Scale Fingering

[johannesbrahms]

For a while now, I have been hearing about how it is better to finger all scales with the C major scale fingering, instead of playing scales with several different fingerings.  I believe I read that Frederic Chopin was one person to suggest the idea.  It sounds like it would make playing easier in the long run and that it might help with transposing a piece instantly(something I think every musician should be able to do).  Has anyone here tried this, and could you tell me if you have ever heard a famous pianist who played this way?

Thank you for your time.

[awesom_o]

I do it all the time.

'All the time' being somewhat of a figure of speech-there will always certain situations when traditional scale fingerings remain useful.

I make all of my advanced students do it, though. People claim that it is a highly liberating experience.

[cometear]

It seems silly to me. A thumb on a black key is just unnecessary.

[awesom_o]

A thumb on a black key is just unnecessary.

Maybe once you've played all 27 Chopin Etudes, you'll understand why it's necessary to use the thumb on black keys.

[nyiregyhazi]

For a while now, I have been hearing about how it is better to finger all scales with the C major scale fingering, instead of playing scales with several different fingerings.  I believe I read that Frederic Chopin was one person to suggest the idea.  It sounds like it would make playing easier in the long run and that it might help with transposing a piece instantly(something I think every musician should be able to do).  Has anyone here tried this, and could you tell me if you have ever heard a famous pianist who played this way?

Thank you for your time.

It sounds like you're missing the point. The point is not to reduce the amount of thought needed. It's not because it's "easier" if you only have to remember one fingering. It's a test of technical competence. However, there are very few situations where it's either easier or more effective to use c major fingering instead of the regular one.

Having to reach in with the thumb is less efficient and less easy than avoiding it. The only possible benefit is when it reduces the total number of thumb passings. If it doesn't, it's never "better" as a fingering. Thumbs sometimes need to come on black keys within a scale due to context but nobody should be practising scales with thumbs on black keys unless they first know the standard versions inside out.

PS. Where in the Chopin etudes do you need thumbs on black keys as part of standard major or minor scales? I've only played around half of them myself, but cannot think of even one moment where it's necessary in a regular scale. You have to pass the thumb onto some black keys into the winter wind, but it's nothing like the awkwardness of trying to properly articulate a b flat major scale with a c major fingering. You don't need any legato connection in the étude and can afford to emphasise the thumb notes. You can't get away with that if you're trying to play an articulated rather than merely smeared major scale. The difficulty of avoiding thumb accents on black keys is worlds beyond the difficulty of using standard scale fingerings as the norm. The reason for practising alternative fingerings is to meet those difficulties head on- not because of any supposed superiority to thumbs on black keys.

[awesom_o]

PS. Where in the Chopin etudes do you need thumbs on black keys as part of standard major or minor scales?

There are many places in the Etudes where the thumbs need to play on black keys.

Playing all major scales with the C major fingering builds the agility of thumb necessary to render Chopin's Etudes at a high level.

[lostinidlewonder]

Errm, you can do all scales with the same fingering but it is not always the best option. It seems strange to simplify the art of fingering to a single system, it also will not reveal to you fingering options when learning pieces. Not all pieces simply play scales, they often have intervals within the scales or patterns/ornamentation within these scales, its just not basically up and down with every single note of the scale. This will then reveal that using Cmajor fingering for everything is not optimal. Go have a look at music from Liszt for example when he has long strings of scale notes, there are fingering markings throughout which do not define the C major scale.

[awesom_o]

There is no single system of fingering. Nothing is optimal in every single possible situation. That is why we need to be flexible, and know how to play our scales with different fingerings.

You should be able to play any scale with any finger, or any combination of fingers.

[j_menz]

You should be able to play any scale with any finger, or any combination of fingers.

Love to see an example where a scale of 15151515151515 was best. 

[falala]

Love to see an example where a scale of 15151515151515 was best. 

Or RH 54321 54321 54321 ascending, followed by 12345 12345 12345 descending. 

The idea of aiming to master scales with "any combination of fingers" is clearly absurd. There are reasons we focus on certain fingerings, because those are the fingerings that allow us to play the scales most easily, smoothly, quickly and efficiently in the greatest number of cases.

I've only played a few of the Chopin etudes but you know, I can't remember EVER using the thumb on a black note in an actual scale passage of any piece ever. (Using the thumb on a black note outside of scale playing is a different thing, as it depends where you're coming from and going to so is not necessarily helped by having practised scales that way). I expect there probably have been a few times, maybe in things with F# or Db scales with loads of black notes. But they'd be such a tiny minority of situations that the idea of practising them as a general technical procedure (rather than just learning the individual pieces that way) would be ridiculous. The point of practising general technical procedures for hours and hours is that they're generally applicable - so the hours pay off in time saved on specific applications. Spending hours mastering a scale fingering that you might use once or twice in your life is crazy. You'll probably have forgotten it by the time you do anyway.

I'd really like to see those claiming that C major fingering with the thumb on black notes is a significantly useful fingering, point to a few examples from the repertoire where it would be the most logical, comfortable or efficient way of playing a passage. If they can't, and I'm pretty sure they can't, I call BS.

[dima_76557]

The idea of aiming to master scales with "any combination of fingers" is clearly absurd.

To become a virtuoso, you have to be ready to go to absurd and beyond.

I'd really like to see those claiming that C major fingering with the thumb on black notes is a significantly useful fingering, point to a few examples from the repertoire where it would be the most logical, comfortable or efficient way of playing a passage. If they can't, and I'm pretty sure they can't, I call BS.

This is not about actually playing passages in pieces with that fingering. It is about getting out of your comfort zone from time to time, about pushing your boundaries, about testing your technical competence in unusual and sometimes quite awkward configurations and positions, etc. which is one of the best ways to get true progress.

[mikeowski]

To become a virtuoso, you have to be ready to go to absurd and beyond.

True. For example playing some Bach fugues legato sometimes needs absolutely absurd techniques, but it also makes your technique much more flexible.

[ahinton]

Everything about this is dependent upon a flexible state of mind and a willingness to try out all manner of things without which effort many viable solutions might not be found. Not every one solution will workk for every pianist in every situation; much can depend upon hand shapes and sizes, which no amount of diligent practise can change; I should know, because my thumb tips narely extend to line up with the starting joints of my fingers. I am not a pianist (which, given what I've just written, is perhaps hardly surprising - imagine, for example, just how painful and painfully difficult even basic scale playing is when the total length of one's two thumbs is barely what the length of just one thumb ought to be!), but my preoccupation with writing for piano has necessitated my trying as best I can to discover among many other things - at arm's length, as it were - how pianists might go about problem solving, fingering choices being just one such issue.

As to scale playing / fingerings, one has only to consider the many examples of "irregular" scale patterns in Sorabji's piano music to realise that it is often necesary to devise a specific solution to each invidiual problem in strict accordance with its nature and context.

As to the use of the thumb on black keys, whilst there are indeed many instances in Chopin where such is necessary, it does not necessarily follow that one might use thumbs on black notes in Chopin's scale passages - but then again it does not necessarily follow that one would not do that! One can often play passages of scales in thirds without needing to use the thumb on a black note, but what about passages of scales in sixths, sevenths or ninths?

Best,

Alistair

[awesom_o]

"owwww, my thumb hurts. This fingering is absurd. There's no way a virtuoso would play it like this! I call BS!"

[cometear]

Maybe once you've played all 27 Chopin Etudes, you'll understand why it's necessary to use the thumb on black keys.

Did I say you should never use a thumb on a black key? No I did not. It is unnecessary when it is unnecessary and that is the pianists decision. It's stupid to purposely put the thumb on a black key when there are more sensable options but some people, like yourself, persist on doing it.

[j_menz]

I'm beginning to think that those baroque guys who prohibited the use of the thumb entirely probably did so to avoid these sorts of arguments.

[lostinidlewonder]

A general rule for scales is that you can use thumb on black if 5 is also on black.

[dima_76557]

I'm beginning to think that those baroque guys who prohibited the use of the thumb entirely probably did so to avoid these sorts of arguments.

Didn't they play from a standing position? This would have made the use of the thumb in virtuoso passages rather awkward unless you had an exceptionally long one.

[j_menz]

Didn't they play from a standing position?

Not unheard of, but painting from the period would appear to indicate that sitting down was more common.

[dima_76557]

Not unheard of, but painting from the period would appear to indicate that sitting down was more common.

The ones who devised the dogma (prohibiting use of the thumbs) must have been the ones that stood while playing (assuming that our forefathers were not entirely stupid). We all know how long dogmas can stick in people's minds until one comes along who shows quite effectively that things can be done in a more convenient way.
P.S.: Practising scales WITHOUT thumbs is also a very useful way of getting out of one's comfort zone and making really great overall progress, by the way.

[cometear]

Practising scales WITHOUT thumbs is also a very useful way of getting out of one's comfort zone and making really great overall progress, by the way.

I respectfully disagree.

[j_menz]

We all know how long dogmas can stick in people's minds until one comes along who shows quite effectively that things can be done in a more convenient way.

And sometimes long after that.

P.S.: Practising scales WITHOUT thumbs is also a very useful way of getting out of one's comfort zone and making really great overall progress, by the way.

I'm not sure I even have a comfort zone, tbh.

[dima_76557]

I respectfully disagree.

Let me tell you first that the basics (doing everything the standard way as you propose) can never be solid enough. There comes a time in one's development, however, where it no longer makes sense to drill the basics themselves because there will be no progress anymore. Stagnation, however, means decline. That's where we enter the territory of more advanced approaches, such as the ones discussed in this topic. It's about ultimate liberation from physical limitations: 10 fingers instead of 2 times 5, and it makes no difference at all in what order or in what configuration of black and white you use them.
P.S.: Also respectfully submitted.

[lostinidlewonder]

Not many advanced pianist would want to waste time on unmusical exercises. The example above represents situations you pretty much never come across. I know many advanced pianists certainly wouldn't bother with such distractions.

[nyiregyhazi]

Not many advanced pianist would want to waste time on unmusical exercises. The example above represents situations you pretty much never come across. I know many advanced pianists certainly wouldn't bother with such distractions.

If I remember rightly, no less a pianist that liszt "wasted time" coming up with that exercise. I have no idea why you think it wouldn't apply to anything. It's entirely applicable to martellato technique, which is hardly something terribly unusual.

It's also useful done slowly and sensitively. It's incredibly common to hear pianists change sound quality when a melodic line switches to the other hand. It's harder to match tone quality without the physical context of having played the previous note in the same hand. This is an excellent exercise for learning to sustain musical continuity even when there's no physical continuity to help out.

If you can only see a string of notes notes then of  course it's worthless. However, the myth that thinking of a sound produces it is exposed by how poorly most pianists succeed in sustaining a simple Melody that switches hands. This exercise bridges the gap between intending a continuous sound and the difficulty of producing it, even if it's not physically easy to keep the line as one.

[dima_76557]

If I remember rightly, no less a pianist that liszt "wasted time" coming up with that exercise. I have no idea why you think it wouldn't apply to anything. It's entirely applicable to martellato technique, which is hardly something terribly unusual.

It is indeed Liszt who thought this up, and few understand the deeper meaning and pedagogical value of these Exercises. Not only can they be used as a preparation for martellato technique, but they also illustrate that "finger equalization" is first of all a MENTAL problem, not a mechanical one. This (and all the others of the same type in the series, including double-not scales) should ultimately be played as if they were MUSICAL allegro/presto passages in the Classics.

This highly creative approach to scale building carries the idea of finger equalization to its limit; one might as well number the fingers from one to ten and have done with it

[rmbarbosa]

To modern musical compositions, it`s useful to play all the scales with fingering like C major, I think.
There are some scales where this fingering isnt easy, for example C sharp minor. But even here, there is a gain of dexterity. The same for harps. And for the whole tone scale. No one is obliged to play like that, but when we do so even the most dificult passages become easier. This is what I think, but I do know that this is not a "dogma".

[lostinidlewonder]

If I remember rightly, no less a pianist that liszt "wasted time" coming up with that exercise.

Technique can be more interestingly found in playing pieces. In Liszts time there wasn't as much music as there is these days. We can acquire technique in much more musical ways. This is too old this technical exercise for serious use for advanced pianists, they can simply learn music and acquire much contextual technique from it and also much more enjoyment!

This exercise is good for beginners/intermediates, no advanced pianist would anything of real benefit in it if they do they haven't played enough and should not be considered advanced.

[nyiregyhazi]

Technique can be more interestingly found in playing pieces. In Liszts time there wasn't as much music as there is these days. We can acquire technique in much more musical ways. This is too old this technical exercise for serious use for advanced pianists, they can simply learn music and acquire much contextual technique from it and also much more enjoyment!

This exercise is good for beginners/intermediates, no advanced pianist would anything of real benefit in it if they do they haven't played enough and should not be considered advanced.

There were plenty of melodies around in those days, that could have been used instead. Pieces are too forgiving though and so is even a melody line outside of the accompaniment. Play a note a fraction louder or softer than intended and it may still fit the musical context. The slight lack of control passes by unnoticed and uncorrected. Do it in something like a scale and any loss of control stands out a mile. Then you can apply the same learned skills to control of melodies. I hear plenty of even supposed virtuosi who are poor at maintaining the sound of a single melody line when it gets swapped between hands. The more basic the line being swapped around, the more useful it is to judge your success or lack of. Then you improve and do better in pieces where lines transfer between hands

If you feel this is too easy for you, by all means upload a recording of a smooth legato scale played with this fingering at a fast speed or even a moderate one. If that's easy then fine. If not, chances are that you're getting by in more difficult passage due to the fact that subtle imprecision are more easily hidden than here. These skills are hugely transferable and a greater test of control - as long as they are put side by side with such works as Schubert Liszt (where the skills are to be applied into "3 hand" writing).

[nyiregyhazi]

It is indeed Liszt who thought this up, and few understand the deeper meaning and pedagogical value of these Exercises. Not only can they be used as a preparation for martellato technique, but they also illustrate that "finger equalization" is first of all a MENTAL problem, not a mechanical one. This (and all the others of the same type in the series, including double-not scales) should ultimately be played as if they were MUSICAL allegro/presto passages in the Classics.

I sort of agree, although I'd actually say this shows how little mental intent translates into a sound, without phenomenal work, to overcome a physical difficulty. Physical context makes control easier. Missing context here means it's for harder to gauge the physical action that will make the desired sound. With one hand, physical context makes it easier to produce the desired sound. With two here, lack of physical context makes it outrageously hard to produce a smooth legato line. There's nothing harder about conceiving the identical sound. The desired sound is literally identical. Logically, that proves that it can only finding the physical means of execution that is hard (if a good legato scale can be executed by the same pianist when using using only one hand) - not the intent in sound.

Mastery of this exercise leads to the point where the pianists can SEEM to control a line purely by mentally willing it. But that only happens after you learn to conquer the difficulty of matching one sound to the next without a clear physical context to help gauge the necessary motion that can produce it. There's a huge physical element to producing a very exact quality to a note that only has context in what the other hand produced.

[dima_76557]

I sort of agree, although I'd actually say this shows how little mental intent translates into a sound, without phenomenal work, to overcome a physical difficulty.

With the "mental challenge" I didn't exactly mean intention of tone production and consecutive magical results a la Bonpensierre. I meant that Liszt mocks the idea of his time that "finger strength and agility" are assets that can be attained only through long physical training (muscle training). The exercise above (D flat major) was actually one of the easier ones mentally. Here's another one of the same type but with different fingering that illustrates the role of the mind a little more explicitly.
P.S.: To be practised in all minor and major keys, with different touches and different rhythms, of course. And ouch, yes: that's a thumb on black in the left hand.

[ted]

My lack of intimacy with classical playing mostly prohibits my being more than a quiet reader of discussions like this one. However, the underlying notions expressed here, applicable to any arbitrary keyboard subset, not just scales, set me pondering about what happens in this regard during improvisation. In improvisation, the physical aspect goes well beyond the purely interpretive, and frequently generates and dictates musical meaning itself. I know many improvisers would strenuously deny this, out of some misguided allegiance to popular notions of how the creative process ought to operate. Nonetheless, I think most of them are kidding themselves.

Over decades I have tried and worked on the fingerings discussed and many more. The older I get, the more frequently I am surprised at how often a grotesquely awkward position gives rise to astonishing beauty, while carefully rehearsed smoothness of execution produces musical vacuity. I used to wish this lack of correlation were not so, that a physical ideal, a body of technical precepts, could be formulated which, if studied and followed, would invariably lead to transporting sound. Alas no.

Now I am getting really old, and know that in truth I know next to nothing about either music or playing the piano, I have come to rejoice in the serendipity of it all. I take a perverse pleasure in having yesterday's solemn ratiocinations about optimal technique brought down in ruins in the first few minutes of contrary delight the following morning.

[lostinidlewonder]

There were plenty of melodies around in those days, that could have been used instead.

I'm sorry there has been a lot composed after Liszt that goes through technical movements he never explored or developed very far.

Pieces are too forgiving though and so is even a melody line outside of the accompaniment.

There is no evidence that doing musical pieces are more forgiving than doing technical exercises.

Play a note a fraction louder or softer than intended and it may still fit the musical context.

Equality of sound is not a challenge for a pianist. Chopin even said when playing a scale fast NO ONE notices inequalities.

The slight lack of control passes by unnoticed and uncorrected.

Unnoticed is the key word, no one will notice if you have subtle inequalities they are not a problem.

Do it in something like a scale and any loss of control stands out a mile.

If done fast it does not. If done slow it is easy to have equality.

Then you can apply the same learned skills to control of melodies.

One does not do simply perform technical exercises to be able to control music they play.

I hear plenty of even supposed virtuosi who are poor at maintaining the sound of a single melody line when it gets swapped between hands.

Random. This is implyng that this is a feat at the piano that evades even the highest level pianists, a little bit of a joke we having here? There are plenty of more important issues.

The more basic the line being swapped around, the more useful it is to judge your success or lack of. Then you improve and do better in pieces where lines transfer between hands

Gibberish.

If you feel this is too easy for you, by all means upload a recording of a smooth legato scale played with this fingering at a fast speed or even a moderate one.

I do find this is too easy for me and also for any other advanced pianist. I do no have to to upload a recording lol, "What the hell!" *Buk lau voice* lol

If that's easy then fine. If not, chances are that you're getting by in more difficult passage due to the fact that subtle imprecision are more easily hidden than here.

Yes it is fine.

[lostinidlewonder]

Over decades I have tried and worked on the fingerings discussed and many more. The older I get, the more frequently I am surprised at how often a grotesquely awkward position gives rise to astonishing beauty, while carefully rehearsed smoothness of execution produces musical vacuity. I used to wish this lack of correlation were not so, that a physical ideal, a body of technical precepts, could be formulated which, if studied and followed, would invariably lead to transporting sound. Alas no.

This is written with deep knowledge of the art of fingering. Lovely Ted. It is interesting when we learn new fingerings how making it feel normal is a wonderful experience and the sound it rewards us with even more so. When studying Godowsky for the first time I was always intrigued by the fingering and at first stubbornly substituted it for what I normally used, however it was when I gave in and followed the fingering he suggested that I learned a new fingering style and sound production.

[dima_76557]

This is written with deep knowledge of the art of fingering. Lovely Ted. It is interesting when we learn new fingerings how making it feel normal is a wonderful experience and the sound it rewards us with even more so.

That's exactly what virtually everybody else who is an advanced pianist/composer has been saying in this thread. It is therefore unclear what you have been arguing against in your earlier posts. Using the fingering for C in all other keys regardless of black-and-white structures of the keyboard is just ONE variation on that same theme. The Liszt examples I cited are another.

When studying Godowsky for the first time I was always intrigued by the fingering and at first stubbornly substituted it for what I normally used, however it was when I gave in and followed the fingering he suggested that I learned a new fingering style and sound production.

Any renovative ideas in Godowsky's transcriptions in terms of fingering and sound effects can be found in Liszt's bundles of Technical Exercises, albeit in a more condensed form. I suspect Godowsky, who was basically self-taught, knew them and used them to expand his compositional resources, as did Busoni. What Chopin merely hinted at in his new style of piano playing Liszt carried to its limit.

[j_menz]

Any renovative ideas in Godowsky's transcriptions in terms of fingering and sound effects can be found in Liszt's bundles of Technical Exercises, albeit in a more condensed form. I suspect Godowsky, who was basically self-taught, knew them and used them to expand his compositional resources, as did Busoni. What Chopin merely hinted at in his new style of piano playing Liszt carried to its limit.

Busoni regarded Godowsky as having gone beyond Liszt (and, with his usual modesty, regarded himself as the only other person to have also done so).

Do you have some authority, beyond your own wishful speculation, that Godowsky ever even looked at the Liszt Technical Exercises?

[dima_76557]

Do you have some authority, beyond your own wishful speculation, that Godowsky ever even looked at the Liszt Technical Exercises?

No evidence or authority, no. I said I "suspected" this to be the case because doing the TE inevitably leads to the kind of discoveries Godowsky made. Another option is that it was pure coincidence. Since I have gone through both the TE and Godowsky's transcriptions, "coincidence" seems more than unlikely to me.

[j_menz]

because doing the TE inevitably leads to the kind of discoveries Godowsky made.

Given that many before him went through them without making those discoveries, "inevitable" seems to be somewhat over-egging it.

And I'm not clear what Busoni's Transcriptions have to do with Godowsky.

[dima_76557]

Given that many before him went through them without making those discoveries, "inevitable" seems to be somewhat over-egging it.

Not all people who go through one and the same experience are able to learn the same lessons from that experience. If you go through Liszt's TE as yet another bundle of finger exercises a la Hanon, then you will surely miss Liszt's pedagogical points.

And I'm not clear what Busoni's Transcriptions have to do with Godowsky.

I meant Godowsky's transcriptions. I wanted to add something about Busoni, but changed my mind. Corrected.

[j_menz]

Not all people who go through one and the same experience are able to learn the same lessons from that experience.

Precisely. That makes your use of  "inevitable" even less explicable. It is also hardly proof (or even a hint, really) that Godowsky must have used the Liszt TEs. He could equally well have learnt them from some other source, even one you know of but did not learn the same lessons from.

I meant Godowsky's transcriptions. I wanted to add something about Busoni, but changed my mind. Corrected.

Godowsky's Transcriptions undoubtedly derive many things from Liszt's Transcriptions. So do Busoni's, and pretty much anyone who has attempted one since. The link you are seeing as direct may in fact be second hand. That is to say, Liszt learnt from his TEs (or at least by writing them) various things which he went on to use in his transcriptions, which then formed a model for later transcribers such as Godowsky and Busoni.

[dima_76557]

Precisely. That makes your use of  "inevitable" even less explicable.

It becomes "inevitable" if you approach the TE as a compositional resource (the art of fingering on the instrument so to speak), and not as mere physical exercises, which Godowsky despised.

Godowsky's Transcriptions undoubtedly derive many things from Liszt's Transcriptions. So do Busoni's, and pretty much anyone who has attempted one since. The link you are seeing as direct may in fact be second hand. That is to say, Liszt learnt from his TEs (or at least by writing them) various things which he went on to use in his transcriptions, which then formed a model for later transcribers such as Godowsky and Busoni.

There are dissertations online that suggest and try to prove that Liszt had a Piano Method in mind, which he never finished. The TE reflect the ideas he was going to use in that Method. Since Liszt took the art of fingering already to its limits in his TE (he exhausted virtually all humanly possible variants for any given black-and-white structure), everybody after him owes to him. We have only 10 fingers and a repeating structure of black and white, which practically limits the variations of what is humanly possible.

[j_menz]

It becomes "inevitable" if you approach the TE as a compositional resource.

Do you have proof/evidence of anyone using it in this way? And I don't mean just that they composed something so they must have.

There are dissertations online that suggest and try to prove ...

Pretty much anything and everything. 

You might want to try a mathematical proof of your limits of what's possible theory. Then factor in time. Compare to the age of the universe.

[dima_76557]

Do you have proof/evidence of anyone using it in this way?

No proof/evidence, no (at least: I lack the qualifications to illustrate anything explicitly since I have no access to the minds of others, let alone to the minds of those who have long been dead), which does not mean that the idea itself has no practical merit. Is an "aha-reflex", for example, reliable proof/evidence? It certainly is to me.

EDIT: on the piano, you can only go:
1) from white to white
2) from white to black
3) from black to white
4) from black to black
It is therefore no coincidence that Liszt's favorite exercise to replace ALL others was the 2-finger preparation for scales with all possible finger combinations in all tonalities, including chromatic. Anything possible on the instrument in terms of scales and all their possible fingerings is reflected in that simple exercise.

[dima_76557]

Technique can be more interestingly found in playing pieces.

Very often, pieces as such distract the player from finding very simple but quite essential secrets the instrument can reveal to you by taking another approach. For example: how many thousands of pieces does one have to play to realize that if you "mirror" the hands in major scales (symmetric inversion), you get this:

C (-) from I to I (=Ionian) -> = C (-) From III to III (=Phrygian)
G (1#) from I to I (=Ionian) -> F (1b) From III to III (=Phrygian)
D (2#) from I to I (=Ionian) -> Bb (2b) From III to III (=Phrygian)
A (3#) from I to I (=Ionian) -> Eb (3b) From III to III (=Phrygian)
E (4#) from I to I (=Ionian) -> Ab (4b) From III to III (=Phrygian)
B (5#) from I to I (=Ionian) -> Db (5b) From III to III (=Phrygian)
F# (6#) from I to I (=Ionian) -> Gb (6b) From III to III (=Phrygian)

F (1b) from I to I (=Ionian) -> G (1#) From III to III (=Phrygian)
Bb (2b) from I to I (=Ionian) -> D (2#) From III to III (=Phrygian)
Eb (3b) from I to I (=Ionian) -> A (3#) From III to III (=Phrygian)
Ab (4b) from I to I (=Ionian) -> E (4#) From III to III (=Phrygian)
Db (5b) from I to I (=Ionian) -> B (5#) From III to III (=Phrygian)
Gb (6b) from I to I (=Ionian) -> F# (6#) From III to III (=Phrygian)

This works both ways, so you can use one hand to solve technical problems in the other one in unexpected ways. One may also find out in this way how illogical the traditional fingerings for scales actually are. Minor scales have their own simple "regularities" and so do triads, chords, etc. Is this all really "a waste of time"? I'd say it's an incredible leap forward in understanding transcendental technique, much more effective than simply repeating pieces until you know them and until you have practised all the life out of them.

[cometear]

Technique can be more interestingly found in playing pieces.

I agree with you all the way. I was going to say this until I saw you beat me to it.

To everyone else, there's no point in practicing one example of a technical challenge when there are innumerable others. Are you going to get to those too? Why not just give the music up all together if you're going to waste your time on mindless exercises? I think it's more productive to be improving your musical ability, repertoire, and technique. Do as you want but I think you're wasting precious time.

[falala]

I'd really like to see those claiming that C major fingering with the thumb on black notes is a significantly useful fingering, point to a few examples from the repertoire where it would be the most logical, comfortable or efficient way of playing a passage. If they can't, and I'm pretty sure they can't, I call BS.

So an awful lot more words since I posted this, and still not ONE SINGLE example of where it would be the best fingering for any excerpt from the repertoire.

OK then.  

[falala]

To become a virtuoso, you have to be ready to go to absurd and beyond.

This is not about actually playing passages in pieces with that fingering. It is about getting out of your comfort zone from time to time, about pushing your boundaries, about testing your technical competence in unusual and sometimes quite awkward configurations and positions, etc. which is one of the best ways to get true progress.

That's fair enough in theory. The problem is then: how do you decide the criteria for what are useful ways to get "out of your comfort zone" and what aren't? You're rejecting the usual criterion, which is direct practical applicability. So what are you putting in it's place? Is it just that the more uncomfortable it makes you feel, the more worthwhile it is?

In which case, why practise scales with C major fingering and thumbs on black notes, when there are MUCH more uncomfortable things you could be doing with your time instead? Why don't you practise them as I suggested above: 54321 54321 etc. in RH ascending, forcing you to turn your hand backwards all the way?

Or try this: F# major RH ascending legato: 15152152 

Do you practise scales with your elbows, your nose or the end of your willy, when the amount of discomfort you can coax from your fingers just doesn't make you suffer enough? 

I'm being facetious, of course, but there's still a valid problem: If the point of a practice technique is purely to encourage discomfort, then how do you judge one technique as being more worthy of practice than another? (Unless, as I alluded to above, it's by the AMOUNT of discomfort induced, in which case the fingering we're talking about here would be much less useful than thousands of others).

And the answer can't just be to practise all of them, because there is an infinite number of fingerings you can use to play the piano. It's theoretically and physically impossible to practise them all. So if you're advocating the practising of one of them, you must have some reason to believe it's more worthwhile than the others. What is that reason, in this case?

[dima_76557]

That's fair enough in theory. The problem is then: how do you decide the criteria for what are useful ways to get "out of your comfort zone" and what aren't? You're rejecting the usual criterion, which is direct practical applicability. So what are you putting in it's place? Is it just that the more uncomfortable it makes you feel, the more worthwhile it is?

The goal is, of course, to increase the amount of stuff in which you feel very comfortable. Standardized technical patterns (like scales with traditional fingerings) are very limited in their usage. You want to know your instrument, explore its limitations. If you don't know those limitations, then you can not call yourself a professional pianist, no matter how many pieces you have in your repertoire.

Also, repertoire is not something one should practise for. Rehearse, OK, but not practise in the sense of acquiring technique you do not already have, just as you don't abuse works by William Shakespeare to learn English grammar and vocabulary. Besides, I don't want to be one of those music boxes with a limited programmed repertoire that I can't even transpose to other keys if one of the strings on the piano breaks. I also want to be able to play anything at sight regardless the difficulty and invest as little time as possible to make it worthy for performance. To achieve that goal, you have to do much, much more than just practise and play one piece after another. I am already well on my way and I wish the same for everybody else here.

P.S.: Do you improvise in Baroque style, in Classical style, in Romantic and more modern style? Obviously not, otherwise you wouldn't be asking those questions. Standardized technical patterns and knowledge of even a huge amount of repertoire are hardly sufficient for that skill.

[falala]

P.S.: Do you improvise in Baroque style, in Classical style, in Romantic and more modern style? Obviously not, otherwise you wouldn't be asking those questions. Standardized technical patterns and knowledge of even a huge amount of repertoire are hardly sufficient for that skill.

Yes, I do more improvising than playing of repertoire these days. I trained classically but also play jazz, and do a lot of stuff blurring the normal boundaries between notation and improvisation.

As for the questions - you haven't answered them. 

[dima_76557]

As for the questions - you haven't answered them. 

It makes no sense to answer those questions in words. Either we are on the same wavelength or we are not, and whatever I say won't make a difference for the discussion. If you really want to learn something about piano playing, try Liszt's Technical Exercises, especially the two-finger preparation for scales. There you will find the answers to all your questions. I think I have given more than enough food for thought in this thread to support that advice.

P.S.: Trying the standard fingering of C for all other scales is not a goal in itself; it's part of a valuable learning process, and it is also a test of technical competence on the instrument that doesn't require as much of your valuable time as you seem to think.