1. Richman's 'Intelligent Compromise' and 2. Fink's 'Hand Vocabulary'

[will]

1. p.35 of Richman's Book suggests keeping the same fingering for the 3 inversions of major and minor chords in all keys. Richmann admits that this is, at times, (physically) awkward but says that it saves on thought time and is an intelligent compromise.
   Wouldn't a better goal be to memorize all the chords with the most physically convenient fingering?

2. Can someone who has read and understood Fink's concept of 'Hand Vocabulary' please explain it, in particular the paragraph on p.60 that begins 'Hand-vocabulary thinking requires studying...'
   I think that Fink is saying that identical musical shapes on the page (for example, all major triads) should be played with identical fingering (1 3 5), regardless of the physical awkwardness.
   Again, shouldn't physical comfort should win out? How does 'Hand Vocabulary' help to play with 'musical insight'?

[orlandopiano]

1. p.35 of Richman's Book suggests keeping the same fingering for the 3 inversions of major and minor chords in all keys. Richmann admits that this is, at times, (physically) awkward but says that it saves on thought time and is an intelligent compromise.
   

I wonder if he thinks this will work for a Liszt-like chromatic run up the keyboard using all 1st inversion triads, legato.

[will]

I wonder if he thinks this will work for a Liszt-like chromatic run up the keyboard using all 1st inversion triads, legato.

No, I believe Richman is suggesting to follow the fingering only when sight-reading, not when performing difficult solo works (after all, the book is about sight reading).

[orlandopiano]

No, I believe Richman is suggesting to follow the fingering only when sight-reading, not when performing difficult solo works (after all, the book is about sight reading).

Did I mention I never read this book?   

Thanks for informing me though.

[pnorcks]

I reread this particular section of Fink's book and here's what I've come up with:

Fink does say that developing a "hand vocabulary" will lead you to use identical fingerings for identical musical shapes, but of course this isn't always physically possible (comfortably).  The musical shapes, phrases, or notes that lie before or after the particular musical shape in question usually dictate the fingering that'll be appropriate.

But I believe he emphasizes "identical fingerings" to urge the pianist to become comfortable playing in the "black area," which consists of black keys and the parts of the white keys nearest to the fallboard, with any finger, and anywhere along the length of the keyboard.  Since the black area is the furthest away from you, arm movements are required (but they always are).  I believe this is one of his aims: to accustom the pianist to back/forth movements of the arm in musical context.  In other words, one should use the full depth of the keyboard.

Yes, physical comfort should always prevail, but Fink is giving us options to try out.  If you play two identical musical shapes in a piece, but in two different keys, try identical fingerings.  If the movements dictated by the fingerings are both comfortable, then keep them.  But make sure the fingerings fit within the context of the music.  I would reject the fingering otherwise.  Simply by experimenting like this, we better orient ourselves to the awkward layout of the keyboard (especially awkward for beginners).  Also, this sort of investigation aids in sight-reading too.

Good luck.

[m1469]

The musical shapes, phrases, or notes that lie before or after the particular musical shape in question usually dictate the fingering that'll be appropriate.

Well, I started to respond in this thread a number of hours ago with a very similar concept in mind to what you have said here, pnorcks, but then other questions entered my mind in relation to a question will asks in his initial post :

Wouldn't a better goal be to memorize all the chords with the most physically convenient fingering?

I thought about this from a couple different angles.

1.  This is what people are "trained" to do when they are programmed to sit day after day running through chords, arpeggios, and scales.  They have all their fingerings which they have learned for each set of the patterns I mentioned above.  But in repertoire, do we actually employ these very fingerings for the corresponding shapes and patterns ?  I would actually have to think about that for myself, I am not so certain I always do.

2.  If we do strive to employ those fingerings, then it is those desired fingerings for those particular shapes and patterns that ultimately dictate our fingerings coming into and out of those places we have supposedly trained ourselves with, through hours of accumulated "technique" practice.  VS getting to the shape in whatever way we can and ending up on some other fingering because of where we came from. 

So, the first concept has to do with aiming toward a desired fingering (having the goal in mind before we get there), and the second has more to do with being comfortable where we are at (and btw, which places then take priority as needing to be a place of comfort ?) and getting to the next portion in whatever way we end up, it would seem.

3.  If we do have specified fingerings for most shapes and patterns that we find in piano music, and we do employ these in repertoire, wouldn't a truly "competent" sightreader be one who could employ/incoporate these things on the fly ?

If so, we are back to will's question as I re-stated just above (and actually, either way, a person is in essence, *learning* a fingering, even if they are teaching themselves now to only employ the fingerings Richman suggests on pg 35 (and they have a little battle in the head because they have practiced these shapes with different fingerings)).  If not, why do people go through hours of learning/practising fingerings for scales, chords and arpeggios if those are ultimately of little use in the trenches, so-to-speak ? 


I am not trying to argue what comprises a competent or incompetent sight-reader or musician, but I am simply curious as to the concepts behind what we are taught to aim toward, especially with regard to the topic in this thread.


m1469

[omnisis]

I haven't read Fink's book yet but I do own Richman's book and I do practice the exercises you talk about.  The fingerings he mentions should work for most people.  He says they are a comprimise but (unless you have unusally large or small hands) you should be able to use them just fine.  These chords aren't very "advanced" chords, just straight major/minor chords and their respective inversions.  My teacher actually makes me practice them the exact same way (fingering wise).  There are a few chords where it might be more comfortable to susbsitute a finger, but if you ingrain the "inversion pattern" into your brain you will be able to hit a major/minor chord in any inversion at the drop of a hat without a moments hesitation and that is what Richman is aiming for.  Another benefit of using the fingering he suggests is that your hands will eventually hit the right notes almost by themselves and you won't have to look at them or think about it.  You should practice your I-IV-V cadences with consistent fingerings for this exact same reason, once you have the "cadence patterns" in your head you can freely improvise with the RH while the LH is hitting a basic chord progression, it is actually quite liberating to do so w/o having to worry about what the LH is doing.

~omnisis

[will]

Fink does say that developing a "hand vocabulary" will lead you to use identical fingerings for identical musical shapes, but of course this isn't always physically possible (comfortably).

Yes, but I haven't found anywhere Fink says this. Perhaps he assumes we know this.

But I believe he emphasizes "identical fingerings" to urge the pianist to become comfortable playing in the "black area," which consists of black keys and the parts of the white keys nearest to the fallboard, with any finger, and anywhere along the length of the keyboard.  Since the black area is the furthest away from you, arm movements are required (but they always are).  I believe this is one of his aims: to accustom the pianist to back/forth movements of the arm in musical context. 

Yes, in this section Fink does talk about the importance of arm choreographed movements...

There are a few chords where it might be more comfortable to susbsitute a finger, but if you ingrain the "inversion pattern" into your brain you will be able to hit a major/minor chord in any inversion at the drop of a hat without a moments hesitation and that is what Richman is aiming for.  Another benefit of using the fingering he suggests is that your hands will eventually hit the right notes almost by themselves and you won't have to look at them or think about it.

I still think it would be better to ingrain the most comfortable fingering, and that you will still be able to hit a major/minor chord at the drop of a hat. Personally I find comfortable fingerings easier to memorize than awkward positions - the fingers just fall into place.
   Still, I will probably experiment a little with Richaman's fingering suggestions and see how I go.

Any other Fink readers out there care to add their take on his idea of 'Hand Vocabulary'?