Thumb over without the thumb?

[1piano4joe]

Hi all,

I did this for the first time today. It worked really, really well! Anybody else ever do this?

This was in a scalar passage except the thumb note was missing. I read in one of Bernhard's posts, that at a fast enough speed, the gap disappears because your playing faster than the dampers can return. As you slow down, the "break" in legato, becomes more and more noticeable.

So, I tried playing a B major right hand scale, descending, using traditional fingering except when I got to f# with my second finger, I just shifted my hand and played d# with the third finger and kept on going (since the scale note "e" was NOT in this passage).    

This occurs in the 4th measure of the (B) section of Brahms waltz in g sharp minor Op. 39 No. 3.
I watched at least ten different pianists play this one measure passing the thumb under on a black key. The exact notes are a#, f#, d#, c#, b. The majority fingered this 42121. Thus, playing d# with the thumb and crossing over with "two" to play c# and flicking the thumb out to play that b.

I tried this as an alternative, 4-5 on the a#, then 4321 but I have big palms with disproportionately short fingers and I wasn't entirely comfortable about 4 on f# followed by 3 on d#.

So, as I said earlier, I simply played this 42321 and let the pedal cover the gap. I also played this numerous times, deliberately without pedal and I just couldn't believe my ears. No finger legato and not only was it legato but incredibly EFFORTLESS by comparison with cranking over the thumb with tension.

I'm puzzled why I haven't seen anybody play this passage this way. Strangely, everybody played this piece more beautifully than I currently can but it looks quite awkward (to me anyway) watching them play. I mean it looks really, really hard that way.

This thumb over without thumb sounds perfectly fine and is quite easy so it may be wrong but that's my story and I'm sticking to it, Joe.

[j_menz]

Interesting.  My only concern would be a possible tendency to actually strike with the thumb, but if you don't find that is the case it seems elegant enough.

Incidentally, for that bit of the Brahms (Solo version in case anyone is looking to follow along), I just do 4-3-2-1, 1 since there's a phrase break, and the position changes pretty much with the bar lines from there on in anyway for the next group of equivalent figures.

[nyiregyhazi]

I've got to say that I'm deeply unconvinced by the context. What's wrong with a simple 54321?not a single interval is bigger than a third so there's no ordinary hand that would have any reason to struggle unless there are problems with using the arm to guide. If there are indeed problems with that kind of arm guidance, I can't see the more advanced version of the technique required to mask the gap coming off.

In the left hand brahms often writes fingerings based on chunks, with analogous gaps. However, I don't believe he often fingers melodies that way. He usually instructs legato. This fingering runs contrary to the typical brahms principle of getting as many notes under under the hand as possible before starting a new position. Even where brahms writes non legato fingerings in his left hands, it's clearly to maximise use of available fingers before a shift. This is just a physical gap with little obvious benefit which runs contrary to the natural phrase shape. If putting a gap anywhere, surely it would be better after the long note? Why make it hard to flow through the quavers with simplicity? There's more time to hide a gap in the duration of the longest note. An advanced pianist could certainly pull it off, but when these things are undertaken casually and without a clear sense of being fitted to a musical purpose, they usually cause audible problems. It's far more advanced to pull off this type of thing than a standard legato.

Also, bernhardt is talking about fast passages. It's a very different issue here. Making this work is not about speed, but about actively remaining connected to the shortened note for long enough and releasing it slowly while the arm drifts across. If there's the slightest sense of rushing or clipping the non legato note, it will be abundantly audible.

[lostinidlewonder]

I've got to say that I'm deeply unconvinced by the context.

Coming from someone who never explains any technical details with context Lol, wonderful.

[iansinclair]

Perhaps it's worth noting that it is quite common in harpsichord and organ technique to play a scale -- in either direction -- without the thumb at all; rather one sort of "walks" the fingers up or down the keyboard with the hand pointed (wrist bent laterally) in the direction of the scale.  Looks weird.  Works remarkably well!

[1piano4joe]

Hi all,

I tried to write a detailed enough post, but can see I left a few important points out. I want to say thank you for bringing this to my attention.

Firstly, this is the solo version and not the duet for 4 hands. Thank you j_menz for pointing this out.

Secondly, the notes are b, a#, f#, d#, c#, b. I can see now, that I should have not only included that first b, but should have also pointed out phrase breaks. The first "b" is the end of the previous phrase and the last "b" of these 6 notes starts another phrase.

j-menz states this explicitly and this is tacit in nyiregyhazi's statement, "This fingering runs contrary to the typical brahms principle of getting as many notes under under the hand as possible before starting a new position". Thank you both for responding.

I missed the importance of this. I'm only an intermediate and still have much to learn.

If fingering is based primarily or often on phrase breaks (I don't know btw, is it?), then I would conclude that there are two such plausible possibilities.

j_menz' fingering would be 5,4-3-2-1, 1. I like this notation where the commas, function as phrase breaks. Awesome j_menz.

nyiregyhazi's fingering would be 5,5432,1.

I had something different in mind. It's probably wrong but I was making an effort to avoid hopping with 1,1 or 5,5. Also, I was deliberately trying to avoid playing a melodic 3rd with fingers 3 and 4.

In the SECOND measure of the (b) section I accomplish both of these things by a simple finger substitution. Thus, I play d#,c#-a#-f#-e,d# with 4-5 (substitution) on c# which is, of course, the beginning of the next phrase. This accomplishes SEVERAL of my probably wrong (or just insane) objectives. There is no hop from 5 to 5 AND I play the short key c# with a longer 4th finger. I thought (again, probably incorrectly, that this was better). The 4th finger is just there hovering above the key. Isn't this why I studied scales?

It just seems right to me. Probably because I'm a firm believer in Chopin's fingering of 2,3 on two black key groups and 2,3,4 on three black key groups. I'm just an dumb intermediate and don't know any better. Oh, well.  

So, having substituted 5 for 4 on c#, I can now Chopinize (Is that even a word?), Brahms. The 4th finger falls on a# very comfortably (Thank you, Chopin) and the 2nd finger is just "magically" over f#. I don't know but it just doesn't get any better than this (for me, anyway).

The SEEMINGLY, similar figure in measure 4, suggested to me that I do this same 4-5 finger substitution. It does eliminate a hop, and the longer 4th finger plays a black key, check. I just didn't care for the way it felt playing a# to f# 5-4. Measure 4 that way becomes 5,4-5(sub)-4-3-2,1. What to do. Chopin's not around to ask and he probably wouldn't talk to me anyway. Well, I tried this 5,4-2-3-2,1. No hops and very comfortable. It just FEELS so right, but Bernhard has said something about fingering and that it should be first and foremost about sound and secondly, about comfort. So, this thought (too many of those get in my way) bothered me about this choice of fingering but the damper makes it legato anyway. Does it ABSOLUTELY, have to be fingered with finger legato only?

My biggest problem, obviously, is mental, but a lobotomy is out plus I don't really have the money for one. So, one of my many much smaller piano problems is what nyregihazi mentioned. That would be arm guidance. I noticed in a few pieces I'm playing, that my arm stays relatively perpendicular to the keys and guides the hand. These pieces are somewhat more advanced and it was nearly impossible to play them without it. Occasionally, I do this backward and let the hand guide the arm. This is obviously wrong and something I will have to work on to eliminate.

I think I will be an intermediate forever. Oh, well. I'll just have to be the best intermediate I can be.

Badeep, badeep that's all folks, Joe.  

P.S. Is it generally considered wrong to start a new position within a phrase? Or is this done all the time? Or maybe it's just wrong when playing Brahms? I don' know.

[nyiregyhazi]

Coming from someone who never explains any technical details with context Lol, wonderful.

Yeah, hilarious. Just like if a football manager has a player spend plenty of time on general dribbling skills but then also tells him off one day for trying get past a notoriously strong tackler rather than pass to an open player. What a hypocrite eh?

Context tells you which of your more general skills to employ and in what blend. If you consider it ironic to speak of general ingredients in a rounded skill set one moment and then talk more specifically with regard to a precise situation, I don't think you've exactly grasped the notion. You've confused contextual application of broader generic skills with irony. Sorry if I've shattered your delusion that those who are able to look at broadly applicable skills in a general light would therefore be incapable of also zoning in on more precise situational issues.

[nyiregyhazi]

It's not an absolutely wrong to start a new position mid phrase but it needs to be well masked. Personally, I wouldn't even break legato between phrase marks here. It takes an expert not to sound clumsy and lumpy when phrases are done within bars rather than across them. I'd feel the long note as a completion of three shorter notes. I'd strongly advise the 4-5 before coming down 54321. Thumb to thumb as suggested by J menz could work, but again it would require truly expert technique to come off musically. It's so much easier to just connect things than to try to hide the tendency of lumpiness from two thumbs. When string players phrase that way the gap is virtually imperceptible. It's not the same as showing a breath after a bigger phrase when you get these small marks. The easiest way to get musical continuity is physical continuity.

[liszt1022]

How in the world is this little measure in a little Brahms waltz so controversial?
I agree with j_menz. 4321 1.

If you don't agree, play it your way. What's the worst that could happen? Somebody calls you out on Youtube or the audition room? If you can make it work, then go for it.

[nyiregyhazi]

How in the world is this little measure in a little Brahms waltz so controversial?
I agree with j_menz. 4321 1.

If you don't agree, play it your way. What's the worst that could happen? Somebody calls you out on Youtube or the audition room? If you can make it work, then go for it.

See this film.

[ Invalid YouTube link ]&preq=&app=desktop

It's not a small issue but a huge one of what phrase marks truly mean. A very technically and musically advanced pianist can make two thumbs work but most pianists will make it sound clunky rather than fluid. In this case, I don't believe the phrase marks denote notable separation or detachment. Unless a pianist is going to reflect the phrase marks by pausing at the end of every bar, it's a major challenge to preserve the long line without a thud, when having to hop between two thumbs. Little phrase marks aren't the same thing as vocal breaths.

[1piano4joe]

It's not an absolutely wrong to start a new position mid phrase but it needs to be well masked. Personally, I wouldn't even break legato between phrase marks here. It takes an expert not to sound clumsy and lumpy when phrases are done within bars rather than across them. I'd feel the long note as a completion of three shorter notes. I'd strongly advise the 4-5 before coming down 54321. Thumb to thumb as suggested by J menz could work, but again it would require truly expert technique to come off musically. It's so much easier to just connect things than to try to hide the tendency of lumpiness from two thumbs. When string players phrase that way the gap is virtually imperceptible. It's not the same as showing a breath after a bigger phrase when you get these small marks. The easiest way to get musical continuity is physical continuity.

Hi all,

Wow! What a response! Thank you, thank you for your thoughts. I was perhaps foolishly, no, naively (there is a difference), trying to break legato between phrase marks. It's written that way after all. In addition, I was TRYING very hard to pedal at the phrase breaks to separate the phrases. It was EXTREMELY clumsy and somewhat lumpy just like you so eloquently said.

Practicing this at a snail's pace, it sounds phenomenal and neither clumsy nor lumpy. I just don't have the chops (expertise you mentioned required to do so that is) to play phrases within bars at tempo and now I know why. So, thanks again.

In my OP, I stated how much better it sounded when other people played it. I originally thought, well I'm just learning this, don't worry, it will keep getting better and better after more focused practice. After considering the mid bar phrase breaks you mentioned which correlate well with observed pedaling on several YouTube interpretations I would say your ABSOLUTELY right regarding playing ALMOST everything legato in this piece irrespective of how it's written. Who knew?    

I am going to lift the pedal mostly at the 3rd upbeat of each bar unless there is a harmony change on the 3rd beat. In that case, I will lift the pedal twice per bar which will occur at the 2nd upbeat and the 3rd upbeat since that would be back to back changes in harmony. I think that will work much better for me. I will consider the repeated notes as portato. Further, I can delineate the phrases through decrescendo and subtle changes in dynamics.

Yep, that should do it, Joe.

[1piano4joe]

How in the world is this little measure in a little Brahms waltz so controversial?

Hi all,

Many, many things on this site are controversial.

Consider:

1. Hanon (yeah, that's the first one on this list)
2. Metronomes (Some do, some don't)
3. Hand separate or not debates
4. Czerny is boring vs. lovely
5. Sight read vs. memorize
6. Full speed asap vs. incremental tempo learning
7. Scales absolute necessity vs. why bother
8. etc.

Although I see THIS POST, in particular, as merely a discussion of the finer points of pianism. I really appreciate the time invested by other members reading my relatively long winded posts and occasionally, I am very grateful for the FREE expert advice.

Sorry, if this LITTLE measure in this LITTLE waltz seems trivial but after all, I am only a lowly intermediate. In addition, I'm posting in the appropriate student forum since I am learning to play and need help or advice.

Also, it's wonderful to have an intelligent conversation with other KNOWLEDGEABLE pianists since the non pianists in my life don't have a clue and neither do some teachers.

That's been my experience anyway, Joe.

[liszt1022]

Well, as long as it's interesting to you. I changed my mind anyway, 4212 1.

[lostinidlewonder]

Sorry if I've shattered your delusion that those who are able to look at broadly applicable skills in a general light would therefore be incapable of also zoning in on more precise situational issues.

hahah, yes you better be sorry for.... what was it again? Shattering my delusion that those who are able to look at broadly applicable skills in a general.... omg i fell asleep.

[nyiregyhazi]

hahah, yes you better be sorry for.... what was it again? Shattering my delusion that those who are able to look at broadly applicable skills in a general.... omg i fell asleep.

Hahaha indeed. I'm sure everyone shares your amusement.