Etudes...

[shadow88]

Hi.
I have to play Etudes, every 2 weeks a new one. I don't doubt my teacher - I just ask if you think this order of Etudes is the right to get virtuosic:
Clementi: Gradus ad Parnassum
Moszkowski Etudes
Chopin Etudes
Liszt Etudes
(Czerny Etudes)
(Liszt Grand Etudes + Paganini Etudes)

Thanks
Dominik

[gerryjay]

hey shadow!

i´m not a virtuoso myself, so trust me if you want to...

serious: there is no "virtuosic-o-matic". as far as i know (after years reading books, and interviews, and methods, and the like), you must construct your own way to develop your technique, since it´s much more related to how you play than to what you play.

of course, there are two elements that can help a lot or mess things up: a good teacher and a proper selection of repertory. taken for granted that you have a good teacher, this order of etudes is absolutely normal generally speaking. i mean, you don´t need to play all gradus to start chopin, nor to play all chopin to start liszt. it´s up to your teacher devise, as i wrote, a selection of that which will guide you through the main difficulties in piano playing, and hence giving you (if you are able to do so) bravura.

notice that there are professors/authors who completely dismiss the studies up to chopin (including clementi and moszkowski). without discussing if they are right or not, be aware that to develop your technique you don´t need necessarily to play those etudes. that´s about playing everything, and getting always the most from every single piece in your repertory.

then, i think the list is good but perhaps the idea of playing a great study (liszt´s mazeppa for instance) in two weeks is not (but i leave that one to the guys who already have done that).

a remark: what czerny could possibly be doing after liszt and chopin in your list? 

hope that helps, and i´m looking forward to another answers to your question, since that´s a very interesting topic.

best regards!

[shadow88]

the ones i put in () are the ones i dont know if i really must practice them and i don't have to do it in 2 weeks then. the 2 weeks are just for the gradus ad parnassum, and i dont play them in the end tempo.

[gerry]

This approach seems a bit "formulaic" to me in that I believe the time spent on this could be better spent on a more rounded repertoire the would include etudes as well as individual pieces that reinforce similar technical challenges. In any case, if you must follow this plan, I suggest taking care to choose among them those that favor both hands equally. Too many etudes seem to 90% favor right-hand development so try to include the left-hand ones as much as possible. Also don't fall into the trap of treating these etudes as just busywork demanded by the teacher so that you can go on to more serious works. Concentrate on making music of them as much as you would on the performance pieces in your core repertoire.

[dnephi]

Personally, I'm doing, in order, Chopin 10-2, 10-4, Moszkowski 72-6, and Schumann Toccata as the etude pieces to get my technique to a particular threshold.  I generally keep an etude in my repertoire.

[amelialw]

well, you don't need to learn all of those, I would say that the most important ones that you have to learn are the chopin and liszt etudes. If you have that much time learn extra Bach pieces, sonatas etc., trust me, you will end up a much better pianist when you are well-rounded rather than focusing on a specific area. Etudes, yes are very benificial but you still need to have the solid grounding from the other composers.

[rhapsody4]

I'm really not convinced that simply playing etudes is really the be all and end all of piano technique. Certainly the number listed is far more than would be required to develop a virtuosic technique! In fact, I don't really see the need for learning them unless you need to, in order to develop a specific part of technique - learning an etude for the sake of it is not really a beneficial process. I say this, because to learn a new etude every two weeks for Chopin would take a year to learn the whole book. That does not leave a huge amount of time to develop other repetoire.

I would certainly suggest learning a few to develop technique, but the whole lot is not completely necessary, unless you are thinking of becoming professional or entering a music school of course.

Alternatively, if you want to do the works because you think they are amazing pieces of music that you could interpret effectively, then that is also another matter entirely. (However, that is likely to take more than two weeks per etude also!)

I don't doubt what your teacher says, but it could lead to having a rather closed repetoire of empty virtuosity if not complemented with other types of piece.

Good luck,
Rhapsody.

[gerry]

I don't doubt what your teacher says, but it could lead to having a rather closed repertoire of empty virtuosity if not complemented with other types of piece.

Well-put Rhapsody. It would almost be as effective to learn a few core etudes but also have on-hand a battery of good exercises that deal with specific technical development but don't require the hours of learning--hours that I still believe could be better spent on other things. It would appear an admirable regimen but please make sure this is the best use of your time.

Shadow88, you made a couple of statements that, to me, speak volumes for what you're going though right now:

"I don't doubt my teacher"
"...you think this order of etudes is right to get virtuosic?"

First of all, if your teacher is so redoubtable, he/she should be able to answer this question. Secondly, your desire to "get virtuosic" speaks to a naivete that betrays youthful misunderstanding of what it takes to become an artist. If you choose to continue with this regimen, be very sure that you are doing so because you genuinely love these pieces and want to play them as musically as possible - not just as a means to an end, or as gerryjay so eloquently put it, attempting a "virtuosic-o-matic" approach to your development and career.

[mjin1]

Man, I would never want to learn a set bunch of etudes unless you're trying to eventually make an album or something.

Or you just like the pieces of course..

I don't know... like. I think grinding to becoming a 'virtuoso' doesn't happen, Many people can probably play all of those etudes wonderfully and aren't anywhere near what I'd consider to be a virtuoso.

I think you should just take it slow and concentrate on whichever ones you think would improve your current technique and would enjoy playing, or whatever specific etude your teacher thinks you should learn, i guess..

Mastering piano technique I think is probably similiar to mastering free hand anatomy in art, it just takes many years of practice and time to fully understand it and develop it. however, in piano there is more physical action obviously but the idea is just the same.. You see people who can draw ridiculously accurate freehand anatomy from a single pose at like age 20.. Ok, well ask them to draw a different pose and they can't. They don't have the entire figure worked out yet.