Maybe it'll make me want to do my "homework". I've managed to ignore my Czerny assignment for a week and a half now. My teacher said that if I didn't like this book (a hand-me-down from my daughter ) that she'd lend me one from her collection. Oh goody. :rolleyes:

Is Czerny something necessary for my technical development? Is there a really fun and wonderful book of Czerny exercises out there? Will playing Czerny improve my playing so much that it is worth the time spent on it?

Nobody likes to practice. I hate spending 10 minutes out of my 30 minutes a week lesson on scales and Hanon.
Without practice Franz Liszt would be a novice.
Without practice Martha Argerich would be an amatuer.
Without practice Vladamir Horowitsz would be a nobody.

Say something nice about Czerny...

"It's not Hannon" :p

I've only ever worked on a few Czerny exercises with my last teacher. My feeling is that it is better to work on problems contained in actual works. Czerny is good if you can't think of a work which poses a particular problem that you want to work on at the moment I suppose.

(I really love that quote you have as your signature, Bernard)

He liked cats. (That is, I presume he liked cats. I know he HAD cats, and he would have been very foolish to have cats if he didn't like them, unless he disliked mice even more. And even then, one cat should have sufficed as a rodenticide.)

Oh, the people from central Oregon are such babies. . .

Take my advice, Nancy. Remember, I'm the one that told you Day Music was an honest, reputable dealer!

Czerny for kids over the years: definitely.
Czerny for adults: marginal
(you know those adults. . .if they don't like something, they won't practice it anyway for a week and a half, and it does no good to call their mother)

The Op. 139 "Easy Studies" are good as are the Op. 599 "Practical Method for Beginners," the Op. 849 "Etudes de Mecanisme" are often used before the meat-n-potatoes Op. 299 "School of Velocity." And then there is the famous Op. 740 "Art of Finger Dexterity" and Op. 802 "Practical Finger Exercises." Some would swear by (or at) the Op. 553 "Octave Studies" (also from the Phillip, or Kullak), and then there is the Op. 365 "School of the Virtuoso" -- breathe -- and then there are a myriad of other exercises, books specifically for left hand development, one (or two?) for small hands, "School of Legato and Staccato," and many more such collections, a sizeable fraction of what he actually penned. Busy guy, also composed serious performance works as well, most dropped from the repertoire due to lack of insterest (i.e., boring).

Czerny is of great benefit (as one component of technical study), most specifically during younger years of study. This is when the foundations of technique is acquired - not speed and fluency yet, but over the years, this technical study is what builds a solid virtuoso years later able to play with dazzling technique. When you study classical/romantic repertoire, you will see Czerny all over the place (so to speak).

The only problem I've noted with students of any age studying Czerny, is that teachers will assign too difficult a study. The student should be able to sightread, albeit slowly, any Czerny given (the student must quickly get past the notes and into the technique).

If spending a week just being able to gross through it, you'll hate it, as you will be spending so much time learning something that is not by any stretch great music.

Start dead slow with a metronome, and work up the speed under the guidance of your teacher who will be watching for flaws in technique. In one, maybe two weeks, you should have any exercise at as fast a tempo as you can play, cleanly and with outstanding technique. You should also be able to explain what the "new" technique you worked on was all about (if only to yourself, but best if discussed with teacher of course), and then on to the next one (most studies are not sequential, your teacher will select those most appropriate as a next step).

You'll get out of it what you put into it, in the long run. Is it worth it?? That I don't know. As an adult, you must of course decide what it is you hope to accomplish at the piano, and spending several hours per week on Czerny may not fit the battle plan. Nothing wrong with that, plenty of people play beautifully without Czerny, and not everyone's goal is (or should be) to be a dazzling virtuoso. That certainly is not the purpose of music!

But, a little Czerny ain't gonna kill ya, and your teacher will go all a ga-ga and kiss you on both cheeks, tears in her eyes. . .

Cznery is a waste of time compared to other more musical pieces that can be used for technical purposes. Bach's 2 and 3 part inventions dwarf anything Cznery wrote, since you learn how to use your fingers, ear, and expression mechanisms all in one. If these are too hard to start with, scales and arpeggios are good, although I personally use these in moderation; musical etudes and pieces are superior than typing-machine gyzmos.

CrashTest, the list of Czerny I gave is based on decades of teaching piano in private studio and at the college level.

Which ones of my list have you mastered, which would then give you the insight to compare Czerny to linear studies of Bach Inventions and Sinfonias? (it's a completely different freakin technique, for god sakes!)

Give me one comparison between the specific technique contained in ANY of the Czerny exercises, and discuss specifically which Bach Invention/Sinfonia covers the same technical issue.

I think perhaps you are defending your lack of background by convincing yourself you never needed it.

If you are seriously still considering becoming a piano major at a top school of music, you best be able to cite what you have accomplished in technique, and be able to play at least most of Op. 299 -- the subject will come up, I can pretty much guarantee it.

"Bach's 2 and 3 part inventions dwarf anything Cznery wrote..."

What complete nonsense.

This statement applies to all good practicing, whether it be one note, a scale, a Czerny exercise, or the Goldberg Variations.

IMHO Your l

IMHO Your lack of attraction to Czerny is a certain sign that there still is musical instinct of you.

"Somone who does not like Czerny and Hanon can't be all bad"

Who wrote that.

In French there is a saying,"Il vaut mieux s'adresser au bon Dieu qu'a ses saints"
(Better directly ask God that his saints).

Don't know if Czerny and his best friend Hanon would qualify as musical saints.

Your instinct asks for "music" not exercices that will help you one day.
But there seem to be two schools :
1° The fundamental schools
2° The just do it school

Maybe some people are genetically programmed for Czerny and Hanon and some are genetically programmed to be reluctant.

Biomusicogenetics is a budding science.

It's nice that some of you live in your nice little "art pour l'art" world where you have the luxury of ignoring everything that doesn't adhere to your standards of musicality and worthiness, but for those of us who are professionals who are called upon to do things like accompany, play concerts, and teach, Czerny is a valuable means by which someone can gain a strong working knowledge of the late classical and early romantic conventions. (And some good work on finger dexterity, too!)

Czerny's exercises represent the kinds of musical figures and motives commonly encountered in the music of his day, and practicing them makes one more (not less!) able to readily play the music written by everyone from Haydn to Liszt.

Based on what I've observed, the most secure, reliable pianists I know were brought up on a diet that included some kind of regular pianistic exercise - often Hanon or Czerny. I don't mean to say that these exercises are the only[/b] way to achieve solid, secure playing, but in my experience, it can certainly help and is a valid approach.

Just curious, of those of you who dislike exercises, how many of you routinely learn and perform 30 page accompaniments of classical and romantic sonata and concerto accompaniments in 5 days or less?

I am going on my personal experience, so Czerny for me is not worth it. It is not necessary to acquire a solid technique by using Czerny or Hanon, maybe pianists who need to have everything cleanly put out in front of them so they can work may need this method. So what if Czerny has some of the same figurations in his music as his fellow composers. You learn how to play Beethoven by playing Beethoven, and there is an entire world of technique that can be musically explored in a Beethoven sonata. Mindless repetition of anything is bad, but it is even worse when the music itself is mindless and repetive.In regard to the Bach inventions, they first help develop the technic of the brain and ear, which inevitably lead to a good technique with no gaps, while Czerny is not as effective since one isn't playing something as intricate and well constructed. To each his own!

Horowitz was once asked which one of his own reordings was his favorite. Without hesitation he responded: Czerny's Variations on La Ricordanza.

Not a bad piece.

Ah, now I see where the disagreement lies!

You are only thinking about. . . you!!

Where do you hope to be in 5-10 years? Will you be a touring virtuoso playing piano recitals and performing concerti all over the world? If so, then it makes sense that you are only thinking of what works for you.

However, what are the chances that you will be a piano teacher, with a studio of children/adults, even if you're going on to graduate school, performing when and where you can?

My point is, you have no right to dismiss anything based on your own background. You must be totally familiar with Czerny, Hanon, Kullak, Burgmuller, etc. etc. -- as a teacher! Then, over the years, you will learn to quickly diagnose deficiencies in a typical student, and have a wide variety of time-tested solutions to offer.

If not, you will be one of those teachers that destroys talented young people because of your lack of knowledge.

Case in point (I think some other people might have had this experience): I had a teacher that was AMAZING, but was a lousy teacher. He seemed to be able to do most anything, somehow I guess he was blessed with a God-given ability. His solution was always to play, as if somehow I was suppose to gain everything from his playing.

I had another teacher that was NOT one of these super-pianists given a job at a Univ. due to their name, regardless of teaching ability. He provided solutions to problems, and taught pedagogy to prospective piano teachers. Typical technical problems were covered in depth, solutions and lesson plans were discussed, and yes, we were required to study in depth the Czerny, Hanon, etc. (those that had limited exposure).

I hope the above makes sense to you, at least a bit. Your "job" is not to worry about what worked for you, and then to decide that this is how it is, and that all of your future students will get your "Bach Inventions dwarf Czerny" perspective. Your "job" (so to speak) is to gain as much knowledge and information possible, especially from areas where you have limited background.

What always drives me ballistic is ignorance interpreted as "expertise." I've seen so many (most) students come to me over the years, where they studied with a sincere but inept teacher, and then I get to start salvaging and correcting what I can. But, ingrained bad technical habits can be impossible to change, the damage was allowed to occur. Should these students have had Czerny, Hanon, etc.? You bet. In the typical student, working on the "building-blocks" of technique, one step at a time over years as 25% of their practicing will guarantee results.

"You'll get technique in the music" is an ignorant teacher's approach, based on nothing more than hope.
And such teachers are unfortunately, everywhere.

My tirade above is somewhat off-topic, but I know that you are looking to make a career in music. You need to know and absorb everything as you go along, and build your knowledge, not be selective in what you decide is important, based not on what you know, but what you decided not to learn.

R Vaga,
DMA

I see where you are coming from, I guess we all tend to think about ourselves sometimes a bit too much! I still would not advocate the use of Czerny to a beginner, since some scales with other pieces should suffice- although maybe I can't judge this situation based solely on my experience.

CrashTest,

Yes, I think you get my point. Sorry for being overbearing in hammering my point!

The bottom line you should realize, is that YOU are not an average pianist. You are deciding to devote an inordinate amount of time in pursuing what you love to do: piano.

But, odds are, you will eventually teach. And, you will probably find that your "raw talent" in all respects was always at a much higher level than any of your students, with very few exceptions.

The "best" students I ever had could play Chopin Etudes as well if not better (faster and cleaner) than I. The "worst" student I ever had could not play quarter notes along with a metronome, could not differentiate between intervals by ear, yet he still tried because he wanted to learn.

You will have those students above, as well as everything in between, from kids to adults (my oldest student was 88), most will have "average" ability.

This is why you need to learn the utility of things you personally may not have needed (and therefor never studied) because of your talent. Czerny, Hanon, Mozart, Chopin. . .you will (hopefully) become an expert in using all, to be the best, most knowledgeable teacher around -- where "average" students excell because they had a teacher with an incredible depth of knowledge (and your outstanding students will go on in life to take your place when you become an 'old CrashTest')

I wish people who believe in one approach (ie Czerny and Hanon are a must for would be teachers) could find a way to express their belief or certainties based on their own experience without terrorizing people who believe another approach (ie: the technique is in the masterpieces and developing through love does not mean that one is stupid).

IMHO what works is good. There is no doubt however that an approach which would base its technical resources (building blocks/fundamentals)in the works of Bach, Scarlatti, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin,Liszt, Brahms, Schubert, Schumann would do more for the future generations that one based on mechanics.

But the important thing seems to be mutual understanding. We do not want fundamentalism in classic music or anywhere else in that matter.

well if your teacher gave it to you, then you'd best be doing it...teacher knows best.

by the way, since Horowitz was mentioned here...

"The studies of Czerny, Clementi, Cramer and the like I have never practiced. They are bad for the ear and bad for the touch, because they are not alive; they are merely mechanical. No mechanical playing assists the technique."
- Vladimir Horowitz

The guy contradicted himself all the time.

But, it's with noting that the Czerny Variations on La Ricordanza is a "real" composition, not a study.

And of course Horowitz also played quite a bit of Clementi. No Cramer, though.

There is no doubt that fundamentals exist in music like in any martial art.

So the question is : what is the most artistic way to teach fundamentals ?

Unfortunately, neither Bach nor any great musician seems to have left us an answer.

Are we only left with Czerny and Hanon ?

I think a good teacher will transmit music whatever dose of these two spiritual serial killers he inflicts to his pupils.

I wish someone wrote a methode based on the fundamentals with exercises derived from masterpieces. After all, there are scales and arpeggios all over Mozart and Beethoven.

Cortot wrote several books about Chopin with exercizes he proposed to master technical points.
He even wrote one about Czerny's Studies.

But a method that would start from the beginning and would be based on real music, I have not met.

The most helpful by far I have found up to now is Chuan C. Chang's work, probably because he applied his scientific/technological expertice to modelize the practice of great musicians and great teachers.

Tradition is great. Long live tradition.

But new approaches for better results (not for destroying what was alive) are welcome. Even in such a noble art as piano.

So please, let's make love, not war.

If so many people dislike Czerny and Hanon, there could be a reason. And that reason is not necesseraly that teachers know best.

Personally, I have learnt so much from my children that I am happy some of my beliefs are left unhurt by this generation war.

Don't know about your experiences (either with parents or children).
That would be a most rejoicing post.