Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
For the record, I'm learning it with Liszt's fingerings, but once I'm able to do that at a performance tempo, I'll probably switch to the easier route for performances. Same powerful effect, but much less dangerous. So I'll get what Liszt wanted me to learn from it, and then perform it in a manner that allows for the easiest execution of the best interpretation I can imagine.
Cool. BTW, if you aren't already doing this, you may want to try practicing that bit with eyes closed. It can be weird and frustrating at first, but it can really help with security in a passage like that.
For the record, I'm learning it with Liszt's fingerings, but once I'm able to do that at a performance tempo, I'll probably switch to the easier route for performances. Same powerful effect, but much less dangerous. So I'll get what Liszt wanted me to learn from it, and then perform it in a manner that allows for the easiest execution of the best interpretation I can imagine.
This is also my approach to etudes. In fact, to reap maximum reward from etudes, I often try to learn multiple different fingerings if the piece is focused on a very specific technical challenge. I'm also sure that Berezovsky could use the original fingering of the Liszt etude at a respectable tempo even though he chooses not to do so in a performance.
If Liszt's students are to be believed, he was not overly rigid in terms of his fingerings. In accounts of his teaching, students reported that he always stressed having to work with one's own hand in terms of making fingerings work. So I doubt he would have insisted on a particular fingering if it was not working for someone. The fingerings are likely suggestions rather than rules.
If Liszt's students are to be believed, he was not overly rigid in terms of his fingerings. In accounts of his teaching, students reported that he always stressed having to work with one's own hand in terms of making fingerings work. So I doubt he would have insisted on a particular fingering if it was not working for someone. The fingerings are likely suggestions rather than rules.
Actually, in this particular example, it's more than a suggestion, since you can't play it any other way except by doing a redistribution between hands, which is somewhat different than just a slight change in fingering.
Secondly, generalizing from student reports to apply to specific situations is a dangerous thing - just because Liszt might have been relaxed about it with Student X in a certain spot in Piece Y, doesn't mean he would therefore not insist on a certain fingering in a certain place in a different piece if he thought it was something the student should learn. The exactness of the effect and the writing in this particular instance suggests to me that he, in fact, would ask a student to play it as written.
[...] I don't understand why any serious pianist would want to turn down the opportunity to learn something about playing the piano that comes directly from Liszt, and that is exactly what happens if the fingering and distribution is changed.
As I said earlier, I think that there may be performance situations in which a pianist really does have a legitimate need to cheat (to avoid fatigue in a long program, for example), but I think that should be the exception, and should never be done as the first approach to an etude.
You seem to be making the assumption that I don't think that Liszt, the teacher, would make: that all hands are the same size and and shape, and that all should function at the piano in the same manner. You also seem to be going against the wisdom of many respected editors and performers who do give/use alternate fingerings to what might be "original."
In Liszt's Etude de concert, "Un sospiro," measures 13 through 18 are clearly marked in both my editions to play the broken octave melody with alternating hands. Yet, Earl Wild, a noted "Lisztian," plays the melody with the right hand throughout these measures. Is he playing it "wrong"? Is he not "learning something" coming directly from Liszt that he should be?
How do we know that the fingering in question in the OP's post is Liszt's fingering? I have an Urtext edition (Henle) of the Chopin Etudes with fingerings given by Hermann Keller. Those fingerings differ considerably from those given by Cortot in his edition of the Chopin Etudes. Are you saying that, since these are obviously not Chopin's fingerings that these are not valid?
I fail to see how the changing of a fingering pattern in a few places in a complex work is contrary to what the Etude is "teaching," unless one is so literal-minded that one believes that only one fingering in an Etude will work and must be adhered to from start to finish. What do you suggest when the composer does not give fingering? i.e. Debussy? Why would devising one's own practical fingering where it is not given by the composer by any different than changing what the composer - or maybe an editor - has suggested, if doing so produces the musical results one is aiming for?
Regards,
Seconded. No two people have the exact same anatomy, and what works for one may not work for another. I think the intent of an etude is to learn a technique that allows you to play the specific technical passage in whatever way you are able and comfortable. The idea is to be able to play the piece, not to be able to play the fingering. I've never heard a beautifully sounding fingering.
In the martial arts, there are those who are "purists" and feel that one should stand exactly as the masters stood, and perform the martial arts exactly as the masters did. One major personality in changing this method of thought was, based on some of the arguments I've read (and heard outside this forum), a little known and obviously very poor martial artist named Bruce Lee.
To the pianist side, take a look at Evgeny Kissin playing Liszt's La Campanella. In his widely-viewed London 1997 performance, which is one of my personal favorite interpretations of the piece, he plays the ascending chromatic about mid-way through with just his right hand. Most fingerings indicate this should be split between the two hands.
Another good example: just about anyone playing Mazeppa. I see very few performances use the original 42-42 fingering indicated.
Every day we are afforded a new chance. The problem with life is not that you run out of chances. In the end, what you run out of are days.
No two people have the exact same anatomy, and what works for one may not work for another.
So there's no point in providing any fingerings, ever, because the people with eight fingers per hand are going to do it quite differently than those with just three. And of course, those who may possess thumbs really should totally ignore what Debussy had to say about his etude that, for most of us, leaves them out of the picture - I mean, what would he know about MY hand.
Josef Hofmann had small hands and asked Steinway to build him a custom keyboard with slightly narrower keys. So instead of the usual octave span distance of about 165 mm, his was approximately 155 mm.
One day, Hofmann saw a new composition from Rachmaninoff on which the great composer wrote his own personal fingerings. Hofmann was so impressed he decided to follow them blindly instead of using them as a guide as he used to do in the past.
He quickly ended up calling Steinway again and asked for a new custom keyboard, this time with an octave span distance of 60 mm. Then he called Rachmaninoff to ask him about all the missing fingerings that were not indicated on the score, because he didn't know what to do as he thought he had to follow exactly what the composer wrote. Luckily, Rachmaninoff could tell him as he and Hofmann were contemporaries.
Then Hofmann wanted to do the same with compositions from Beethoven and Liszt. He left a message on their answering machines, but for some reason they never called him back. So Hofmann decided to continue using fingerings as a guide.
There's a distinction between fingerings provided to "aide the performer", and fingerings provided with a distinct musical sound in mind. There's a passage at the end of Rachmaninoff's op.39 no.8 where an arpeggio for the left hand is notated as being played with only the left thumb, suggesting a tenuto sound that's more loudly voiced.
Likewise, Liszt and his 2-4 staccato chromatic thirds are an important musical effect, not just technical.
So what do we have in this case?
Well, the fingering is provided in an etude, indicating that it may have value in reinforcing a technical aspect that Liszt is trying to teach. Or it might be a suggestion for a particularly difficult passage. If you do a bit of research, you might find out that it may not even be Liszt's fingering suggestion anyway.
Bottom line is, you'll have to do some thinking and research to understand why that marking is provided there. Part of studying the score involves not just reading the score and memorizing all of the notes, dynamics, tempis and articulation, but questioning the composers intent for each. As an intelligent performer, you'll have to make judgements in order to bring about a performance that adheres the score as reflecting your own personality.
Last edited by Kuanpiano; 08/18/1202:42 AM.
Working on: Chopin - Nocturne op. 48 no.1 Debussy - Images Book II
There's a distinction between fingerings provided to "aide the performer", and fingerings provided with a distinct musical sound in mind. There's a passage at the end of Rachmaninoff's op.39 no.8 where an arpeggio for the left hand is notated as being played with only the left thumb, suggesting a tenuto sound that's more loudly voiced.
Likewise, Liszt and his 2-4 staccato chromatic thirds are an important musical effect, not just technical.
So what do we have in this case?
Well, the fingering is provided in an etude, indicating that it may have value in reinforcing a technical aspect that Liszt is trying to teach. Or it might be a suggestion for a particularly difficult passage. If you do a bit of research, you might find out that it may not even be Liszt's fingering suggestion anyway.
The fingering is in the first edition, which, AFAIK, was not edited by anyone other than Liszt himself. If anyone has any other information about that, it would be good to know.
As I pointed out earlier, it not merely a "suggestion", because it's actually the only feasible fingering, unless there is a redistribution of the notes in a way that is definitely not indicated by the notation. And, too, the final note of the broken octave figure, the one played with the thumb, is tied so that it very naturally slots into place into what follows. Doing a redistribution and a refingering results in more complexity than playing it as written with the given fingering - more complexity doesn't seem very desirable.
I also don't think that anyone who has the chops to play the etude as a whole should find that following Liszt's instructions is an insurmountable problem.
Quote
Bottom line is, you'll have to do some thinking and research to understand why that marking is provided there. Part of studying the score involves not just reading the score and memorizing all of the notes, dynamics, tempis and articulation, but questioning the composers intent for each. As an intelligent performer, you'll have to make judgements in order to bring about a performance that adheres the score as reflecting your own personality.
Speaking of studying the score - right before the final stretto this etude, he ups the ante on that particular figure, and writes it so that the ascending part starts an octave lower, which removes a repeated note but adds another octave of displacement - and there's no redistribution possible in playing the ascent. And then he writes in the fingering on the descent once again, as if to emphasize that is really how it is to be played.
Liszt really doesn't provide very much in the way of fingerings in this etude. Or, really, for any of the TEs. Which makes me think that the ones he did provide were of special importance in some way.
i always thought Lizst's fingerings were brilliant. he always seemed to choose the correct way to play. That said, i couldn't tell you editted my editions. That little particle of sheet music is very much like Chopin's 25/12. a good fingering
he was a fine organist... the organ for some reason really teaches you how to play.
accompanist/organist.. a non-MTNA teacher to a few
No two people have the exact same anatomy, and what works for one may not work for another.
So there's no point in providing any fingerings, ever, because the people with eight fingers per hand are going to do it quite differently than those with just three. And of course, those who may possess thumbs really should totally ignore what Debussy had to say about his etude that, for most of us, leaves them out of the picture - I mean, what would he know about MY hand.
I am not sure how this would help the argument that you follow every fingering exactly as written. It would seem more to help the opposing viewpoint, despite its witty sarcasm. However, I see no reason not to provide a "suggested" fingering. I simply equally see no reason why one "must" follow it.
Originally Posted by argerichfan
Originally Posted by Derulux
Another good example: just about anyone playing Mazeppa. I see very few performances use the original 42-42 fingering indicated.
Looks to me like it's happening here:
Phew. Good thing I said "just about". I could not tell exactly because the camera angle wasn't great for picking out fingering, but based on wrist action you might be right. I had a few gripes with the performance itself, but the piece was still well-played.
Originally Posted by kuanpiano
There's a distinction between fingerings provided to "aide the performer", and fingerings provided with a distinct musical sound in mind. There's a passage at the end of Rachmaninoff's op.39 no.8 where an arpeggio for the left hand is notated as being played with only the left thumb, suggesting a tenuto sound that's more loudly voiced.
Likewise, Liszt and his 2-4 staccato chromatic thirds are an important musical effect, not just technical.
So what do we have in this case?
Well, the fingering is provided in an etude, indicating that it may have value in reinforcing a technical aspect that Liszt is trying to teach. Or it might be a suggestion for a particularly difficult passage. If you do a bit of research, you might find out that it may not even be Liszt's fingering suggestion anyway.
Bottom line is, you'll have to do some thinking and research to understand why that marking is provided there. Part of studying the score involves not just reading the score and memorizing all of the notes, dynamics, tempis and articulation, but questioning the composers intent for each. As an intelligent performer, you'll have to make judgements in order to bring about a performance that adheres the score as reflecting your own personality.
Great post. Felt I needed to re-share it.
Every day we are afforded a new chance. The problem with life is not that you run out of chances. In the end, what you run out of are days.
I didn't read any of the previous posts, but I don't think you should (or even need to) cheat on the fingering. The fingers written are the most suitable for this part of the piece. These are etudes, aka Studies. They were meant to challenge your natural inclinations or methods of playing the piano. You can play it however you want, no one is stopping you; but if you're interested in improving your technique and challenging yourself a little bit, you should play the piece exactly how it's written. Also, you really don't want to mix the melody with the bass (in this part the RH is playing the melody while the LH is playing bass).
I hope it will not be rude of me to correct you (one of my favourite people here), but Liszt had no training on the pedals. There are stories of incredible improvisations (yet actually it was Franck whom he most admired on the organ), but most likely Liszt used the pedal sparingly, generally as 'pedal-point', as piano-organists (to borrow a Gilbertian term) generally do.
The three major Liszt organ works are all masterpieces, but frequently Liszt seems frustrated by the lack of a sustaining pedal on the piano, and ask any organist, the pedal parts are not idiomatic at all. Sometimes -as in the 'Prelude & Fugue on BACH' (one page before the end in the Kalmus edition), the double pedal trills are simply nonsense.
It has a symmetry in the present fingering and that should contribute to the smoothness if played correctly. If you cannot get the smoothness using Liszt's fingering and must use your left hand then do so. But not until you've worked at it - and it is Liszt. If you are playing Liszt you need to work up this octave span technique in exercises and then come back to the score again.
Another good example: just about anyone playing Mazeppa. I see very few performances use the original 42-42 fingering indicated.
This is actually the only example I can think of where I think you should follow the fingering given. It makes it 10 times harder to play (develops technique), and it sounds different. Does it sound better? I'm not sure, but the "sounds like a horse galloping" or whatever and "sempre fortissimo con strepito" convinced me that 42-42 is indeed what you want to go for.
It's a myth that using a particular fingering is the only way to get a particular sound. SO the idea that the composer's fingerings means they wanted a particular sound is possible, but at the end of the day that is not the only way to get the sound.
It's a myth that using a particular fingering is the only way to get a particular sound. SO the idea that the composer's fingerings means they wanted a particular sound is possible, but at the end of the day that is not the only way to get the sound.
Certain fingering may not be the only way to get a certain sound, but certain fingerings may facilitate achieving something better than another fingering.
That's why I think that when the composer of some piece was an terrific pianist(as is true for the huge majority of piano music), the composer's distribution of the notes(especially this) and fingering(especially fingering designed to give a certain sound as opposed to fingering given for convenience)should be strongly considered as a first alternative. Not something I made up, but something I've heard observing master classes with excellent teachers.
People not using 24 24, z.B., is somewhat irritating to see in the same way that it's somewhat irritating to see a vegetarian eating a tofu and nut hamburger.
However, I see no reason not to provide a "suggested" fingering. I simply equally see no reason why one "must" follow it.
