Practise slow, how slow is slow för you

[bachkrille]

When you pracitise slow. How slow do you do it? What is your experience of slow practise.
Anyone who know how slow great pianist did practise a slow tempo.
Christer Wallstrom

[awesom_o]

The slower  I practice, the faster I think.

[dima_76557]

When you pracitise slow. How slow do you do it? What is your experience of slow practise.

So slowly that an outsider has trouble determining what piece I am practising. Depending on the piece, I may wait until one sound dies out completely before going to the next one. During that time I try to concentrate on maximum balance, convenience, etc., seeing to it that the arch structure of my hands and fingers does not collapse.

Anyone who know how slow great pianist did practise a slow tempo.

I believe Rachmaninov took about 30 seconds per bar in Chopin's thirds etude, which is pretty slow.

[indianajo]

I go as low as 30 bpm=quarter note sometimes.  If I'm having trouble figuring out crossovers in a run I may drop rhythm entirely and see what I can do without straining tendons & joints too much.  There are several 2,5, 3,2,3 ,5 descending runs in Passacaglia & fugue in C min p3. There is a  4,5,4,5,4,5 parallel to 1,2,1,2,1,2 third run up and down.  Strange to figure it out but wonderful when you hear it played. 

[bachkrille]

Thanks. Very interesting.
Christer

[andreslr6]

So slowly that an outsider has trouble determining what piece I am practising.

Yep, that sentence alone sums it up.

My teacher once told me that his teacher made him play all of the Chopin etude op.10 no.4 at about 50 bpm the 16th, and that at the first mistake he made him start it all over again until he was able to play it all perfectly. Imagine how long did it took him, probably about 10 minutes to play a 2 minutes piece.

Of course, the exercise is about concentration and consciousness of what each finger and each movement is doing.

[danhuyle]

Slow enough so that I can play through the music from start to finish.

[timothy42b]

Half speed.

If half speed is too fast, the piece is too advanced. 

[nyiregyhazi]

Half speed.

If half speed is too fast, the piece is too advanced.  

Sure. Which would probably write off all of the faster preludes and fugues (not to mention passages of Rachmaninoff's 3rd concerto) for virtually everyone, if applied at first sitting. Oversimplified and thoroughly artificial rules of thumb are never a replacement for common sense.

[indianajo]

Half speed.
If half speed is too fast, the piece is too advanced. 

I'm not interested in learning a lot of boring student pieces.  The real art, or nothing.  I tried it the graded progression way when I was 8 to 14.  I don't play most of those pieces anymore, mostly boring.  A half dozen exceptions.  At $25 a week I supposed the graded progression minimized my Mother's outlay of precious cash, and allowed the piano teacher to show me at Piano Guild events.  Since I don't take lessons now, however long it takes to learn something good is of no importance. 

[johnnybarkshop]

To paraphrase 'awesom-o', the slower practise the more fluently I think.

[g_s_223]

GOOD TOPIC.

I play as slow as necessary to have:
- zero mistakes
- correct rhythm (note durations)
- proper finger legato (minimal pedal)

Also of course HS then HT, which are often very different tempi initially.

[j_menz]

- correct rhythm (note durations)

That's timing, not rhythm. Don't confuse the two.

[gvans]

I've heard the story of Rachmaninoff practicing Chopin's Op. 25, No. 6, and a visiting friend listening to him through an open window outside his apartment in NYC...it's true, the friend could not identify the piece, Mr. Rachmaninoff played it so very, very slowly. When asked why he practiced that way, the maestro answered, "Simple. I have a concert coming up in Carnegie Hall."

I read a biography of Svatislov Richter recently. My impression was he often hammered out a fresh page "a tempo," believing that fingerings that worked fine at slow tempos often failed at speed. He would work out a page at a time at tempo, often forgetting to link the pages up before a concert--not that it mattered given his abilities.

So there you have it. One might conclude it's good to practice both fast and slow, just as it's good to play scales and arpgeggios with a wide variety of tempos, rhythms, and articulations.

[j_menz]

So there you have it. One might conclude it's good to practice both fast and slow,

One might also conclude that Rachmaninoff did what he did because it worked for him, and Richter did what he did because it worked for him.

Find what works for you and concentrate on that, rather than working in ways that just don't because someone else finds them useful.

[ajspiano]

I believe Rachmaninov took about 30 seconds per bar in Chopin's thirds etude, which is pretty slow.

Which while applicable to most works, is VERY applicable to that one (and ones other similar figures) - being about the only way to give enough processing time to work on ensuring that both notes within the third are sounded simultaneously, and that the mechanism is suitably balanced over each, and the previously used fingers are properly released.

I would argue that there is a speed (which is not very fast at all) at which this becomes very difficult and the body is overly inclined to use more muscle memory and less deliberate action.

.....

The moral of my story being that Rachmaninov surely was not simply playing the notes at a slower tempo - I suggest his mind was in full flight. Aspects of which you wisely pointed out above your bit about Sergei.

[nyiregyhazi]

One might also conclude that Rachmaninoff did what he did because it worked for him, and Richter did what he did because it worked for him.

Find what works for you and concentrate on that, rather than working in ways that just don't because someone else finds them useful.

I agree in a way, but how many find what works for them? if a pianist isn't playing virtuoso repertoire to a high level, you have to seriously question whether they have the first clue about what would best serve them.

99 percent of the time what a person believes "works" for them is nothing more than the pattern of limitation upon their progress that they have settled into.

[j_menz]

but how many find what works for them?

How many look?  Part of the process of learning anything should be to learn how to learn it - what methods and strategies work for you and what ones don't.

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm not interested in learning a lot of boring student pieces.  The real art, or nothing.  I tried it the graded progression way when I was 8 to 14.  I don't play most of those pieces anymore, mostly boring.  A half dozen exceptions.  At $25 a week I supposed the graded progression minimized my Mother's outlay of precious cash, and allowed the piano teacher to show me at Piano Guild events.  Since I don't take lessons now, however long it takes to learn something good is of no importance. 

While I disagree with the poster you replied to, that's not a healthy attitude. you need to be mastering easier pieces quickly, or its your own progress you're putting a stop to. Too many pianists hide from their lack of significant progress by putting hard music on the stand- which easily improves session by session quite simply because it's quite so far from being mastered. truly sorting out an easier work is the real challenge and also what gets you to the point where you don't have to tell yourself it's okay to need a year on one piece (which may never get there anyway). If it's truly of no importance to seek the maximum improvement to your skills then fine. However, you might ultimately find that what seems hard now could be learned in a matter of days, if you sort out your basics.

[tinashej]

I practise at 3/4 the speed mostly and slightly reduce if the music is quite difficult. That works wonders for me 

[nyiregyhazi]

How many look?  Part of the process of learning anything should be to learn how to learn it - what methods and strategies work for you and what ones don't.

Exactly- that's why we look at how others use extreme slowness and short fast bursts etc, if we want to find it. I wouldn't advise playing a whole page at speed right off like Richter, but the world is chocked full of pianists who never dare to expose and confront their true technical problems because slow practise "works" for them. virtually all successful pianists know how to either go slow and precise or how to test instincts. Few get that through their own devices unless actively led out of their norm. most average amateur pianists are either safe or reckless by nature and spend weeks on a piece going in circles because of that. they need to be pushed to different extremes of the spectrum if they are to thrive. the very problem is sticking with what they THINK works for them, but which actually limits them.

[timothy42b]

Half speed.

If half speed is too fast, the piece is too advanced. 

1/2 speed is not the only possibility.  I sometimes use 1/4 speed or 3/4 speed as well, and the very slow speeds can be helpful while testing memory.

There's nothing magic about half speed.  .5 times tempo is not significantly different from .45 times tempo or .55 times tempo.  It does make the math much easier.

What is useful is tying the practice tempo in some fixed relationship to the desired tempo, rather than a random speed.  This also helps you be sure you are playing correct rhythms at the slower speeds.

The worst thing you can do is the incremental speedup.  That myth should have been laid to rest centuries ago, but it persists. 

[nyiregyhazi]

1/2 speed is not the only possibility.  I sometimes use 1/4 speed or 3/4 speed as well, and the very slow speeds can be helpful while testing memory.

There's nothing magic about half speed.  .5 times tempo is not significantly different from .45 times tempo or .55 times tempo.  It does make the math much easier.

What is useful is tying the practice tempo in some fixed relationship to the desired tempo, rather than a random speed.  This also helps you be sure you are playing correct rhythms at the slower speeds.

The worst thing you can do is the incremental speedup.  That myth should have been laid to rest centuries ago, but it persists.  

Incremental speed building is fine. It's just essential to also do small bits fast to check movement quality along the way. The fact that it shouldn't be the only tool in your box does not make it the "worst" thing or a "myth"

Also- why does it matter whether the relationship is a rounder number or a random 0.59324 of the  speed? I don't personally care what the relationship is. I practise at what is right for a passage at the time- not with any consideration of ratios.

[timothy42b]

"

Also- why does it matter whether the relationship is a rounder number or a random 0.59324 of the  speed? I don't personally care what the relationship is.

I'm going to explain this v.e.r.y. slowly for the comprehension challenged.

Of which we have a few.

Suppose the correct tempo is Quarter = 90 bpm.  Or 91.  Or 91.25378.  Doesn't matter for the purposes of discussion.  I won't get into why that speed is right and some other speed not right, just assume that it's right. 

Let's use 91.25378. 

What, then, would half speed be?  Quarter speed?

Simple.  Half speed is Eighth Note = 91.25378.  Quarter would be Sixteenth Note = 91.25378.  Double would be Half Note = 91.25378.

See how simple that was? 

You need not touch the metronome.  No calculus is required.    Leave your abacus alone for what it is designed (I use mine to keep track of what hymn verse I'm on, if the choir is mumbling the words). 

What about speeding up to 92.25378?  Just don't do it.  There is nothing gained over just playing 91.25378 a second time.  Make bold corrections and if they don't work, identify why and fix it.   

[nyiregyhazi]

I'm going to explain this v.e.r.y. slowly for the comprehension challenged.

Of which we have a few.

Suppose the correct tempo is Quarter = 90 bpm.  Or 91.  Or 91.25378.  Doesn't matter for the purposes of discussion.  I won't get into why that speed is right and some other speed not right, just assume that it's right.  

Let's use 91.25378.  

What, then, would half speed be?  Quarter speed?

Simple.  Half speed is Eighth Note = 91.25378.  Quarter would be Sixteenth Note = 91.25378.  Double would be Half Note = 91.25378.

See how simple that was?  

You need not touch the metronome.  No calculus is required.    Leave your abacus alone for what it is designed (I use mine to keep track of what hymn verse I'm on, if the choir is mumbling the words).  

What about speeding up to 92.25378?  Just don't do it.  There is nothing gained over just playing 91.25378 a second time.  Make bold corrections and if they don't work, identify why and fix it.    

this doesn't either deal with or demonstrate any "comprehension" of my perfectly explicit question - which was why it matters in the least whether it's a round 0.5 or a more detailed complex ratio (which would stem not from extreme analysis but from not giving the slightest damn about the synthetic premise of needing a precise ratio). I didn't bring decimals into the tempo mark. I brought them into the proportion, as part of a request for you to clarify what difference it would supposedly make. you claimed something about the rhythm being more applicable in exact ratios? why? why is playing the correct rhythm at 0.5123 of the final tempo any more or less meaningful than doing so at 0.5? I'm trying my best, but I'm utterly bemused by what difference it would supposedly make. please elaborate on this baffling premise- not with irrelevant calculations about decimals in metronome marks but with an explanation of why round ratios are in any way preferable to "random" ones.

[nyiregyhazi]

also you mentioned 3/4 speed? so what happens then? you feel an identical tempo but perceive 1.3333333 beats per duration of the pulse? Any dubious benefits of doubling or halving are out the window here.

sorry, but this is ridiculous nonsense, best reserved for foundation level beginners if even that. A pianist who is incapable of feeling more than one internal tempo (and who must therefore work only in simplistic ratios in order to preserve the same flow) is going nowhere fast. It's ridiculous to think that a person would be so inept as to always be best off diving exactly into 2s and 4s as if they couldn't cope with maintaining rhythm in any different pulse. anyone with half a musical brain can adapt to a different rate of movement and get straight into the feel for the new flow, be it based on a simplistic halving or doubling or one that is wildly different.


you can't just take any old thing that has a few positives in the right situation and go basing practise in general on such a truly silly set of irrational and counterproductive limitations. A good idea ceases to be a good idea in the instant it stops merely offering one set of options and starts imposing deranged limitations.

[pianoman53]

Discussion when you're 100% sure you're right is nonsense. How about, just for once, leaving it at "okay, I disagree, but respect your opinion"? To never do that, that's what nonsense.

Personally, I'm not too much into exactly how much slower I practice. When I practice slowly, I have a few 'rules':
- listening on the note I'm playing, and on how the next one should sound.
- to not lose the 'inner power' and make it into an exercise.
- feeling that the technique I'm using is the moat suitable one for the place.

Sometimes they occur at the same time, and sometimes I only think about one of them. When it's only about hitting the correct note, I stop.

[brogers70]

Discussion when you're 100% sure is nonsense. How about, just for once, leaving it at "okay, I disagree, but respect your opinion"? To never do that, that's what nonsense.

Nonsense? Are you kidding. There's a veritable epidemic of new, incompetent, amateur pianists capable of playing only at 30, 60, 90, or 120 bpm, all because of practicing in integer ratios. It's ruining music. Someone must prevent these poor young musicians from being mislead by the terribly damaging advice of folks such as timothy42b. Fortunately, we have a hero who will speed to their rescue......

[nyiregyhazi]

Discussion when you're 100% sure is nonsense. How about, just for once, leaving it at "okay, I disagree, but respect your opinion"? To never do that, that's what nonsense.

Personally, I'm not too much into exactly how much slower I practice. When I practice slowly, I have a few 'rules':
- listening on the note I'm playing, and on how the next one should sound.
- to not lose the 'inner power' and make it into an exercise.
- feeling that the technique I'm using is the moat suitable one for the place.

Sometimes they occur at the same time, and sometimes I only think about one of them. When it's only about hitting the correct note, I stop.

The only thing I'm sure about is how silly it is to restrict yourself to practise in simplistic sudvisions at all times. Unless a pianist harbours the idea that the greatest issue in music is whether you can adhere to a metronomic backing track, while playing the keyboard, you need to be able to slip effortlessly in and out  of tempos that have no simplistic ratio.

The fact that this poster is constantly saying to do X and NOT Y is exactly what I find find so objectionable. Success comes from a variety of approaches in a sound context. Not from turning a useful exercise for providing foundation level rhythmic associations into a restriction upon slow practise that runs contrary to all possibility of deeper musicianship.

[pianoman53]

-

[nyiregyhazi]

Nonsense? Are you kidding. There's a veritable epidemic of new, incompetent, amateur pianists capable of playing only at 30, 60, 90, or 120 bpm, all because of practicing in integer ratios. It's ruining music. Someone must prevent these poor young musicians from being mislead by the terribly damaging advice of folks such as timothy42b. Fortunately, we have a hero who will speed to their rescue......

You can joke, but the very real fact is that youtube is swamped with pianists banging out even such expressive music as yann tiersen as if there's a drum beat. All too many modern pianists are simply clueless about how to perform even the most basic melodic expansion for expressive purposes, because they are permanently lost in utter inability to go from one tempo to a subtly different one. No musician worth an ounce of salt would think that it's not beneficial to be capable of feeling a variety of tempos equally well. It makes me shudder when I hear expressive music punched out as if strict unyielding metre with a singular unchanging pulse is somehow a quality. This advice is for foundation level alone.

[nyiregyhazi]

Did I ever say he was correct? What I said was that it's stupid to only have one opinion, and not being open for a second one, when entering a discussion.

I attempted to give him a chance to expand on his rationale. I also made it clear that his approach can have value if applied to the right context rather than stated as if universal.

If you feel it's smallminded to think that practising only in strict mathematical ratios will lead to inflexible results, by all means detail how restricting yourself like that will help a pianist acquire the ability to go seamlessly from one tempo to a marginally broader one in a Brahms sostenuto section. Practise exclusively in simplistic tempo shifts and you can forget learning how to do sophisticated ones.

There's a difference between an inflexible mind and one that refuses to humour irrational inflexibility that fails to stand up to necessary scrutiny.

[lateromantic]

I'm going to explain this v.e.r.y. slowly for the comprehension challenged.

Of which we have a few.

Suppose the correct tempo is Quarter = 90 bpm.  Or 91.  Or 91.25378.  Doesn't matter for the purposes of discussion.  I won't get into why that speed is right and some other speed not right, just assume that it's right. 

Let's use 91.25378. 

What, then, would half speed be?  Quarter speed?

Simple.  Half speed is Eighth Note = 91.25378.  Quarter would be Sixteenth Note = 91.25378.  Double would be Half Note = 91.25378.

See how simple that was? 

You need not touch the metronome.  No calculus is required.    Leave your abacus alone for what it is designed (I use mine to keep track of what hymn verse I'm on, if the choir is mumbling the words). 

What about speeding up to 92.25378?  Just don't do it.  There is nothing gained over just playing 91.25378 a second time.  Make bold corrections and if they don't work, identify why and fix it.   

None of that gives us any logical reason whatsoever for preferring eighth = 91.25378 or sixteenth = 91.25378 to any other particular tempo in slow practice.

Also, if your goal tempo is quarter = 91.25378, then there's nothing wrong with "speeding up to 92.25378," or thereabouts, from time to time.  If you're not going to be using a metronome when you perform the work, you're not going to be performing at exactly quarter = 91.25378 anyway, and if you end up at a slightly faster tempo than you intended, then it's a good idea to be prepared for it.

[timothy42b]

You can joke, but the very real fact is that youtube is swamped with pianists banging out even such expressive music as yann tiersen as if there's a drum beat. .

Ah yes, yet another voice screaming "the metronome has destroyed music."

I gotta throw the BS flag here. 

Playing with a metronome is a skill most pianists don't have.   Rubato isn't just for expression; it's also the refuge of those who can't keep steady time anyway.  For every pianist who is too metronomic there are 100 with bad time. 

I will grant you there are lots of unexpressive pianists.  And violinists, trumpeters, percussionists, etc.  But pianists would have cornered the market on unsteady time, were it not for organ players.

That horrible metronome!  And don't get N started on tuners!  The cheap electronic tuner widely available and set at the horribly artificial A = 440 - who needs one of those?  Just play what pitches you feel!   

[pianoman53]

I attempted to give him a chance to expand on his rationale. I also made it clear that his approach can have value if applied to the right context rather than stated as if universal.

If you feel it's smallminded to think that practising only in strict mathematical ratios will lead to inflexible results, by all means detail how restricting yourself like that will help a pianist acquire the ability to go seamlessly from one tempo to a marginally broader one in a Brahms sostenuto section. Practise exclusively in simplistic tempo shifts and you can forget learning how to do sophisticated ones.

There's a difference between an inflexible mind and one that refuses to humour irrational inflexibility that fails to stand up to necessary scrutiny.

You really don't see it, and I find that quite funny.

[nyiregyhazi]

Ah yes, yet another voice screaming "the metronome has destroyed music."

I gotta throw the BS flag here.  

Playing with a metronome is a skill most pianists don't have.   Rubato isn't just for expression; it's also the refuge of those who can't keep steady time anyway.  For every pianist who is too metronomic there are 100 with bad time.  

I will grant you there are lots of unexpressive pianists.  And violinists, trumpeters, percussionists, etc.  But pianists would have cornered the market on unsteady time, were it not for organ players.

That horrible metronome!  And don't get N started on tuners!  The cheap electronic tuner widely available and set at the horribly artificial A = 440 - who needs one of those?  Just play what pitches you feel!    

Nice try at putting me in a simplistic box for the sake of argumentative convenience, but I'm totally in favour of doing a certain amount of practise with a metronome.

Sorry not to fit into your simplistic polarised view of the world. I said that I disagree with oversimplified inflexible viewpoints. Not that steady timing isn't ONE of the MANY capabilities that musicians possesses.

[nyiregyhazi]

None of that gives us any logical reason whatsoever for preferring eighth = 91.25378 or sixteenth = 91.25378 to any other particular tempo in slow practice.

Also, if your goal tempo is quarter = 91.25378, then there's nothing wrong with "speeding up to 92.25378," or thereabouts, from time to time.  If you're not going to be using a metronome when you perform the work, you're not going to be performing at exactly quarter = 91.25378 anyway, and if you end up at a slightly faster tempo than you intended, then it's a good idea to be prepared for it.

Agreed. despite having been accused of inflexible opinions, I remain truly eager to hear an actual explanation of why these ideas are supposedly beneficial (except to those who accompany their nightclub drag act with a casio keyboard that always has the drum loop on set on the same single tempo).  The fact that the initial assertions have yet to be backed up with a single word of explanation tells me that we are unlikely to hear either any evidence or reasoning.

[lateromantic]

Playing with a metronome is a skill most pianists don't have.

In my case, it's a skill that I've overdeveloped, and I'm currently trying to combat the deleterious effects of too much playing with the metronome.  You should check out the term "rhythmic entasis."

And don't get N started on tuners!  The cheap electronic tuner widely available and set at the horribly artificial A = 440 - who needs one of those?  Just play what pitches you feel!    

As a matter of fact, that might not be bad advice for a violinist (depending on what other instruments he/she is playing with).  A good violinist will be sensitive to natural resonances and ready to depart slightly from equal temperament when appropriate.  We pianists, of course, have no choice in the matter.

[timothy42b]

In my case, it's a skill that I've overdeveloped, and I'm currently trying to combat the deleterious effects of too much playing with the metronome.  You should check out the term "rhythmic entasis."

I haven't seen that happen but I can see how it might.  The idea is to use an external pulse to build the internal one, and maybe you get too dependent on the external.

Here's a possible way that might help from the brass player's world.  (There's nothing dogmatic about my suggestions.  They are merely choices from a set of possibilities that seem to me to have more promise than the rest.) 

Go back to the metronome and choose a setting easily divisible.  Say quarter = 120.  Then change it to half = 60 and play with the metronome.  Then whole note = 30.  Then two measures  = 15.  Instead of increasing subdivision to increase precision, you are decreasing it to maximize internal pulse. 

[nyiregyhazi]

I haven't seen that happen but I can see how it might.  The idea is to use an external pulse to build the internal one, and maybe you get too dependent on the external.

Here's a possible way that might help from the brass player's world.  (There's nothing dogmatic about my suggestions.  They are merely choices from a set of possibilities that seem to me to have more promise than the rest.)  

Go back to the metronome and choose a setting easily divisible.  Say quarter = 120.  Then change it to half = 60 and play with the metronome.  Then whole note = 30.  Then two measures  = 15.  Instead of increasing subdivision to increase precision, you are decreasing it to maximize internal pulse.  

That's not pulse but meter. You clearly didn't listen to what he told you one bit. He didn't say he has problems internalising rigid and unyielding meter to the point where it retains robotic precision even when there are fewer reference clicks. Rhythmic entasis (which clearly you didn't investigate) is about freedoms from rigidity. It can actively sharpen a sense of pulse but will rarely comply precisely to a metronome click every few bars. It's what makes real music as opposed to what a programed midi file sounds like. Even as a church pianist you should be allowing a congregation to breathe between phrases- not internalising such unshakeable meter that every four bars take precisely the same duration without fail.

Reducing the number of clicks only checks whether you can maintain a literal meter internally.a useful skill to have, but a spectacular way to completely miss what the poster was saying to you- and also to miss what true rhythm is all about. Your exercise only serves to strengthen the excess to which a pianist would be capable of indulging in dead literalism. Is musical phrasing even on your radar?

[hfmadopter]

Reducing the number of clicks only checks whether you can maintain a literal meter internally.a useful skill to have, but a spectacular way to completely miss what the poster was saying to you- and also to miss what true rhythm is all about. Your exercise only serves to strengthen the excess to which a pianist would be capable of indulging in dead literalism. Is musical phrasing even on your radar?

Exactly my thought as well, in fact I started to post something similar and saw the red warning flag that someone had posted as I typed to find you more eloquently said what I was about to say myself !

What the poster is describing works good in a band situation, that you can hit on the beat together every several measures, that is.. Stretching the metronome is good for that but not for rhythm in and of itself. The OP on the other hand asked specifically about slow practice and we assume that means staying in rhythm or whats the point of learning a new piece that way ?

And to that point, I personally just go as slow as I need to to fit the notes together in time. I was taught it that it can be agonizing slow sometimes and I live with that ! Once you "get it" you can slowly bring it up to speed.

[brogers70]

I find it useful to practice extremely slowly, but not when I'm first learning a piece. Once I know the notes, and I've figured out (or been shown by my teacher) what movements work at tempo, then it helps me a lot to play through the piece ridiculously slowly, maybe a quarter speed or slower. Then I can think carefully about what's coming up, notice how everything feels physically, check relaxation, and verify my non-muscle memory. Every time I start doing that kind of practice I wonder if I'm wasting my time, and every time I do it, the improvement in my ability to play the piece at tempo is substantial.

Disclaimers:
1. Obviously, this is only one tool among many; I wouldn't try to practice a piece using only this approach.
2. It's useless unless you know the right motions, either by having your teacher show you, or by having enough experience to figure them out yourself.
3. Of course, it will feel physically different when you play it at tempo; you can't get a perfect idea of how it should feel by playing at ultra slow tempo, but it certainly helps.
4. Any idea can be taken to absurd extremes.

[j_menz]

Playing with a metronome is a skill most pianists don't have.   

And is a "skill" most pianists do not need.  It is at best a tool to aid the development of rhythm, and at worst a hindrance to that development.

[hechbah]

A long time ago I started practicing Rachmaninoff's second sonata at Cage's ASLSP tempo. The third note is due in about 5 hours.

[nyiregyhazi]

And is a "skill" most pianists do not need.  It is at best a tool to aid the development of rhythm, and at worst a hindrance to that development.

I sort of agree in a way, but it depends very much on the context of what is being practised. With a piece like this, any time with a metronome is time spent on something totally counterproductive:

(compare to how the composer inflects constantly, without losing musical flow)

Incidentally, I didn't even have to make an effort to find such a lifeless, metrically rigid performance of the opening. Virtually every one on youtube is the same. It really saddens me that pianism has become so warped towards literalism that amateur pianists don't even begin to use their ears or inner sensitivity when reading such clearly expressive music off the page. It's just about how their teacher taught them to keep a strict beat. I have no idea whether the pianist used a metronome or not but, either way, the mentality which fails to distinguish between meter and rhythm is responsible. Scarcely a pianist on youtube involves such basic musicianship as breaths between phrases or even the most subtle use of timing to show surprise shifts in harmony etc when playing these pieces- which are simply nothing without freedom of timing.  

Incidentally- he finally involves some freedom in the closing section, but in an overly formulaic way that breaks the sense of flow. A metronome has nothing to do with it though. It's about the sense of long lines and a feel for musical connections. A metronome never corrects faulty musicianship (the fault here being to think within one bar units rather than in longer connections across barlines). Anyone who thinks a metronome can replace development of the musical brain is just kidding themself with a delusionally simplistic solution. Flawed as his repetitive use of of rhythmic liberty is, I'm glad that he finally involved some. It would have been truly horrific to hear the same metre blasting through every single quaver. People develop far better when a good teacher guides them to rethink musical issues than when they bang every note out in the rigid meter 10 or even 100x over.

[timothy42b]

And is a "skill" most pianists do not need.  It is at best a tool to aid the development of rhythm, and at worst a hindrance to that development.

One is rarely paid for playing with a metronome.

Oh wait, there's something called a click track.

But that's not really my point.  My observation is that musicians on any instrument who possess good internal time adapt easily to playing with a metronome or to playing with other people.  So I see the metronome as a rough test of that ability. 

Those who cannot play with the metronome tend to disparage it as a learning tool.  They very well may be right about that.  But this inability does tell you something. 

[nyiregyhazi]

But that's not really my point.  My observation is that musicians on any instrument who possess good internal time adapt easily to playing with a metronome or to playing with other people.  So I see the metronome as a rough test of that ability.  

It honestly saddens me to hear such a shortsighted comment. Sorry if this sounds patronising, but I'm a professional teacher who works with students at diploma level and I'm not going to humour such appalling ignorance.

If we're looking at absolute foundation levels, ability to play with a strict beat might be a "rough test" of the ability to play with others. From intermediate level onwards, we usually try LISTENING. The pianists who think the ability to conform to a metronome gives the slightest indication of their ability in ensemble playing are the very pianists in who are typically most disastrous in proper ensemble playing - ie that which includes musical phrasing and breaths between phrases etc.

From the constant one - sided preaching of your posts, I get the impression that you sincerely haven't even realised that your words are only meaningful for the most basic levels of attainment (except when training people to achieve ensemble via active lack of musicianship or listening skills). It's one thing to speak of this as a learning aid but it's plain shocking to hear such ignorance and the idea that conformity to a metronome tests ensemble skills even roughly. Pianists who just don't understand notated rhythms at all are the worst ensemble pianists, but scarcely better are those whose idea of rhythm is based on practise conforming to clicks, rather than listening. Put them with a real musician and the strict meter no longer means a thing. The deeper it was ingrained, the more they will struggle to adapt from the autopilot they set in themself by practising without any flexibility.

I shudder to think what will happen when a pianist who passes your "rough test" of learning Schumann lieder to fit a metronome tries to accompany a singer. I sincerely feel you ought to upload some footage of your own playing, so we might judge what your manner of thinking has produced in you.

[j_menz]

Oh wait, there's something called a click track.

To which music is chained to die.

[ajspiano]

To which music is chained to die.

Not a "techno" fan then I gather..

..tim, playing with a metronome does not imply the ability to play in a band. And this is especially evident in student pianists who can play fine with a metronome but who when placed with some other musicians kind of go off in their own world completely oblivious to how out of time they are.

[j_menz]

Not a "techno" fan then I gather..

Does anyone actually physically play that though?  In my, admittedly limited, experience, it's all synthesised or short loop recorded.