Czerny question

[daniel patschan]

I am just interested how many of you did or are practising Czerny etudes (Op. 299, 740, 365) on a regular basis for technical improvement. Can they be skipped at all ? What do you think ?

[stagefright]

you can skip Czerny completely, but you can not skip etudes at all

try Bertini or Loeschhorn for change

[debussy symbolism]

Greetings.

I am a big advocate of Czerny for simply one reason: it works. I have been doing Czerny since I started playing, starting first with the simple 8 bar etudes and progressing from there. They cover initial steps such as strenthening five fingers on both hands, intervals, scales, chords, trills, etc. My reasons for supporting Czerny etudes are because they advance me and possess certain benefits that make them unique.

They are relatively short. The beginner etudes are close to 8 bars in length and that makes them easy to cover, rather than trying to grasp a larger etude and spending too much time on getting the notes under the fingers.

They work on specific techniques. These etudes cover everything from scales, to intervals, to octaves, to employing wrist action, etc. The technique required to play pieces, and those that are advanced are found in Czerny. After a couple of etudes I found Clementi, Kuhlau sonatinas alot easier to play, and not to mention Mozart's Variations. I am now also working on 4 Moszkowski etudes (op72) and can safely say that without Czerny I wouldn't be able to play them even decently.

They progress in terms of difficulty. They gradually become longer as well, and in order to actually play them, they need to be played very fast. Notice the tempo markings.

In order to derive benefit from anything one has to spend considerable time and effort on it. Simply sightreading Czerny etudes or just playing them very slowly isn't going to help much. One must spend time on them.

They are fun, and have some incredibly fun and even touching pieces in them.

Lastly(or not exactly lastly as I am sure many other points could be brought up), Czerny was a superb pianist, a student of Beethoven, and a teacher of young Liszt. Czerny etudes are valued by Liszt, Brahms, Stravinsky, and someone else who I forgot to mention. His etudes were though disliked by Chopin, but it is hard to find a school that to some degree doesn't employ Czerny.

Best.

[lostinidlewonder]

Nothing in piano should be skipped unless you know for sure that you can play it. If you are faced with something you cannot play you have to understand how to play it. It would be unwise to just play Czerny and all of his keyboard pieces, but it would be wise to read through a lot of his work and get a general grasp for what he wants from you.

[nightingale11]

I just don't understand why people spend time on practising exercises. You can accquire all the technique from musical pieces (these are your goals to play right?). let say you want to learn all the beethoven sonatas and bach keyboardworks etc. this will take quite a while and while you practice them you get the technique for playing them.
So why waste your time on pieces you will never perform...will you not feel embarresed when you have practiced for a couple of years and then the only thing you can play are cerny pieces and maybe only a few performable pieces. One thing that is very important is that a piece needs to be relearnt several times to really be finished and if you don't like the piece this will not be able because you will be so bored.

There is a huge great repetoire so why don't you start working on it right now!

[mephisto]

AMEN to that!

[debussy symbolism]

I just don't understand why people spend time on practising exercises. You can accquire all the technique from musical pieces (these are your goals to play right?). let say you want to learn all the beethoven sonatas and bach keyboardworks etc. this will take quite a while and while you practice them you get the technique for playing them.
So why waste your time on pieces you will never perform...will you not feel embarresed when you have practiced for a couple of years and then the only thing you can play are cerny pieces and maybe only a few performable pieces. One thing that is very important is that a piece needs to be relearnt several times to really be finished and if you don't like the piece this will not be able because you will be so bored.

There is a huge great repetoire so why don't you start working on it right now!

You obviously didn't read my reply. You are right, why do the exercises if they do not work? The reason for doing them is of course that they help. Scales, arpeggios, chords are a necessity because you encounter them in pieces. Yes, you could practice pieces that have those specifics of playing, but the pieces are long and may not focus solely on that technique. That is where etudes come in, but since many advanced etudes are long and may focus on many facets of technique, why not pick a shorter Czerny study that only focus on lets say arpeggios?

[desordre]

 Dear Daniel:
 I think there are studies and Studies. Czerny, Clementi, et alli, are in the first group: what they did? Just something you actually must be able to do: look at the repertory and find what is difficult, complex, demanding, etc, and then findind a way to solve. I agree with Mr. Simbolism that Czerny can work. But if you study the pieces you want properly (let's say some Mozart or Beethoven, for that matter), paying a lot of attention to details, exploring the limits of speed, touch, sound, strenght, you will acquire much more than playing some sketch by Czerny.
 In the other hand, you have the "capital case" Studies: Chopin, Liszt, Scriabin, Ligeti. These are concert pieces dealing hardly with some technique matter. By the way, a lot of pieces that are not called "study" are in this list (some Chopin's Preludes, or Brahms' Variations for instance).
 Occurs me Beethoven's Sonata opus 49 n 2, a piece that almost everyone play. What are the demanding parts? Scales RH, arpeggio LH, repeated notes LH, some thirds RH...the list is not precise since it varies according to the player. I can remember dozens of Czerny's, Clementi's, Bertini's, etc's that deals with the same technique, but you can develop yours without playing them, only playing Beethoven.
  If you want some detailed example, please let me know something you are digging into right now.
 Best wishes!
 P.S.: Mr(s). Nightingale's post remembers me something Bernhard wrote once: all technique you need is in Bach's WTC, Beethoven's Sonatas, and Chopin's Etudes.

[daniel patschan]

Thanks a lot Desordre ! I just started to work on one of the first Op 740 studies by Czerny ("Clearness in velocity" or something like that) and i realized that it takes really some time to get it to good sound and speed. It´s musical content on the other hand is relatively poor, so the learning process takes a little bit too long (the piece completely doesn´t interest me musically, so i can´t harly focus on it). But there a always these two opinions (Etudes of the Czerny/Clementi/Cramer league vs. aquiring technic through pieces and thereby increasing the repertoire), i more and more tend to the second. However, scales, arpeggios, thirds and octaves should propably be practised independently from the choice between these two alternatives ?

[nightingale11]

However, scales, arpeggios, thirds and octaves should propably be practised independently from the choice between these two alternatives ?

Yes these are going to be practised. But this learning process come from the pieces. What you could do is to learn them separately in a couple of months spending 10 minutes every day in a systematic way(know what you are doing, and you do it every day). What I mean by learning them is to memorise them(so that you can see what scale it is in the piece) and ingrain fingeringering. Then when you learn pieces you have one/two practice sessions where you practise the scales in the piece to get familiar with them.

What I suggest you to do is to make up a plan and have a look at bernhard's posts.

[debussy symbolism]

Yes these are going to be practised. But this learning process come from the pieces. What you could do is to learn them separately in a couple of months spending 10 minutes every day in a systematic way(know what you are doing, and you do it every day). What I mean by learning them is to memorise them(so that you can see what scale it is in the piece) and ingrain fingeringering. Then when you learn pieces you have one/two practice sessions where you practise the scales in the piece to get familiar with them.

What I suggest you to do is to make up a plan and have a look at bernhard's posts.

I appologize that I wasn't clear enough in my sentence there. What I meant was that pieces for the most part do not give you the necessary scales, arpeggios, chords etc. Czerny etudes do. Many of them simply focus on scales, arpeggios that one meets later in pieces.

Another benefit of practicing Czerny is sightreading. The studies include all kinds of inversions, successions of arpeggios that do not always appear in pieces. Once for example I practiced Czerny etudes that deal with arpeggio inversions, I quickly recognized them in pieces. I am practicing Beethoven's Rondo a Cappriccio Rage over a lost penny and they feature practically everything Czerny has covered. Scales, arpeggios, chords, trills, etc. The arpeggios specifically come to mind because they are basically inversions and believe me, I would not be able to execute them as I do now if it wasn't for Czerny. I would have spent alot more time on them. Same with Moszkowski etude op 72 no3(G major) which now I just begun. On the second page there are chord inversions that I wouldn't be able to execute coherently without Czerny preparations.

Spend 10 minutes a day for scales or arpeggios? I spend alot more time on them daily, closer to 30 minutes to an hour. I study scales in different tonalities, in 3rds, 6ths, and 10ths(basically 3rds only an octave apart), and arpeggios with short arpeggios (inversions too), broken arpeggios, and long arpeggios.

I am familiar with Bernhard's method and I do not agree with him concerning exercises and Czerny. I of course am not saying to only focus on exercises. The most time should be of course spent on pieces, but in my opinion it is important to also spend time on exercises and Czerny too. (I assume "higher" etudes to be fitted with the pieces).

It seems to me that you, and a great portion of the forum in general are hung up on Bernhard's methods, yet he leaves no proof of them actually working. How many recordings of his do we have? Just because Bernhard says something, doesn't mean one should consecrate it as holy word.

Best.

[nightingale11]

It seems to me that you, and a great portion of the forum in general are hung up on Bernhard's methods, yet he leaves no proof of them actually working. How many recordings of his do we have? Just because Bernhard says something, doesn't mean one should consecrate it as holy word.

Well have you any proof that youre method is the best? have you tested bernhard's teaching? He has been teaching for a long time and he has tested a lot of things, and have come up with methods that works best of the ones he has tried. Then of course if something better comes up he tries that. It's all about experimentation, that's the way to find out. You cannot always thrust your logical mind.

[asyncopated]

Dear Daniel:
 I think there are studies and Studies.

Haha... yes i agree.  The big difference is that one group is music, and the other is stuff for you to butcher at your pleasure.

I think that with hanon and czerny, there was a big movement in late classical period, and the early romantic period to try to teach technique using a scientific method.  The idea was to start with the basics and build your way up.  Sounds logical doesn't it?  So lots of composers turned to writing these exercieses, some of them have survived and appear as we see them today.  Theses exercises concentrated mainly on what they considered a system to build techinique and did not worry too much about musicality.  The two very popular ones have survived and have been mentioned.  There are many many others that have just died off over the years.

There are some basic questions with this.

1. Does it work?  Can technique really be broken up like that?  Learning each bit separately, and almost instantaneously putting it all back together in another piece, where it usually appears in much more advanced forms and expect it to work? 

2. Conversly, take for example beethoven's sonata Op. 49 No. 2 which requires scales, can i just learn those (G major?) scales without systematically going through the rest of of these?  If you learn scales from czerny school of velocity, do you play the scales in the beethoven in exactly the same way?  Are there different requirements in movement and touch for scales appearing in different pieces?

At the moment, my teacher does not make me do any technical exerciese whatsoever.  I don't even play scales outside of those in the pieces.  What I do notice is that despite this, I do end up playing lots of scales and appegios anyway -- major, minor, stacato, legato, straight up, dotted rhythm, to sound like a harp with a light touch, to sound skippy with a pointed touch, with a deep singing sound, digging into the keys.  Not all scales are the same. 

With this,  my current opinion in line with hers is that you cannot separate movement touch and sound and isolate a particular bit of technique required.  Unfortunately, employing a systematic method to teaching technique, without the focus on musicality or a musical context sort of misses the point in the first place -- to learn all these things so that one can play musically.  Conversely, if you can already play scales with all these different touches and sounds, rattling off an unmusical set of scales is absolutely no problem.  This does not mean I do not do purist exercesies.  But only do them in the context of the piece, with a clear final goal in mind.

I use to hear/read that the reason for learning technique is so that it things become automatic.  Personally i think this is simply not true.  I do the technique so that I can think harder, not less.  Much more about the musicality and less about tripping over my own fingers.

I also believe that at the foundation of technique should be your ears, not how fast you can play, or even how accurately.  I spend much more time trying to teach my ears (brain) to identify musical sounds and with that the movement and touch to produce them, than playing a set of notes repeatedly. 

Doing it from pieces also presumes that you have an excellent teacher that can assess your sound and communicate what you need to do to improve it an an accurate way. 

[debussy symbolism]

Well have you any proof that youre method is the best? have you tested bernhard's teaching? He has been teaching for a long time and he has tested a lot of things, and have come up with methods that works best of the ones he has tried. Then of course if something better comes up he tries that. It's all about experimentation, that's the way to find out. You cannot always thrust your logical mind.

The proof is that nearly every school uses it. The Russian school is primarily based of the French school, so we could use that as a proof. I am sure that Bernhard does find success using his method, I am just however implying that his method isn't the one that has been used, and we know that the used method does work. Of course we cannot always trust logic. Sensitiivty comes first. If something doesn't sound or feel right, then of course we are doing something wrong. The method that I am propagating does to me sound and feel right and I will try to point out some reasons for why so.

Haha... yes i agree. The big difference is that one group is music, and the other is stuff for you to butcher at your pleasure.

I think that with hanon and czerny, there was a big movement in late classical period, and the early romantic period to try to teach technique using a scientific method. The idea was to start with the basics and build your way up. Sounds logical doesn't it? So lots of composers turned to writing these exercieses, some of them have survived and appear as we see them today. Theses exercises concentrated mainly on what they considered a system to build techinique and did not worry too much about musicality. The two very popular ones have survived and have been mentioned. There are many many others that have just died off over the years.

There are some basic questions with this.

1. Does it work? Can technique really be broken up like that? Learning each bit separately, and almost instantaneously putting it all back together in another piece, where it usually appears in much more advanced forms and expect it to work?

2. Conversly, take for example beethoven's sonata Op. 49 No. 2 which requires scales, can i just learn those (G major?) scales without systematically going through the rest of of these? If you learn scales from czerny school of velocity, do you play the scales in the beethoven in exactly the same way? Are there different requirements in movement and touch for scales appearing in different pieces?

At the moment, my teacher does not make me do any technical exerciese whatsoever. I don't even play scales outside of those in the pieces. What I do notice is that despite this, I do end up playing lots of scales and appegios anyway -- major, minor, stacato, legato, straight up, dotted rhythm, to sound like a harp with a light touch, to sound skippy with a pointed touch, with a deep singing sound, digging into the keys. Not all scales are the same.

 

Musicality and technique do mix. Just look at Chopin and Liszt's etudes. They feature everything that Czerny features only on a larger scale. Can you call those etudes exercises only? They are pieces in themselves.

To answer your questions.

No, I don't think you can break down a piece into many specific technique aspects and practice them, but many exercises help you with certain aspects, such as scales and scales in thirds.

Of course scales featured in pieces are different, but learning scales independantly will help you in getting down the basic fingering and basic movements better.

With this, my current opinion in line with hers is that you cannot separate movement touch and sound and isolate a particular bit of technique required. Unfortunately, employing a systematic method to teaching technique, without the focus on musicality or a musical context sort of misses the point in the first place -- to learn all these things so that one can play musically. Conversely, if you can already play scales with all these different touches and sounds, rattling off an unmusical set of scales is absolutely no problem. This does not mean I do not do purist exercesies. But only do them in the context of the piece, with a clear final goal in mind.

I use to hear/read that the reason for learning technique is so that it things become automatic. Personally i think this is simply not true. I do the technique so that I can think harder, not less. Much more about the musicality and less about tripping over my own fingers.

I also believe that at the foundation of technique should be your ears, not how fast you can play, or even how accurately. I spend much more time trying to teach my ears (brain) to identify musical sounds and with that the movement and touch to produce them, than playing a set of notes repeatedly.

 

Yes, ears are crucial in producing a good sound.

[asyncopated]

Just look at Chopin and Liszt's etudes.

I think that this was the point of the there are studies and then there are studies post.

Chopin's and liszt's by any pianist standards fall into the musical category and not the mindless repetition to exercise your finger muscles category.

I would go further to say that heller had lots of musically etudes, so did burgmuller and schumman (album for the young).   All of which much easier to play (between grades 1 and 8 ) than what you have suggested. 

Czerzy is on the borderline for me.  I don't really know if the aforementioned material is musical.  Although it is clear that many of his works mentioned here are written for the systematic pedagogical approach mentioned earlier, more than than having musicallity as one of the primary focii.

Of course scales featured in pieces are different, but learning scales independantly will help you in getting down the basic fingering and basic movements better.

Basic fingering can be learnt in a matter of hours (if not minutes).  The moment however is another matter.  For touch and movement, my current opinion is that if you know what to do (within the context of the piece you are playing) then you already are practicing technique.  If you don't you can't really learn touch and movement by playing random sets of scales and appegios.  What you really need is for someone to show you, listen to how you play, teach you how to identify the sound and finally correct your movement so that you can make the appropriate sound.   

To give you an example, when I first stared with my current teacher, she said that my biggest problem was my sound.  My bach doesn't have a bach sound and my debussy does not have a debussy (impressionistic) sound.  I'm pressing the keys fine, without much tension, because I have made an effort previously to do so, whilst learning to do lots of hannon. 

With her, I spent the first 3 or so months developing a focus (or point) to my bach sound and this by playing bach, and not anyone else.  The main problem was that I was using too much of my upper arm and and had conciously developed lazy fingers to get rid of tension.  So I had to spend lots of time just playing c,d,e,f,g from each of my finger joints individually and making sure that I am using all my joints when I play every single note in a simple bach invension.    Nowadays I more or less do it automatically. 

Right now, it's the same thing with debussy.  I spend a serious amount of time at the piano just making sure that when I play appegionated chords that each note blurs into the next, and that I can't tell if I'm playing the chord with fingers from my right or left hand.

I don't think we disagree in priciple, maybe we use different approaches.  I do work a lot on technique.  In fact, it seems that no matter what i do at the piano, I'm always thinking about one aspect of technique or another.  Very seldom do I get to sit down, and just play and enjoy a piece musically.  As soon as I do, I get new one, and have to deal with more technical details.

[debussy symbolism]

I agree with you concerning different approaches. What works for you may not work for someone else, and what works for someone else may not necessarily work for you. I do however want to make a couple of points across.

Chopin and Liszt etudes are difficult yes, but there are easier etudes as well. Just look at Moszkowski op 72. Practically all of the material there is borrowed from Czerny, but put into a more coherent and "romantic" form. Let me analyze some. From the first one of the set(e major), first page contains passages of sixteenth notes that are basically Czerny style, broken arpeggios-Czerny again. 2nd page contains more scales, third page contains broken arpeggios that are not in anyway altered from their original tonality. Fourth page scales for left hand. 5th page is very similar to first, and 6th page is primarily all scales and and arpeggios. As the scales and arpeggios in themselves aren't altered with sharps or flats or naturals, having to have to practice them before hand will be a huge plus. That is why having to do scales and arpeggios very important, because they offer you direct material that you will encounter later on. I could analyze other etudes of the set, but I think you get the idea.

I was a bit unclear in my meaning concerning the fingering and movement of scales. Yes, the fingering can be aquired very quickly, but having to have to respond fast is another story. Lets say a piece has scales in thirds with alternations in them(accidentals). You of course know that scales in thirds start with different fingers, and takes some time to get used to put hands together. Without primal preparation, it will take you alot longer to get those scales in thirds in a piece because you have no primal experience with them, whereas independent scale study will give you that. I am saying this out of experience because Moszkowski etude no5 (Cmajor) features exactly that. On the fourth page there are scales in 10ths(basically 3rds only an octave appart). Without primal preparation it would have taken me alot longer to get used to and get in under the fingers. Concerning movement, the more you practice the easier it gets, and individual scale practice lets you develop that movement without having to have to worry about accidentals.

I am saying this out of experience because I know that scale and arpeggio study works.

Don't get me wrong, I of course do pay attention to the sound I create. My teacher and I spet alot of time getting out a good sound from the Schubert's Impromptu(no4), especially in the trio section. It can't sound Czerny, otherwise it becomes ugly. I had to make sure that the melody line stays above the accompaniment and that every note in the accompaniment sings out and doesn't fade or stand out. In the chord passages near the opening we had to work on voicing to let out the top notes of the chords to flow. In my opinion, the fast arpeggios of the piece are much easier to play than the trio section because in the trio section you have to work so hard to produce a good and mellow sound, and so easy to make it rough and uninteresting. The other sections of the piece got to sing out to. Voicing is everything in that piece, and I am sure in every other Schubert piece as well.

[asyncopated]

Chopin and Liszt etudes are difficult yes, but there are easier etudes as well. Just look at Moszkowski op 72.

I don't know the Moszkowski etudes. I'll have a look.

I was a bit unclear in my meaning concerning the fingering and movement of scales. Yes, the fingering can be aquired very quickly, but having to have to respond fast is another story. Lets say a piece has scales in thirds with alternations in them(accidentals). You of course know that scales in thirds start with different fingers, and takes some time to get used to put hands together. Without primal preparation, it will take you alot longer to get those scales in thirds in a piece because you have no primal experience with them, whereas independent scale study will give you that.

Yes we agree on this.  I was playing debussy's first arabasque sometime back and in the last line of the first section, there were two sets of parallel scales in thirds in bars 31-34.  I really had to reduced this to purist exercises isolating the figuring and movment to get to right.  So when needing to play this, realising that it was difficult, my teacher suggest various hanon like exercieses that would help.   When put together, the top note should sing and you need a circular type motion blurring out the bottom sets of triplets, pushing on to the next.  Basically, I needs to sound like flowing water -- don't really know if this makes sense, I can't put it in words.  I used the puristist exercises mainly for priming.  If i didn't know the sound required, I would probably choose a very different set of exercises with thirds, like grouping and ignoring the circular motion.

I am saying this out of experience because I know that scale and arpeggio study works.

Yes we agree on this.  What we do disagree on is where to find material for this type of study.  In the end, maybe the material is not so important if it gets you to the same place.

Don't get me wrong, I of course do pay attention to the sound I create. My teacher and I spet alot of time getting out a good sound from the Schubert's Impromptu(no4), especially in the trio section. It can't sound Czerny, otherwise it becomes ugly. I had to make sure that the melody line stays above the accompaniment and that every note in the accompaniment sings out and doesn't fade or stand out. In the chord passages near the opening we had to work on voicing to let out the top notes of the chords to flow. In my opinion, the fast arpeggios of the piece are much easier to play than the trio section because in the trio section you have to work so hard to produce a good and mellow sound, and so easy to make it rough and uninteresting. The other sections of the piece got to sing out to. Voicing is everything in that piece, and I am sure in every other Schubert piece as well.

Tell me about it.  Too many things to think about, voicing is only one aspect.  phrasing on and off, the legato line, the balance between the voices, the interweaving notes...

I suppose that is why people find czerny good for technique development.  One does not have to constantly think of 10 things at one time.  Just a couple.  I suppose that when you learn technique from pieces you are playing, the pieces have to be of the correct level to you.  You can't be struggling with notes, they should be relatively easy to learn.  You need some of the basic technique down already for that period of music, which you do automatically.  And after that you can jump from note learning to technique acquiring, whilst assessing your sound, quickly or merge the two in some way.  I admit, this is difficult to do, and I haven't figured all the details out.

The other point i have is that don't over looking playing a huge amount of repetoir for aquiring technique.  Just learn sheer quantity alone as quickly as you can.  And when I say learn,  I don't mean rattling off notes.  I mean playing it a close to a level of refinement that is required in performances.

I use to try to learn notes in a very inefficient way, which made learning slow.  My current goal for learning baroque and classical techinique is to actually just to play lots and lots it.  Bach (inventions -- all two part, I'm about 1/2 way through. Not thought about 3 part, but I'll be happy to learn all of them as well) and haydn (sonatas -- aiming for 1 section every week or two) at the moment for romantic/impresionistic stuff, I'm doing suite bergamesque, and hope to get through at least 3 of the pieces in the suite.  Everyday, i just keep learning notes and at the same time refining technique, that is all i do, it seems like I have no time for anything else.

[mephisto]

Play Bach, Haydn and Mozart instead of Czerny studies.

[russda_man]

I am just interested how many of you did or are practising Czerny etudes (Op. 299, 740, 365) on a regular basis for technical improvement. Can they be skipped at all ? What do you think ?

I spend hours on technique. Lots of Czerny (school of the virtuoso is brilliant, I do them all! Art of finger dexterity is brilliant, as are other books), Liszt etudes, Chopin etudes. If you want to be the best, at the end of the day you have to put the work in.

[noelgould]

Hi All,
I came upon this thread and have enjoyed reading so many diverse opinions regarding Czerny et al vs etudes and "pieces".  There are certainly benefits to all, and everyone is different so what works for some doesn't necessarily work for others.  What I've found is that the best results are achieved by playing what you're passionate about!  All the great composers' music are filled with multitudes of technical and musical issues that can be broken down into specific exercises, as needed, for the pianist to use while developing technical facility.  One of my great teachers, Leon Fleisher, defined technique as the "ability to do what you want".  Naturally, the primary use of technique is to serve the music, and it's vital to have a crystal clear musical understanding of the pieces you're playing and why you're playing them.  Once that's the main focus, then technique can be employed and developed in service of the music.  It's much easier to spend the hours necessary when you're working on music that moves you emotionally and spiritually rather than exercises that may be dry and uninspiring in comparison.  Again, we're all different, and technique can be successfully developed in many varied ways.  I like making up my own exercises to address challenging places in the pieces I'm studying.  Another great tool is to practice passages with many different fingerings.  Try playing triplet scales with emphasis on every third note with 123412341234 fingering for example or scales with fingerings, 1212121212, then 23232323, 34343434, 4545454545, etc, and in general with all pieces, try finding fingerings that balance the hand by using non adjacent fingers in scales, arpeggios, and trills, etc.  Think outside the box.  If you change the fingerings on pieces you've been playing for a long time, it completely rewires the brain and allows for great breakthroughs! For me, it's always music first! So I'd rather seek out pieces that provide the technical demands I want to develop.  I've had great teachers work with me on Czerny exercises to develop flowing scales, etc.  That said, there's no better proving ground for flowing scales than a Mozart piano concerto!  Happy musical adventures one and all!  Cheers!

[pianistavt]

Hi All,
I came upon this thread and have enjoyed reading so many diverse opinions regarding Czerny et al vs etudes and "pieces".  There are certainly benefits to all, and everyone is different so what works for some doesn't necessarily work for others.  What I've found is that the best results are achieved by playing what you're passionate about!  All the great composers' music are filled with multitudes of technical and musical issues that can be broken down into specific exercises, as needed, for the pianist to use while developing technical facility.  One of my great teachers, Leon Fleisher, defined technique as the "ability to do what you want".  Naturally, the primary use of technique is to serve the music, and it's vital to have a crystal clear musical understanding of the pieces you're playing and why you're playing them.  Once that's the main focus, then technique can be employed and developed in service of the music.  It's much easier to spend the hours necessary when you're working on music that moves you emotionally and spiritually rather than exercises that may be dry and uninspiring in comparison.  Again, we're all different, and technique can be successfully developed in many varied ways.  I like making up my own exercises to address challenging places in the pieces I'm studying.  Another great tool is to practice passages with many different fingerings.  Try playing triplet scales with emphasis on every third note with 123412341234 fingering for example or scales with fingerings, 1212121212, then 23232323, 34343434, 4545454545, etc, and in general with all pieces, try finding fingerings that balance the hand by using non adjacent fingers in scales, arpeggios, and trills, etc.  Think outside the box.  If you change the fingerings on pieces you've been playing for a long time, it completely rewires the brain and allows for great breakthroughs! For me, it's always music first! So I'd rather seek out pieces that provide the technical demands I want to develop.  I've had great teachers work with me on Czerny exercises to develop flowing scales, etc.  That said, there's no better proving ground for flowing scales than a Mozart piano concerto!  Happy musical adventures one and all!  Cheers!

Thanks for bringing this old post to the surface - agreed, some worthy comments, and yours are like icing on the cake!
One point I would add - - for the advanced pianist, Czerny studies may not be needed nor of interest, but the situation is different for the developing student - Czerny studies (and they're not all scales, far from it) teach some basic principles that have wide application - like keeping strict time, evenness of tone, and the ever elusive increasing speed while maintaining musical coherence - all applied to a new physical challenge.  (Of course this doesn't happen by itself, the teacher needs to emphasize these goals.)  The value of the Czerny studies is that it enables focus on these elements (and others) by simplifying the harmony and repeating the pattern.  These pieces can be learned quickly.  Questions of the musical intent of the composer don't arise.  They are easy to learn and memorize so that the student can focus on the technical challenge. They can be a fun learning experience, with a sense of accomplishment for the student at being able to play with nimbleness and velocity.