Management of piano repertoire

It is difficult to answer because each of us has different assimilation times. It also depends heavily on how the piece was studied. The greater the awareness of modulations, harmony, and the most difficult passages, the greater will be the retention in memory and/or deep knowledge. Sometimes "forgetting" a piece can be an advantage. Re-studying it can allow us to discover many other things, and it can be internalized with a different awareness, also due to our maturity. Consider that Wilhelm Bauhaus, perhaps the greatest Beethoven interpreter of all time, re-studied the complete sonatas from scratch three times in his life, and listening to them in comparison (the youthful ones versus those from his maturity) prompts much reflection. Therefore, "leaving" repertoires alone for a while can sometimes be beneficial.

As for method, it is subjective, but in my opinion, the piece and its study cannot regress to reading forms or tempos very different from those chosen for performance. When studying too slowly, the movements are completely different, and one risks losing the "achievements" that helped us understand how to overcome this or that passage during performance. The difference between "studying slow" and "studying in slow motion" is fundamental. The latter is the correct way, i.e., maintaining the accentuation that will be used in the performance. Imagine that if a tempo is 2/2 allegro, by slowing down, one risks playing it in 4 or 8. Nothing could be more destructive. As I have said several times (I invite you to look for the posts), it is useful to study fast with stops on the beat, the half-measure, or the full measure (depending on the accentuation chosen for performance), while maintaining the performance speed between one stop and the next. Try it to believe it.

A good grouping can be made by equal and/or related keys. For example, in the case of Chopin's Mazurkas or other more or less long pieces. These groupings can also be chosen for a performance program. They will help both the pianist and the listener.

Rotational study is also fine. But one must check how long a studied piece remains known. If retention is short, it must be studied with greater application, without the haste or anxiety to move on to other pieces before "deep" knowledge is achieved. In short, let the water boil and do not extinguish the fire before reaching boiling point; otherwise, it will be "wasted fire."

I hope my opinions have been useful

Thank you Pianoexpert, your contributions should always be read carefully and meditated upon at length.

Returning to the example mentioned previously, that of the 60 pieces, I would be curious to know how

you would manage it. Let's take the example of a musician who has acquired this repertoire and does not want

to learn anything else. 60 pieces of 3 minutes each for a total of 3 hours, of which 30 pieces are easy,

20 medium and 10 difficult. With my knowledge from the 5th year course, I would manage it like this:

I would divide the 60 pieces into 4 groups of 15 pieces each, containing about 8 easy, 5 medium, and 2 difficult ones.

I would perform one group per day in this manner: In the morning or afternoon, execution with a metronome

at the correct tempo with pedal, repeating the medium ones once and the difficult ones twice. Therefore, due to the effect

of the repetitions, the duration of the group would expand from 45 minutes to 1 hour and 15 minutes.

Then in the evening, between the eighth and twelfth hour since I got out of bed, i.e., at the moment

of greatest attention and clarity, I would perform a run-through (concertino) of the 45-minute set of what I studied

in the afternoon. The next day I would start with the 2nd group and so on in a 4-day cycle.

After a month, I would mix the pieces creating 4 new groups.

What do you think of this method? Is it valid or counterproductive? And how would you do it?

I am just saying that long periods of study are counterproductive. You cannot maintain concentration for more than half an hour without a break. Dividing study into half-hour sessions interspersed with breaks of at least 15 minutes is advisable. It is not advisable to study for a large number of hours per day, anyway. One risks falling into automatic repetitions that are not very conscious. Furthermore, I believe it is counterproductive to "throw" an excessive number of pieces into the fire, especially with study structured in such a schematic and overcomplicated way. We are human beings with all our tiredness and distractions, and we cannot rely on promises to ourselves that have the taste of "constraints." That's what I think. Happy studying... even with a bit of freedom!

Excuse me, is 1 hour in the afternoon and 1 hour in the evening a lot? I had heard that professionals

study from 6 to 10 hours a day... wasn't it Chopin who said 3 hours a day?

Anyway, here we are assuming a repertoire that doesn't need to be 'put on the fire' because

it is already cooked, meaning it has already been well learned. Therefore, one only needs to review it so that it doesn't fall

into oblivion. Like a person who knows 10 poems by heart and must repeat them every now and then

if they don't want to have gaps in their memory. Personally, I have noticed that after 45 minutes

the attention span begins to drop, but it is also true that after 20 or 30 minutes one starts to get into the groove...

So, in my view, between the 20th and 45th minute of study or review is the most suitable time

to tackle the more daring pieces. Then I noticed that a piece approaches perfection

on the 3rd or 4th attempt, just like when playing a video game, you always set a record on the 3rd or 4th attempt.

So in light of this, is it better to repeat a piece once a day or to repeat it 3 times

in a row and then let it rest for 2 days? Please share your thoughts...