1

Preface​ 3
Chapter 1. Introduction​ 5
1. What is practice?​ 5
2. Why this topic requires a broader view​ 6
3. Main aspects of practice examined in this paper​ 6
4. Stages of learning a piece​ 7
5. Aim of the paper​ 8
Chapter 2​ 8
2.1 The Brain and the Nervous System in Piano Practice​ 8
Practical meaning for practice​ 11
2.2 Signals, Feedback, and the Learning Loop​ 11
Practical meaning for practice​ 13
2.3 Memory, Forgetting, and Consolidation​ 14
Practical meaning for practice​ 16
2.4 Sleep and Offline Learning​ 16
Practical meaning for practice​ 18
2.5 Automatism, Repetition, and Variation​ 18
Practical meaning for practice​ 20
Chapter 3​ 20
3.1 General Health and the Quality of Practice​ 20
3.2 Tension, Effort, and Efficient Movement​ 22
3.3 Breathing and Regulation of the Body State​ 23
3.4 Fatigue, Breaks, and Recovery During Practice​ 25
3.5 Pain, Overuse, and Injury Prevention​ 26
3.6 Physical Activity and Body Conditioning​ 27
3.7 Practice Environment and Physical Conditions​ 28
3.8 Practical Guidelines for Pianists​ 30
Chapter 4. A Practical System for Piano Practice​ 32
4.1 Pedagogical and Pianistic Questions Behind the Practice System​ 32
4.2 From Advice to System: Task – Method – Check – Return​ 35
4.3 Building One Practice Session According to the Stage of Learning​ 38
Why the Stage Matters​ 38
Microscope Stage​ 41
Bird’s-Eye View​ 42
4.4 A Toolbox of Practice Methods​ 48
Mental sound plan​ 48
Diagnostic recording​ 48
Return to the score​ 49
Texture reduction​ 49
Progressive texture building​ 49
Playing one layer while hearing another​ 49
Line extraction​ 50
Harmonic compression​ 50
Pedal as a practice object​ 50
Variation practice​ 50
Structural starts​ 50
Physical organisation check​ 51
End-of-day return​ 51
Chapter 5. The Practice System in Action​ 51

2
 5.1 Aim of the Case Study​ 51
5.1.2 Session 0: First Impression​ 53
5.1.3 Session 1: Opening Material​ 54
5.1.4 Session 2: Return to the Opening Material​ 56
5.1.5 Session 3: First Work on the Agitato​ 58
5.1.6 Session 4: Same-Day Return to the Opening​ 60
5.1.7 Session 5: Return to the Agitato and Tremolo Area​ 61
5.1.8 Plan for the Next Practice Day​ 63
5.2 Second Case Study: Returning to Liszt Sonata After a Break​ 64
5.2.1 First Reaction and Correction of My Approach​ 64
5.2.2 Practice Session 1: Mental Return and Sound Plan​ 66
5.2.3 Practice Session 2: Surface Diagnosis of the Whole Andante sostenuto​ 67
5.2.4 Practice Session 3: Diagnostic Recording and First Repair — Andante sostenuto to quasi Adagio​ 68
5.2.5 Practice Session 4: Detailed Work on the Middle Development​ 71
5.2.6 Practice Session 5: Climax, Dolce, and Physical Organisation​ 74
5.2.7 Next Steps and Weekly Return Plan​ 77
Day 1 — Andante sostenuto as the first return block​ 77
Day 2 — Return to Andante, then begin Fugato​ 78
Day 3 — Return to Fugato, short Andante check, then main thematic material​ 78
Day 4 — Detailed return to Andante​ 79
Day 5 — Fugato and passage work​ 79
Day 6 — Octaves and another large block​ 79
Day 7 — Larger connection​ 80
5.2.8 Conclusion: What This Case Study Shows​ 80
5.3 General Conclusion: What the Two Case Studies Show​ 81
Chapter 6. Conclusion​ 82
Bibliography​ 84
Piano Pedagogy and Practice​ 84
Memory, Learning, and Performance Research​ 85
Sleep, Body, Attention, and Health​ 85
Scores​ 85

Preface
I chose the topic of practising because at a certain point I understood that my own
relationship with practice had become deeply problematic. What once seemed natural and
self-evident gradually turned into something unstable, chaotic, and psychologically difficult. I
was still spending time at the piano, still trying to work, still doing “something”, but more and
more often I had the feeling that I did not fully understand what exactly I was doing, why I
was doing it, and whether it was leading me in the right direction.

This problem did not appear suddenly and not from one single cause. It developed through a
difficult chain of circumstances. Around the age of eighteen I unexpectedly remained without
a teacher for almost two years. This happened because of several serious factors at once:
health problems in my own life, health problems in the life of my teacher, then the period of

3
Covid, then the war, migration to another country, and depression. In such conditions, the
external structure disappeared, and I had to rely much more on self-management than
before. Exactly at that moment it became especially clear to me how vulnerable a musician
can be when the internal system of practice is not strong enough.

The main difficulties for me were concentration and motivation. At some periods I simply did
not want anything. I found it hard to organise my work, hard to stay with one task long
enough, hard to keep a clear line of thought. I was moving too quickly from one passage to
another, often without working deeply enough into the material itself. I sometimes played
unlearned passages too fast, listened to myself insufficiently, and switched off the inner critic
exactly at the moment when it was most needed. My work could become fragmented and
unfocused, and because of this the learning of a piece took much longer than it should.

This experience forced me to return to the most basic questions: What is practice in reality?
What does it mean to practise consciously? Why do some hours at the instrument transform
the performer, while other hours disappear almost without result? Why is it possible to work
a lot and still not really learn? Gradually I realised that the topic of practice is not secondary
at all. On the contrary, it is one of the central questions of musical education.

In many institutions, students are taught repertoire, style, interpretation, technique, and
performance traditions, but the process of practising itself often remains insufficiently
examined. A student is expected to become his own teacher for many hours every day, yet
the skill of building this work is often left underdeveloped. Because of this, very serious
problems may be misunderstood. A teacher may think that the issue lies mainly in talent,
discipline, or personal weakness, while in reality the root of the problem may be found in the
student’s way of practising: in the structure of work, in the quality of attention, in the relation
between hearing and movement, in physical health, in psychological state, in the clarity of
goals, or even in broader conditions such as fatigue, deficiency, anxiety, or attention
dysregulation.

For this reason, I decided to study this subject as deeply as possible. First of all, I do it for
myself: to rebuild my own system of work, to become a more efficient pianist, and to
understand practice not as a vague daily obligation, but as a conscious and structured
artistic process. At the same time, I believe that this knowledge may later become valuable
in pedagogy. If I can understand more clearly what helps or blocks the learning process,
then perhaps I will be able one day to help other students who face similar difficulties.

For me, proper practice is not simply discipline, repetition, or time spent at the instrument.
Proper practice is the ability to find contact with oneself. It means to hear more honestly, to
observe more accurately, to organise one’s work more intelligently, and to connect intention,
body, ear, memory, and attention into one process. This paper grew from a personal need,
but it also reflects a broader conviction: if we want to understand musical growth seriously,
then we must understand practice seriously.

Chapter 1. Introduction
4
1. What is practice?
The word practice is used constantly in musical education, yet surprisingly often it remains
insufficiently defined. In everyday speech it is frequently reduced to the amount of time spent
at the instrument: one practises for two hours, four hours, six hours. However, such a
definition is far too simple. Time alone does not explain the quality, direction, or effectiveness
of work. Two musicians may spend the same number of hours at the piano and arrive at
completely different artistic and technical results.

In this paper, practice is understood not as repetition in itself, but as a conscious, organised,
and goal-directed process through which musical intention becomes embodied in sound,
movement, memory, and form. Practice includes technical work, auditory imagination,
physical coordination, attention, analysis, repetition, correction, rest, and reflection. It is
therefore not one isolated activity, but a complex interaction of mind, body, hearing, nervous
system, and artistic purpose.

For this reason, playing through a piece is not always the same as practising it. A
play-through may be useful at certain stages: for example, to test continuity, to experience
form, to simulate performance conditions, or to strengthen endurance. But if it is used too
early or too automatically, it can also hide problems instead of solving them. Practice begins
exactly where one starts to observe, define, isolate, compare, correct, and integrate. In other
words, practice is not merely “doing” music at the instrument; it is a specific form of learning.

From the perspective of piano playing, this learning process is especially complex because it
depends on the coordination of many parallel systems. The performer reads or remembers
the text, imagines the desired sound, sends motor commands through the nervous system,
receives sensory feedback through touch, hearing, and kinesthetic perception, and
constantly compares the result with the intended artistic goal. In this chain, the aural image
occupies a central position. One must know, at least approximately, what one wants to hear.
Only then can one search for the physical and technical means that make this sound easier
to realise. Thus, effective practice is not based on finger movement alone, but on the
continuous interaction between hearing, intention, and action.

This also explains why poor practice habits can sometimes imitate lack of talent. A student
may appear unorganised, slow, inattentive, or technically limited, while in reality the deeper
problem lies in the method of work itself. If attention is scattered, if tasks are too large, if
tempo is introduced too early, if feedback is weak, if the body is tense, if artistic goals are
vague, or if repetition happens without variation and reflection, then progress becomes
unnecessarily slow. In such cases the difficulty is not always a lack of ability, but often a lack
of structure, awareness, or pedagogical guidance in how to practise.

2. Why this topic requires a broader view

Because of this, practice cannot be discussed only as a matter of willpower or routine. Its
problems are often much deeper and may reflect conditions outside the immediate musical
task. Psychological state, emotional exhaustion, depression, anxiety, attention instability,
physical tension, sleep quality, nutrition, hydration, general health, and clarity of goals all

5
influence the quality of work. Sometimes what appears to be “laziness” is in fact overload,
confusion, inner resistance, fatigue, or an inability to divide the task into workable parts.
Therefore, a serious study of practice must take into account not only pianistic method, but
also psychology, motor learning, neuroscience, health, and self-regulation.

At the same time, practice is not a purely scientific process. It is also artistic. The performer
does not work only with muscles and repetitions, but with image, character, timing,
atmosphere, memory, and meaning. Even at the earliest stages of learning a piece, the
musician often has a first intuitive impression of its world. This first impression may later
change, deepen, or become more refined, but very often it contains something unexpectedly
true. For this reason, practising must be understood both as technical construction and as
artistic search.

This paper is written primarily from the perspective of piano practice, since the piano
presents a particularly rich field for discussing coordination, sound production, texture,
memory, and technical organisation. Nevertheless, many of the principles discussed here
may also be relevant for the practice of other instruments.

3. Main aspects of practice examined in this paper

The present work approaches practice as a multidimensional process. The following aspects
will be especially important in the chapters that follow.

First, the paper considers the psychological dimension of practice: concentration, motivation,
discipline, self-discipline, self-regulation, attention, inner resistance, and the difference
between productive work and merely prolonged presence at the instrument.

Second, it examines the neuroscientific and physiological foundations of practising. This

includes the role of the central nervous system, sensory feedback, auditory goal formation,
motor learning, automatisation, and the distinction between open automatism and closed
automatism, which will be discussed in a later chapter. These terms are important because
advanced performance requires not only conscious control, but also reliable forms of
automatic functioning — yet such automatisms must be cultivated intelligently rather than
mechanically.

Third, the paper addresses health, body, and environment: posture, breathing, coordination,
relaxation, sleep, nutrition, hydration, stretching, mobility, physical endurance, and injury
prevention. Since musical work is embodied work, the condition of the body cannot be
treated as secondary.

Fourth, the paper explores mental practice, understood here as practice without the
instrument through inner hearing, visualisation, kinesthetic imagination, score study, and
memory work. Mental practice is not identical with Zen or meditation, although both may
intersect on the level of attention and inner state. In the present work, Zen will be considered
more as a philosophical background that may illuminate questions of presence, awareness,
and relation to oneself during work.

6
Fifth, the paper turns to the practical organisation of practising: the structuring of time,
planning of daily work, work with repertoire, return to older pieces, and the question of when
it is useful to stop working on a piece for some time and later return to it with fresh
perception.

Finally, the work includes practical musical examples, since abstract principles become
clearer when they are tested on real repertoire. Later chapters will therefore include case
studies of pieces of different complexity.

4. Stages of learning a piece

An important part of this paper is the idea that learning a new piece develops through
stages. In my view, this process may be described in four main stages, with some additional
transitional phases.

The first stage may be called the first meeting. At this point, the first impression of the piece
is often more important than it may seem. If one approaches the score before listening to
other performances, one may intuitively sense certain images, moods, characters, and even
pianistic feelings that later prove to be remarkably accurate. This first contact should not be
idealised, but it should also not be ignored.

The second stage may be called the microscope stage. Here the work becomes detailed,
slow, and sometimes almost painfully careful. The material is divided into very small units.
One learns thoroughly, honestly, and with maximum attention to detail. At this stage the
playing may become deliberately exaggerated, heavy, sharply outlined, or “too expressive” in
order to make structure and control clearer. The tempo is often intentionally slow — even
unpleasantly slow. These are still sketches, but necessary ones.

The third stage may be called the bird’s-eye stage. After detailed work, one must rise above
the fragments and begin to see the larger form. Here the performer searches for hierarchy,
long lines, formal logic, structural direction, and relations between parts. The work becomes
less local and more architectural.

The fourth stage may be called making it your own. After analysis, detail, and formal
integration, the piece must enter the performer more deeply. It must settle not only in
conscious thought, but also in the subconscious layers of playing. The work returns, in a
sense, to the first stage, but now enriched by everything that has been learned. At this point
one may also speak about artistic preparation in a narrower sense: the transition from
learned material to living interpretation.

In addition, there are moments when it is useful to leave a piece aside for one or two months
and later return to it almost as if beginning again. In this sense, distance is both a stage and
a method. It allows the performer to test what has truly remained and what must be rebuilt
on a deeper level.

5. Aim of the paper

7
This paper does not claim to offer one universal method that would suit every pianist in
exactly the same way. Rather, it explores how a more conscious, structured, and integrated
understanding of practice may be built. Its aim is to connect scientific insight, artistic intuition,
practical method, and personal experience in order to examine what makes practice
productive, meaningful, and sustainable over time.

The broader argument of this work is that practising should not be understood as a
secondary routine surrounding “real” music-making. It is itself one of the central artistic
disciplines of a musician’s life. To learn how to practise is, in an important sense, to learn
how to think, how to hear, how to organise oneself, and how to enter into deeper contact with
one’s own artistic process.

Chapter 2

2.1 The Brain and the Nervous System in Piano

Practice
Piano practice does not begin in the fingers. It begins in the brain. Before any movement
happens, there is already some inner preparation: a sound we want to hear, a gesture we
imagine, an intention, a direction. Then the brain sends a signal to the body, and the
movement is carried out through the muscles. After this, information returns back to the brain
through hearing, touch, and bodily sensation. In this way, piano playing is not a one-way
action. It is a continuous circle between intention, movement, sensation, and correction.

In simple neurological language, the signals that go from the brain to the muscles are called
efferent signals, and the information that returns from the body and senses back to the brain
is called afferent information. In practice this means something very simple: the brain sends
a command, the hand responds, and then the nervous system receives information about

8
what actually happened. Was the sound the right one? Was the movement economical or
tense? Was the position accurate? Did the body feel free or blocked? All this becomes part
of the next correction.

For a pianist, this is very important because playing is not just pressing keys. It is a very
refined form of sensorimotor coordination. The performer works not only with muscles, but
also with several sensory channels at the same time. The most obvious one is hearing. We
hear the real sound and compare it with the sound we wanted. But there is also touch,
meaning the contact with the key, and proprioception, meaning the sense of where the
hand is in space, how far it moved, how much weight was used, and how the joints and
muscles felt during the action. Without these returning signals, the nervous system cannot
really learn.

Another useful image here is the cortical homunculus. It shows that different body parts
occupy different amounts of space in the motor and sensory cortex. The hand and fingers
have a disproportionately large representation. For a pianist, this is important because piano
playing depends on extremely refined motor control and very detailed sensory feedback. In
other words, the hand is not only a mechanical tool. It is one of the most finely organised
parts of the body in the brain.

This is why it is not enough to say that piano technique is “in the fingers.” The fingers
themselves do not decide anything. They execute what has already been prepared on a
higher level. First there is a goal, then a motor command, then an action, then sensory
return. For this reason, a pianist must gradually learn not only to move, but to feel and
understand what is happening in the movement.

One very important point here is the relation between motor image and real action. Before
playing, the brain can already prepare a certain movement pattern. This does not need to be
a fully conscious verbal thought, but some kind of inner readiness. In good practice, one
often “plays in advance” inwardly: one already knows what kind of sound and what kind of
movement is needed. This inner preparation makes the real movement more economical
and more directed. Without it, the hands often move first and the mind catches up later.

For this reason, imagination is not something separate from technique. It is part of
technique. If the performer imagines the sound and the character of the movement before
acting, the nervous system receives a clearer task. If this inner image is weak, then the body
often works in a less organized way. In other words, a good movement is easier to build
when the brain already knows, at least approximately, what it is aiming for.

9
Another important point concerns relaxation and impulse. In piano playing, muscles do not
need to stay active all the time. They act, then they release. In this sense, movement is not
continuous pressure, but a sequence of impulse and release. We discussed in class that
fingers move after the impulse. This means that the movement is not produced by constant
muscular gripping, but by a short activation followed by release. If the muscles do not
release, then the movement becomes heavy, expensive, and often less precise.

This is very important pedagogically. Many technical problems are not problems of “too little
effort,” but of badly organized effort. A student may think that he needs to do more, while in
reality he needs to interfere less. The body must learn not only activation, but also
deactivation. In good coordination, only the necessary effort remains. Extra tension is not
help. It is cost.

Seen in this way, practice is partly the training of faster and more precise communication
between brain and body. Of course this does not mean speed in the primitive sense. It
means that the signal travels more efficiently, the body responds more clearly, and the return
information is used better. Over time, the whole system becomes less expensive. The player
does not only “know more”; he also functions more economically.

The ear has a central role in this system. The final goal of piano playing is not movement
itself, but sound. For this reason, the hand should not learn blindly. It should learn under the
guidance of hearing. At the same time, hearing alone is also not enough. Good playing
depends on the cooperation of sound, touch, and bodily sense. The nervous system learns
most effectively when these channels work together.

So, in its most basic form, piano practice can be described like this: first there is an inner
goal, then the brain sends a command to the body, the body produces movement and
sound, and then sound and sensation return back for evaluation. On the basis of this
returned information, the next attempt can be changed. This is one of the most basic
mechanisms of learning at the instrument.

Another important point is brain economy. At the beginning of learning a passage, the brain
works in a very expensive way. The pianist has to read the score, imagine the sound, plan
the movement, feel the keyboard, listen to the result, correct mistakes, and remember the
structure almost at the same time. This is why a new passage often feels mentally heavy. It
is not only a problem of the fingers. The whole system is still calculating too much
consciously.

After days or weeks of good practice, the same material can become more economical. The
brain does not want to spend unnecessary energy on every small detail forever. Through
repetition, correction, and return, some parts of the action become more automatic and less
dependent on constant conscious control. This is one of the reasons why automatism is
necessary in piano playing: it frees attention for sound, form, timing, and interpretation.

This process is connected with brain plasticity. Practice can strengthen the routes that
support a certain movement, sound image, or memory. At the same time, material that is not
used for a long time may become less accessible. In simple practical language: what is
used is stimulated; what is not used may need to be reopened later. This does not

10
mean that a piece disappears immediately after a break, but it explains why returning to
repertoire often requires diagnosis and rebuilding.

Practical meaning for practice

In practical terms, this means that the pianist should not think only about fingers. Before
playing, there should be at least some inner image of the result. After playing, one should
notice what actually happened. If the sound, movement, or feeling did not correspond to the
intention, the next attempt should already be more informed. It also means that technique
should not be trained through constant muscular pressure. A good movement often happens
through impulse and release, not through holding.

2.2 Signals, Feedback, and the Learning Loop

Every time we practise, we create a loop between intention, movement, sound, and
correction. This loop begins not in the hand, but in the mind. First, there must be at least
some idea of how the passage should sound. Then the movement is made. After that, the
ear and the body must check the result. If the result does not correspond to the original
sound-goal, correction must follow. This process may repeat many times, sometimes for a
long time, until the hands gradually learn to produce what the mind and the ear demand. In
this sense, piano practice is not only repetition. It is a repeated cycle of aiming, checking,
and correcting.

For this reason, the ear should not be treated as a passive observer. In good practice, it
leads the work. The hand should not learn without a clear sound-goal. If the ear is passive,
the hand starts learning blindly. This is one of the main dangers in piano practice: a passage
may begin to “work” on the surface, and the player may already receive satisfaction from the
fact that something is moving, something sounds more or less convincing, and something
begins to resemble real playing. But this is exactly the moment when control can weaken.
The brain quickly rewards partial success. It creates the impression that everything is
already going in the right direction, even when the quality of listening has dropped and the
musical goal has become less clear. Then the player continues, not because the passage is
truly improving, but because the feeling of progress itself becomes pleasant. In such
moments, it is easy to stop correcting and start merely repeating.

This is why repetition alone does not guarantee learning. A repetition becomes useful only
when it gives clear information. One must hear not only that something was wrong, but also
what was wrong and, as far as possible, why it was wrong. Was the rhythm unstable? Was
the balance incorrect? Was the sound-goal unclear from the beginning? Without such

11
questions, practice easily becomes self-deception. A pianist may spend much time at the
instrument and still not train the right thing.

At the same time, feedback in piano practice is not only auditory. Sound remains central,
because the final artistic result is sound, but the ear is not working alone. The pianist also
learns through touch, through the physical feeling of the key, through the sense of weight
and release, and through proprioception — the sense of where the hand is in space and how
the movement is organised. This becomes especially important in leaps, changes of
position, and difficult coordinations. In other words, good practice uses several channels of
feedback at once: one listens, one feels, one compares, and one adjusts. The nervous
system does not train movement in isolation; it trains movement together with the sensory
consequences of that movement.

It is also useful to add the idea of feedforward. Feedback tells me what happened after I
played. Feedforward prepares what should happen before I play. A pianist needs both. If I
only react after mistakes, I am always late. Before playing, I should already have an inner
sound, a physical direction, and a feeling of the next gesture.

This becomes especially important in performance. On stage, I cannot analyse every

moment only after it happens. I have to play forward. The ear, imagination, and body must
already prepare the next sound and the next movement. For this reason, practice should
train not only correction, but also prediction. Good practice means that I learn to hear and
feel the next action before it arrives.

This also changes how I understand recording. Recording is not only a way to check
mistakes. It can create a small situation of performing for myself. When I press record, I
ask myself to continue, shape the form, and take responsibility for the sound as if somebody
were listening. In this way, recording trains not only feedback after playing, but also the
ability to stay in a performance state.

For me, one of the clearest signs of bad practice is the moment when I continue playing
instead of correcting. Concentration begins to fall, but I do not stop. I hear myself less
honestly, yet I go on. In such moments, the work may still feel active, but in reality the
feedback loop is already becoming weaker. This is why attention is so important in practice.
If attention collapses, feedback becomes weaker, and learning becomes blind. Then one no
longer really measures the result of each attempt. One only keeps the process moving.

Good practice feels different. At different stages of learning, the goals are different, but the
principle remains the same: I know what I am trying to achieve, and then I can hear whether
my playing is moving in that direction. A useful session is not one in which everything
suddenly sounds perfect, but one in which the previously set goals begin to appear more
clearly in sound. It is also a session in which I know where I did not play what I wanted, and I
can often predict the sound I need even before I produce it. In this sense, practice becomes
more efficient when intention becomes clearer, feedback becomes sharper, and correction
becomes more immediate.

Recording oneself can be a powerful aid in this process. It is often a way to hear the dry truth
of one’s own playing. During playing, the performer may be inside the action and may not
perceive the sound objectively enough. A recording can expose imbalance, unclear rhythm,

12
exaggerations, weaknesses of projection, and many other things that remain hidden in the
moment. At the same time, I would not treat recording as something necessary at every
second, especially not at the very beginning of learning. In early stages, it may be enough to
work directly through listening and correction. But in general, recording is an important
external form of feedback, provided that one is not too lazy to use it honestly.

This feedback-based view of practice also helps explain the difference between mere motion
and real learning. The goal is not only to “get through” the passage, but to train the hands to
realise what is wanted. That means that feedback is not only for detecting mistakes after
they happen. More deeply, it helps build the right coordination from the beginning. In this
sense, feedback does not only repair movement; it shapes it. This idea also prepares the
question of automatism. A reliable automatism is not built from dead repetition, but from
repetition guided by hearing, attention, and correction. A poor feedback loop builds habit. A
good feedback loop builds control.

Practical meaning for practice

In practical terms, this means that every repetition should have a

task. Before playing, the pianist should know what he wants to hear.
After playing, he should immediately compare the result with that
goal. If the result is unsatisfactory, he should not simply continue,
but correct something concrete: rhythm, balance, articulation,
movement, or sound image. In this way, practice remains active and
the feedback loop stays alive.

2.3 Memory, Forgetting, and Consolidation

Memory in piano practice should not be understood as something that appears at once.
During a practice session, we create an initial connection with the material, but at first this
connection is still fragile. A passage may feel available in the moment, yet this only shows
that it is active now. It does not yet show how stable it will be later. For this reason, memory
in practice should be judged not only by what is possible inside one session, but by what
remains after time has passed.

From this point of view, forgetting is not only a problem. It is also information. When material
feels weaker later, this reveals something about its real condition. What disappears quickly

13
was not yet deeply settled. What returns more easily has already begun to stabilize. This is
why forgetting can be pedagogically useful: it shows us which parts of the work were truly
learned and which parts depended too much on immediacy, warmth, or temporary control.

This idea can be linked to the classical forgetting curve associated with Hermann
Ebbinghaus. Its practical meaning for musicians is simple: forgetting is especially strong at
the beginning, when the material is still new and unstable. In other words, the first successful
work on a passage is only the beginning of memory, not its completion. The real question is
not only whether the passage worked once, but whether it can return.

(Adapted by me forgetting curve of Hermann Ebbinghaus for Piano Practice [Link] works with small parts of piece like a passage etc)

For this reason, one uninterrupted block of practice is not enough to judge learning. A long
session may show continuity, but return after a gap shows retention. This return does not
have to happen only on the next day. It can also happen inside one day. A passage may be
worked on, then left for two or four hours, and then tested again later. Such a return is often
more honest than the last repetition inside one continuous block, because by then the
immediate comfort of the first session is already weaker. The material has cooled down. If it
can be recovered after that gap, this already suggests a deeper level of learning.

This is an important practical principle. Repetition inside one block shows that the passage
can continue while it is still warm. Return after interruption shows whether the material can

14
be reactivated. These are not the same thing. A passage that works only while it is still warm
is not yet fully learned. A passage that comes back after a few hours with recognisable
shape, sound, and coordination is already becoming more stable.

This is why spacing matters. The value of spaced work is not simply that one practises more
often. Its value is that memory is tested under changing conditions. Later the same day, the
next day, and after longer pauses, the passage is met again from a different mental and
physical state. Each return reveals what has remained and what still has to be rebuilt. In this
sense, spacing is not only a scheduling trick. It is part of how memory becomes stronger.

When I learn a piece, I do not learn only the notes. Several kinds of memory work together.
There is motor memory, which remembers gestures, routes, distances, and physical habits.
There is aural memory, which remembers sound, harmony, melodic expectation, and the
feeling of where the phrase should go. There is visual memory, connected with the
appearance of the score, the keyboard, and the shape of the texture. There is cognitive
memory, which understands form, harmony, structure, and analysis. There is also
emotional and interpretative memory, which keeps the character, atmosphere, timing, and
meaning of the music.

This is why relying on only one memory system is risky. If I depend only on the hands, the
piece may collapse when the motor chain is interrupted. If I depend only on analysis, the
playing may become too slow or too intellectual. Strong memory in piano playing is a
cooperation between several systems. The more ways I have to access the material, the
more stable and flexible the piece becomes.

It is also useful to distinguish between several moments in this process. First there is
encoding: the initial work in the session, when the material is still expensive and fragile.
Then comes stabilization, when the trace begins to settle. Over longer time, the material may
become more integrated and easier to recover. In simpler words, practice gives the nervous
system new material, but time is needed for this material to become more available, more
economical, and more reliable. Memory is not formed only during practice itself. It continues
to develop after the session.

This broader view also explains why return to old repertoire is such an important experience.
Sometimes a piece that has not been played for a long time seems partly forgotten, yet
certain things come back surprisingly quickly: the route of the hand, the sound-world, the
large structure, the general gesture. At the same time, old mistakes may also return. This
shows that musical memory is layered. We do not remember only notes. We also remember
bodily habits, formal maps, sound images, and sometimes even tensions.

Here the idea of reconsolidation becomes useful. When memory is reactivated, it can
become unstable again and then settle once more in a changed form. For practice, this
means that returning to a piece is not only recovery of the past. It can also be a new phase
of learning. One may correct old habits, hear the material differently, reorganise fingering, or
give the passage a clearer sound-image than before. In this sense, relearning is not failure.
It is often part of deeper learning.

There is also an artistic side to distance. After a long period of serious work, it can
sometimes be useful to leave a piece for some time. I call this the wine-cellar effect. This is

15
not a strict scientific term, but a practical image. It does not mean that the piece improves by
magic. It means that distance allows the pianist to hear more clearly what has really settled
and what was only supported by recent repetition.

This is similar to wine in a cellar: the material is not actively changed every day, but time can
change the relationship to it. When I return to a piece after time, some things may feel
weaker, but other things may become fresher and more natural. Some weak places become
more visible, and some musical ideas appear with less pressure. In this sense, leaving a
piece can sometimes become part of deeper learning, not only a break from work.

Seen in this way, memory in piano practice is less like storage and more like gradual
stabilisation through return. The aim is not only to produce the right result once, but to build
something that remains available later. What matters is not simply whether the pianist can
play the passage now, but whether the material keeps its identity across time, pauses,
interruptions, changed tempi, and renewed contact.

Practical meaning for practice

In practical terms, this means that important material should sometimes be

revisited not only the next day, but also later the same day. A short return
after a few hours can already show whether the passage was only active or
whether it has begun to settle. It also means that same-session success
should not be treated as the final proof of learning. Finally, it means that
relearning should not be seen as wasted work: often it is exactly through
return that memory becomes stronger.

2.4 Sleep and Offline Learning

If memory needs time, then one more thing is very important: learning does not stop when
we stop playing. For a pianist, work at the piano is only one part of the process. During the
practice session we give the brain and the body new material, but this material still needs
time to become more stable. Because of this, sleep is not only rest after practice. It is also
one of the conditions that helps practice become stronger and more lasting.

Here it is useful to distinguish two things: online learning and offline learning. Online learning
is what happens during the practice itself: we listen, repeat, correct, organise movement,
and try to improve control. Offline learning is what happens later, when we are not playing
anymore, but the nervous system still continues processing what was learned. This is very
important for music, because material we worked on today may come back tomorrow in a
different way — sometimes clearer, sometimes weaker, sometimes easier, and sometimes
more organized inside. This shows that learning does not finish when the hands leave the
keyboard.

A strong source for this idea is the 2023 Neuron review by Brodt et al. (2023), Neuron. They
describe sleep not as a passive pause, but as an active brain state that supports memory
consolidation. In simpler words, the brain does not only “rest” after practice. It continues

16
working with what was learned. For me, this is one of the strongest reasons to treat sleep
not as something outside practice, but as part of practice itself.

For piano practice, the practical meaning is very direct. If I want tomorrow’s work to be
better, I must protect tonight. A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis showed that
reduced sleep harms memory formation and affects both encoding and consolidation. For a
pianist this means something very simple: bad sleep may not only make me feel tired or
unfocused, but may also make my learning worse.

Some newer studies help explain why. A 2024 study by Baena et al. connected
motor-memory reactivation during sleep with slow waves and sleep spindles after learning.
For my paper, I do not need to go too deep into all technical details. The main point is
enough: sleep is not empty time. It is biologically involved in strengthening learned motor
material.

Still, I do not want to make this sound mystical. Sleep does not repair bad practice
automatically. If the work was confused, sleep will not suddenly make it good. But if the work
was organized, attentive, and musically clear, sleep may help make it more available and
more reliable on the next day. So the point is not that sleep replaces practice. The point is
that good practice and good recovery belong to one process.

Besides full-night sleep, there is one more idea that is very useful for practice itself:
micro-offline learning. In 2020, Bönstrup et al. showed that even very short rests during early
motor learning can produce measurable gains. This fits very well with what many musicians
know from experience: one more repetition is not always the best next step. Sometimes a
real short pause helps more than immediate continuation. Silence is not always absence of
work. Sometimes it is part of work.

This is especially important for students who keep going automatically once something starts
to move. In such moments, more playing may create more noise, not more learning. A short
stop may let the ear reset, attention recover, and the nervous system reorganize what was
just done. In this sense, good practice is not one endless line of motion. It is a change
between action and assimilation.

This also connects naturally with mental practice. During a short pause, one does not need
to become mentally empty. One may briefly hear the wanted sound inwardly, remember the
general shape of the material, or imagine the movement in a simpler form. I am not yet
entering the full chapter on mental practice, but even here it is already clear that rest inside
practice can stay musically active.

From all this, one practical conclusion is very important: practice should be understood in
cycles, not only in long blocks. The session begins the work, but later return — after a
pause, after some hours, and after sleep — shows what has really settled. This is why trying
to learn too much in one late-night session is fragile. It may give temporary access, but not
strong long-term learning. Better practice is not only doing more. It is also allowing the work
to settle and become stronger.

17
 Practical meaning for practice

In practical terms, this means three things. First, sleep should be treated as
part of the learning process, not as something external to it. Second, short
real pauses inside a session may help learning more than impatient
continuation. Third, the effectiveness of practice should be judged not only at
the end of the session, but also by what returns after rest and after sleep.

2.5 Automatism, Repetition, and Variation

In piano practice, automatism is necessary. At a certain speed, and especially in difficult
texture, it is impossible to control every small movement consciously. Some things must
become automatic. But this immediately creates an important question: what kind of
automatism is being built?

In this paper, I use the terms closed automatism and open automatism in a pedagogical
sense. I do not use them as strict scientific terms, but as a practical way to describe two
different qualities of learned material.

By closed automatism, I mean a more fixed kind of automatic control. The material works,
but mainly in one narrow form. It gets used to one tempo, one internal route, one physical
feeling. At first this can feel secure, because the hands begin to “know” what to do. But such
security is often narrow. If something changes — the tempo, the acoustic, the emotional
state, the level of tension, or even the quality of concentration — this automatism may
become unstable. The hands continue, but control is already weaker.

By open automatism, I mean something more flexible. Here the material is also learned
well enough to function automatically, but it stays connected with hearing, attention, and
inner control. It does not become dead. The player still hears what is happening, still feels
what is happening, and can still influence the material from inside. Such automatism is not
mechanical. It is automatic, but still alive.

This difference is very important for practice. Closed automatism is when the material works
only in one narrow way. Open automatism is when the material is learned well enough that it
can survive small changes without collapsing. If I change the rhythm, the dynamics, the
articulation, the grouping, or the starting point, and the coordination still remains clear, then
this usually means that the material is learned more deeply.

For this reason, repetition by itself is not enough. Repetition is necessary, but repetition in
one fixed form easily loses value. After some point the fingers continue, but attention
becomes weaker. The body gets used to the route, but this does not always mean that the

18
learning becomes deeper. Sometimes it only means that the material becomes familiar. But
familiarity is not yet depth.

Because of this, open automatism can be trained through controlled variation. Instead of
repeating the same thing many times in exactly the same form, the pianist can change one
element while keeping the basic coordination. For example, one may practise with different
dynamics, different rhythms, different articulations, shifted accents, different starting points,
another tempo zone, or even reverse order in some practice forms. In this way repetition
stays active. The material is not only replayed, but reorganized under slightly different
conditions.

This is not variation for its own sake. It has a clear purpose. First, it keeps attention awake.
Dead repetition often leads to a kind of inner sleep: the hands continue, but the mind is
already half absent. Controlled variation does the opposite. It demands new listening, new
adjustment, and new responsibility. Second, it tests the real condition of learning. Material
that survives variation is usually stronger than material that works only in one fixed version.
Third, it makes the learning more flexible, and this is especially important for performance.
On stage, conditions are never fully identical to the practice room. If the material was learned
only in one closed way, it may feel secure at home and fragile in performance.

At the same time, variation should not become chaos. It is useful only when some basic
coordination already exists. If the material is still unclear, if fingering is not decided, if the
sound image is still vague, then too much variation may create only confusion. So the order
matters. First there must be clarity. Then there can be variation. Then, if this variation is
controlled, the material gradually becomes more flexible and more reliable.

So repetition and variation should not be understood as opposites. They need each other.
Without repetition, there may be no stable basis. Without variation, repetition can become
dead. Good practice usually moves between both. First something becomes clearer in one
form, then it is tested in another form, then it may return again to a more direct version. This
movement between stability and change is one of the things that makes practice intelligent.

There is also a psychological side here. Repetition in one form can become seductive,
because it gives comfort. The player begins to know what will happen, and this creates a
feeling of control. But in artistic work, too much comfort is dangerous. Variation breaks this
comfort a little. It keeps the ear awake. It keeps the system alive. It prevents the situation
where the hands continue, but attention is already gone.

So the goal is not to remove automatism, but to improve its quality. A mature pianist needs
automatic control, but this control should not be blind. It should stay connected with hearing,
body, timing, and musical intention. In this sense, the best automatism is not the most
mechanical one. It is the one that remains usable, flexible, and responsive under different
conditions.

Open automatism also needs living attention. If I repeat a passage many times without
real interest, the hands may continue, but the ear becomes passive. This is one of the ways
automatism becomes closed. The passage may still work, but it is no longer fully connected
with sound, form, and artistic choice.

19
For this reason, even automatic material should sometimes be reopened. One way to do
this is to return to the score. Playing with the score is not only for learning notes. It can
remind me of details that the hands simplified or forgot: dynamics, articulation, voices, pedal,
phrasing, and structural direction. Returning to the text helps prevent the material from
becoming only a motor habit.

This does not mean that I must always practise with the score. Memorised playing is also
necessary. But regular return to the score can keep the automatism open, especially after a
break or before performance.

Practical meaning for practice

In practical terms, this means that repetition should not always stay in one fixed form.
Once the material is basically clear, it is useful to vary one element at a time —
dynamics, rhythm, articulation, accents, grouping, tempo zone, or starting point. If the
material survives such changes, it is usually becoming more deeply learned. If it
immediately collapses, this shows that the learning is still narrow and fragile.

Chapter 3

3.1 General Health and the Quality of Practice

General health has a strong influence on the quality of piano practice. A pianist works with
attention, memory, hearing, movement, coordination, and emotional control at the same
time. All these elements depend on the condition of the body and the nervous system. When
the body is in a poor state, practice usually becomes heavier: concentration drops,
movements feel less precise, the sound is harder to control, and the work takes more effort.

This is why the question is not only how much a pianist practises, but also in what condition
the practice happens. The same method can give different results depending on sleep,
energy, stress level, hydration, pain, and general physical state. A tired pianist may repeat a
passage many times and still not improve it, because the attention is not sharp enough to
hear, feel, and correct the details. In this case, the problem is not only in the passage itself,
but also in the working condition of the performer.

Sleep is one of the most important factors. After poor sleep, many things become less
stable: focus, memory, emotional balance, and fine motor control. For a pianist this can
mean more accidental mistakes, weaker concentration, and more difficulty keeping a clear
musical image. Good sleep supports the next day’s work because it gives the nervous
system better conditions for learning and recovery.

20
Food and hydration also affect practice. Hunger, heavy food, or lack of water can change the
feeling of the body and the level of energy. Sometimes a practice session feels unfocused or
weak simply because the body is not ready for concentrated work. Of course, nutrition does
not replace musical thinking or technical work, but it helps create a stable physical state in
which this work can be done better.

Physical activity is also useful for pianists. Regular movement supports circulation, general
energy, posture, endurance, and stress regulation. It can also help the body feel more awake
and available before practice. This does not mean that a pianist needs athletic training.
Walking, swimming, cycling, light running, yoga, pilates, or mobility work can already be
enough. The most useful approach is moderate and regular activity, because very intense
exercise before practice may create fatigue and reduce fine control.

Stress and emotional state are also part of health. When a pianist is stressed, the body often
becomes more rigid. Breathing may become smaller, the shoulders and jaw may tighten, and
the hands may begin to work with too much force. This directly affects sound, coordination,
and freedom of movement. A more regulated state helps the pianist listen better, notice
tension earlier, and make better corrections during practice.

Pain needs special attention. Repeated pain during practice is a signal that something in the
system needs to change: technique, posture, workload, recovery, or general physical
condition. Serious work should not mean ignoring pain. If pain becomes normal, practice can
become less productive and risky for long-term development.

Good practice management therefore includes basic care of the body. A pianist should
observe not only the amount of work, but also the quality of the working state. Sometimes
the most intelligent decision is to sleep, drink water, eat normally, move a little, take a break,
or stop before exhaustion makes the work mechanical. These things may look simple, but
they often decide whether practice is focused and useful or just long and tiring.

General health should be seen as part of the pianist’s professional practice system. It
supports concentration, motor control, memory, recovery, and emotional stability. When
these conditions are stronger, the pianist can work with more attention, better sound control,
and less unnecessary effort.

3.2 Tension, Effort, and Efficient Movement

One of the most important questions in piano practice is how much effort is really needed.
Many technical problems appear not because the pianist does too little, but because the
effort is not organised well. The hand may press too much, the wrist may become fixed, the
shoulders may rise, or the fingers may continue holding tension after the sound has already
been produced. In this situation, practice becomes physically expensive, and the result is
often less free.

Efficient movement does not mean weak movement. It means that the body uses the right
amount of energy for the musical task. A strong sound does not always need a hard body. A

21
fast passage does not always need more muscular force. Very often, the solution is to
remove unnecessary effort, so that the necessary movement can happen more directly.

This is especially important for pianists because the instrument gives no direct physical
resistance after the key has been played. Once the sound is produced, holding extra tension
does not improve the sound anymore. It only stays in the body. If this happens many times,
tension starts to accumulate. Then the next movement begins from a blocked state, and the
pianist needs even more effort to continue.

A useful way to understand this is through the difference between activation and holding.
Activation is needed to produce movement. Holding is the unnecessary continuation of effort
after the movement has already done its job. In good technique, the body learns to activate
and then release. This creates a more flexible chain of movement, where the hand, wrist,
arm, and body can continue to respond.

This also changes the way we think about relaxation. Relaxation in piano playing does not
mean that the hand is passive or empty. It means that the body is available. The pianist still
has tone, direction, rhythm, and control, but without extra muscular noise. The best kind of
relaxation is active and intelligent: enough stability to play clearly, but enough freedom to
move.

Unnecessary tension can also disturb listening. When the body is too tight, attention often
goes into survival mode: the pianist feels that the passage is difficult, heavy, or dangerous.
Then it becomes harder to listen to the sound, to notice balance, or to shape the phrase. The
technical problem begins to take all the space. A freer body gives more attention back to
music.

Efficient movement is therefore connected with sound. The goal is not only to make playing
easier physically, but to make the sound more controlled and more alive. If the movement is
blocked, the sound often becomes forced, dry, or uneven. If the movement is better
organised, the pianist can control tone, timing, articulation, and phrasing with more freedom.

In practice, this means that the pianist should often ask simple questions: Where am I using
too much effort? What continues to be tense after the note is played? Can I make the same
sound with less physical cost? Is the movement coming from a free system, or from a fixed
part of the body? These questions are sometimes more useful than simply repeating the
passage again.

Slow practice can help with this, but only if it is done with real attention. Playing slowly while
keeping the same tension does not solve the problem. The purpose of slow practice here is
to observe the body: the release after the attack, the movement of the wrist, the weight of
the arm, the freedom of the shoulder, and the feeling of the hand after each action. The
pianist should not only hear whether the notes are correct, but also feel how the body
produced them.

Another useful method is to reduce the task. Instead of playing the whole difficult passage,
the pianist can isolate one gesture, one jump, one chord, or one change of position. Then
the question becomes clearer: what is the necessary movement, and what is extra? After

22
this, the gesture can be repeated several times, but always with the goal of making it easier,
freer, and more reliable.

Tension should also be checked between repetitions. Many students relax only before they
start, but become tight again after the first mistake. Then every new attempt begins with
more pressure. A better habit is to reset the body before repeating: release the hand,
breathe, hear the goal again, and only then play. This small reset can change the quality of
the whole practice session.

For pianist, efficient movement is not a separate physical topic. It is part of musical thinking.
The body should serve the sound, not fight against it. Good practice teaches the pianist to
connect sound imagination with a movement that is clear, economical, and free. When this
connection becomes stronger, technique becomes less about forcing the body and more
about organising it.

In this sense, tension is not only a physical problem. It is also a sign that the practice
process needs more intelligence. Sometimes the answer is not more repetitions, but a better
question: what exactly is blocked, what can be released, and how can the same musical
result be reached with less unnecessary effort? This kind of work makes practice more
professional, because it trains not only the fingers, but the whole coordination of the
performer.

3.3 Breathing and Regulation of the Body State

Breathing is one of the simplest things in playing, but also one of the easiest to lose. During
difficult practice, many pianists start to breathe less freely without noticing it. The breath
becomes short, the chest becomes fixed, the shoulders rise, and the body begins to work
with more tension. This can happen especially in technically difficult passages, in fast tempo,
in jumps, or when the pianist is afraid of making a mistake.

For pianist, breathing is important because it affects the general state of the body. When
breathing is blocked, the body often becomes more rigid. The arms feel heavier, the hands
become less free, and the sound may become forced. The problem is not always in the
fingers themselves. Sometimes the whole body is in a state of unnecessary control, and the
hands only show this condition at the keyboard.

Breathing also influences attention. A pianist needs to listen, feel, and react during practice.
If the body is tense and the breath is held, attention becomes narrower. The pianist starts to
focus only on survival of the passage: not to miss notes, not to stop, not to fail. In this state it
is harder to hear tone quality, phrase direction, balance, and small changes in movement.
Free breathing helps attention stay more open.

This does not mean that a pianist must breathe artificially on every phrase. The point is not
to create a separate breathing technique that distracts from music. The point is to notice
whether breathing supports the movement or blocks it. Sometimes one free breath before
starting a passage can already change the quality of the first gesture. It can make the body
less aggressive, the attack more prepared, and the movement more natural.

23
Breathing is closely connected with phrasing. In music, phrases need direction, space, and
timing. If the body does not breathe, the phrase can become mechanical. A natural breath
before a phrase can help the pianist feel the beginning, the impulse, and the length of the
musical line. This is especially important in lyrical music, but it is also useful in technical
passages, because even technical material needs direction and shape.

During practice, breathing can be used as a simple diagnostic tool. If a pianist cannot
breathe while playing a passage slowly, it usually means that the movement is not free yet.
The body is working too hard or controlling too much. In this case, the task is not only to
repeat the passage, but to find a version of the movement where breathing can continue.
This is often a sign that the coordination became more natural.

It is also useful to check breathing after mistakes. Many pianists make a mistake and
immediately repeat the same place with more pressure. The body becomes more tense, and
the next attempt is already worse before it begins. A small pause and one normal breath can
reset the system. It gives the pianist time to hear the goal again, release the body, and start
the next repetition more intelligently.

Breathing can also help with performance pressure. When a pianist prepares for concert or
exam, the body may react with fast heartbeat, cold hands, shallow breathing, and muscular
stiffness. These reactions are normal, but they can disturb playing if they are not regulated.
Calm breathing before playing and during pauses can help the nervous system return to a
more stable state. It does not remove all nerves, but it helps the body not to become
completely blocked by them.

In practice, this can be very simple. Before playing a difficult passage, the pianist can stop
for a moment, breathe, hear the sound inwardly, and then begin. During slow practice, the
pianist can check whether the breath continues naturally. Between repetitions, breathing can
be used to avoid automatic and nervous repeating. Before a run-through, breathing can help
create a clear beginning and a more stable physical state.

The goal is not to think about breathing all the time. That would make playing unnatural. The
goal is to include breathing as part of body awareness. If breathing becomes blocked, it
often shows that something in the practice process became too tense, too forced, or too
afraid. If breathing is free, the body usually has more chance to move, listen, and respond.

For this reason, breathing should be understood as a practical part of piano work. It supports
relaxation, attention, phrasing, and emotional regulation. It helps the pianist stay connected
with the body instead of only controlling the fingers. In good practice, breathing is not
separate from music. It becomes one of the quiet conditions that allows movement and
sound to be more natural.

3.4 Fatigue, Breaks, and Recovery During Practice

Fatigue is one of the most important things to notice during practice. It does not always
appear as complete exhaustion. Very often it begins quietly: attention becomes weaker, the
ear becomes less sharp, movements feel heavier, and mistakes start to repeat more often.
The pianist may still be able to play, but the quality of work is already lower.

24
This is an important difference. A pianist can continue moving the fingers for a long time, but
real practice needs more than movement. It needs listening, correction, memory, physical
awareness, and musical intention. When fatigue grows, all these processes become less
reliable. The sound may become less controlled, the body may use more force, and the mind
may stop noticing small details.

There are different kinds of fatigue in practice. Physical fatigue appears when the hands,
arms, back, or shoulders become tired. Mental fatigue appears when concentration becomes
unstable and it is harder to make good decisions. Emotional fatigue can come from stress,
pressure, frustration, or fear that the work is not going well. There is also sensory fatigue,
when the ear becomes less fresh and the pianist stops hearing differences clearly. All these
forms of fatigue can make practice less effective.

One dangerous moment is when practice continues after the quality has already collapsed.
The pianist may repeat the same passage again and again, but with less attention and more
tension. At this point repetition can become almost mechanical. Instead of improving the
passage, the pianist may start to strengthen unclear rhythm, forced movement, wrong
sound, or a nervous feeling connected with the place. This is why fatigue is not only a
comfort issue. It changes what the nervous system is learning.

Breaks are therefore not a waste of time. They are part of professional practice. A short
pause can restore attention, release the body, and help the pianist return with a clearer goal.
In project management language, a practice block can be understood almost like a small
sprint. It should have a clear task, a limited time, and a short review after it. For many
pianists, a focused block of about 30–40 minutes can be more useful than a much longer
period of unfocused playing.

This does not mean that every pianist must follow one exact number. Some tasks need
shorter blocks, especially very intense technical or memory work. Some slower musical work
can continue longer. But the general idea is important: practice should be divided into
workable sections. After each section, the pianist can ask: what improved, what is still
unstable, and is my attention still good enough to continue this task?

Recovery also happens inside a practice day. A pause, a walk, drinking water, changing
body position, or simply leaving the instrument for a few minutes can make the next block
much better. Sometimes the material also feels clearer after a break, because the mind has
stopped forcing it and has had time to process the work. This should not be exaggerated, but
many pianists know this experience: after a pause, the same passage suddenly feels less
heavy.

The goal is not to avoid effort. Serious practice requires effort, and some tiredness is normal.
The point is to distinguish productive tiredness from destructive tiredness. Productive
tiredness can appear after focused work and still leaves the body and mind relatively clear.
Destructive tiredness makes the pianist less accurate, more tense, less attentive, and more
automatic. When this happens, continuing in the same way usually gives less value.

For this reason, a pianist should learn to manage fatigue as part of practice. It is useful to
notice when the ear becomes dull, when the body starts to grip, when mistakes repeat

25
without improvement, or when every attempt becomes more nervous than the previous one.
These are signs that the practice block needs a pause, a reset, or a clearer task.

A good break does not need to be long. It only needs to interrupt automatic repetition and
bring back awareness. The pianist can stand up, breathe, release the shoulders, walk a little,
or silently hear the musical goal again. After that, the next attempt can begin from a better
state. In this sense, recovery is not outside practice. It protects the quality of practice.

3.5 Pain, Overuse, and Injury Prevention

Pain must be treated as an important signal in piano practice. It does not always mean
something serious, but it should not be ignored. Musicians often work with repeated
movements for many years, and small problems can become bigger if the body is not
listened to. For a pianist, pain is not only a health problem. It can change technique,
attention, sound, and confidence at the instrument.

In the medical literature, problems connected with instrumental playing are often called
playing-related musculoskeletal disorders or PRMDs. This term describes pain,
discomfort, or injury connected with the physical demands of playing an instrument. Studies
describe PRMDs as common among musicians, connected with repeated load, posture,
practice intensity, stress, and insufficient recovery.

For pianists, pain can appear in many areas: fingers, wrists, forearms, elbows, shoulders,
neck, back, jaw, and even around the chest or breathing system. Sometimes the pain is
local, for example in the wrist. Sometimes it is part of a bigger pattern, such as tension in the
shoulder and neck that later affects the arm and hand. This is why it is useful to think about
the whole body, not only the place where pain appears.

It is also important to understand that regular practice itself is not the enemy. A pianist who
practises consistently and stays in contact with the instrument often has a more adapted
body and a more stable technique. Problems may increase when the pianist stops for a long
period and then suddenly returns with many hours of intense practice. The body is not ready
for the load anymore. In this sense, falling out of work completely can also increase risk. The
safer way is usually consistent practice with reasonable load, gradual increase, breaks, and
attention to tension.

There are some warning signs that should be taken seriously: repeated pain during practice,
pain that stays after practice, pain the next morning, burning, tingling, numbness, unusual
heaviness, loss of control, or a feeling that the hand does not respond normally. These signs
do not mean that the pianist must panic, but they mean that something has to be changed.
Continuing exactly the same way is not intelligent.

Injury prevention begins with the way practice is organised. Long mechanical repetition of
the same movement can overload the same tissues again and again. It is better to work in
focused blocks, with pauses and clear tasks. If a movement creates discomfort, the pianist
should not simply repeat it harder. The task is to check what creates the problem: too much

26
force, fixed wrist, stiff shoulder, poor balance of the hand, too much speed too early, or lack
of release after the sound.

Self-massage can also be useful as a small support tool. Gentle massage of the forearms,
hands, shoulders, or neck may help release superficial tension and improve body
awareness. It should be soft and careful, not aggressive. The goal is not to “destroy” the
muscle or force pain out, but to notice where the body is holding tension and help it return to
a calmer state. If massage increases pain or numbness, it is better to stop.

Warm-up and gradual entry into work are also important. A pianist does not need a
complicated ritual, but the body usually works better when it is not thrown immediately into
the hardest passage. Starting with slower, lighter, and more controlled work gives the hands
and arms time to adapt. Difficult technical work is safer when the body is already awake and
coordinated.

If pain repeats, the pianist should not rely only on self-diagnosis. It can be useful to ask a
teacher, a physiotherapist, a doctor, or a specialist who understands musicians’ health.
Sometimes a small correction in movement, workload, or practice structure can prevent a
much bigger problem later. This is not a sign of weakness; it is normal professional care.

The main idea is simple: pain should change the practice plan. It may mean reducing speed,
changing method, taking a break, checking tension, shortening the session, or asking for
help. The aim is not to avoid serious work, but to make serious work sustainable. A pianist
needs a body that can continue developing for many years, not only survive one difficult
preparation period.

3.6 Physical Activity and Body Conditioning

Physical activity can support the quality of piano practice, especially through concentration
and mental clarity. Many pianists know this feeling: after good physical movement, the mind
feels cleaner, the body feels more awake, and it is easier to start focused work. This is not
the same as being excited or overstimulated. It is more like a better working state, where the
body has energy and the mind is less noisy.

This idea is supported by research on exercise and cognition, although this research is not
specifically about musicians. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials by Smith et al.
found that aerobic exercise training was associated with modest improvements in attention
and processing speed, executive function, and memory. For pianist, this is relevant because
practice depends exactly on these abilities: concentration, decision-making, memory, and
the capacity to correct details during work.

There is also a psychological side. Physical activity can help regulate stress and emotional
pressure. This matters for pianists because stress often goes directly into the body: the
shoulders become tighter, breathing becomes smaller, and the hands try to control
everything with too much force. After movement, the nervous system can feel more
balanced. In simple words, sport can give a healthier form of stimulation than the restless
stimulation that often comes from scrolling, stress, or nervous distraction.

27
The goal is not to build an athletic body. A pianist needs a functional body: a body that can
sit, move, breathe, concentrate, recover, and stay available for fine musical control. The best
activity is usually the one that supports this without overloading the hands. Walking is one of
the simplest and safest forms. It can clear the head, reduce stress, and prepare attention
before practice. Swimming is also very useful, because it works with the whole body,
strengthens the back and shoulders, and usually does not overload the fingers in the same
direct way as many gym exercises.

Dancing can help coordination, rhythm, body awareness, and freedom of movement. Pilates,
stretching, and mobility work can support posture, flexibility, and control of unnecessary
tension. Wushu or similar movement practices may also be useful because they combine
coordination, balance, focus, and body control.

The gym can be useful, but it needs more care. Heavy lifting, bad technique, or too much
work for the wrists and forearms can make the arms tired or even create risk for injury. If the
hands become “watery”, heavy, or exhausted after training, then sitting at the piano
immediately after that may not be a good idea. Fine motor control needs freshness. Very
intense training before practice can make the body too tired for precise playing.

Regularity is more important than intensity. A moderate routine several times a week is
usually better than rare extreme training. The pianist should observe what kind of movement
improves practice and what kind makes practice worse. The question is very practical: after
this activity, can I listen better, concentrate better, and move more freely at the instrument?

Physical activity should therefore be understood as support for practice, not as a separate
lifestyle decoration. It creates a better state for work. It can help the pianist feel clearer,
calmer, more energetic, and more connected to the body. This does not replace technical
work, listening, or musical thinking, but it can make all these things easier to do with quality.

3.7 Practice Environment and Physical Conditions

The practice environment has a strong influence on the quality of work. Some places help
concentration almost immediately. Other places irritate the body and mind: the light is wrong,
the colours feel aggressive, the room is too cold, the sound is unpleasant, people are
moving around, or there are too many distractions. A pianist may still practise in such
conditions, but the work often becomes more tiring and less deep.

A good practice space should reduce unnecessary friction. It does not need to be perfect or
beautiful, but it should help the pianist enter a working state quickly. Ideally, the space is
quiet enough, private enough, and physically comfortable. Scores, pencil, water, metronome,
and recording device should be available before the session starts. Every small missing
thing can break concentration and create extra mental cost.

The phone is one of the biggest problems in the modern practice environment. It should be
far away, not just lying on the piano or next to the score. Some pianists scroll TikTok or
Instagram while learning a passage, because they think the work is repetitive and automatic.

28
This is a serious mistake. Even if the passage seems mechanical, the pianist still needs
listening, control, correction, and body awareness.

This is also supported by attention research. Ward et al. found that even the mere presence
of one’s own smartphone can reduce available cognitive capacity, even when the person is
not actively using it. A later study by Skowronek, Seifert, and Lindberg also found that the
mere presence of a smartphone reduced performance in a concentration and attention task.
These studies are not about pianists, but they are very relevant to practice, because piano
practice requires sustained attention and cognitive control.

For this reason, focused practice blocks of about 30–40 minutes should ideally happen
without the phone. This is especially important if the pianist is already used to checking it
constantly. The problem is not only time loss. The problem is that attention becomes
fragmented. Practice then stops being a real learning process and becomes a mixture of
playing, scrolling, and half-listening.

The quality of the instrument also matters. When a pianist practises on a bad instrument, he
may start doing too much physically in order to create the sound he imagines. Later, on a
better instrument, the same physical action may no longer be appropriate. This can create a
false feeling of correctness. The body learned how to compensate for a poor instrument, not
necessarily how to produce the best sound.

At the same time, this does not mean that a bad instrument makes practice useless. Even
on a poor piano, the pianist can still work on structure, inner hearing, rhythm, fingering,
memory, and the imagined sound. But it is important to understand the limitations of the
instrument and not believe every physical habit it creates.

Bench height and distance from the keyboard are also important, but they are individual.
There is no one perfect position for every pianist or every piece. Sometimes a small change
in height or distance can change the sound, freedom of movement, and feeling of weight. It
can be useful to experiment from time to time: sitting slightly higher, lower, closer, or farther.
This should not become random, but it can help the pianist discover a more comfortable and
effective organisation of the body.

Temperature is another simple but important factor. Cold hands are bad for fine control. The
fingers feel slower, the body becomes more protective, and the pianist may use extra tension
to compensate. If the room is cold, the first minutes of practice should be lighter and more
careful. Noise also matters. Some noise can be tolerated, but constant unpredictable noise
makes deep listening more difficult.

It can also be useful to change the environment sometimes. A new room, a different
instrument, or a different acoustic can refresh motivation and attention. Research on novelty
suggests that exploring a new environment can support motivation and recall, although this
is not piano-specific research and should only be used as an analogy. For pianists, the
practical meaning is simple: changing the room can make the ear more awake and break the
feeling of routine. It also prepares the performer to adapt, because concerts never happen in
exactly the same conditions as daily practice.

29
Recording is another useful part of the environment, especially in the middle and later stages
of learning a piece. A recording device helps the pianist hear what is actually happening, not
only what he thinks is happening. It also creates a light performance situation. The moment
the pianist presses “record”, the body and mind often react differently. This can be useful
because performance preparation is not only about knowing the piece, but also about
learning to function when something is at stake.

This can also be practised without recording, by imagining a performance situation, but
recording makes it more concrete. The environment should therefore be treated as part of
the practice system. It affects attention, sound, body freedom, motivation, and the ability to
work without interruption. A pianist cannot always choose perfect conditions, especially in
conservatory practice rooms, at home, or before concerts. But he can learn to prepare the
space better, remove the biggest distractions, understand the limitations of the instrument,
and sometimes use a change of environment as a tool.

Good practice is not only what the pianist does at the keyboard. It is also the condition in
which this work is allowed to happen.

3.8 Practical Guidelines for Pianists

After looking at health, tension, breathing, fatigue, pain, physical activity, and environment,
one thing becomes clear: good practice is not only about discipline. Discipline is important,
but discipline without awareness can become stupid. A pianist may force more hours,
repeat more, and push through tiredness, but this does not always mean that the work is
becoming better. Sometimes it only means that the pianist is becoming more tired and
repeating with worse attention.

For pianists, practice management should include the state of the body and mind. This
does not mean that every condition must be perfect before sitting at the piano. That would
be unrealistic. But the pianist should understand that the quality of work changes depending
on concentration, energy, pain, stress, sleep, and environment. The same passage can
be practiced intelligently in one state and almost mechanically in another.

The first practical principle is to watch the quality of attention. If concentration disappears
after twenty minutes, then continuing in the same way is usually not useful. It is better to
stand up, take a short break, walk, drink water, or reset the body. With training, a pianist can
develop longer concentration, but this should grow gradually. Long practice is also a skill.
It is not something that should be forced brutally from the first day.

The second principle is that more hours are not automatically more professional. A
serious pianist must practise, of course. But the goal is not just to collect hours. The goal is
to make the work productive. If the mind is already absent, if the ear does not hear details,
and if the body is playing on autopilot, then another hour may not help. It may even make the
passage worse, because the pianist starts to repeat unclear sound, bad movement, and
nervous feeling.

The third principle is to adapt the practice plan to the actual condition. If the body or mind
is not ready for heavy technical work, it does not mean that the day is lost. The pianist can

30
look at the score, analyse harmony, mark fingering, listen inwardly, do mental practice,
imagine the programme, or play through only some important places. Sometimes the best
practice decision is not to continue playing, but to choose a different kind of work.

Pain needs a special rule. Pain should change the plan. It is important to understand what
kind of pain it is, but playing directly through pain is not a good method. If something starts to
hurt, the pianist can reduce the amount of work, play more slowly, practise in small short
attempts, or change the movement. Self-massage can sometimes help if it is gentle and
does not increase the pain. But if the same pain comes back immediately, or if there is
numbness, tingling, burning, or loss of control, then it is better to stop and ask a teacher,
doctor, or physiotherapist. Serious practice should not destroy the body.

Breathing is also part of this system, but it should not become artificial. The pianist should
not think about breathing so much that it distracts from playing. A better way is to connect
breathing with singing and phrasing. If there is a melodic phrase, it can be useful to sing it
and notice how the breath naturally moves. Then the playing can follow this more natural
feeling. In performance, breathing should support musical direction, not become another
technical problem.

Tension should be noticed before it becomes normal. Many pianists get used to extra effort
and stop recognizing it. The shoulders, jaw, wrist, back, and forearm can hold much more
tension than needed. The question is not only “Can I play this?” but also “How expensive is
this movement?” A good movement should serve the sound with the smallest unnecessary
cost. This is where body awareness becomes part of technique.

Physical activity can help the pianist maintain a better working state. Walking, swimming,
dancing, pilates, stretching, mobility work, or similar activities can clear the mind and
make the body more available. The purpose is not to become an athlete. The purpose is to
have a body that can support concentration, musical control, and long-term work.
Regularity is more useful than intensity, and activities that overload the hands should be
treated carefully.

The environment also has to be taken seriously. If the phone destroys attention, it should be
far away during focused practice. Scrolling while learning a passage is not real practice,
even if the fingers are moving. A passage is never only mechanical. It still needs listening,
correction, timing, touch, and awareness. The pianist can also use the environment
positively: change the room sometimes, practise on different instruments, record himself, or
create a small performance situation. These things can refresh attention and prepare the
pianist for real conditions.

Discipline, motivation, and awareness are different things. Motivation can help to begin,
but it is unstable. Discipline helps to continue when motivation is low. But awareness decides
whether the work is actually good. Without awareness, discipline can turn into blind
repetition. Good practice needs all three: motivation to move toward the goal, discipline to
keep working, and awareness to know when to continue, when to change method, and when
to stop.

For me, the main conclusion of this chapter is that the body is not separate from artistic
work. The body supports sound, attention, learning, and performance. If the body is

31
ignored, the practice system becomes incomplete. A pianist should not only ask, “What
should I practise?” but also, “What kind of state do I need for this work?” The goal is not
to make practice easy or comfortable all the time. The goal is to make it effective,
intelligent, and sustainable.

This prepares the next step of the work: building a practical system of practice. If practice
depends on goals, attention, body state, memory, environment, and review, then it
needs a structure that can hold all these elements together. This is why the next chapter will
move from principles to a practical method: how to organise a practice session, a practice
week, and a working tool for one piece.

Chapter 4. A Practical System for Piano

Practice
4.1 Pedagogical and Pianistic Questions Behind the
Practice System
The system proposed in this chapter begins from one practical problem: a pianist often
knows where something is difficult, but not always what exactly is difficult there. A bar
number is not yet a task. It is only an address in the score. The real task begins when the
pianist can name the problem inside that place.

For this reason, I do not want to build the system only from my own ideas. I want to place my
experience in dialogue with pianist-pedagogues and great performers who wrote about
practice, technique, concentration, sound, and performance preparation. I am not using them
as complete methods which must be copied. I use them as answers to practical questions:
what should be practised, how a difficulty should be reduced, how to avoid mechanical
repetition, how to connect body and sound, and how to keep music fresh.

The first question is: what am I actually practising?​

It is easy to write in a plan: “practise bars 30–50.” But this is still too general. Inside these
bars there may be many different problems: coordination, memory, rhythm, voicing,
fingering, touch, release, pedal, or phrase direction. If the problem is not named, the pianist
may repeat the place many times without knowing what is being trained.

Cortot is important here because his approach to technique is based on diagnosis. A difficult
place is not only “hard”; it has a type. It may be a problem of double notes, extensions,
passagework, chord attack, thumb movement, wrist movement, or another technical
category. This is important for my system because the first step of practice is not repetition,
but diagnosis. Before repeating, the pianist must translate a vague difficulty into a clear
task.

32
Hofmann is also useful here because his writing often answers practical questions from the
pianist’s point of view. He does not treat practice only as an abstract theory. His approach is
close to real studio work: a student has a concrete problem, and the answer must be
practical. This supports the idea that a practice system should be based on questions, not
only on time. The pianist should ask: what exactly does not work, why does it not work, and
what kind of work does this problem need?

The second question is: what should lead the hand?​

Neuhaus gives an important answer: the hand should be led by the artistic image and by
sound. Technique is not the final goal. It is a way to realise musical meaning. In practice this
means that a technical problem should not be separated from the sound result. The pianist
should not only ask, “How do I play this?” but also, “What sound, direction, colour, and
character do I want here?”

For example, “fix the jumps” is not specific enough. A better task would be: “make the jumps
secure without losing phrase direction,” or “make the octave movement powerful but not
percussive.” In this case, the technical task has a musical criterion. The pianist knows not
only what to move, but what must be heard.

Busoni can also be connected with this question, but from another side. His idea of technical
readiness is useful: technique should prepare the pianist for artistic freedom, not become an
end in itself. For my system this means that technical work should not be random. It should
prepare the body and mind for the musical demands of the piece. Technique is useful only
when it increases freedom, clarity, and control.

The third question is: how should a difficult place be reduced?​

A common mistake is to repeat too much material at once. The whole passage feels
difficult, so the whole passage is repeated again and again. But often the real problem is
much smaller: one connection, one change of hand position, one chord, one fingering, one
jump, or one moment where the body becomes fixed.

Cortot helps here through technical reduction: the pianist must find the elementary difficulty
inside the passage. Sándor helps from the movement side: the pianist must find what kind of
motion the passage needs. Sometimes the answer is not “more finger work,” but rotation,
arm weight, lateral movement, free fall, release, grouping, or better preparation of the next
position.

This gives a very practical rule: the method must match the problem. If the problem is
movement, then only emotional intensity will not solve it. If the problem is memory, slow
physical repetition may not be enough. If the problem is sound, rhythm variation alone may
not solve it. Before choosing the method, the pianist must understand what type of problem
he is solving.

The fourth question is: how do I avoid mechanical repetition?​

Mechanical repetition is not just repeating many times. It is repeating without a living
question. The fingers move, but the mind does not really compare, correct, or decide. This is
why Gieseking and Leimer are important. Their work puts concentration, inner hearing, silent
score reading, and mental practice at the centre of learning. They show that practice can
happen before the fingers touch the keys.

33
Hofmann also belongs here, because his practical answers often show that practice must be
intelligent and individual. The pianist should not simply follow a rule blindly. The work must
answer the actual problem of the piece and of the player. This is important for my system
because a method is not automatically good. Slow practice, rhythm variation, recording, or
mental practice can all be useful, but only if they are used for the right reason.

Rubinstein is useful here as a performer’s warning. He is often associated with the idea that
too much practice can make playing lose freshness. I do not take this as an excuse to
practise less. A professional pianist needs serious work. But his attitude reminds me that
over-practice can become harmful when it kills musical freshness and turns music into tired
repetition. This supports one of my main ideas: more hours are not automatically better
practice.

The fifth question is: how does the body enter the system?​
It is too simple to say only “relax.” In piano playing, relaxation does not mean doing nothing.
Matthay’s work on touch, weight, and muscular control is useful because it connects sound
with the way the body approaches the key. The question is not only whether the right notes
are played, but what physical action produced the sound.

Sándor also supports this idea by treating technique as organised movement. A pianist
should not solve every difficulty with the fingers alone. Often the solution belongs to the
larger playing mechanism: arm, wrist, forearm, shoulder, balance, rotation, release, or
redistribution of effort. This connects directly with the previous chapter: the body is not
outside practice. It is one of the things that must be checked.

So, in my system, the body becomes part of the Check stage. The pianist asks not only:
“Was it correct?” but also: “How much effort did it cost?” “Did I release after the sound?”
“Was the wrist fixed?” “Did the shoulder hold tension?” “Can I produce the same result with
less unnecessary effort?” These questions make technical work more professional.

The sixth question is: how does practice continue after the session?​
A passage that works once is not automatically learned. It must return. It needs to be
checked later: after a pause, later the same day, the next day, and again after some days.
This connects the older pedagogical ideas with the memory principles discussed earlier in
this work.

This is where practice management becomes necessary. Advice like “listen more,” “work
slowly,” “relax,” or “concentrate” is true, but still too general. It becomes useful only when it is
turned into a concrete action: what exactly should I work on, by which method, how will I
check it, and when will I return to it?

For this reason, I reduce the practice process to four basic elements: Task, Method, Check,
and Return.

Task means: what exactly is the problem?​

Method means: how am I going to work on it?​
Check means: how do I know that it improved?​
Return means: when will I come back to it?

34
This model is not meant to replace a teacher, musical intuition, or artistic imagination. It is a
way to organise practice so that the pianist does not get lost in vague work. In this model,
the ideas of different pianist-pedagogues become practical: Cortot helps to diagnose the
task, Neuhaus keeps the musical image at the centre, Gieseking and Leimer support
concentration and mental work, Matthay and Sándor bring the body and movement into the
check, Hofmann supports practical problem-solving, Busoni reminds about technical
readiness, and Rubinstein warns against losing freshness through over-practice.

For me, this is the point where pedagogy becomes practice management. The goal is not to
make music mechanical. The goal is to protect musical work from mechanical repetition.

4.2 From Advice to System: Task – Method – Check –

Return
Many practice advices are true, but too general: “listen more”, “practise slowly”, “relax”,
“concentrate”, “work on technique”. These ideas are useful, but only when they become
concrete. Otherwise the pianist may understand the advice, but still not know what exactly to
do in the next ten minutes of practice.

This is the problem I want to solve in my system. Practice needs to move from general
advice to a clear working process. For this reason, I reduce practice to four elements: Task –
Method – Check – Return.

Task means: what exactly am I working on?​

Method means: how am I working on it?​
Check means: how do I know it became better?​
Return means: when will I come back to it?

The first element is Task. A badly named task already creates unclear practice. “Bars
30–50” is not a task. It is only an address in the score. A real task begins when the pianist
names what is unstable inside this place.

A good task has three parts: material, problem, and criterion. The material says where I
work. The problem says what is unstable. The criterion says how I will know it became
better. For example, “bars 30–50” is only material. “Bars 30–50 — left-hand leaps” is better,
but still not complete. “Bars 30–50 — secure left-hand leaps without breaking the phrase
direction” is already a real task, because it connects the technical difficulty with a musical
result.

This is also a diagnostic step. Before choosing a method, the pianist should understand what
kind of problem it is. Is it a sound problem, a text problem, a memory problem, a movement
problem, or a continuity problem? The same passage can feel difficult for different reasons. If
the diagnosis is wrong, the method will probably also be wrong.

The second element is Method. A method must answer the task. This sounds obvious, but
in real practice it is easy to use a familiar method only because it is familiar: slow practice,
hands separately, rhythmic variants, metronome, or playing through. But no method is
automatically good. It becomes good only when it answers the right problem.

35
If the problem is memory, slow repetition alone may not be enough. The pianist may need
random starting points, mental practice, structural landmarks, or harmonic understanding. If
the problem is sound, rhythm variation may not help. The work may need singing, listening
to balance, different dynamics, or recording. If the problem is movement, stronger emotion
will not solve it. The pianist has to find better physical organisation: release of extra effort,
preparation of the next position, freer wrist, better use of weight, or more natural movement.

So the method does not exist separately from the task. A method is useful only when it
answers the right problem. Even slow practice can become empty if it does not check
anything. Slow practice should help the pianist hear, feel, understand, or control something
more clearly.

The third element is Check. This is often the missing part of practice. A pianist repeats
something and feels that it became better. But “easier” does not always mean “better”.
Sometimes the passage only became more familiar. Sometimes the hands adapted for a few
minutes, but the sound did not improve. Sometimes the place works only because it is warm
now.

I find it useful to think about three levels of checking: immediate check, transfer check,
and delayed check. Immediate check asks whether the passage improved now. Transfer
check asks whether it still works in another tempo, dynamic, starting point, articulation, or
larger musical context. Delayed check asks whether it still works after time.

This protects the pianist from self-deception. It is easy to confuse familiarity with stability.
Real improvement should show itself not only in the moment, but also in another condition.

The check can happen through different channels. The ear checks sound, balance,
articulation, phrase direction, and texture. The body checks effort, freedom, tension, and
release. Memory is checked by starting from different points, understanding the structure,
and hearing the next phrase before playing it. Recording, teacher feedback, or playing for
someone can also become part of the check.

The fourth element is Return. One successful attempt does not mean that the material is
learned. It may only mean that the material was active at that moment. Real stability appears
later.

This idea is connected with Ebbinghaus’ forgetting curve. His work shows that forgetting
begins quickly after learning, especially soon after the first contact with material. Piano
practice is not the same as memorising syllables, so I do not use the curve as a mechanical
formula. But the practical principle is very important: material should return before the pianist
starts to believe too early that it is already stable.

In my system, Return has three practical levels.

The first level is near return. This means coming back to the material after a short pause,
for example after 20–40 minutes, or near the end of the same practice block. This checks
whether the result was real or only the effect of immediate repetition. If the passage works
only while it is warm in the hands, it is not stable yet.

36
The second level is daily return. This means returning to the same material later in the day,
after several hours, or on the next day. This is especially important for memory, transitions,
spatial accuracy, voicing, and places where the body easily returns to old habits. The daily
return shows what the nervous system actually kept after the first work.

The third level is weekly return. Important places should be checked again during the week,
especially at the beginning and at the end of the weekly cycle. This is one of the reasons
why I prefer a weekly practice sheet instead of only a daily journal. A daily journal can show
what happened today, but a weekly sheet can show whether the material really came back.

So Return is not just repetition. It is a planned test of stability. If a passage works only
immediately after many repetitions, it is still fragile. If it works after a short pause, later the
same day, the next day, and again at the end of the week, then it is becoming more reliable.
If it collapses, this is not a failure. It is information.

Together, these four elements create a working cycle: Task → Method → Check → Return.

Inside Task, there is diagnosis.​

Inside Method, there is the choice of a suitable tool.​
Inside Check, there is proof that something really changed.​
Inside Return, there is protection against forgetting and false confidence.

This is not bureaucracy. It is the opposite. Mechanical practice often hides behind good
intentions: many hours, many repetitions, many difficult places. But without task, method,
check, and return, the pianist may not know what was actually trained.

The model becomes more useful when it is not kept only in the head. In real practice,
especially when preparing several pieces, it is easy to forget what was done, what still needs
return, and which places only seemed stable. This is why the four elements need a simple
external form.

This leads to the idea of the weekly practice sheet. The sheet is not a separate diary and
not just a list of hours. It is a practical place where Task, Method, Check, and Return can
be written down and followed during the week. The pianist chooses one piece, writes the
main goal for that week, names the concrete materials and tasks, chooses methods, and
marks on which days the material was touched.

The most important part is the return plan. The sheet should show not only what was
practised once, but whether the material came back: near return, daily return, and weekly
return. In this way, the sheet becomes more than a planner. It becomes a practice-memory
tool. It helps the pianist see whether a passage is really becoming stable, or whether it only
worked once after immediate repetition.

At the end of the week, the pianist can review the page and ask: what became stronger,
what is still fragile, which method worked, and what must continue into the next week. This is
where practice management becomes visible. The pianist is not only working; he is also
tracking the logic of his work.

37
For me, this model connects the whole work. From the chapter about brain and memory
comes feedback and return. From the chapter about the body comes checking effort,
tension, and pain. From piano pedagogy comes musical image, concentration,
diagnosis, and movement. In this chapter, these ideas become one practical cycle.

The next step is to see how this cycle works inside one real practice session: how to begin,
how to work in a focused block, when to pause, how to check, and how to decide what to do
next.

4.3 Building One Practice Session According to the

Stage of Learning
Why the Stage Matters

A practice session cannot be the same at every stage of learning a piece. This is one of the
most important points in my system. The same piece needs different kind of work when I
meet it for the first time, when I study it under the microscope, when I try to understand the
whole form, and when I return to it later with more experience. If I use the same practice
strategy at every stage, I can easily do the right thing at the wrong time.

This is why a practice session should not be built only around time. It should be built around
the stage of the piece. The question is not only: “How long should I practise?” The better
question is: what kind of practice does this stage need?

At the beginning of work, the most important thing may be to receive the first musical
impression and not kill it too early with technical details. Later, the opposite may be true: the
piece needs very slow, almost uncomfortable detailed work. After that, the pianist must zoom
out again and see the whole architecture. Then, after all this work, the first image can return,
but now in a richer form.

This is close to the way many serious musicians actually prepare repertoire. Research on
conservatory musicians shows that preparation often moves through different phases:
choosing or receiving the piece, technical work in sections, memorisation through internal
mapping, work on the piece as a whole, and later maintenance or refinement. This supports
the idea that practice changes its function over time, rather than staying the same from the
first day to the performance.

In my system, I describe this process through four main stages:

First Impression — meeting the piece and forming the first musical image.​
Microscope Stage — detailed work on text, sound, movement, and technical-musical
problems.​
Bird’s-Eye View — understanding the whole form, dramatic line, and large-scale direction.​
Enriched Return — coming back to the first image after detailed work, when the piece
begins to become personal and performable.

38
These stages are not always perfectly separated. Sometimes I can move between them in
one day. For example, I may work under the microscope on one page, then zoom out and
check how this page works inside the whole exposition. Or I may return to the first
impression after a few days and notice that my original idea was right, but too simple. Still,
the distinction is useful because it prevents practice from becoming one-dimensional.

The model Task – Method – Check – Return works in every stage, but the content of each
element changes.

At the First Impression stage, the task is not yet to polish every detail. The task is to
understand what kind of world the piece opens. The method may be reading, listening
inwardly, slow playing, looking through the score, or singing main ideas. The check is not “is
it stable?” but “do I already hear something meaningful in this music?”

At the Microscope Stage, the task becomes very specific. The pianist works on exact
places and exact problems: voice balance, fingering stability, articulation, release after
sound, texture clarity, spatial accuracy, pedalling, rhythmic alignment, or movement
organisation. The check is more strict: did the problem become clearer, or did I only repeat
it?

At the Bird’s-Eye View stage, the task is not one bar, but the large shape. The pianist asks
how sections connect, where the climax is, what is main and secondary, how the tempo
breathes, and how the piece moves through time. The check is whether the music makes
sense as a whole.

At the Enriched Return stage, the piece must become more natural and personal. It is not
only learned; it begins to live in the performer. Here the pianist works with performance state,
recording, memory under pressure, full sections, emotional pacing, and return after time.

This structure also protects the pianist from two opposite mistakes. The first mistake is to
stay too long in the first impression and never do the hard work. Then the interpretation may
be inspired, but technically and structurally weak. The second mistake is to enter the
microscope too early and destroy the living image of the piece. Then the work may be
detailed, but the music becomes dry and over-controlled.

Good practice needs both zooming in and zooming out. The pianist must sometimes work
like a scientist with a microscope, and sometimes like a conductor looking at the whole form.
These are different states of attention. A strong practice system should allow both.

First Impression

The first stage is First Impression. This is the first meeting with the piece. For me, this
stage is very important because it often gives the most honest contact with the music. Before
many corrections, before too many habits, before too many recordings and external
opinions, the pianist can still feel the piece directly.

The goal of this stage is not to play perfectly. The goal is to understand the first character of
the piece: its atmosphere, energy, world, and direction. At this stage I want to know what
kind of music I am entering. Is it dramatic, lyrical, ironic, tragic, cold, unstable, sacred,

39
violent, intimate, theatrical? What is the first emotional temperature of the piece? What kind
of sound does it ask for?

This stage should not immediately become mechanical note-learning. Of course, the pianist
must read the text carefully, but if the first meeting becomes only “notes, fingers, mistakes”,
something important can be lost. The first impression gives the piece an artistic centre.
Later, in the microscope stage, I can correct, rebuild, and specify many details, but I still
need to remember why this piece attracted me in the first place.

Neuhaus’ idea of the artistic image is useful here. His approach suggests that the pianist
should not begin only from physical execution, but from a musical image of the composition.
An observational study on the early stage of learning a Bach fugue also used Neuhaus’
concept of artistic image to examine how students establish a musical image during their first
practice session, which shows that this question is relevant exactly at the beginning of
learning.

In practical terms, the first session with a piece can include several actions. I may read
through the score slowly, without trying to perform it. I may play fragments under tempo, only
to hear the harmony, register, texture, and first themes. I may look at the general form, mark
obvious sections, identify the first climax, or notice repeated motives. I may sing a main line
or imagine how the piece should sound before trying to make it technically secure.

At this stage, mental hearing is very important. The pianist should not only ask, “Can I play
this?” but also, “Can I hear something before I play it?” The sound image may still be
incomplete, but it should begin to exist. This is where the later technical work receives
direction. If I do not hear anything inwardly, technique can become blind too early.

I would be careful with listening to too many recordings at this stage. Recordings can be
useful, especially for understanding style, tradition, and possibilities. But if I listen too much
too early, I may lose my own first reaction. Instead of meeting the piece, I start meeting
someone else’s version of the piece. For this reason, I prefer at first to read the score, play
slowly, and form my own first questions. Later recordings can be more useful, because then I
can compare consciously instead of copying unconsciously.

The Task at this stage is not “learn the piece.” That is too wide. A better first-impression task
could be: establish the first sound image; understand the main character; identify main
sections; hear the first phrase direction; find the first harmonic or dramatic tension; notice the
basic texture; decide what kind of touch the opening may need.

The Method should be light but attentive. Slow reading, silent score reading, singing, looking
at the structure, playing only important voices, or trying the opening in different characters
can all be useful. The pianist should not try to solve everything yet. The method should help
the piece speak for the first time.

The Check is also different from later stages. I am not checking whether the piece is stable.
I am checking whether I have a first relationship with it. Can I describe the character? Can I
sing or hear the main idea? Do I understand where the phrase wants to go? Do I feel the
atmosphere of the opening? Do I know what I want to explore next?

40
The Return after this stage is very important. The first impression should not disappear
under technical work. I may return to it after the first detailed sessions and ask: is my original
image still alive? Did it become stronger, or did I lose it? Sometimes the first impression was
naive, and it needs to change. But sometimes it contains the most truthful idea of the piece,
and the later work should not destroy it.

A danger of this stage is romantic vagueness. A pianist can enjoy the atmosphere and avoid
real work. That is not the point. First Impression is not an excuse to be imprecise. It is a
stage for forming direction. After that, the music must go under the microscope

Microscope Stage

The second stage is the Microscope Stage. This is where the pianist stops looking at the
piece only as a beautiful whole and starts to examine its small parts. The work becomes very
concrete. Every unclear thing must become visible: notes, rhythm, fingering, articulation,
voice balance, texture, release, pedalling, movement, memory points, and transitions.

This stage can feel less poetic, but it is necessary. If the first impression gives the piece
direction, the microscope gives it material reality. The pianist must ask what exactly prevents
the musical image from becoming real. Is the sound unclear because the voices are not
balanced? Is the phrase broken because a transition is unstable? Is the tempo impossible
because the movement is too expensive? Is the memory weak because the structure is not
understood?

This is the stage where vague practice is most dangerous. Repeating the whole passage
many times is usually not enough. The pianist must reduce the difficulty. Cortot’s method is
useful here because it is based on reducing technical difficulties to elementary principles and
creating exercises from real problems. Descriptions of his Rational Principles of Pianoforte
Technique emphasise exactly this idea: bringing a difficulty back to its elementary principle in
order to solve the technical problem more efficiently.

In this stage, I often think that the pianist should make the material almost exaggerated.
Details may need to be played more clearly than they will finally sound. A voice can be
brought out too much, an articulation can be made too obvious, a gesture can be slowed
down almost unnaturally. This is not the final performance. It is a way to see what is hidden.

This is what I mean by “microscope.” Under the microscope, things are not seen in their
normal size. They are enlarged. The pianist may play very slowly, stop on important points,
separate layers, exaggerate the top voice, isolate one transition, or repeat one physical
gesture until the exact problem becomes clear. The goal is not beauty in the moment. The
goal is clarity.

The Task in this stage must be narrow. Not “work on the exposition,” but “clarify the inner
voice in the transition,” “secure the left-hand landing without losing pulse,” “release after the
chord attack,” “stabilise fingering in the chromatic line,” “make the pedal change cleaner,”
“remove accent from the thumb,” “keep phrase direction through the leap,” or “separate
melody from accompaniment without hard sound.”

41
The Method depends on the diagnosed problem. If the problem is voice balance, I may play
the voices separately, sing one line, exaggerate the balance, or record a small fragment. If
the problem is transition control, I may start before and after the transition, stop on the arrival
point, practise the preparation of the new position, or reduce the passage to skeleton notes.
If the problem is touch, I may try different attacks, different weight, different dynamics, and
listen to how the instrument responds. If the problem is memory, I may mark harmonic
landmarks, play from random points, or silently read the score.

Gieseking and Leimer are useful here because their approach shows that mental work and
score study can be part of detailed practice. Modern writing about mental practice in piano
performance also describes techniques such as score visualisation, aural imagery, pattern
recognition, and mental rehearsal as important for internalising music without constant
physical playing.

The microscope stage also includes the body. A technical problem is not only a note
problem. It may be created by a fixed wrist, heavy shoulder, blocked breathing, wrong
distance, or unnecessary holding after sound. This connects with the previous chapter. If the
pianist does not check the body, he may repeat the correct notes with a bad physical
organisation. Later this becomes harder to change.

The Check in this stage must be strict. Did the sound actually become clearer, or do I only
feel that I worked hard? Did the movement become easier, or did I only force it? Can I repeat
the same result after a short pause? Can I play it softer, slower, or from another starting
point? Can I hear the voice I was working on without exaggerating it too much?

The microscope stage also needs discipline because it can become endless. There is
always one more detail. The pianist must work deeply, but not lose the sense of the whole. If
I stay in microscope mode too long, the music can become fragmented. Every bar becomes
a separate problem, and the piece loses direction. This is why the next stage is necessary:
the bird’s-eye view.

A good microscope session should end with a small decision. What exactly became clearer?
What is still unstable? What must return later today or tomorrow? What detail should be
reconnected to a larger phrase? Without this decision, the work can remain only local. The
goal is not to collect details, but to prepare them for the whole.

Bird’s-Eye View

The third stage is Bird’s-Eye View. After the microscope, the pianist must zoom out. This
stage is about seeing the piece from above: its form, direction, proportions, climaxes,
tensions, returns, and large-scale logic. If the microscope asks “what exactly happens
here?”, the bird’s-eye view asks “why does this place exist in the whole piece?”

This stage is very important because detailed work can make the pianist too local. A
passage may become clearer, but the whole form can become weaker. The performer may
know every difficult place, but not yet understand the dramatic path. The piece then sounds
like a collection of solved problems, not like one musical organism.

42
Bird’s-Eye View brings back the whole. The pianist asks where the piece begins emotionally,
where it moves, where it opens, where it becomes unstable, where it reaches the main
climax, where it releases tension, and where it returns. This is not abstract analysis only. It
directly changes playing. Tempo, sound, pedalling, rubato, articulation, and energy all
depend on the large form.

At this stage, the Task is bigger. It can be: understand the exposition as one process;
connect the transition to the second theme; clarify the function of the development; shape
the long crescendo; control the relation between climax and aftermath; decide where the
phrase really breathes; understand which material is main and which is secondary.

This stage also changes the way I practise. I may play larger sections, but not necessarily at
final tempo. I may make a form map, mark harmonic goals, write the main climaxes,
compare repeated material, or play only structural points. I may practise the connections
between sections more than the sections themselves. Very often, the form fails not because
each part is bad, but because the joins between parts are not understood.

This is where score study becomes very important. The pianist should be able to explain the
piece without playing it from beginning to end. What is repeated? What is transformed?
Where is the harmonic tension? Where does the texture change? Where does the register
open? Where is the point of no return? If the performer cannot answer these questions,
interpretation may depend too much on instinct.

Research on conservatory musicians also mentions memorisation through internal mapping

of the work and the need for flexible memory retrieval, so that performance can continue
even when something goes wrong. This is very close to Bird’s-Eye View: the pianist must not
only remember movements, but know the map of the piece.

The Method at this stage can include structural playing. For example, the pianist can play
only the bass line and melody, only harmonic pillars, only beginnings of sections, or only
transitions. He can speak through the form away from the piano. He can play from different
structural points, not only from convenient places. He can record a larger section and listen
not for small mistakes first, but for direction: does the music move somewhere?

The Check is not the same as in the microscope stage. Here the question is not only
whether a detail improved. The question is whether the whole section makes sense. Can I
feel the large phrase? Do I know where I am going? Does the climax arrive too early or too
late? Are the transitions meaningful, or do they sound like technical connections? Can I
explain the structure without the piano? Can I start from different formal points?

This stage also protects memory. If the pianist knows only motor memory, a mistake can be
dangerous. But if he knows the form, harmony, and dramatic points, he has more ways to
continue. Bird’s-Eye View creates a stronger internal map. The hands are not alone
anymore.

The danger of this stage is becoming too general. A pianist may speak beautifully about
form, but still not solve details. That is why this stage must stay connected with the
microscope. The two stages need each other. The bird’s-eye view gives direction to details,
and the microscope gives precision to the whole.

43
A good session at this stage may move between playing and thinking. It may include one
larger run of a section, then a pause, then form analysis, then a smaller repair, then another
larger run. The goal is to connect detail and architecture. The pianist should finish the
session with a clearer idea of the piece as a whole: not only what to play, but how the
musical time is organised.

In my system, Bird’s-Eye View is the stage where practice begins to become interpretation.
The pianist is no longer only solving problems. He begins to decide what the piece is really
doing. After this stage, the next step is not just more detail, but a return to the original
musical image — now enriched by all the work already done.

Enriched Return / Make It Yours

The fourth stage is Enriched Return. This is the moment when the pianist returns to the first
impression, but not in the same way as at the beginning. The first image comes back after
slow work, details, form, body awareness, memory work, and many corrections. The piece is
no longer only something outside the performer. It begins to enter the performer’s own
musical language.

This stage is important because detailed work can easily make the music too controlled.
After the microscope stage, the pianist may know many details, but the piece can still sound
fragmented. After the bird’s-eye view, the pianist may understand the form, but the
performance can still feel slightly intellectual. Enriched Return means that all this work must
become natural again.

At this stage, the pianist should not simply ask, “Can I play this correctly?” The question
becomes deeper: Can I play this as music that I really understand and believe? The
piece should not sound like a collection of solved tasks. It should sound like one living
statement.

The word “return” is important. The pianist returns to the original emotional and artistic
impulse of the piece. But now this impulse is enriched. In the first stage, the impression may
be strong but still unclear. Now the same impression has more knowledge behind it: the
pianist knows the form, the voices, the weak places, the physical feeling, the memory risks,
and the possible performance problems. The image becomes less naive, but hopefully more
personal.

The Task at this stage is not usually a small local problem. It is often connected with
integration. For example: to make the whole section speak naturally, to keep the long phrase
alive, to connect technical difficulty with musical direction, to make the sound less calculated,
to keep character under pressure, or to play the piece as one complete world.

The Method also changes. The pianist may use recording, run-throughs, playing for another
person, performance simulation, or playing larger sections without stopping. But these
methods should not become empty “test performances.” A run-through is useful only if it
gives information. After playing, the pianist should not react only emotionally — “good” or
“bad.” He should ask what actually happened: where did the form become weak, where did
the sound lose colour, where did the body become stiff, where did concentration disappear?

44
Recording can be especially useful here. It creates a small performance pressure and gives
the pianist some distance from himself. Very often, what feels expressive while playing may
not sound expressive on the recording. Or the opposite: something that felt risky may
actually sound alive. Recording helps separate feeling from result. But it should not become
the only judge. The microphone changes sound, and live performance has another energy.

The Check at this stage is more global. The pianist checks whether the piece
communicates. Does the opening create the right world? Does the form move? Are the
climaxes placed well? Is the sound convincing? Does the performer recover after small
mistakes? Is the body free enough to express, not only to survive? Does the interpretation
still feel alive after many repetitions?

This is also the stage where the pianist must protect freshness. Too much control can kill the
performance. Too much repetition can make the music tired. The pianist needs to keep the
piece in a state where it is prepared, but still alive. This is difficult, because professional
preparation needs both security and risk. If there is only security, the performance can
become dead. If there is only risk, it can become unstable.

For this reason, practice at this stage should include both performance attempts and
targeted repairs. A full run shows what happens in real time. A targeted repair solves what
the run revealed. But after repair, the pianist has to return again to the larger musical flow.
Otherwise the piece goes back into fragments.

In this stage, the piece begins to become “mine.” This does not mean that I ignore the score
or play only from emotion. It means that the score, the body, the memory, and the
interpretation start to work together. The pianist no longer only follows instructions from
outside. He begins to make decisions with responsibility.

A good session at this stage can look like this: first, a short mental preparation of the sound
and character; then a larger section or full run; then a calm diagnostic note; then repair of
two or three real problems; then one more musical return to the larger line. The point is not
to repair everything at once. The point is to keep the piece whole while still improving what is
fragile.

The danger of this stage is over-polishing. The pianist may try to control every detail so
much that the performance loses breathing. Another danger is emotional self-deception: the
pianist may feel that the piece is personal, but actually some technical or structural problems
are still weak. This is why Enriched Return needs both freedom and honesty.

In my system, this stage is the bridge between practice and performance. It is where the
work stops being only preparation and begins to become interpretation.

Leave It and Return Later

There is one more important idea connected with the stages: sometimes the pianist must
leave the piece for a while and return later. This is not the same as giving up. It is part of
long-term practice.

45
When a piece has been worked on for a long time, the pianist may lose freshness. He may
stop hearing clearly, repeat the same details too much, or become emotionally tired of the
material. In this situation, more work is not always better. Sometimes the best decision is to
leave the piece for a short period and let it rest.

When the piece returns after time, it shows the truth. Some things stayed. Some things
disappeared. Some places are still in the fingers but not in the mind. Some musical ideas
became clearer without direct work. Some habits became weaker. This is very useful
information.

This stage is connected with the Return element from the previous section, but on a larger
scale. In the weekly sheet, return may happen after 20–40 minutes, later in the day,
tomorrow, or at the end of the week. But in repertoire life, return can also happen after
several weeks or months. A pianist often understands a piece better after distance.

The main task here is not to learn everything from zero again. The task is to diagnose what
survived. This is why the first session after a break should be careful. If the pianist
immediately forces the piece in full tempo, he may rebuild tension and old mistakes. It is
better to check the memory map, the form, the main transitions, the sound image, and the
weak places.

The Task in this stage can be: reactivate the piece, check memory from structural points,
restore the sound image, rebuild unstable transitions, reconnect body feeling with musical
direction, or identify what must enter the new weekly plan.

The Method can include silent score reading, slow playing of structural points, random
starts, recording a light run-through, checking difficult transitions, or playing only the main
formal pillars. The aim is not to prove that the piece is still perfect. The aim is to understand
its current state.

The Check is very diagnostic. What stayed naturally? What only feels familiar but is not
secure? Where do the hands remember but the mind does not? Where does the phrase still
have meaning? Where did the sound become empty? Which places need real rebuilding?

This stage is psychologically important too. Sometimes after a break, the pianist sees the
piece more objectively. Problems that felt huge before may become smaller. Other problems
that were hidden may become obvious. Distance can remove unnecessary emotion from the
practice process.

But leaving a piece is useful only if the return is organised. If the pianist just leaves it and
never plans to come back, the piece disappears. If the return is planned, the break becomes
part of the system. This is why the weekly practice sheet can also be used for returning
repertoire: not to write everything again, but to mark the places that need reactivation and
spaced return.

In my view, this stage is one of the signs of mature practice. A pianist does not only know
how to learn. He knows how to leave, return, diagnose, and rebuild.

46
How One Practice Session Works in This Stage System
After these stages, one practice session can be understood more clearly. A session is not
just a block of time. It is a response to the current stage of the piece.

At the First Impression stage, a good session should protect the first musical contact. The
pianist reads, hears, observes, and forms the first image. The work is careful, but not yet
over-detailed. The main danger is to kill the first musical impulse too early.

At the Microscope Stage, a good session becomes narrow and exact. The pianist chooses
small tasks, reduces difficulties, exaggerates details, and checks sound, movement, text,
and memory. The main danger is to repeat without diagnosis or to stay in details too long.

At the Bird’s-Eye View stage, a good session becomes larger. The pianist works with form,
direction, proportions, climaxes, and transitions. The main danger is to understand the whole
only intellectually, without reconnecting it to sound and physical playing.

At the Enriched Return stage, a good session works with integration. The pianist plays
larger sections, records, simulates performance, repairs real problems, and returns to the
whole. The main danger is over-control or over-polishing.

At the Leave It and Return Later stage, a good session becomes diagnostic again. The
pianist checks what survived after time and decides what needs rebuilding. The main danger
is to force the piece too quickly instead of listening to its actual condition.

The same model Task – Method – Check – Return works in every stage, but the meaning
changes. In the first stage, Task may mean finding the first image. In the microscope stage,
it may mean solving a precise technical-musical problem. In the bird’s-eye stage, it may
mean understanding form. In the enriched return stage, it may mean performing
convincingly. In the return-later stage, it may mean diagnosing what survived.

This is why the stage must be written in the weekly practice sheet. Without the stage, the
pianist may choose the wrong kind of work. For example, if a piece is still in the First
Impression stage, it is too early to demand concert-level stability. If a piece is in the Enriched
Return stage, it is not enough to practise only small technical places. If a piece is returning
after a break, the first task is not full performance, but diagnosis.

A practical session can therefore begin with three questions:

What stage is this piece in now?​

What is the main task for this stage today?​
What kind of check will show that the work was useful?

47
These questions make the practice more precise. They also prevent the pianist from judging
the session by the wrong standard. A first reading is not bad because it is not stable. A
microscope session is not bad because it sounds exaggerated. A bird’s-eye session is not
bad because it does not solve every detail. Each stage has its own goal.

This is very important for practice management. The pianist should not only write what he
practised, but also what stage of work he was in. Then the weekly plan becomes more
honest. It becomes clear whether the piece needs first contact, detail, form, integration, or
return after time.

In short, one practice session should not be universal. It should belong to the stage of
learning. The pianist must know whether he is meeting the piece, examining it, seeing it as a
whole, making it personal, or returning to it after distance. Only then can the session have
the right task, method, check, and return.

4.4 A Toolbox of Practice Methods

In my system, Method is the practical answer to the task. It is not enough to write “practise
slowly” or “repeat this place.” A method should be chosen according to the real problem:
sound, text, memory, movement, form, balance, pedal, or performance stability. For this
reason, I need a small toolbox of practice methods that can be used flexibly.

The following methods are not separate rules. They are possible answers to different
practice problems. A good pianist should not use all of them all the time. He should choose
the method that fits the task.

Mental sound plan

Before playing, I can create a mental sound plan. This means that I look at the score and
imagine the sound, tempo, breathing, dynamics, and direction of the phrase before touching
the keyboard. This is especially useful when I return to an old piece after a break, because it
helps me check whether the inner map of the piece is still alive.

This method can include silent score reading, inner hearing, singing, or even conducting for
myself. Conducting is not theatrical here. It is a way to feel the movement of time, phrase
direction, and large form before physical playing begins.

Diagnostic recording

Recording can be used not only for performance preparation, but also as a diagnostic
method. I can record a fragment, but before listening to it, I first write down what I felt while
playing. Then I listen to the recording with the score and compare my feeling with the real
sound.

This creates three layers of information:

48
what I intended,​
what I felt while playing,​
what actually sounded.

This method is useful because the feeling while playing can be misleading. A phrase may
feel expressive under the hands, but on the recording the line may sound broken, the tempo
may spread, or the sound may lose colour. Recording helps turn a vague feeling into
concrete tasks.

Return to the score

Playing with the score is not only for learning notes. It can also be a way to reopen learned
material. When a piece is already memorised, the hands may simplify or forget details:
dynamics, articulation, pedal, inner voices, accents, or phrase directions. Returning to the
score helps prevent the material from becoming only a motor habit.

This is especially useful after a break. I do not use the score because I “forgot everything.” I
use it to check whether my automatism is still connected with the written text.

Texture reduction

In complex texture, I often need to reduce the material before building it again. This may
mean playing only the melody, only the bass, only the upper line, only harmonic points, or
only two important layers.

The aim is not to make the music simpler permanently. The aim is to hear what carries the
structure. After that, the full texture can be rebuilt more consciously.

Progressive texture building

After reduction, I can use progressive texture building. This means that I do not add
everything at once. I build the texture step by step:

one line → another line → inner hearing → two layers together → inner voices → full
texture.

This method is useful because many passages become unclear when the pianist tries to
play all the notes before understanding the main layers.

Playing one layer while hearing another

This is a more specific form of texture work. I play one layer physically and hear another
layer internally. For example, I may play the bass while hearing the melody, or play the upper
line while imagining the harmonic support.

This trains the ear before the hands try to combine everything. It also prevents
hands-separate practice from becoming purely mechanical.

49
Line extraction

Sometimes the problem is that the phrase does not sing. In this case, I can extract one line
and play it alone. This may be the top melody, the bass line, an inner voice, or a hidden
voice-leading detail.

The check is simple: after extraction, the line should have direction, breathing, and meaning.
If the line sounds dead when played alone, it will probably not sound alive inside the full
texture.

Harmonic compression

In some passages, especially tremolos or figurations, I can compress the texture into chords.
Instead of playing the written movement immediately, I put the notes together vertically and
understand the harmonic structure.

This method helps me hear the passage as harmony and direction, not only as technical
movement. After that, I can open the chords back into the written texture.

Pedal as a practice object

Pedal should not always be added at the end. In some passages, pedal is part of the sound
structure from the beginning. It can support resonance, clarify harmony, connect a bass, or
create space.

At the same time, pedal can also hide problems. For this reason, I sometimes practise with
very clean pedal, changing it according to the bass or even catching only one note in the
pedal. The task is not simply to “use pedal,” but to know what the pedal is doing.

Variation practice

When a passage basically works but is still not stable enough, I can use variation practice.
This means changing one element while keeping the main coordination: rhythm, grouping,
accent, dynamics, articulation, direction, or tempo zone.

The purpose is to avoid mechanical repetition. If the passage survives variations, it usually
becomes more flexible. If it collapses immediately, then the learning is still too narrow.

Structural starts

Instead of always starting from the beginning of a piece or section, I can start from important
structural points. This helps me check whether I really understand the form and can enter
the music from inside.

This method is especially useful for large works. If I can only play a section from the
beginning, the material may be too dependent on one chain. Structural starts make the piece
more open and stable.

50
Physical organisation check

Some problems are not mainly musical or textual, but physical. In this case, the method is to
check the movement itself: hand position, distance, wrist, release, arm weight, crossing,
jump, or redistribution between hands.

The question is not only “Can I play this?” but also:

How much effort does it cost?​

Is the movement comfortable enough?​
Can I make the same sound with less tension?

End-of-day return

At the end of a practice day, I should briefly return to the most important new work of that
day. This does not mean repeating everything. It means checking what has already changed
and writing down what must return tomorrow.

This connects the daily practice with the larger return system. A task is not finished because
it worked once. It has to come back.

Chapter 5. The Practice System in Action

5.1 Aim of the Case Study

In this chapter I apply my practice system to one concrete piece: Rachmaninoff’s Prelude in
C-sharp minor, Op. 3 No. 2. The aim is not to present only a formal analysis of the piece,
but to show how I actually begin to practise it. I want to describe what I look at first, how I
divide the material, what I simplify, what I leave for later, and how I return to the same
material during the same day.

This chapter is important because the previous chapters discussed practice from different
sides: memory, body condition, attention, health, environment, planning, and the idea of
Task – Method – Check – Return. However, a practice system becomes meaningful only
when it is tested on real repertoire. A pianist does not practise abstract principles. He
practises concrete bars, concrete textures, concrete problems, and concrete sound.

For this reason, I write this chapter almost like a practice journal. I describe the exact bars,
the task, the method, the check, and the return. I do not document every minute, because
the amount of time is not the most important point. What matters is what I am doing, what I
am checking, and whether my attention is still useful. A short practice block with a clear task
can be more valuable than a long session without a real focus.

I chose Rachmaninoff’s Prelude in C-sharp minor because it is a good example for this kind
of work. The piece is famous and can easily be approached too superficially: heavy chords,

51
dramatic Agitato, and a powerful return. But in practice the real work is more detailed. The
pianist has to control resonance, pedal, line, fingering, articulation, physical comfort,
harmonic direction, and the difference between weight and force.

Another reason why this piece is useful is that it contains different types of texture in a short
form. The opening has chordal writing, but inside it there are several melodic layers. The
Agitato has movement, sequences, and technical figuration. Later, the tremolo-like passage
needs harmonic understanding before it can become physical movement. From bar 45 the
texture becomes visually more complex because it is written on four staves. This makes the
piece useful for showing how I divide practice into stages instead of trying to solve
everything at once.

In this case study I focus mainly on the first day of work and the plan for the next day. This
means that I do not try to show a finished performance. I show the beginning of the learning
process: first impression, first reduction of texture, first microscope work, same-day return,
and the preparation for later technical work. The purpose is to show how the system works
at the moment when the piece is still not learned, but the practice already needs to be clear.

The main idea of this chapter is that the first stage of practice should create orientation. I
need to understand what the music is made of before I add full texture, speed, and
performance energy. In this Prelude, this means first finding the bell motive, the harmonic
upper line, the role of pedal, the main units of the Agitato, and the harmonic logic of the
tremolo passage. Only after this can the technical work become more productive.

This chapter will therefore be divided into practice sessions. A session ends when I take a
break. After a break, I treat the next block as a new session, because attention and memory
change after even a short reset. This also allows me to show how Return works in real
practice: I do not only repeat material immediately, but come back to it after a pause and
check what stayed.

The case study follows this general order:

Session 0 — first impression and first map of the piece.​

Session 1 — opening material, bars 1–13: bell motive and harmonic upper line.​
Session 2 — return to the opening after a break, with more detailed work on layers, slurs,
and phrasing.​
Session 3 — first work on the Agitato, bars 14–44: visual scan, repeated units, upper line,
and middle voice.​
Session 4 — same-day return to bars 1–13 and expansion of the harmonic line.​
Session 5 — return to the Agitato and first work on the tremolo area.​
Next-day plan — checking what remained, adding more technical material, and beginning
deeper work on comfort and hand position.

This structure shows my main approach: I do not begin by forcing the whole piece. I begin by
building a map, separating layers, checking memory, and returning to the material. The goal
of the first day is not to play the Prelude from beginning to end. The goal is to make the next
work clear.

52
5.1.2 Session 0: First Impression
When I first open the score, my first task is to “touch” the piece. I mean to understand what
kind of world the piece has, how it moves, where the main lines are, and what kind of work it
will need later. This first contact is not yet detailed practice. It is orientation.

If I can read the piece from the score, I first try to play it through. It does not have to be
perfect. At this stage I do not need to play every note of the full harmony. If the texture is too
thick, I can leave out some notes, but I should keep the main melodic lines and the rhythm.
The main thing is to feel the flow of the music and not to stop every few seconds because of
small details.

If sight-reading the piece is too difficult, the first step can happen away from the keyboard. A
pianist can sit with the score, look through it, and try to hear the music internally. If the
general character is still unclear, listening to a recording can help to understand the idea of
the piece, its scale, and the main difficulties. But the recording should not replace the first
personal contact with the score. It should help orientation.

At first sight, I see that this prelude should not be treated only as a piece with heavy chords.
There are chordal masses, but there are also clear lines inside them. In the first thirteen bars
I see two important layers: the descending bell motive in bars 1–2 and the harmonic upper
line beginning in bar 3. These two layers speak to each other. The opening is not only
vertical harmony; it has a dialogue between the bell-like descent and the upper harmonic
movement.

For me, the first thirteen bars have a ritualistic character. They need time, weight, distance,
and resonance. The sound should not be only loud. The Agitato should grow from this
atmosphere. The middle section has pressure and movement, but it should not become
panic. Later, the return of the opening material should feel changed by what happened in the
Agitato.

After the first look through the score, I mark the larger practical areas. The Agitato begins
in bar 14, so the first clear practice area is bars 1–13. Around the middle of bar 35 there is a
tremolo-like passage and harmonic descent that will need separate work. From bar 45 the
texture becomes visually more complex, because the music is written on four staves. I do
not plan to work on bars 45–61 on the first day, because I do not want to touch the whole
piece only superficially.

The result of Session 0 is a first map. I know the sound-world, the main sections, the first
layers, and the areas that need microscope work.

53
5.1.3 Session 1: Opening Material
I begin the first practice session with bars 1–13. This whole session happens before the first
break. My aim is to understand the main layers of the opening before building the full chordal
texture.

I start with the descending bell motive in bars 1–2. I play only this motive, without the full
chords. This is the first structural and acoustic event of the piece. It gives the first character
of the prelude, so I want to hear it clearly before adding other material.

I also look at the pedal from the beginning. The pedal belongs to the bell resonance, not only
to later colour. The motive needs sound, decay, and space. When I practise this line, I
already watch how the written pedal supports the resonance. The check here is that the
rhythm is clear, the descent has direction, and the pedal does not make the sound unclear.

Example 1a: mm. 1–6 opening bell descent and the beginning of the harmonic upper line.

Then I move to the harmonic upper line, which begins in bar 3. I play only the top line and
count carefully. This line is not just the top notes of the chords. It gives harmonic movement
and answers the bell motive. I try to sing it, hum it, or imagine it internally while playing. The
line should have direction and phrase breathing.

54
At this point I do not worry about the full chordal texture yet. I want to hear the upper line as
a real line. If I add the full harmony too early, it is easy to lose the melodic direction and only
read chords vertically.

I use the printed fingering where it makes sense, but I adapt it to my own hand when
needed. For a less experienced pianist, I would recommend first trying the edited fingering or
checking it with a teacher, because unstable fingering can make the learning process
unclear from the beginning.

If I make a reading mistake, I do not repeat only the wrong note. I return to the place where
the phrase breath begins. The line has to be repaired inside its musical unit. This is
important because a single wrong note can disturb rhythm, phrase, and direction.

After playing the bell motive and the harmonic upper line separately, I connect them
mentally. I play one layer and hear the other inside. First I play the bell motive and imagine
the harmonic line. Then I play the harmonic line and imagine the bell motive.

This is one of the main methods in this case study: playing one layer while internally
hearing another. It is different from simply making the texture easier. The goal is to build
inner hearing of the texture before adding all notes. In this prelude it is especially useful,
because the opening can easily become only heavy vertical chords. I want the bell motive
and the harmonic upper line to speak to each other already in my ear.

If I cannot imagine the next note of the line, I still try to keep the rhythm. Then I return to the
beginning of the phrase and check it again. The rhythm should not collapse only because
the inner hearing is not yet clear.

After that, I play the harmonic line with the first finger of the right hand, and then with the first
finger of the left hand. This is not final fingering. It is a temporary practice method. I use it to
hear the harmonic line as one continuous gesture, not as separate upper notes of chords.

While doing this, I still imagine the bell motive internally. The line should not become isolated
from the piece. Even in a simplified form, I want to keep the musical context.

This first-finger work also helps me avoid hiding behind the full texture too early. When I play
only one line with one finger, the ear has to follow the direction. There is less pianistic
comfort, but more clarity.

The check for this session is not full-texture playing. I check whether I can play the bell
motive with clear rhythm and pedal, play the harmonic upper line with direction, and keep
one layer active in the ear while playing the other. If the harmonic line still feels like separate
notes, or if I lose the bell motive completely when playing the upper line, I should stay with
this reduced work longer.

This session ends when I take the first break. At this point the full texture is not built yet, but
the internal organisation has started: bell motive, harmonic upper line, pedal resonance,
rhythm, phrase breathing, and the relation between the two layers. The next session will
begin after a reset and will return to the same material from a stronger position.

55
5.1.4 Session 2: Return to the Opening Material
After the first break, I begin a new session, but I do not move immediately to new material. I
return to bars 1–13. For me this is already a new practice session, because the break
changes the state of attention. I do not continue automatically. First I check what stayed in
my head after the pause.

Before playing, I look at the texture again and mentally go through the previous work. I
remember the descending bell motive, the harmonic upper line, the pedal, and the idea of
playing one layer while hearing the other. I try to reconstruct the work internally before
touching the keyboard. This is important because return should not be only physical
repetition. It should begin in the mind.

Then I return to the first material: the bell motive in bars 1–2. I play it again and check
whether the sound image and rhythm are still clear after the break. I also keep watching the
pedal, because the pedal is connected with the bell resonance. If this motive feels unclear
after the pause, it means that the first session was not stable enough yet.

After that I return to the harmonic upper line. This time I can make it stronger by playing it
in octaves. I still imagine the bell motive internally. This is not full texture yet. It is the next
step in building the layers. The line becomes more physical and more present, but I still do
not add all the inner notes of the chords.

Then I connect the two main layers. One hand plays the bell motive, and the other hand
plays the harmonic line in octaves. The middle voice is still left out. This already gives the
music a clearer shape: I hear the bell layer and the harmonic layer together, but the texture
is still simple enough to control. Because the layers were prepared separately before, I do
not need to spend all attention on reading notes. I can listen to how the lines speak to each
other.

After this I look more carefully at the phrasing of the harmonic line. In bar 3, the line is
divided into small phrase units. I hear it almost like question and answer. This helps me not
to play the line as neutral top notes. It should have a singing quality and phrase breathing.

In bars 6–7, I look at the small two-note slurs. Here the movement goes slightly toward the
second note. The first note prepares, and the second note has a little more meaning. This
should not become a strong accent. It is more like a small direction inside the phrase. The
same principle appears again in bar 10, so I treat it as a repeated articulation idea in the first
section.

Example 1b: mm. 6

56
Then I try the opposite hand distribution. The right hand plays the bell motive, and the left
hand plays the harmonic line in octaves. This is not necessarily the final way of playing it. I
use it to test how well I understand the layers and how the hands can feel the material. I also
start checking possible fingering choices, because later the full texture will need stable
fingering. At this stage it does not have to be perfect. I am still looking for the natural way
into the material.

I also keep bar 13, especially the second half in the right hand, in my attention. This place
can be physically uncomfortable, so I mark it as a small separate point for later isolated
work. I do not need to solve it completely in this session, but I need to know that it exists. A
small uncomfortable place can later disturb the whole end of the first section.

Example 1с: mm. 13

The check for this session is more developed than in the first one. I ask whether I can
mentally reconstruct the previous work after the break, play the bell motive again with pedal
awareness, play the harmonic line in octaves, connect the two main layers, and hear the
phrasing in bars 3, 6–7, and 10.

57
This session does not yet build the full chordal texture. It makes the opening more
organised. I now know the bell motive, the harmonic upper line, the pedal relation, the first
phrase breathing, the small slur gestures, and the possible technical point in bar 13. After
this, I can take another reset. Depending on concentration, the next session can move to the
Agitato.

5.1.5 Session 3: First Work on the Agitato

After another reset, I can begin the next session with the Agitato, starting in bar 14. This is
a new type of work. The attention changes, because the texture is more active, the
movement is faster, and there are more repeated patterns.

Before playing, I first look through the text with my eyes. I try to hear it internally and find
what is repeated. This is important because the Agitato can look like one long technical
passage, but actually it has motives, sequences, and small units. If I see this before playing,
the section becomes much easier to understand.

I first notice bars 14–17 as one unit. Bars 14–15 are very close to each other in material,
and bars 16–17 continue the phrase. Then bars 18–21 are related to the first unit, but the
ending changes, so the music is not only repeating; it already starts to develop.

Then I look at bars 22–24 as a sequence. This means I should not learn every bar as
completely new material. I need to see the pattern and how it moves. Bars 25–26 form
another smaller sequential unit. Later, bars 31–34 move the material into another harmonic
area and prepare the tremolo-like texture, which begins around the middle of bar 35.

This visual scan is already part of practice. I am not playing yet, but I am building the map. I
want to know where the same material returns, where it changes, and where the texture
becomes different.

Example 2: mm. 14–22 Agitato

58
After this, I start with the upper melodic line. I play only this line and go until the area
before the tremolo. If I cannot hear it internally yet, I use the same principle as in the opening
section: I reduce the texture to the main line first. I do not add the full technical figuration
immediately.

After playing a small part, for example bars 14–15, I release my hands and try to play it in
my head or sing it. This is a check. If I only moved my fingers and cannot reproduce the line
mentally, then I did not really understand it yet.

Then I add the middle voice in the left hand. For the first work, I use only the upper voice
together with this middle line, and I leave out the technical triplet figuration. These two voices
show the direction of the section. The technical notes will come later, but first I need to know
what the music is saying underneath the movement.

For this session I keep the work mainly around bars 14–21. I play the upper voice and the
middle voice in small fragments. Sometimes I work by half-bars: I play half a bar, give myself
a small pause, and then continue. The pause is not a musical stop. It is a way to observe the
hand movement, the position, and the phrasing.

I also look carefully at the slurs and hairpins. In bar 14, the upper voice has one longer slur,
so I treat it as one continuous gesture. In bar 16, the slurs are divided by half-bars. Here I

59
also look at the hairpins. In these two-note half-bar groups, the first note has more meaning.
This is different from bars 6–7 and bar 10 in the first section, where I felt the direction more
toward the second note. So I do not use one rule for all slurs. I read the context.

This is important because the Agitato should not become only fast notes. Before speed, I
need to understand the line, the repeated motives, the small phrase units, and the hand
shapes. The figuration should grow from this understanding.

The check for this session is clear: I should be able to explain the first division of the Agitato,
play the upper line, add the middle voice through bars 14–21, and notice the main slurs and
hairpins. I should also be able to sing or imagine the line after playing it.

At the end of this session, I do not need to have the Agitato ready. The aim is first orientation
and reduction. I know the first units, I see where the sequence begins, and I have started to
separate the musical lines from the technical figuration.

5.1.6 Session 4: Same-Day Return to the Opening

After working on the first orientation of the Agitato, I take another reset and then return to the
opening material. This is still the same practice day, but for me it is a new session because
the break changes the state of attention. I do not continue mechanically. I come back to bars
1–13 to check what stayed from the earlier work.

Before playing, I go through the previous steps in my head: the bell motive, the harmonic
upper line, the pedal, the idea of playing one layer while hearing another, the small slurs in
bars 6–7 and bar 10, and the right-hand point in bar 13. This mental review is important. If I
cannot remember the order of the work, then the practice was not organised enough.

Now I can expand the harmonic upper line. Earlier I played only the top voice. In this session
I can add the inner filling of the right hand and see what supports this line. I do not treat it as
full chordal playing yet. I add the inner note because the top line is already clearer.

Here I also look at the intervallic logic. The added note is not random. If I count from below, it
is often felt as a fifth; if I count from above, as a fourth. This makes the added layer easier to
understand. I do not want to read these notes as separate vertical events. I want to see how
they fill the harmonic line.

At the same time I check fingering and phrasing. Fingering is not only comfort here. It affects
how naturally the line connects and whether the phrase breath stays clear. If the fingering is
unstable, the line can become broken even if the notes are correct.

I also return to the small slurs. In bars 6–7 and bar 10, the two-note gesture moves slightly
toward the second note. I check whether this is still present after adding more notes. This is
important because when the texture becomes thicker, small articulation details can
disappear.

I keep bar 13, especially the second half in the right hand, as a separate point. This place
can feel uncomfortable, so it should not be hidden inside the whole phrase. I isolate it and

60
make sure it can be played conveniently enough before reconnecting it with bars 8–13. I do
not need to describe it as a special technical device. I simply take the place out and work on
it until it does not disturb the phrase.

The check for this session is whether the opening became clearer after return. I should be
able to remember the previous work, add the inner filling without losing the upper line, keep
the pedal and phrasing in mind, and reconnect bar 13 without tension or confusion.

At this point bars 1–13 are still not finished, but they are no longer only a first reading. The
material has a first internal structure: bell motive, harmonic line, pedal resonance, small
gestures, fingering points, and a clear plan for later full-texture work.

5.1.7 Session 5: Return to the Agitato and Tremolo Area

After another reset, I can return to the Agitato again. I do not start from the full section
immediately. First I look again at what changes in the texture and where the next important
practice area begins. At this point, the main focus is the tremolo-like passage that starts
around the middle of bar 35.

Here I do not try to play everything in rhythm at once. First I can look at the right hand
separately, even without strict rhythm, just to understand the notes and the harmonic logic.
The first task is to see what is actually written, not to make it technically polished.

In this passage I notice the accented diminished harmony and its resolution into a minor
chord. This is important because the tremolo should not be practised only as a technical
effect. It has harmonic tension and release. The accented diminished chord needs more
intensity, and the following minor chord feels like a resolution. If I miss this, the passage
becomes only shaking notes.

Then I look for the repeated model. I do not need to learn the whole tremolo descent as
completely new material. The basic model begins around the second half of bar 35,
continues through bars 36–37, and then the same idea appears lower. This means that the
task is partly to understand the pattern and how it moves down.

Example 3: mm. 35–44

61
After that I look at the left hand and try to compress the texture into chordal groups. Instead
of playing the tremolo movement immediately, I put the notes together vertically to
understand the harmony. I think of the movement in groups: right hand, left hand, right hand.
Each group shows a new harmony.

This method helps me see the logic of the passage. The tremolo is not random movement.
Behind it there is a harmonic structure. If I understand this structure first, the technical work
later becomes more meaningful.

At this stage I still do not polish the technique. I only start preparing it. I can look at the right
hand separately, understand the positions, and see how the harmony moves. The full
technical movement will need another session. It is better not to add speed, force, rhythm,
and full sound all at once.

I also decide not to work on bars 45–61 yet. This is important. The first day already contains
work on the opening, the first Agitato units, and the tremolo area. If I continue too far, the
work can become superficial. I prefer to leave the four-stave return for another session,
when I can give it proper attention.

The check for this session is not whether I can already perform the tremolo passage. I check
whether I understand the notes, the repeated model, the diminished harmony and resolution,
and the chordal groups behind the figuration. If I can compress the passage into harmonies
and explain the movement, then the first work on this section is successful.

62
At the end of this session, the Agitato is still not finished. But it has become less chaotic. I
know the first units, I know where the sequence begins, and I understand the tremolo area
as a harmonic and structural passage, not only as a technical difficulty. This gives me
material for the next practice day.

5.1.8 Plan for the Next Practice Day

The next practice day should not begin from zero. First I would return to the material from
the previous day and check what I actually remember. I would not only ask, “Can I play it?” A
better question is: what stayed from yesterday’s work, and what only felt clear in the
moment?

I would start by looking again at bars 1–13. Before playing, I would try to remember the
order of work: the bell motive, the harmonic upper line, the pedal, the small slurs, the
connection of layers, and the right-hand point in bar 13. Then I would play the reduced
version again and check whether the material still feels organised. The main point is that the
beginning should feel comfortable and clear before I start adding more texture.

The same applies to the Agitato. I would first remember the map from the previous day:
bars 14–17, 18–21, 22–24, 25–26, the later sequence, and the tremolo area from around
the middle of bar 35. Then I would check whether I can still hear the upper line and the
middle voice. If I cannot remember the direction of these lines, it is too early to add the
technical figuration.

After this return, the main new work would be to start adding the technical layer in the
Agitato. This means working more directly with the triplet figuration, but still not only as fast
notes. I would begin slowly, watching the position of the hands and checking whether the
movement feels comfortable. The goal is not speed yet. The goal is to make the hand
understand the shape of the figuration.

In the tremolo area, I would return to the harmonic compression from the previous day. First I
would check the chordal groups again, then slowly begin to open them back into the written
movement. This way the tremolo does not become random shaking. It stays connected to
harmony, direction, and hand position.

The main focus of the second day is therefore comfort and organisation. I need to check
what I remember, return to the reduced layers, and only then add more technical material.
Especially in the opening and the Agitato, the hand should not feel forced. If the position is
uncomfortable, I should stop and adjust it before repeating more. Otherwise I will only
practise tension.

Next day’s plan is:

●​ return to bars 1–13 and check what stayed;

●​ remember the work from the previous day before playing;
●​ check the bell motive, harmonic line, pedal, slurs, and bar 13;
●​ return to the Agitato map and remember the units;
●​ begin adding the triplet figuration;

63
 ●​ work on hand position and physical comfort;
●​ return to the tremolo area through harmonic compression;
●​ start connecting the movement more, but without polishing too early.
●​

The result of the next day should not be a finished performance. The result should be that
the material becomes more playable, more comfortable, and more connected with the body.
This is the point where the work starts to move from first orientation into deeper microscope
practice.

5.2 Second Case Study: Returning to Liszt Sonata After

a Break
5.2.1 First Reaction and Correction of My Approach

After working on Rachmaninoff’s Prelude as an example of first orientation and early

practice, I also wanted to show another situation: returning to repertoire after a longer break.
For this I chose Liszt’s Sonata in B minor, especially the Andante sostenuto section, from
the beginning of this section to the Fugato.

This is a different practice problem. In Rachmaninoff, I showed how I begin to build the piece
from the first contact with the score. In Liszt, the piece is not new for me. Before the break,
the Sonata was already in a good performance condition. It was in my hands, in my memory,
and I was satisfied with the result. My teacher was also satisfied. At the same time, with a
piece like Liszt Sonata, I cannot say that it is ever completely “finished”. There is always
something more to hear, to stabilise, or to understand deeper.

I did not work on this piece for a little more than one month. During this time I started to
prepare other repertoire, and psychologically I had the feeling that the Sonata was still in a
better condition than it actually was. This was the first important lesson. Previous success
can create a false feeling of safety. Because the piece was once stable, I expected it to
come back almost in the same state.

When I returned to it, my first reaction was not perfectly organised. I started to check many
places. Some things still worked, some passages were less controlled, and some musical
details did not sound as I remembered. I also felt that my pianistic form inside the piece was
slightly weaker: not only technique, but the inner feeling of what I am doing, the sound, the
touch, and the performance flow.

At first this created a nervous impulse: to check more and more material. This reaction is
understandable, but it is not the best practice strategy. It can quickly become emotional
checking instead of real practice. I realised that I was close to doing exactly what this work
tries to avoid: touching too much material without a clear task.

64
At that moment, my work of “How to practice” helped me. I stopped and changed the plan.
Instead of checking the whole Sonata, I decided to choose one main section for the first day:
the Andante sostenuto. This section is technically less aggressive than some other parts of
the Sonata, but musically it is very demanding. It immediately shows the real state of sound,
touch, timing, form, memory, and control.

This was an important correction. The goal of the first day became not to prove that I can still
play the Sonata. The goal became to diagnose what actually stayed after the break, what
became weaker, and what needs to be opened again.

Here the idea of open and closed automatism becomes important. After a break, I cannot
immediately know whether the remaining automatism is open or closed. Some things may
still be open: I still remember the general image, the harmonic logic, the drama, and some
technical places. Some things may have become more closed: they feel familiar, but when I
listen more carefully, the sound, control, or form is weaker than before.

This means that I should not trust familiarity too quickly. Familiarity is not the same as real
memory. If I can only play because the hands follow an old chain, but I cannot hear clearly,
start from structural points, or control the form, then the automatism is not open enough. My
task is not to destroy automatism, because automatism is necessary in performance. My
task is to check its quality and make it open again: connected with hearing, form, physical
comfort, and artistic choice.

The break also showed something positive. Some things became weaker, but some things
became more free. I noticed that I had more inner pleasure in the music than before. Earlier I
controlled many actions very consciously, which was necessary at that time. After the break,
some of this work remained inside me without the same level of control. This is useful, but
now I need to return conscious control without losing this freedom.

So the first day of returning to Liszt Sonata should not be a day of blind repetition. It should
be a diagnostic day. I use the Andante sostenuto as the main material, because it allows
me to check the quality of return without immediately forcing the most technically difficult
parts of the Sonata. If I can enter a real working state in this section, it will also help me
return to the rest of the Sonata more calmly.

The main questions for this first day are:

What stayed after the break?​

What became weaker?​
Which places only feel familiar but are not really stable?​
Where is the automatism still open, and where does it need to be opened again?​
How can I rebuild the section without losing the new freedom that appeared after
distance?

This makes the Liszt case study different from the Rachmaninoff one. Rachmaninoff shows
how I begin to build orientation in a new or early-stage piece. Liszt shows how I return to old
repertoire and use practice as diagnosis. The first mistake — trying to check too much —
becomes useful, because it shows why practice management is necessary. Returning to

65
repertoire after a break is not only remembering. It is listening, diagnosing, reopening, and
planning the next work.

5.2.2 Practice Session 1: Mental Return and Sound Plan

The first practice session after returning to Liszt’s Sonata should not begin with playing the
Andante sostenuto from beginning to end. After more than one month away from the piece,
my first task is to return to the inner map of this section. I need to remember what it is
about, where it moves, where the tension grows, where the culmination is, and how the
sound should change.

I begin with the score and inner hearing. I go through the Andante sostenuto mentally,
without trying to prove immediately that I can still play it. The section begins in m. 331 and
leads toward the Fugato. I look at the main formal and expressive points: the transformed
Grandioso material around m. 336, the more passionate entrance around m. 367, the
culmination around m. 395, the dolce change in m. 397, the upward movement around m.
415, the questioning gesture around m. 433, and the return of the opening descending idea
around m. 453.

I pay close attention to the written dynamics and expressive markings. In this section they
are not only instructions for loud and soft playing; they shape the form. I follow the
crescendos and diminuendos and remind myself where the sound has to open, where it
must stay intimate, and where the tension must continue. For example, in m. 347, with quasi
Adagio, I need to remember the inner state and the type of freedom I want there. In m. 349,
with dolcissimo con intimo sentimento and ppp, the sound world becomes more intimate,
and this requires a different kind of touch and attention.

During this mental practice I also conduct for myself. I use small gestures to feel the tempo,
breathing, and direction of the phrases before I play. This is important because the Liszt
Sonata belongs to Liszt’s Weimar period, when he was strongly involved with large-scale
and orchestral thinking. The Sonata was completed in Weimar in 1853, during the same
period in which Liszt was developing his symphonic poems; around these years he was
working on orchestral works such as Tasso, Prometheus, Orpheus, and Mazeppa.

Because of this, I should not think of the Andante sostenuto only as piano phrases. I need to
imagine a larger musical space: different registers, colours, layers, and a long orchestral
breath. Conducting helps me plan the tempo, movement, and proportion of the section.
This is especially important here because it is very tempting to take too much freedom in
beautiful places. But if the tempo becomes too loose, the form can spread and lose direction.

The goal of this first session is to create a clear sound and form plan before physical
repetition starts. I want to know the main expressive points, the dynamic line, the
culmination, and the tempo feeling. I also remind myself that rubato in this section should
serve the long form, not only my personal feeling in the moment.

66
At the end of the session, I write down the first tasks for playing:

sound quality, especially in the quiet and intimate places;​

tempo and rubato, so the form does not become loose;​
the culmination around m. 395, to check whether it is prepared naturally;​
the dolce after the climax, to check whether it changes colour without losing line;​
the general state of the Andante, to see whether the section is still open in my hearing
and not only remembered by the hands.

After this, I take a short reset and then return to the piano. The next session can begin with
actual playing, but now the playing has a clearer purpose: to check whether the inner plan,
sound, and form are still alive.

5.2.3 Practice Session 2: Surface Diagnosis of the

Whole Andante sostenuto
After the first mental session, I return to the piano. This session is not yet detailed repair. Its
aim is to make a surface diagnosis of the whole Andante sostenuto section.

I play the section from beginning to end, but I do it with the score. This is important. I do not
want to rely only on memory or on the feeling that I still know the piece. I look carefully into
the text and try to follow all the written indications: dynamics, crescendos, diminuendos,
expressive markings, tempo changes, phrasing, and pedal indications.

The goal is not to make a concert performance. I want to understand the present state of the
material after the break. I ask myself: what still works naturally, what feels weaker, what
sounds different from before, and where I no longer have the same control.

After this first play-through, my general impression is that the section did not become
dramatically worse. The main image, the harmonic logic, and the general memory are still
there. However, I notice that not everything reacts the way I want. Sometimes I want to
shape a phrase or make a certain intonation, but it does not happen immediately. This
shows that the material is still familiar, but some parts are not open enough yet.

This is exactly the kind of moment where familiarity can be misleading. The piece feels
known, but the details show where the control became weaker. The hands still remember
many things, but the sound, phrasing, and timing need to be checked more carefully.

After this surface diagnosis, I understand that the next step should be more specific
diagnosis. I should not simply play the whole section again and again. I need to choose
exact places and exact questions.

The first area I want to check more carefully is the beginning of the Andante sostenuto up to
quasi Adagio. On the first reading after the break, something in the phrasing does not
completely satisfy me. It sounds generally acceptable, but I need to know more precisely
what is missing: whether it is the line, the sound, the timing, or the connection between
phrases.

67
Another important place is around m. 363. This passage sounds unconvincing, so it should
become a separate diagnostic point. I need to understand whether the problem is technical,
musical, or connected with the physical feeling of the passage.

I also mark the area around m. 395–397. The culmination around m. 395 and the transition
into the dolce in m. 397 need special work. This is not only a technical connection. It is a
change of state after the climax. If the transition is not prepared well, the dolce can sound
like a drop of energy instead of a transformation of colour.

In m. 397 itself, I also need to work on phrasing. The way I play it does not fully satisfy me. I
need to check how the phrase begins, how the sound changes, and how the line continues
after the climax.

I also notice that the form is slightly less stable than before. In some places the tempo
freedom can become too wide. Around m. 433, I start to move faster than I should. This
needs to be checked, because in this section too much tempo freedom can make the form
spread or lose its direction.

After this session, I decide that the next diagnostic step should include recording. I need the
dictaphone to hear more precisely what is not working. While playing, my feeling can be
different from the real result. Recording will help me check the sound, phrasing, tempo, and
form from outside.

The result of this session is not a repaired Andante. The result is a clearer list of diagnostic
points:

the beginning of the Andante sostenuto up to quasi Adagio — phrasing and sound;​
around m. 363 — unconvincing passage, needs closer diagnosis;​
m. 395–397 — culmination, transition, and dolce colour;​
m. 397 — phrasing after the climax;​
around m. 433 — tempo control and form;​
whole section — check whether the form still holds after the break.

This session shows that the material is not lost, but it cannot simply be trusted. The next
work should be precise: recording, listening with the score, and then choosing only a few
concrete tasks for repair.

5.2.4 Practice Session 3: Diagnostic Recording and

First Repair — Andante sostenuto to quasi Adagio

68
After the surface diagnosis of the whole Andante sostenuto, I choose the first area for more
specific work: the beginning of the section up to quasi Adagio. In the previous session, I
already noticed that this opening part was generally still there, but something in the phrasing
and sound did not fully satisfy me. Now I want to understand more precisely what is missing.

I begin by playing this fragment and recording it on the dictaphone. This is not a
performance recording. I use it as a diagnostic tool. I want to compare three things: what I
wanted to do, what I felt while playing, and what actually sounded in the recording.

After playing, I do not listen to the recording immediately. First I write down my own
impression. My first feeling is that the melody was present, but I did not really sing it enough.
It was not as expressive and direct as I wanted. I felt that I made some phrase shapes, but
the melodic line itself did not fully speak.

Then I listen to the recording with the score. On the recording, the problems become much
clearer. I hear that the natural phrasing has partly disappeared. The melody does not have
enough continuous flow. It should move as one long line, almost without stopping internally,
but in my recording it sounds more fragmented.

69
I also notice that the central notes are not shaped clearly enough. In this place, the music
gravitates around C-sharp, and these notes need more meaning. They should not sound
like ordinary notes inside the line. They are points of gravity, and the phrase has to move
toward and away from them more naturally. I also hear that there is not enough development
in the phrase. The melody is there, but it does not grow enough.

At the beginning of the fragment, I also need to listen more carefully to the left hand. The left
hand is not only accompaniment. In the first bars it has its own rising movement, and this
movement should be heard as a line. If I only listen to the right-hand melody, the texture
becomes less alive and less three-dimensional.

After listening, I mark several concrete tasks. First, I need to restore the natural flow of the
melody. Second, I need to make the central notes clearer. Third, I need to listen more
carefully to the left-hand line in the opening bars. Fourth, I want to clean the pedal,
especially around m. 340 and m. 342. In these places I would like to use the pedal more
precisely, sometimes catching one note in the pedal instead of keeping a general resonance.
Around m. 343, I also want to change the colour of the sound. The sonority should not stay
the same; it needs a gradual change of colour.

After this diagnosis, I start the first repair. I do not immediately play the fragment again in full
texture. First I play the melody alone and try to feel whether it can flow more naturally. Then I
listen separately to the left hand in the first bars, especially the rising line. I want to hear
where it goes and how it supports the right hand.

After this, I add more sonority and try to find the sound around the dolce area in the fourth
and fifth bars of the section. Then I play both hands again, looking for the sound of the upper
voice inside the harmony. The goal is to feel the upper line more clearly, but without making
the rest of the texture dead. After this first correction, the fragment already feels better. The
melody begins to speak more, and the sound has more direction.

In the same session, I continue further. I play again from the beginning of the Andante and
continue through quasi Adagio toward dolcissimo, around m. 349, and then toward m.
356. After playing this, I notice a new problem. I begin the quasi Adagio too quietly and
slow down too much. It does not sound organic. Then, after this slowing down, I almost run
into the dolcissimo in m. 349. This shows that my tempo freedom is not yet organised
enough. The phrase has freedom, but the form becomes less stable.

Because of this, I isolate the transition around m. 346–347, into quasi Adagio. I do not want
this place to become only a beautiful slowing down. It still has to belong to the larger line. I
also pay attention to the trill, because in my playing it does not always sound beautiful. Then
I look at the chromatic scale that comes out of the trill. I remind myself that the melody is still
going somewhere. Even if the notes become smaller and more delicate, the line still has
direction and crescendo. I should not forget the logic of the melodic construction.

I play this passage again and look carefully at the rhythm at the end of the passage,
especially where the movement changes into eighth notes. When the eighth notes begin, I
want to use the pedal more clearly, almost on each note, so that the resonance is clean and
the line does not become blurred.

70
Before the final check of this session, I do not simply play again. I first go through the
fragment with inner hearing. I think through all the tasks: melodic flow, central notes,
left-hand line, pedal, colour change, balance of middle voices, transition to quasi Adagio,
trill, chromatic scale, and the rhythm at the end of the passage.

I also remember the bass movement around m. 347–349, where the bass descends toward
m. 349. This bass should also be heard as a line. It is not only harmonic support. I need to
listen to it and include it in the phrase.

Then I play the fragment again for myself, trying to control everything more consciously. This
is not a casual repetition. It is a controlled check. I try to hear whether the melody flows
better, whether the left hand has direction, whether the pedal is cleaner, whether the colour
changes naturally, and whether the transition into quasi Adagio feels more organic.

At the end of the session, I write down the tasks that remain:

melodic flow — the melody must sing more continuously;​

central notes — especially the notes around C-sharp need clearer meaning;​
left hand — the opening rising movement must be heard as a line;​
pedal — clean pedalling around m. 340 and m. 342;​
colour — change of sonority around m. 343;​
quasi Adagio transition — do not begin too quietly or slow down too much;​
m. 349 dolcissimo — do not rush into it after quasi Adagio;​
trill and chromatic scale — make them beautiful and directional;​
bass line around m. 347–349 — listen to the descending movement;​
middle voices — check balance and do not let them disappear.

The result of this session is not that the fragment is finished. The result is that the problems
became concrete. I no longer have only a vague feeling that something is wrong. I know
what to listen for, what to repair, and what has to return in the next session.

5.2.5 Practice Session 4: Detailed Work on the Middle

Development

71
After the work on the beginning of the Andante sostenuto and the transition to quasi
Adagio, I continue with the next part of the section. I do not start by playing it as one full
passage. First I return to the score and go through the material with inner hearing. I try to
hear the harmonic changes, the direction of the phrase, the growth of tension, and the
balance between the right and left hands before I play.

72
The main task of this session is to understand how the music develops from m. 356 toward
the more dramatic material around m. 363 and m. 367. I do not want to practise this place
only as notes and chords. I need to know what each moment does in the form.

In m. 356 and m. 357, I need to show a clear difference between two harmonic states. m.
356 feels more anxious and questioning, while m. 357 becomes more elevated. These two
bars should not have the same colour. If I play them with the same sound, the phrase
becomes flat, and the harmonic meaning is weaker.

Before playing, I imagine this contrast internally. I try to hear m. 356 as a question and m.
357 as a more lifted answer. Then I play slowly and check whether this difference is really
audible. The task is not to exaggerate the contrast, but to make the change of harmony and
colour clear.

From m. 360, I begin to build the crescendo and the more agitated feeling. This should
happen gradually. The sound should not become too loud immediately. It should move to
another level of sonority, but still leave space for the later climax. I have to imagine the
maximum sound of the whole passage and not spend it too early.

Here my task is to lead the music toward m. 363. The sound in m. 360–361 should already
change, but it should not yet become the final dramatic sound. It is more like moving to a
higher floor of sonority. I need to feel that the phrase is going forward, but still under control.

In m. 363, there is no written Grandioso, but I hear it as a grandiose return. It should sound
almost like horns. At the same time, the balance must be controlled. There is a melody
together with chords, and the chords should not cover the melodic line. They should sound
noble and majestic, but not too heavy.

This place needs a clear sound plan. I want the melodic line to stay above the chordal mass,
while the chords create the feeling of grandeur. If the chords become too loud, the return
sounds heavy and pianistic in a bad way. If they are too weak, the place loses its power. The
task is to find a noble, horn-like sonority.

Around m. 367, the character changes again. The right hand has a tendency to move
forward, almost as if it wants to break out. But the left hand should hold the form and not
allow the tempo to run away. I want to create the illusion that the right hand is pushing
forward, while the left hand keeps it under control.

This is one of the main interpretative tasks of this session. I should not simply make an
accelerando. The forward energy must be felt, but the tempo should remain organised. The
left hand becomes a restraining force, almost like it holds the right hand “in chains”. This
creates tension inside the texture.

To practise this, I work on the left-hand structure separately. I can divide it between two
hands: the lowest bass in the left hand, and the chordal part in the right hand. This helps me
hear how the bass and the chords organise the passage. The left hand is not just
accompaniment here. It controls weight, pulse, and resistance.

73
In m. 369, I noticed in the recording that I gave too much importance to the right hand.
Because of this, the right-hand theme sounded broken. My solution is to show the strong
beat more through the left-hand bass. The right hand should continue its line, but without
being overloaded. I need to follow the development and not exaggerate the sound too early.

Before playing this place again, I use mental practice. I imagine the left hand holding the
pulse and the right hand continuing the phrase above it. I also try to conduct the passage
internally, because I need to feel the forward pressure without losing the larger tempo. Only
after that do I play the passage again.

The passage in m. 375 works, but it still needs stabilisation. I practise the right hand
separately and use variation practice. I can play it with different phrasing, different rhythmic
groupings, and different inner directions. For example, I can lead it toward G, then change
the grouping and check whether the hand still stays free. This helps me avoid mechanical
repetition.

In m. 376, I want to add a detail that I did not consciously use before. I hear a small direction
from D to E-flat, and I want to show it through a slight crescendo in the first finger. In m.
377–378, there is a similar movement from B-natural to C. These details are small, but they
help the phrase grow from inside. The development should not come only from external
dynamics; it should also come from voice-leading.

In m. 380, I again need to hold the form through the left hand. I listen to the bass line and
use it as a stabilising element. The right hand may want to move forward, but the bass
should keep the music grounded. This is a check for the whole passage: does the left hand
really organise the phrase, or do I let the right hand take too much control?

At the end of this part of the session, I write down the main tasks:

m. 356–357 — show two different harmonic worlds: questioning and elevated;​

m. 360–363 — build crescendo and agitato gradually, without using the full sound too early;​
m. 363 — create a horn-like grandiose return, but keep the melody above the chords;​
m. 367 onward — create forward pressure in the right hand while the left hand holds the
form;​
m. 369 — do not over-emphasise the right hand; show the strong beat through the bass;​
m. 375 — stabilise the right-hand passage with variation practice;​
m. 376–378 — bring out inner voice-leading, especially D–E-flat and B-natural–C;​
m. 380 — listen to the bass as a stabilising line.

The result of this work is not a finished passage. The result is a clearer understanding of
how this part develops. I know where the sound has to change, where the left hand controls
the form, where the right hand wants to move forward, and which small voice-leading details
can make the development more alive.

5.2.6 Practice Session 5: Climax, Dolce, and Physical

Organisation

74
After the work on mm. 356–380, I continue with the next part of the Andante sostenuto. This
session is focused on the movement toward the climax and the change of state after it. Here
I need to check not only the notes, but also the physical organisation, the pedal, and the
quality of sound after the strongest point.

Before playing, I first go through this passage mentally. I remind myself where the music is
going: the passage should not become a collection of difficult places. It has one direction
toward the climax, and after the climax the sound has to change without losing the line. I try
to hear this whole movement internally before I touch the keyboard.

In mm. 385–386, I practise slowly. In m. 386, there is a crossing passage where the right
hand moves over the left. This place needs separate attention because it can easily feel
uncomfortable if I only rely on memory. I should check the hand position, the distance
between the hands, and the physical movement before putting it back into the larger phrase.

The aim here is not to repeat the passage many times mechanically. I need to make the
movement convenient. If the physical organisation is unclear, the sound will also become
unstable. So I first play it slowly, then check whether the crossing feels natural enough to
continue the phrase without tension.

Around m. 393, near the culmination, I decide to organise the pedal according to the bass.
When I listen to myself, I notice that pedalling only according to harmony can make the
sound unclear. In this place the climax needs resonance, but it should not become dirty. The
bass gives the pedal a clearer structure.

This is an important detail: pedal here is not only for volume or atmosphere. It controls the
clarity of the culmination. I want the sound to be big, but still readable. If the pedal is too
general, the harmony becomes blurred and the climax loses its shape.

The transition from m. 395 to m. 397 is one of the most important points of this session. In
m. 395, Liszt writes fff. Then in m. 396, there is poco rallentando. In m. 397, he writes
dolce, but not piano. This means that the sound has to change its character, but it should
not suddenly become weak.

75
When I listened to myself, I did not like this place. I played the dolce too loudly, and at the
same time I moved too quickly, as if the music escaped from the climax. This shows that I
need to work on the transition separately. The dolce should not feel like a sudden fall after
the climax. It should feel like a transformation of colour.

For this reason, I practise m. 397 separately. First I take the left hand alone. I want it to
sound almost harp-like or guitar-like: flowing calmly, without pressure. The left hand should
not be heavy. It has to continue the resonance after the climax, but in another colour.

Then I practise the right hand separately. I check the upper voice and the fingering. I slightly
change the fingering in the upper voice: in m. 398, I use the first finger for F-sharp and
D-sharp to give the line a fuller sound. For Liszt, this kind of redistribution can be natural
when it helps the sonority and gives the line more space.

After this, I combine both hands again, but slowly. I listen to whether the left hand flows
calmly and whether the right hand sings above it. The check is very clear: the dolce should
sound softer in character, but not empty; free, but not rushing; expressive, but not
sentimental.

Around m. 402, I should not let the phrase die. After the climax and the dolce, there is a
danger to relax too much, slow down too much, or make the phrase unstable. I need to keep
the music moving calmly as one development. The sound can become more inward, but the
line should not stop.

Before the final check of this session, I again use mental practice. I go through the passage
internally: the crossing in m. 386, the pedal by the bass around m. 393, the climax in m. 395,

76
the poco rallentando in m. 396, the dolce in m. 397, and the continuation toward m. 402. I
try to hear the change of colour before playing it.

Then I play the passage again, not as a full performance, but as a controlled check. I listen
to the balance, the pedal, the physical comfort, and the line after the climax.

At the end of this session, I write down the main tasks:

mm. 385–386 — practise slowly and organise the crossing physically;​

m. 393 — use pedal according to the bass to avoid unclear harmony;​
m. 395 — prepare the culmination without forcing the sound;​
m. 396 — control the poco rallentando so that it leads naturally to the next state;​
m. 397 — make the dolce a change of colour, not a weak collapse;​
m. 397 left hand — play it calmly, almost harp-like or guitar-like;​
m. 398 — check the new fingering in the upper voice for fuller sound;​
m. 402 — do not let the phrase die or slow down too much.

The result of this session is that the climax and the following dolce become more
understandable. I do not only know that this is a strong point followed by a soft point. I
understand the transition: how the sound grows, how the pedal has to be organised, how the
body should stay free, and how the music continues after the climax. This is important for
keeping the Andante sostenuto as one form, not as separate beautiful moments.

5.2.7 Next Steps and Weekly Return Plan

After the first day with the Andante sostenuto, I do not want to stay only inside this section,
but I also cannot simply leave it. Everything that I restore has to return again. If I work on a
place today, I need to check it later the same day, then again the next day, and then after a
longer distance. Otherwise I cannot know whether the work really stayed or only worked
during one practice session.

For this reason, the next step is to restore the Sonata block by block, but with return built
into the plan. Each new block has its own diagnosis and repair, while previous blocks come
back in shorter return sessions.

The basic weekly principle is:

new block → diagnosis → first repair → same-day return → next-day return → later
return → larger connection.

Day 1 — Andante sostenuto as the first return block

The first day is focused on the Andante sostenuto. I use it as the first serious return point
after the break. I work on sound, phrasing, tempo freedom, pedal, and the main expressive
points.

77
By the end of the day I do not need the Andante to be finished. I need a clear task list:

●​ opening to quasi Adagio;

●​ melodic flow;
●​ central notes around C-sharp;
●​ pedal around m. 340 and m. 342;
●​ sound colour around m. 343;
●​ transition into quasi Adagio;
●​ m. 356–357;
●​ m. 360–363;
●​ m. 367 onward;
●​ m. 395–397;
●​ continuation after dolce.

At the end of the day I should return shortly to the main points of the Andante. This does not
mean doing the whole detailed work again. It means checking what already changed and
writing down what must come back tomorrow.

Day 2 — Return to Andante, then begin Fugato

The second day should begin with a return to the Andante sostenuto. I should not start
immediately with new material. First I check what stayed from Day 1.

This return can be shorter, but it has to be real. I would check:

●​ whether the opening melody still flows;

●​ whether the transition to quasi Adagio is still organised;
●​ whether m. 356–363 still has direction;
●​ whether m. 395–397 still works better;
●​ whether the sound and tempo freedom are more controlled.

After this return, I can move to the Fugato as the new main block of the day. The first work
on Fugato should be diagnostic and practical. The main focus is evenness, steadiness,
physical organisation, and gradual technical return. I do not need to solve it completely
in one day. I need to bring it back into active work.

At the end of Day 2, I should also return briefly to the Fugato material I worked on that day.
This follows the same rule: if I add a new block, I return to it before the day ends.

Day 3 — Return to Fugato, short Andante check, then main thematic

material

Day 3 should begin with the Fugato, because it was the new block from Day 2. I check
whether the evenness and physical organisation stayed after one day. If something became
unstable again, I mark it for slower work.

The Andante should also appear, but shorter. It does not need a full detailed session on Day
3. I only check the main places from Day 1:

78
 ●​ opening flow;
●​ quasi Adagio;
●​ m. 395–397;
●​ one larger line of the section.

Then I can move to the main thematic material from the first large part of the Sonata. This
becomes the new diagnostic block of Day 3. The goal is to start restoring another important
part of the Sonata without losing the return cycle of Andante and Fugato.

At the end of Day 3, I return briefly to the new material from that day, so it also enters the
spaced-return cycle.

Day 4 — Detailed return to Andante

Day 4 is a good moment for a more detailed return to the Andante sostenuto. There has
now been some distance from the first diagnostic day, so I can see what really stayed and
what still needs work.

This is not a full restart. I choose the most important points and polish them more carefully:

●​ opening to quasi Adagio — sound, melodic flow, pedal;

●​ m. 356–357 — two different harmonic colours;
●​ m. 360–363 — gradual build-up;
●​ m. 367 onward — right-hand forward pressure with left-hand control;
●​ m. 395–397 — climax, poco rallentando, and dolce;
●​ m. 397–402 — continuation after the climax.

This is the day where Andante gets more detailed “sharpening”. After that, I can still briefly
return to Fugato or another block, but the main detailed work of the day is Andante.

Day 5 — Fugato and passage work

Day 5 can return strongly to the Fugato. By now it has already been touched on Day 2 and
returned on Day 3, so the work can become more practical. I can focus on evenness,
physical comfort, steadiness, and technical control.

This day can also include other passage work from the Sonata. Not only Fugato, but also
passages in other parts that need gradual technical return. The aim is to start rebuilding the
technical side of the Sonata block by block.

At the end of the day, I again write what has to return tomorrow. The point is not to practise
everything equally, but to keep every repaired block alive.

Day 6 — Octaves and another large block

Day 6 can focus on another large area of the Sonata, especially the octave passages and
later dramatic material. The first task is again diagnostic: check physical freedom, sound,
pulse, and whether the octave mechanism is still comfortable after the break.

79
I should not force the octaves immediately at full power. The goal is to restore the
mechanism without bringing back tension.

On this day I can also make short returns to:

●​ Andante
●​ Fugato, especially evenness;
●​ the main thematic material from Day 3.

These returns do not have to be long. They only have to keep the material active.

Day 7 — Larger connection

By the end of the week, I can begin connecting larger parts of the Sonata. This still does not
have to be a full concert run-through. The goal is to check whether the blocks begin to
belong to one form again.

I can record larger sections and listen for:

●​ whether the Andante keeps its line;

●​ whether the Fugato is steadier;
●​ whether the main thematic material connects with the whole form;
●​ whether the octave passages are physically organised;
●​ whether transitions between blocks feel natural;
●​ whether the piece is returning as one large structure.

The goal of the first week is not to finish the Sonata again. The goal is to bring all main
blocks back into work, repeat each new block after distance, and create a clear plan for the
next stage.

5.2.8 Conclusion: What This Case Study Shows

This case study shows that returning to learned repertoire after a break needs a different
strategy from learning a new piece. The material is familiar, but familiarity is not enough. A
passage can feel known and still need new diagnosis, repair, and return.

The most important principle is:

diagnose → repair → return → add new block → return again → connect.

The Andante sostenuto was the first return block. I used it to check sound, phrasing, form,
pedal, tempo freedom, and the state of automatism. But after the first day I should not stay
only in the Andante. The Sonata has to return as a whole, so the next days bring back
Fugato, the main thematic material, passage work, octave work, and larger connections.

At the same time, every new block must be repeated. If I work on Andante on Day 1, I check
it on Day 2. If I begin Fugato on Day 2, I return to it on Day 3. If I start another block on Day

80
3, it returns later. This is how the whole Sonata can come back without panic and without
superficial playing.

The break is not only a problem. It shows what was truly stable and what was only recently
repeated. It also gives a chance to return with more distance, more listening, and more
freedom. The goal is not just to restore the old version of the Sonata. The goal is to rebuild it
in a more conscious and open way.

5.3 General Conclusion: What the Two Case Studies

Show
The two case studies show two different practice situations. In Rachmaninoff’s Prelude in
C-sharp minor, I demonstrate how I begin working on a piece: first impression, reduction of
texture, separation of layers, first microscope work, and same-day return. In Liszt’s Sonata
in B minor, I show another situation: returning to already learned repertoire after a break
and diagnosing what stayed, what became weaker, and what needs to be opened again.

The Rachmaninoff case shows that the first stage of practice should not be only about
learning notes. At the beginning, I need to create orientation. I look at the score, find the
main layers, mark difficult areas, and decide what should not be practised yet. In the opening
of the Prelude, this means separating the bell motive, the harmonic upper line, the role of
pedal, the slurs, and the first technical points. The most important idea there is progressive
texture building: I do not add the full texture immediately, but move from one line to
another, from inner hearing to physical playing, and from reduced material to a fuller version.

The Liszt case shows a different problem. The Sonata was already learned, but after more
than a month away from it, I could not simply trust the old feeling that I knew it. The material
was familiar, but familiarity is not the same as real control. In the Andante sostenuto, I had
to check sound, phrasing, rubato, form, pedal, physical comfort, and the quality of
automatism. This showed that returning to repertoire is not only repetition. It is diagnosis.

Together, the two examples show that practice depends on the stage of the piece. A new or
early-stage piece needs orientation and construction. An old piece after a break needs
diagnosis and reopening. In both cases, the same basic system is useful:

Task – Method – Check – Return.

In Rachmaninoff, the task is to understand the first material and build it step by step. In Liszt,
the task is to check what remained after distance and to rebuild only what is necessary. The
methods are different, but the logic is the same: I do not practise blindly. I define the
material, choose a method, check the result, and plan when it should return.

The case studies also show the importance of mental practice. In Rachmaninoff, I play one
layer while internally hearing another. In Liszt, I return to the inner map of the Andante
before playing and conduct the section mentally to feel tempo, breathing, and direction. This
helps me avoid relying only on fingers. The hands should not lead alone; they should be
connected with hearing, form, and intention.

81
Another important point is the role of recording. In the Liszt case, recording helps me
separate my feeling while playing from the real sound. I may feel that a phrase is expressive,
but the recording can show that the line is not continuous enough, the tempo is too loose, or
the sound has lost colour. Recording turns a vague feeling into concrete tasks.

Both case studies also confirm that breaks are not wasted time. A short break during the
same day helps test whether material stayed in attention. A longer break, like one month
away from the Liszt Sonata, reveals which parts were truly stable and which parts were held
only by recent repetition. This is why return is a necessary part of practice. A passage
becomes more reliable only when it survives distance.

The Liszt case also makes the difference between open and closed automatism clearer.
Automatism is necessary for performance, but it should not become closed. If the hands play
an old chain without active hearing, form, or choice, the material becomes dangerous. A
good automatism remains open: I can hear the phrase, control the sound, start from
structural points, and still make artistic decisions. Returning after a break is a good moment
to test this.

The main result of these two case studies is that effective practice is not just more repetition.
It is organised attention. Sometimes I need to reduce the texture. Sometimes I need to
record myself. Sometimes I need to stop, take a break, and return later. Sometimes I need to
move to another section and come back after distance. The aim is not to practise longer, but
to practise with clearer tasks.

In this sense, the practical work confirms the main idea of this study: good practice is a
flexible system. It should help me begin a piece, diagnose an old piece, protect
concentration, avoid mechanical repetition, and build a connection between body, ear,
memory, and interpretation. The final goal is not only to play the correct notes, but to make
the music stable, conscious, physically free, and artistically alive.

Chapter 6. Conclusion
This paper began from a personal problem. At a certain point, practice stopped being a
natural and clear process for me. I was still spending time at the piano, but I often did not
understand exactly what I was doing, why I was doing it, and whether my work was really
moving in the right direction. Because of this, the main question of the paper became not
only how much a pianist should practise, but how practice can become more conscious,
organised, healthy, and artistically meaningful.

The first important conclusion is that practice cannot be reduced to repetition or time. A
pianist may spend many hours at the instrument and still work ineffectively if the task is
unclear, the ear is passive, the body is tense, or the mind is unfocused. Real practice begins
when the pianist observes, defines, isolates, corrects, checks, and returns to the material. In
this sense, practising is not simply playing. It is a specific form of learning.

82
The second conclusion is that practice begins before the fingers move. The pianist needs an
inner image of sound, a direction, and a purpose. Movement should be guided by hearing
and intention. After playing, feedback comes through the ear, touch, and bodily sensation.
This creates a learning loop: intention, movement, sound, feedback, correction. If this loop is
weak, repetition becomes mechanical. If it is alive, every repetition can give information.

Memory is also central to practice. A passage that works once inside one session is not
necessarily learned. It may only be “warm” because it has just been practised. Real stability
appears when the material can return after distance: after a pause, later the same day, the
next day, or after a longer break. This is why Return became one of the most important
ideas in my system. Forgetting is not only a failure; it is information. It shows what has really
settled and what was only supported by immediate repetition.

The body also cannot be separated from practice. Piano playing is not only a mental or
artistic activity. It depends on the nervous system, sleep, fatigue, breathing, physical
condition, pain, tension, and the practice environment. If the body is tired or tense, the ear
becomes less sharp, movement becomes more expensive, and attention becomes weaker.
For this reason, health and recovery are not outside practice. They are part of the conditions
that make good practice possible.

The practical centre of this paper is the model Task – Method – Check – Return. This
model helped me organise practice as a sequence of clear decisions. First, I define the
Task: what exactly I am working on. Then I choose the Method: how I will work on it. Then I
need a Check: how I will know whether the work improved. Finally, I plan the Return: when
and how I will test the material again. This structure is simple, but it prevents vague and
mechanical work.

The paper also showed that different stages of learning need different kinds of practice. At
the beginning of a piece, the pianist needs orientation, first impression, reduction of texture,
and discovery of the main musical material. In the microscope stage, the work becomes
detailed and slow. Later, the pianist has to reconnect details into larger form. Finally, when
returning to older repertoire, the task is not to learn from zero, but to diagnose what stayed,
what became weaker, and what needs to be reopened.

The two case studies made these ideas practical. In Rachmaninoff’s Prelude in C-sharp
minor, I showed how I begin working on a piece. I created a first map, separated the bell
motive and harmonic upper line, reduced the texture, used inner hearing, and built the
material gradually. This case showed that the first stage of practice should create orientation,
not just note-learning.

In Liszt’s Sonata in B minor, I showed a different situation: returning to already learned

repertoire after a break. Here the main task was diagnosis. The material was familiar, but
familiarity was not enough. I had to check sound, phrasing, rubato, form, physical comfort,
and the quality of automatism. This case showed that returning to repertoire is not simply
repetition. It is reopening and rebuilding.

The difference between open automatism and closed automatism became especially
important. Automatism is necessary for performance, because a pianist cannot consciously
control every note and movement on stage. But automatism becomes dangerous when it is

83
closed: when the hands continue, but the ear, mind, and artistic choice become passive.
Good automatism should remain open. It should be stable, but still connected with sound,
form, body, and interpretation.

Another important result of this work is that practice should include both feedback and
feedforward. Feedback helps me understand what happened after I played. Feedforward
prepares what should happen before I play. In performance, I cannot only react after
mistakes. I need to hear forward, feel the next gesture, and already prepare the next sound.
Good practice should therefore train not only correction, but also prediction.

This paper also changed my attitude toward mistakes and weak places. A mistake is not
only something negative. It is information. A weak place shows where the task is not clear
enough, where the method is not suitable, where the body is tense, where memory is too
narrow, or where the ear is not active enough. In this sense, practice becomes less
emotional and more diagnostic. Instead of thinking only “this is bad,” I can ask: what exactly
is the problem, what method does it need, how can I check it, and when should I return to it?

The final result of the paper is not a universal method for every pianist. It is a flexible practice
system that helps me organise my own work more intelligently. It can be adapted to different
stages: beginning a piece, working in detail, preparing performance, returning after a break,
or rebuilding old repertoire. The system does not remove artistic intuition. On the contrary, it
gives intuition a stronger structure.

For me, the most important conclusion is that effective practice is already part of artistic life.
It is not only preparation for performance. Through practice, a pianist learns how to hear,
how to think, how to manage the body, how to build memory, how to return to material, and
how to stay connected with music. The goal is not only to play the correct notes. The goal is
to make the music stable, conscious, physically free, and artistically alive.

Bibliography
Piano Pedagogy and Practice
Busoni, F. (1911). Sketch of a New Esthetic of Music. New York: G. Schirmer.

Chaffin, R., Imreh, G., & Crawford, M. (2002). Practicing Perfection: Memory and Piano
Performance. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cortot, A. (1928). Rational Principles of Pianoforte Technique. Paris: Éditions Salabert.

Hofmann, J. (1909). Piano Playing: With Piano Questions Answered. Philadelphia: Theodore
Presser.

Leimer, K., & Gieseking, W. (1972). Piano Technique. New York: Dover Publications.

Matthay, T. (1932). The Visible and Invisible in Pianoforte Technique. London: Oxford
University Press.

84
Neuhaus, H. (1973). The Art of Piano Playing. London: Barrie & Jenkins.

Sándor, G. (1981). On Piano Playing: Motion, Sound and Expression. New York: Schirmer
Books.

Memory, Learning, and Performance Research

Bönstrup, M., Iturrate, I., Thompson, R., Cruciani, G., Censor, N., & Cohen, L. G. (2019). A
rapid form of offline consolidation in skill learning. Current Biology, 29(8), 1346–1351.e4.

Ebbinghaus, H. (1913). Memory: A Contribution to Experimental Psychology. Translated by

H. A. Ruger and C. E. Bussenius. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. Original
work published 1885.

Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in
the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406.

Palmer, C. (2005). Sequence memory in music performance. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 14(5), 247–250.

Sleep, Body, Attention, and Health

Brodt, S., Pöhlchen, D., Flanagin, V. L., Glasauer, S., & Gais, S. (2023). Sleep: A brain-state
serving systems memory consolidation. Neuron, 111(8), 1050–1075.

Smith, P. J., Blumenthal, J. A., Hoffman, B. M., Cooper, H., Strauman, T. A., Welsh-Bohmer,
K., Browndyke, J. N., & Sherwood, A. (2010). Aerobic exercise and neurocognitive
performance: A meta-analytic review of randomized controlled trials. Psychosomatic
Medicine, 72(3), 239–252.

Ward, A. F., Duke, K., Gneezy, A., & Bos, M. W. (2017). Brain drain: The mere presence of
one’s own smartphone reduces available cognitive capacity. Journal of the Association for
Consumer Research, 2(2), 140–154.

Zaza, C. (1998). Playing-related musculoskeletal disorders in musicians: A systematic

review of incidence and prevalence. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 158(8),
1019–1025.

Scores
Liszt, F. (1854). Sonata in B minor, S.178. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.

Rachmaninoff, S. (1892). Prelude in C-sharp minor, Op. 3 No. 2.

85