which musician's works has more technical benefit?

[ryanyee]

yeah i would like to know what everybody thinks of these five musicians' works.

[amelialw]

chopin, his etudes all teach you a different technique, since I started those I have benefited greatly from the etudes

[m1469]

It depends on what the purpose of learning them is.   

I am curious as to why you have chosen these particular 5 ?

[mcgillcomposer]

It depends on what the purpose of learning them is.   

I am curious as to why you have chosen these particular 5 ?

I am assuming for the same reason he chose Liszt...for a different style of "sheer technical difficulty". Some of his [Scarlatti] sonatas are fiendishly difficult and exercise specific techniques (e.g. repeated notes).

[m1469]

I am assuming for the same reason he chose Liszt...for a different style of "sheer technical difficulty". Some of his [Scarlatti] sonatas are fiendishly difficult and exercise specific techniques (e.g. repeated notes).

Sure, but why not include Debussy, Rachmaninov and Scriabin (for example) ?  I would say that these guys also present a different style of writing that the others aren't going to necessarily prepare a person for (which is part of the reason they all wrote their own etudes).  Which is what brings me back to my initial statement; it depends on what the purpose of learning them is.

Also, repeated notes are not a technique, they are a group of notes that require technique(s) to be able to play them.  I think that the difference is important because not all repeated note groups are going to be asking of the performer to have the same intention/sound.  For example, there would be a difference in how a person plays repeated notes leggiero style vs fortissimo.

[mcgillcomposer]

Sure, but why not include Debussy, Rachmaninov and Scriabin (for example) ?  I would say that these guys also present a different style of writing that the others aren't going to necessarily prepare a person for (which is part of the reason they all wrote their own etudes).  Which is what brings me back to my initial statement; it depends on what the purpose of learning them is.

I agree.

[mcgillcomposer]

Also, repeated notes are not a technique, they are a group of notes that require technique(s) to be able to play them.  I think that the difference is important because not all repeated note groups are going to be asking of the performer to have the same intention/sound.  For example, there would be a difference in how a person plays repeated notes leggiero style vs fortissimo.

Again, I agree. We just have to be sure to extend this to all other facets of piano playing; octaves, scales, playing staccato, etc. are not techniques either. It just happens to be easier to talk about technique on a piano forum using the result instead of the method to describe which aspect of the technical discinpline one is referring to. It seems too abstract to 'talk' about specific muscle movements; it is really something that must be demonstrated. In any case, I don't want to stray too much from the initial topic.

Also, why must we assume that the author of the thread intended the list to be comprehensive?

[m1469]

Again, I agree. We just have to be sure to extend this to all other facets of piano playing; octaves, scales, playing staccato, etc. are not techniques either.

Well, of course I agree with you using my same argument from above.

[m1469]

Also, why must we assume that the author of the thread intended the list to be comprehensive?

Well, that is what I am wondering, actually -- whether or not they thought it was comprehensive -- hence the reason I asked why s/he chose these composers specifically.  I am not assuming anything.

[mcgillcomposer]

Well, that is what I am wondering, actually -- whether or not they thought it was comprehensive -- hence the reason I asked why s/he chose these composers specifically.  I am not assuming anything.

I guess we'll both have to keep wondering...for now at least. 

[m1469]

I guess we'll both have to keep wondering...for now at least. 

Or perhaps we'll just move onto something else altogether 

[mcgillcomposer]

Or perhaps we'll just move onto something else altogether 

Haha...I prefer your idea.

[ahinton]

A pianist that I know whose repertoire embraces music from many periods of keyboard history (including some of the most complex and demanding contemporary and near-contemporary works) has spoken of finding no problem within any of the works in that repertoire that are not amenable to solution by virtue of recourse to the keyboard works of Bach and Chopin.

I rest my case (or rather someone else's)...

Best,

Alistair

[ryanyee]

Sure, but why not include Debussy, Rachmaninov and Scriabin (for example) ?  I would say that these guys also present a different style of writing that the others aren't going to necessarily prepare a person for (which is part of the reason they all wrote their own etudes).  Which is what brings me back to my initial statement; it depends on what the purpose of learning them is.

Also, repeated notes are not a technique, they are a group of notes that require technique(s) to be able to play them.  I think that the difference is important because not all repeated note groups are going to be asking of the performer to have the same intention/sound.  For example, there would be a difference in how a person plays repeated notes leggiero style vs fortissimo.

this is a classical period poll only. maybe i should have another poll on the 20th century musicians.

[m1469]

this is a classical period poll only.

Why ? 


*wants to know things*

[jlh]

this is a classical period poll only. maybe i should have another poll on the 20th century musicians.

Maybe I'm not understanding... if it's classical period only, then why are Chopin, Liszt, Scarlatti, and J.S. Bach all listed as poll options? 

[slobone]

I would say Bach #1 and Chopin #2. Bach to learn voice independence, and Chopin to learn rubato (and expression in general.)

[ryanyee]

Maybe I'm not understanding... if it's classical period only, then why are Chopin, Liszt, Scarlatti, and J.S. Bach all listed as poll options? 

when i say classical, i mean the baroque to the late classical period.

[jlh]

OK, but that still leaves Chopin and Liszt...  and baroque is not classical period. 

[the lugal]

dont anyone get mad at me, but i would have to say that the bergmuller progressive studies helped me the most.........

a quick comment---alot of people that dont know a whole lot about clssical, baroque, etc. periods group them all together as "classical"........the same way as some people group rock, hip hop, r&b, etc. all together as "pop".........

my opinion,
JP

[dnephi]

I want to thank Ahinton for that insightful comment.

[imbetter]

I said Bach because I mean anybody can go learn a chopin etude and they'll be done with it. but in bach, everything must be clear and accurate and much more disciplined than chopin. Anyway, the only works by chopin that really have an "technical benefit" are the etudes.

[cmg]

I said Bach because I mean anybody can go learn a chopin etude and they'll be done with it. but in bach, everything must be clear and accurate and much more disciplined than chopin. Anyway, the only works by chopin that really have an "technical benefit" are the etudes.

*groans*

Thus spaketh the Peanut Gallery . . .

[mcgillcomposer]

I said Bach because I mean anybody can go learn a chopin etude and they'll be done with it. but in bach, everything must be clear and accurate and much more disciplined than chopin. Anyway, the only works by chopin that really have an "technical benefit" are the etudes.

The preludes, to me, are like short études.

[ramseytheii]

Anyway, the only works by chopin that really have an "technical benefit" are the etudes.

That's a bizarre statement.  Do you mean that there is nothing else in Chopin's work that is technically challenging?

Walter Ramsey

[jlh]

I said Bach because I mean anybody can go learn a chopin etude and they'll be done with it. but in bach, everything must be clear and accurate and much more disciplined than chopin.

Depends on what you want to get out of playing the etudes i guess... if you just want to half*** Chopin, then ya, be done with it. 

[amelialw]

I said Bach because I mean anybody can go learn a chopin etude and they'll be done with it. but in bach, everything must be clear and accurate and much more disciplined than chopin. Anyway, the only works by chopin that really have an "technical benefit" are the etudes.

that`s not true at all. Not just anyone can go learn a chopin etude and be done with it. In chopin etudes the notes have to be played clearly and accurately too and it takes a lot of work.

His etudes are not the one that really have a technical benefit, how about his preludes,polonaises, waltzes etc....
 

[ramseytheii]

I said Bach because I mean anybody can go learn a chopin etude and they'll be done with it. but in bach, everything must be clear and accurate and much more disciplined than chopin. Anyway, the only works by chopin that really have an "technical benefit" are the etudes.

that`s not true at all. Not just anyone can go learn a chopin etude and be done with it. In chopin etudes the notes have to be played clearly and accurately too and it takes a lot of work.

His etudes are not the one that really have a technical benefit, how about his preludes,polonaises, waltzes etc....
 

A journalist asked Rubinstein why he didn't play more Chopin Etudes, and he said, "I'd rather read a good book."

Walter Ramsey

[cmg]

A journalist asked Rubinstein why he didn't play more Chopin Etudes, and he said, "I'd rather read a good book."

Walter Ramsey

And, then again, according to critic Tim Page, Rubinstein is quoted as admitting frankly that he was "scared to death" of them.  "To do them justice is a most difficult task, which I haven't yet had the courage to attempt," he wrote to an admirer in 1962.

[slobone]

And, then again, according to critic Tim Page, Rubinstein is quoted as admitting frankly that he was "scared to death" of them.  "To do them justice is a most difficult task, which I haven't yet had the courage to attempt," he wrote to an admirer in 1962.

Rubinstein had a vast repertoire, but he tended not to specialize in the virtuoso showpieces, with the exception of some Liszt and things like the Schumann Symphonic Etudes. He didn't play as much Rachmaninoff as you might expect, but he did champion the music of other modern composers like Szymanowski, Albeniz, and Prokofiev.

Supposedly he once told Horowitz "Congratulations, you win the octave Olympics."

And in his autobiography he goes out of his way to give the impression that he never liked putting in long hours of practice, preferring to enjoy the luxurious life with his rich friends.

Whether this is true or not, I don't know -- it certainly seems as though he must have put in a lot of time at the keyboard somewhere along the line. Although he claims to have learnt the Franck Symphonic Variations just from reading the score on a train, so who knows.

In any event he's certainly more famous for bringing out the real inner beauty of the pieces he played than for having laid down a lot of notes.

As far as I can tell, this link gives a pretty complete list of his repertoire:

https://www.answers.com/topic/the-rubinstein-collection-limited-edition-box-set?cat=entertainment

[slobone]

And anyway, if technique is the only issue, why not stick to Czerny? By the time you get to Opus 800, you should be able to do just about anything...

[mcgillcomposer]

And anyway, if technique is the only issue, why not stick to Czerny? By the time you get to Opus 800, you should be able to do just about anything...

Wow, that's naïve. Czerny's music is awful and consists of nothing more than a bunch of unimaginative permutations of scale figurations.

If you want to waste your time on these kinds of exercises, at least play those of someone with a little imagination...Brahms maybe.

[slobone]

Wow, that's naïve. Czerny's music is awful and consists of nothing more than a bunch of unimaginative permutations of scale figurations.

If you want to waste your time on these kinds of exercises, at least play those of someone with a little imagination...Brahms maybe.

Thanks for calling me naive! I love being insulted by somebody I've never even met! Made my day.

But I'm afraid you're full of sh*t. Czerny wrote a huge variety of studies that address nearly every technical problem there is in piano playing (except possibly leaning over and plucking the strings with your fingers.)

Are you sure you're not thinking of Hanon? Assuming you're capable of thought at all, of course.

[slobone]

Oh, and PS to my note on Rubinstein. He didn't record the Chopin Etudes, but he did play some of them in concert. Here's a video of a lovely performance of 25/1:

And here's 10/5, which he doesn't seem to be enjoying very much:

[imbetter]

im talking about works that improve technique.

[mcgillcomposer]

Thanks for calling me naive! I love being insulted by somebody I've never even met! Made my day.

But I'm afraid you're full of sh*t. Czerny wrote a huge variety of studies that address nearly every technical problem there is in piano playing (except possibly leaning over and plucking the strings with your fingers.)

Are you sure you're not thinking of Hanon? Assuming you're capable of thought at all, of course.

I wouldn't exactly call it an insult; I was merely referring to your statement about Czerny. Also, I was not thinking of Hanon, but the same thing could be said of him.

In any case, since you're an expert on the subject, perhaps you can suggest Czerny studies that will greatly facilitate the learning of the following:

Brahms-Paganini Variations - book II, 7th variation
Paganini-Liszt - La Campanella
Chopin - Op. 10 No. 1
Ligeti - der Zauberlehrling étude
Beethoven - Hammerklavier sonata, exposition
Ravel - Gaspard de la Nuit (Scarbo)
Bach - chromatic fantasy and fugue

Thank you in advance for sharing your expertise on this matter.