Nobody 'has to' complete these unless their teacher makes them, it's not some prerequisite to being a great pianist. Many top pianists didn't learn many of them. You should have a few of the tough ones (selected from 10-1/2/4/7/8, 25-6/8/10/11) in your pocket for competitions if you wanna do that, including at least one double-notes one. You might also be asked to perform one of the 'lyrical'/'easy' ones so pick your fav among those three as well. But other than that, you're good, just learn them when you want as if they were any other piece of music. Basically just part of your standard 'prelim rep': a Bach P&F, a Liszt Etude, a classical era sonata, a Debussy prelude etc.IMO (and I'm defo not an expert, these are mostly beyond my capacity to make sound good) the 25-6 is probably the one worth studying early. Some pianists get it down alright after a few weeks, but it's well-known for taking others a very long time to get sounding right. It has quite a reputation for that. I think 10-2 is similarly one that people get bogged down on for a long time, they just take time to work up for most.
I mean sure I guess there is some value in learning them. But there is, similarly, some value in learning basically any technical piece ever written. Does learning Chopin 25-4 make it easier to learn Rach 33-8? Nah. Does learning Chopin 10-7 make learning Feux Follets easier? Nah. I don't think they actually translate so much. No more reason to learn the Chopin Etudes than the Liszt, Rachmaninov, Scriabin, Alkan etc.If there is some piece that is so similar to a Chopin Etude at some point, then either learn it in the etude or learn it in the piece you wanna play, but why do both?
I mean sure I guess there is some value in learning them. But there is, similarly, some value in learning basically any technical piece ever written.
I'm a bit disturbed by the fact that this discussion treats the Etudes as if they only were some kind of collective homework or technical duty for aspiring pianists.There is certainly value in learning these pieces – which can't be measured in how much it will benefit your technical prowess or how far it will take you in a piano competition. There is that side to it also for sure, but don't you think the artistic value of these works is what matters most? For me, so many of them are right up there with the best pieces ever written for the piano.
The problem is not that they aren't beautiful or worthy of performance, they are, it's just that they are so difficult to pull off in a concert setting that most pianists prefer to have their "one" that they do, and play the other ones for study. Of course, the artistry built into the pieces makes studying them substantially more enjoyable than, say, a Czerny etude, because they were still written by Chopin, but in my opinion the set as a whole is at its most effective when studied privately for oneself. I only personally know one pianist who has performed the whole set (Frederich Chiu), and while some others have done it as well (Valentina Lisitsa, Murray Perahia), it is generally not something that is done.
Cortot used to tour with a program consisting of the 24 Chopin Etudes Op. 10 and Op. 25 and the 24 Preludes Op. 28.
Impressive, but when you listen to the recordings, then maybe he should have chosen just one and practiced it enough But I am being annoying. These are some of the most beautiful and colorful renditions of the etudes out there.