Should I focus on studies, exercises, etudes and technical work?

[toby1]

Ok, I know that wikipedia is not a great but I got this from it

"His most famous student was Franz Liszt, who began studying with Czerny at age nine. Czerny was Liszt's only teacher. Upon taking him on as a student, Czerny forced Liszt to abandon all repertoire for the first few months, insisting he play only scales and exercises to strengthen his technique."

From here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Czerny

Would this be a useful thing to do? To abandon more musical repertoire for etudes and didactic pieces for a period?

 I'm not thinking of abandoning all my current repertoire but maybe focussing on exercises, studies and etudes once I finish my current repertoire.

 I just started working on Czerny Op 718 aka 24 Studies for the Left hand and I'm find it surprisingly challenging for my technique even though I'm not playing them anywhere near full speed. My lesson isn't for another 2 days and I thought I'd throw my question out to the internet.

[worov]

Bernhard says something about Liszt in another thread.

Bernhard speaking :

"Here is my take on the Liszt´s story:

When Liszt was brought to Czerny at age 12, he was already a full fledged pianist, with a few years of concert experience behind him. He played with great ease the most difficult repertory, having been allowed to develop his personal technique intuitively. The result was that he had found movements and motions that were completely natural for him.

That is when he had the great misfortune of meeting Herr Czerny. Czerny was horrified by Lizst´s natural and comfortable movements, since they did not conform to his own fixed ideas. He was convinced one had to play with one´s fingers and generally experience the utmost discomfort when playing. He proceeded to “correct” Lizst´s technique over the next few years, and Lizst complied and actually became very good at playing with a very limited and ultimately inappropriate technique.

In his twentys, he had become just another indifferent pianist playing with an inapropriate technique in Paris, just like so many other pianists in town. This was Czerny´s legacy.

Had Lizst died then, no one would have heard of him. He would just be another mediocre pianist amongst mediocre pianists.

But then two momentous things happened. Pay attention, exercise supporters, because there is a moral and cautionary tale for you all here.

Had Lizst not gone through these two momentous happenings and not died, he would still have been a mediocre pianist, and as he got older, his uncomfortable, inappropriate Czerny style technique would deteriorate and again we would never have heard of him.

Look at this thread to see the fate that would have befallen Liszt (and to a great extent has befallen Cortot):

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,13208.msg143740.html#msg143740
(an account on how Cramer’s technique deteriorated with age)

So what were these two life changing events?

It was his meeting with two men. Nothing would ever be the same after that.

The first meeting was with Chopin.

Chopin – like Lizst in his early years – had developed a highly idiossincratic technique (= way to move) when playing the piano. But contrary to Liszt he had not had the benefit of a Czerny to “correct” him. When he first arrived in Paris at 20, the most famous pianist of the day was Kalkbrenner. Kalkbrenner watched Chopin play and like Czerny with Liszt, was horrified at the neglect of Chopin´s technique. He offered to teach Chopin and estimated that in four years time he could turn Chopin into a piano virtuoso like the many swarming Paris. Chopin was actually tempted by this offer (he was impressed with Kalkbrenner´s playing), but in the end declined.

The interesting thing was that all those virtuoso pianists could not play to satisfaction any of Chopin´s pieces, in spite of their apparent superior technique. This was not lost on Lizst. Apparently Chopin´s idiossincratic technique was necessary for the correct rendition of his pieces.

The second meeting was with Paganini.

After witnessing Paganini in concert, Lizst was so overwhelmed that he vouched to do on the piano what Paganini did on the violin.

And here is where Liszt phenomenal technique starts.

Not with Czerny, because it became completely obvious to him that Czerny was completely inadequate to emulate Paganini, but with Chopin, because the key to the transference of Paganini´s umbelievable virtuosity on the violin to the piano, lies not with Czerny´s limited and limiting pedagogy, but with Chopin´s weird way of playing the piano.

It is now that Lizst will retire from concertizing for a while and feverishly pursue Paganini style virtuosity for up to ten hours a day.

But what do you think Lizst was doing for ten hours? Do you really believe he was practising Czerny or Hanon/Dohnanyi/Cortot types of finger exercises mindlessly hour after hour? Don´t be silly. If this would work, he would already have been the Lizst of legends. After all he had been there and done that with Czerny.

No. What he was doing during these ten hours was investigative practice. Not repetitive mind numbing repetitions of some finger pattern, but intelligent, totally focused piano work. He knew the result he was after, and he knew that in order to achieve it he had to recover the technique of his early years, the one that Czerny had destroyed. Chopin had shown him this, and Paganini was the ultimate proof that this was the only way to go.

When he was finished with the process (it didn´t take that long), he had so completely transformed his technique that it was a different pianist altogether that emerged from that practice room. And everyone noticed.

Lizst always refused to teach technique. He knew that the process through which he had acquired his technique could not be systematized. He knew Czerny was crap (and therefore never told his students to go through it - but being a good, polite boy, he never bashed his teacher for it). He knew that technique was highly personal, highly idiossincratic and could only be achieved by a process of intense investigation as he himself had gone through. Hence he never wrote anything about it.

His masterclasses – in which he never discussed technique – consisted of listening to the student play, and then playing himself in such a superior fashion that the student had to face the same experience he had faced when he first listened to Paganini: “sh*t, I am crap!” (incidentally, Chopin used the same pedagogical approach in his lessons)

After that time of intense, investigative practice – we do not know for sure but I am prepared to bet it was all based on repertory and most likely Chopin´s pieces – he never “practised” again. He had discovered – or perhaps rediscovered – his natural way of playing, and it felt so easy that all he had to do was play. And play he did!

Anyone who believes Liszt practised ten hours of exercises a day until the end of his life should consider this: Where would he have had the time? He was traveling around, bedding whatever pretty face happened to cross his way, running away from husbands, fathers, authorities, concertising, composing prolifically a daring, highly complex musical oeuvre, supporting new pianists and composers, teaching and even dedicating himself to a religious life.

To think that Lizst technique owes anything to Czerny is simply laughable. If so, every Czerny player would have become a Liszt by now.

Best wishes,
Bernhard."


Source :

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=19043.msg206386#msg206386

[pytheamateur]

I'm getting more and more unconvinced by the usefulness of the Czerny studies and the likes.  A couple of years ago, I bought an expensive DVD course by a pianist who is a strong advocate of spending a huge amount of time every day on Czerny studies and different finger exercises.  This is supposed to prep you up to play advanced repertoire so you don't have to spend as much time every time learning new pieces.

How much this is false became apparently only after I bought another expensive DVD course from her on Rachmaninov's Second Piano Concerto.  Here, she was clearly out of practice, and she did not even try to play the whole thing in tempo.  There's nothing wrong with that of course, as such a concerto requires a huge amount of practice.  However, the point is it is clear that despite all these Czerny exercises, she still cannot play Rach 2, without having practised Rach 2!

So the morale of the story appears to be that there is no study that will specifically prepare you technically to play Beethoven's Appasionata, except those exercises that you devise yourself from the actual piece itself.

[worov]

Same here. I never practise them.

[iansinclair]

I tend to agree with most of the foregoing comments.  Each of use is put together differently, both physically and mentally.  One may possibly get to the point of a certain technical virtuousity ignoring that -- that is, by practicing Czerny or some similar technique -- but one can never get beyond that.  Indeed, if one really observes, a highly individualistic technique is one of the things which distinguishes the great artists, whether they are pianists, violinists, french horn players -- or dancers or even athletes -- from the very good, never mind the rest of us.  If you aim to be great, that greatness must come from your own self, and not from channeling someone else!

[j_menz]

There is nothing you can learn from specifically "didactic" pieces that you cannot learn equally well in real music. The reverse is not true, and rather less pleasant.

[toby1]

Ok interesting answers so far but I'd like to see some references so I can follow up Bernhardt's claims.

So from the account I take it that Liszt did spend a long period working on improving his technique but exactly how is unclear. It's described as "investigative practice" but that sounds to me similar to Anders Ericsson's writing about "deliberate practice" ie aiming to do things that are currently just outside your ability range. What he actually did might not have been documented though.

I have a weak left hand myself and I saw Czerny's Studies for the Left Hand as a kind of directed practice to improve my muscle control by taking on the challenges.  The response is very interesting though and has gotten me thinking. I think I'll email a lecturer at my local university and see if I can get a response. I did that once when I was looking for a guitar teacher by asking them to pass me onto one of their students and I found a good teacher that way.

Also to be honest, I would be happy to be "just another virtuoso" 

I'm definitely not one at the moment and I want to get better

[ajspiano]

Investigative practice is more along the lines of technical experimentation than deliberate learning of well chosen material. The point is testing out how your body move and which movements function best to meet a musical end.

It doesn't matter whether you play czerny studies or anything else so long as you push musical boundaries and experiment technically to find the best way to achieve the musical result. Czerny studies are not so well recommended because they are not musically superior repertoire.

[hmpiano]

So from the account I take it that Liszt did spend a long period working on improving his technique but exactly how is unclear.

Certainly when Liszt was young he practiced every minute he could.  He carried a couple of octaves with him to practice on the train/coach.

[sucom]

Hi
It's true that Czerny exercises will limber up your fingers to a certain extent and some of them will strengthen your wrists. However.... my teacher was Hungarian, training at the Liszt Academy in Budapest, coming down a direct line of teachers from Liszt himself.  If his thoughts are anything to go by, his attitude towards Czerny exercises was pretty much non existent.  In other words, he NEVER used them! One thing he did push were Chopin's etudes.  I had to learn nearly all of them, from memory, while under my teacher's direction at music college.

I think his belief in acquiring a good technique consisted of playing repertoire rather than exercises because repertoire contains all the exercises you need in some form or another, and at the same time, cause you to also consider musical expression rather than just bland finger exercises.

I used to play Czerny studies in my own time at home - they did limber up my fingers but they certainly didn't offer or teach me as much as pieces by other composers - Ravel, Debussy, Beethoven, Mozart, Scarlatti, Bach, Chopin, Schumann, Dohnanyi, etc

My advice would be to take a rounded approach - give everything a go but not to the exclusion of anything else.

[danhuyle]

Playing studies doesn't make you good.

One thing he did push were Chopin's etudes.  I had to learn nearly all of them, from memory, while under my teacher's direction at music college.

I think his belief in acquiring a good technique consisted of playing repertoire rather than exercises because repertoire contains all the exercises you need in some form or another, and at the same time, cause you to also consider musical expression rather than just bland finger exercises.

Lucky you having a teacher that pushes you to learn all Chopin etudes. When I studied piano at university, most students just did 2 Czerny studies for their mid year exam because Chopin Etudes are way too difficult.

The question now becomes - Does doing exercises, studies and technical work grant you the ability to play other pieces in the piano repertoire?

My answer is no. Is there any set of studies that have a magical ability to allow you to play many pieces? I don't know of any.

The reason I find myself practicing Liszt and Scriabin Etudes, and a few Chopin Etudes, have nothing to do with building technique or some technical exercise. I play them because they're so good and you're doing yourself a disservice by not playing them.

To answer the topic question - No. Play pieces you like and ones that mean something to you.

[pytheamateur]

Well, here's what the latest winner of the Chopin International Compeition has to say about Czerny:

"Czerny studies were also at the very top of the list in my education. If you play the Czerny studies, you can play almost anything – Chopin, Liszt, etc."

Full interview:https://www.examiner.com/article/interview-with-pianist-yulianna-avdeeva

[sucom]

Well, here's what the latest winner of the Chopin International Compeition has to say about Czerny:

"Czerny studies were also at the very top of the list in my education. If you play the Czerny studies, you can play almost anything – Chopin, Liszt, etc."

Full interview:https://www.examiner.com/article/interview-with-pianist-yulianna-avdeeva

I think it's very interesting how people have different views of what works for them and I think this is the crux of the matter - to do what works for you as an individual.  I used to practise Czerny exercises at home on top of my other pieces I was learning with my teacher, but I do recall that when I took the Czerny book to one of my lessons, he put the book aside and requested different things for me to practise. 

The thing is, though, that having several pages of one particular exercise isn't that much different from meeting a technically difficult passage in any repertoire.  Master a particular technique repeated through several pages of an exercise or master the same technique found in one page of any repertoire - they both have to be mastered and the technique is learnt using either fashion.  Learning it while practising repertoire is preferable to me, although I have to admit that I did practise Czerny myself.

At the end of the day, I think it's important to consider practising it all!  In this way, technique is going to be mastered one way or another. I think it's a mistake to practise just one particular technique at a time, or learn one, or even two pieces at a time.  In addition, while learning these pieces, I think it's important to play as much other music as you can get your hands on because ultimately these other pieces, studies, etudes, exercises, etc, will help you master the one or two you are currently learning.

[blazekenny]

In its very very basics, playing the piano is basicaly Athleticism of little muscles in fingers (well, not just fingers, entire upper body)
These etudes simply serve as a gym for these muscles. The muscles are the ones who are suppossed to play the technique, not your will.
For example, when I was about to play the 6th hungarian rhapsody. I already had decent sounding and also fast octaves, but 2-3 Czerny etudes gave me so much more endurance. Every Czerny etude could be a huge benefit. However, you would know if you played the g# minor Chopin etude. It´s f_cking visible if you prepared for it or not.

by the way, try looking into the Liszt b minor sonata. It´s basically a meeting of all op.740 pieces by Czerny

[j_menz]

In its very very basics, playing the piano is basicaly Athleticism of little muscles in fingers (well, not just fingers, entire upper body)

I you think you have little muscles in your fingers, I suggest you consult a doctor(or the nice people at Guiness)  immediately. You'll be the first human to do so.

[blazekenny]

I you think you have little muscles in your fingers, I suggest you consult a doctor(or the nice people at Guiness)  immediately. You'll be the first human to do so.

If hands arent made of little muscles, then the hands would be very clumsy in fingerwork.
Muscular-wise, the hand is f_cking complex, one does noe simply fool an anatomic education

[goodtone]

My advice would be to practice pieces that inspire you. That way you will find ways to overcome the difficulties because you are driven through a love of the music and practising will be a joy. On paper working on a hundred studies in a linear fashion may seem good way to go but in reality you'd likely be so bored after a couple of months you'll never want to touch the keys again.

I made the same mistake with the classical guitar. Endess scales and arpeggios numbed my love of the instrument such that I lost the passion for it . I didn't pick it up again for several years afterwards. As for muscles in the hand I never picked up the guitar again for years but after a couple of weeks practice I could play just as well as before ! I suddenly realised that it's not about muscles but about the mind.

[ajspiano]

If hands arent made of little muscles, then the hands would be very clumsy in fingerwork.
Muscular-wise, the hand is f_cking complex, one does noe simply fool an anatomic education

J_menz said fingers, not hands..  Whether its really that relevant to your playing or not the muscles are not in the fingers, they are in the hands and arms.

..And your swearing isn't any less offensive just because you replace a single letter with an underscore.

[j_menz]

one does noe simply fool an anatomic education

Then I suggest you get one.

The significance of where the muscles are located, and how they operate the fingers is in the degree of independence that naturally occurs and in the strength available. In practice, this generally makes little difference to how one goes about playing, but some schools of "techniqe" do appear to ignore certain anatomical realities.

[49410enrique]

...swearing isn't any less offensive just because you replace a single letter with an underscore.

agreed. which is why i prefer the international standard symbols per the 'other' periodic table


alt view enlarged with zoom (if your os has that little + cursor on images)
https://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/162/6/8/the_periodic_table_of_swearing_by_snow_katt-d532qep.jpg

[ajspiano]

agreed. which is why i prefer the international standard symbols per the 'other' periodic table

Lol. excellent.

To be honest I wouldn't normally care, but since there is a piano street filter for this purpose..  the underscore suggests to me knowledge of the filter, and deliberate measures to get around it.. and in situation where the word makes no difference at all.. 

suitable alternatives may have been "really" or "very" or "rather" - or just no word there at all.