Hi, everybody. I've just changed piano teacher and the new one - who I think I'm keeping on a temporary basis before I move on to somebody more disciplined, let's say - doesn't seem to believe in études as worthwhile practice. He said repertory was what we are really interested in. However, given the large number of études in ABRSM collections, I gather they do believe in their technical/musical value. What are your views on this? Unlike so many of us I would welcome a chance to do some Czerny, etc. but don't quite get sufficient motivation to do this on my own (very much like gym, if there is nobody saying "Here's what you must do" the chances are that you don't do it or do it for just a while then end up dropping it).
Also, do you normally suggest to your teachers what you'd like done next or do they come up with ideas ... or both?

I think almost any piece has educational value. Are you learning anything worthwhile from playing your actual pieces? If you are learning a new skill e.g. trilling from an actual piece, I would say that the piece serves as an "etude" too.

For example, I personally feel that my pedalling has improved after practising Moonlight Sonata, Raindrop Prelude and now The Girl with Flaxen Hair. I might not be playing any of them very well yet, but through each piece, I discovered many of my flaws e.g. balance between hands, accuracy of notes, dynamics etc. Playing well-known pieces make it so much easier to spot inadequacies. They make you aware of what you need to improve.

If you aren't clear how an assigned piece could help you improve, you might want to ask your teacher. Etudes e.g. Czerny school of velocity are systematic, condensed exercises focusing of certain skills that will be useful in many pieces. They are very valuable too. Even the controversial Hanon, when used correctly, is worthwhile practice.

I haven't suggested to my teacher on which pieces to practice because I tend to be very lenient on myself, but I have chosen my own exam pieces.

If you really would like to play some Czerny, go ahead and choose a nice and short one! Post a recording, and I would love to listen to it.

BTW, what pieces are you playing?

Speaking as a teacher, I hope the answer to your last question is 'both'.

Seems to me that repertoire includes etudes. I don't really see them as a separate item. Just that their technical purpose is a bit more evident than in some other pieces, that's all. Similar to what Teoani said in his / her first sentence really.

Thanks for the replies. Here's what I'm currently studying/playing:
Bach's Suite Francese No. 3 (the Gavotte and the minuet)
Bach's Two-part Inventions Nos 2 and 3
Massenet's Mélodie (Set piece for Grade 5)
Cornick Espagnol (Set piece for Grade 5)
Haendel's Toccata in g minor (Set piece for Grade 5)
Mozart's Fantasia in d minor
Tscaikowsky's The Witch
Chopin's Prelude in e minor

Are etudes worthwhile?

Yes.

Also, do you normally suggest to your teachers what you'd like done next or do they come up with ideas ... or both

Both. Two possible outcomes:

1. We agree
2. She insists on her choice, as being more useful and more suitable ... so I learn both!

A lot of etudes are great repertoire pieces - absolutely suitable for performance. That includes a lot of Czerny, Clementi, Burgmuller, Kalkbrenner etc. as well as the obvious (but difficult) performance material from Chopin, Liszt, Steibelt, Schumann, Scriabine, Debussy, Szymanowski etc.

The real trouble with learning etudes for performance is the disproportionate amount of work it takes to get them to a standard that is worth listening to. Many many hours of toil over many months for just a minute and a half of a Chopin etude. The same effort would yield 20 minutes of Scarlatti or Haydn.

Valentina Lisitsa is on record as stating that it took her about two hours to memorise and perfect Chopin Op. 10 No. 4. But then she is not mortal.

For those who haven't come across her yet, she has a bunch of stuff on YouTube here: I can thoroughly recommend her Rachmaninov Etude Op. 39 No. 6 or her Paganini/Liszt La Campanella for sheer unbelievable fireworks, or her Traumerei to prove that she can do slow tempi too!

Edward

Well it is one of the easier ones.

And it is a lot easier to learn a piece when you don't have to train your body to make the appropriate movements along with learning the music itself.

As for not being mortal, I guess that makes her divine.

In that green velvet dress with the long blonde hair she certainly looks it

Oh what beautiful pieces! I have tried two pieces from your list before too. You are learning many pieces right now, which is really great work.

I am no expert, but here is what I think you might learn (or rather, what I could learn) from each piece.


Cornick's Espagnol : I think there is lots of pedalling and glissando, with some interesting rhythms. I remember I wanted to choose this as my Grade 5 piece, but gave up because I was unsure about the pedalling, and had no teacher to help me. So you might pick up skills on pedalling, glissandos and tempo in this piece.


Chopin's Prelude in E Minor : I think this piece sounds/looks easier than it really is. I personally had lots of problems in the LH, where my fingers were "not together", and hence sounded a little like crash notes. There is also the issue of balance between hands, where the LH has to be audible but neither overpowering nor harsh. There is also lots of rubato implied. I still haven't been able to play this piece well enough for it to be interesting. Guess I have to consult my teacher one day on how to tackle this piece.
My dull recording: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7dR2rQ4g2E...re=channel_page


As a child, I used to play Bach's Inventions without any understanding. Now I know that it is quite easy to just bang through contrapuntal music without realising where the melody lies. My teacher had to stop me after two bars of Couperin to point out to me how the melody alternates between the LH and RH. I was like,"How did she know that? Is there a secret book that tells you which bars are having the RH as the melody?" I guess I still haven't learnt to read the music with understanding.

It's always flattering to receive replies praising the repertoire one's doing. Thanks. The repertoire's nice, yes, don't know my rendering of it, though. Espagnol poses the pedalling problem (rhythm isn't a great problem with me, I'm 51 and have done music all my life, one way or another) and Bach ... poses the coordination problem, which I love, however.
You may return to Espagnol after some time of "silent assimilation" and discover you can play it better than you did!
I'm a great lover of Bach's music and I try to play everything I fall in love with and which is within my humble Grade 4/5 level. However, I practise about 2 hrs a day - at different sittings - and this keeps me "afloat" ...
Best,
J

Not dull at all. I thought it was very well played. As you say, it is harder than it looks. On an acoustic piano where (when you use the pedal) you get longer sustain, and sympathetic vibrations from the rest of the strings, it would sound even better.


When I first went to a teacher that actually made a living by playing in public for money, the main thing he repeated over and over in our lessons was "You have to find the line". What happens is that the teacher shows you in piece after piece where the lines are, and one day you realize that you can just see it for yourself, without really knowing how you do it, or what has changed since you could not. [But seeing the line does not, just by itself, mean being able to make it clear when you play, without over exaggerating, and while keeping all the other important elements right]

What is fascinating is when two separate soloists can bring out different lines from the same piece of music, so that although you know all the same notes are being played it sounds completely different.

Sorry if I'm resurrecting a relatively old thread, but I missed it at the time, somehow. What I'm interested in is how other pianists 'find the line'. I've never been very diligent about sitting down and analysing away from the instrument, and tend to just keep playing till 'the line' finds itself, aurally. The more automatic something becomes with regard to simply getting the notes right, the more things seem to jump out, and then the emphasis of one part and the toning down of another tends to happen by itself. The same sort of thing seems to happen when I'm teaching, and my familiarity with the music increases as the pupil improves. I like pupils to come up with their own interpretations too and we discuss. This rather disorganised method has served me pretty well. Results and performances have been good. But I'm often at a bit of a loss when asked, "How do you know?"