Targeted or Global?

They've already thought of it ahead of time; there was a 3-hour seclusion to prepare a piece (as a surprise). Of course, it's not 8... but... the underlying principle is the same.

Aparte from that, one builds up a repertoire, and when you accept to play at a concert on short notice, it happens that you only have to "re-play" what you already know.

You were asking if it's worth it? It's work, so what would you say to a FIAT worker who every day turns the same bolt, of the same size, etc. ...the answer is: "it's worth it depending on the compensation".

For free, no

You learn more with rest than with study... Don't misunderstand. You must study, but repeating a page of sheet music continuously can prove sterile. You reach a certain point where you don't notice major improvements. Our learning level at that point is saturated... Fatigue? Learning limit reached? Sometimes it is resolved with a walk in the fresh air, other times we just need to disconnect, rest, and resume the next day. During the night, our brain reorganizes all the data, placing it, like a computer, into various memory cells (defragments). The next day, everything seems clearer in our minds. Particular passages where the double passage 3-1 and immediately 3-1 seemed difficult to grasp at that speed become natural. My method is to read as much as I can and repeat, especially the most difficult passages. When I reach saturation, I stop and resume the next day. With this system, I often manage to read and perform almost at performance tempo a movement of a Mozart sonata in a couple of days.

I am for the global approach... every piece, every measure, if tackled well, improves your technique (and also your ideas). I study pieces for a certain number of minutes a day, after which any measure has reached [the level of] the next piece...

Anyway, I fully agree with learning even while resting; today I just returned home after a week and noticed that the Two-Part Inventions No. 1 had improved even though I hadn't touched the piano in these days. our brain is definitely the most fascinating organ...

It is likely I won't get enough rest :-)

Each of us has our own timing. Every experience serves the next, so that even by leaving a piece behind, it will mature a little if the study of another helps us discover new solutions. As for learning, there is no precise rule. The speed of acquiring the reading of a piece increases as technical skills and fingering naturalness increase. The expert pianist almost doesn't worry much about technical difficulties.... they do nothing but learn the notes. Richter said during an interview that he would study one page and then... once acquired, move on to the next. What should be understood by 'acquired'? Well, at the beginning there is total dedication to learning the notes with a sketch of the musical interpretive idea that MUST arise immediately in the pianist's intention. Gradually, the more urgent matters will fall into place, and more attention will be dedicated to passages that are not natural. That is, it is appropriate to bring all the phrases of the composition to the same performance level so that the most difficult passage does not "suffer" compared to the easy one. Subsequently, one must work on the pedal, which should be established in writing. One will therefore try to reach the correct tempo speed.

In short, this can be done simultaneously on several pieces. Personally, I prefer to stay on the same composition for a few days so as not to distract my "assimilation" with other pieces. But later I feel the need not to bore myself by working on just one single passage or piece... or at least, after the fatigue of working on a "difficult" piece... I reward myself by repeating parts of the piece that I have well assimilated and are close to performance

Pianoexpert, you have touched upon several hot topics of the issue as far as I am concerned.. I belong to the 'repetita iuvant' parish.. it is difficult for me to reach saturation in studying the same piece, especially in the most difficult passages; I almost never reach a point of stagnation where I technically feel I cannot implement them further.. at most, it becomes mental intoxication, but in that case, I change execution speed, introduce rhythmic variations, separate or join the hands—in short, I believe it can prove productive.. at least for me, insisting to overcome any obstacles compared to alternating the object of study.. I read in a book by Neuhaus that restarting work by abandoning the difficulty when it arises is sometimes like trying to boil pasta water by turning off the fire every time it heats up, only to relight it once it has cooled down.. and as a metaphor, reasserting the subjectivity of the experience, I find it very fitting..

I quickly read through the various posts, so I might repeat things already said, for which I apologize in advance. I will tell you how I have always done and how I do today when studying scores. At the piano, I had become accustomed to dividing my time rather rationally (read: before starting to study) by establishing how much I should dedicate to the pieces I wanted to tackle that day/afternoon. This was because, as many of us I imagine, I had the tendency, otherwise, to "cling to" a particularly difficult piece until I saw improvement, but it is also true that, at least as far as I am concerned, after working on it for a while, my head would start to think with less clarity. Therefore, first of all, I never stayed at the piano for more than an hour/an hour and a quarter without stopping for at least three or four minutes to relax (walking around the house, a glass of water, splashing some fresh water on my face, things like that...); furthermore, before starting, as I was saying, I divided my time in a rather schematic way (for example: prelude and fugue, 30 minutes - Beethoven sonata (perhaps two "tough" movements), 1 hour - 3 nocturnes, 25 minutes each etc etc). It has always worked quite well for me, but naturally it is a subjective matter. I still do it today with scores, although it is a different type of study (in some ways more complicated because it is entirely mental); in any case, I never spend an entire afternoon on a single score, because in the long run my mind falls asleep...

I respect the "repetita iuvant"... but I perfectly agree with Carlos's opinion. It is certainly true that one can also dedicate a lot of time to a single passage. Nehaus mentions in the book that Richter arrived at a lesson and performed a Prokofiev sonata where the Maestro was waiting for a "punto dolens," a spot where all his students would falter. Richter surpassed it brilliantly. "Bravo," said the Maestro, "you managed to execute this passage well." Richter replied: "...I certainly believe so, I studied it for two hours!!"

Sviatoslav puts me off quite a bit :-)

Picked up the Sandor today.. and a long reprogramming journey has begun..

It is a wonderful book... and contested by many. You will discover that piano technique is made of gestures and... the "understanding" of them. One can repeat a passage infinitely... and not have succeeded in understanding what we really must do in performance....Tell me your impressions once read.

Gladly.. for now I find it enlightening..

In the paragraph on legato, however, I don't understand one thing... if the phrase to be legato is rather long and is ascending and descending, must I still start low and gradually end high, or must I readjust my wrist at the changes of direction and thumb passages?

Great text Sandor, I quote pianoexpert's intervention

LaSingolarita wrote:

..if the phrase to be legato is rather long and is ascending and descending, should I still start low and gradually end high, or must I readjust the wrist during direction changes and thumb passages?

...the gesture should follow the phraseological discourse; clearly there are constant and frequent "adjustments"

Thanks ttw. I also quote your post. Sandor is very attentive, perhaps too much, to the "gesture". It is clear that everything must be taken with a grain of salt and used to apply the principles to one's own hand. Anyway, it generates "anger" among "those" who are supporters of "technical marathons" made of contrasting rhythms and exhausting repetitions.