should I correct her fingering?

[slane]

well here I am again, proud mother of 1, teaching her to play the piano and having some doubts about my skills.

Almost at the end of the first method book and we've covered the first five notes in the right hand and 4 in the left, which means, in the standard configuration she's playing G with her pinky. But she avoids doing that it reaches with her ring finger for G. Imagine the surprise symphony, CCEEGG and she plays it 113344, which would be OK if, say, the next note was B and she was reaching for that with her pinky.
So given that she can play legato that way, should I leave it as valid fingering in some situations or shoudl I correct because avoiding pinky is a bad habit.

I think I've answered my own question!

[keyboardclass]

Correct it.  Initially you want the hand as relaxed as possible.

[gerryjay]

I think I've answered my own question!

Dear Slane,
yes, you did! There is a single - but of uttermost importance - reason to a teacher exists: help the student when s/he can't help her/himself. Yours is a good example of that: your daughter can't figure out that this fingering is not a proper one, so you must help her.

Anyway, a word of precaution: it is pointless to tell "do that!". You must convince her that it is actually better than the way she did. How? There are many possibilities, and it depends on the age, the skills, the intelectual awareness, the relationship between you and her. However, if she is not convinced after all, let she do the way she wants. In a near future - provided she have proper examples in other pieces and situations -, she will figure out for herself.

Of course, being a good teacher is also being a good salesman/woman...

Best regards,
Jay.

[mcdiddy1]

yes, corrected it.....it is easier to do and benefitcal to her in her development.

[faulty_damper]

Do NOT "correct" it.  How much mass does her pinky have compared to the keys?  If you correct it now, she will start to question her own sensation about what is right or wrong; it's important that she becomes very familiar with the way her body moves and manipulates the external environment.

Mechanically, the pinky is not similar to the other inside fingers because of its outside location, i.e. it closes inward.  (Turn your fingers toward you and open and close them.   Do you see how the pinky connects to the thumb at a more oblique angle than the other three fingers?)  This is the reason why she uses her 4 because it is more mechanically efficient and also because of the mass of the 4th finger.

When there is a genuine need to use a finger, including the 5, she will use it.  She just hasn't come across a piece that requires it yet.

[fleetfingers]

It seems there are some teachers in my area who are lenient when it comes to fingering. I have received some transfer students who fumble over themselves trying to play their pieces with the most foolish of fingering choices. At what point was someone going to guide them in how to maneuver the hand and fingers around the keyboard? It takes at least a few weeks for me to persuade new transfers that fingering is important. Luckily, I have mostly beginners, and they learn from the first lesson what I expect. When they are sight reading a piece that they'll only be playing through once or twice, I don't say much about fingering and let them figure it out on their own, fumble if they will. But, they often make good choices because, as I'm strict with the fingering in their performance pieces and we talk about the reasons for the fingering, they are grasping where to position their hands as they sight read.

[faulty_damper]

There is a very large difference between having a student once a week and having one every single day.  Once a week lessons would definitely require a stricter focus on fingering choices (because it is assumed the student will not practice daily and figure it out on his own), however, having a student every single day would not necessitate such a focus as the student will be experimenting each day at the piano.  This daily regimen would usually lead to the best outcome for the student.

[nyiregyhazi]

Mechanically, the pinky is not similar to the other inside fingers because of its outside location, i.e. it closes inward.  (Turn your fingers toward you and open and close them.   Do you see how the pinky connects to the thumb at a more oblique angle than the other three fingers?)  This is the reason why she uses her 4 because it is more mechanically efficient and also because of the mass of the 4th finger.

When there is a genuine need to use a finger, including the 5, she will use it.  She just hasn't come across a piece that requires it yet.

I bemused by this entire post. Just about everything in piano playing "needs" the fifth. That's why we start training it early. It's the single most important finger to develop. And the difference in mass between 4 and 5 is small enough to be virtually negligible.

[faulty_damper]

Then why is she avoiding its use?  Everyone's hands are differently shaped even as young children.  The mass of the pinky is usually the smallest and there is a big difference between the 5 and the 4.  It's not negligible considering the weight necessary to depress the keys on most pianos.

The issue mentioned was using this RH finger pattern: 1-3-4 on C-E-G, supposedly staccato for the theme of the "Surprise" symphony.  Staccato on the 5?  It's mechanically and physically inefficient.  The child is right to prefer using the 4.

Consider another situation:  Alberti bass.  Would you play rapid alberti bass as 5-1-3-1 (C-G-E-G) or 4-1-2-1 on the same notes?

[nyiregyhazi]

Then why is she avoiding its use?  Everyone's hands are differently shaped even as young children.  The mass of the pinky is usually the smallest and there is a big difference between the 5 and the 4.  It's not negligible considering the weight necessary to depress the keys on most pianos.

The issue mentioned was using this RH finger pattern: 1-3-4 on C-E-G, supposedly staccato for the theme of the "Surprise" symphony.  Staccato on the 5?  It's mechanically and physically inefficient.  The child is right to prefer using the 4.

Consider another situation:  Alberti bass.  Would you play rapid alberti bass as 5-1-3-1 (C-G-E-G) or 4-1-2-1 on the same notes?

More to the point (considering it's the fingering you said is fine) would anyone play the Alberti bass with 1, 3 and 4 in a million years? No, because it's a woefully inefficient fingering. Either of the above would be fine in both instances but 1-3-4 most certainly would not be. There's no rational or physical justification for having a spare note between 3 and 4. Regardless, pianists don't advance by avoiding use of the most important finger and neither do they advance by having poor fingerings left in. Leave the weakest fingers out of it and you perpetuate an imbalance. The outsides of the hand are the two most important parts in balance. Do you think there's some kind of instinctive piano gene or something? Should we leave students who avoid using anything other than a single finger to play melodies? You think there's a good reason for that too? Do kids left to their own devices tend to become virtuosos- from following their natural instincts? There's a reason why we teach them things.

Also, note that the poster already said that 135 is working better. Hardly surprising.

[faulty_damper]

The fingering that the child chose, 1-3-4, played staccato on C-E-G is perfectly acceptable.  However, for alberti bass, it would be very inefficient because of the reach between 3-4 (E-G), as you mentioned.

Do kids left to their own devices tend to become virtuosos- from following their natural instincts?

Yes, e.g. Chopin and Liszt.  What they did not have were teachers to teach them what was "correct" and as a result, were able to figure out an incredible amounts about how their bodies functioned in relation to the keyboard.  (Liszt could already play the piano before he received lessons from Czerny.)

These are just two well-known examples.  Contrast: the hundreds of students in conservatories in France during the 19th century who never learned how to play the piano with the same kind of fluency because of teaching methods prevalent during those times.  Those methods are still taught today in today's conservatories because it is still believed by great minds today that there is a "correct" way to play the piano as in the subject title: "should I correct her fingering?"

[nyiregyhazi]

The fingering that the child chose, 1-3-4, played staccato on C-E-G is perfectly acceptable.  However, for alberti bass, it would be very inefficient because of the reach between 3-4 (E-G), as you mentioned.

The reach is still there. Stacatto does not excuse sloppy fingering. If you get used to sloppy fingering where you have time to get away with it, you inevitably end up limited by it when you reach situations where there is no time. If you were to excuse the omission of 5, the only logical way to do so is to use 1 2 and 4, so as to place the wider reach in the natural area between thumb and second. To leave a spare note between 3 and 4 is simply a poor fingering. Why are you even arguing for this ridiculous idea? Did you still not read that the poster said 5 proved to be EASIER?

Yes, e.g. Chopin and Liszt.  What they did not have were teachers to teach them what was "correct" and as a result, were able to figure out an incredible amounts about how their bodies functioned in relation to the keyboard.  (Liszt could already play the piano before he received lessons from Czerny.)

These are just two well-known examples.  Contrast: the hundreds of students in conservatories in France during the 19th century who never learned how to play the piano with the same kind of fluency because of teaching methods prevalent during those times.  Those methods are still taught today in today's conservatories because it is still believed by great minds today that there is a "correct" way to play the piano as in the subject title: "should I correct her fingering?"

So, let's take two great geniuses, pretend they never had any lessons in their formative years (which they certainly did) and use that to suggest that kids do better if left to evolve on their own? How about we contrast Chopin and Liszt with the thousands of genuinely self taught pianists who never learn to play very well at all? Are you actually saying you think that kids who play tunes with only one finger do so because they know best? Do you seriously believe all humans have some inate piano instincts that do better without teaching? To play piano well is not natural or normal in any sense. That's why we have to SHOW students better ways to think and move- not take the ridiculous idea that a blatantly poor fingering is some act of Lisztian ingenuity.

There's a world of difference between a sloppy fingering and an individually selected but valid fingering. Leaving students to make major mistakes does not make them likely to find individual solutions- it just leaves them to struggle.

[mcdiddy1]

In my opinion fingering should chosen based on the relationship of the music and the body. The question I ask on whether a fingering work is: does it serve the music and is easily capable by the body( fingers, arms). If it passes both test then it is acceptable.

 Everyone needs to choose fingering for themselves because every one's hands are different.

I for example have large hands so I can  play alberti bass with 1 3 4 fingering very comfortably and easily and use it if I need to use my pinky in an upcoming passage.

Of course I would never teach a smaller student to use that fingering because of their hand size. The real issue of skipping the fourth finger is the student may a, learn to ignore fingerings, b, learn bad habits that cause discomfort that would be harder to correct later, c,teach students to ignore the use of certain fingers.

 If you think the posters are getting all fuss about something that is extremely minor, it may be but I met a person who played piano who never used her fifth finger to play! So she only plays with eight fingers instead of ten. So some people may grow out of bad fingerings, but some do not.

For me I try and put myself in the students body and see what fingering is physically possible, comfortable, and achieves the required musical effect.

The right fingering can may make something possible or impossible to play.

[nyiregyhazi]

I for example have large hands so I can  play alberti bass with 1 3 4 fingering very comfortably and easily and use it if I need to use my pinky in an upcoming passage.

Even in your case, surely you would use 124? Why have the two cramped up in no man's land with nothing to do? It just makes no sense to bunch 1 and 2 together at the same time as having to stretch out 3 and 4. Only a very specific context could ever justify going so far against the hand's natural layout. I simply cannot conceive of a human hand where it's more natural to splay between 3 and 4 rather than be opening out between 1 and 2. In fact, I think this is one of the most important principles behind fingering in general- that the fingers tend to operate more as a single unit and that (where an option exists) a bigger space is best covered between 1 and 2, rather than between any other adjacent fingers. Look at op. 10 no. 1 for example. While Chopin extends wider intervals between all fingers, he constructs it almost constantly around having the  largest intervals between 1 and 2. All hands are different, but they are not THAT different.

[fleetfingers]

I don't know what you guys are talking about . . . 1 2 4 for fast alberti bass??? I use 1 3 5 but have small hands, so maybe that's why.

I have a 10-year-old student with hands about twice my size, so he sometimes uses fingering that I would never dream of. When I see it, we talk about that passageand, and I explain why I use the fingers I do. All I ask is that he try it my way, as well as his. Then, we decide together which fingering he'll use. The idea I'm trying to teach my students is that fingering for each piece should be decided early on and you should stick to it, unless it proves faulty. Anyone will learn a piece faster if they start it right. To me, the fingering issue isn't so much about hard and fast rules; it's more about setting yourself up to play the piece as efficiently as you can.

[faulty_damper]

The reach is still there. Stacatto does not excuse sloppy fingering. If you get used to sloppy fingering where you have time to get away with it, you inevitably end up limited by it when you reach situations where there is no time. If you were to excuse the omission of 5, the only logical way to do so is to use 1 2 and 4, so as to place the wider reach in the natural area between thumb and second. To leave a spare note between 3 and 4 is simply a poor fingering. Why are you even arguing for this ridiculous idea?

1-3-4 is not sloppy fingering for a staccato passage; it is mechanically efficient and one that I use.  1-2-4 is less efficient due to the length of and physical placement of the 2 on the hand; it is the farthest off center of the hand (3 and 4 being most aligned with the forearm and thus provide much better leverage.)

1-3 over C-E does not require stretching for most hands.  Your suggestion, 1-2-4 require slight stretching over the C-E.

Did you still not read that the poster said 5 proved to be EASIER?

No where did the Slane say that 5 proved to be easier.  She asked specifically about 1-3-4 on C-E-G and has not replied in this thread.

So, let's take two great geniuses, pretend they never had any lessons in their formative years (which they certainly did) and use that to suggest that kids do better if left to evolve on their own?

They did not have teachers.  Both pianists learned how to play the piano on their own.  Liszt started receiving lessons at age 9, but only after he showed great talent at the piano, i.e, he could already play before he received lessons.

How about we contrast Chopin and Liszt with the thousands of genuinely self taught pianists who never learn to play very well at all? Are you actually saying you think that kids who play tunes with only one finger do so because they know best? Do you seriously believe all humans have some inate piano instincts that do better without teaching? To play piano well is not natural or normal in any sense. That's why we have to SHOW students better ways to think and move- not take the ridiculous idea that a blatantly poor fingering is some act of Lisztian ingenuity.

Most people whose first experience with the piano through watching other people play (i.e. virtually everyone) thinks that playing the piano is a matter of moving the fingers.  It is not.  Anyone who thinks playing the piano is a matter of simply moving the fingers fast, and attempts to learn how to play in such a way, are in for a great deal of frustration.

Children are often the best learners because they have limited experience with observing others play.  As a result, they don't learn that it's a matter of moving the fingers.  Instead, they are more interested in playing and as a result of those experiences, learn how to play using their sensations.

Anyone who has taught adults may share the experience that adults think playing the piano is about moving the fingers.  It is not.

There's a world of difference between a sloppy fingering and an individually selected but valid fingering. Leaving students to make major mistakes does not make them likely to find individual solutions- it just leaves them to struggle.

I can make even the worst fingering work.  This is a skill that I learned but only by disobeying all of my teachers.  I've come to the conclusion that most of the things my teachers taught me about technique, including fingering, were wrong.  As evidence for this, I do almost everything my teachers told me not to do and ignore the things my teachers told me to do.  But to arrive at this point I had to struggle for many years.  I wished many times that I just had the answer but none of the suggestions by my teachers worked so I simply stopped listening.  You only listen when it works - stop when it doesn't.

You argue that 1-2-4 and 1-3-5 are better fingerings for staccato C-E-G than 1-3-4.  The child chose 1-3-4.  The child is probably correct as it is both more mechanically efficient and requires the least amount of forearm shift.

[slane]

Lordy! Such an interesting discussion. I had no idea it was such a contentious question. I'm really enjoying the responses. I've grown to respect both FD's and FF's opinions when it comes to pedagogy so I'm going to keep both schools of thought in mind when she plays.
Where I think her fingering is obviously not OK is where she has to make an unnecessary awkward second finger over because her previous fingering has been eccentric, but the stretch with the fourth (and she is a bit of a potential amazon) I might let slide.

BTW - I read an interesting thing, can't remember where, the person was saying that music is, by and large, edited by men but most piano is played by children or women so one should always question the printed fingering.  

Oh and ... I don't think I ever said 5 was easier, in fact insisting on it has introduced a stutter because she has to stop and think at every "G". And come to think of it, when she plays "twinkle twinkle" (from memory) she uses 5 on the A because she understands she wont reach D without it. Although then she has to pass a finger over to get to C, or else use, say, 4 on G and F which I think is what Suzuki has. So maybe I am being too pedantic.

[mcdiddy1]

Even in your case, surely you would use 124? Why have the two cramped up in no man's land with nothing to do?

Opps sorry i meant 4 2 1 fingering not 1 3 4  . Yea I would never use unless in emergency. This Liszt piece I am working on for example I have to use my entire hand span in order to reach all the notes.

[jlh]

Don't listen to faulty_damper. 

In any simple 135 position you should use 135.  Seriously?  How is this an issue?

The 4 is not a better option unless there are other circumstances requiring more fingers. 

Use 1133553.

Best,
Josh

[nyiregyhazi]

"1-3-4 is not sloppy fingering for a staccato passage; it is mechanically efficient and one that I use.  1-2-4 is less efficient due to the length of and physical placement of the 2 on the hand; it is the farthest off center of the hand (3 and 4 being most aligned with the forearm and thus provide much better leverage.)"

I'm sorry, but if you're going to tell me that for a young hand to span a third between 3 and 4 (while leaving the 2nd stuck right against the thumb) is "mechanically efficient" I have no idea what planet you come from to possess such a hand. You sincerely feel it's less natural to open the space between thumb and 2nd finger to a third than to do so between 3 and 4? This is utter nonsense, beyond the nature of "opinion". There is no more natural place to open out than between thumb and 2nd.

You're basically suggesting that it's easier to do a vulcan salute (where 123 are bunched up and 45, with a gap in the middle). It certainly is not. It's easier to keep the four fingers together and bring the thumb away. Nothing could be simpler.

"No where did the Slane say that 5 proved to be easier.  She asked specifically about 1-3-4 on C-E-G and has not replied in this thread."

Sorry, misread McDiddy's post and assumed that when he said "corrected it" it was from the poster.

"They did not have teachers.  Both pianists learned how to play the piano on their own.  Liszt started receiving lessons at age 9, but only after he showed great talent at the piano, i.e, he could already play before he received lessons."

So, Liszt's professional musician father never once would have helped him? You are making up facts. This is total nonsense. Not to mention the fact that the average child is NOT a genius. Take even a million kids and give them a piano without tuition and see how many will become great pianists. To base general teaching on such a model is simply foolhardy.

Regarding this bilge about how to avoid the single most important finger in piano playing, try this instead.

Any kid can get their fifth to work when they start from this approach. It's when they try to jam the whole arm through the fifth that it's perceived as being weak. While I think Roy Holmes attributes rather too much to this approach, it's a great way to feel what the fingers are really able to do.

[nyiregyhazi]

I don't know what you guys are talking about . . . 1 2 4 for fast alberti bass??? I use 1 3 5 but have small hands, so maybe that's why.

If a C major went straight to G major in first inversion, I'd often use such a fingering to cover two patterns in one. It's just a simple five finger position with a comfortable space between 1 and 2. I cannot conceive of a situation that could ever arise that would lead me to use 1 3 and 4,. however.

[faulty_damper]

I'm sorry, but if you're going to tell me that for a young hand to span a third between 3 and 4 (while leaving the 2nd stuck right against the thumb) is "mechanically efficient" I have no idea what planet you come from to possess such a hand. You sincerely feel it's less natural to open the space between thumb and 2nd finger to a third than to do so between 3 and 4? This is utter nonsense, beyond the nature of "opinion". There is no more natural place to open out than between thumb and 2nd.

You are still ignoring the articulation: staccato.  I would not disagree that in a legato passage, 3-4 would require a greater stretch, however, in staccato, the forearm is simply displaced.  There is no doubt this is what her child is doing because at that age, the hand is incredibly small.

Mechanically, the 2 functions much better when it retracts: it has it's own muscle AND a single tendon attached to the digit allowing it to be very mobile!  (Contrast the 3 and 4 which share a tendon.)  However, playing the piano simply be retracting the fingers is physically inefficient because of the lack of mass of the digits.  This is where the "arm weight" school of thought came in, to correct previously held beliefs that piano playing was a digit-oriented instrument.

But one aspect that you are probably not aware of is that in order to stretch/increase distance between the thumb and 2, either:
1. the thumb extends (moves away from the palm)
2. the index finger extends
3. or both the thumb and index finger extends.

When the index extends, it increases the distance from the center of mass of the entire hand.  This drastically decreases the effectiveness of transferring the momentum into depressing a key; i.e. the finger is not curved.  The reason pianists learn to play with curved fingers (whether taught to or they figure out on their own) is because of anatomical reasons and the efficiency of the transfer of mass.  This transfer of mass is what allows a finger - that is attached to the hand that is attached to a forearm that is attached to the torso - whose mass is much less than key (a finger will never alone depress a key until the mass of the key is less than the finger) to depress a key.

You're basically suggesting that it's easier to do a vulcan salute (where 123 are bunched up and 45, with a gap in the middle). It certainly is not. It's easier to keep the four fingers together and bring the thumb away.

No, I did not suggest to do any sort of Vulcan salute.  There is no stretch between the 3 and 4; it is kept in a neutral position with only a slight lateral shift of the forearm and perhaps a slight outward wrist abduction to position the finger over the key.  Kaplah!

So, Liszt's professional musician father never once would have helped him? You are making up facts. This is total nonsense. Not to mention the fact that the average child is NOT a genius. Take even a million kids and give them a piano without tuition and see how many will become great pianists. To base general teaching on such a model is simply foolhardy.

You implied that Liszt is the result of having teachers.  He received some instruction from his father but consider that by all accounts, including Czerny, Liszt had an unusual technique which included strange fingerings.  How could Liszt have such an unusual technique if his father gave him lessons?  His father's influence at the technical aspect of the piano was minimal which is why he searched for a teacher for his son.  It was Czerny who set out to correct his supposedly faulty technique.  A slight digression which requires some deduction but considering Czerny's idea of technique, contrast with the ability displayed by Liszt = Czerny did not create Liszt.  Liszt created himself at the age of 21 long after receiving lessons from Czerny.

Regarding this bilge about how to avoid the single most important finger in piano playing, try this instead.

The exercise in the video is simply an exercise.  I've done it years ago thinking this was a way to practice and improve my finger dexterity.  However, it does not work very well for the intended purpose of playing the piano.  The reason is pretty simple, it only works as an exercise because it focuses on moving the fingers but the finger are not the only things that must move to play the piano.  On top of that, those are not motions that can be done for extended periods of time as the muscles will inevitably tire.

The alternative to those specific movements occurred when my fingers began to tire.  I didn't realize it at first but to compensate for the burning sensation, my forearm started to rotate slightly as did my wrist start to glide on its joint.  Immediately, with some fine tuning, the burning sensation went away and the movements just seemed natural as opposed to keeping a still arm and wrist.

Any kid can get their fifth to work when they start from this approach. It's when they try to jam the whole arm through the fifth that it's perceived as being weak. While I think Roy Holmes attributes rather too much to this approach, it's a great way to feel what the fingers are really able to do.

The approach is moot and is not in anyway feasible.  A student who is just learning how to play the piano will not have the dexterity to play in such a way but mostly because it is uncomfortable to keep the wrist and forearm still while moving the fingers in such a way.  The fingers which are capable of those movements are very inefficient for depressing the keys using those movements.  That approach is very similar to the finger equalization school of thought where each finger has presumed weaknesses and exercises are there to equalize them.  Fingers do not have weaknesses, only certain strengths (not just in the muscular way).  It is up to the body of the person playing to figure out what those strengths are.

[nyiregyhazi]

"You are still ignoring the articulation: staccato.  I would not disagree that in a legato passage, 3-4 would require a greater stretch, however, in staccato, the forearm is simply displaced.  There is no doubt this is what her child is doing because at that age, the hand is incredibly small."

so, anything goes in staccato? Never mind sensible fingering? Hell, why not take just one finger for the lot? That's what most beginners tend to do. How can their instincts be wrong, eh? In advanced piano playing, staccato is the most important place of all to think ahead and cover sensible hand positions. Hopping from 3 to 4 to avoid a 5th that is already in place is no more acceptable for stacatto than legato- UNLESS there is a vastly better reason than to avoid use of finger 5.




"But one aspect that you are probably not aware of is that in order to stretch/increase distance between the thumb and 2, either:
1. the thumb extends (moves away from the palm)
2. the index finger extends
3. or both the thumb and index finger extends."

Or the thumb moves sideways- into the exact same position that is used for something so  basic as a C major arpeggio. What is your point supposed to be? Have you got a magic fingering for C major arpeggios or something- to protect us all from the gruelling ordeal of spanning C to E with 1 and 2?


"You implied that Liszt is the result of having teachers.  He received some instruction from his father but consider that by all accounts, including Czerny, Liszt had an unusual technique which included strange fingerings.  How could Liszt have such an unusual technique if his father gave him lessons? "

? That's one of the most bizarre pieces of logical implication I've heard. Nobody can think for themself if they first receive any information from others? You think that holds? And that it implies that geniuses can never go on to have their own thoughts unless nobody ever teaches them anything? This is simply ridiculous. Your chain of logic is seriously supposed to be, Liszt had some unusual techniques, therefore his father could never have taught him anything? Are you actually joking?  Incidentally, I use many "weird" fingerings myself- for a PURPOSE. What I do not do is excuse students using any old finger when there is no evident purpose. The difference between Lisztian fingerings and hopping from 3 to 4 to avoid a 5th finger could hardly be greater.

"The reason is pretty simple, it only works as an exercise because it focuses on moving the fingers but the finger are not the only things that must move to play the piano."

If a student avoids their use 5th, it does not move AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! For anything remotely advanced a 5th finger must be agile and able to move. This has to be trained.

"Fingers do not have weaknesses, only certain strengths (not just in the muscular way)."

So what business does anyone have avoiding a (weakness-free?) 5th finger that was ready on the key anyway? If you want to argue for this, can I please ask you to exercise some degree of consistency?

[nyiregyhazi]

Oh and ... I don't think I ever said 5 was easier, in fact insisting on it has introduced a stutter because she has to stop and think at every "G". And come to think of it, when she plays "twinkle twinkle" (from memory) she uses 5 on the A because she understands she wont reach D without it. Although then she has to pass a finger over to get to C, or else use, say, 4 on G and F which I think is what Suzuki has. So maybe I am being too pedantic.

This probably explains it. She's likely remembering the shift in position from one piece (where it serves a purpose) and automatically applying it to another (where it serves no purpose). An easy trap to fall into, but that makes it all the more important correct it. It essential for students to understand the fingerings and hand shapes for each piece on its own merits- without carrying things from piece to piece regardless of whether they fit.

[faulty_damper]

so, anything goes in staccato? Never mind sensible fingering? Hell, why not take just one finger for the lot? That's what most beginners tend to do. How can their instincts be wrong, eh? In advanced piano playing, staccato is the most important place of all to think ahead and cover sensible hand positions. Hopping from 3 to 4 to avoid a 5th that is already in place is no more acceptable for stacatto than legato- UNLESS there is a vastly better reason than to avoid use of finger 5.

Yes, one finger can take all of the notes staccato but usually it work best for loud, accented notes, usually using just the 3.  After the fast strike of the key, the transfer of momentum would bounce back allowing a slight shift of placement while in the air to descend onto the next key.  In softer passages which are also fast, a strategic placement of the hand which allows the fingers to be over the keys would be better.  Again, a 5 is less efficient for a staccato for reasons mentioned before.

Or the thumb moves sideways- into the exact same position that is used for something so  basic as a C major arpeggio.

That is what is meant by the thumb extending away from the palm. 

That's one of the most bizarre pieces of logical implication I've heard.... And that it implies that geniuses can never go on to have their own thoughts unless nobody ever teaches them anything? ... Your chain of logic is seriously supposed to be, Liszt had some unusual techniques, therefore his father could never have taught him anything?

His father, if he was as strict as some teachers, would never allow him to play staccato passage on C-E-G with 1-3-4.  He would have insisted on 1-3-5 which would have been the prevailing fingering methodology of the time (which it still is.)  While his father did play some piano (he was principally a cellist) he also wanted his son to be pianist, thus seeking a teacher for him, Czerny.  Keep in mind that the first thing Czerny did with Liszt is give him a regimen of technique to correct his supposedly flawed technique.

Liszt was no genius.  Genius is the word used by non-geniuses.  There are no geniuses among geniuses.  Liszt, when considering that he had ample, but "flawed" technique when he was young, went through a couple of years of lessons, it is easier to deduce that he was the product of an incredible amount of practice of figuring out how to play using his body, not the ideas of how to play based on assumptions that prevailed during that time.  As evidence of this, the music he wrote was unabashedly radical for it contrasts starkly with anything ever written before.  Both of us are digressing on a minor point but I will conclude that Liszt is not the product of excellent pedagogy but simply of a desire to be the best on the piano.

So what business does anyone have avoiding a (weakness-free?) 5th finger that was ready on the key anyway? If you want to argue for this, can I please ask you to exercise some degree of consistency?

I never said to avoid using the 5, just that it's not efficient in the finger patter of 1-3-4 on a staccato passage such as the theme of the "Surprise" symphony.  Even if the 5 was on the G, which I doubt because she is only 5 years old and her hand would be too small, it would still be more mechanically efficient to shift the forearm over and depress with the 4.  She's already doing this.  I do this AND my 5 is over the note but I know from experience that the 4 is the better alternative.

But to address your concern with an analogy: there was a period of time in the early 20th century where it was thought that the 4 was a weak finger and it should be used even if the 3 was a better choice (Gieseking and Leimar, Piano Technique)  These pianists (one a famous pianist, the other the teacher of the said pianist) thought that it should be developed to become just as strong as the 3.  It turns out that the reason the 4 was a weak finger hand nothing to do with muscular strength but the simple anatomical fact that these two fingers shared a tendon making it impossible to move one without the other.  Did this ignorance prevent their attempt at equalizing the 4?  No, of course not because of the prevailing concept that even though they knew that certain fingers were different, they didn't see beyond the fact that the 3 and 4 were the most similar and made the conclusion that it must be mechanically similar as well.

Were they right in encouraging students to train that 4th finger?
There is a big difference in addressing weaknesses vs. using its strength; they are not opposites.

Back to the topic:
Can the 5 be used to play the G?  Yes.
Can the 4 also be use to play the G?  Yes.

Which is most efficient?  I'm going with the 5 year-old and say it's the 4.  No "surprise" there.

[nyiregyhazi]

"In softer passages which are also fast, a strategic placement of the hand which allows the fingers to be over the keys would be better."

Precisely. That's why it's better to take 5 rather than hop from 3 to 4. It prepares for such thinking.

"Again, a 5 is less efficient for a staccato for reasons mentioned before."

So, nevermind what you said about no fingers having weaknesses then? We're going to move them whole arm to avoid a finger that has no weakness- supposedly because it's too inefficient to utilise a basic 5 finger position?


"Liszt was no genius.  Genius is the word used by non-geniuses.  There are no geniuses among geniuses."

So he was a genius then, as your last sentence explicitly states. Is the average kid a genius?

 " As evidence of this, the music he wrote was unabashedly radical for it contrasts starkly with anything ever written before."

Again, you are assuming that anyone who does something new cannot have had a foundation. Perhaps it's also lies that Beethoven was taught by Haydn? This is absurdly illogical conjecture.

"Even if the 5 was on the G, which I doubt because she is only 5 years old and her hand would be too small, it would still be more mechanically efficient to shift the forearm over and depress with the 4."

Too small for three adjacent fingers to cover THREE adjacent notes!?? If her fingers are not doing so there is something badly wrong. So just shove the whole arm over instead and then have to shove it straight back- in the name of efficiency? Are you crazy? What kind of terribly habits do you want to encourage? That it's efficient to keep slinging your whole arm sideways at the last possible moment rather than use a perfectly able finger that's closer? Such last minute hops will almost certainly add accents- destroying the music effect. You want people to grow up thinking 5 is a bad finger and that you should have to replace it with another one at any cost?

[mcdiddy1]

You want to also consider the age of the child also. Many kids have difficult bringing their hand back to the starting position when the are preforming staccato.

I understand you point though, sometimes the curcimstance of the music may require the use of certain finger that may be against traditional fingering.

We should not confuse elementary piano pedagogy with advance literature.

The decision between fourth finger and fifth finger is not going to produce another child prodigy.It will do the child no harm to learn how to use the 5 finger like the rest of kids who learn piano. If the child has a solid foundation of curved fingers, relaxed and natural hand position, understands basic concepts of notes and rhythms thats what is most important.

[faulty_damper]

One common error in beginning pedagogy is the 5-finger position that is taught to many students.  It makes one assumption: all fingers are equal.  They are not and will never be.

The 5-finger position places the fingers over adjacent keys in the assumption that a finger over each adjacent key allows for easier playing.  It is an assumption based on the mechanical assumptions of the fingers.

However, the mechanical action of the fingers is inherently different because of each finger's shape, placement on the hand, and musculature and tendon attachments.  For these reasons they will never be the same.

But, this understanding of the hand and arm anatomy is relatively new in piano pedagogy.  Few teachers know of this, and even if they do know of it, they only have a surface understanding of it and while they may be able to discuss the differences of each finger, they may still give 5-finger advice and use the same pedagogy books they learned on.

5-finger position is so prevalent that almost all, if not all, beginning piano books promote it as if there was no alternative.  Students learn and grow up on it and believe there is no other possibility nor do they ever question the fact that it is ineffective.  After all, it worked for them, why should they doubt it?  And yet, if they get beyond the beginning methods, they will inevitably learn things that contradicts 5-finger position.  And then they will use this rationale to explain it away: "We should not confuse elementary piano pedagogy with advance literature." 

Really, 5-finger position is taught almost entirely for the purpose of learning how to read music.  It's just simpler to teach them to keep their hands on the keys and associate certain notes with certain fingers.  It's a lazy way to teach and an unproductive one as it prevents beginning students from exploring how their bodies work.  All things being equal, this exploration of one's body is the key difference between a mediocre pianist and a damn good one.  The damn good one knows exactly how his body works; the mediocre one only knows what he was taught. 

[mcdiddy1]

One common error in beginning pedagogy is the 5-finger position that is taught to many students.  It makes one assumption: all fingers are equal.  They are not and will never be.

True the fingers are not equal but children should learn they need to learn to use all their fingers. Simple fact but some kids feel they do not need to use their thumbs, pinky, or which ever finger they feel is not strong. Last time I checked I use a five finger position to play piano and I assume you do to. Maybe you mean they should not be so based on middle C position and have different starting positions.

However, the mechanical action of the fingers is inherently different because of each finger's shape, placement on the hand, and musculature and tendon attachments.  For these reasons they will never be the same.

True, but try explaining this fact to a four year old child trying to play Mary had a little Lamb. Now imagine the boredom creep through minds as they think about anything remotly more interesting to them, like playing outside, having fun with friends, and definetly not about music or practicing later on.

But, this understanding of the hand and arm anatomy is relatively new in piano pedagogy.  Few teachers know of this, and even if they do know of it, they only have a surface understanding of it and while they may be able to discuss the differences of each finger, they may still give 5-finger advice and use the same pedagogy books they learned on.

How is understanding of the hand and arm anatomy relatively new in piano pedagogy? Nothing you have said is cutting edge. Piano pedagogy books have been writing for years about the connections of tendons in the hands and the differences of them.

 What is the 5 finger advice? Is the alternative 4 fingers advice?

 Elementary teachers serve a purpose and it should be to introduce students to a variety of different musical experiences, repertoire and skills. When they are intilled with a love a music then they can reach a point where they can have an anatomy lesson.

It is like teaching a student to sing by discribing the vocal folds showing pictures of the diaphram and how the vocal chords vibrate. They will not get it, be bored with it, and assume all of music is as boring as you the teacher.

Of course if the child progresses remarkably and reaches very advance levels or playing the child should receive more informative instructions. But that is not true for 99 percent of 4 years old is it?

5-finger position is so prevalent that almost all, if not all, beginning piano books promote it as if there was no alternative.  Students learn and grow up on it and believe there is no other possibility nor do they ever question the fact that it is ineffective.  After all, it worked for them, why should they doubt it?  And yet, if they get beyond the beginning methods, they will inevitably learn things that contradicts 5-finger position.  And then they will use this rationale to explain it away: "We should not confuse elementary piano pedagogy with advance literature." 

I think you mean C position books because I was playing a Liszt piece the other day that started in 5 -finger position. So are you suggesting we should beginning by teaching students to prepare them to be concert pianist and start them off on Bach and Mozart? What alternative are you suggesting? When they advance in piano, they should learn that goes beyond 5-finger position not necessarly contradicts because there are plenty of pieces that require a simple 5 finger position. Part of good teaching is knowing who your student is. The reason I said We should not confuse elementary piano pedagogy with advance literature is because younger students need to be taught in a way that is appropriate to this level. It is not to say I do not have the knowledge to teach them the intricacies of the hand but I know better. When they student need to learn the thumb can cross under the hand and sometimes the fourth finger does not move because  is connected to their 3 finger inside their hand, they will learn it because the music demands they know it. They are not harmed by not knowing this information and if they want to continue to explore the keyboard with their bodies they are not disscouraged from doing so. At some point they ( and the parents) are going to want to see results and if you want to continue to teach them , you better give to them.

Really, 5-finger position is taught almost entirely for the purpose of learning how to read music.  It's just simpler to teach them to keep their hands on the keys and associate certain notes with certain fingers.  It's a lazy way to teach and an unproductive one as it prevents beginning students from exploring how their bodies work.  All things being equal, this exploration of one's body is the key difference between a mediocre pianist and a damn good one.  The damn good one knows exactly how his body works; the mediocre one only knows what he was taught. 

Teaching student musical literacy is a pretty common goal for elementary piano teachers and does not sound like a bad goal for the kids. The way it is taught is the key. Being in a 5- finger position is not a bad thing, it is the over reliance on this position that is the problem. I do not know what piano pedagogy is like where you are but in my area piano teaching is moving away from staying in one position. It is up to the teacher to be diligent to avoid piano method books that stay in C position too much.

You are right about the the importance of exploring the keyboard and understudying the relationship of their bodies and their instrument. The enemy is poor piano teaching, not the basic 5 finger position.

[faulty_damper]

My main objection to teaching 5-finger position came from my own experience as a teacher teaching children 5-finger position: it didn't work very well for playing the piano.  If I were to compare students whom I had taught 5-finger position in conjunction with written music to students whom I taught to associate written notes with keys, the latter displayed a high degree of ingenuity on par with many of Chopin's etudes.  Had I been completely ignorant of Chopin's etudes, I would have objected to many of the seemingly awkward fingerings (e.g. crossing a 3 OVER a 5 alla Op.10 No.2) and techniques (repeatedly using the 1) because these weren't things that I was taught and in fact I was told not to do them when I first started taking lessons.  And over the course of many years I realized just how wrong my teachers were who included a very well-known concert pianist.

The very first experience a person has with something biases the person to view it in a specific way regardless of its validity.  That bias is present in 5-finger position.  I object to viewing this strategy simply as a pedagogical tool because I believe the long-term disadvantages outweigh the advantages.  It's a crutch and few teachers know how to take away that crutch once they've established it in the student's mind.

Listening before talking, reading before writing.
This is something that educationalists repeat because it is true in most cases.  We have to listen to a language before we imitate the sounds and we have to be able to read before we are able to write.  I do object to a minor degree that students should not be taught how to read immediately because it focuses the mind away from the mechanical aspect of playing.  What usually happens is that the student focuses so much on reading and is unable to process the mechanics of playing, thus leading to poor or sloppy technique.  But they do learn how to read but at the expense of learning how their bodies work.  It is more important that students learn how their bodies work before they focus on reading.

It is like teaching a student to sing by discribing the vocal folds showing pictures of the diaphram and how the vocal chords vibrate. They will not get it, be bored with it, and assume all of music is as boring as you the teacher.

I do not advise this strategy to anyone who is does not have these direct/concrete concepts.  This is not instruction on how to sing, it is instruction for those who can already sing who already have these concepts in mind.  Only when they have these concepts can it be discussed in such a way.

But that is not true for 99 percent of 4 years old is it?

How was Mozart able to play the keyboard at 4?  Was it because he was a genius or was it because everyone around him played the keyboard as well as other instruments?  Likewise, how the hell did he learn to speak German and Italian?  It had nothing to do with him being a genius and almost everything to do with his environment. 

Most 4-year-olds can't play the piano because most adults can't.  But, IF every 4-year-old could play the piano, and your 4-year-old can't, AND he is allowed to play with these other 4-year-olds, THEN he will be able to play the piano regardless of whether or not the adults play.  It's the reason why a child born in the US will learn English and Chinese while his immigrant parents from China still struggle with English; the child learns English from his peers, Chinese from his parents.

The reason why students can take piano lessons for 10 years and still suck: they don't have friends who play the piano.  You want your students to excel at the piano?  Make sure they become friends with your other students who play very well.  And by friends, I mean they get together and play the piano as well as other activities.

[pianowolfi]

After a while of experimenting and trying many things out I have in most cases come back to the "5 finger" approach. It is not the only thing my students do on the piano but it's the systematical part of it. Why? Because children have a tendency to learn everything by heart and as soon as they see that they can play something they won't bother with learning to read anymore, at all! They just don't feel like it, they play the most difficult stuff but if you put a simple sheet in front of them it takes them ages to decipher. And I have a few students who play since more than five years and still can't read properly because they never practice it!!!And what should I do about it? I can't lock them up in a room with a bunch of sight reading music for 6 weeks! And they don't understand what reading is good for, because they can't imagine it. So teaching everything only by rote in the first months/years gives them definitely the wrong message! And of course this is, like the piano playing thing you mentioned, an environmental problem. The parents can't read music either and never do it, and sometimes don't understand what it is good for!

But I have the good luck to have found some piano books that deal very well with the "5 finger" approach, and include improvisational parts too, from the start. And they are really fun and the kids love them!
So I aim for a 50/50 approach playing by ear/playing from the music almost right from the start.

[nyiregyhazi]

Really, 5-finger position is taught almost entirely for the purpose of learning how to read music.  It's just simpler to teach them to keep their hands on the keys and associate certain notes with certain fingers.

Plus it's absolutely essential for all of the most basic to advanced scales and for training the nature of physical preparation of the hand. But hell, apart from that...

[nyiregyhazi]

"the latter displayed a high degree of ingenuity on par with many of Chopin's etudes.  Had I been completely ignorant of Chopin's etudes, I would have objected to many of the seemingly awkward fingerings (e.g. crossing a 3 OVER a 5 alla Op.10 No.2) and techniques (repeatedly using the 1)"

I find this to be deeply concerning. This is a classic fingering seen in young children. It most certainly is NOT an act of Chopinesque ingenuity- unless there is a SPECIFIC PURPOSE to doing so. Do you see Chopin advising this fingering anywhere where it is not necessary? He does it to expand possibility in contrapuntal writing of 2 voices or more- not in single line melodies where there is a simpler fingering available. In virtually all cases, it's a sign of failure to plan ahead and failure to find a more efficient fingering. To compare that to Chopin Etudes in a young child is something I find most deeply troubling. Failing to realise how many fingers you will need and then chucking 3 over 5 to scrape your way out of the emergency of falling one short is an absolutely appalling thing to encourage. Virtually every time you see this classic emergency fingering, it's coupled with great stiffness and a badly twisted wrist. Advanced fingerings are for advanced pianists in advanced repertoire that demands them. Not a crutch for beginners who simply haven't though easy pieces well enough not to keep running out of fingers.

"Likewise, how the hell did he learn to speak German and Italian?  It had nothing to do with him being a genius and almost everything to do with his environment. "

It's absolutely normal for any average human being exposed to language at a young age to learn to speak it well. The same is not the case with piano playing- especially not when students are only able to observe and listen, rather than taught the skills.

[keyboardclass]

deeply concerning?? deeply troubling??  For god's sake get a grip man!

[mcdiddy1]

My main objection to teaching 5-finger position came from my own experience as a teacher teaching children 5-finger position: it didn't work very well for playing the piano.  If I were to compare students whom I had taught 5-finger position in conjunction with written music to students whom I taught to associate written notes with keys, the latter displayed a high degree of ingenuity on par with many of Chopin's etudes.

I agree with your objection to that. When I started teaching piano, I would avoid Middle C based books like the plauge because students tended to read finger numbers instead of notes. It also does not prepare them for starting on different notes and reading intervalic relationships and different keys. What do you mean by" high degree of ingenuity on par with many Chopin's etude"?  I find it hard to imagine beginners doing something with the complexity of tho

  I do object to a minor degree that students should not be taught how to read immediately because it focuses the mind away from the mechanical aspect of playing.  What usually happens is that the student focuses so much on reading and is unable to process the mechanics of playing, thus leading to poor or sloppy technique.  But they do learn how to read but at the expense of learning how their bodies work.  It is more important that students learn how their bodies work before they focus on reading.

This is were the teacher's focus need to come in to divert over emphasis on reading and less on technique and ear training. Everything we do is not bad in it of itself but when we over emphasis something, we tend to have a weakness in something eles.

For example the first lesson I have with my students , we explore the keyboard up and down, learn about our hands, elbows, shoulders, experience what right position look like and how uncomfortable what bad technique feels like. When that is discussed and reinforced I don't have issues with them because I model it for them or it is quickly corrected.

 Many times I take the music away from them and have them play it memorized so they can watch their bodies. Problems can easily be avoided when their taught what to do and not left to learn bad habits. The weakness of just teaching by rote is the students will not see a reason to read music and find it confusing and unseemly  (have had plenty like this).  

There is no magic formula, what I find works best is to balance rote teaching and note reading and give them a balance of both. I will say I prefer rote teaching especially when I know a specific movement is going to be new for the student.

How was Mozart able to play the keyboard at 4?  Was it because he was a genius or was it because everyone around him played the keyboard as well as other instruments?  Likewise, how the hell did he learn to speak German and Italian?  It had nothing to do with him being a genius and almost everything to do with his environment.  

So true, it also helped his father was a music teacher! Children surrounded in a musical environment of course will be increase their interest and aptitude towards music ; the supposed Mozart Effect. For every good piano student, I can show you a parent that is there supporting them if not joining them in their playing. Unfortunately students are not all blessed with these type of parents or musical environment and for me it is important to educate them despite their personal condition. To many students feel they do not have the talent to play piano or it is to hard. It is unfair to compare other students to Mozart who lived in such a privileged environment because they are different people. The best we can do is give people the best musical instruction and allow the motivation from success to propel a love for music regardless of an limitation in technique or musical " potential".

I do not advise this strategy to anyone who is does not have these direct/concrete concepts.  This is not instruction on how to sing, it is instruction for those who can already sing who already have these concepts in mind.  Only when they have these concepts can it be discussed in such a way.

Me neither, and surprisingly there are teachers that are like that. It mention that because talking explaining tendons to a 5 year-old is comparable to this method. Students need to have their movement corrected by their teacher and shown how to do it. They do not need a human anatomy lesson because it will not help them understand what they cannot do already. That is why I said the statement to separate elementary pedagogy from advance piano literature. It is not out of ignorance but because  they are different. Children imitate...thats what they do and what they can handle . Mozart's composition as a child are simple imitations and not rule breaking or particularly in genius. You show me a child prodigy and I will show you a child who has an enormous ability to imitate someone who can play. We should allow students to imitate a good model so they can have a good role model

[fleetfingers]

To clarify - is middle C position considered a five-finger position? I thought the five-finger positions were the ones where both hands start on the same note (but in different clefs), so both hands are placed in either C position (C D E F G) or G postion (G A B C D) to start. The Faber books teach this way and I don't understand why teachers like them so much. Those are the ones I avoid like the plague. Like faulty_damper, I don't think it's a good way to teach reading. Transposing, chords, and intervals, yes. Reading, no. I personally have chosen a book that starts on middle C and goes out, note by note, eventually introducing all the notes to the entire grand staff. I saw it as an alternative to the five-finger books. 

[nyiregyhazi]

To clarify - is middle C position considered a five-finger position? I thought the five-finger positions were the ones where both hands start on the same note (but in different clefs), so both hands are placed in either C position (C D E F G) or G postion (G A B C D) to start. The Faber books teach this way and I don't understand why teachers like them so much. Those are the ones I avoid like the plague. Like faulty_damper, I don't think it's a good way to teach reading. Transposing, chords, and intervals, yes. Reading, no. I personally have chosen a book that starts on middle C and goes out, note by note, eventually introducing all the notes to the entire grand staff. I saw it as an alternative to the five-finger books.  

I don't like books where you get stuck in a single 5 finger position. However, to actually avoid fingering anything in 5 finger positions makes no sense at all. Scales are constructed with them in mind, as is a huge wealth of music. If a piece works around such positions, to get a student doing all kinds of unnecessary adjustments (based on the idea that what ever they happen to come out with might be "ingenious") seems completely senseless. All pianists need to understand the nature of physical preparation and how to think of the whole hand- rather than one finger and one note at a time. It's the latter that causes unusual fingerings from students 99% of the time. They stick out any old finger rather than perceive that there's a perfectly good finger at the ready. One of the hardest things for beginners is to train them not to make adjustments where none are required. The ability to conceive the alignment of five fingers and five notes as a single entity is an absolutely vital foundation to have as a point of departure.

[fleetfingers]

Hi, nyiregyhazi: I agree with everything you just said. If you review the thread, you'll see that I was one who argued for being strict with students about using common sense fingering and teaching them how to best use their hands and fingers on the piano. The conversation, though, turned into the idea of teaching students to read based on five-finger positions, which is what I avoid. I don't avoid the concept of five-finger positions altogether. As you mention, it is fundamental to understanding the structure of music and piano-playing. All of my students start out in C position pieces (taught by rote) before branching out. I teach them how to read using a different approach, though. Actually, this discussion has led to the reasons why I do what I do in my teaching. I use materials from several different methods (including my own homemade materials) to cover as many bases as I can. It is too easy for students to get stuck in a certain way of thinking if there isn't variation. I try my best to approach every subject from different angles.

[nyiregyhazi]

Hi, nyiregyhazi: I agree with everything you just said. If you review the thread, you'll see that I was one who argued for being strict with students about using common sense fingering and teaching them how to best use their hands and fingers on the piano. The conversation, though, turned into the idea of teaching students to read based on five-finger positions, which is what I avoid. I don't avoid the concept of five-finger positions altogether. As you mention, it is fundamental to understanding the structure of music and piano-playing. All of my students start out in C position pieces (taught by rote) before branching out. I teach them how to read using a different approach, though. Actually, this discussion has led to the reasons why I do what I do in my teaching. I use materials from several different methods (including my own homemade materials) to cover as many bases as I can. It is too easy for students to get stuck in a certain way of thinking if there isn't variation. I try my best to approach every subject from different angles.

Sure, that definitely makes sense. Just to clarify- my last post wasn't directed at you as such, but was rather intended to follow up from your own points. The other poster seems to be under the impression that because of the problem with students getting stuck in following fingerings, you should just let them use any old fingering instead and never abide by 5 finger positions. I completely agree that you need to mix things up instead. I'm afraid that a student who couldn't play a series of notes that lie within a single position without constantly changing fingers, would make for a pretty useless pianist. You can only make useful departures when you actually understand what you are departing from.

[mcdiddy1]

To clarify - is middle C position considered a five-finger position? I thought the five-finger positions were the ones where both hands start on the same note (but in different clefs), so both hands are placed in either C position (C D E F G) or G postion (G A B C D) to start. The Faber books teach this way and I don't understand why teachers like them so much. Those are the ones I avoid like the plague. Like faulty_damper, I don't think it's a good way to teach reading. Transposing, chords, and intervals, yes. Reading, no. I personally have chosen a book that starts on middle C and goes out, note by note, eventually introducing all the notes to the entire grand staff. I saw it as an alternative to the five-finger books. 

Yea well I say C position to mean both hands start in C position so it would be a 5 finger position. The Faber book do start of that way but they do move away from them in the beginning of level 1. If you skip the primer and go straight to pieces where the hands start on different notes. Most of the pieces are in C or G positions for the most part and that is one of the weakness of the method.However the illustrations are nice and the pieces are not nearly as wooden as Alfred series. I agree it is a great idea to supplement this method and not totally rely on it.

[pianisten1989]

come on! leave your freaking pissing contest out of this!

Ask her why she wont use the 5th finger. If she says something like "it's more difficult" or "it's easier to use the 4th", then that's a reason to change it. But tell her why. Don't just "do this and do that", cause then she wont learn a thing.
If she says something like "because it hurts when I play it" or "it's very uncomfortable" you should do some very soft stretching or massage.

[fleetfingers]

Yea well I say C position to mean both hands start in C position so it would be a 5 finger position. The Faber book do start of that way but they do move away from them in the beginning of level 1. If you skip the primer and go straight to pieces where the hands start on different notes. Most of the pieces are in C or G positions for the most part and that is one of the weakness of the method.However the illustrations are nice and the pieces are not nearly as wooden as Alfred series. I agree it is a great idea to supplement this method and not totally rely on it.

I see. When you said middle C position, I thought you were speaking of the methods that begin with both thumbs on middle C.

I like that there are duet parts in the Faber books; those are fun. While I don't use the lesson/theory/technique books they have, I do like to use their chordtime series. I didn't mean to offend anyone who uses Faber, I just think it is overrated. Just like any other method, it has its strengths and weaknesses. They have a lot of great books that I use, but I don't use them to introduce reading. But what do I know? I'm new to all this and still experimenting. I'm sure you have more experience in knowing how things turn out in the long run.

[faulty_damper]

come on! leave your freaking pissing contest out of this!

Ask her why she wont use the 5th finger. If she says something like "it's more difficult" or "it's easier to use the 4th", then that's a reason to change it. But tell her why. Don't just "do this and do that", cause then she wont learn a thing.
If she says something like "because it hurts when I play it" or "it's very uncomfortable" you should do some very soft stretching or massage.

I prefer to use the term "guided practice" when helping a student figure out the best movement to execute the depressing of a key or keys.  It's usually never necessary to tell the student why he should try something else, other than to tell him to try something else.  The reason is simple: when the best movement of the ones he has tried works the best (easiest and most effective) he will adopt that movement.  It's a very simple process. 

The one caveat to this simple process is that the student may have been drilled to "work at it" to accept that pain and discomfort are a normal part of practicing.  It is not.  In this case the student will pick a way to play and keep repeating it without regard to figuring out the best movement.  In a short time the movements, though flawed, will become ingrained making it very difficult to modify.  (On an aside: habits are thought to be difficult to change - they are not.  It takes the same amount of time to learn a different behavior in lieu of the behavior needing change.  The reason it seems so difficult is because the new behavior isn't practiced, thus it is never learned.)

One caution that I've mentioned before here is that what is best for the student may not seem right to the teacher.  I've had many experiences with my former teachers who heavily disagreed with the way I played over some things that seemed like minor quibbles (fingering choices, placing a thumb on a sharp key, raising my elbows out, etc.)  They didn't disagree with the way it sounded, only with the way it looked.  It didn't conform to the way they thought the piano should be played.  And if I were in their position with the limited knowledge they possessed (and they did have limited knowledge) I would have objected to my own playing because I didn't think it was proper.  This is the concern that I have over the assumption that 1-3-5 is the best fingering for the aforementioned note passage.  It really is just an assumption based on the 5-finger bias.

[mcdiddy1]

I prefer to use the term "guided practice" when helping a student figure out the best movement to execute the depressing of a key or keys.  It's usually never necessary to tell the student why he should try something else, other than to tell him to try something else.  The reason is simple: when the best movement of the ones he has tried works the best (easiest and most effective) he will adopt that movement.  It's a very simple process. 

I completely agree with you. There are always alternative fingering solutions but one ideal answer. You have to guide students through the process of finding fingering that works for their level and their body type. Teaching students to teach themselves is the best thing we can do as a teacher.

In advance piano literature you find all these rules of piano being broken( keep thumb and pinky off black keys, curved fingers). The rules are formed because we want to describe visually what pianist do but do not discuss the reason they play that way. We play with curved fingers because when the muscles in our hand relaxes they naturally curve and brings the fingers to an even playing field. We avoid pinky and thumb because they are shorter fingers, easily slip, and not part of the arch of the hand. I dislike it when we have generalizations of what playing should look like instead of considering other possibilities such as body size and comfort. Teachers should be expanding possibilities not restricting their students due to their lack of experience

[nyiregyhazi]

"I prefer to use the term "guided practice" when helping a student figure out the best movement to execute the depressing of a key or keys.  It's usually never necessary to tell the student why he should try something else, other than to tell him to try something else.  The reason is simple: when the best movement of the ones he has tried works the best (easiest and most effective) he will adopt that movement.  It's a very simple process. "

The best is not always the easiest to begin with. I'd often turned my nose up at things to start with, only to discover the wisdom later on. Some fingerings need to be worked at, before you can see the benefit. I don't believe in an authoritarian stance as a teacher, however I do believe there are many situations when you have to expect the student to trust your judgement. I often allow student's own fingerings- but only when I see that they are comfortable. It's precisely when something is clearly NOT comfortable or effective that you have to simply show them something that is. Fingerings that involve totally needless shifts in the hand position typically fall into this category.

When it's clear that something works fine, I'm okay with at once. If I see no justification, I'll ask the student why they are doing it. You place a lot of faith in the average student's ingenuity- but more often than not the answer reflects the simple fact that they have not thought through the bigger picture. Have they  considered the whole piece? Have they considered the whole phrase? Have they even considered the whole bar, before poking out finger x? All too often they have looked at a couple of notes at a time and failed to look at the whole. A student ought to be able to justify a fingering with explanation- or chances are they are only thinking of the smaller picture. The only way to learn effective individual fingering is to be shown good fingerings and have it explained why they work. In all too many cases, the student won't even have noticed that they didn't follow the fingering. That's just laziness and sloppiness, sorry. If they say, "I changed 3-4", that's better. If they say "I changed 3-4 for reason x" better still. If they just play 3 instead of 4, there's a very strong chance it's just sloppiness. You can't afford to treat such things as if they were acts of maverick genius- not without good reason. Humans are just not generally born with piano instincts. We learn from being shown useful principles- not from being left without guidance.


(On an aside: habits are thought to be difficult to change - they are not.  It takes the same amount of time to learn a different behavior in lieu of the behavior needing change.  The reason it seems so difficult is because the new behavior isn't practiced, thus it is never learned.)

? After saying habits are not difficult to change, you basically went on to say that they indeed are- just in rather more words. The other day I had a student moving her whole hand across to play the highest note of a phrase- when the 5th was already there. She immediately ran out of fingers and had to jump down again. The two unnecessary adjustments interfered with the left hand- totally breaking it. She struggled with the correction at first, but purely due to habit. As soon as the habit was broken, the passage flowed. You can't take beginner students and pretend their instincts are best. That just isn't even "teaching".

"They didn't disagree with the way it sounded, only with the way it looked.  It didn't conform to the way they thought the piano should be played. "

Are you so sure of that? The sound is almost always compromised in cases where I correct fingerings. Bad fingerings usually lead to accented lumps/ bad legato/hesitations etc. All too often, students who are used to bad fingerings don't even notice the effect on the sound. They are too accustomed to doing it to perceive what a difference it makes. It actually damages their musical hearing. I won't speculate about your teachers or your playing, but I know why I feel the need to correct sloppy fingerings. If a pianist takes a thumb on a black note in a c sharp minor arpeggio say (as virtually all students would, if left to their own devices), it takes a hell of an advanced player to disguise that.

In the case of the initial example, two totally needless shifts in hand position are totally counterproductive - above all, musically. The sound needs to be consistent. To get that, either you should likely use only one position, or no position at all and only one finger. To make a big shift in two places but not others will almost certainly compromise the musical result. It makes no sense to throw in something that makes it harder to be even. The alternative is to stretch between 3 and 4. That makes no sense either.

[faulty_damper]

I completely agree with you. There are always alternative fingering solutions but one ideal answer. You have to guide students through the process of finding fingering that works for their level and their body type. Teaching students to teach themselves is the best thing we can do as a teacher.

The problem with ideal fingering is that it may change when taken out of musical context and put back in.  The most effective fingering is often discovered by taking it out of context of a musical passage.  But when it is put back into context, it may be discovered that it doesn't work very well because of how it joins to the other parts.

Another issue very related to this issue is the same passages but in a different key/different scale step.  By analogy, we could use the same fingerings but that may not work very well as anyone who has learned to play scales had figured out.  Just because the best fingering works in one passage doesn't mean it will work well in an analogous passage.  Analogous passages are very common in classical period music: start a theme in the tonic, modulate to the dominant; motive repetition; ascending and descending intervals, etc.

It's important to note that even analogous passages require the same effort to find the most effective fingering which may be different.

[faulty_damper]

A student ought to be able to justify a fingering with explanation- or chances are they are only thinking of the smaller picture.

Almost all very skilled pianists cannot describe how they play even though they can play pretty damn well.  But when pressed, they will try to give an explanation for why/how they do the things they do even though they describe something entirely different from what they are actually doing.  The process of description is an entirely different skill set that they did not learn.

The same applies to asking a student for justification for a given fingering.  How accurate would those justifications be?  The issue I take is that it takes a part of the brain for justification (rationale) and places it into the playing process (motor and sensory).  The worst outcome is that the rational mind overtakes the motor sensory and it begins to affect the performance and learning process.  This is unfortunately very common: e.g. practicing Hanon, finger exercises, 5-finger position, etc.  The belief that these things actually improve playing is based on the learned assumption that they are good for performance.  This is only learned in the rational mind, not motor sensory.

The only way to learn effective individual fingering is to be shown good fingerings and have it explained why they work. In all too many cases, the student won't even have noticed that they didn't follow the fingering. That's just laziness and sloppiness, sorry. If they say,

It's a process, not an authoritarian mandate.  The student must figure it out, let him struggle, and if he still can't figure it out, then show him a better way.  The struggling is a very important step in tricky passages/techniques.  (Struggling meaning he hasn't discovered the best combination of movements and places an incredible amount of effort into its discovery even though he hasn't found it.)  When the student is shown the better way, it should immediately 'click'.  What he should learn when shown the better way is that he didn't try all of the possible combinations of movements.

As for not following the fingerings, it's usually not laziness or sloppiness. It is incredibly difficult to process many pieces of information (that have not been automated through extensive practice) and perform them in a timely fashion.  The least pertinent information will simply not be processed.  Written fingerings, dynamic markings, rhythm, etc. are usually on the list of not pertinent; they take a back seat to the notes.  It's not sloppiness or laziness, it's the limits of the brain.

(On an aside: habits are thought to be difficult to change - they are not.  It takes the same amount of time to learn a different behavior in lieu of the behavior needing change.  The reason it seems so difficult is because the new behavior isn't practiced, thus it is never learned.)

? After saying habits are not difficult to change, you basically went on to say that they indeed are- just in rather more words.

No I didn't.  Once something is learned, it cannot be unlearned.  This also applies to 'bad habits'; once it is learned it cannot be unlearned.   It's impossible to unlearn something once it's learned.  The only way to change 'bad habits' is to learn a new habit to replace the bad one.  Bad habits can only be replaced with new habits.  The key to replacing a bad habit is that the new habit must be practiced.  If it isn't practiced, it will not be learned and thus, the bad habit persists.

The other day I had a student moving her whole hand across to play the highest note of a phrase- when the 5th was already there. She immediately ran out of fingers and had to jump down again. The two unnecessary adjustments interfered with the left hand- totally breaking it. She struggled with the correction at first, but purely due to habit. As soon as the habit was broken, the passage flowed.

This is not an example of a habit, a habituated behavior, a behavior that is resistant to change.  What it is is a change in approach. 

"They didn't disagree with the way it sounded, only with the way it looked.  It didn't conform to the way they thought the piano should be played. "

Are you so sure of that? The sound is almost always compromised in cases where I correct fingerings. Bad fingerings usually lead to accented lumps/ bad legato/hesitations etc. All too often, students who are used to bad fingerings don't even notice the effect on the sound. They are too accustomed to doing it to perceive what a difference it makes. It actually damages their musical hearing. I won't speculate about your teachers or your playing, but I know why I feel the need to correct sloppy fingerings. If a pianist takes a thumb on a black note in a c sharp minor arpeggio say (as virtually all students would, if left to their own devices), it takes a hell of an advanced player to disguise that.

It's not a disguise.  It's skill.  While I do agree that students can become desensitized to hearing certain sounds, such technical artifacts (the accents, etc.) is almost entirely a result of mechanical focus and not simply a failure of auditory processing.  When motor sensory processing becomes taxed, other parts of the mind will not be able to process as effectively.  Such accents, etc. will usually be heard in a recording if the student ever listens to himself.  But even then, the only way he can focus on correcting it is to improve the motor processing so that the mind is not as taxed.  Usually, this means more practice to automate or it may indicate technical difficulties that need to be corrected so that the movements are more effective, thus freeing the mind to allow for auditory processing.

[keyboardclass]

Love the cut of your jib Mr Damper.  10/10!

[nyiregyhazi]

"It's a process, not an authoritarian mandate.  The student must figure it out, let him struggle, and if he still can't figure it out, then show him a better way. The struggling is a very important step in tricky passages/techniques."

Without having been shown some principles for fingering, it's just unguided guesswork. To assume that will go anywhere is to assume genius. If the above held up, it would be better to have scores with no fingerings at all. That just does not work, unless the student has prior understanding of the principles. Most of the time you'd just end up wasting a lot of time on poor executions, before having to give the student what they'd have been better off knowing from day 1.

Ask a student who only knows arpeggios starting on white keys to finger C sharp minor and they will almost always use thumb on C sharp. They will also have corresponding accents and very poor legato. Very few students ever begin by finding the superior fingering comfortable- never mind divine it for themself. I actually teach it in 1st inversion to begin with, to illustrate the logic of the fingering. However, the point is that students don't magically figure out how to finger root position C sharp minor without possessing either relevant prior knowledge or personal genius. To think that instincts always know best is simply deluded. If that were the case, teachers would scarcely be required at all. Dogmatically presenting a new fingering for a basic arpeggio is lazy teaching. Leaving the student to guess is worse still. If you explain that logic that leads to the ease of the fingering, the student will be able to apply it to other situations (ie. any other arpeggio that starts on a black note). That's the only way to put students in a position to use their own thinking effectively.

"What he should learn when shown the better way is that he didn't try all of the possible combinations of movements."

For even simple pieces, there are virtually infinite possible combinations. You cannot regularly chance upon a good fingering unless you know the principles that makes it good.

"As for not following the fingerings, it's usually not laziness or sloppiness. It is incredibly difficult to process many pieces of information (that have not been automated through extensive practice) and perform them in a timely fashion.  The least pertinent information will simply not be processed.  Written fingerings, dynamic markings, rhythm, etc. are usually on the list of not pertinent; they take a back seat to the notes.  It's not sloppiness or laziness, it's the limits of the brain."

So where do we draw the line? Do we also forgive a missing key-signature? Good fingering is one of the essentials. To assume that a student will chance upon it (while being too busy to read a few numbers) assumes piano genius. You seriously think it's easier to understand the big picture well enough to compose a decent fingering- than to READ a decent fingering. I find that logic simply absurd. A student who is not up to processing such basic instructions is in no position to be processing how to calculate an effective fingering. Students who ignore fingerings are students who have countless musical problems and habits to be resolved. You see this over and over again. Students who read fingerings- BUT ask their own questions are a whole different kettle of fish. You cannot compare the two. It's a grave error to treat sloppiness in the same way.


No I didn't.  Once something is learned, it cannot be unlearned.  This also applies to 'bad habits'; once it is learned it cannot be unlearned.   It's impossible to unlearn something once it's learned.  The only way to change 'bad habits' is to learn a new habit to replace the bad one.  Bad habits can only be replaced with new habits.  The key to replacing a bad habit is that the new habit must be practiced.  If it isn't practiced, it will not be learned and thus, the bad habit persists.
This is not an example of a habit, a habituated behavior, a behavior that is resistant to change.  What it is is a change in approach.  

So, in other words, it's difficult to change a habit. When trying to make a new habit, the old one will be trying to kick in. They are not independent. Rephrasing a statement in a larger number of words does not refute that initial statement.

It's not a disguise.  It's skill.  While I do agree that students can become desensitized to hearing certain sounds, such technical artifacts (the accents, etc.) is almost entirely a result of mechanical focus and not simply a failure of auditory processing.

You seem to think that contradicts me, but that was the point I made. Crap fingerings cause accents/bad legato and the ear grows to accept them- due to knowing no other. Which is exactly why they must be corrected. Otherwise it creates a student who becomes deaf to gross musical deficiencies.

[faulty_damper]

Without having been shown some principles for fingering, it's just unguided guesswork. To assume that will go anywhere is to assume genius. If the above held up, it would be better to have scores with no fingerings at all. That just does not work, unless the student has prior understanding of the principles. Most of the time you'd just end up wasting a lot of time on poor executions, before having to give the student what they'd have been better off knowing from day 1.

This is false.  Principles are generalizations that are learned after having much experience.  These principles can be passed to others, however, it is most effective for individuals with enough experience for the principles to help organize behaviors.  For beginners these principles would be useless without the necessary experiences for the principles to make any coherent sense.

Ask a student who only knows arpeggios starting on white keys to finger C sharp minor and they will almost always use thumb on C sharp. They will also have corresponding accents and very poor legato. Very few students ever begin by finding the superior fingering comfortable- never mind divine it for themself. ... However, the point is that students don't magically figure out how to finger root position C sharp minor without possessing either relevant prior knowledge or personal genius. ...

There is nothing wrong with placing a thumb on C#.  Legato is not possible if the speed is fast.  Accents are due to insufficient auditory processing and/or technical issues.  Arpeggio practice without musical context is not sufficient reason to practice playing them.

For even simple pieces, there are virtually infinite possible combinations.

There are not infinite possibilities.  Most of the finite combinations were long discarded even before a student touched a key because of their kinesthetic awareness through life experiences.  This greatly limits what they will not try. E.g. I've never had a student turn their palm up and depress a key by straightening a finger.  They all intuitively know that the force of using the finger in such a way would probably be insufficient at depressing the keys.  However, that is not to say it's not a valid movement for depressing the keys, just that it is inefficient and ineffective.  (But this doesn't stop me from doing it in comic pieces for visual effect.)

So where do we draw the line? Do we also forgive a missing key-signature? Good fingering is one of the essentials. To assume that a student will chance upon it (while being too busy to read a few numbers) assumes piano genius. You seriously think it's easier to understand the big picture well enough to compose a decent fingering- than to READ a decent fingering. I find that logic simply absurd.

Again, processing multiple pieces of information that have not been practiced to a point of automation (automation being that individual steps are performed in grouped sequences so that the sequence appears to be executed as one step) is near impossible.  Only when perception of information and its corresponding execution are to a point of automation can additional information be processed.

This understanding has pedagogical implications.  For example, if a student has not practiced identifying key signatures and knowing the notes/keys of the scale are raised/lowered, then the mind will take the time necessary to process the information if he is given a C# Major key signature.  Add to it that the student has to actually read and then execute the notes, and this will take even more time.  This processing time is exponential; the total time of processing all of the individual parts taken together is greater that processing each part alone and then totaled.

A student who is not up to processing such basic instructions is in no position to be processing how to calculate an effective fingering. Students who ignore fingerings are students who have countless musical problems and habits to be resolved. You see this over and over again. Students who read fingerings- BUT ask their own questions are a whole different kettle of fish. You cannot compare the two. It's a grave error to treat sloppiness in the same way.

Reading fingering is a simply skill because it is a direct associative one; you see a number, you know the associated finger, you depress the indicated key with that finger.  By contrast, learning how to finger is an entirely separate skill that requires incredible amounts of effort which include reading chunks of notes and various technical considerations. 

As for students with countless problems: too many pieces of information that has not each deserved the necessary time to have been learned and practiced.

So, in other words, it's difficult to change a habit. When trying to make a new habit, the old one will be trying to kick in. They are not independent. Rephrasing a statement in a larger number of words does not refute that initial statement.

Wrong - each behavior is independent meaning that both behaviors are present.  This is the definition of independence.  When the alternate behavior is learned it must be practiced to a point where it becomes the de facto behavior.  The de facto behavior, the bad habit, will persist simply because it has had so much more practice than the new behavior.  Practicing the new behavior requires effort which most people do not put in.  What is easier is the old behavior, hence its persistence.

You seem to think that contradicts me, but that was the point I made. Crap fingerings cause accents/bad legato and the ear grows to accept them- due to knowing no other. Which is exactly why they must be corrected. Otherwise it creates a student who becomes deaf to gross musical deficiencies.

This rationale is not justified.  Again, no one becomes desensitized through hearing their own crappy playing unless they only listen to themselves.  And the only time they can listen to themselves is when they play.  Auditory and kinesthetic processing issues.  If they listened to other music, and if they record their playing, such musical issues would be very apparent.