Free Visual Scales PDF Ebook

[cwpiano]

Hi all,

You may have remembered I released in this forum a while back a compilation of pieces for beginners that I avail for free. I have decided to follow this up with a visual scale book illustrating all major and minor scales. The pages for this free ebook are actually extracted from my earlier publications(the books just went live in Kindle) and the publisher do not allow me to put in the arpeggios to prevent me from cannibalising the sales of my own books. I hope you find this helpful and do support and purchase my published books at Kindle if you find them useful.

Free PDF Download of Visual Guides to Piano Scales (contains all major and minor scales)

 Visual Guides to Piano Scales

The actual published books (contains scales and arpeggios requirements specific to ABRSM Grade 1-5 syllabus. If you are looking for the book that contains all the scales and arpeggios, buy the grade 5 book):

 Visual Guides to Scales and Arpeggios Grade 1
 Visual Guides to Scales and Arpeggios Grade 2
Visual Guides to Scales and Arpeggios Grade 3
Visual Guides to Scales and Arpeggios Grade 4
Visual Guides to Scales and Arpeggios Grade 5

Free Repertoire PDF Ebook, posted in earlier thread

[perfect_pitch]

Replied to the wrong thread - I have NO idea how to delete this.

[nyiregyhazi]

Hi all,

You may have remembered I released in this forum a while back a compilation of pieces for beginners that I avail for free. I have decided to follow this up with a visual scale book illustrating all major and minor scales. The pages for this free ebook are actually extracted from my earlier publications(the books just went live in Kindle) and the publisher do not allow me to put in the arpeggios to prevent me from cannibalising the sales of my own books. I hope you find this helpful and do support and purchase my published books at Kindle if you find them useful.

Free PDF Download of Visual Guides to Piano Scales (contains all major and minor scales)

 Visual Guides to Piano Scales

The actual published books (contains scales and arpeggios requirements specific to ABRSM Grade 1-5 syllabus. If you are looking for the book that contains all the scales and arpeggios, buy the grade 5 book):

 Visual Guides to Scales and Arpeggios Grade 1
 Visual Guides to Scales and Arpeggios Grade 2
Visual Guides to Scales and Arpeggios Grade 3
Visual Guides to Scales and Arpeggios Grade 4
Visual Guides to Scales and Arpeggios Grade 5

Free Repertoire PDF Ebook, posted in earlier thread

I just had a quick look. While I'd actually be troubled by the idea of students learning from this to replace understanding, I don't necessarily object to the idea as a backup aid. However, I was rather shocked to see C sharp major/D flat notated with the note C and F yet with the black keys notated as sharps! Putting E sharp and B in small print within brackets is hardly going to compensate. I sincerely advise correcting this at once! A student who thinks of a C and F in C sharp major (or of sharps in D flat major) is a student who does not understand the first thing about scales. I think this is a major oversight and risks encouraging extremely superficial learning. The notation should either be specific to C sharp major or to D flat- not a bastardised mix of both. It's important for students to realise that EVERY letter is included in each scale and to understand how adjustments occur from the basic starter note.

Patterns stick best when you understand where they come from- not when you simply spend enough time staring at them like some mindless simpleton. It's easier to understand the concept of E sharp than to attempt to learn scales by simply staring at seemingly disparate patterns. Why not simply understand where scales come from? The rote approach is a recipe for confusion.

[timothy42b]

I found that quite understandable and probably useful for visual learners.

You mention alternate fingerings, but don't actually show any.  What you show is continuation fingerings - if doing more than one octave, which finger you'd continue with. 

I had hoped that your mention of alternate meant you'd considered the more efficient modern fingerings for scales like D and A major.. 

[pianoplayjl]

A useful resource for each grade students particularly scales. thx for sharing.

[nyiregyhazi]

I found that quite understandable and probably useful for visual learners.

You mention alternate fingerings, but don't actually show any.  What you show is continuation fingerings - if doing more than one octave, which finger you'd continue with.  

I had hoped that your mention of alternate meant you'd considered the more efficient modern fingerings for scales like D and A major..  

The problem with "modern fingerings" is that they don't work well for hands together scales. Similarly, composers often wrote with regular fingerings in mind, meaning that variants don't always work well. You still need to know the standard ones. I don't think anyone who already knows the regular fingerings well enough to be ready to take on variants is really going to be using a crib sheet for scales.

[timothy42b]

The problem with "modern fingerings" is that they don't work well for hands together scales.

Yeah, I agree, particularly for contrary motion hands together. 

That offends my delicate sensibilities, though; we are deliberately teaching a less efficient fingering pattern with the sole purpose of making a pedagogical exercise, with no application to music, easier. 

[nyiregyhazi]

Yeah, I agree, particularly for contrary motion hands together.  

That offends my delicate sensibilities, though; we are deliberately teaching a less efficient fingering pattern with the sole purpose of making a pedagogical exercise, with no application to music, easier.  

It's not a pedagogical exercise. Unison scales are not rare. The idea of a pianist who has to stop and calculate a new fingering to play a simple unison scale is absurd. It's a foundation no pianist can be without. Also, as I said, many composers clearly calculate countless passages with standard fingerings in mind. They must be properly known. To call it a pedagogical exercise is totally missing the point.

Personally I actually disagree that passing to black notes is more efficient, as a rule.  At the very least, the benefits hardly justify having a baseline fingering that screws up the possibility of unison scales. I change the fingering for f sharp minor, to pass my 4th onto the B. It makes it slightly more physically comfortable, by giving more time to prepare my 2nd finger on the D between black keys. I find the black key approach bizarrely dogmatic.

[cjp_piano]

I had hoped that your mention of alternate meant you'd considered the more efficient modern fingerings for scales like D and A major.. 

What are the efficient modern fingerings for D and A?

[nyiregyhazi]

What are the efficient modern fingerings for D and A?

Both involve 4 on F sharp and 3 on C sharp, in the left hand. Personally, I find both scales to be notably less comfortable this way, as it's harder to get the 2nd finger between the black keys in time for the D. And that's to say nothing of how much more awkward it is when starting on the tonic note. I have no idea why turning onto a black key is supposed to inherently more efficient.

[timothy42b]

What are the efficient modern fingerings for D and A?

Modern was an unfortunate choice of words.  There is nothing modern about them.  Not-Hanon would have been better.

All scales are 1231234, right?  But you don't necessarily start on 1.  For example, RH Bb is 41231234.  The pattern is there, but choice of starting note affects how fingers land on the black keys (important) and how fingers correspond to the other hand's fingering (meaningless in my view, but very important to some teachers).

So here's an example or two of better not-hanon fingerings:

G Major  RH 1231234 LH 3213214

D Major  RH 1231234 LH 21432132

A Major  RH 1231234 LH 21321432

There are more for minor scales, etc.  

I will admit some of the advantages start to accrue in doing multiple octave scales, which are rare in the repertoire (nonexistent in my repertoire, but my interests are mainly church music).  

[cjp_piano]

So here's an example or two of better not-hanon fingerings:

G Major  RH 1231234 LH 3213214

D Major  RH 1231234 LH 21432132

A Major  RH 1231234 LH 21321432

So basically the LH fingerings you have are the same as their relative minor fingerings, makes sense. When scale passages occur in pieces, they are rarely 1 octave hands together from tonic to tonic anyway. So the idea of having groups of 3 and 4 remains consistent.

[nyiregyhazi]

So basically the LH fingerings you have are the same as their relative minor fingerings, makes sense.

True, but I think that's coincidental. I wouldn't say it "makes sense", considering that the right hand does not correspond at all.  That style of alternative fingerings is based on fitting to the groupings of black keys. E minor simply happens to fit the same grouping, whereas B minor fingering is adapted from what would otherwise be the default, to avoid thumbs on black keys (just as the right hand is adapted for scales on F). Personally I change F sharp minor fingering to make it consistent with the relative major- in both hands. This is one of the only scales where standard fingering involves the principle

I tried the alternative fingerings hands together just now, and the coordination didn't cause any problems in the end. I can see that it is possible even for unisons, but I still didn't see any notable difference that would make me want to abandon normal fingering (and certainly not ones that would persuade me to get students to try).

[timothy42b]

I can see that it is possible even for unisons, but I still didn't see any notable difference that would make me want to abandon normal fingering (and certainly not ones that would persuade me to get students to try).

I don't think the advantage is large either way.  I find the alternate (hate calling them that!) a bit easier but others might not agree, depending on your hands and how many thousand times you've played each. 

And realistically, continuous scales are about as artificial an environment as you can get.  So a big argument over the best fingering for a four octave tonic to tonic scale is silly. 

Philosophically, my point is this.  Teachers try to impart rules for fingering that will help students eventually be able to figure them out on their own for anything that comes up.  Do we use the rules for scales?  Not really.  We use the "standard' fingerings, and the reason is "because."

The music I sing, play and listen to is tonal, scale derived music.  That probably isn't true for everybody here, it's just my personal preference.  Scales apply in some way to everything I do.  Scale fingerings, on the other hand, mostly do not.   

[nyiregyhazi]

And realistically, continuous scales are about as artificial an environment as you can get.  So a big argument over the best fingering for a four octave tonic to tonic scale is silly.  

Well, ironically, this is one big reason why standard fingerings are a better point of departure than variants. They minimise the number of times the thumb passes. In a short scale, having to pass the thumb only three times instead of four is a major advantage. This is why standard fingerings are based around making maximum use of all available fingers- rather than being dogmatic about having the same fingers on the same black note. Standard fingerings set a much better example, with regard to adapting to requirements of music.

Philosophically, my point is this.  Teachers try to impart rules for fingering that will help students eventually be able to figure them out on their own for anything that comes up.  Do we use the rules for scales?  Not really.  We use the "standard' fingerings, and the reason is "because."

Sorry, but this is plain nonsense. If you are not clear on the logic behind scales, that does not mean that none exists. As mentioned above, one of the real rules is that we strive to minimise thumb passing. There's no system that says finger x always goes on key x. It's the alternate fingerings that imply such a rule to exist- considering that they are so concerned with specific fingers going on specific keys, that they depart from the obvious common sense of keeping the fewest possible hand positions for the simple scales. The point about standard fingerings is that they keep things simple and use the fewest physical positions. The same rule can be widely applied in music. A system which dictates that certain fingers should always go on certain black keys (regardless of the context in which the passage begins) is substantially LESS conducive to logical thought- regarding what best fits a real musical passage. It encourages dogma about which finger is "supposed to" play which key- not logical grouping within context. It could hardly be more counterproductive, in that respect.

The music I sing, play and listen to is tonal, scale derived music.  That probably isn't true for everybody here, it's just my personal preference.  Scales apply in some way to everything I do.  Scale fingerings, on the other hand, mostly do not.    

"Mostly" though?

[timothy42b]

"Mostly" though?

Outside Joy to the World, I've never played a tonic to tonic scale. 
Inside Joy to the World, I can't use scale fingerings, because my hand is playing more than one note at a time. 

(Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.  Inside a dog, it's too dark to read.)

What I do see is scale fragments.  CDEFGFEDC.  The scale fingering for that is 123121321.  But most of the time (depending on the context) I would finger it 123454321. 

But I instantly recognize it as a scale fragment, so my brain does not have to figure it out note by note.  That's what i mean by mostly scale derived, but mostly not scale fingered.  Same with Joy to the World.  It is useful to see the scale as one piece rather than eight individual notes, whether it helps with fingering or not.  for me mostly it is not, but perhaps for many it mostly is. 

[nyiregyhazi]

Outside Joy to the World, I've never played a tonic to tonic scale.  
Inside Joy to the World, I can't use scale fingerings, because my hand is playing more than one note at a time.  

You don't play any Mozart, Bach or Beethoven then? If you're not playing music that depends on scales, obviously it's slightly different. However, people who play a large range of repertoire do need to know the regular patterns. It really doesn't necessarily matter whether the scale starts on the tonic, by the way. If I had a scale using the key signature of D major running from G to G in the left hand, I'd likely use the standard fingering- which does NOT mean starting on 2! It means making the most of available fingers by starting on 5, using up all fingers and then passing 3 fingers over. Traditional fingering is not about which finger goes on which key. The principle that defines basic fingerings- is to involve the fewest thumb passings possible, while avoiding thumbs on black keys. So that would be "standard" fingering.

Anyone who is stuck in the idea that fingering is about which fingers go on which black keys will do what? Start on 3, pass 3 fingers over and then pass 4 fingers over and end on the 3rd finger? This fingering would be deranged. The worth of principle (about supposed efficiency) is totally invalidated by the context. It is the standard approach to fingering that provides a direct and efficient fingering (assuming the concept of scale fingering is not misunderstood as being about the idea that specific fingers always go on specific keys- which is not what scale fingering is about!).

The better standard fingerings are understood (rather than rote learned) the better a pianist will be in a position to make their own fingerings. The variant fingerings offer little assistance here and are basically founded upon the concept that context should be ignored. In countless contexts, the idea of striving to pass the thumb next to black notes becomes extremely ineffectual. At this point, the only answer is to understand the nature of how standard fingerings were constructed around context and to bring in these same principles.

What I do see is scale fragments.  CDEFGFEDC.  The scale fingering for that is 123121321.  But most of the time (depending on the context) I would finger it 123454321.  

Obviously. The principle for scale fingering is not to pass the thumb unnecessarily, but to pass the thumb when it is required to get to following the notes. So accurate understanding of where fingering comes from makes no implication whatsoever that the thumb is "supposed" to pass under.

[cjp_piano]

True, but I think that's coincidental. I wouldn't say it "makes sense", considering that the right hand does not correspond at all.  

Well maybe you wouldn't say it "makes sense", but it makes sense to me! The reason it makes sense to me doesn't have anything to do with corresponding to the RH, it makes sense because the fingering is comfortable and natural and has repeating patterns of 3s and 4s.

[cjp_piano]

Well, ironically, this is one big reason why standard fingerings are a better point of departure than variants. They minimise the number of times the thumb passes. In a short scale, having to pass the thumb only three times instead of four is a major advantage. This is why standard fingerings are based around making maximum use of all available fingers- rather than being dogmatic about having the same fingers on the same black note. Standard fingerings set a much better example, with regard to adapting to requirements of music.

The "alternate fingerings" actually have the same number of thumb passes, don't they? Basically if you finger G major scale like E minor, it's going to be the same groupings of 3s and 4s. Unless, of course, you mean playing from tonic to tonic.

[nyiregyhazi]

The "alternate fingerings" actually have the same number of thumb passes, don't they? Basically if you finger G major scale like E minor, it's going to be the same groupings of 3s and 4s. Unless, of course, you mean playing from tonic to tonic.

Not just tonic to tonic. The example I gave of playing D major from G to G involves a totally pointless thumb passing, not to mention an awkward way to both start and finish.  And it's by no means an unusual example. When the first note is a white key, if you start from 4 or 5 (regardless of what note is the tonic), you can cover two octaves with just 3 position changes. Anything else, and you need at least 4. That includes E minor fingering for G major. I find it completely irrational to start such scales on 2 or 3, solely for the sake of something so inconsequential as whether the same fingers will happen to land on the same black keys as in other scales. It pays no attention to context- which is what good fingering is all about. I'd only bring in such fingerings either to avoid the thumb on black keys, or if it helps with a specific type of accentuation.

[cjp_piano]

Not just tonic to tonic. The example I gave of playing D major from G to G involves a totally pointless thumb passing, not to mention an awkward way to both start and finish.  And it's by no means an unusual example. When the first note is a white key, if you start from 4 or 5 (regardless of what note is the tonic), you can cover two octaves with just 3 position changes. Anything else, and you need at least 4. That includes E minor fingering for G major. I find it completely irrational to start such scales on 2 or 3, solely for the sake of something so inconsequential as whether the same fingers will happen to land on the same black keys as in other scales. It pays no attention to context- which is what good fingering is all about. I'd only bring in such fingerings either to avoid the thumb on black keys, or if it helps with a specific type of accentuation.

Yes then then I think we all agree. I was saying the "alternate" fingerings make sense just as much as the "traditional" fingerings do because when you're just playing multiple octaves and not necessarily starting and ending on tonic, they're all the same! You have groups of 3s and 4s.

[nyiregyhazi]

Yes then then I think we all agree. I was saying the "alternate" fingerings make sense just as much as the "traditional" fingerings do because when you're just playing multiple octaves and not necessarily starting and ending on tonic, they're all the same! You have groups of 3s and 4s.

I think you misunderstand my point- as it in no way implies equal sense. Traditional fingering does not say "finger x always goes on note x", whenever playing in a certain key and regardless of the starter note. It says to cover the notes in the fewest necessary hand positions, as long as that is done without putting the thumb on black keys. Scales that start on white notes are fingered around putting this PRINCIPLE into practise- not around some nonsense rule that says you must always have finger x on key x. Only when there's no possibility of making the most of a larger hand position do "traditional" fingerings begin at the very end of one- when the tonic is a black note. So the alternative fingerings make less sense, by turning this exception into a rule. They are not founded upon context, but rather they imply that finger x always belongs on note x. Only a misunderstanding of the purpose that traditional fingerings were constructed upon would imply the same thing.

To assume that it's only correct to put the right hand 2nd finger on E in a D major scale (regardless of starter note) is just a bastardisation of traditional fingering. The standard fingerings encourage the common sense approach of taking large numbers of notes in a single group (which might well mean starting with the thumb on E, if a D major scale starts there), whereas the alternative fingerings are based on insisting that specific fingers must ALWAYS go on specific keys, regardless of starter note or context. That is a very limited principle that does not lead to versatility. To insist that every key must have one and only one fingering is woefully limited. Traditional fingerings, however, imply no such thing.  There's certainly no equality been a broad principle that applies to countless contexts, compared to such a narrow one as the lone and exclusive fingering per key that alternative fingerings teach. They are tremendously inferior as a foundation.

[pianoplayjl]

To assume that it's only correct to put the right hand 2nd finger on E in a D major scale (regardless of starter note) is just a bastardisation of traditional fingering.

So am I right in saying that there are still other ways to play the D major scale correctly (finger-wise)?

[cjp_piano]

I think you misunderstand my point- as it in no way implies equal sense. Traditional fingering does not say "finger x always goes on note x", whenever playing in a certain key and regardless of the starter note. It says to cover the notes in the fewest necessary hand positions, as long as that is done without putting the thumb on black keys. Scales that start on white notes are fingered around putting this PRINCIPLE into practise- not around some nonsense rule that says you must always have finger x on key x. Only when there's no possibility of making the most of a larger hand position do "traditional" fingerings begin at the very end of one- when the tonic is a black note. So the alternative fingerings make less sense, by turning this exception into a rule. They are not founded upon context, but rather they imply that finger x always belongs on note x. Only a misunderstanding of the purpose that traditional fingerings were constructed upon would imply the same thing.

I have no idea why you think that I said that or meant that. I never said finger x always goes on key x. Did I? It seems like you're just trying to say your point over and over to whoever about the whole idea of some rule about putting finger x on key x.

So really what you're saying is that there is NO difference between the "standard" and the "alternative" since neither one really says put finger x on key x, right? They both just allow for groups of 3s and 4s!

[cjp_piano]

So am I right in saying that there are still other ways to play the D major scale correctly (finger-wise)?

Yes, but really there is no "correct" way, only the most efficient way in any specific passage =)

[nyiregyhazi]

I have no idea why you think that I said that or meant that. I never said finger x always goes on key x. Did I? It seems like you're just trying to say your point over and over to whoever about the whole idea of some rule about putting finger x on key x.

So really what you're saying is that there is NO difference between the "standard" and the "alternative" since neither one really says put finger x on key x, right? They both just allow for groups of 3s and 4s!

By "alternative fingering", I'm specifically referring to the alternative fingering approach that was cited earlier in this thread. I wasn't speculating about what you meant. I was commenting on what is inherent to the two different principles of fingering- and why they are so spectacularly different. They're not the comparable at all and I am specifically explaining that fact- not "saying is that there is NO difference". The alternative fingerings under discussion are indeed based on the idea that finger x always goes on key x- not on common sense application of groups of 3s and 4s to a context- hence my criticism of their severe limits as a foundation. If needless frequency of thumb passing is involved (in one approach but not the other), the mere fact that both fingerings involve 3s and 4s does not make them the same. The alternative fingerings are founded on ALWAYS distributing the group of 3 and 4 fingers around the same notes, regardless of context- as evidenced by the fact that they start the l.h. of tonic to tonic D major on the 2nd finger, requiring a totally pointless second pass of the thumb (merely to complete the first octave).

If I were to play D major in my right hand from B to B, it would be extremely inefficient to place 3 on the starter note, compared to starting on the thumb. Traditional scale fingering in no way suggests that this fingering is banned, but the specific alternative system under discussion indeed suggests that you must always start on 3 here- to fit some silly rule about black keys.

[nyiregyhazi]

So am I right in saying that there are still other ways to play the D major scale correctly (finger-wise)?

The correct way is whatever the music demands and whatever fits it best- ie. not to create dubious rules about the "correct" key to put a specific finger on whenever playing a scale in a certain key. Traditional fingerings are designed for starting on the tonic, but you often need to use the principle that generated those fingerings, when starting on other notes.

[timothy42b]

I don't think I can make my point here.

I will try one last time and give up.

For the purpose of scale practice, not repertoire, there seem to be two and only two approaches.

One is to play it like Hanon fingered it, because that is "standard."  We don't know why and we don't care why.  Coach says. 

The other is to attempt to play it with some set of rules.  Often that will result in the nonHanon fingering.  There is more than one rule that applies and they can sometimes can conflict, so it is possible to nitpick this approach.  Or get it wrong.  Nevertheless, I vastly prefer this approach to "because I said so."

For the purpose of music, we always finger in context.  Sometimes that might match what in a scale would be a Hanon fingering, a nonHanon fingering, or something else.  I would suggest that when fingering in context we are always following some rule, whether it be don't move the hand, cross the thumb, long finger on black keys, etc., and probably never fingering it because it is a "standard scale fingering."

 

[nyiregyhazi]

have you actually read my very specific explanations? I have already explained in great detail why traditional fingering does NOT restrict to a lone possibility- whereas the alternative fingering system does! You're seemingly trying to use the most powerful argument against the alternative system in favour of it!

One is to play it like Hanon fingered it, because that is "standard."  We don't know why and we don't care why.  Coach says.

Not true. You claimed this earlier and I responded by illustrating the guiding principle or "rule". Did you read that? A decent pianist ought to know very well why these fingerings exist. The reason why is to make the maximal use of available fingers (to minimise the frequency of thumb passing), while being sure to avoid causing the thumb to fall on black keys. Depending on the starter note, traditional fingering hence gives many possible fingerings for scales with many white notes.  

The other is to attempt to play it with some set of rules.  Often that will result in the nonHanon fingering.  There is more than one rule that applies and they can sometimes can conflict, so it is possible to nitpick this approach.  Or get it wrong.  Nevertheless, I vastly prefer this approach to "because I said so."

The problem is that the rule of passing on black keys gives one and ONLY ONE fingering for most keys. It says put finger x on key x and always do so, regardless of context or starter note. Can you not see what a ridiculously limiting rule that is- compared to the broad premise of traditional fingering?

For the purpose of music, we always finger in context.

Not with the alternative fingering system. The whole premise is founded upon NOT fingering based on context! Sticking to its lone fingering often causes very awkward moments. And departing from it robs you of your rule. So you're back to square one unless you understand where traditional fingering comes from. The black key rule is woefully limited and simply does not offer enough options to be a good baseline for fingering.

I don't know if you're willfully ignoring what determines traditional fingering (or simply missing the point, despite my illustrations) but it is the only concept that gives a guide for versatile fingering.

[cjp_piano]

But the standard teaching really DOES say play finger x on note x. I know the concept is to be most efficient and have the least number of thumb crossings or whatever, but if you ask teachers and pianists, "what's the fingering for RH D major?" They will say "1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5"

That means thumb is on D and G, finger 4 is on F#, etc.

No one is going to say, "well, there's no specific fingering for D major RH, you just start with your thumb as long as it's not on a black key, and then play with the least number of finger crossings."

[nyiregyhazi]

But the standard teaching really DOES say play finger x on note x. I know the concept is to be most efficient and have the least number of thumb crossings or whatever, but if you ask teachers and pianists, "what's the fingering for RH D major?" They will say "1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5"

That means thumb is on D and G, finger 4 is on F#, etc.

No one is going to say, "well, there's no specific fingering for D major RH, you just start with your thumb as long as it's not on a black key, and then play with the least number of finger crossings."

Unfortunately it is often taught by rote and without context- which indeed gives this false impression. However, that does not represent traditional fingering principles. The reason WHY this fingering is used represents traditional principles- which finger goes on which key is the mere result of these. The reason this fingering is used is because it fits the layout of a basic octave most efficiently. It makes full use of available fingers, without leaving any spares or requiring pointless thumb passes. This basic fingering is the most easy point of departure- which is why it is used on all white starter notes, unless it would place any thumbs on a black key.

When accurately understood from first principles (which I firmly believe should be taught to all students) it's clear that you would not necessarily use the same fingers on the same keys, if starting on a different degree of the scale. Personally I never list 12312234 etc. I'd just illustrate how two physical positions cover the start and finish of the scale most efficiently and demonstrate the significant fingers (next to the thumbs) to be 343 in both directions. Conversely, the alternative fingerings system gives one and only one possible fingering and for each key- and provides no constructive principle upon which to make departures (in the overwhelmingly large number of cases where it necessary to do so). It's pure dogma- regardless of whether understood from the inside or whether it's learned by rote. Conversely, when the traditional fingering is udnerstood from the inside, it opens up the door to countless variants.

[nyiregyhazi]

But the standard teaching really DOES say play finger x on note x. I know the concept is to be most efficient and have the least number of thumb crossings or whatever, but if you ask teachers and pianists, "what's the fingering for RH D major?" They will say "1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5"

That means thumb is on D and G, finger 4 is on F#, etc.

No one is going to say, "well, there's no specific fingering for D major RH, you just start with your thumb as long as it's not on a black key, and then play with the least number of finger crossings."

Also, the thing about "what's the fingering for RH D major?" is that it implies starting on the keynote. This is automatically assumed unless you state otherwise- so such an answer would hardly be surprising. However, if you ask them what fingering to use for D major from E to E, any half decent pianist will almost invariably offer a fingering based  on the concept that "you just start with your thumb as long as it's not on a black key, and then play with the least number of finger crossings."- whether they state the reasoning or not. Anyone who would insist that you should correctly start on the 2nd finger (as a result of misundertanding the basic principles of scale fingering) is as misguided as anyone who feels that you must start on the 2nd finger so as to follow the system of turning under the black notes. Accurate understanding of traditional fingering does not say that finger x always goes on key x- although, sadly, accurate understanding of the alternative fingering system says precisely that, regardless of context.

[timothy42b]

n,
If you really teach scales that way you are the only teacher in the world who does.

Everybody else says the fingerings are in the book, use those, that is the only way to finger X major.


The "standard" fingerings, contrary to your opinion, are far more inviolable than the other possible standard fingerings, such as the ones I've suggested.  This is clear from many similar discussions about the value of scales on this and other forums. 

[nyiregyhazi]

n,
If you really teach scales that way you are the only teacher in the world who does.

Everybody else says the fingerings are in the book, use those, that is the only way to finger X major.


The "standard" fingerings, contrary to your opinion, are far more inviolable than the other possible standard fingerings, such as the ones I've suggested.  This is clear from many similar discussions about the value of scales on this and other forums.  

So you are in a position to speak for every teacher in the world? Sorry, but this is plain silly. I don't know of anybody who would insist on fingering D major r.h from E to E, starting and ending with a 2. It would be totally impractical. In the context of starting on the tonic (which no doubt is the context that you have heard people speaking in) there is rarely just cause for starting on anything other than the thumb. However, nobody is saying always take finger 2 on E in D major. That's a total misrepresentation of traditional fingering. I have NEVER encountered such small-minded thinking from any teacher or pianist- regardless of whether you might like to portray this as being the normal way of thinking. Finger x on key x only applies with anything resembling rigidity when starting from the tonic. Elsewhere, the PRINCIPLE behind traditional fingering applies- not the idea that finger x goes on key x. I've never heard of anyone being so foolish as to misinterpret traditional fingerings as meaning such a restrictive thing. Either you have come across a very silly minority of people, or you have misunderstood what they were actually talking about. Regardless, this is not normal thinking, by any means. As I said before, such an attitude is a bastardisation of traditional fingering- not an accurate reflection of it. You are arguing against a strawman, not against traditional fingering principles, as typically applied.

The only system that insists a specific finger always goes on a specific key (regardless of the starter note) is the alternative system you cited- which is so dogmatic as to start a perfectly ordinary D major left hand on finger 2- contrary to the most basic common sense about making the most of available fingers. No system is more restrictive or less grounded in meaningful applications to context. It tells you exactly which finger is supposed to go on which note (regardless of the starter note) and offers no alternative possibilities that can be fitted to musical context.