The sheet music I have doesn't have any recommended fingering really, and during one part of the double note section, I'm kind of in disbelief as to what I think the typical fingering is. You have to know the piece well to know what I'm talking about, but the part when the melody crescendos slightly in the double-note section. It goes "A repeated, Bflat repeated, A repeated, Aflat repeated, G repeated." From what I see in some unclear, super-fast youtube videos is 4th and 5th finger alternating on each repeated note, but this seems impossible, especially on a heavy, slow action piano which I have. I just want to know if I'm seeing this correctly, and whether I am or am not seeing it correctly, are there any other ways to facilitate this one part?

Right now I'm playing around with 44, 44, 55, 44, 55, on this heavy piano, but it seems to be too clumsy.  This little part seems to be the only really big problem.

I've always told my students that practicing and learning fingerings is not only bad luck, but is going to destroy their musicality.  If there isn't spontaneity, then the music will just be boring.  Let your heart tell your fingers where to go.

But if that really doesn't work, either try ryan's suggestion (even if it is a bit wacky; he's into this new school of playing with your brain, while I think you should let Jesus guide you) or you could try 1       breq1 2627   . . 3 |- (y = A -> (y < n <-> A < n))
2   1   rexbidv 1667   . 2 |- (y = A -> (E.n e. NN y < n <-> E.n e. NN A < n))
3       nnunb 6072   . . . 4 |- -. E.y e. RR A.n e. NN (n < y \/ n = y)
4       ralnex 1656   . . . 4 |- (A.y e. RR -. A.n e. NN (n < y \/ n = y) <-> -. E.y e. RR A.n e. NN (n < y \/ n = y))
5   3, 4   mpbir 190   . . 3 |- A.y e. RR -. A.n e. NN (n < y \/ n = y)
6       axlttri 5515   . . . . . . . . 9 |- ((y e. RR /\ n e. RR) -> (y < n <-> -. (y = n \/ n < y)))
7       nnret 5931   . . . . . . . . 9 |- (n e. NN -> n e. RR)
8   6, 7   sylan2 453   . . . . . . . 8 |- ((y e. RR /\ n e. NN) -> (y < n <-> -. (y = n \/ n < y)))
9       eqcom 1480   . . . . . . . . . . 11 |- (y = n <-> n = y)
10   9   orbi1i 256   . . . . . . . . . 10 |- ((y = n \/ n < y) <-> (n = y \/ n < y))
11       orcom 246   . . . . . . . . . 10 |- ((n = y \/ n < y) <-> (n < y \/ n = y))
12   10, 11   bitr 173   . . . . . . . . 9 |- ((y = n \/ n < y) <-> (n < y \/ n = y))
13   12   negbii 187   . . . . . . . 8 |- (-. (y = n \/ n < y) <-> -. (n < y \/ n = y))
14   8, 13   syl6bb 538   . . . . . . 7 |- ((y e. RR /\ n e. NN) -> (y < n <-> -. (n < y \/ n = y)))
15   14   biimprd 154   . . . . . 6 |- ((y e. RR /\ n e. NN) -> (-. (n < y \/ n = y) -> y < n))
16   15   r19.22dva 1742   . . . . 5 |- (y e. RR -> (E.n e. NN -. (n < y \/ n = y) -> E.n e. NN y < n))
17       rexnal 1657   . . . . 5 |- (E.n e. NN -. (n < y \/ n = y) <-> -. A.n e. NN (n < y \/ n = y))
18   16, 17   syl5ibr 207   . . . 4 |- (y e. RR -> (-. A.n e. NN (n < y \/ n = y) -> E.n e. NN y < n))
19   18   r19.20i 1707   . . 3 |- (A.y e. RR -. A.n e. NN (n < y \/ n = y) -> A.y e. RR E.n e. NN y < n)
20   5, 19   ax-mp 7   . 2 |- A.y e. RR E.n e. NN y < n
21   2, 20   vtoclri 1862   1 |- (A e. RR -> E.n e. NN A < n)

lol ok, but anyone that's tried playing or has looked a bit at this piece should know what I'm talking about.  I guess it's not exactly the main melody since the left hand is playing it at this moment.  But for people that don't know what I'm talking about, watch :27 and :29 in this video and that's the part:

&feature=related

You seem like a nice girl. =)

I've always told my students that practicing and learning fingerings is not only bad luck, but is going to destroy their musicality.  If there isn't spontaneity, then the music will just be boring.  Let your heart tell your fingers where to go.

But if that really doesn't work, either try ryan's suggestion (even if it is a bit wacky; he's into this new school of playing with your brain, while I think you should let Jesus guide you) or you could try 1       breq1 2627   . . 3 |- (y = A -> (y < n <-> A < n))
2   1   rexbidv 1667   . 2 |- (y = A -> (E.n e. NN y < n <-> E.n e. NN A < n))
3       nnunb 6072   . . . 4 |- -. E.y e. RR A.n e. NN (n < y \/ n = y)
4       ralnex 1656   . . . 4 |- (A.y e. RR -. A.n e. NN (n < y \/ n = y) <-> -. E.y e. RR A.n e. NN (n < y \/ n = y))
5   3, 4   mpbir 190   . . 3 |- A.y e. RR -. A.n e. NN (n < y \/ n = y)
6       axlttri 5515   . . . . . . . . 9 |- ((y e. RR /\ n e. RR) -> (y < n <-> -. (y = n \/ n < y)))
7       nnret 5931   . . . . . . . . 9 |- (n e. NN -> n e. RR)
8   6, 7   sylan2 453   . . . . . . . 8 |- ((y e. RR /\ n e. NN) -> (y < n <-> -. (y = n \/ n < y)))
9       eqcom 1480   . . . . . . . . . . 11 |- (y = n <-> n = y)
10   9   orbi1i 256   . . . . . . . . . 10 |- ((y = n \/ n < y) <-> (n = y \/ n < y))
11       orcom 246   . . . . . . . . . 10 |- ((n = y \/ n < y) <-> (n < y \/ n = y))
12   10, 11   bitr 173   . . . . . . . . 9 |- ((y = n \/ n < y) <-> (n < y \/ n = y))
13   12   negbii 187   . . . . . . . 8 |- (-. (y = n \/ n < y) <-> -. (n < y \/ n = y))
14   8, 13   syl6bb 538   . . . . . . 7 |- ((y e. RR /\ n e. NN) -> (y < n <-> -. (n < y \/ n = y)))
15   14   biimprd 154   . . . . . 6 |- ((y e. RR /\ n e. NN) -> (-. (n < y \/ n = y) -> y < n))
16   15   r19.22dva 1742   . . . . 5 |- (y e. RR -> (E.n e. NN -. (n < y \/ n = y) -> E.n e. NN y < n))
17       rexnal 1657   . . . . 5 |- (E.n e. NN -. (n < y \/ n = y) <-> -. A.n e. NN (n < y \/ n = y))
18   16, 17   syl5ibr 207   . . . 4 |- (y e. RR -> (-. A.n e. NN (n < y \/ n = y) -> E.n e. NN y < n))
19   18   r19.20i 1707   . . 3 |- (A.y e. RR -. A.n e. NN (n < y \/ n = y) -> A.y e. RR E.n e. NN y < n)
20   5, 19   ax-mp 7   . 2 |- A.y e. RR E.n e. NN y < n
21   2, 20   vtoclri 1862   1 |- (A e. RR -> E.n e. NN A < n)

At first I thought you were joking, but then I realized that my thumbs *could* extend like that. Hrm. Interesting. I will integrate this into my Anatomical Studies volume XII.b

It's the Sicilian-Archimedian thumb-over-thumb technique.  Defensive, not offensive.

Busoni didn't like this type of talk, but I'm starting to wonder about the legitimacy of his position on these matters for the following reasons.

1. If it wasn't his position to establish a technique of great heights (of which his was certainly a fine exponent [no pun intended]), there would be at least some "residue" from this technique in notebooks, etc. but we have none of that.

2. If we weren't so adamant as a people on histographical-musico relationships then we might realize that there was a certain level of improvisation implicit in any such mechanistic relationship between written score and piano technique. Not limited to the five masterful etude of Liszt (by which I mean the ones that are meaningful in the "Douzes etudes").

3. If we look at the metrical relationships of Busoni's fingers to the anatomical realities of the modern man hand we'll realize that there exists a multiplicity of gestures which might be derived from, again, the written text. Perhaps a "Physiological Urtext" of sort would be in order, but this is a project I do not want to embark on.

4. Notwithstanding the Piano Concerto, Busoni seems to believe in an implicit or "understood" technique with listeners that wouldn't have stemmed from a natural system of technique-gathering that was well under way in the time of Liszt, and we might even notice some currents of this in Chopin and Skryjabin.

I hope this makes this clear. But nonetheless, I digress.

Busoni didn't like this type of talk, but I'm starting to wonder about the legitimacy of his position on these matters for the following reasons.

1. If it wasn't his position to establish a technique of great heights (of which his was certainly a fine exponent [no pun intended]), there would be at least some "residue" from this technique in notebooks, etc. but we have none of that.

2. If we weren't so adamant as a people on histographical-musico relationships then we might realize that there was a certain level of improvisation implicit in any such mechanistic relationship between written score and piano technique. Not limited to the five masterful etude of Liszt (by which I mean the ones that are meaningful in the "Douzes etudes").

3. If we look at the metrical relationships of Busoni's fingers to the anatomical realities of the modern man hand we'll realize that there exists a multiplicity of gestures which might be derived from, again, the written text. Perhaps a "Physiological Urtext" of sort would be in order, but this is a project I do not want to embark on.

4. Notwithstanding the Piano Concerto, Busoni seems to believe in an implicit or "understood" technique with listeners that wouldn't have stemmed from a natural system of technique-gathering that was well under way in the time of Liszt, and we might even notice some currents of this in Chopin and Skryjabin.

I hope this makes this clear. But nonetheless, I digress.

While it would be most fashionable to disagree (given the setting, although, in regards to a more macrological view-point of such a "setting", I suppose it would be difficult to ascertain, and thus at least a modicum more difficult to enunciate just what "fashionable" is, particularly if you are not of a Humanistic persuasion (although correct me of I'm wrong, and I know I have been wrong at least once or twice in matters such as these, although I would only hope that this not be the case (certainly considering the depth to which I am writing this response, as what you say is very near and dear to me, Busoni being a favored composer of mine (and I'd like to note that I have, in fact, learned quite a few things in my library studying his scores, many of which have furthered my own compositional technique (and I should note that none have had such an impact on my writing as Sorabji (rest in peace) (who also greatly respected and revered Busoni)))))) I can not at this time do such a thing, due to the fact that I do, in fact, whole-heartedly, feel in opposition to that which I noted, that of the thing to which I wish to (or to not) do.

I've always told my students that practicing and learning fingerings is not only bad luck, but is going to destroy their musicality.  If there isn't spontaneity, then the music will just be boring.  Let your heart tell your fingers where to go.

Yeah, that works... for something on the level of Fur Elise or Moonlight (exaggerating).  I wanna see someone look at the double-note section of Feux Follets and spontaneously play with musicality without thinking and feeling out a fingering first, please...

I have another question you can ponder: Is it possible for one to ask a simple question on any internet forum and just get a quick simple answer without some lifeless nerds with time to interject with sarcastic essays back and forth while they could actually be improving their existence?

that part starting from the a flat i think they use 3 5 4 5 (Ascending) 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 (Descending) 4 5 4 5 (Back to the trill)

.....apparently I may be incorrect

I've always told my students that practicing and learning fingerings is not only bad luck, but is going to destroy their musicality.  If there isn't spontaneity, then the music will just be boring.  Let your heart tell your fingers where to go.

But if that really doesn't work, either try ryan's suggestion (even if it is a bit wacky; he's into this new school of playing with your brain, while I think you should let Jesus guide you) or you could try 1[...]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA 

What is this, lol? Ancient Egyptian translated into html or css?
I thought I had only 10 fingers. Did I miss something? 

They are mathematical proofs from Metamath proof explorer: http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/mmset.html.

your quote...  "I have another question you can ponder: Is it possible for one to ask a simple question on any internet forum and just get a quick simple answer without some lifeless nerds with time to interject with sarcastic essays back and forth while they could actually be improving their existence?"

quite so

you deserve better than you're getting here

(insufferable idiots who think they're poking fun at you - but you called them out correctly, lifeless nerds)

post the bar number where you question arises and i'll weigh in to help -

peace, claude

your quote...  "I have another question you can ponder: Is it possible for one to ask a simple question on any internet forum and just get a quick simple answer without some lifeless nerds with time to interject with sarcastic essays back and forth while they could actually be improving their existence?"

quite so

you deserve better than you're getting here

(insufferable idiots who think they're poking fun at you - but you called them out correctly, lifeless nerds)

post the bar number where you question arises and i'll weigh in to help -

peace, claude

Perhaps you are right.


Here you go!  This fingering should be of more help:

Right now I'm playing around with 44, 44, 55, 44, 55, on this heavy piano, but it seems to be too clumsy.  This little part seems to be the only really big problem.

Wait until you move your tempo  ...
I don't really see where in this piece it is possible to use the fingereing you indicated.
I play the ascending passage in double notes with 3(F)4(F#)3(F#)5(G) 3(G#)4(A)5(A)4(Bb)5(Bb).
The main difficulty of this passage is in its phrasing.
 

Best, M