Hi Tyrone, I did not know that I was in any particular camp, so thank you to help me finally realize who I am...
Oh sorry, I shouldn't have used that term at all although I qualified it. I was just referring to those who believe that Ã©tudes are not so useful vs those that believe they are. But actually now, both of you have clarified it isn't that you don't believe they aren't useful, it's that you don't believe they are useful for learning this particular piece.
That said I do believe Etudes are usefull to practice particular skills. And like Bennevis said many etudes are also great music so you have the benefits of both. I wasn't opening a discussion on the theoretical benefits of doing only real music or etudes+music (there is probably already more than a thread on that). Now all of this is not that relevant for beginners as the difference between music and exercices is not significant before you reach a certain level. I think everybody that learnt classic piano has done exercises and studies (scales and arpeggios being one obvious examples) so all of this is just a matter of degree rather than a black and white type discussion.
Thanks for clarifying your point. I understand the point that both you and benevis are making. I don't agree, but as I elaborate on below, I only have a peg leg to stand on
For this thread, My comment is simply a pragmatic one. I am quite aligned with what bennevis said. FÃ¼r Elise is already an intermediary level piece in particular when playing the middle section with the repeated notes. I have read your extract and I still do not see what is the benefits of these "specially designed" studies. FÃ¼r Elise is composed of quite standard components so one should not need anything special other than learning to play arpeggios, chords, trills, repeated notes and a chromatic scale.
Thank you for looking at those 4 examples. So let me back track. I don't know if they are useful in general, I find the descriptions useful as they explain things about this piece that I did not know, and short of taking more advanced courses, I would probably not find out were they not explained to me.
In this way, I find it enlightening and as useful as I find Richard's analysis of study pieces
, which I find fascinating and useful and I hope he keeps it up!
Also, if I were to play this piece, I feel like it does indeed help me to understand certain things. For example, one of the studies I did not extract was one on the pedal point and the importance of the pedal point in this being after the tonic and not on the note. This was justified by some music theoretical explanation of what Beethoven was trying to achieve. Now I know myself that I am quite sloppy at pedaling. I always pedal and change on the note. And having it explained how important it is for this piece that the pedaling be done correctly, I think would be useful from an interpretive perspective.
The bits from these 4 that I did extract also seem to add some interpretive depth. Again, I could be totally imagining this - I can only point out so many times that the whole of my piano experience is 13 months+1 week, and many of you have two, three or four times this amount in years
of experience, so I am not trying to be didactic here - I wouldn't have a leg to stand on. (well, maybe a peg leg!) I only am trying to convey my own opinions about this stuff, how I reason about this stuff, and what I am finding useful or think (!) I find useful.
It maybe as you say that conventional piano pedagogy doesn't find studies for intermediate pieces to be generally useful. Who am I to argue otherwise? So let me drop a big caveat on everything
I said in this thread so far, that I only am referring to my own views in this matter, and clearly cannot speak for others... (And once again, sorry to have categorized you, wrongly as it turns out!)