Hello everyone,

I've really tried, but I just can't figure it out.

My question:



What fingering does Zimerman use in this video? (1:54, 3:27)
I just need the part where he uses two hands and I need the exact fingering there.

Thanks a lot.

I think it would take an electron microscope to see exactly what he does.

Anyway, I would suggest that you not worry about exactly what it is. There are probably literally an infinite number of ways that people divide it (including not dividing it at all). In fact, I think I myself have played it an infinite number of different ways.

You don't "need" his exact fingering, because there wouldn't be anything magical about whatever he does and you wouldn't necessarily benefit from trying to do it exactly that way. Figure out whatever seems like it might work for you, or, if you want to find out what kinds of things we've done, you can ask about that -- and there's a chance one of them would be what he does or pretty close. And maybe some people will want to take a swing at guessing exactly what he does...

different fingering for different people for different hands.

Even if you find out what he's doing it might not be the best option for you

Thank you very much. I never thought about it that way. I'll just try to figure out the best way for me to play it.
But I woudn't mind if some of you want to share me their way to play that part.

OK, I went to my local science lab and got an electron microscope.

I think he's playing just a couple of "F's" with the LH thumb, and the rest with RH. What fingering he's exactly doing with the RH, I have no idea, but I can guess according to what it seems could work if that's correct about what the LH does.

I'd say:

125125 / 2 then LH thumb, now back to RH, and here's where I'm really guessing... 5215 / 2 then LH thumb again, then back to RH: 521 ...and the next RH note could be 3 or 4 or even 5, doesn't much matter.

Don't feel you have to use that. In fact, don't assume it's right either.

My favorite strange fingering:

RH 125125 / 213 then LH 132 / 5* then RH 241 then LH 1 then RH 3 / then final LH octave.
No fooling.

I like it because it helps enable what I want to be doing musically, which is to become more brilliant toward the end.


* Need to make sure that note has some strength; needs extra attention because it's the pinky

Wow, thanks a lot. I tried it and it's almost like a hack for that part
But as long as it sounds like it should, it's all fine.

His or mine?


Does that mean something good or bad?

I gotta go learn some English....

At first his. Yours is a bit more difficult , but I will try that as well.



You could replace hack with cheat if you like (but cheat sounds so negative and I don't think it's something bad to make that part as easy as possible as long as it sounds good)

There's no such thing as "cheating" on this kind of thing.

To even think of it that way, you need to assume that the way Chopin wrote it meant that he intended it all to be played with the RH. I absolutely don't think it means that at all. Maybe some people do, but I've never come across any basis for it.

Why do people even say such a thing? Whatever works.. RIGHT??

I guess so.

I think most of us would agree there are exceptions, especially on etudes. I worked out a fingering for Chopin's 1st Etude (10/1) where you never had to stretch more than a 7th. (Yeah, not even an octave.)
That's cheating.
Because it's not playing the piece.

That's why I didn't want to use the the word cheat in the first place
Maybe cheat was the wrong word for hack. Hack is just a trick that makes something difficult much easier.
And I said "almost like" because I know that it is totally legit to play this part in such a way.
Sorry if I expressed myself wrong. I didn't mean to offend anyone

No need -- you didn't express yourself wrong! And about "offend," on a scale of 1 to 10, that's not on it.

Mark, I couldn't quite figure out your fingering, but I don't have a keyboard handy at the moment. (Is it anything similar to what I've written below?)

I've played this passage two different ways. First is all right hand (125 up, 521 down). Second is:

Ascending notes: all RH 125 125

Descending: RH52/51 LH1 RH52/51 LH5 (repeat). Your RH jumps over your left, but with the speed of the passage, playing a thumb on every F didn't make sense to me. Too many jumps for my brain to process.

I absolutely don't think it means that at all. Maybe some people do, but I've never come across any basis for it.

Probably because it's a little bizarre.

But that aside, it's totally straightforward. I indicated the fingers for each and every note, consecutively and with no omissions.


Welcome to the "great minds" club!

Actually there do seem to be plenty of people who think a notation like this means Chopin intended it not to be divided and that you're 'supposed to' play it all with the RH -- but I've never, ever, ever anywhere seen or heard any of the people in that camp explain or justify the position in any way, at all, whatsoever.

BTW, y'all out there, including the thousands of lurkers who don't post and mostly who don't even register, consider this an invitation!

And if we get no reply, I guess we can take that as a concession, once and for all.

I think I'd have to see you do it, because if I'm breaking it up correctly in my head, then you have the largest hands I've ever seen.

Probably above average, but not like that.

BTW I knew you meant just that it's hard to visualize or imagine what it is without putting your hands on the keyboard. And no, there are no big stretches.

He uses this fingering, given to me by my late teacher, Latvian pianist Herman Godes, a student of Walter Gieseking: RH, beginning on F above middle C 125, (LH 1), RH 141, (LH1), RH 41, (LH5), RH 41, (LH1), RH 41, (LH 5) RH 2, then the octave D-flat (LH, obviously).

Interlocking hands. It makes the passage easy. There are other ingenious fingerings in the development section of the Trio that also make the piece playable at a fast tempo with lots of power. Most editors miss them.

He who?

(It seems like you mean Zimerman, but that's not what he's doing.)

Hmm I had no problems playing Marks version.

I finally got frustrated enough to download a copy of the score and go note by note. I did have it wrong in my head (obviously). That's a really nifty fingering that I never thought of.

Ever try this?
125125 | 1 LH214 RH241 LH214 RH24 LH 15(octave)

Of course, I mean Zimerman. In the clip. Who else? And you're wrong, the fingering I listed above is EXACTLY what he is performing. I'm playing the piece now myself.

I don't know many other pianists who actually perform this piece who DON'T use the fingering Zimerman is using in this clip and the fingering I was taught. What most editors mark in scores is practically unplayable at tempo.

Look again: you'll see how the right hand is mainly 141 with the LH alternating with 1 and 5. Try the passage yourself and you'll see that's what Zimerman is playing.

Thanks for your patience.

Seriously? I know Evgeny Kissin and Yundi Li break it up, but here are just a couple of examples of pianists who play it with one hand:

Martha Argerich 1:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enJ6be4qLMs
**You can't see her fingers, but you can see her arms, and her left arm isn't far enough to the right to play any notes.

Rubinstein 1:35 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEKJY6A_cnc

Berezovsky 1:33 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pumSCnS14c

Earl Wilde 1:33 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u-3csjFTJU

Martin David Jones 2:09 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc4d0QMqvio

"Seriously?" No, I'm completely devoid of "seriousness" on this issue.

Okay, fine, you found four pianists who don't do what Zimerman, Gieseking and Godes do. And I envy the spare time you have to research such minutiae.

The point of my responding to this original post to begin with was to be helpful in offering fingering that is commonly used, as Zimerman illustrates. I don't have any more time to argue. Play it as you wish.

Maybe you're right, but I don't see Zimerman keeping his LH in each place long enough to also be playing those notes with the pinky. I also don't think that would give the hand enough time to get so smoothly to each next place.

Edit: Well, I went and tried it (never hurts) and I think it is possible after all! In fact, you've converted me -- on both what he's probably doing, and what I might try to do.

Sorry, your previous post seemed to imply that yours was the most common or even "preferred" fingering. So that is probably what I reacted to. I took about 3 minutes to go to YouTube and pull up links of performances I already knew. Nothing was, as you say, "researched".

BTW, is that something you do (or have tried) or did you derive it from my bizarro fingering?

No, I haven't tried it, and I wouldn't do it because for me, it would be too risky and probably not readily musical to keep landing on the F's. Risky, because I could easily catch Gb instead of F or along with it. BTW if I did do it, for the first note of the 2nd measure I'd use 2, not 1.

Been playing around with that a bit. It's very interesting, and sort of easy, but....for what it's worth I think I'll wind up sticking with what I indicated up there. I think it's advantageous because there are fewer shifts of the hands. Smoother and more elegant, I think without sacrificing power -- and inherently giving the 'explosion' at the end that I want. You can do that with the other too, but the fingering itself doesn't so automatically just make it happen.

It's a derivation. I either play it with one hand, or split the RH 5/41 LH 1/5. Been a few years since I played this piece, though, so I don't remember if I used the 5 or the 4 in the RH when I split it.

Actually, I played around with it a little in my head, and I don't think it would be too bad. I don't have a keyboard handy at the moment, but I think you can avoid catching the Gb because you're crossing over while your other hand is playing, so you have that extra split second to settle your hand in. As for the 1 at the start of that measure, yeah, you're probably right. A 2 makes more sense, especially considering you just played it as a 2 on the way up, right?

I normally think of "hacking" as something that completely bypasses a mechanic that is meant to thwart one's access to something. As sadistic as Chopin's music can seem sometimes, I don't think that he actively wanted to prevent you from playing it.

Zimmerman cheats here. Chopin wrote it for the right hand only, and it sounds better, but much more difficult to play. I couldn't do it at first read with my great teacher at the time, but she used psychology on me. She said to use both hands if I wasn't "good enough to play it correctly". It took me 4 or 5 days (not sure-long time ago), but it can be done. Most pianists play it as written, because they can.

Aside from his cheat, his fingering might not work for you anyway. All of our hands are different.

What is your basis for that?


IF the "correctly" referred to playing it all with the right hand (and I emphasize the "if" because I wouldn't want to assume that's what she meant), she doesn't understand about this either.

It's just incorrect.

I agree with Mark, and I'll take it one step further: get a new teacher.

I wouldn't go that far. First of all, as I said I wouldn't assume that she said it exactly how it was given here. And anyway, the thing she supposedly said, while IMO flat-out wrong and suggesting that she's more rigid than anyone I'd ever want to work with, is a not-uncommon view, including among knowledgeable people who might be good teachers for some. Plus, since for various reasons it just might not be that easy for someone to get a different teacher, I'm very reluctant to ever say that, even in person with someone I know. It gets said here a lot, but I'm not sure it's a good idea.

I've got the music; I mastered it and have performed it. It was clearly written as a RH arpeggio, and does sound different when played with both Hands. Another ex would be the e-flat seventh cord at the end of his op 53. Some play the two lower e-flats with LH, but as written, the middle e-flat should be played RH, and does have a different sound. As for teacher-she was terrific, and well respected-a star pupil of Edward Fleck.

Total BS.

What about the score makes you think it's written for RH only?

If anything, we could say it's written for both hands, because the latter part of it appears on the bass clef. I mean, that's wrong too, but I could at least see that there's some basis for it, however mistaken it is.

Do you mean because of the fingering in your edition?
What makes you think that's by Chopin?

BTW, let me say, although I'm disagreeing with you, I really appreciate that you're willing to follow through on this discussion. In my experience, most people who assert something like what you did then just run away when asked what's their basis.


Good point, and let's take a look at that.

The ways that I try dividing it, and the way I currently play it, are very much dictated by how I want it to sound -- and the way I want it to sound, it goes much better with the re-distribution than with playing it all with one hand (as I said before). That's one reason why I do it.

And if someone wants it to sound the way you seem to be implying you think it should go -- i.e. basically continuously smooth (I guess) -- part of the challenge of playing it redistributed, if they choose to do so, would be to make it sound just as it might if it were played with the RH alone. BTW I would say that's Zimerman's interpretation, and he succeeds 100%.


I think you better identify it more. I've known the piece for about 1000 years and performed it many times, but offhand I have no idea what chord you mean.

For the op 53 PolonIse: I'm referring to the second to last cord in the piece...the e-flat 7th before the final RH a-flat major with a LH a-flat octave. I just looked at my Schirmer edition of the scherzo (BTW-fingering by Rafael Joseffy), and the second measure of this Arpeggio, all but one 8th note is on the bass staff, but the notes are going up. This reads to me, and is also fingered, for the right hand. I suppose one could make an argument for this being my personal preference, but I still think Zimmerman is merely taking the easy (and less risky) route. When discussing Polish pianists performing Chopin, I prefer Blecharz to Zimerman. I like his crisp clean notes-reminds me of Rachmaninoff and Horowitz.

Oh -- that!

And y'know, I think I have to agree with you here. I've been playing it the way that you consider to be wrong, and while I wouldn't agree that it's "wrong," it does seem to me that you're right about how it tends to change the sound, and in a not-good way. I started playing it that way a long time ago, when I didn't think about things like this enough, and have just kept playing it that way without re-evaluating it. I'll probably be doing it "as written" from here on.

About the passage in the Scherzo: You're assuming that the stems mean something about what hand to play it with. Please realize that your view is far from fact. In my view, and in the view of many, the consistent upward stems are just an indication of what kind of musical figure it is -- a single voice.

I think the reason the Polonaise finale sounds better the way Chopin wrote it, is that it adds an additional melody line at the end. The LH thumb going from C to B-flat to A-flat, and I like it better. Another example is the final notes of his op 10 no 12, the final base note is a single note; however I recently saw an edition where the final bass notes were octaves. I much prefer the sound of the single note. As for the Scherzo, it seems we must agree to disagree here. I think this has been a great discussion, other than the beatings I've taken today over old threads.

If you take another look, you might see that you got more support than beating!

Or at least the support was smarter and better.

You're absolutely right. I think there was some great discourse on Liszt. I have read in several sources, that he could sight read anything. I can't, but my old teacher could, and that's enough proof for me.

Yeah, you're right. It does. I suppose it's my desire to impose a less rigid approach, which is, in itself, rigid. Ah, the conundrum. But I will recant.


I am not sure I subscribe to this idea. (In fact, I would say pretty strongly that I do not.) But for argument's sake, what say you: if I prepare a list of 30-40 different performances, where people use one hand and split hand, and you correctly identify at least 95%, then I will support your belief? (Of course, I may need Mark's and others help compiling the dang list.. but it would be an interesting study.)

I don't think it would be an interesting study. I think it would be a waste of time, because we'd be studying the possible truth of something that relatively few qualified people believe in and which I think is patent nonsense.

I think a reasonable criterion for making the effort to study something is that there be some reason to think it is true. I don't see anything approaching such a reason on this.

I agree, but the believers think it is true. I think, for the sake of the believers, it could help to sway them that their hold on such a notion is faulty. That is the angle from which I believe it can be useful. Obviously, I'm like you and subscribe to the idea that it is utter nonsense. But I understand that some people will not believe less than full evidentiary support. And that is what can be offered for those who are unwilling to find the evidence themselves. No?

Life's too short to try to convince everybody of everything.

And besides, I doubt that what you described (or anything) would convince who you're trying to convince. You're assuming that what you'd find would do so. What makes you think so? I think they'd say it doesn't matter how many people do it how they think is wrong, because they're just doing it wrong -- no matter who they are. And if some of the doubters would be amenable to things like that, they'll eventually come around anyway.

I'm in the camp that believes that it's a right hand passage....but is easier with two hands probably. I think the same can be said for Liszt's second cadenza in his 6th Hungarian Rhapsody.

But as the PW member with by far the greatest posting rate (as in most posts per year) you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time doing just that.

When worthwhile. I gave my criterion. You forgot to take that into account in your reply.

BTW if you reply to this post, please make sure to take everything into account, or you get another lash with a wet noodle.

For even trying, I suppose PT Barnum predicted my birth, down to the second..


I'm interested.. why do you believe that? Do you believe people who play it with two hands are "wrong" or that the music "can't sound the same"? Or is it just a preference in the way you play it?