Czerny - a waste of time?

[phil39]

maybe i'll spark something with this thread 
IMO there is no point whatsoever practising Czerny, or any other exercise book. my reasoning:
IMO life is too short, they are dry and uninspiring, and there's too many great songs out there to be learnt, which most of us will only be able knock off the tip of the iceberg. if you want to develop the techniques in czerny, then practise them in the real music, especially beethoven, Mozart, haydn, clementi (you can always find something at your technical level) because they are of Czerny's era. which brings me to the next point.. these are exercises composed by a pedagogue 200 years ago when ideas about learning the the piano were in it's infancy (indeed the piano itself was in it's infancy). i believe what you SHOULD practise instead are scales and arpeggios in their pure form, because it's vital to know your way around the key and harmonic system. if you need an exercise to work on a particular difficulty in a piece, then just devize one, based on the problem in the piece, then you'll know it's exactly what you need.
basically Czerny divorces technique from music, which may seem a neat idea at first, but isn't the whole idea of technique to enable you to play great music with the desired musical effect?  so you should work on that in the particular piece you are doing, letting the music dictate what techniques you need to develop and using the music to develop them.
ps. Hanon is even worse 

[dnephi]

You need to hear Duchable's ideas on technique.

Searc h Youtube for "Duchbag tech approach" and it should pop up.

[virtuosic1]

maybe i'll spark something with this thread 
IMO there is no point whatsoever practising Czerny, or any other exercise book. my reasoning:
IMO life is too short, they are dry and uninspiring, and there's too many great songs out there to be learnt, which most of us will only be able knock off the tip of the iceberg. if you want to develop the techniques in czerny, then practise them in the real music, especially beethoven, Mozart, haydn, clementi (you can always find something at your technical level) because they are of Czerny's era. which brings me to the next point.. these are exercises composed by a pedagogue 200 years ago when ideas about learning the the piano were in it's infancy (indeed the piano itself was in it's infancy). i believe what you SHOULD practise instead are scales and arpeggios in their pure form, because it's vital to know your way around the key and harmonic system. if you need an exercise to work on a particular difficulty in a piece, then just devize one, based on the problem in the piece, then you'll know it's exactly what you need.
basically Czerny divorces technique from music, which may seem a neat idea at first, but isn't the whole idea of technique to enable you to play great music with the desired musical effect?  so you should work on that in the particular piece you are doing, letting the music dictate what techniques you need to develop and using the music to develop them.
ps. Hanon is even worse 

Not a total waste of time if practiced in every key. Personally, my belief is that excerpts, phrases or passages of MUSIC from the compositions of masters, rather than Czerny/Hanon fingering patterns repeated over and over again, and again, played in each and every key produce far greater results in technical expertise, PLUS you are playing music rather than exercises that you can play from muscle memory alone while watching a ballgame.

[ramseytheii]

I seem to remember reading reminiscences of Clara Schumann's children; they said they would often stand in secret and listen to her practice, especially warmup, and that they were always bewitched by the beautiful way in which she played Czerny etudes.  There is a little music in there somewhere, I think.

Walter Ramsey

[virtuosic1]

There is a little music in there somewhere, I think.

Walter Ramsey

Where? It's like looking for a needle in a haystack.

[rach n bach]

Where? It's like looking for a needle in a haystack.

More like trying to find the 70 foot green cows on the moon.

I agree with phil: life is to short.  I always learned through my teacher who would give me some real music maybe a level or two above where I was at the time.  I would work, and work, and work, and eventually, I got it.  Add to that the fact that I had then a fine piece of music that I would always have memorised, well...

RnB

[pita bread]

Problems with just using passages:

1. One passage might only work a certain technique
2. That passage may not even work that many facets of that technique (ie. a tough run that works the 1234 but not the 5)

I think by working with passages, you only develop the technique you need at the moment... you will constantly need to keep developing your technique. It'll be less likely for you to sit down, take a passage and have it be just cake for you. With exercises, at least you can set down a good foundation for your technique that'll reduce the amount of work it takes you to learn technical passages.

[rc]

I agree with phil: life is to short.  I always learned through my teacher who would give me some real music maybe a level or two above where I was at the time.  I would work, and work, and work, and eventually, I got it.  Add to that the fact that I had then a fine piece of music that I would always have memorised, well...

I always found I make much faster progress with interesting music as well...  Getting absorbed into the music, I don't even realize what tricks my fingers are performing.

But I also agree with Pita's point about technical exercises reducing the work in future encounters.  My teacher once said that one way or another we will learn the common patterns, it doesn't make much of a difference.

Practicing scales, arpeggios, thirds, etc. doesn't have to be mindless.  At first it's about learning the movements, then how to think the pattern to attain consistancy and flexibility - it transcends muscle memory and becomes a general skill. 

Then you can play the same pattern with all kinds of dynamic and articulation variations, and a simple scale winds up sounding surprisingly musical...  That it could just as easily have been a passage from a piece.  Sometimes this kind of practice begins to take on characteristics of improvisation, the line gets blurred.  It's a playful approach, even scales can be mentally engaging.

A different path to the same end.

[virtuosic1]

Problems with just using passages:

1. One passage might only work a certain technique
2. That passage may not even work that many facets of that technique (ie. a tough run that works the 1234 but not the 5)

I think by working with passages, you only develop the technique you need at the moment... you will constantly need to keep developing your technique. It'll be less likely for you to sit down, take a passage and have it be just cake for you. With exercises, at least you can set down a good foundation for your technique that'll reduce the amount of work it takes you to learn technical passages.

Only so if the mind and fingers are worked independently. I found that whenever I played Hanon exercises, scales, chromatics, thirds, arpeggios, etc. even racing against the metronome (and I've probably spent more keyboard time than anyone racing the metronome, because there was a period in my life where that's ALL I was concerned with), I didn't have to be there mentally. No kidding. I'd be able to run notes in set sequential patterns up and down the keyboard, stopping every once in a while to move the weight further down the arm of the metronome, and I'd have a magazine or newspaper on the rack or even be watching TV! I didn't have to be there. I wasn't playing the piano. My fingers were. Once I started to concentrate on 5 to 100 note musical phrases, or passages from compositions (real music), I HAD to be there mentally as well as physically.

[mike_lang]

I like to substitute scales, octaves, thirds, arpeggi, chords, etc. for Hanon or Czerny, leaving etudes to Chopin, Rachmaninoff, and others who inspire me with musical material.  I believe the scales (and the rest) have several benefits which outweigh those of Czerny, for one.

Every day is a new key, in chromatic succession, so that my scales, octaves and double thirds will be on the tonic and the arpeggi and chords on the dominant.  This causes me to rotates through 24 different contours every three and a half weeks.

I do the scales in eighths, triplets, and sixteenths, legato and leggiero, which demands accurate subdivision and an efficient distribution of weight for even sound.  Though I believe strongly that one cannot separate the technique from the musical intention, I believe this "warm-up" regimen affords an opportunity to pay attention to a great deal of aspects of playing that should be second-nature during the practice of pieces. 

In the arpeggi and scales both, I try to maintain long "phrases," as they are extended because I play them in what is known to some as the Russian style (parallel and contrary motion in four octaves).  Therefore, I might set "phrasal" goals of varying length to warm me up for their parallel in the pieces which I will play after this warm-up session.

One of the greatest parts of this routine is that in addition to improving my playing of double notes, my evenness, my speed, my direction, my familiarity with the contours of various keys, my touch, et cetera, et cetera, it gives me 30 or 40 minutes at the beginning of each day to isolate the feeling of relaxation and proper arm weight.  Therefore, once again, when I go to work on a piece that is technically demanding, many potentially obstructive issues are out of the way.

In short, this routine is customizable and is tailorable to the specific needs of the pianist, with specific goals at every step of the way, leaving etudes to the development of technique in tandem with musicianship.

[ramseytheii]

Where? It's like looking for a needle in a haystack.

I think actually a lot of people think of Czerny from the start only in technical terms.  Read the replies in this thread, which only refer to Czerny in terms of "passages!"  As if there was no harmonic structure to his music, and as if it was indistinguishable from straight scales, thirds, sixths, octaves and arpeggios.  I'm not saying Czerny is the greatest composer who ever lived, but I'm saying that maybe the problem rests not a little bit with us, in how we stereotype things and then close our minds.

Look for instance at op.337, "Esercizio giornaliero per acquistare e conservare il piu alto grado di perfezione."  Number 1 begins with a unison scale, going up, with a little turn at the top, then going back down.  A simple phrase, but one with a musical line; repeated, it can be altered from forte to piano, setting up a dynamic opposition... also, Busoni called unison scales "the purest kind of counterpoint."  The second bar contains the motion, with two little waves, then a larger wave, but not reaching the melodic height of the first bar, therefore it should be played with a little less power.

The third bar now reaches a higher melodic point, as the scale from the first is now in tenths; so in other words, there was a large melodic line in the first, contained to a few small waves in the second, that then burst forth again in the third in beautiful, simple, harmony.  Then the second bar is repeated in tenths, but the third wave is altered, in a vocal gesture coming down from above, rather then flowing from below.

The fifth bar now features an exuberant "breaking up" of the material into broken intervals, and for the first time we have a sense of harmonic motion, very fast hints of I-V-I-V-I.  The next bar confirms it: an arpeggio leaps up like water from a fountain, and when it comes down, it has turned into that V arpeggio, even with a soft and subtle appoggiatura in the last beat.

Bar 7 also sounds like water music to me, taking the arpeggio from te previous bar into new heights, and one gets the impression now of a constant crescendo, or at least of gathering tension.  The V has gained even more presence because the appoggiatura has been omitted.  Bar 8 now introduces chromatic neighbor tones, like swift side-steps in a refined dance; but bar 9 suddenly pulls the music down, to broken thirds in a small melodic space, as if water is bubbling, rising under the surface, and what's going to happen?!

The tremolos in bar 10 erupt like the opening of the flood gates, with the chromatic neighbor tones included, and a little flourish on the last beat in the V harmony which leads strongly to either the repeat or the next bar.  Bar 11 develops the tremolos, with even more chromatic passing tones, and a more exuberant flourish - wider melodic range - then the previous bar, but clearly musically related.  One is more intense, more exuberant then the other.  The last bar is a pure C major arpeggio, delighting in the strength, clarity, and focus of simplicity.

12 Bars and there is definitely a musical structure, that goes from quiet and contained to chromatic and exuberant!  Is this great music?  No.  Is it a succession of "passages" and "techniques" that have no relation to each other?  Definitely not.

Look at no.40 in the same opus.  Here he has made something really thrilling - I wouldn't play it in the concert hall, but warming up, I could tell how the Schumann children were absolutely bewitched.

The opening is reminiscient of some kind of fairy-tale piece, like a "Hall of the Mountain Kings," or elfin creations of Mendelssohn.  I should say it anticipates those.  a minor octaves first move in contrary motion, exposing fragmented melodic cells.  Then the lower voice becomes the chased one, as they descend, the upper voice in leaps, the lower voice in steps, trying to get away.  But they meet, and together intone in tenths a restrained a minor scale.

Then the dance begins: in measure 6 a pedal E is decorated by many leaps up and down, always in contrary motion; in bar 7 the pedal is now A, and a chromatic rising leads to a typical Czernyian melodic flourish on V (last two beats); bar 9 is a a wild arpeggio in double octaves, marked fortissimo and prepared by a two bar crescendo, in two waves, up and down, the second less melodically adventurous than the first.  In bar 11 the leaps and bounds get really crazy, as the arpeggio is broken up into them, and it reaches all the way to high E, before crashing down thunderously.  A simple Coda allows the player to add punctuation marks to the tale!

I suggest that the main problem is pianists who think of Czerny purely in technical terms, and don't bother to put any imagination into it.  Anything that is a vessel for imagination and inspiration is not a waste of time!

Walter Ramsey

[cmg]

I've never read a more eloquent or useful defense of Czerny.  Thanks.

[virtuosic1]

I think actually a lot of people think of Czerny from the start only in technical terms.  Read the replies in this thread, which only refer to Czerny in terms of "passages!"  As if there was no harmonic structure to his music, and as if it was indistinguishable from straight scales, thirds, sixths, octaves and arpeggios.  I'm not saying Czerny is the greatest composer who ever lived, but I'm saying that maybe the problem rests not a little bit with us, in how we stereotype things and then close our minds.

Look for instance at op.337, "Esercizio giornaliero per acquistare e conservare il piu alto grado di perfezione."  Number 1 begins with a unison scale, going up, with a little turn at the top, then going back down.  A simple phrase, but one with a musical line; repeated, it can be altered from forte to piano, setting up a dynamic opposition... also, Busoni called unison scales "the purest kind of counterpoint."  The second bar contains the motion, with two little waves, then a larger wave, but not reaching the melodic height of the first bar, therefore it should be played with a little less power.

The third bar now reaches a higher melodic point, as the scale from the first is now in tenths; so in other words, there was a large melodic line in the first, contained to a few small waves in the second, that then burst forth again in the third in beautiful, simple, harmony.  Then the second bar is repeated in tenths, but the third wave is altered, in a vocal gesture coming down from above, rather then flowing from below.

The fifth bar now features an exuberant "breaking up" of the material into broken intervals, and for the first time we have a sense of harmonic motion, very fast hints of I-V-I-V-I.  The next bar confirms it: an arpeggio leaps up like water from a fountain, and when it comes down, it has turned into that V arpeggio, even with a soft and subtle appoggiatura in the last beat.

Bar 7 also sounds like water music to me, taking the arpeggio from te previous bar into new heights, and one gets the impression now of a constant crescendo, or at least of gathering tension.  The V has gained even more presence because the appoggiatura has been omitted.  Bar 8 now introduces chromatic neighbor tones, like swift side-steps in a refined dance; but bar 9 suddenly pulls the music down, to broken thirds in a small melodic space, as if water is bubbling, rising under the surface, and what's going to happen?!

The tremolos in bar 10 erupt like the opening of the flood gates, with the chromatic neighbor tones included, and a little flourish on the last beat in the V harmony which leads strongly to either the repeat or the next bar.  Bar 11 develops the tremolos, with even more chromatic passing tones, and a more exuberant flourish - wider melodic range - then the previous bar, but clearly musically related.  One is more intense, more exuberant then the other.  The last bar is a pure C major arpeggio, delighting in the strength, clarity, and focus of simplicity.

12 Bars and there is definitely a musical structure, that goes from quiet and contained to chromatic and exuberant!  Is this great music?  No.  Is it a succession of "passages" and "techniques" that have no relation to each other?  Definitely not.

Look at no.40 in the same opus.  Here he has made something really thrilling - I wouldn't play it in the concert hall, but warming up, I could tell how the Schumann children were absolutely bewitched.

The opening is reminiscient of some kind of fairy-tale piece, like a "Hall of the Mountain Kings," or elfin creations of Mendelssohn.  I should say it anticipates those.  a minor octaves first move in contrary motion, exposing fragmented melodic cells.  Then the lower voice becomes the chased one, as they descend, the upper voice in leaps, the lower voice in steps, trying to get away.  But they meet, and together intone in tenths a restrained a minor scale.

Then the dance begins: in measure 6 a pedal E is decorated by many leaps up and down, always in contrary motion; in bar 7 the pedal is now A, and a chromatic rising leads to a typical Czernyian melodic flourish on V (last two beats); bar 9 is a a wild arpeggio in double octaves, marked fortissimo and prepared by a two bar crescendo, in two waves, up and down, the second less melodically adventurous than the first.  In bar 11 the leaps and bounds get really crazy, as the arpeggio is broken up into them, and it reaches all the way to high E, before crashing down thunderously.  A simple Coda allows the player to add punctuation marks to the tale!

I suggest that the main problem is pianists who think of Czerny purely in technical terms, and don't bother to put any imagination into it.  Anything that is a vessel for imagination and inspiration is not a waste of time!

Walter Ramsey

Musically, You're very easily pleased! YOU'RE the guy I want to review ALL of my compositions. 

[thalbergmad]

I have never used many of the Czerny studies, but i do feel he is worth investigating as a composer.

Whilst not in the same league as his teacher or his most famous pupil, he settles nicely amongst the "salon" brigade of Herz and Hunten.

The "needle in a haystack" remark is apt here, as you do have to wade through an immense amount of mediocre opii, but it is still an interesting journey.

His Op14 variations are a particular favourite of mine along with the Op33 that Horowitz played. Like others of the same ilk, he churned out some operatic paraphrases on popular themes of the day, and some are rather charming, especially the Mozart Figaro. His Concerto is another work that whilst not especially moving, leaves one with a feeling of contentment.

So you lot, burn his etudes if you must but dismiss him not. he has an important place in piano history.

How many of you can play 14 games of chess at the same time?

Thal

[phil39]

after reading all your replies (well.. skimming over some) it seems like the best thing is to have your own system, believe in it and stick to it, but at the same time keep an open mind. this is the trick i think, but not an easy balance to get. i used to write off Clementi as 'exam junk' but now i realise some of his sonatinas are really quite nice and useful (maybe not 'great'). that's a whole other thread...

[rc]

On second thought, practice methods supercede whatever material is used... 

It's not the piece, scale or composer who's practicing mindlessly.  If something is being used to learn a technique (intended for music, naturally), a good practice ethic would notice when monotony sets in and either intervene by varying it or decide to be done with it.

Hanon and scales are equally repetitive, to support one and condemn the other doesn't make sense, neither is meant for performance.  The only real difference is how we use them...  Even Bach can be practiced and played mindlessly going through the motions.

We ought to take responsibility for our practice habits.

[cmg]

I have never used many of the Czerny studies, but i do feel he is worth investigating as a composer.

Whilst not in the same league as his teacher or his most famous pupil, he settles nicely amongst the "salon" brigade of Herz and Hunten.

The "needle in a haystack" remark is apt here, as you do have to wade through an immense amount of mediocre opii, but it is still an interesting journey.

His Op14 variations are a particular favourite of mine along with the Op33 that Horowitz played. Like others of the same ilk, he churned out some operatic paraphrases on popular themes of the day, and some are rather charming, especially the Mozart Figaro. His Concerto is another work that whilst not especially moving, leaves one with a feeling of contentment.

So you lot, burn his etudes if you must but dismiss him not. he has an important place in piano history.

How many of you can play 14 games of chess at the same time?

Thal

Agreed.  Especially interesting are the works for four hands:

Ouverture characteristique et brillante in Bm, op. 54
Grand Sonate brillante in Cm, Op. 10
Fm Fantasie, Op. 226
Grande Sonate in Fm, Op. 178

Yaara Tal and Andreas Groethuysen have recorded these works on Sony.  Really worth exploring.

p.s. I can play 18 games of chess at the same time while watching "The Sound of Music."

[ramseytheii]

Musically, You're very easily pleased! YOU'RE the guy I want to review ALL of my compositions. 

*Shrugs* More than passages, less than Beethoven

Walter Ramsey

[a-sharp]

Walter - I have to agree with you.

I am FAR from religous about Czerny or Hanon [or rote technique in any form for that matter], but, sometimes, I find it useful to step out of the music and just do some mindless [almost] technique.

BUT - when I use it - is to work on a particular aspect of technique LIKE something difficult in a piece I'm learning. Yet, it's NOT the exact part that I'm learning. I have really found that useful [at least for a couple weeks at a time ]

I go through phases [where I seem to have a lot of extra time, LOL] where I'll use specfici excercises [not part of my repetoire] to warm up in the morning.

I'm sort of speaking philosophically - as I was doing that for a while, but right now, it's nearing the end of the semester - I'm preparing for juries and a performance on Thursday - so there is NO time for that stuff ... *right now*

[m]

sometimes, I find it useful to step out of the music and just do some mindless [almost] technique.

That's the biggest mistake! Technique is a very intense mental work and I am a strong believer it is much better not to touch keys at all, rather than do it mindlessly.

Best, M

[nightingale11]

If you want to do a Cerny piece do it because you like the piece and not because you think that you will get some awesome technique that you don't know that to use for. You will only get the technique for playing Cerny by playing Cerny.

have a look here:

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/board,4/topic,4880.3.html#msg46319
(discusses how to acquire technique and what technique actually is)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,4385.msg41226.html#msg41226
(technique is personal and relative to the piece – Fosberry flop – the best books on technique)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,4734.msg44770.html#msg44770
(how to acquire virtuoso technique – aiming at 100 pieces in five years)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,5352.msg50998.html#msg50998
(Exercises x repertory – why technique cannot be isolated from music)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,3677.msg32879.html#msg32879
(What is the best practice diet?  The key to practice is familiarisation with the piece.  Schumann’s Remembrance)

https://www.pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,8981.msg91081.html#msg91081
(repertory x purely technical exercises to acquire technique)

https://www.pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,8417.msg85259.html#msg85259
(when is a piece finished – why technique and interpretation cannot be divorced)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,1867.msg14268.html#msg14268
(Getting technique from pieces – several important tricks: hand memory, dropping notes, repeated note-groups)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2429.msg21061.html#msg21061
(Technical studies x pieces – the genesis of Studies and how Czerny derived his exercises from Beethoven sonatas - why scales are useless and at the same time essential – Chopin x Kalkbrenner story – Unorthodox fingering for scales).

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2948.msg25927.html#msg25927
(Czerny x Scarlatti to acquire technique – Ted gives an excellent contribution)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,4880.msg46339.html#msg46339
(definition of technique: quote from Fink, Sandor and Pires – Example of the A-E-A arpeggio)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,3987.msg36197.html#msg36197
(etudes and alternatives to them)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,4082.msg37362.html#msg37362
(one cannot learn technique in a vacuum. At the same time one cannot simply play pieces – comparison with tennis)

https://www.pianoforum.net/smf/index.php?topic=5995.msg58928#msg58928
(when to work on expression - change focus every 2 minutes – comparison with plate spinning)

The threads below deal specifically with Hanon (the first one in particular has a detailed criticism of Hanon’s preface):


https://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)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,4182.msg38775.html#msg38775
(Hanon: pros and cons – Robert Henry’s opinion)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,4887.msg47334.html#msg47334
(more on Hanon)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,5375.msg51272.html#msg51272
(Defending technical exercises – two different philosophies regarding exercises – chopstick analogy)

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

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,1918.msg15015.html#msg15015
(Thumb under/over – detailed explanation – Fosberry flop)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,7226.msg72166.html#msg72166
(Thumb over is a misnomer: it consists of co-ordinating four separate movements).

Here are some threads that deal with the physicality of playing. Several of the anatomical and physiological facts described there are in direct opposition to Hanon’s instructions:

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,4145.msg38568.html#msg38568
(beginner’s muscle development – anatomy of the hand forearm – true reasons for extremely slow practice)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2024.msg16583.html#msg16583
(how to aim the pinky – using the arm to move the fingers)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2033.msg16635.html#msg16635
(finger strength)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2502.msg21594.html#msg21594
(Independence of the 3rd and 4thfinger – it is impossible, one should work towards the illusion of independence: it is all arm work)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2507.msg21688.html#msg21688
(Round fingers – the role of fingers)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,1808.msg23879.html#msg23879
(Ultra fast arpeggios – slow practice x slow motion practice – good post by Herve – Abby whiteside is also mentioned)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2814.msg24872.html#msg24872
(How a student’s physicality affects teaching – discussion on arm x fingers – moving from the centre: tantien and taichi – Seymour Fink gets discussed as well)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2809.msg25013.html#msg25013
(Body movement – piano playing and martial arts)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,3726.msg33453.html#msg33453
(playing with curved fingers – worry less about movement and more about sound)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2079.msg17335.html#msg17335
(Hand tension – not using fingers to play)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2106.msg17587.html#msg17587
(developing both hands equally – repertory - why the LH is generally weaker – website for left handed pianos)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2359.msg20442.html#msg20442
(Fingering placement on the keys)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2477.msg21403.html#msg21403
(Double thirds – the movement)

https://www.pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,7887.msg79326.html#msg79326
(why the lifting of the 4th finger is a non-problem)

https://www.pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,7682.msg77042.html#msg77042
(hand independence: how to create a cue system and what is hand memory).

https://www.pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,8335.msg84684.html#msg84684
(circular movements to avoid co-contraction)

https://www.pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,8322.msg84686.html#msg84686
(speed and muscle tension – 3 important components of speed playing)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,4282.msg39831.html#msg39831
(How to increase speed: slowly using metronome x fast with chord attack – juggling and skiping rope as examples)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,4144.msg40259.html#msg40259
(improving speed of LH – move the whole LH not only fingers)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,5034.msg47829.html#msg47829
(The finger strength controversy – some excellent posts by xvimbi)

If one is to dump Hanon &co., what is the alternative? The threads below point the way:


https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,3625.msg32673.html#msg32673
(PPI –  comparison with body building – brief mention of movement and intellectual centre – comparison with babies walking and coma patients- muscle tension and nerve inhibition – how to investigate and test practice ideas – How to teach by using progressively difficult repertory)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,4123.msg37829.html#msg37829
(How to investigate the best movement pattern: Example Scarlatti sonata K70 – How to work out the best fingering. Example: CPE Bach Allegro in A – Slow x slow motion practice – HS x HT – practising for only 5 – 10 minutes)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2893.msg25500.html#msg25500
(how to teach op. 142 no. 2 - Burgmuller studies – Lots of practice tricks – the pragmatical x logical approach using Boolean algebra and word processing as an example)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2864.msg25252.html#msg25252
(how everyone in the forum practises – the scientific method to decide what practice routine is good and which is not. Comments on Chang book)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2916.msg25572.html#msg25572
(Bad habits when playing/practising)

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2076.msg17157.html#msg17157
(Speed – the 3 most important factors)

[thalbergmad]

Must be bernhard.

[a-sharp]

That's the biggest mistake! Technique is a very intense mental work and I am a strong believer it is much better not to touch keys at all, rather than do it mindlessly.

Best, M

Ok - "mindless" was the wrong choice of words - what I meant was just that concentrating on the music per se was not the primary goal/focus - but rather most of the excercises are repetetive patterns for a reason - so you can focus on technique... that was my point - which I assumed was clear through the mud ... sorry. Hope that helps to clear it up - I never really meant mindless - just that you could turn off at least one section of your brain so the other parts could focus. Capische?   (I'm sure I spelled that wrong.)

[nightingale11]

Ok - "mindless" was the wrong choice of words - what I meant was just that concentrating on the music per se was not the primary goal/focus - but rather most of the excercises are repetetive patterns for a reason - so you can focus on technique... that was my point - which I assumed was clear through the mud ... sorry. Hope that helps to clear it up - I never really meant mindless - just that you could turn off at least one section of your brain so the other parts could focus. Capische?   (I'm sure I spelled that wrong.)

read the posts.

[m]

If you want to do a Cerny piece do it because you like the piece and not because you think that you will get some awesome technique that you don't know that to use for. You will only get the technique for playing Cerny by playing Cerny.

have a look here:

....

In many cases I find Czerny invaluable and respectfully disagree with parts "awesome technique that you don't know that to use for" and  "You will only get the technique for playing Cerny by playing Cerny".

Unfortunately, I don't have enough time to look at all links you provided (my guess, to support your allegations). Could you please write the same but in a short and concise form, so we could talk straight to the point in this particular thread.

Best regards, M

[nightingale11]

Marik,

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,4385.msg41226.html#msg41226
(technique is personal and relative to the piece – Fosberry flop – the best books on technique)

I don't care to discuss this because all the information is in the links. To me the logical method is just absurd. Why waste time on technical excersises which you will not keep in your repetory anyway? what are the benefits really?

[m]

Marik,

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,4385.msg41226.html#msg41226
(technique is personal and relative to the piece – Fosberry flop – the best books on technique)
I don't care to discuss this because all the information is in the links.

Sorry, once again, I don't have enough time to go through all those books and links. I learned to play piano not from books and links, but from very good teachers, lots of studies, many hours of practicing and thinking, extensive concertizing, trying a lot of different things myself, and discussing those matters with a lot of pianists and teachers, and after all that, critically reconsidering and rethinking all of those, while applying to my own teaching, and every day learning something new.

I (and I am sure many other memebers) disagree with a lot of information in those books and links and it would be very time consuming and tiresome to go through each point.

In any case, as I understand, this thread IS a discussion, so what is the point if you don't care to discuss Or do you imply that you "know it all" and won't reduce yourself to discussing those matters with us mortals, or we should just blindly believe everything what is written in books and links?
What a strange position, if it is so!!!

To me the logical method is just absurd.

Well, if a logical method is just absurd, then which else method do you prefer?

Why waste time on technical excersises which you will not keep in your repetory anyway?

In any case, MOST of the pieces we learned before age 10-14 we do not keep in our repertoire anyway, so what is the point?
I believe not in WHAT to play, but HOW to play, not which excersises, but implementation of ideas behind those excersises, no matter they are Czerny, or anything else.

Best regards, M

[a-sharp]

Thank you, Marik. My sentiments exactly.

Nightingale - you already seem decided on the issue, and aren't interested in the discussion - so it's easy for you - simply don't do things you don't want to do.

***

I think of these as just as what they are - they are *excercises.*

A gymnast or ice skater could not be the best without excercising outside of simply tumbling or skating - they take ballet, run, lift weights, do push-ups, practice and isolate intricate moves - that is how I see it.

I tihnk they are very important for beginners, as for advanced pianists - I don't know - ? I think it depends on what you need. We are artists, but we are also 'athletes' of the hands, so to speak. i would really love to hear from the big concert pianists as to what they do - I suspect we would get many different answers as pianists... ?

...

[landru]

In any case, MOST of the pieces we learned before age 10-14 we do not keep in our repertoire anyway, so what is the point?
I believe not in WHAT to play, but HOW to play, not which exercises, but implementation of ideas behind those exercises, no matter they are Czerny, or anything else.

Best regards, M

I agree, though instead of age 10-14 you can just say the time of your first stages of learning. I am taking lessons with a teacher after a lifetime (20 years!) of off-and-on self-teaching. The self-teaching had left with me with a lot of bad habits and badly learned pieces.

My teacher has given me specific Czerny etudes as well as standard repertoire to fix up my bad habits. The early repertoire she had me learning with, I was still learning how to practice and how to learn pieces. These pieces I *still* have problems with from my early learning mistakes. And I still have problems with the early Czerny etudes now because of ingrained mistakes practiced over and over again - remember, I was learning to practice as well!

So here's my point. Now, at this stage of my improved technique, I could learn those same early pieces quite easily if I hadn't seen them before - and without the same problems. But unfortunately, my hand/mind memory on those specific pieces makes it difficult to go back to them now. So to me, they are sacrificial victims that are needed to advance my technique one step at a time. My hands/mind have learned how to do the basic point of the etudes - because I see the results on the pieces I am learning now.

For instance, two weeks ago I was given Mozart's K545. I could have been assigned this 8 months ago since I could have probably muddled through with the technique I had. But the price of that muddling would have been a piece with badly learned details resulting in ingrained speed walls and other hesitations that would creep up. However, after a lot of Czerny etudes on scales and arpeggios - I found I could just breeze through it! I find it a beautiful piece and I am not fighting it and mislearning it. And I'm sure that in 5 years, I will become as jaded as a lot of people here and sneer at K545! 

They are a lot of us who have problems with pieces and are not as perfect as the rest of you. We are not as gifted/talented in figuring out how to make our body/mind do things correctly and I think these Czerny etudes are great to work out stuff and not ruin real pieces. My teacher does follow all the caveats about Czerny - play them musically, don't do a lot of them, match the etude with a problem area, etc. In fact I think that the fact the etudes are not repertoire is a bonus - they are musical enough to help out, but you don't worry about messing them up!

For the people who don't need Czerny - yes, don't do them! If you can play Mozart/Beethoven from the start then there is absolutely no point in playing Czerny - they aren't that good! For the people like me who are imperfect in their playing and practicing and have technique issues that build up speed walls and ingrained mistakes - Czerny is a good whipping post to get those things out of our systems while we work on practicing so we don't get speed walls and ingrained mistakes - it doesn't happen overnight! It is a three steps forward, two steps backward kind of thing. The two steps backward being the etudes ending up in less than perfect shape - the three steps forward being the lessons learned for the next piece.

Okay guys, so here is a defence of Czerny! Blast away!

[m]

I think of these as just as what they are - they are *excercises.*

A gymnast or ice skater could not be the best without excercising outside of simply tumbling or skating - they take ballet, run, lift weights, do push-ups, practice and isolate intricate moves - that is how I see it.

In fact, I am against of this kind of classification, either. Unlike figure skating or athletes, piano playing and technique is rather a mental process and running, lift weights, push-ups are not really applicable, even in a metaphorical sense.

I believe, Czerny (or similar) "excersises" are invaluable in isolating technical problems from music interpretation ones, especially in early stages of musical and pianistical development.

Here it is very important to understand, I never separate technique from music and I would never allow any of my students to play Czerny etude unmusically, like an "excersise" in the way most people understand it (i.e. without thinking, mechanically, with "strong fingers"--kinda lifting weights or push-ups).
I believe, each etude has its own pianistical idea and pattern, and because of its repetativeness it allows to learn this idea, pianistical motion, phrasing and wrist "breath", physical comfort within the pattern, touch, sound, or just to sense pianistical reflexes and feel relaxation, without directing whole your attention to music interpretation choices.

Needless to say, I always chose such etudes for my students only when I need whether
1) to overcome some individual physical or coordination problems, and methodically apply some specific tasks, or
2) as a preparation stage, immediately followed by actual piece, which uses a similar pianistical pattern. This way, once we start working on the piece, the student already does not have to struggle with technical challenges of the pianistical pattern, but rather work on the piece, its mood, character, musical content, etc.

Best regards, M

[classical pianist]

The truth is.....They all depend on "how" you practise!

If one would practise like a machine with no thinking and no understanding on the exact purpose of each exercise or study ... it's an incredible waste of time... even you would practise Rachmaninoff or liszt etude... if you do it in this way.. they are rubish!

In the other hand, if one really understand what to do with each exercise... he/she can make an incredible progress on those studies.

BTW... there are thousands of good exercise to choose from within this style(czerny's style) ... so choose well..

BTW (more) ... If you think you already master those technique on the study you are looking at... there could e no need to practise.. and if you don't feel like practising... who cares??

[nightingale11]

Sorry, once again, I don't have enough time to go through all those books and links. I learned to play piano not from books and links, but from very good teachers, lots of studies, many hours of practicing and thinking, extensive concertizing, trying a lot of different things myself, and discussing those matters with a lot of pianists and teachers, and after all that, critically reconsidering and rethinking all of those, while applying to my own teaching, and every day learning something new.

I (and I am sure many other memebers) disagree with a lot of information in those books and links and it would be very time consuming and tiresome to go through each point.

The post you were looking for was the post above that one.

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,4385.msg41226.html#msg41226
(technique is personal and relative to the piece – Fosberry flop – the best books on technique)

take a look again.

Well, if a logical method is just absurd, then which else method do you prefer?

What I mean is that the logical method is not a way to learn things. Have a look here

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

In any case, MOST of the pieces we learned before age 10-14 we do not keep in our repertoire anyway, so what is the point?

er....
Could you explain that a little further?

Here it is very important to understand, I never separate technique from music and I would never allow any of my students to play Czerny etude unmusically, like an "excersise" in the way most people understand it (i.e. without thinking, mechanically, with "strong fingers"--kinda lifting weights or push-ups).

The point with not seperating musicality with technique is because the technique for playing a Bach fugue e.g. is different from playing a romantic piece by Lisst. Have a look here:

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/board,4/topic,4880.3.html

[pianowolfi]

I don't know where and when, I tried to find it since at least 30 min. without success, but someone posted a WONDERFUL recording of a Czerny etude somewhere on the forum last year. It was fast, cheering and brilliant and made me want to play it. So i would say play the Czerny pieces you truly like and want to play.

[rc]

Nightingale:  I'm glad you've found Bernhards posts useful, they're quality posts, I found them useful too...  When I first came across them 3 years ago.  Though over time I've come to some different conclusions.

As Marik was saying, it would be better if you could write up your own experiences.  Most of us are pretty familiar with Bernhards writing, we know his opinions (from years ago).  I'd rather hear YOUR opinions and experiences.

[m]

The post you were looking for was the post above that one.

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,4385.msg41226.html#msg41226
(technique is personal and relative to the piece – Fosberry flop – the best books on technique)

take a look again.

Yes, I read all of that. Bernhard had many good and interesting ideas and suggestions. I however, have a lot of reservations about some. It would be impossible for me to take that much time and go over each single point. Besides, there are some side issues and it is very easy to get into unnecessary details.
In any case, I will get a very short summary based on YOUR points.


From the link:

Technique: a way of carrying out a particular task, especially the execution of an artistic work or a scientific procedure. A procedure that is effective in achieving its aim.

Yes, so our aim is "at the right time to depress right notes with right dynamics". Please note, it is does not matter, whether we play Bach or Liszt.

And roughly our procedure is:

1) Economy of pianistical motions
2) Coordination
3) Relaxation
4) Control

again, all of these are valid whether we play Bach or Liszt. So what is the point of "technique is personal and relative to the piece"?

I don't understand the significance of the Fosberry flop in relation to piano playing, does it mean that in order to have a "real" technique I have to start playing with back of my fingers, i.e. my palm turned up? It is almost my rutine to I re-evaluate and change things. I do it at least ones a year and sometimes drastically change it. On the other hand, is it possible  it is time for YOU to re-evaluate Bernhard's relationship with Czerny and realize that (once again) it is not WHAT, but HOW.

As for the books, I have lots of problems with most of them. The main reason they are written not by pianists or virtuosi, i.e. by people who don't really know "real" technique or how to apply it in real life. And you know, I don't really trust theoretitians, esp. when they start tallking about practical matters.
The only noticable name is G. Sandor. Needless to say, he never was a distinguished Chopin, Liszt, Brahms, Beethoven, Bach, etc. player. With all due respect most of his tech advises are full of nonsenses and are very specific for HIS OWN type of technique, which is much more suited for Bartok or Prokofiev, and by no means can be considered as a "fundamental" and "universal" technique.

What I mean is that the logical method is not a way to learn things.

Yes, I understand what do you mean by "pragmatic" way of learning and I am very pragmatic person. I know that to aquire one kind of technique you have to do that, and if one place does not come out you should do that.
But then, Bernhard starts talking about pragmatic way from logical stand point, and it just loses its... logic.

Have a look here

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

Well, way too many things to discuss here, but in short:
I don't buy the analogy with aikido. In my previous message I was very specific--to learn excersise and then IMMEDIATELY APPLY it to real life--for me that is a pragmatic way.
From the list of techniques one can see Liszt was the real pianist and knew what he is talking about and the fact is, up till today I know only three people who play trills real good--Michelangeli, Sokolov, and Gould.

I also disagree with many other things.

er....
Could you explain that a little further?

Sure. If a good teacher takes a student at age 6, any normal kid (by "normal" I mean one which is bright enough, does not have any physical or coordination problems, and motivated enough) by age 14-17 should already become accomplished pianist, which means by age 10-13 that kid has already developed all BASIC technical resourses and is already ready for transition from Sonatinas, "Albums for Child" and Bach Inventions to "real" concert pieces.

Don't take me wrong, I love Prokofiev, Tchaikowsky, Schumann etc. pieces for kids, but there is very little chance they will remain in the repertoire forever.

The point with not seperating musicality with technique is because the technique for playing a Bach fugue e.g. is different from playing a romantic piece by Lisst. Have a look here:

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/board,4/topic,4880.3.html

Do you mean they have NOTHING in common?

There are a lot of very good points in that thread. Without getting deep into it, I will tell if you learn Bach Prelude and Fugue and mastered it so that you can play it beautifully, you are already a better musician and pianist, meaning you will play Liszt better, as well as Chopin or Beethoven.

Best regards, M

P.S. I'd still prefer you to write your own ideas and not to refer to somebody's else information. This way it will save much more my time and also we might get somewhere easier.

Besides, I don't feel quite comfortable critisizing Bernhard, knowing that he is not here and cannot defend himself (if he choses to).

[m]

I don't know where and when, I tried to find it since at least 30 min. without success, but someone posted a WONDERFUL recording of a Czerny etude somewhere on the forum last year. It was fast, cheering and brilliant and made me want to play it. So i would say play the Czerny pieces you truly like and want to play.

Excellent point Wolfi,

One has to hear jaw dropping Czerny etudes as played by A. Palley, to appreciate what is the REAL technique means, when those "ugly excersises" turn into beautiful pieces, full of grace and humor, when it is even more pleasurable to listen to than any Chopin Nocturne, or Scarlatti Sonata.

Or just listen to La Recordanza with Horowitz, or Octave etude with J. Lhevinne.

And BTW, when Palley was asked how he aquired his phenomenal technique, the answer was simple--on Hanon and Czerny.

Best, M

[thalbergmad]

Or just listen to La Recordanza with Horowitz

Oh yes, what a brilliant recording. Sparkling and witty.

I would put Stephen Hough's recording of the Op14 variations in the same bracket along with Katsaris playing the Moz/Figaro.

I have not heard the Etudes being played, but i will endeavour to find a recording.

Thal

[danny elfboy]

A gymnast or ice skater could not be the best without excercising outside of simply tumbling or skating - they take ballet, run, lift weights, do push-ups, practice and isolate intricate moves - that is how I see it.

I tihnk they are very important for beginners, as for advanced pianists - I don't know - ? I think it depends on what you need. We are artists, but we are also 'athletes' of the hands, so to speak.

There is still a huge difference between sport athletes and pianists and if we perform the "piano exercises" believing we're training our hand the same way an athlete does we can really claim that exercises or czerny are a waste of time.

The difference between pianists and athletes is that athletes rely a lot on big main muscles.
Relying on the big muscles means three important thing:

1) The balance itself of the muscles in motion need to be conditioned

2) The muscles need to be strength-conditioned. Physiologically there are changes in the myofibrils and there's an hypertrophic adaptation

3) The muscles oxidize fuel at an high level. This means that "fatigue" as in "bonking" is very likely to occur because of running out of primary substrate. Ad adaptation in fuel oxidization and sparing must occur as well therefore.

None of these aspects applies to piano playing.
Piano playing depends only on small muscles.
The keybed prevents the key from being depressed further as more pressure force is exerted and therefore the amount of force to depress a key is (from an atheletical point of view) ridicolously low. So low that no amount of real hypertrophy reall occurs and that no kind of "strength" is real necessary; as a matter of fact a young child has all the strength needed to play virtuoso pieces.

As far as muscles and strength and athleticism piano playing doesn't require any of them.
The biggest mistake in approaching exercises (like Czerny) is to believe they're to strengthen something or train the muscles as an athlete does.

What is actually involved in piano playing (and the aspect we actually train wether we're aware of it or not) is neuromuscular impulses.

Nothing of the challenges of piano playing depends on muscle strength, resistance or strengtening anything. It is all a reflexes work. The challenge is controlling such motor cortex reflexes so that they appen smoothly, easily and don't interfer one with the other.

Exercises at the piano aimed to strenghten, train muscle and increase resistance are useless as they're attempting to train something which doesn't have anything to do with piano and that can't be trained with such exercises.

Exercises though are still useful in training the neuromuscular coordination at the piano.
The reason they can be useful is because basic coordinative patterns can be trained without being distracted by excessively demanding expressive and musical control and ever changing patterns.

[mephisto]

One has to hear jaw dropping Czerny etudes as played by A. Palley, to appreciate what is the REAL technique means, when those "ugly excersises" turn into beautiful pieces, full of grace and humor, when it is even more pleasurable to listen to than any Chopin Nocturne, or Scarlatti Sonata.


Best, M

No.

[nightingale11]

I don't understand the significance of the Fosberry flop in relation to piano playing, does it mean that in order to have a "real" technique I have to start playing with back of my fingers, i.e. my palm turned up? It is almost my rutine to I re-evaluate and change things. I do it at least ones a year and sometimes drastically change it. On the other hand, is it possible  it is time for YOU to re-evaluate Bernhard's relationship with Czerny and realize that (once again) it is not WHAT, but HOW.

Consider this:

Arrau and Richter had about 1500 pieces that they could play perfectly from memory. Life is short so why waste time on dull(mostly) excersises? why not practice the piece? I think the culprit in all this is that people practice inefficently because they were not taught to practice in a effecient way. It seems to me that people think that by doing all these excersises they will somehow be able to skim through the real repetory pieces.
  Learning rapidly(extremly) if the student is motivated to learn something( they are dying to play that piece..etc.), that will not happen by doing dull excersises.
   

Sure. If a good teacher takes a student at age 6, any normal kid (by "normal" I mean one which is bright enough, does not have any physical or coordination problems, and motivated enough) by age 14-17 should already become accomplished pianist, which means by age 10-13 that kid has already developed all BASIC technical resourses and is already ready for transition from Sonatinas, "Albums for Child" and Bach Inventions to "real" concert pieces.

hah! the time is rediculous, one should be at the advanced level (grade 8- not meaning teachnically but in all other areas) after 1-2 year or less. taking 4-7 years to start playing pieces more advanced pieces than the pieces you said just proves that something is very wrong with the way the teacher teaches the student how to practice(or If the teacher do at all). And please explin to me what the BASIC technical resources are?
   The first piece of music a student learns should be worthwile repetory, like Satie's Gymnopédies or the chopin prelude no.7 etc...from these pieces and the following pieces the students learns everything about music(theory, how to practice, mental practice, composition etc.)
   And how ignorant can one be to call the inventions that are masterpieces as not worth retainable repetory?

[thalbergmad]

Life is short so why waste time on dull(mostly) excersises? why not practice the piece?

Then you are treating the piece as an excercise.

Surely the idea of exercises is that when you come to play a piece, you have already solved the mechanical problems. Is it not worse to have a beautiful piece of music that you have to play sections of it hundreds of times over in order to play it properly.

Why not do the exercises?

Thal

 

[danny elfboy]

hah! the time is rediculous, one should be at the advanced level (grade 8- not meaning teachnically but in all other areas) after 1-2 year or less.

absolutely agree

taking 4-7 years to start playing pieces more advanced pieces than the pieces you said just proves that something is very wrong with the way the teacher teaches the student how to practice

Absolutely agree

And how ignorant can one be to call the inventions that are masterpieces as child pieces, and not repetory one retains. One can learn incredibly much from these pieces.

I don't know of any composition class that doesn't use the inventions to teach practically every aspect of harmony.

[nicco]

Then you are treating the piece as an excercise.

Surely the idea of exercises is that when you come to play a piece, you have already solved the mechanical problems. Is it not worse to have a beautiful piece of music that you have to play sections of it hundreds of times over in order to play it properly.

Why not do the exercises?

Thal

 

I agree. I feel, from the Czerny etudes ive played, ive learned very basic techniques wich i simply put to use when challenged in a piece. F.ex, i am currently about to perform the Dante sonata, in wich ive had no major difficulties or faced any new technical problems. Most of the figurations and "passages" i simply work out by applying the technique already learned from czerny. Ive done most of his Op.740 etudes, wich my first teacher recommended to me from day 1, and I have never regret that i spent much time on each etude, carefully observing exactly what is going on and learning from it.

[m]

Consider this:
Arrau and Richter had about 1500 pieces that they could play perfectly from memory. Life is short so why waste time on dull(mostly) excersises? why not practice the piece?
 I think the culprit in all this is that people practice inefficently because they were not taught to practice in a effecient way. It seems to me that people think that by doing all these excersises they will somehow be able to skim through the real repetory pieces.
  Learning rapidly(extremly) if the student is motivated to learn something( they are dying to play that piece..etc.), that will not happen by doing dull excersises.

First, I never said that excersises are for all. I had a few students who did not need it.

I can assure you, Arrau and Richter would play those 1500 pieces from memory anyway, regardless whether they played excersises or not, trust me on that.
Just tell me how many of those 1500 pieces in Richter's repertoire he learned before age 10-13?

I can tell you one thing though, with all my love and admiration to Richter, apparently it is obvious he did not play Czerny as a kid, and I don't mean it in a good way. With all his phenomenal both musical and technical capabilities, his technique was not smooth, but rather forced and often his playing was brutal (esp. when young).
For some reason you conviniently ommit the well known fact that in order to get to the level he was, he needed to practice 12 to 14 hours each day.
I am absolutely convinced should he received a formal piano education as a kid, he wouldn't have to spend THAT MUCH time struggling with technical difficulties every day of his life, but instead learn at very least 5000 more pieces.

And excuse me, 15 minutes a day untill age 10-13 WILL NOT take much from time to learn "real repertoire", but will ensure instead of learning "technique relative to the piece", the student will have a strong foundation and will be technically ready for ANY piece.

Besides, the excersises become dull when played mechanically. When the students have 10 different tasks to pay attention to, while playing it, they in fact become very engaged.
Bring me 4 first Hanon "excersises" (which BTW, I never use in my teaching) and I promise you a full hour of intensive piano lesson on music, technique, relationship between music and technique, why all the technical problems are in fact not technical but musical, what is music image and how to listen to the sound, how to shape the phrase, how to put phrase into pianistic motion, etc., etc, etc...

If a student feels that excersise are dull, or practices inefficiently, that's definitely teachers fault.

   
hah! the time is rediculous, one should be at the advanced level (grade 8- not meaning teachnically but in all other areas) after 1-2 year or less. taking 4-7 years to start playing pieces more advanced pieces than the pieces you said just proves that something is very wrong with the way the teacher teaches the student how to practice(or If the teacher do at all).

I have no idea about what is grade 8, and I have no any idea what any other grades are.
I teach every student not according to the stupid grades, but individually, according to particular student needs--strengths and weaknesses. When we are talking about beginner students, I teach them not for today to learn some 8 grade pieces and then for hours, full of frustration, struggle with technical difficulties and not getting any further. I teach them giving such a foundation (both musical and technical) that tomorrow they would need me as a teacher not to explain them "technique relative to the piece", but work on right reading of musical text, its expressive and interpretation content, saving tons of hours of struggling with technical work for actual learning a new repertoire.

Before I moved to another state I had a studio of 13 students (besides my University load).
Here are just a few competition programs of some of my students:

age 8: Debussy La cathédrale engloutie and Golliwogg's Cake - Walk, Mozart Phantasy in D minor

age 10: Haydn Sonata in F Major, Liszt Gnomenreigen

age 13 (one of very few students who never needed to play Czerny, or any other excersises):
Bach French suite no5, Chopin Etude op.10/1, , Liszt Hungarian Rhapsody no.12.
 the same student next semester:
Beethoven Sonata Op2. no3 1st mvmnt, Ravel Scarbo. Concerto division: Prokofiev, Concerto no.3
Next year his program included Balakirev Islamey, Feux Follets, Chopin Scherzo no1, etc.

Another student at age 13:
Bach English suite no.2, Chopin Ballade No.3, Concerto division: Rachmaninov Concerto No.1 
Next year her Concerto was Chopin 2nd complete.

Another student at age 12:
Beethoven Sonata No.5 complete, Liszt Etude Un Sospiro, Concerto division: Saint Saens Concerto No.2 1st mvmnt.

All of them were "normal" kids, i.e. neither was a prodigy. All of them played absolutely professionally--both, technically and artistically (all my students, even worst, play professionally). And yes, after a certain age they don't play Czerny anymore, but replace it with Chopin, Liszt, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Rachmaninov, etc. etudes.

If your students play all this stuff after 1-2 year or less on a high professional level, seriously, I will leave ALL my duties here, come to you as an apprentice and will be sitting on all your lessons, writing down every single word you say, studing, thinking, and reconsidering everything I professionally ever done.

Please let me know if they do.

And please explin to me what the BASIC technical resources are?

Sorry, English is not my first language (actually, not even second), so sometimes I still don't know how to say some things.
In short, what I mean is when the student takes let's say Chopin etude op.25/6,  or Brahms/Paganini s/he has to be ready for that, i.e. not to start learning how to play double notes or octaves, but already know all the coordination needed. 
That's what I meant by "having basic technical resourses". If you have a better name please let me know.

And how ignorant can one be to call the inventions that are masterpieces as not worth retainable repetory?

I must admit, in some cases I am ignorant, but please don't put words in my mouth. I never said the Inventions are not masterpieces, and I never said they are not worth retainable repertory.
There is no need to interpret my words.

Best regards, M

[mephisto]

For some reason you conviniently ommit the well known fact that in order to get to the level he was, he needed to practice 12 to 14 hours each day.


Best regards, M

Richter said that he didn't practice mroe than 2-3 hours a day, exept when he had to learn  a new piece in an extremely short period of time, like with the Prok7.

[danny elfboy]

Richter said that he didn't practice mroe than 2-3 hours a day, exept when he had to learn  a new piece in an extremely short period of time, like with the Prok7.

I can't think of anything more ridicolous than practicing 14 hours a day.
It's a basic neuromuscular fact called central nervous system fatigue.
14 hours daily of pratice triggers CNF so much that one switches from practicing to unpracticing since the CNF destroy any mindfull focus. I believe that it's better to watch tv and not practice at all than unpractice. CNF is also one of the reasons as to why it's better to skip practicing days than practicing everyday.

[m]

Richter said that he didn't practice mroe than 2-3 hours a day, exept when he had to learn  a new piece in an extremely short period of time, like with the Prok7.

Everyone knows what (in most cases) it is worth when pianists say how much they practice.
In this case I rather trust Neuhaus, Richter's wife, and hundreds of witnesses--his friends, classmates, etc.

12 hours a day when he was young is a very well known fact, regardless of what he was saying.

It is a very well known fact that before the recital where he played Shostakowitch prelude and fugue in D flat Major, right before the concert he played the piece 40 times ( ) from the beginning to the end, in tempo.

Once, after the lesson with Prokoviev Sonata no.6 Neuhaus asked Richter: "Slava, I cannot believe. How do you play LH in the 2nd movement LIKE THAT???" Richter answers: "I practiced LH separately for 6 hours for the whole week".
Just think of that.
 
Once, I was practicing at Novosibirsk Conservatory. Richter was on his famous all-Siberian tour. It happened so that his class room was next to mine. Of course, I did not take a single note, in holly awe listening and absorbing every note taken by The Great Maestro.
He practiced everything between forte and fortissimo, slowly, everything on staccato, no matter whether it is Chopin etudes, Nocturnes, or Beethoven Sonata.

It lasted EXACTLY 6 hours 30 minutes, straight, without even one single rest.
The next day--day of the recital, the rutine was absolutely the same.
And then he was already an old man, you know.

So, whom should I believe?

I can't think of anything more ridicolous than practicing 14 hours a day.

Unfortunately Richter did not know that. 

Best regards, M

[mephisto]

Everyone knows what (in most cases) it is worth when pianists say how much they practice.
In this case I rather trust Neuhaus, Richter's wife, and hundreds of witnesses--his friends, classmates, etc.

12 hours a day when he was young is a very well known fact, regardless of what he was saying.

It is a very well known fact that before the recital where he played Shostakowitch prelude and fugue in D flat Major, right before the concert he played the piece 40 times ( ) from the beginning to the end, in tempo.

Once, I was practicing at Novosibirsk Conservatory. Richter was on his famous all-Siberian tour. It happened so that his class room was next to mine. Of course, I did not take a single note, in holly awe listening and absorbing every note taken by The Great Maestro.
He practiced everything between forte and fortissimo, slowly, everything on staccato, no matter whether it is Chopin etudes, Nocturnes, or Beethoven Sonata.

It lasted EXACTLY 6 hours 30 minutes, straight, without even one single rest.
The next day--day of the recital, the rutine was absolutely the same.
And then he was already an old man, you know.

Ok, so now I belive you. I had only heard what Richter himself said. It is not as if a person like me should asume that what Richter sais is a lie.

But what ulterior motive should an elderly Richter have to lie about such an issue?

[m]

But what ulterior motive should an elderly Richter have to lie about such an issue?

He did not lie!!!

He merely stated his deepest wish  .

[danny elfboy]

Unfortunately Richter did not know that. 

The problems with extreme habits is that you can't tell whether you would get the same results if you were less extreme. It's the Chanteecleer story. Everyone believe the sun will not raise if the rooster doesn't crow because none of them as ever seen him not doing it, until he misses it once and everyone realize the sun raises anyway.
This is typical into sport in which athletes loves to claim extreme trainings that are not the reason why they're "good" but something they're good in spite of.
I'm pretty sure the person who practice 10 hours would see same results with less practice because since a certain moment the brain and neuromuscular system stops learning and goes into rest/process phase whether we want it or not.