Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner L'isle joyeuse

To trill or not to trill ... that is the question.

Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind
to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
or to take arms against a sea of troubles ...
and by opposing, end them.
(Guess who’s just been hamming Hamlet?)

I’ve just played the first 6 measures of the Debussy L’isle joyeuse (my French is rotten ... what’s CD talking about) ... but other than testing my loopy trilling skills ... can’t go into raptures over the Quasi una cadenza. (scrub round the fingering)

Must rather get back to hamming Clair de Lune.

Perhaps with some more practice. I remember trying out lots of different fingering with this one and settling with 35 because it was best way to keep a fluid wrist motion on the 1st augmented chord. Using 23 then 1 on C just didn't fit into my hand well. I'm sure I'll be dusting this one off one of these days, I'll have to give it some thought.

What about articulation and brilliance?

While it's dangerous to say this about someone we don't know and have never heard, I'm going to stick my neck out and say there is no way you can do it as well with 3-5 as you could with 2-4.

Absolutely no way.

And even if you could (which you couldn't) 3-5 is unhealthier for the hand.

This is the best answer (imo).

Well sure 23 is easier to control, but 35 works fine for me, although I'll admit it's a bit of a compromise. I'm not looking to continue that trill for very long, or to do a great big crescendo like this guy. That's just not subtle enough for my tastes...and besides, what are you going to do on the 3rd measure? 35 trill lets you play the wholetone run with just one cross over. 23 on that trill means two crossovers, or crossing 5 over 1 (which for me could really kill the smoothness of that run), or bringing in the LH.

Gees, with this discussing, I could have learned the trill with 45 in my LH!

Certainly some food for thought. I'm sure I'll be checking different things on this one next time I play it. I actually saw a guy playing the trill 2 handed. That's something I never would have considered, but whatever works...

Too brilliant.

Which gets to, the way we choose to finger/distribute the passage should ideally be related to how we think we want to play it -- i.e. concept and interpretation. I think discussions about fingering too often neglect that; it's as though it's purely a question of mechanics.

IMO if someone chooses "3-5" for the trill, it should mean that his concept is that the trill isn't to be played very brilliantly, also that he is wishing to develop tendonitis.

I'd consider using three fingers for the trill - 243424 or 242324. for example. Using that kind of trill helps the hand "flow" into what follows, I think.

Many people seem to like multi-finger trills but I've never found them useful, and I would think they are least useful for brilliant-ish trills, which is how most people would probably want to play this.

I find it fascinating to see how many different fingerings people use in this passage!

While the fingering suggested by Kuanpiano works fine for me, I feel slightly more comfortable playing the first note of the piece with 2 and then trilling with 13 before playing the following C natural with 2, leaving the repeating pattern 1352 for the next three beats. I tend to favour repeating patterns as easier for my brain and muscles to play and learn/retain, and also I find it slightly easier to increase the volume of the trill with 13 than 23.

It never would have occurred to me to use the LH here, and I agree with those who think it's better to find a workable solution using just the RH.

The only thing bad about some comments is the way some posters assume what doesn't work for them is inappropriate for others.

It doesn't matter which fingers you trill with, as long as you exit the trill with 4 (or 5) on the last d# and 3 on the last c#, so that you take c-natural with 2 and b with 1. Some here have suggested taking c with 1 and crossing over to 2 on b, which is nuts. There is no reason to use the left hand, and I've never seen anyone do it.

Slightly OT: nearly everyone (including me, sometimes) seems to want to play these opening trills as rapdily and brilliantly as possible, within a soft dynamic. I'm not sure that's necessary. For the trills that end the piece, it is, but maybe not for those at the beginning.

I don't agree.

In general what you said is true. But it isn't always. I hold to it being pretty close to absolutely true that "3-5" is very far from your best fingering for the trill, and that 2-4 would be better. However well you could do it with 3-5, you could do it better with 2-4. (Repeated for emphasis.)

I would also offer that the only reason any editor would have thought of showing "3-5" is a reluctance to "slide" a subsequent finger from one note to the next -- which is (if someone is a reasonably advanced pianist) a completely needless reluctance.

I don't think anyone has specified that. It's certainly not how I see it.

One poster already said they liked 35 the best. Have you taught this piece at least 20 times so you can judge what's best or are you assuming that what's best for you is best for others? There have been a huge number of different suggested fingering for this passage.

But Kuanpiano, who we know is a terrific pianist based on his recordings, likes that one the best.

However, see this later post.
Also, from the prior posts it was clear that part of his reasoning was that he apparently never considered or tried using the same finger on two consecutive notes, and therefore apparently had never tried the alternate fingering. Would you disagree that in such a situation, it is far from indicating that 3-5 is better for him than 2-4?

Since you seem to think you need to speak for him, I'll point out that he did not say that. He merely said that he found it very comfortable. If he's using a 2-3 trill, maybe he'd get better results exiting the trill with 4 and 3, as I've suggested, rather than crossing over the thumb. I'm not implying anything about his abilities; I've never heard him play.


I guess I also need to add that even if I describe a fingering as crazy, I'm not so narrow-minded as to think that 100% of the pianists on Earth should agree.

You called the fingering he liked "nuts". Whether it was his absolute favorite seems irrelevant, but it apparently was the one he chose to use. He is an excellent pianist, probably better than 98% or more of the PW members. If a articular fingering works for a very good pianist I think it is probably not in the "nuts' category.

Of course the relative value of various fingerings is "relevant." I can play this passage just fine with Kuanpiano's fingering, the one I described as nuts, but I can play it better with mine. If it makes you happy, I'll retract "nuts" and replace it with "inferior" or "sub-optimal", with (again) the shouldn't-be-necessary qualification that I don't expect all pianists (excellent or not) to agree.

My contribution to this thread was intended as practical advice, based on experience, for anyone struggling to get what they want out of this passage. That's all.

24242424 \ 24242424 \ 24321352 \ 13521235