Why is it not useful for adults ? Is there a particular reason ? Is it an empirical statement or a proven fact ? Thanks for your reply.

It is musically less interesting for adults.
In fact they are basically scales, arpeggios, hanon, etc. put into somewhat more interesting little pieces to trick youngsters. While they are thinking they are working on a piece, they are actually working on scales, arpeggios, hanon etc., that they get bored and don't study effectively otherwise.

But for adults this trick of course does not work. And it is not necessary either. Adults, would voluntarily and more efficiently work on their scales, arpeggios, etc. to develop their techniques.

And, then, devote their limited time to repertoire that would make them enjoy their instrument much more.

So, in the end, Czerny and similar is a waste of time for adults.

Guess that's why it worked so well for me when I was young - I was duped !!!

HOWEVER - I found Czerny to be very helpful in improving my sight reading skills - and I would think adults might benefit from that as well.

That's an interesting idea that they are some kind of trick for children! I've had Czerny recommended to me by my current and former teacher whose opinions I respect very much.

These studies pose various technical difficulties that are worthwhile for any pianist to overcome. Yes Czerny probably wrote too many of them (it was very lucrative for him to do so) and I don't think it would be wise to work on them from cover to cover but I don't see how approaching them in an intelligent way could ever be a waste of time for adults or anyone else for that matter.

I agree with Vid. Perhaps some of us adults may need to be "duped" by Czerny into working a little more diligently on basic technical exercises such as scales and arpeggios and if Czerny succeeds - as he occasionally does - in making those exercises more interesting and if the end result is an improvement in those techniques, then more power to Herr Czerny.

Many of us adults can look past the immediate drudgery of scales - when worked on appropriately - to what they eventually will produce: greater evenness of tone, greater evenness and facility in passage work; similarly with exercises of Czerny and the like which may add a little bit of variety to those basics.

I certainly would not summarily dismiss them.

Regards,

Ok, for those of you with the time and patience go for it.


Here

(LOL, each repetition 20 times)

Thanks for your reply.

But not all his études are the same, aren't they ?
I'm 19 and my conservatory teacher makes me work on "Les Heures du matin", and many of them are both very cute and very interesting, because they make me learn new pianisms or work on new technical problems while being short and not a burden to work on. This, with the first chapter of Dohnanyi exercise constitue my main technical regimen.
But I understand why you're saying this about the most "purely mechnical (and sometimes quite long)" ones.
That said, I'd like to see a child playing those études at the written tempi (or even just playing those études)

You mean op.821 160 short exercises.
Well, to me at your age these are waste of time.

Instead you can work on scales, arpeggios, etc. and also on appropriate level Bach, Scarlatti, Haydn, some Beethoven bagatelles and similar pieces. IMO, this is much more productive and satisfactory for an adult student.

Why studying on little exercises that you will never play in the future ? IMO, building up a repertoire as early as possible is much rewarding in the long run.

Some shorter Czerny exercises are good for sight reading; in fact, I've used Opp. 599, 821, and 849 for that purpose.

I'm in the yes-and-no camp on the whole Czerny deal. I tend to lean on Hakki's side, because there are many pieces with similar technical difficulties that help build a repertoire, but at the same time, some of the principles behind Czerny are also decent.

I've been using Mozart lately for sight-reading, and it led to three new sonatas that I probably never would have played otherwise. But before Mozart, I did us Czerny for sight-reading, so I can see both sides of it.

I agree about the "don't practise pieces that aren't repertoire" mindset (and that's why I work on repertoire at 95% as a guitarist), but isn't it true for scales, arpeggios, etc. too ?


In the first part of the year (October->early December), I have also worked on Bartok's From the Diary of a fly, Bach's Inventions (not sinfonias) 3&8, and am currently working on Fauré op74 in chamber music as well as Liszt's Notturno n°2. So I felt they were nicely complementing what I played.

My teacher first wanted to make me work on Mozkowski études (don't remember the opus but not op72 of course), but since I had Czerny, we used that. Maybe Mozkowski or others are a bit different ?
She told me she wanted to make me work on it as a kind of pure technical practise - with Dohnanyi, arpeggios and scales. I understand her point of view and trust her.

I did develop my technique almost purely on repertoire as a classical guitarist, but I often regret I didn't take the time to study seriously some little études or exercises that were within my reach but would have immediatly made my technique purer and cleaner by insisting on many little points in particular - I often feel like I'd actually have gained a lot of time.

But if I were with a teacher who didn't ask for Czerny at all, I wouldn't care particularly either (:

Good that adults have a choice. And I am simply proposing this way.

But, geniuses exempted, for youngsters the other way around is not possible.

Because almost always learning a piece from the repertoire will also call for some level of maturity.

The teacher can't explain the musical, emotional content of such pieces and discuss their interpretation with young students, as she would do with adults.