try to get my students to enjoy them as well, always explaining that they really help, and I would do my best to keep them fun. And playing well is fun!

Hello! I'm the presenter for this video. I was told by a certain colleague of his that he never has to practice and still can play marvelously, and then the same colleague said "but I have to get up early every day to practice scales or I cannot play, but Ilya does not have to practice and still sounds wonderful!" So I unfortunately got the impression that he did not practice scales at all. Daniel Kurganov has also corrected me on this point. My apologies! I love Ilya's playing very much!

I won't tell if you don't