I wonder what famous pianists practice everyday. One of the pianists said he goes through Carl Tausig's Daily Exercises once everyday. Horowitz said he only practices for two hours a day...I think he's just lying to come off cool. Volodos said also no more than three hours a day. Any ideas on what they practice everyday for technique?

I know Rubinstein did Hanon. I've been reading his autobiography and it seems he was lazy and avoided practice much of his youth, with sporadic times of intense practice.

But then again, when you can sight read pretty much anything, you only need a few hours a day working out details i suppose.

Archive.org has one or two Harriette Brower books. She went around Europe in the early 1900's interviewing famous pianists about stuff like that.

Liszt had a huge collection of repetitious exercises he'd made up for himself. He did those a couple of hours every day in addition to learning and perfecting repertoire. He's alleged to have kept a novel or a newspaper on his music desk to relieve the monotony.

Chopin polished his chops with Bach before a performance. He told one of his students how he shut himself up in his room with Bach for two weeks before a concert. "I don't practice my own works."

There's a funny story about Paderewski - he said: if I don't practice for one day, I know it; if I don't practice for two days, my friends know it. If I don't practice for three days, EVERYBODY knows it...

You can find the Liszt exercises on Sheetmusicplus.com

I know many concert pianists albeit none extremely famous to be a household name that practice around 3-4 hours a day. They say it's not the quantity of practice but the quality of it as many of you already know.

I am currently doing the Liszt exercises, the Kullak Octave Technique book, and Carl Tausig exercises. Hanon and Czerny dont appeal to me because they are too basic.

And I know one moderately famous one who apparently doesn't practice at all.

Sometimes when I miss a day or two, my playing seems better, refreshed, more relaxed. Has anyone else noticed this?

I haven't skipped a day in about three years but I do tend to alternate the pieces I practice and yes, I have noticed this effect, that sometimes giving a piece a day's rest allows the gains of the previous day's practice to solidify.

Absolutely, I have experienced the same thing. I think it`s because I forgot my frustration and shortcomings because after an hour of playing all my problems came back. I want to know how to maintain that ability without missing a day again.

I've had some teachers that suggested (When I had a significant amount of time before performing said piece) that I let the piece 'rest' for a day or two. Just to take my mind (frustration) out of it. It helps to also listen to some recordings of it so you have a better idea what to work towards when you come back to it.

I certainly noticed myself too playing easier, after giving it a miss for 1-2 days...
It is unfortunately evidence of poor cooling-down & relaxing rituals (if at all!)
Ideally, we shall mix relaxing exercices inside daily practice, and always repeating relaxing exercices at the end.
I believe further that regular physical exercise to the hands will develop all muscles equally, thus reversing what Cortot was suggesting on his 'Principes de technique pianistique'.

cheers
ak

That will only create insensitive muscle control which is not of much use. You need to feel the action as your finger sinks into to the key.

and welcome to PW!

Yes, indeed... quite right! It's my excuse when I miss a practice or two!
Cheers,
Roger

If you feel more at ease with a piece after leaving it for a day or two, it can also mean that the incorrectly used muscles have had a chance to recoup.

Consider: if you use your body as it was designed to be used, i.e., don't work against yourself, the piece should always feel "in the fingers".

Re: Physical exercise. What a pity so many teachers/students are misled into thinking that pianists need to train the way athletes do, that is, develop physical strength. It actually takes very little strength to play the piano (small children can do it). We train for refined movements, physical coordination. Lifting, pulling, stretching and mindless repetition are a waste of valuable time and are potentially harmful.

I have a theory that a lot of the pianists who say they only practice 1-4 hours a day had a much different regimen earlier in life.

I think there was a period of time - probably in their teens and early 20's - when they spent more like 7-10 hours a day.

People are always quick to ask what great pianists do now. I find what they did when they were young to be a far more interesting question.

Amen to that. Maintaining a technique is different that developing it. Many years ago, I once knew a pianist with very good technique who, to warm up a bit in the morning before really settling in to practice whatever it was for the next concert, would rattle off a few scales in double sixths. I was simply agog that anyone could rattle off scales in double sixths at all, much less first thing of the day while still cold. But this person's technique was already totally solid and, basically, technical work was not part of the picture any more other than to get the hands moving in the morning. And that lasted for maybe five minutes, max.

Also, I think some famous pianists have, because of their particular image, had a tendency to downplay or deny how hard they worked even after they had a developed technique. It is as if they thought that admitting they actually had to work at anything was some sort of flaw. Although I'm not a big fan of his, I was always sort of charmed by Lipatti going in the opposite direction, and saying it took him a minimum of three years of hard work to learn a new concerto.

I'm not so sure this is true.
I have a friend, a "jobbing pianist" like myself who sight reads fluently (he once stepped in and sight-read Rach.2 when the engaged soloist fell ill on the day of the concert), has an enormous repertoire (all the Beethoven and Mozart Sonatas and concertos for starters) and who rarely sits down to practise...but then, there's not much time left for doing so in between playing flute, oboe, bassoon, viola and cello in various orchestras and groups as well as composing educational music, playing tennis and umpiring at Wimbledon!
Sometimes I play duet recitals with him and feel sure that he would rather watch TV or chat than practise for the event if I, lacking his confidence, didn't insist on it.
I don't know how hard he practised in his youth, but I don't think you develop this sort of facility by sitting down in front of a piano for ten hours a day.
My point is that if someone like my friend, who is hardly a household name even where he lives, has this sort of natural facility then it would come as no surprise to me to learn that many well-known concert artists also possess it.

I don't think Horowitz was lying to come off cool, it seems nrmal for someone to say that who has been concertizing for many years and is a brilliant pianist. You shouldn't be practicing for 6 hours a day when older if you were very good when young and learned your technique. Also, for the really great pianists, there is something there that is not a matter of practice, but just their natural talent that makes them special. I know those kind of pianists could probably sight read something better than many others who have practiced for hours.

Someone might practice more right before a particular concert, I suppose, or one piece in partcular, but I would find it strange if someone at the level that Horowitz was was continually spending many hours a day practicing his entire life (he did suffer from depressions during some years, also, when I don't think he played much). Also, some professionals get injuries if they practice too much, so that's not a good idea, anyway. If someone just starting out and hoping to have a career practices 4-5 hours a day, and is no Horowitz, Rubinstein, Perahia, Richter, etc., than I think it very natural that those great pianists would not be spending that number of hours practicing later on in life. I have a lot of pianist biographies at home, maybe I'll see if they say.

Now what I do have trouble believing (and think they are lying to sound cool) is the pop musicians who claim they write and play but cannot read music. It's not that hard, I just don't know how you could get by in the music world without doing that (or why you would want to). Maybe some rock musicians, etc., but even Billy Joel made that claim once and I don't really believe him because he studied classical piano when young for quite a few years (he claimed). In fact, I heard an interview where he said he was sort of a child prodigy or virtuoso or whatever by the age of 13 (in classical piano). Then, he claimed that because he didn't play that type of music and got into pop stuff that after some years, he could not read music any more. This was an interview when he came out with some album with some pieces that were not songs, but were some hommage to classical music, suppposedly. I heard him say that.

I don't believe that because I am not a professional musician and wasn't any child prodigy, but I stopped played the piano when I went to college pretty much and didn't take up lessons again until around age 32 (when I got a piano). And when young, I had only had about five or six years of lessons. Yet, when I started again, my technique was nonexistent, of course, but I could read music still perfectly fine.

Paul McCartney has made that claim, also, and I do find him hard to believe (although not as much as Billy Joel who studied piano) as he has been in composing and music so many years, it seems hard to believe you wouldn't just learn how to read music from all that in a short time. AS I said, it isn't really that hard to do once you learn the basics as to what the flats, sharps and staff, etc. mean. Given he's a composer, he certainly knows how many notes in a scale, etc.

I think I've heard others make that claim, also, and I do think they are just trying to sound cool when they claim they can't read music.

"Now what I do have trouble believing (and think they are lying to sound cool) is the pop musicians who claim they write and play but cannot read music." - ChristinaW.

Judging by the results, Christina, I have no difficulty in believing this at all.
Much more incredible to me is the fact that one of the most successful and, (IMHO)greatest popular music composers of the 20th century, Irving Berlin, was also musically illiterate. He could play the piano, but only in one key, and had a special instrument constructed which was operated with a lever in order to transpose the music into different ones.
A number of fine jazz pianists were also, reputedly, unable to read music.. Erroll Garner (the composer of "Misty") for example.

Well, note that I didn't say it was true of all famous pianists, just some. I think that Richter and Gould, as a couple of examples, tended to downplay or deny how hard they worked on some things.

But I agree that there are pianists with great facility who really don't need to work all that hard, if at all.

"Well, note that I didn't say it was true of all famous pianists, just some. I think that Richter and Gould, as a couple of examples, tended to downplay or deny how hard they worked on some things." - wr

I would be interested to hear how it was known that these two pianists worked harder than they claimed they did.
I always had a strong aversion to Gould - both his personality and his playing - and I can fully understand that "image" might have counted for a lot with him.
I never suspected, however, that Richter was at all devious about his practise methods. Indeed towards the end of his career, when he played most things using the score, he spoke of "the drudgery of memorization" which doesn't suggest a personality keen to promote an image of one to whom everything is easy.

Richter, in his desire to explore music beyond the monumental repertoire he already possessed, was of the persuasion that any time spent memorising detracted from this objective. This is despite his reputation for having a phenomenal musical memory.

I also tend to agree with Wood-Demon that Gould's reputation was cultivated around an image of controversy and eccentricity which I sometimes feel was deliberately crafted for effect. That he is one of the greats, there can be no question. But is it reasonable to speculate that his reputation and legacy is centred more around this image than it is around his playing? I realise this is a controversial view and apologise if it is offensive to any one of his legion of followers.

"But is it reasonable to speculate that his reputation and legacy is centred more around this image than it is around his playing?"

I think that this type of speculation is somewhat fruitless in regarding Gould. If anyone is to approach the world stage on that level, they will by default have a public "image". That is the way the industry, and the world work. It is a self-defeating argument to use anyone's level of public exposure to chip away at their credibility.

That being said, it is the content and manipulation of that image as guided by the artist that we can scrutinize (though at times it may be hard to distinguish from manipulation as guided by the industry). In the case of Gould, his so-called "eccentricities" were certainly highlighted as a curiosity. He was the man in hat, coat, and gloves through all seasons, and the man who hummed while playing from his rickety little chair.

I think the main thing to remember here is that this was Gould from beggining to end. He was going to be that person whether or not the world bothered to glance in his direction. In that light I find it no reason to doubt his authenticity, and in fact I find it a dubious position for detractors to cite his "eccentricities" and masquerade them as a critique of his playing. If anything, they (the "eccentricities") seem to be a larger obstacle to surmount in the course of pesruading people to actually listen, so in effect this "image" may have done more harm than good.

i believe such a theory, because my teacher told me that he could/would practice a lot longer in his early years (until mid or early 20s), but now physically he could not practice that long anymore, but at most 3-4 hours a day.

Just to set the record straight, I am an ardent admirer of Gould and have a good number of his recordings. Certainly not a detractor. I have just wondered from time to time why to this day he still has a cult following of sorts and continues to be treated like a deiety by these followers, some whom I know of are not even music fans. There were a good number of other pianists of at least equal if not greater stature who today do not enjoy the same following as he does. Pianistic giants from the past such as Hoffman, Richter, Horowitz and Rubinstein, spring to mind. Certainly they too had their idiosyncrasies also but perhaps not on the scale of Gould. Could it be that many of his fans are attracted and maybe even identify with the colour of his personality?

What I remember is that observers reported it, and there were also a few discrepancies in their own descriptions of it. Unfortunately, I don't have the sort of card-file memory that would allow me to say exactly where I heard or read about this stuff, or to give precise examples.

Funny you should mention Richter on memorization. I remember him one time talking about his photographic memory and how he couldn't forget anything even when he wanted to; in fact, he said that this ability was troubling because it meant that his mind was constantly being deluged by minute details of useless things he remembered. And then at another time, rather contradicting that statement that he had total recall of everything, he said that he used the score later in life because no one could memorize everything that was in a score. And yet another time, he said he had to use the score because his hearing had shifted and he no longer heard the same note that was played (some sort of auto-transposing in his hearing??), which was so confusing that it meant he had to use a score.

I am not saying any of this as criticism, by the way - I try not to expect long-term consistency from humans, especially those possessed by artistic abilities.

I believe that Benjamin Britten also experienced a change in his perception of pitch. I seem to remember him claiming, in the latter part of his life, that he now heard The Mastersingers Prelude in C# major.
I don't have perfect pitch so don't know if my pitch perception has changed with age but, it seems to me, that I no longer hear the bass of the piano with the clarity I used to....strange as age is supposed to reduce hearing at the upper end of the sound spectrum.