I don't agree that's necessarily a sound premise in all cases, myself. If it were always true, B natural minor (just with F sharp and C sharp) would lie easier than D major. Even without the awkwardness of the A sharp, I still find this a harder scale, by a long shot. I'd suggest that when the interval is a semitone, like in E flat, left hand. it's usually easiest onto a black key. But not always when it's a tone. I use plenty of variants elsewhere (more based on groupings than to get on black keys more often), but not in the foundations for the scales (other than F sharp minor).

In ABRSM you can do any fingering that works.

By the way, if the left hand leads, why not leave the right hand on the same old autopilot of 4 on b flats and 3 on E flats? Surely changing that makes it require more concentration on the right, rather than less? Wouldn't that detract from concentration on the left? I make sure my right hand always does the same for all flat keys, so I can focus on the differences in the left.

WHAT premise? I made a lot of points. Let's be sure, first, that we are talking about the same thing. First of all, nothing I said is meant to be carved in stone. I just threw out things to think about, dynamically, while playing music itself, and things to consider while deciding what will work best. Fingering is such a personal thing, it *has* to be changed in many ways for different players, which is why fingering is more art than science.

I agree. My point is that default fingerings for the LH when played from do to do change for the "set" of notes associated with a scale like D according to starting and terminating, in passage work. And that we balance different principles, such as most comfortable turns against least number of turns...

I was hesitant about even mentioning such ideas. I assumed that whatever I said would be taken too literally.

Last point: the standard fingerings for the LH for G, D and A are flawed because they set to principles against each other. The first is to always cross from a black to white key, never white to white, when there is choice. The second is to start white keys with the 5th finger on do, the principle being least possible number of thumb turns.


Sorry, the black key one above is what I meant. I basically agree with all you say in general about weighing things up and adapting based on such things within music. I just feel that there's a notable flaw in that premise for foundations, because it introduces many difficulties of coordination- but doesn't necessarily provide more physical comfort (which is usually the justification given for turning onto black keys). While going to the extent of taking a C major fingering for B flat major scales probably would not happen, I'd always weigh up whether it's comfortable to do the fewest positions possible positions before worrying whether I turn onto black keys or not- that is, when fingering real-life things in music and the basis for 'exam' scales. When departing from 'reference' fingering, it's usually to avoid extra positions- rather than because of black keys. Even in music, I don't think that should be hugely high up within the priorities to consider.

I just realised that even for E flat major and B flat major, the benefit of standard fingering is not necessarily about turning onto black note. If you have the l.h. thumb on C, it's not easy to get 3 and 2 across onto D then E flat. I suspect that this cramped position is the main reason why the thumb together principle is traditionally scrapped here. This would slow me down tremendously at high speeds. It's not specifically turning onto a white note though, but the awkwardness of getting to the e flat that follows. If you compare with F sharp minor however (the one other scale that departs from thumbs together) I don't see any analogous position of discomfort at any point. I think that's where following the idea that it's necessarily an advantage to be on a black note doesn't noticably hold up.

Um, has anyone seen these "piano plates" for scale fingerings? They were designed by a 9-year-old boy. Perhaps we teachers do intellectualize about this a bit...

Here's the link: Nate's Piano Plates

I think I might order these for my studio . . .

That just encourages the student to do things without thinking or understanding why. Maybe they could just do it first and learn to understand later. But I'm always skeptical about anything that promotes mindless rote learning without awareness. I don't think that's a very quick approach. I can see why a 9 year old would want this- because it allows him to relax his brain rather than use it. But will 24 different keys (plus the issue of melodic scales) sink in by just moving your fingers according where you've been told to put them? Frankly, a child would have to be a genius to independently recall all the different patterns at will. Understanding the tiny number of principles that unify the patterns is far more useful than a crib sheet.

Wow! It had not occurred to me you and I would look at the same thing 180 degrees different - I thought this was probably the one element of the entire conversation for which there wouldn't be controversy.

And yet, the way my mind works, I thought only of the interval between notes. Of which there are 7.

And you thought only of the notes. Of which there are 8.

And though both of us are right, the difference in viewpoint could lead to misunderstanding.

Uh oh, those three scales are the same ones I do nonstandard, for the same reason (though I didn't come up with it on my own.)

Great minds think alike? Or, we both make the same mistakes? <grin>

I do understand what you mean, but I don't think these tools necessarily promote mindless repetition. If I use something like these plates in my studio, it is as an aid. I wouldn't be planning to just hand them off to a student (or hand all 24 off at once, yikes!) without preparation. If I did that, then I agree it would be essentially a "cheat sheet" of fingerings, and there would be almost no way the student could retain the fingerings from memory.

I think something like these plates or the various graphical scale diagrams out there can be helpful. I have students who prefer to just see the notes of the scale on the staff, and students who also truly need to see the fingerings on the keys. We identify recurring fingering patterns and circle them on the key diagrams and on the staff, and probably the best thing is to let the student find the patterns. As they discover the patterns, they internalize them . . . and then they're secure.

I'm also curious: over what period of time does everyone think students need to learn scales in all 30 keys? I would think that by the time a student is learning melodic minor scales, the major keys and most likely the natural & harmonic minor scales are going to be fairly secure. Then it's a matter of relating the top ascending portion of the melodic pattern to the major scale and the entire descending portion to the natural minor -- something the student already understands.

Maybe we could each type up our scales curriculum and post them somewhere for comparison (half-kidding; actually, some of us already have posted our methods here, it seems).

Ah, OK.

That was a horrible generalization. For one thing, different hands may not feel exactly the same thing. Let me go out on a limb here and suggest a possibility. The more black keys my 2nd, 3rd and 4th fingers play in major scales, the more effortless my thumb movement feels to me. Obviously this will extend to relative minors (or parallel, depending which way we prefer to link them), and it holds true for me for melodic minor. Harmonic minor feels different to me, so I'd like to skip making any generalizations about it, for the moment.

For that reason, the Db scale is fastest for my LH (two half-step white to black crosses ascending), but the same scale, with the right hand, is almost as effortless as the B scale, which logically should be the fatest/easiest/smoothest for the RH.

In comparison to the black note scales (so also Gb/F#), C is uneven, and my LH descending shows it the most. Even with the RH, if I play up four or five octaves, maximum speed, my wrist is noticeably less still than with the B scale.

So obviously, if other people experience this in somewhat the same manner, some of this ease is lost in the LH even in the key of E, not so much because the crosses are whole steps, E/F# and B/C#, but the 2nd finger (on A) is not extended a bit and elevated as it would be if we added A# (E Lydian). If you play both the regular scale and lydian, in E, you might notice a TINY bit of difference. It's small, so many may not be able to detect it, if it exists.

However, if I then switch to E natural minor, LH, up and down several octaves fast, and compare that to D major, LH, several octaves, for my hand the E natural minor is just a wee bit smoother. This could be the length and shape of my 4th finger, which enjoys the slight feeling of "freedom" on F#.

I think the feeling of comfort/smoothness has to be explored, individually. It's fine to say that something should or should not be faster/smoother/less effort, but it needs to be tested over time. I think the most important point is that even if all 12 keys are practiced with major and all traditional minors, also in 3rds and 6ths, with different kinds of contrary motion, this is only a foundation and a limited one when we consider how scales of all kinds are played separately and together. This is why I said earlier that I have never met a really fine pianist without a thorough mastery of scales, but I've met pianists with good scales who were at best mediocre players. This is also why I oppose learning scales just for the SAKE of learning scales, to pass tests or exams, because the value of scales comes from what we can borrow from them and put to use in real music.

That's an extreme example, but I take your point. As for exam scales, I still claim that when the scales asked for are played flawlessly, people will not criticize us or our students and in fact will usually not notice.

Sure, but there are many situations in which we are "in a key", but the passage work is doubling back and forth, or going up 8 notes but down 9, and on, and on. If I am in D, but not playing a scale from do to do but moving around in a more complex way, I will consistently keep 3 on C# and 4 on F# in the LH.

Yes, but if I use the standard fingering for Eb, LH, and change the RH so that the thumbs also fall on G and D, this does not slow me down at all, hands together. The reason is that the slight decrease in speed for the RH, for me, does not cause my LH to slow down, and the security of the thumbs together feels rather good. I would end with 13 (3 for the top Eb). I am not recommending this fingering, just stating that for me, personally, it's shocking how comfortable it feels.

(I would never even consider this fingering for the RH in any other situation.)

However, at the moment I'm thinking of the end of the Emperor Concerto, which has Eb passage work, hands together, that would probably make practical application of that non-standard fingering clumsy. I've never played through it, so I'm guessing from memory. Another real-life application of the Eb scale played hands together is escaping me at the right now.

I originally disagreed with you about this, but after playing it both ways, I tend to think that when playing hands together, the advantage of thumbs together twice is the deciding factor. For my RH alone, however, the traditional fingering feels a bit more natural. That may be nothing more than habit.

Just had a look at those "piano plates".

Don't like them at all.

It is the scale, the scales, that are important. Playing them, with "correct" fingerings without understanding what it is that you are playing, is useless in my book.

In this sense, I disagree with the analogy with running when you want to play a sport. Doing scales is more than just a technical exercise that serves to build pianistic stamina.

WWHWWWH, that is what is important. That is the place to start.

Start from the very beginning, a very good place to be.

Landorrano, I agree with your post above, apart from your final comment - the very beginning is a very good place to start, but probably not a great place to *be* for too long.....

It's about understanding 'major-ness' (or whatever other tonal variant) in your fingers in any position, and that's why playing contrary motion or 6ths apart highlights weaknesses in our total understanding of any one pattern - it's not just about fingering, it's about conceptualising the keyboard and it's about being able to physically work your way around the geographies of various patterns.

For a laugh today in my practice I worked my way through all the Major-Harmonic scales. This is simply the Major scale with a flattened 6th. The B flat permutation took me 10 minutes before I played with [what I regard as] fluency, whereas the E pattern needed less than 1 minute to be fluent.

I'd be interested to see what teachers in this forum make of their experience trying to play the Major-Harmonic pattern (which is only one semitone different to the Major pattern).....

In my view, scales are the way to take physical possession of the instrument, of the keyboard, and to take possession of the tonal structure of music. Playing one octave is thus useless, even negative, even for little tykes. Especially for little tykes.

The direct applicability of scales in playing is very limited.

For a pianist to be good he has to take possession of the instrument, as he has possession of his own voice. He cannot become good if the instrument is not his. This begins the first day.

And this is why in the Russian method books discussed in another thread these last days, there is no question of the five-fingered C position. In Russia one starts from the whole.

I am in wholehearted agreement. Very nicely said.

deleted because way too confusing when written out.

Could you expand on this a little? My teacher thinks it's good. I read your comments and find them interesting (the parts I could understand).

TIA,

Kim in IL

I personally LOVE the idea of the piano plates. Experience -- correct experience -- can precede understanding. Just because someone learns something essentially by rote does not preclude the eventual learning of the theory or its ultimate application.

I think any number of you are talking past each other and ignoring that fact that people have different ways of learning, different paths to take. What does the path really matter if, in the end, the destination is arrrived at?

I just looked at them, and I agree.

They instantly illustrate in a visual manner the principle of 1231234 (or reverse). They also show how this principle remains unchanged when you start on a different finger, and which other fingers are possible. The 213 and 214 left hand families are obvious. I could only see the one plate, so I don't know what they do about the G, D, A problem mentioned, but obviously the teacher could change which plate to use if desired.

It doesn't teach WWHWWWH, but maybe you'd get that ingrained in your ear just by playing them?

My pedagogy teacher often reminded us that first impressions last. If something like this helps create the correct first impression and you can build on that, then I'm for it.

The first thing to teach before even attempting major scales is their construction: * w w h used twice because the formula for a tetrachord needs 4 symbols since it's by definition "tetrachord - 4 notes of a perfect 4th.

Don't teach a thing without the formula and you won't regret it.
* w w h + w* w w h
The fourth step is always the half step. What could be easier then defining a starting note location and it's octave with the 5th fingers of each hand - then adjusting the finginers to the formula.

LH 5 4 3 2 and RH 2 3 4 5

As to the "plates" - I would never spend $23 for such a simple things. I would help the students drawn each one on a blank piece of paper (over time, not all at once) using pencil and ruler. How hard is it to draw a keyboard diagram of an octave or two anyway.
Set up your frame: |___________________| and then draw equidistant line to make individual white keys
|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_| and then add groups of 2 - 3 black notes

Unfortunately I can't do that in this format. Kids actually enjoying being able to create their own lesson tools and it is the ultimate proof that the student understands the keyboard to a highly exacting ability.

The whole purpose of scales anyway is to get the human being fluent and supple in movement around the keyboard in half steps, in whole steps, combination of whole and half steps, conjunct movement, disjunct movement, hand expansions, finger substitutions, finger exchanges, interval playing, accidental reading. Accuracy and clear thinking and action from the human.

The piano keyboard is a pianists "gym" and "workouts" in the gym of music making are the most essential practice that makes a pianist an achieving athlete of the keys.

We must be groomed to the demands of dancing fingers on the keys - "Choreography". The choreography part belongs to us.

We have to help our student "know" and "do". There is nothing difficult to "get" - it's the thinking and the action that must be groomed. You'll sit there all day waiting for something to click if you don't teach to the theory and orientation of the music and the keyboard and help students access the path.

Everything comes from within.

But that's how YOU learn, Betty. It's what makes sense to YOU. That won't work for every child. Some students must actually do something first before the theory of it will have any meaning. I never said a student shouldn't learn the "why" but instead sometimes the actual "how" of it needs to come first for some students.

One of my pedagogy teachers said that we often teach in the way we prefer to learn, not necessarily how we were taught. We tend to attract students who learn in the same ways we ourselves learn. At least, those are the students with whom we are most successful.

Ah, Kim, you have a teacher, I don't want to argue against her.

I agree. In addition, our ability to connect with people who do not think as we do allows us to reach out to more students, or be successful teaching more students.

Perhaps the greatest mistake made by teachers is assuming that if student A and student B reach the same goal, achieve the same result, they *get* there using the same method.

An equally false assumption is that student A and student B are equally likely to achieve success using the exact same process to get to the goal.

This is why I said earlier that I have never met a really fine pianist without a thorough mastery of scales, but I've met pianists with good scales who were at best mediocre players. This is also why I oppose learning scales just for the SAKE of learning scales, to pass tests or exams, because the value of scales comes from what we can borrow from them and put to use in real music.

I sort of agree here. I agree very much on the need to extend beyond the foundation and to think, not just repeat. But few people have the will to learn them very well at all, if not for exams. A genius may have no need for formulaic work and may figure things as they come. But a pianist of mediocre talent will always be better for having learned the standard formula. Whereas bad pianists may even be regarded as bad pianists rather than mediocre talents as a direct result of not having any foundations in scales.

Sure, but there are many situations in which we are "in a key", but the passage work is doubling back and forth, or going up 8 notes but down 9, and on, and on. If I am in D, but not playing a scale from do to do but moving around in a more complex way, I will consistently keep 3 on C# and 4 on F# in the LH.

I'm starting to see the point for these variants now. I'd maintain that any pianist ought to at least know how to use to a regular 343 fingering with aligned hands and thumbs- and at the drop of a hat. However, I see the logic in using this within one hand. If you can do either, then great. I'm all for having the extra fingerings. I just shudder to think of seeing someone play unison doh to doh scales (which aren't that rare) in a piece of music with some absurdly awkward coordinations that starts and ends mid-position, because someone said "only turn onto black notes" (although I stress that I'm not suggesting the person who told them that might be you!). However, in sound context I think it makes sense- perhaps even as the more normal fingering for many things.


One thing that occurs to me though is that maybe it's not necessarily about turning onto white or black notes- but that turning in the region of one isolated black note is harder. D flat is certainly very easy- with groups of black notes. But in F sharp minor, if I turn over B in my left hand, the cramped position of 2 and 3 on c sharp and D strikes me as almost as awkward as turning three over a C would be for the left hand of E flat major. B (with thumb) to C sharp and D sharp is very easy in B major. But remove the D sharp and it's overwhelmingly more awkward to catch the d natural. When I turn from A instead, I have more room to prepare those fingers around the awkward spot. In fact, by turning onto the white note and giving myself more space to line up, the very same fingers feel comfortable rather than cramped. So, I think are at least some exceptions to black-notes equals comfort style thinking. But I can see why you would often prefer to turn onto black notes in general. I'd say that comfortable positions would be my premise to weigh up against thumb thinking, rather than necessarily hoping to turn onto black notes- largely as you say yourself there.

Yes, but if I use the standard fingering for Eb, LH, and change the RH so that the thumbs also fall on G and D, this does not slow me down at all, hands together. The reason is that the slight decrease in speed for the RH, for me, does not cause my LH to slow down, and the security of the thumbs together feels rather good.

Interesting. This is one of few where I depart from thumbs together. However, I can see how it would work comfortably on those- jsut not with l.h. thumbs on F and C. That left hand turn to D and E flat with 3 and then 2 would wreak havoc at high speeds. But shifting the point where thumbs meet seems to work fine for comfort. I don't traditional E flat troublesome in the way F sharp minor can be, but I'll certainly try that one. Sounds like a valid alternative.

I originally disagreed with you about this, but after playing it both ways, I tend to think that when playing hands together, the advantage of thumbs together twice is the deciding factor. For my RH alone, however, the traditional fingering feels a bit more natural. That may be nothing more than habit.

Ah, I don't mean two coinciding thumbs here. Or at least, only for the upward part of the melodic (like in C sharp minor melodic too). In the harmonic I just have coinciding thumbs on A, like A major. It's only in the left that I shift from 'correct' fingering.