jumping hand on thirds over scales?

[keyboardclass]

You just don't get it do you?  What can I say apart from to repeat - as long as one part is legato the ear perceives legato.  Your hearing has got lost in minutiae.

[werq34ac]

Wow, can you seriously not tell the difference between legato in both voices and legato in one voice only? Although it will sound legato, it will sound even more legato if both voices are legato.
plus neither of your voices were legato 

[sucom]

Wow, can you seriously not tell the difference between legato in both voices and legato in one voice only? Although it will sound legato, it will sound even more legato if both voices are legato.
plus neither of your voices were legato 

Yes, it would sound more legato if both voices of thirds are legato but is this honestly workable? The only way to do this would surely be to use 13, 24 or 15, 24 repeatedly up or down through the keyboard.  The problem with this is that it is never a good idea to continue a short, repeated fingering pattern over a long run, which is why standard fingering allows for a break in the pattern, such as 13, 24, 13, 24, 35 which gives natural marker points in the thirds.  If breaking up a short pattern with the occasional 35 fingering, it becomes impossible to retain complete legato as the 3rd finger has to be repeated when moving from 35 to 13. It is physically impossible to do this so one has to rely on at least one of the notes being legato while the other moves to play the repeated note.

Bobbing the hand up and down is certainly NOT going to be helpful for retaining a good legato but keyboardclass makes a valid point when he says that as long as one of the notes is legato, the ear is 'fooled' into believing there is a true legato going on.  Everyone knows, however, that the ear is being fooled by this movement, but it becomes acceptable because it is physically impossible to maintain true legato between repeated notes. And, from my own point of view, it is far better to break a short fingering pattern than it is to try to maintain true legato using a short, repeated fingering pattern.

[xerula]

Yes, it would sound more legato if both voices of thirds are legato but is this honestly workable?

I think you're missing the point. werq34ac accepts there will be breaks in the finger legato. The question is to what extent can those breaks be masked by contrived legato, via (1) the rapidity and dynamic evenness of finger-over positional shifts; and (2) pedaling.

Because, to get to your second argument...

...as long as one of the notes is legato, the ear is 'fooled' into believing there is a true legato going on.

... this is vastly oversimplifying things. Think of an extreme case. For example, in a slow descending thirds scale with no pedal, if the upper voice were actually staccato, the scale sounds disjointed no matter how legato the lower voice. What you seem to be suggesting, is that if we make sure one voice is legato, the other can be as clipped as you like and it doesn't matter because (a) the ear will be fooled; and (b) a true finger legato is impossible so we might as well just accept it and give up. Well, that might satisfy your ear - but have you actually tried taking a thirds scale between the hands with different articulations, and listened closely to the differences in character? Do they all *really* fool your ear into perceiving true legato?

To my ear and to my hands, it's obvious that to achieve a meltingly smooth and fluid thirds scale, worthy of a concert hall, we have to pay close attention to achieving legato in both voices, whether by "true" means or by artifice.

[xerula]

I don't personally know of one that is much good. All I'd say is that most double thirds scales tend to be situated in places where you can use pedal (or they tend to imply non legato anyway, in classical period repertoire). I'd work on staying well grounded in the keys in a slow tempo- with no staccato notes. From there, you can build up to the point where the gaps are so small as to be inaudible. One of the only extended scales in legato thirds I know of is in the Brahms 2nd concerto- and nobody actually plays that properly anyway (I doubt if even Hamelin could fit all the notes in). Aside from that, it's virtually all chromatic scales that crop up.

Thanks for this input, which I somehow overlooked until just now. The approach you suggest is one I am already taking. Listening more carefully, I think the issue is not really one of legato, but of dynamic control when I do a very fast finger-over transition in thirds. I found that when I speed up, I tend to build up a little tension/rigidity in my 4th/5th fingers as I transition 35 over the thumb, and the third played with the 35 was always a bit too loud or too soft in relation to the rest of the scale, so you could hear all the changes of position. Plus I had a tendency to over-rotate towards the 5th finger at this point - it feels comfortable but results in an accent. This doesn't happen when I play normal scales. So this is what I'm working on, at a slow tempo, then speeding up with conscious relaxation... I should really figure out video uploading, to get more specific feedback.

Fortunately, you are right that these passages are rare in repertoire!

[sucom]

Quote: ... this is vastly oversimplifying things. Think of an extreme case. For example, in a slow descending thirds scale with no pedal, if the upper voice were actually staccato, the scale sounds disjointed no matter how legato the lower voice.

Obviously!  My response was addressed specifically to those I assumed to be advanced players, so the whole idea of considering staccato is not relevant here.  In striving for the perfect legato, staccato is obviously out of the question!

Quote: ….What you seem to be suggesting, is that if we make sure one voice is legato, the other can be as clipped as you like and it doesn't matter because (a) the ear will be fooled; and (b) a true finger legato is impossible so we might as well just accept it and give up.

No, this is your suggestion, not mine. I took it for granted, unfortunately, that in a discussion with advanced players talking about advanced techniques, other posters would naturally assume that striving for perfect legato of ALL notes in the thirds would be obvious. Clipped notes didn’t even enter my mind!  Why would they, in a discussion about legato?  What I was trying to say, clearly not in sufficient detail, is that as much as we might like, one cannot change the physical body which would allow us to have sufficient fingers on each hand to ensure PERFECT legato in thirds.  It’s not physically possible to play a repeated note with a PERFECT legato.  We can come very close, by using certain techniques to achieve this, but it will never be perfect.  The idea of giving up doesn’t come into the equation! My motto is, if at first you don’t succeed, try, try, try, try, try, try, try………………. (ad infinitum) again!

Quote: …..Well, that might satisfy your ear - but have you actually tried taking a thirds scale between the hands with different articulations, and listened closely to the differences in character? Do they all *really* fool your ear into perceiving true legato?

No, it doesn’t satisfy my on ear, which I can tell you, is particularly critical! And yes, I have spent countless hours listening closely.  I’m not saying that the ears are totally ‘fooled’, I’m saying that one is always aware of physical limitation, which, might I add, we try so hard to overcome.  I said it before and I’ll say it again, it is not possible to play a repeated note with perfect legato.  We can come close, some closer than others, but it will never be a ‘perfect’ legato.
If you feel it is possible to play a repeated note with perfect legato, I would like to hear it! And I do mean, perfect legato such as you would find between two keys, as opposed to a repeated key.

Quote: ….To my ear and to my hands, it's obvious that to achieve a meltingly smooth and fluid thirds scale, worthy of a concert hall, we have to pay close attention to achieving legato in both voices, whether by "true" means or by artifice.
Obviously!

[nyiregyhazi]

"No, this is your suggestion, not mine. I took it for granted, unfortunately, that in a discussion with advanced players talking about advanced techniques, other posters would naturally assume that striving for perfect legato of ALL notes in the thirds would be obvious. Clipped notes didn’t even enter my mind!  Why would they, in a discussion about legato?"

Well, take a look at the film we have been talking about this in reference to, earlier in the thread. That's why they entered the discussion.

"I said it before and I’ll say it again, it is not possible to play a repeated note with perfect legato.  We can come close, some closer than others, but it will never be a ‘perfect’ legato.
If you feel it is possible to play a repeated note with perfect legato, I would like to hear it! And I do mean, perfect legato such as you would find between two keys, as opposed to a repeated key."

? Double escapement allows this on any grand piano.

[xerula]

...I took it for granted, unfortunately, that in a discussion with advanced players talking about advanced techniques, other posters would naturally assume that striving for perfect legato of ALL notes in the thirds would be obvious.

I'm relieved that you think that all the things I said were so obvious. Unfortunately others don't, and the enlightened society you describe of advanced players talking rationally about technique is pretty far from the reality of this thread.

For that matter, I thought your whole pontification on avoiding short repeated patterns was pretty obvious too, considering that five other posters had already reached a consensus on the issue.

My point really is this: given that *obviously* both voices should be as legato as possible, and that we have *obvious* physical constraints, and that *obviously* we are not going to use the fingering 13 24 13 24, surely the present discussion should be focused on precisely how we *are* going to achieve a convincing legato effect, where finger legato unavoidably breaks?

You say we should try, try, try, try, try, try, try... That's great, and yes, that's what I'm here for: to talk about the specific technical details of how we go about trying. (Not to mourn the impossibility of achieving a perfect result.)

So, to get back to the topic, and your comments about 35 -> 13: I often use a 35 -> 12 fingering, which gets around the repeated 3rd finger issue, and allows for four thirds in a series with the fingering 12 13 24 35 - but this introduces two thumbs in a row while still requiring a break where the top voice is played by 5 -> 2. This for me is still more manageable than two 3s in a row, but as described in a post above I still have issues with dynamic evenness at the crossovers at fast tempo. What do you think of this strategy?

[nyiregyhazi]

So, to get back to the topic, and your comments about 35 -> 13: I often use a 35 -> 12 fingering, which gets around the repeated 3rd finger issue, and allows for four thirds in a series with the fingering 12 13 24 35 - but this introduces two thumbs in a row while still requiring a break where the top voice is played by 5 -> 2. This for me is still more manageable than two 3s in a row, but as described in a post above I still have issues with dynamic evenness at the crossovers at fast tempo. What do you think of this strategy?

Is 12 necessarily easier than 13? You have to send three even further, although it doesn't play twice. My problem with alternatives to the norm would be applying to different keys and organising. A c major could always be done with 12 and never 13 but it would be hard to organise mental reference points without repeating every octave. In other keys it might be impossible.

[keyboardclass]

So, to get back to the topic, and your comments about 35 -> 13: I often use a 35 -> 12 fingering, which gets around the repeated 3rd finger issue, and allows for four thirds in a series with the fingering 12 13 24 35 - but this introduces two thumbs in a row while still requiring a break where the top voice is played by 5 -> 2. This for me is still more manageable than two 3s in a row, but as described in a post above I still have issues with dynamic evenness at the crossovers at fast tempo. What do you think of this strategy?

Agreed, and that's why it's the 'official' solution; it's the best fix.

[sucom]

Hi xerula

I agree about using 12, 13, 24, 35; it does give a smooth result and I use this fingering myself in certain situations.  As you say, it allows for a run of 4 instead of run of 3.  But if you move from 35 to 12, it doesn't really get around the repeated note issue because you still have to lift the 3rd finger to reach the thumb across.  And it is this very limitation I'm talking about - having to lift across other fingers. 35 to 13 or 35 to 12 - it is still impossible to play this 'truly' legato in both voices.  There has to be a very tiny break whatever you do although if practised very carefully, the break is barely noticeable. But it is still a break, however you look at it, which in my book is a physical limitation, albeit small.  Even if a break is almost inaudible, it is still a physical break.  The art is in making this break as small as possible so as to be barely noticeable.

@Nireghazi (my apologies if I spelt this wrong) can you tell me more about double escapement?  I've not come across these words before and am wondering what you mean by this.

[nyiregyhazi]

Hi xerula

@Nireghazi (my apologies if I spelt this wrong) can you tell me more about double escapement?  I've not come across these words before and am wondering what you mean by this.

Just google around. It's the element of a piano action that allows repeated notes with no gap at all.

[werq34ac]

Agreed, and that's why it's the 'official' solution; it's the best fix.

Well the point of that was, it didn't sound legato because it wasn't. You failed to mask the gaps in sound with the technique you claim to be using when I don't even hear legato in the upper voice.

[keyboardclass]

Well the point of that was, it didn't sound legato because it wasn't. You failed to mask the gaps in sound with the technique you claim to be using when I don't even hear legato in the upper voice.

If you don't like the first vid I posted listen to the second.

[nyiregyhazi]

If you don't like the first vid I posted listen to the second.

What you don't seem to understand that is that it only takes one exception to a rule to disprove it. Also, while the second video features better legato than yours, many of the gaps are still rather striking. So the idea that as long as one note joins legato occurs is wrong.  What everyone else has agreed (while you have been repeatedly claiming that joining one voice is enough to create illusions) is that joining one note is just SOME of what is required to create a legato illusion- and pianists who are serious in their expectations require more than just that.

[keyboardclass]

Also, while the second video features better legato than yours, many of the gaps are still rather striking. So the idea that as long as one note joins legato occurs is wrong. 

Like I say, if you're listening for gaps you'll hear them.

[nyiregyhazi]

Like I say, if you're listening for gaps you'll hear them.

I wasn't listening for them. I was just listening. Sorry, but if you think people are going to lower their expectations because you ask them to, you're barking up the wrong tree. Once you've heard great pianists making thirds sounds like a flowing line, you can't just lower your standards or decide to become oblivious to a choppy line. Pianists who want the listener to hear in a specific way must earn it through their playing. They cannot just demand it via empty words.

Anyway, if you're just going to repeat points that have already been covered, I'm not going to bother replying next time. If you think accusing people of listening in the wrong way is the correct response to anyone who realises that massive gaps in legato thirds constitutes a less than a shining example, by all means continue...

[keyboardclass]

I wasn't listening for them. I was just listening.

...and that's exactly where you've gone wrong.  You can't 'just listen' - you listen for something.  If you were just listening you'd hear the fridge, the cars going by and the neighbours.

[nyiregyhazi]

...and that's exactly where you've gone wrong.  You can't 'just listen' - you listen for something.  If you were just listening you'd hear the fridge, the cars going by and the neighbours.

When I put a CD I don't "listen for" it. Neither do I "listen for" something when I put a video on with the speakers turned up.

That's quite enough now. If you want to argue based on such absurd (not to mention off-topic) irrelevancies, you're on your own from now on. I'm off to practise Chopin's 3rds Etude with actual legato.

[keyboardclass]

Then you obviously know nothing about the nature of perception.  You must have missed out on that particular 'A' level!

[Bob]

How about 'tricking' the listener into focusing in on the top voice so they hear the legato and don't pay much attention to the bottom voice which may be a little less legato?

[keyboardclass]

If they're listening to the 'tune' that's exactly what happens.  It just total pedants who hear otherwise.

[nyiregyhazi]

If they're listening to the 'tune' that's exactly what happens.  It just total pedants who hear otherwise.

So accomplished artists are basically just pedants who cater to pedantic listeners? Anyone who sees the magician pulling cards out of his sleeve (and in some cases dropping them, before conspicuously bending down to pick them up again) is just a pedant?

The thing about legato is that if a "pedant" can hear holes, it's not legato. Just like when a singer stops to breathe in the middle of a phrase. Great pianists sound fine to "pedants". If you cannot distinguish choppy amateurism and the beautiful legato lines of a masterful artist, it's nothing to be proud of.

[keyboardclass]

The thing about legato is that if a "pedant" can hear holes, it's not legato.

Just as if one magician sees through another's trick it's no longer a trick?? ..go back to your Chopin mate!

[nyiregyhazi]

Just as if one magician sees through another's trick it's no longer a trick?? ..go back to your Chopin mate!

The point is that I've never been able to see through all of Horowitz/Friedman etc tricks. If you think the mark of a real musician is that they can get away with playing to non-musicians, you have a remarkably unambitious set of values. Great musicians should be able speak to a non-musician and a musician alike. And if you think non-musicians can never distinguish between amateurism and great pianism, you're doing them a major disservice. You can fool a non-musician if they have no point of comparison. But they can often hear the difference when you put things side by side.

[keyboardclass]

If you think the mark of a real musician is that they can get away with playing to non-musicians,

No, non-pedants.  I'd ask you to refrain from moving my goal posts!  I thought you were off to practice?

[werq34ac]

No, non-pedants.  I'd ask you to refrain from moving my goal posts!  I thought you were off to practice?

Geez, what's wrong with you? A good magician can see through an amateur's tricks, especially if the magician tells you to close your eyes and not watch him while he takes cards out of his pocket. A great magician fools even the other great magicians. The illusions that the greats (Horowitz, Rachmaninoff, Arrau, Lipatti, etc.) make are absolutely magical, and couldn't be seen through with a set of x-ray goggles. Your "illusion" on the other hand is a failure of execution and lack of sensitivity.

Just because you are lacking in your ability to critique your own playing and improve it, does not mean you should insult others who point out your faults which you claim you don't have.

How old are you even? You act like a 12-year old playing COD (I played it for the first time yesterday, those 12-year-olds can be quite amusing)

[nyiregyhazi]

Geez, what's wrong with you? A good magician can see through an amateur's tricks, especially if the magician tells you to close your eyes and not watch him while he takes cards out of his pocket. A great magician fools even the other great magicians. The illusions that the greats (Horowitz, Rachmaninoff, Arrau, Lipatti, etc.) make are absolutely magical, and couldn't be seen through with a set of x-ray goggles. Your "illusion" on the other hand is a failure of execution and lack of sensitivity.

Absolutely. I once saw a Penn and Teller programme where Penn spoke of thinking that he had seen the magician do a standard move recognisable to any magician. Except it turned out he had done something totally different. While it would have meant nothing to a non-magician, he referred to it as a kind of advanced double-bluff, that was contrived solely to fool an experienced magician who would expect to be able to see through the tricks.

While this is not fully comparable to an advanced pianist doing a "move" that fools amateurs and pros alike, the point is that fooling people is not only for laymen. A master of an art can fool anyone. If you're happy to aim your sights low, you're only fooling yourself if you think that's good enough to fool everyone else. I know a few crap card tricks myself. Most people wouldn't know how I did them, but that doesn't qualify me as a "magician". Neither does it mean that any real magicians who would be disgusted at my amateurish performance of those tricks are "pedants".

[keyboardclass]

Just because you are lacking in your ability to critique your own playing and improve it, does not mean you should insult others who point out your faults which you claim you don't have.

You are not even aware of what the correct fingering is for scales in thirds - so there's not much to debate.  As I've pointed out you have a choice of vids - at least I've contributed more than just talk.  Good bye!

[keyboardclass]

Absolutely. I once saw a Penn and Teller programme where Penn spoke of thinking that he had seen the magician do a standard move recognisable to any magician. Except it turned out he had done something totally different.

Another crazy OT excursion?  Not me.

[werq34ac]

You are not even aware of what the correct fingering is for scales in thirds - so there's not much to debate.  As I've pointed out you have a choice of vids - at least I've contributed more than just talk.  Good bye!

Your videos have contributed nothing to this debate other than the fact that you do not understand the concept of legato. Legato is not sustaining one note to the next, it's how seamless a phrase is played. Obviously if there are gaps in sound, you fail to achieve legato.

[sucom]

Your videos have contributed nothing to this debate other than the fact that you do not understand the concept of legato. Legato is not sustaining one note to the next, it's how seamless a phrase is played. Obviously if there are gaps in sound, you fail to achieve legato.

I think it would be really useful for this debate for you to upload a video of yourself playing thirds using the legato you describe.  As your signature says, music can't be described in words.  Far better to see the techniques in full action.  Any chance of this? 

[werq34ac]

If I ever figure out how to connect the camera to the computer, and somehow get a video of myself playing thirds, then I will give it a try. Though I will say, i don't do much thirds work, so it will not be very legato. And I will probably use my 15 24 15 24 fingering which everyone says I shouldn't do, though one can achieve perfect legato on the way up using that fingering. However, I do understand that at higher speeds it's highly impractical to use 15 24 15 24.

And at least I am admitting I am lacking in thirds legato technique. Keyboardclass seems to insist that his non-legato thirds are legato. because his upper voice (which isn't legato) is legato and the listener is fooled into thinking it's legato. I am not denying that one can fool the audience with only the top voice legato, however, your illusion has a lot of holes (in other words, gaps in sound which are obvious to experienced listeners that you fail to mask).

[keyboardclass]

Your videos have contributed nothing to this debate other than the fact that you do not understand the concept of legato.

The second video is nothing to do with me.  As I keep on saying - if you don't like my playing, listen to that one.

[keyboardclass]

new thread instead

[nyiregyhazi]

Here's Mark Hambourg:

Could you provide a bit more context from what he is talking about? For a start, if he's advising it on every third then that sounds most unusual. Would anyone perform the Chopin 3rds Etude with zero legato in the lower voice? Certainly not. I've never heard of anyone making willful separations where legato is perfectly possible. But would they PRACTISE it that way as an exercise in voicing the top? Yes, very much so.

Also, it gives no explanation of what fingering might allow the upper voice to be played with full legato while the lower voice is not. And he says "worked on"- not "performed". I use similar practise methods for voicing and feeling physically connected to a melody line myself- including playing the triplets staccato in the moonlight first movement. It's this staccato that disappears when carried into performance- but the sense of being physically more connected to the upper line than the lower carries through. It appears that he may very well be talking of a similar principle.

If we are to make sense of this, we're going to need to know the context that this was written in. I am even inclined to suspect that you may have deliberately omitted to include important information, in a bid to create a conveniently misleading impression. This does not in any way strike me as supporting your theory that anything goes if one voice is legato. Congratulations for your attempt to mask the context, but there's enough on display to make me 99% sure this is a voicing exercise to help distinguish the upper line.

[werq34ac]

I know of voicing exercises like that. Whenever I have legato double notes (and mind you there is no standard fingering for double notes since it varies from passage to passage) I play the top note legato and the bottom note very staccato. And then I switch it, top note staccato, bottom note legato. Lack of technique should not inhibit the way we play no matter how seemingly unnecessary it is. We should be as comfortable as possible with a passage so that technique never gets in the way of expressing ourselves as musicians.