Cortot's rational principles of technique

[gruffalo]

i have bought this book to work extensively over the summer with, and i have problems already. at the moment i just need help understanding the "daily gymnastics section". first of all, i find it hard to see how all those 9 exercises can be done in 15 minutes each day. i have a translated copy of this, but the execution of some of the exercises i find quite difficult to understand. if anyone routinely does these gymnastics for 15 minutes a day (as Cortot says), would you be able to post your timing and what you do for how long with each exercise?

the first exercise is at a speed of 60-60 bpm at a semiquaver value (not sure the american version of that note value). does this mean, that you should go through 60-80 each day in each hand?

the execution of the second exercise is quite unclear, and i would appreciate if someone could describe it to me. the third exercise, i totally dont understand lol.

thanks for reading,

Gruff

[pianistimo]

not having the book, i am at a loss - but i remember my teacher giving me various five finger exercises.  are these cortot exercises for the five fingers and repetetive or are they free form? 

i remember something like

12345432123454321....  in all of the major/minor/diminished V/V and to the next 1/2 step up.

so , it would be each exercise in C 2X:  CDEFGFED< CDEbFGFEbD<CDbEbFGbFEbDb< Db...major/minor/dimV/V

just that exercise - done 2X in major/minor/dim in all 24 major and minor keys took a good amount of time.  we'd do them at various speeds - the slower louder - the faster lighter and softer and closer to the keys.

the next exercise was:
1212 3434 5454 3232 1...  in major/minor/dim v/v  these are both hands together, of course.

then:something like thirds.  i have to find the paper with all 12 exercises.  are these the cortot exercises you are referring to?

[bernhard]

I am afraid Cortot´s book is just a waste of time and money – just like Hanon and Dohnanyi. The same reasoning I used here will apply to Cortot:

http://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=13583.msg147163#msg147163
(Why Hanon is a waste of time – or not -  summary of arguments and many relevant links)

http://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,15701.msg171057.html#msg171057
(debunking Dohnanyi)

Of course, if you are completely satisfied with Hanon and Dohnanyi, just ignore the above.

Cortot was a superb pianist, of unsurpassing musicality. Yet he had a very faulty technique. Reading his book one immediately understands why he was always hitting the wrong notes. You see, he succumbed to the allure of the logical method.

His editions of Chopin and Schumann, and the preparatory exercises that go with them are the real thing: I can find no fault in them. It is the pragmatical approach in all of its usefulness: He selects a piece, and analyses its technical difficulties and recommends exercises to deal with them. When this happens, even if the exercise is ill-conceived (and many are) no harm is really done, because the piece provides a musical context to judge the appropriateness of the suggested exercise.

But in his “Rational Principles of Piano Technique”, he produces abstract exercises to be done without musical context. The same mistake done by all the piano pedagogues of the 19th and early 20th century. There is nothing rational in these exercises. Quite the contrary, once again we see a monumental ignorance of the basics of human anatomy and phisiology, all the silly talk of strengthening the fingers (even though there is no need to strengthen the fingers), the same talk of muscles in the fingers (even though there are no muscles in the fingers), the old ideas of finger independence (even though fingers share tendons and cannot be independent), the mistaken notions of passing the finger under (even though you cannot play fast scales this way) and so on and so forth.

I strongly recommend you return this book to the shop and get instead his editions fo the Chopin Etudes (but watch out – he changes notes and adds stuff that is not in the original).

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[mephisto]

the mistaken notions of passing the finger under (even though you cannot play fast scales this way) and so on and so forth.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

How do you recomend me to play a scale(I am talking about fingering)?

[ramseytheii]

I am afraid Cortot´s book is just a waste of time and money – just like Hanon and Dohnanyi. The same reasoning I used here will apply to Cortot:

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

Welcome back!

Walter Ramsey

[daniel patschan]

Yet he had a very faulty technique. Reading his book one immediately understands why he was always hitting the wrong notes. You see, he succumbed to the allure of the logical method.

His "faulty" technique was of course not the result of playing exercises like the ones introduced in his book. His technique was amazing - as good as the technique of the today´s best virtuosos. Some mistakes (hitting wrong keys - something Vladimir H., S. Richter and E. Gilels did on a regular basis) were the results of underpracticing. He was too much involved in many different things of cultured life that he just didn´t find enough time to polish everyday over and over again. Let´s say like Barenboim or like Pletenv during the early nineties, when he worked with the russian national orchestra.

[thalbergmad]

The same mistake done by all the piano pedagogues of the 19th and early 20th century.
Best wishes,
Bernhard.

Welcome back my Hanon bashing friend.

Sometimes i wonder how the world ever produced any decent pianists in the 19th century, coz they obviously did not know what they were doing.

Thalxx

[gruffalo]

Thanks Bernhard, your post was interesting, but i dont know what to believe simply because i dont have the experience to judge whether or not this book is effective. i have had absolute trust in my teacher since i started with him because he has transformed my piano playing into something really good in a short space of time and although he did not bring up the idea of Cortot's rational principles book, he has agreed to my study of it "in spare practice time". i agree with you about the Hanon and Donyani, but do you think that the Cortot book will do bad things to my piano playing? or are you just saying that it wont be very effective? the reason why i got Cortot's book was because i heard some pianists with a great technique say that they studied this book, so... monkey see monkey do.

I have the book of Liszt's exercises. would you recommend these?

Gruff

[bernhard]

How do you recomend me to play a scale(I am talking about fingering)?

Have a look here:

http://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2313.msg19807.html#msg19807
(Speed of scales – the important factors in speed playing - an alternative fingering for scales).

http://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2533.msg21955.html#msg21955
(an structured plan to learn scales and arpeggios – includes description of repeated note-groups and other tricks)

http://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2619.msg22756.html#msg22756
(unorthodox fingering for all major and minor scales plus an explanation)

http://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2701.msg23134.html#msg23134
(Teaching scales – the cluster method and why one should start with B major).

http://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2758.msg23889.html#msg23889
(scales & compositions – the real importance of scales is to develop the concept of key, not exercise)

http://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2920.msg25568.html#msg25568
(how to play superfast scales)

http://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2983.msg26079.html#msg26079
(Best order to learn scales – what does it mean not to play scales outside pieces)

http://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2998.msg26268.html#msg26268
(Scales HT, why? – why and when to practise scales HS and HT – Pragmatical  x logical way of teaching – analogy with aikido – list of piano techniques – DVORAK – realistic x sports martial arts – technique and how to acquire it by solving technical problems – Hanon and why it should be avoided - Lemmings)

http://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,3499.msg31548.html#msg31548
(using scales as the basis for free improvisation)

http://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,2619.msg104249.html#msg104249
(Scale fingering must be modified according to the piece – Godard op. 149 no.5 – yet another example of the folly of technical exercises)

http://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/board,1/topic,16037.3.html#msg171612
(chromatic scale fingerings)


Best wishes,
Bernhard

[bernhard]

Welcome back!

Walter Ramsey

Thank you.

I cannot let the Hanonites take over the forum without a fight!

Best wishes,
Bernhard,

[bernhard]

His "faulty" technique was of course not the result of playing exercises like the ones introduced in his book. His technique was amazing - as good as the technique of the today´s best virtuosos. Some mistakes (hitting wrong keys - something Vladimir H., S. Richter and E. Gilels did on a regular basis) were the results of underpracticing. He was too much involved in many different things of cultured life that he just didn´t find enough time to polish everyday over and over again. Let´s say like Barenboim or like Pletenv during the early nineties, when he worked with the russian national orchestra.

This is the point I have been making over and over again.

Cortot´s technique was not amazing. It was labored, effort-laden and injury prone. He was educated at the Paris Conservatory, that hotbed of Hanonites, so it is little wonder that he tried to fit pieces to Hanon-like technique, instead of exploring a technique (ways of moving) best suited to the piece.

Chopin, who had a most unorthodox, effortless technique, knew that in order to play his etudes, a different way of moving was necessary. So he went to the trouble of indicating fingering in many of the etudes. That fingering, when approached from the point of view of an immobile forearm and lifting high fingers will seem completely impossible, and indeed it will be impossible. But Chopin understood that fingering implies a pattern of motion, so if one sticks to Chopin´s fingering and investigate which motion will make that fingering easy and natural to play, one will discover the technique Chopin had in mind.

But Cortot, in his edition of the Chopin etudes (a very valuable edition indeed, but one that must be apporached with the utmost care), consistently changes Chopin´s fingerings to fingerings that will make it easy for a Hanonite to play. By doing so, the true technique to play the etudes is lost, and instead one acquires the kind of "amazing" technique Cortot had.

What is the problem with that? The problem is that true technique besides being effortless and injury free, never needs to be practised once you acquire it It may take months or even years of investigative practice to figure out the technique to play a passage/piece, but once you get it, it will be like riding a bicycle: It will be yours forever, even if you do not practise/play the piece for the next ten years.

Cortot´s kind of technique on the other hand may well do the job (as I said Cortot was an amazing pianist). But because it is inappropriate, it needs to be practised everyday, or it will slip away. And worse, even if you practise it everyday it is still not trustworthy.  Cortot made mistakes not because he was too busy to practise. He was practising like mad and still not getting it right. To his merit one must say that he kept investigating and trying to figure out why perfect playing elluded him. Eventually he did give up.

Pianists who have discovered how to develop the correct technique (for them, for the piece) manage to play perfectly into their old age. Pianists with "amazing technique" who do not discover how to develop correct technique eventually see their "amazing technique" melt away and have to retire or give up the piano at a young age.

Have a look here for an interesting example of what I am talking about.

http://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,13208.msg143740.html#msg143740
(Reply # 29: an account on how Cramer’s technique deteriorated with age)

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[bernhard]

Welcome back my Hanon bashing friend.

Sometimes i wonder how the world ever produced any decent pianists in the 19th century, coz they obviously did not know what they were doing.

Thalxx

Thank you.

Clearly in order to produce a decent pianist it is not necessary for the decent pianist to know what s/he is doing.

Then again, maybe we should ask the converse question: How come - if Liszt´s phenomenal playing was the result of 2 years practising Czerny and Hanon-like drills (Hanon had not yet written his wonderfull opus - poor Liszt ) - how come we are not overwhelmed by the sheer number of pianists of the same caliber? I mean, 2 years, 20 hours a day is not that demanding for sure? Maybe the Liszt story was not quite like that...

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[bernhard]

Thanks Bernhard, your post was interesting, but i dont know what to believe simply because i dont have the experience to judge whether or not this book is effective. i have had absolute trust in my teacher since i started with him because he has transformed my piano playing into something really good in a short space of time and although he did not bring up the idea of Cortot's rational principles book, he has agreed to my study of it "in spare practice time". i agree with you about the Hanon and Donyani, but do you think that the Cortot book will do bad things to my piano playing? or are you just saying that it wont be very effective? the reason why i got Cortot's book was because i heard some pianists with a great technique say that they studied this book, so... monkey see monkey do.

I have the book of Liszt's exercises. would you recommend these?

Gruff

There is no need to believe in anyone.

Do what scientists do: a controlled experiment. Put both theories to the test (Theory 1: Cortot will deliver everything it promises on the preface. Theory 2: Cortot is a waste of time and will not/cannot deliver what it promises). You cannot do this using yourself as an experimental subject since you cannot play and not play Cortot at the same time. So the best way is to get you teacher involoved into the project and assign Cortot to half of his students, and the other half must not touch Cortot. Make sure each half of the students is a random sample. Get a statistician to help you plan the experiment and anlayse the results. Compare both groups at regular intervals of time (say, monthly for a period of two years).

But is that really necessary? There is enough nonsense in Cortot´s intructions / preface (finger independence, lifiting fingers high, passing thumb under - and no mention whatsoever of thumb over, etc.) to make one highly suspicious of the book. If I try to sell you a guide that will teach you how to fly by flapping your arms vigorously do you really need a scientifc exeriment to show that the guide is balloney?

See? No need for belief.

As for absolute trust in your teacher. Why? Sure, you must trust him enough to try out what he suggests, but if he tells you, drink this weird looking beverage, and I promise you that after half an hour you will be playing like Liszt himself, will you do it? Religious people make faith (blindly believing what is clearly non-sense, and even if it wasn´t how would they know?) to be a great virtue, but them much money can be made out of the faithful...

My advice is to forget about exercises (technical or otherwise). Simply work on the pieces you love, and you will acquire all the technique you need.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[ramseytheii]

Thank you.

Clearly in order to produce a decent pianist it is not necessary for the decent pianist to know what s/he is doing.

Then again, maybe we should ask the converse question: How come - if Liszt´s phenomenal playing was the result of 2 years practising Czerny and Hanon-like drills (Hanon had not yet written his wonderfull opus - poor Liszt ) - how come we are not overwhelmed by the sheer number of pianists of the same caliber? I mean, 2 years, 20 hours a day is not that demanding for sure? Maybe the Liszt story was not quite like that...

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

I would be prone to agree, but then why are Liszt's published exercises nothing but mindless drills?
I often wonder if he got all his technique actually from improvisation, but somehow in his mind credited it with the drilling.

Walter Ramsey


Walter Ramsey

[bernhard]

I would be prone to agree, but then why are Liszt's published exercises nothing but mindless drills?
I often wonder if he got all his technique actually from improvisation, but somehow in his mind credited it with the drilling.

Walter Ramsey


Walter Ramsey

Here is my take on the Liszt´s story:

When Liszt was brought to Czerny at age 12, he was already a full fledged pianist, with a few years of concert experience behind him. He played with great ease the most difficult repertory, having been allowed to develop his personal technique intuitively. The result was that he had found movements and motions that were completely natural for him.

That is when he had the great misfortune of meeting Herr Czerny. Czerny was horrified by Lizst´s natural and comfortable movements, since they did not conform to his own fixed ideas. He was convinced one had to play with one´s fingers and generally experience the utmost discomfort when playing. He proceeded to “correct” Lizst´s technique over the next few years, and Lizst complied and actually became very good at playing with a very limited and ultimately inappropriate technique.

In his twentys, he had become just another indifferent pianist playing with an inapropriate technique in Paris, just like so many other pianists in town. This was Czerny´s legacy.

Had Lizst died then, no one would have heard of him. He would just be another mediocre pianist amongst mediocre pianists.

But then two momentous things happened. Pay attention, exercise supporters, because there is a moral and cautionary tale for you all here.

Had Lizst not gone through these two momentous happenings and not died, he would still have been a mediocre pianist, and as he got older, his uncomfortable, inappropriate Czerny style technique would deteriorate and again we would never have heard of him.

Look at this thread to see the fate that would have befallen Liszt (and to a great extent has befallen Cortot):

http://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,13208.msg143740.html#msg143740
(an account on how Cramer’s technique deteriorated with age)

So what were these two life changing events?

It was his meeting with two men. Nothing would ever be the same after that.

The first meeting was with Chopin.

Chopin – like Lizst in his early years – had developed a highly idiossincratic technique (= way to move) when playing the piano. But contrary to Liszt he had not had the benefit of a Czerny to “correct” him. When he first arrived in Paris at 20, the most famous pianist of the day was Kalkbrenner. Kalkbrenner watched Chopin play and like Czerny with Liszt, was horrified at the neglect of Chopin´s technique. He offered to teach Chopin and estimated that in four years time he could turn Chopin into a piano virtuoso like the many swarming Paris. Chopin was actually tempted by this offer (he was impressed with Kalkbrenner´s playing), but in the end declined.

The interesting thing was that all those virtuoso pianists could not play to satisfaction any of Chopin´s pieces, in spite of their apparent superior technique. This was not lost on Lizst. Apparently Chopin´s idiossincratic technique was necessary for the correct rendition of his pieces.

The second meeting was with Paganini.

After witnessing Paganini in concert, Lizst was so overwhelmed that he vouched to do on the piano what Paganini did on the violin.

And here is where Liszt phenomenal technique starts.

Not with Czerny, because it became completely obvious to him that Czerny was completely inadequate to emulate Paganini, but with Chopin, because the key to the transference of Paganini´s umbelievable virtuosity on the violin to the piano, lies not with Czerny´s limited and limiting pedagogy, but with Chopin´s weird way of playing the piano.

It is now that Lizst will retire from concertizing for a while and feverishly pursue Paganini style virtuosity for up to ten hours a day.

But what do you think Lizst was doing for ten hours? Do you really believe he was practising Czerny or Hanon/Dohnanyi/Cortot types of finger exercises mindlessly hour after hour? Don´t be silly. If this would work, he would already have been the Lizst of legends. After all he had been there and done that with Czerny.

No. What he was doing during these ten hours was investigative practice. Not repetitive mind numbing repetitions of some finger pattern, but intelligent, totally focused piano work. He knew the result he was after, and he knew that in order to achieve it he had to recover the technique of his early years, the one that Czerny had destroyed. Chopin had shown him this, and Paganini was the ultimate proof that this was the only way to go.

When he was finished with the process (it didn´t take that long), he had so completely transformed his technique that it was a different pianist altogether that emerged from that practice room. And everyone noticed.

Lizst always refused to teach technique. He knew that the process through which he had acquired his technique could not be systematized. He knew Czerny was crap (and therefore never told his students to go through it - but being a good, polite boy, he never bashed his teacher for it). He knew that technique was highly personal, highly idiossincratic and could only be achieved by a process of intense investigation as he himself had gone through. Hence he never wrote anything about it.

His masterclasses – in which he never discussed technique – consisted of listening to the student play, and then playing himself in such a superior fashion that the student had to face the same experience he had faced when he first listened to Paganini: “sh*t, I am crap!” (incidentally, Chopin used the same pedagogical approach in his lessons)

After that time of intense, investigative practice – we do not know for sure but I am prepared to bet it was all based on repertory and most likely Chopin´s pieces – he never “practised” again. He had discovered – or perhaps rediscovered – his natural way of playing, and it felt so easy that all he had to do was play. And play he did!

Anyone who believes Liszt practised ten hours of exercises a day until the end of his life should consider this: Where would he have had the time? He was traveling around, bedding whatever pretty face happened to cross his way, running away from husbands, fathers, authorities, concertising, composing prolifically a daring, highly complex musical oeuvre, supporting new pianists and composers, teaching and even dedicating himself to a religious life.

To think that Lizst technique owes anything to Czerny is simply laughable. If so, every Czerny player would have become a Liszt by now.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[ramseytheii]

This is the point I have been making over and over again.

Cortot´s technique was not amazing. It was labored, effort-laden and injury prone. He was educated at the Paris Conservatory, that hotbed of Hanonites, so it is little wonder that he tried to fit pieces to Hanon-like technique, instead of exploring a technique (ways of moving) best suited to the piece.

I think it is an unfair assessment of Cortot; although the wrong notes, although the suspicious blurrings, he was still able to create unparalleled poetic effects and use piano sonority to the utmost, and that has to be included in any assessment of technique.  Besides, if you compare Cortot's recordings with Paderewski's, I think it is Paderewski that made the "labored, effort-laden" sound.
Just leafing through an Alfred Brendel interview, I found this:

Interviewer: "What was Cortot's magic?"
Brendel: "His unbelievable sense of sound, nourished by his experience as a conductor.  The ability to keep consistent control of various timbres and separate voices...."

But I wanted to quote Brendel talking about Edwin Fischer, when the interviewer ventured to say he was no "virtuoso," which is probably true.

"There is a control of the long line and the most subtle nuance - this, after all is part and parcel of technique!... I would say that this technical mastery is unsurpassed precisely because it serves the poetic purpose..."

What is the problem with that? The problem is that true technique besides being effortless and injury free, never needs to be practised once you acquire it It may take months or even years of investigative practice to figure out the technique to play a passage/piece, but once you get it, it will be like riding a bicycle: It will be yours forever, even if you do not practise/play the piece for the next ten years.

Elsewhere you have defined technique as, "a way to do things."  When you say a true technique never needs to be practiced, do you mean that once you know how to solve a particular pianistic problem through practice, that will never be forgotten; or that the practiced mastery of a passage will guarantee its staying power.   You've also said that there is no benefit in learning exercises such as Hanon for a technique that will serve in real music; but does that therefore mean that mastery over one passage in one piece, will not provide you with the technique for mastery over a similar but not identical passage in another piece?

Pianists who have discovered how to develop the correct technique (for them, for the piece) manage to play perfectly into their old age. Pianists with "amazing technique" who do not discover how to develop correct technique eventually see their "amazing technique" melt away and have to retire or give up the piano at a young age.

This is definitely true, see the case of Shura Cherkassky, who at the age of 80 played beautifully the Prokofiev 2nd concerto and Rachmaninoff 3rd concerto in the same concert.  He learned his method of practicing from Godowsky, who would have played masterfully up until the day he died, had he not been stricken by a stroke.

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

You tell music history so beautifully, as a compelling and powerful story!  One question, can you refer us to any source, hopefully from Liszt, that discusses Chopin's influence on his conception of piano-playing?  Or perhaps recommend a valuable compilation of Liszt's letters.
Thanks

Walter Ramsey

Here is my take on the Liszt´s story:

When Liszt was brought to Czerny at age 12, he was already a full fledged pianist, with a few years of concert experience behind him. He played with great ease the most difficult repertory, having been allowed to develop his personal technique intuitively. The result was that he had found movements and motions that were completely natural for him.

That is when he had the great misfortune of meeting Herr Czerny. Czerny was horrified by Lizst´s natural and comfortable movements, since they did not conform to his own fixed ideas. He was convinced one had to play with one´s fingers and generally experience the utmost discomfort when playing. He proceeded to “correct” Lizst´s technique over the next few years, and Lizst complied and actually became very good at playing with a very limited and ultimately inappropriate technique.

In his twentys, he had become just another indifferent pianist playing with an inapropriate technique in Paris, just like so many other pianists in town. This was Czerny´s legacy.

Had Lizst died then, no one would have heard of him. He would just be another mediocre pianist amongst mediocre pianists.

But then two momentous things happened. Pay attention, exercise supporters, because there is a moral and cautionary tale for you all here.

Had Lizst not gone through these two momentous happenings and not died, he would still have been a mediocre pianist, and as he got older, his uncomfortable, inappropriate Czerny style technique would deteriorate and again we would never have heard of him.

Look at this thread to see the fate that would have befallen Liszt (and to a great extent has befallen Cortot):

http://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,13208.msg143740.html#msg143740
(an account on how Cramer’s technique deteriorated with age)

So what were these two life changing events?

It was his meeting with two men. Nothing would ever be the same after that.

The first meeting was with Chopin.

Chopin – like Lizst in his early years – had developed a highly idiossincratic technique (= way to move) when playing the piano. But contrary to Liszt he had not had the benefit of a Czerny to “correct” him. When he first arrived in Paris at 20, the most famous pianist of the day was Kalkbrenner. Kalkbrenner watched Chopin play and like Czerny with Liszt, was horrified at the neglect of Chopin´s technique. He offered to teach Chopin and estimated that in four years time he could turn Chopin into a piano virtuoso like the many swarming Paris. Chopin was actually tempted by this offer (he was impressed with Kalkbrenner´s playing), but in the end declined.

The interesting thing was that all those virtuoso pianists could not play to satisfaction any of Chopin´s pieces, in spite of their apparent superior technique. This was not lost on Lizst. Apparently Chopin´s idiossincratic technique was necessary for the correct rendition of his pieces.

The second meeting was with Paganini.

After witnessing Paganini in concert, Lizst was so overwhelmed that he vouched to do on the piano what Paganini did on the violin.

And here is where Liszt phenomenal technique starts.

Not with Czerny, because it became completely obvious to him that Czerny was completely inadequate to emulate Paganini, but with Chopin, because the key to the transference of Paganini´s umbelievable virtuosity on the violin to the piano, lies not with Czerny´s limited and limiting pedagogy, but with Chopin´s weird way of playing the piano.

It is now that Lizst will retire from concertizing for a while and feverishly pursue Paganini style virtuosity for up to ten hours a day.

But what do you think Lizst was doing for ten hours? Do you really believe he was practising Czerny or Hanon/Dohnanyi/Cortot types of finger exercises mindlessly hour after hour? Don´t be silly. If this would work, he would already have been the Lizst of legends. After all he had been there and done that with Czerny.

No. What he was doing during these ten hours was investigative practice. Not repetitive mind numbing repetitions of some finger pattern, but intelligent, totally focused piano work. He knew the result he was after, and he knew that in order to achieve it he had to recover the technique of his early years, the one that Czerny had destroyed. Chopin had shown him this, and Paganini was the ultimate proof that this was the only way to go.

When he was finished with the process (it didn´t take that long), he had so completely transformed his technique that it was a different pianist altogether that emerged from that practice room. And everyone noticed.

Lizst always refused to teach technique. He knew that the process through which he had acquired his technique could not be systematized. He knew Czerny was crap (and therefore never told his students to go through it - but being a good, polite boy, he never bashed his teacher for it). He knew that technique was highly personal, highly idiossincratic and could only be achieved by a process of intense investigation as he himself had gone through. Hence he never wrote anything about it.

His masterclasses – in which he never discussed technique – consisted of listening to the student play, and then playing himself in such a superior fashion that the student had to face the same experience he had faced when he first listened to Paganini: “***, I am crap!” (incidentally, Chopin used the same pedagogical approach in his lessons)

After that time of intense, investigative practice – we do not know for sure but I am prepared to bet it was all based on repertory and most likely Chopin´s pieces – he never “practised” again. He had discovered – or perhaps rediscovered – his natural way of playing, and it felt so easy that all he had to do was play. And play he did!

Anyone who believes Liszt practised ten hours of exercises a day until the end of his life should consider this: Where would he have had the time? He was traveling around, bedding whatever pretty face happened to cross his way, running away from husbands, fathers, authorities, concertising, composing prolifically a daring, highly complex musical oeuvre, supporting new pianists and composers, teaching and even dedicating himself to a religious life.

To think that Lizst technique owes anything to Czerny is simply laughable. If so, every Czerny player would have become a Liszt by now.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[bernhard]

I think it is an unfair assessment of Cortot; although the wrong notes, although the suspicious blurrings, he was still able to create unparalleled poetic effects and use piano sonority to the utmost, and that has to be included in any assessment of technique.  Besides, if you compare Cortot's recordings with Paderewski's, I think it is Paderewski that made the "labored, effort-laden" sound.
Just leafing through an Alfred Brendel interview, I found this:

Interviewer: "What was Cortot's magic?"
Brendel: "His unbelievable sense of sound, nourished by his experience as a conductor.  The ability to keep consistent control of various timbres and separate voices...."

But I wanted to quote Brendel talking about Edwin Fischer, when the interviewer ventured to say he was no "virtuoso," which is probably true.

"There is a control of the long line and the most subtle nuance - this, after all is part and parcel of technique!... I would say that this technical mastery is unsurpassed precisely because it serves the poetic purpose..."

Walter Ramsey

I totally agree with you (and with Brendel). Cortot was truly the poet of the piano, and even with all the mistakes, I still regard his recordings of the Etudes as the ultimate ones.  His musicality was indeed unsurpassed. Which shows that you can get amazing sound even with less than efficient body motions. Another example is Glenn Gould - it is unbelievable he could play so beautifully with such awkward posture and movements.

What happens next is that students blown away - and rightly so - by the sound of such amazing musicians, decide that the sound is a consequence of their quirks. They start to believe that you can only play Bach porperly at the piano if you sit on the floor with your nose level to the keyboard. Or they blindly follow Cortot´s fingerings in his edition of the Etudes believing that Cortot´s sound will be attainable by them if they follow his fingerings. And when they find out that Cortot actually wrote a book on technique, they must have it and they must practise it since for sure therein lies the secret.

Leon Fleisher was another pianist with one of the most amazing sounds ever. And yet  - and this is my main point -  he used all sorts of inappropriate motions to achieve it without the need to do so he could have achieved the same sound with much better motions, motions that ultimately would have prevented his crippling injuries.

By the way, Brendel himself had to abandon concertising for a while due to crippling back pain, and anyone who watches his posture will understand why. I maintain that Brendel could still play with his great musicality with a good posture. Being all hunched over the piano is not necessary. (He also said in interview that he does not play the Hammerklavier anymore)

So at no point am I suggesting that these are anything less than superlative pianists/ musicians, but I am saying in no uncertain terms that the way they move can be vastly improved. Or at least that any student looking up to these pianists as role models should look at the sound they are producing, not at the way they are producing it, because this amazing sound is being produced in spite of all their inapropriate techniques.

Elsewhere you have defined technique as, "a way to do things."  When you say a true technique never needs to be practiced, do you mean that once you know how to solve a particular pianistic problem through practice, that will never be forgotten; or that the practiced mastery of a passage will guarantee its staying power. 

For me the ultimate test of technique is easiness. When something becomes easy, then the technique to accomplish it has been mastered. It is possible to play scales fast and pearly passing the thumb under, but it will feel difficult, no matter how much one practises it, and if one day goes without practising it, the fast scale will fall apart. On the other hand once one learn how to do a thumb over scale (which as I explained elsewhere consists of four different motions that must be integrated: shift - rotation - slanting - back & forth), doing a fast pearly scale will be a piece of cake. It will feel easy, it will feel natural, and it will not need to be practised ever again: the body will just happily fall into its motion pattern automatically. Of course, to get to this stage may require many hours of practice - mostly to understand the complex motion. Although the four basic components are the same for everyone, their integration is not. Each student will have a composition of these four motions that will be ideally suited for his physicality.  Even with a knowledgeable teacher it may take months for a student to figure out his optimum motion, his optimum technique. Then he will need to ingrain this pattern and this ingraining again may take a while - if the student has done extensive thumb under practice in the past then it will take a long while. Then again certain students hit on the right combination straightaway. I certainly had my share of students who could not play a scale fast, and after being shown the thumb over approach, were able to ripple through the keyboard after 20 minutes instruction. And after that, they never had to practise it again. Whenever they found a scale fragment in a piece they would just naturally play through it because the motions were the best ones, and therefore the unconscious had selected them for permanent storage

So, if one hits on the right technique it will not need to be practised in itself. Playing will take care of that. When one learns how to type, one needs to practise ASDFG, but after one has figured out how to type, one does not spend 15 minutes a day doing ASDFG just in case one forgets. The act of typing properly will take care of it.

I remember an old post by Robert Henry ( a superlative pianist) where he described his experiences with Chopin´s Op. 10 no. 1 - regarded by many as the most difficult of the etudes. He said he could play it well., but in a labored manner, and that he was never trully confident in it. Then a fellow pianist, showed him a way to move. He spent a few minutes trying it out, and to his amazement all the difficulty of the etude melted away. He suddenly could play it at ease, at great speed and no mistakes. He did not even need to truly practise the technique he was shown. It was so appropriate that the moment he
tried it was incorporated.

Many times it may be necessary to practise a piece not because the technique is gone, but simply because we forgot the piece. A pianist who for one reason or the other neglects a piece for ten years, may not be able to just sit at the piano and play it flawlessly (then again, maybe he can). But the reason will not be that technique deserted him, but rather that he forgot how the piece went - assuming he had the appropriate technique to start with.

On the other hand a pianist who finds himself in the uncomfortbale position of knowing his piece back to front, and yet from day to day keeps making blunders in spite of several hours of practice, is either using an inappropriate technique and insisting on using it, or has not yet figured out how to play the piece.

You've also said that there is no benefit in learning exercises such as Hanon for a technique that will serve in real music; but does that therefore mean that mastery over one passage in one piece, will not provide you with the technique for mastery over a similar but not identical passage in another piece?

I like to address each piece as a complete new piece that will need its proper specifc technique.

But of course similarities abound. Once you have learned how to play an Alberti Bass on your first Attwood Sonatina, you will be able to use this knowledge on any Alberti bass you come accross. Still, decisions regarding fingering and motion may need to be made specially between different composers using the same figuration (e.g. and Alberti may need to be played sublty differently in Scarlatti, Mozart and Cimarosa) but also with the same composer in different times (e.g. early versus late Mozart sonatas). Again, the more diverse music one plays, the more such fine tuning becomes subconscious. There is no way this can happen with abstract exercises (that is, exercises without musical context), quite simply because the aim of the technique must of necessity be defined by the musical context.

I have shown elsewhere how even a simple pattern as a scale must have his fingering modified from the fingering one uses for a scale per se to the scale used as a melodic fragment. I have also shown how the same scale played in two successive bars in the same piece must have different fingerings each time it is played if the musical context is to be served. There is no exercise that will prepare for that. Such passages must be tackled on their own and the technique to play them discovered through the piece´s passage itself. In fact, an abstract exercise may actually hinder this process by incorporating into one´s subconscious a standard technique that is inapropriate except for the exercise in question.

Here is the thread by the way:

http://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,2619.msg104249.html#msg104249
(Scale fingering must be modified according to the piece – Godard op. 149 no.5 – yet another example of the folly of technical exercises)

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[bernhard]

You tell music history so beautifully, as a compelling and powerful story!  One question, can you refer us to any source, hopefully from Liszt, that discusses Chopin's influence on his conception of piano-playing?  Or perhaps recommend a valuable compilation of Liszt's letters.
Thanks

Walter Ramsey

A most thorough biography (considered by many as the definitive) of Liszt is

Alan Walker - "Franz Liszt" (Knopf)

Unfortunately, very little is said about Liszt´s practising routine (if he actually had one) or the means by which he acquired such prowess at the piano.

One must also remember that in Liszt´s time, piano playing was a bit of circus activity, and just like a magician will carefully guard his secrets, so a pianist would hide his means just in case the competition got hold of it. There is a famous story of Vladimir de Pachman where in the middle of a concert he used his left hand to cover his right hand as he was doing a fast run. Later they asked him about this and he said: "I saw Godowsky on the audience, and I did not want him to see my fingering".

So we may assume that Liszt was not going to reveal all!

A most interesting book that has many astute observations on Liszt´s technique and way of playing is

Amy Fay - Music Study in Germany (Da Capo)

Amy Fay was an American pianist who travelled to Europe to further her piano studies. There she studied first with Dieppe (ironically one of the first proponents of arm-weight playing as oppposed to finger lifting and who also abhorred technical exercises), and eventually was accepted in Liszt´s master classes.

Finally, a very good selection of Liszt´s letters is

Adrian Williams - Franz Liszt: Selected letters (Oxford University Press).

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[pianistimo]

according to 'the great pianists' by harold schoenberg (page 154) 'liszt worked like a maniac after leaving his teacher (czerny)...he wrote to a friend in 1832, 'my mind and my fingers have worked like two * ones.  homer, the bible, plato, locke, byron, larmartine, chateaubriand, beethoven, bach, hummel, mozart, weber , are all around me.  i study them, i devour them with fury; furthermore i practice exercises for four or five hours (thirds, sixths, octaves, and tremolos, repeated notes, cadences, etc.) ah, unless i go mad, you will find an artist in me.'

of course, the countess d'agoult put the 'final buff of social polish' on liszt (as quoted) but he really did go way beyond czerny - but didn't forget the idea of exercises.  he just started making them poetic.  he didn't want to practice things that were merely etudes.  for instance, when he was fifteen - he published an 'etude for the piano in fourty-eight exercises in all the major and minor keys' - technical studies in the style of czerny, his teacher.  but in 1837, he changed them (11 of them) into the grandes etudes, a 'compendium not only of the new piano technique but also of the lisztian brand of romantic poetry.'

maybe we're both right.  he continued to practice - but more and more became aware of the limitless possibilites of encorporating technique into poetry.  thus, after awhile - it seemed that he was continuously playing beautiful music and not really playing exercise after exercise.

[brewtality]

This is definitely true, see the case of Shura Cherkassky, who at the age of 80 played beautifully the Prokofiev 2nd concerto and Rachmaninoff 3rd concerto in the same concert.  He learned his method of practicing from Godowsky, who would have played masterfully up until the day he died, had he not been stricken by a stroke.

Walter Ramsey

Godowsky? Wasn't Hofmann his main teacher at Curtis? Cherkassky playing well into old age probably also had to do with him practising 4 hours a day, everyday. Compared to Cortot who wouldn't have had the time.

 What is wrong with Dohnanyi? I found that his first few exercises improved my trilling and did improve my finger strength. Although I must admit not having the patience to comply with all his instructions (all keys, HS, HT etc).

[bernhard]

 What is wrong with Dohnanyi? I found that his first few exercises improved my trilling and did improve my finger strength. Although I must admit not having the patience to comply with all his instructions (all keys, HS, HT etc).

Have a look here:

http://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,15701.msg171057.html#msg171057
(debunking Dohnanyi)

 

Best wishes,
Bernhard.