It's obvious you have no idea what Chopin (or Bach for that matter) did for fingering.

I think something else is obvious: You're kind of rigid in judging some things, including other people.

Listen, post less - learn more OK?

keyboardklutz Online content
7000 Post Club Member

Thanks

LOOK.
A post like this (i.e. mine).......



......is no reason to tell someone that he basically doesn't know anything about the subject.

It's a DISAGREEMENT. That's all.
I think you're basically wrong, you think I'm totally wrong. But neither of us can claim to know "the one true way."

Sytadel, Pianists...
I wrote "By the way, fingering I leave as is." I had originally written "fingering I would leave as it is." Now I'm wondering why I changed it (often I read through at the end and delete a bit...).

So what I mean is that when you are teaching yourself and learning from Alfred's book one, using the fingering given is a pretty good idea I assumed that those who have been playing for a longish time would know that I was refering to the case of the OP. Being specific is always a good idea.

When I wrote that post I actually got out my copy of Afred's book1 and checked a few songs, and the fingering is fine. My comments and suggestions were considered, but it's up to you whether to use any ideas. So Sytadel I hope that helps Keep up the fast learning! O sol mio looks like a nice piece by the way.

And the debate is a reflection of the passion and interest of pianists here - I like it very much (even if it was an accident to spark this flurry). Oops

Well I certainly don't mind.

If it's of any interest I did my learning before my posting. (degree, performance diploma, teaching certificate.)

I don't think you realize how 'funny' you're being.....

P.S. I'll tell you what......
If my posts aren't enough to tell you that I don't deserve your attitude and comments, take a look at my Scriabin video (readily found via search on google or youtube) and see if I seem like someone who does.

Or, if you wish, you can simply take my word: I do not.

I'm pretty sure I don't, and I'm pretty sure I don't care all that much. I'm 6'5" tall and have fingers like pork sausages. I have very little reason to think that fingering suggestion, even by Bach or Chopin, would be workable.

I'm not even sure that note values should be sacrosanct. I'm mostly interested in baroque music, and I'm aware that composers often wrote in a way other than they performed. A textbook example example is writing pairs of even quavers beamed together, because it was quicker than writing the dotted rhythms that a particular style called for. The composer would have expected performers of the age to know the conventions of the genre and interpret accordingly.

These days it takes considerably expertise to interpret music of this era as written, and most of us rely on the good offices of pushlishers and editors to translate into a more modern representation. But there seems to be quite a bit of disagreement, and it's hard to be sure that we're playing what the original composer intended. Consequently, being too stuffy about this sort of thing might well be a waste of effort -- however well-intentioned.

Yes -- someone like you is a clear example of how what that guy said is just overly rigid. I myself have a slight physical issue about my hand that limits certain normal or prescribed fingerings and sometimes enables odds ones, so I'm somewhat in your boat. And of course people who don't have any 'anatomical' issue might also well choose different fingerings from those marked by the composer, and legitimately so.

I don't disagree that there's much to learn from a composer's indicated fingerings, on both technique and the intended/implied musicality. I would agree with the other poster to the extent that we shouldn't ignore such indications; we should study them carefully and thoughtfully. But in my opinion it is wrong and frankly a little scary to go so far as to say that they are sacrosanct.



YES.
I think the way you word the first sentence will outrage some people, but they perhaps will feel differently as they go on. An old teacher of mine, Malcolm Bilson, has a lecture and DVD (called "Knowing the Score") where he talks a lot about things like what you just said. As he says it, sometimes playing the music in what seems like a literal and correct way might actually be not following it; we need to understand the composer and the style to know what the score really "says." I would also bring up my somewhat odd view on the intended rhythm of the last movement of Bach's E minor Partita, but I'm afraid that would give one or two people here a nervous breakdown.

Sorry if you got a little frightened there but you guys just don't get fingering do you? And I actually said 'close to sacrosanct'.

Yes -- as I look back, indeed you did. Sorry!
Obviously I differ from your basic orientation on this and I think you're doing a couple of us an unfair disservice in how you view us, but I'm very sorry for the misquote.

I agree that "close to sacrosanct" is quite different from just sacrosanct. BUT......I hope you realize that even just using the word sacrosanct at all conveys a certain kind of orientation -- and that's what I reacted to.

I'm not sure what composers we're talking about anyhow. Chopin's the only one I know who left fingering that, and two pieces by Bach (though CPE and Couperin are a treasure trove).

Nobody knows which fingering is Chopin's own. This includes the lucky (unlucky?) people with first-hand access to his manuscripts.

He used many if not most of his manuscripts for teaching purposes, and teaching means dealing in some way with the idiosyncrasies of a particular student or students. It's quite likely that much of the fingering Chopin wrote has nothing to do with his own performance, but was a special compromise for some clumsy or opinionated student. Chopin also was in an essentially constant state of desperate score revision trying to get things sent off to the publishers so he could earn some money, and in very many cases he was unable to make up his mind even about what the correct notes were, let alone the piddling matter of fingering.

SOME of the fingerings in Chopin's music are brilliant and indispensable, demonstrating important general principles at the same time. Others are merely one useful possibility, and demonstrably not the best one.

Good pianists and scholars have had a lot of time, something Chopin never had, to figure this stuff out.

I would NEVER erase a fingering written by Chopin, for any reason. But I would certainly question it, and sometimes write a better fingering, in pencil, beside it.

Moi aussi!

Just how much wiggle-room is there between `sacrosanct' and `close to sacrosanct' ? I'm generally grateful for those composers and editors who give fingering indications, because nine times out of ten they work fine, even for my huge, clumsy hands. But that other time they don't work at all.

Is nine times out of ten `close to sacrosanct?' Or is there more to it than that?

I probably don't `get' fingering, as you say. I always thought that the purpose of fingering was to get nice sounds to come out of the piano, but perhaps there's more to it than that.

Of course I'm with you.
For the sake of peace I gave him the benefit of the doubt on that distinction.
And anyway I figured a misquote is a misquote, so I was doing a little penance too......

That's good enough for me and certainly not 'serving suggestions', cute though the analogy may be.

I think much can be learned from fingering suggestions, and I will usually go by them as well, unless they just don't work for me. I have no trouble scribbling out a fingering, whether it be Bach's, Chopin's, or the editor's. If their fingering hinders my ability to play, then it makes no sense to try and do it their way. I feel the same about distribution of notes between the hands. Sometimes the other hand can play the notes better/easier. Kevin is right, the goal it to be able to play the music well, not adhere to fingering. I'm not saying it's all bad, but one has to take into consideration their own hand size and facility.

kbk - 7191 posts in 2 years + 8 months (rounding here) ~ 225 posts/per month, averaged.

MC - 653 posts in less than one month.

Just thought I'd give another perspective on the "number of posts" thing. I'll leave "average number of posts per day" as an exercise for the student (as the joke about math teachers goes).



Cathy

Last time I exercised my maths brain MC was going at a rate of 30 a day. By my calculator now gone up to 34.8!

Well, now that my calculators out - that david_a is a nice bloke I'm sure, but 21 posts a day? To my measly 7.4? Is there some new generation of super-poster arriving? Or is it the recession?

I think my posts at least tend to be more interesting and music-related than those math ones.

Why, thank you

Cathy

any time

I wouldn't bet on it.

I won't join you in the 'personal' stuff.

I agree, they are.