Fingering: Brahms Op 120, #2

[scriabinophile]

I'm relearning the Brahms Sonata for Clarinet & Piano, Op 120, 2, for an upcoming recital. There is something about the LH from the sforzando in m. 139 to the sforzando in m. 141 of the 4th movement that never feels solid, no matter how I practice it.  I'm curious to know what LH fingering other pianists use here.



I'd appreciate hearing from others who have actually learned and performed the piece.

[nyiregyhazi]

What are you taking? I'm struggling to imagine any reason why any likely fingering would prove either notably good or bad, unless you're doing something truly bizarre. I think you think need to look at other issues than fingering, if you're having problems. Some passages are improved by fingering that wouldn't be immediately obvious, but this passage just is what it is. There's no magic fingering trick.

Edit- unless you're not taking 5 on the c? If not, you definitely should be. The rest is really just using the obvious fingers which are there anyway.

[scriabinophile]

There's no magic fingering trick.

I never asked for a "magic fingering trick".

If you read carefully, you'd see that I made a very simple request.

I'm still curious to know what LH fingering others use here, especially pianists who've actually performed the piece.

[nyiregyhazi]

I never asked for a "magic fingering trick".

If you read carefully, you'd see that I made a very simple request.

I'm still curious to know what LH fingering others use here, especially pianists who've actually performed the piece.

I just don't know what you're expecting. There are very few possibilities. My fingering is so mundane and obvious that it's not even worth the effort of typing it out. Fingering isn't going to change anything unless you're doing something very odd. I've played this and it's simply a matter of organising an octave chunk and then another chunk above. There's very little scope for variety. Why don't you tell us your fingering- so if you are doing something impractical it can be pointed out? But I really doubt the fingering is the issue.

[scriabinophile]

I just don't know what you're expecting.

Just a simple answer to my question. Nothing more.

There are very few possibilities

Correct. But there is more than one possibility.

I asked a very simple question, and the only respondent, as in other of his 4,066 posts, seems more interested in being contentious, verbose, and condescending than in being helpful, succinct, or friendly.

I consider this thread closed. If someone else feels like answering the question, please send me email with your fingering for the passage in question. Thanks. 

[nyiregyhazi]

Just a simple answer to my question. Nothing more.
Correct. But there is more than one possibility.

I asked a very simple question, and the only respondent, as in other of his 4,066 posts, seems more interested in being contentious, verbose, and condescending than in being helpful, succinct, or friendly.

I consider this thread closed. If someone else feels like answering the question, please send me email with your fingering for the passage in question. Thanks.  

Some passages invite all manner of fingering approaches. I was simply informing you that this doesn't and was therefore never likely to provoke any debate. There's little to no variety possible. If you were to have started with your own fingering, anyone could have told you whether it were problematic or inefficient. But it's not the type of passage where anyone might have leapt forward with diverse creative solutions. If you want help, my honest response is that you either need to post your own fingering for verification (although I'd be very surprised if it were better or worse or even different to my own) or start looking elsewhere than fingering. Its not the only avenue when things are difficult.

Lash out if you must but I was trying to save you time by pointing out that you're probably looking in the wrong place. If not, and there is something problematic in your fingerings, the way to find out is to take the time to type what you are doing, before expecting others to offer up something that you have not. You'll get a lot more responses that way.

[liszt1022]

take the time to type what you are doing, before expecting others to offer up something that you have not.

[nyiregyhazi]

If a poster feels there's an issue with what they are doing and wants assistance, it's down to them to go first if they want thoughtful replies. Besides, I already detailed my fingering: two chunks for each-  an octave and then a clump above. Listing separate numbers would be a complete waste of time, as that's not how Brahms' music works and it's not an effective way to organise it mentally.

Fingering in Brahms is about organising and seeing clumps of notes, not reams of numbers. It's just about selecting hand positions- which is why there's no scope for anything remarkable or unexpected here. If there were anything remotely out of the ordinary about the the individual fingers I take then I'd happily list them individually. But it's just two places to line up your arm for each, plus a tiny adjustment for the new phrase mark at the end- where almost anything goes. Some passages have room for all manner of interesting solutions of various qualities. Here a fingering can only be perfectly fit for the job or wildly impractical- which is why the poster should start by looking at the organisation behind what he is currently doing rather than hoping to learn anything from having other people list numbers.

[liszt1022]

I was just agreeing with you /\

[nyiregyhazi]

I was just agreeing with you /\

Ah, my mistake. I thought you meant I should give a fingerings before asking him his.

[hardy_practice]

I asked a very simple question, and the only respondent, as in other of his 4,066 posts, seems more interested in being contentious, verbose, and condescending than in being helpful, succinct, or friendly.

Happens all too often.  The guy's a menace!

I know what it's like to careful plan a fingering only to find in the heat of the moment it doesn't work.  Have you tried RH thumb on the Bb of 139 and G of 140?

[1piano4joe]

Hi scriabinophile,

Starting with Sfz measure 138 for the l.h. notes of D Bb D F Bb C Ab F I use 52132135. For the next Sfz starting at the end of measure 139 l.h. notes of F F C F G Ab F D I use 51321235. The Eb C A natural octaves I do 2 then 1 and then 51 together very quickly.

I find the 1st thumb crossing with 3 landing on F coming from the left thumb on D is easier if I cross 3 to the thin back white part of the F key just to the left of the black F# key. This makes it much more consistent (for me anyway) to play Bb with my 2nd finger.

The next phrase crossing the left thumb from F to C with 3 seems at first a little weird but hey it works and I can keep that whole phrase completely legato that way.

I hope I have been helpful, Joe.

[nyiregyhazi]

Hi scriabinophile,

Starting with Sfz measure 138 for the l.h. notes of D Bb D F Bb C Ab F I use 52132135. For the next Sfz starting at the end of measure 139 l.h. notes of F F C F G Ab F D I use 51321235. The Eb C A natural octaves I do 2 then 1 and then 51 together very quickly.

I find the 1st thumb crossing with 3 landing on F coming from the left thumb on D is easier if I cross 3 to the thin back white part of the F key just to the left of the black F# key. This makes it much more consistent (for me anyway) to play Bb with my 2nd finger.

The next phrase crossing the left thumb from F to C with 3 seems at first a little weird but hey it works and I can keep that whole phrase completely legato that way.

I hope I have been helpful, Joe.

You really don't need to worry about such legato fingerings in brahms. It's not impossible to do it with legato but, in brahms, going from an octave chunk straight to the fifth finger is the most common principle. The fewer adjustments, the easier it is. Making short-term adjustments makes things a lot more difficult than global ones that capitalise on the whole hand.

[1piano4joe]

Hi nyireghazi,

I see the first octave chunk as D Bb D which would be 521. The next clump of notes I see as a f minor 5 finger position of F G Ab Bb C. So, then I could line up my arm and take F with 5. This is no question, a lot easier. That would make the fingering change to 521 then 52135. This is immediately obvious to me.

Similarly, the next octave chunk would be 51 on the F F. This could be followed by a c minor 5 finger position "clump" of C D Eb F G. So, here I would take the C with 5 making the fingering 51 then 521235.

Unfortunately, for me, I can't seem to overcome my years of training as a clarinetist where there is no such thing as a phrase mark. Slurs only. If it's slurred, it's legato. The articulation is very precise through tonguing.  

So, many times I am mentally confused about what I see on the page. Sadly, I don't see scores through a pianists eyes. I see so many things that appear impossible due to the way I learned to process the information. I need to learn, somehow, to read scores much less literally.

Just curious but how can I tell when it's okay to break legato and use these global adjustments that capitalize on the whole hand? If that passage were written with 2 slurs instead of 1 eight note slur I would without question not resort to thumb crossings and use two hand positions.

I am sure this is one of several (many perhaps) reasons why my sight reading isn't what it could be.

I practice and practice arpeggios until the cows come home and scales as well. When I run out of fingers I just cross. I thought, naively perhaps, that's just what a pianist does. Although arpeggios at speed are a question of lining up the arm. A C major R.H. arpeggio 123 123 over and over at speed can't really be (by me anyway) performed connecting G with 3 to C with 1 crossing the thumb under the hand and over the notes A and B. This is an interval of a perfect 4th. So, like with thumb over scales a la Bernhard, I end up using thumb over for arpeggios and the gap is barely perceptible. This is essentially two hand positions.

Is that why a pianist doesn't need to worry about legato in Brahms or is it because the pedal connects anyway? I just don't know why, when or how.

Thank you, Joe.

P.S. Could you name a few other composers where the legato, similarly, is not important?

Thanks again, Joe.

[nyiregyhazi]

I see the first octave chunk as D Bb D which would be 521. The next clump of notes I see as a f minor 5 finger position of F G Ab Bb C. So, then I could line up my arm and take F with 5. This is no question, a lot easier. That would make the fingering change to 521 then 52135. This is immediately obvious to me.

Yeah, that would be the traditional Brahms approach to fingering. I have to be honest, I completely forget where I first heard about the principle and I haven't been able verify any clear sources that conclusively prove Brahms worked this way. However, wherever it came from, his music itself is full of evidence for it and I'm sure it must be accurate. I just looked through the two viola/clarinet sonatas, which I've played both of before and there are numerous passages where conventional arpeggio fingering would be too fiddly to even contemplate. However, conceive of two chunks and the same passage is actually extremely easy indeed. There are a lot of triplet arpeggios in the first movement that work this way, leaving simply no other option for a practical fingering. Between two clumps vs numerous intricate closing and opening actions, there's no contest.

I should stress that your suggested fingering is perfectly workable and certainly not "wrong", but I'd never suggest so many localised adjustments in Brahms, simply for the sake of the extra single legato connection. His music seems tailor made for keeping hand and arm in a nice simple straight alignment, without any of the bendings and contortions that other composers (notably Bach) often demand. You just get straight on top and keep it simple, without the opening and closing that traditional arpeggio playing would involve.

The only thing I'd say is that I might take a halfway house thing on the first group and do 4 on the F. I actually find it harder going from 1 to 5 the closer they are (closeness makes it harder to avoid squashing down into 5 with an accent rather than flowing on horizontally), so in this case I'd go with 4 and then have a very subtle adjustment to use 5 on the next F. But that's a small detail. The chunk issue is the primary motivation, except for that minute departure for the sake of comfort. On the second chunk of the next group, the wider distance makes it much easier to approach 5 horizontally and flow on without any danger of getting crushed down into a stopping point.

So, many times I am mentally confused about what I see on the page. Sadly, I don't see scores through a pianists eyes.

I'd look for clumps, usually within an octave or less. It's incredible just how consistently his music fits this simple premise. There are occasional departures, but his left hand arpeggios in particular are remarkably consist with a two clump principle. I only ever do the traditional short term closing/opening thing if it's truly unavoidable. For the same reason, I take 32 on the two notes before the octave. All reaching 1 under accomplishes is the need to reform the hand before the octave. It's far simpler to keep the hand open in a straight line and shift the arm than to lose the simple alignment and then recover it for the octave. Brahms is all about keeping that simple straight alignment unless there's really good cause to break it.

Just curious but how can I tell when it's okay to break legato and use these global adjustments that capitalize on the whole hand. If that passage were written with 2 four note slurs instead of 1 eight note slur I would without question not resort to thumb crossings and use two hand positions.

It's tricky to make a firm rule. But the simplest rule would be to say that it's better to break physical legato just once than to make two physical contortions. If physical legato only earns you one extra note under the hand, there's a fair chance it wasn't worth bothering. Obviously the sound needs to lead the process, but when the arm is felt to flow smoothly, the legato illusion tends to occur. It's not about casual disregard for legato but being very selective about the moments where just one physical break helps the overall group more than it hinders.

I practice and practice arpeggios until the cows come home and scales as well. When I run out of fingers I just cross. I thought, naively perhaps, that's just what a pianist does.

For many things. But check out the r.h. triplet arpeggios in the first movement of this sonata. Chunks is the only way to finger it. Traditional fingering would be outrageously difficult.

Although arpeggios at speed are a question of lining up the arm. A C major R.H. arpeggio 123 123 over and over at speed can't really be (by me anyway) performed connecting G with 3 to C with 1 crossing the thumb under the hand and over the notes A and B. This is an interval of a perfect 4th. So, like with thumb over scales ala Bernhard, I end up using thumb over for arpeggios and the gap is barely perceptible. This is essentially two hand positions.

Exactly. With that in mind, the Brahms principle is why not make that two bigger hand position- ie C-C and E-E. I have a feeling he actually asks for this type of fingering in one of his exercises.

P.S. Could you name a few other composers where the legato, similarly, is not important?

To be honest- I use the same principle at least some of the time in any romantic composer. It's just that the music doesn't always fit it quite so consistently as with Brahms. It's not about casual disregard for legato but very selective identification of small numbers of moments where losing physical legato is a small price to pay for the simplicity of how the hand can align itself for what follows.

[nyiregyhazi]

See the arpeggios on the first page of the first hungarian dance, btw.

https://javanese.imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/0/00/IMSLP321965-SIBLEY1802.22834.f2f9-39087014464905vol._1_score.pdf

It's fingered by an editor, but it's such a specific notation (with the missing B flat) that no other fingering is really conceivable.

[1piano4joe]

Hi nyiregyhazi,

Just wanted to say, "thank you" again for taking the time to write such a long detailed post and giving an exceptionally well written, knowledgeable response that could only possible have come from many, many years of experience. Wow, you answered ALL of my questions!

Your post taught me some things that really opened my eyes. I had never heard of the Brahms' principle and your advice about the application to other Romantic composers, the rule about 1 break in legato vs. 2 contortions, smoothness and the legato illusion with the sound ultimately determining the fingering was outstanding.

BTW, I did check out that first Hungarian dance you suggested. The editor's choice of fingering, breaking the legato and using two hand positions I found both very disturbing yet enlightening. Previously, I would have thought the editor made a boo boo or possibly a typo. Doesn't he see the slur over all the notes? Apparently, this woodwind player does and pianists (which evidently I am not) see them CUM GRANO SALIS.

Will I ever learn in my thick, dense but handsome skull that there is so much more implied than what is actually written on the page?

I know better with Baroque repeats that I can improvise all sorts of little niceties. So, maybe I am better equipped for inserting as opposed to deleting.

I guess what it ultimately comes down to is perhaps this, I must remove the "training wheels". I must realize that I have the final word in the editorial department. I can do whatever is necessary, acceptable and appropriate regardless of what is written on the page.

Generally, I don't use urtext but maybe considering my mental limitations due to woodwind training I  
should.

Ironically, I have no qualms (that I know of) about changing fingering, choosing the tempo but these slurs/phrase marks get the better of me all too often.

Thanks again, Joe.

[nyiregyhazi]

Just wanted to say, "thank you" again for taking the time to write such a long detailed post and giving an exceptionally well written, knowledgeable response that could only possible have come from many, many years of experience. Wow, you answered ALL of my questions!

Sure, it's a way of thinking that I had to put a lot of thought into initially, but once you set the ball rolling this style of thinking starts to become the simplest instinct of all behind a lot of fingering. Even when connecting chunks with legato, I almost always organise the thinking in clumps. The difference in Brahms is that you often go straight from clump to clump, where in other composers you often need to shift in more intricate ways- but the manner of organisation yields results in all kinds of music.

I had never heard of the Brahms' principle and your advice about the application to other Romantic composers, the rule about 1 break in legato vs. 2 contortions,

I should stress that it's not quite a rule. But it's about as close as I could come to a relatively consistent formula. There's a passage in the little Schubert A major sonata 3rd movement where I play a D major second inversion arpeggio with the thumbs on F sharps, for similar reasons.

BTW, I did check out that first Hungarian dance you suggested. The editor's choice of fingering, breaking the legato and using two hand positions I found both very disturbing yet enlightening. Previously, I would have thought the editor made a boo boo or possibly a typo. Doesn't he see the slur over all the notes? Apparently, this woodwind player does and pianists (which evidently I am not) see them CON GRANUM SOLACE.

Actually, I just discovered the thumbs are a rare fingering mark from the composer himself. There aren't too many concrete indications of this concept from Brahms himself, but it turns out this really is one. I really wish I could remember where I first heard about this concept for fingering Brahms- but it's nice to have at least this one definite first-hand example to assure me that I didn't just pluck it out of my arse. Interestingly, on the next page, there's a D major arpeggio that can be taken in two octave clumps. However, that version of the score contains a suggestion to start on 2 for F sharp rather than 1. This one IS from the editor- who clearly missed out on the fact that Brahms' prior fingering would suggest he probably ought have applied the same logic.

I guess what it ultimately comes down to is perhaps this, I must remove the "training wheels". I must realize that I have the final word in the editorial department. I can do whatever is necessary, acceptable and appropriate regardless of what is written on the page.

Well, some people speak of how the arm needs to flow smoothly enough to maintain a sense of a long line. I like this idea very much. You don't contradict the phrase mark in sound, so much as switch to generating that particular feeling of legato through arm continuity rather than literal finger legato. Ironically, the right quality may even sound MORE legato than the laboured process of contorting the hand and then having to reopen it again- and it also earns ease of finger legato between all other notes.