Choosing my next Chopin Etude

[kghayesh]

I want to play some Chopin Op.10 Etudes. I played only no.12 'Revolutionary' and I want to do my best to play the whole opus. (That's a long term goal)

I want to know what criteria should I put into consideration when choosing which Etude(s) to play next. What I am thinking of is that each Etude has its own difficulty and its own technique that is intended to develop. For example, no.5 is for black key arpeggios, no.2 is for playing chromatic scales with fingers 3,4,5, no. 12 is for the left hand......etc.

So, should I see what technique I am good at and play the Etude that tackles that technique? or it is the other way round and I should see which technique i suck at and play the Etude that tackles it so I can improve and develop this special technique ??

Or I've been thinking to work them in order. I finished no.12 so I was thinking to play no.11 then 10 then 9 .......... and so on. So that at any time I can have something to put in a recital programme like this Chopin - Etudes Op.10 no.x-12 not write Etudes no.x, y, z, 12.

[phil13]

I want to play some Chopin Op.10 Etudes. I played only no.12 'Revolutionary' and I want to do my best to play the whole opus. (That's a long term goal)   

Good long term goal, if you ask me.

I want to know what criteria should I put into consideration when choosing which Etude(s) to play next. What I am thinking of is that each Etude has its own difficulty and its own technique that is intended to develop. For example, no.5 is for black key arpeggios, no.2 is for playing chromatic scales with fingers 3,4,5, no. 12 is for the left hand......etc.

So, should I see what technique I am good at and play the Etude that tackles that technique? or it is the other way round and I should see which technique i suck at and play the Etude that tackles it so I can improve and develop this special technique ??

I think you should tackle two techniques- one that you're good at, and one that you're bad at. IMO, you should do one or two of the easiest ones first. 10-3 and 10-6 are slow and not quite as complex as the others, 10-9 would be another good one, or 10-5 if you want something faster.

Or I've been thinking to work them in order. I finished no.12 so I was thinking to play no.11 then 10 then 9 .......... and so on. So that at any time I can have something to put in a recital programme like this Chopin - Etudes Op.10 no.x-12 not write Etudes no.x, y, z, 12.

BAD IDEA. Doing it this way will certainly put some of the harder ones (10-7, 10-8, 10-10) in front of the much easier ones (10-5, 10-6, 10-9) (even though the 3 hardest- 10-2, 10-4 and 10-1- are at the top, this is still not the way to do it.

Phil

[robertp]

Why not expand on what phil13 advised with the Op.25 etudes?

[kghayesh]

Why not expand on what phil13 advised with the Op.25 etudes?

Because I want to finish the entire opus 10 first. I want to be able to play such thing called "Chopin - Etudes op.10" not scattered Etudes from here and there

[monsieurrenard]

Because I want to finish the entire opus 10 first. I want to be able to play such thing called "Chopin - Etudes op.10" not scattered Etudes from here and there

Why is that?

I think it's more important to learn pieces you need to learn, especially when they are etudes, regardless of what opus number they carry.

-Monsieur Le Renard.

[kghayesh]

pieces you need to learn

What is meant by you need to learn ?

[kelly_kelly]

Pieces that'll improve hte weak aspects of your playing?

[monsieurrenard]

Pieces that'll improve hte weak aspects of your playing?

Precisely.

With all this "learn technique with repertoire" mumbo-jumbo that has recently surfaced, I hope at least that people play the right repertoire.

It seems silly to play a piece because of the opus it bears.

-Monsieur Le Renard

[kghayesh]

You seem logically and conceptually right. But my point is, I am trying to build a recital programme, so I can't just build it by playing pieces from here and there. I reckon I must play closely related pieces in the same opus so that in the end I have something to build upon when making a recital programme.

[robertp]

I agree with Mr. Fox!

They etudes are great music, but they're also technique builders. I would have thought you'd have done better using them as such, and you'll find it's ultimately very economical of your time. Although some concert pianists will play all of them, or all of one opus in a concert, much more often you hear several, usually from both 10 and 25.

[lostinidlewonder]

If your aim is to learn the entire Op10 Etudes then it doesn't matter which one you start with. What is important is that you must have the technical capability to understand how to play all the etudes, nothing should be new to you. If you are learning new technique from the Chopin etudes then you are starting at too hard a level, drop down to something easier.

This means you should study all the etudes at the same time (if your aim is to learn the entire opus). At least sight read through all of them every week and focus study on whatever one you find easiest to learn. The thing is that you must first sight read through all of them to find out which ones really are easier for you, then you can make judgements as to which ones to start with (some people might start with the harder ones first and leave the easier ones till last, it is all a matter of personal prefference). To think a piece is harder and to know it, are two totally different things and in the end are unimportant.

When learning entire volumes people sometimes dare not learn more than one at a time, this is an inefficient and safe approach. You must play through the entire volume constantly this will accelerate the learning curve.

Do not look at Chopin etudes as focusing on this technique or that. They have much more musical value than technical excecution in my opinion, same as the Liszt Transcendentale Etudes. If you appreciate the musical value of the etudes you automatically appreciate what needs to be done technically. Of course they train particular patterns at the keyboard but these in essense are unimportant because we have seen these techniques before in previous pieces and simply these etudes ask us to demonstrate that we can do it well.

[kghayesh]

If your aim is to learn the entire Op10 Etudes then it doesn't matter which one you start with. What is important is that you must have the technical capability to understand how to play all the etudes, nothing should be new to you. If you are learning new technique from the Chopin etudes then you are starting at too hard a level, drop down to something easier.

How can I learn techniques  better than from Chopin etudes ?? I think I benefited so much from playing the 10/12 Etude. My playing was really crap before it and i didn't think i can play it. But then with continuous practice, I did it. My LH improved  a lot after it.

I think Etudes are intended to develop piano technique not make use of it.

[lostinidlewonder]

How can I learn techniques better than from Chopin etudes ??

I feel that the Chopin etudes are not there to develop technique but to sharpen your foundation and to prove to you, like a final examination in school, that you can technically play the intricate patterns on the piano and general procedure.

I think Etudes are intended to develop piano technique not make use of it.

This is exactly what I mean, making use of the technique itself is not trained because the actual useage of the technique, the foundation of the technique should already be established from "easier" pieces you have learnt. Chopin focuses on tricky techniques throughout all his etudes so if your foundation is shaky the entire pieces collapse and become very difficult to master. This would highlight a lack of technical foundation to learn th eetude and one might waste 3 months learning one etude where they could learn many more useful smaller pieces. If you are ready to learn a Chopin etude it should be completely memorised in less than 2 weeks (although I would like to say 2 days, but I think most people here will burn me at the stake and dance around my ashes if I say that.)
I talked about how I went about studying the complete etudes here:
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,16476.msg181059.html#msg181059

[richy321]

I feel that the Chopin etudes are not there to develop technique but to sharpen your foundation and to prove to you, like a final examination in school, that you can technically play the intricate patterns on the piano and general procedure.

This is exactly what I mean, making use of the technique itself is not trained because the actual useage of the technique, the foundation of the technique should already be established from "easier" pieces you have learnt. Chopin focuses on tricky techniques throughout all his etudes so if your foundation is shaky the entire pieces collapse and become very difficult to master. This would highlight a lack of technical foundation to learn th eetude and one might waste 3 months learning one etude where they could learn many more useful smaller pieces. If you are ready to learn a Chopin etude it should be completely memorised in less than 2 weeks (although I would like to say 2 days, but I think most people here will burn me at the stake and dance around my ashes if I say that.)

There are many issues here that cannot be allowed to go unquestioned:

1.   On what authority can you say that the Etudes are not to be used to develop technique, but rather to polish and showcase already developed technique?  From your prior posts, I understand that this is how you used the Etudes.  Fine, but it does not follow that this is the only proper function of these etudes.  Many authorities, including Cortot and Whiteside, have stressed the pedagogical function of the Etudes.  The proof of the pudding, however, is that from the time of their publication to the present, countless students have found the Etudes to be a most useful basis for developing technique as well as a source of musical expression.

2.   You say that without the technical foundation, the piece would collapse.  Well, obviously, but this is true of any piece and does not spell disaster; rather, if the etude is selected appropriately, it should serve to pinpoint the technical problem to be solved.  It is precisely the high musical values represented in these Etudes that provides the motivation to solve these technical problems and to signal when they have been solved. 

3.   Elsewhere you state that ALL the etudes should be worked on concurrently, at least to some depth.  This in itself begs for logical support, yet here you state that each etude should be memorised in 2 weeks (or even 2 days, preferably).  In other words, in your view, one should be able to memorize all 24 etudes in 2 weeks of time.  Something simply doesn't compute here.   

4.   Burning at the stake will not clear up the confusion you've created by your statements, so I for one would not advocate it.  I would rather you came down from your high horse and be a little more real.  Certainly it would be nice to come to the Etudes with a fully developed technique and use these masterpieces simply to polish and show off one's accomplishments, but for most of us mortals, that doesn't comport with reality.  I really wonder if it does for you.
 
Richy
 

[lostinidlewonder]

1.   On what authority can you say that the Etudes are not to be used to develop technique, but rather to polish and showcase already developed technique? Many authorities, including Cortot and Whiteside, have stressed the pedagogical function of the Etudes.

You misunderstand me. I am saying, if the techniques you find in the Chopin etudes have never been attempted before in OTHER pieces, then you are simply setting yourself up for problems. If you are using the Chopin etudes to expose yourself to these techniques for the FIRST time you are trying too hard in my OPINION.

2.   You say that without the technical foundation, the piece would collapse.  Well, obviously, but this is true of any piece and does not spell disaster; rather, if the etude is selected appropriately, it should serve to pinpoint the technical problem to be solved.  It is precisely the high musical values represented in these Etudes that provides the motivation to solve these technical problems and to signal when they have been solved. 

Etudes are not used to PIN POINT or solve peoples technical problems. Being able to play one piece full of thirds will not make you a master at playing thirds, many pieces which highlight the same idea give us the experience we need to master our instrument.  The Chopin etudes are amongst the best examples to learn from because they define practically all the basic piano techinques we find, but they should be used as a final indicator to our technical capabilities IN MY OPINION. Ok if you have weak technique you see how the etudes really highlight your short comings with slow progress, and physical difficuties to produce the music. Why face slow, frustrating work if there is an easier way?

3.   Elsewhere you state that ALL the etudes should be worked on concurrently, at least to some depth.  This in itself begs for logical support, yet here you state that each etude should be memorised in 2 weeks (or even 2 days, preferably).  In other words, in your view, one should be able to memorize all 24 etudes in 2 weeks of time.  Something simply doesn't compute here.   

Don't misunderstand me again, to study the etudes in fast time is only a WAY to study (and that was what the discussion was about, a way to study all the etudes), it is a way that I have taken and many other professional musicians. Nothing what I say when I talk about music is saying THIS IS THE ONLY WAY. Because with music there is NO way there are many ways, we are simply discussing our own experiences, so don't take it too personally especially if you disagree with me, I am sure many others would stand by your side, I don't aim to have many people agree with me.

4.   Burning at the stake will not clear up the confusion you've created by your statements, so I for one would not advocate it.  I would rather you came down from your high horse and be a little more real.  Certainly it would be nice to come to the Etudes with a fully developed technique and use these masterpieces simply to polish and show off one's accomplishments, but for most of us mortals, that doesn't comport with reality.  I really wonder if it does for you.
 

High horse? Please, this is a forum for our ideas, I have no superiority complex or even compete with people here or anywhere else for that matter. You do not need fully developed technique when you face the Chopin etudes, but if you have little experience playing the piano then why on earth do you want to start at the Chopin etudes? That confuses me always, but still i wil teach to students who insist that they want to learn this piece, who am I to squash peoples desires??

[bachapprentice]

If you want to build great technique, play some Bach!

[b.piano]

you played Chopin's Revolutionary study??
well .. that's amaizing. I mean I've just started to play piano.. now I'm 14 years old.. I've alwayse wanted to be a pianist.. but I never had a piano teacher. there were no real piansts here in Kurdistan- Iraq. but now there are.
so all these years I was playing keybord. my dad did teach me all he could.. cause he's a guitarist.. but. he couldnt teach me piano.
anyway.. my Dream is to plae Revolutionary  study.. because whenever I play it.. it means that I'm a good pianist..
sorry My English is not that good.
Thank you .