Completely Fingering Pieces.

[josh93248]

This is a topic I've wanted to write about for some time.

I completely finger every last piece I play. I write it all in, my books look like something out of "A Beautiful Mind"

This may seem crazy but bear with me as I explain:

It's hard to remember where this began exactly, but I can clearly define two eras of my playing, before total fingering and after it. I used to be a very sloppy but expressive pianist. Expression was never a problem and sometimes people really enjoyed my playing but after some experiences with a mature musician I began to realise just how terribly inaccurate and inconsistent my playing was.

Another thing to mention is how reliant on the pedal I was at this time, I actually had a funny experience where my house was flooded and we had to tear up all the carpeting and that made the piano room so echoey that I got to the point where I couldn't stand my terrible pedalling.

I developed fast, too fast maybe, but it kept my interest to jump from basic beginner pieces to Fur Elise, to the Toccata in D minor to the Moonlight Sonata first movement to a Chopin Nocturne (guess which one haha) and etudes to finally tackling the 3rd Ballade after about 2 or so years.

Then my hand problems started.

This was a devastating period but is now resolved. But it, and those earlier mentioned experiences caused me to re-evaluate my technique.

I wanted a more accurate approach, I would normally just start playing pieces, trying to improve them with each pass, but I always got caught up with certain difficulties that usually remained unfixed.

I also wanted to be far more accurate in terms of note duration, I wanted to hold notes for exactly the lengths indicated in the score, relying on my fingers as much as possible rather than pedalling.

That, I think, is where this whole thing started.

So, I began fingering my pieces, I actually started with Beethoven Sonatas and Bach Preludes and Fugues (easy ones) but soon discovered just how many advantages complete fingering had.

Here they all are, In my experience:

1. You can create a better, perhaps even ideal, fingering approach to your piece by taking the time to address the matter individually at the start of work on the piece. This avoids so many dead ends and issues caused by faulty fingering that you have to deal with later.

2. If you really test and analyse, be creative and put time into your fingering you can find some really amazing solutions to problems. I feel like a boss after coming up with a really clever solution to a problem that probably very few, if any, other pianists have considered.

3. Once you come up with a fingering you don't have to really ever think about it again (except to make any improvements you can think of), I'm certain a portion of our processing power, so to speak, gets used up when we play without knowing our fingering in coming up with the fingering on the spot. Not only is it an inferior fingering most likely but also we are distracted fractionally from other more important matters like musical expression.

4. If your fingering is well thought out you can probably make all your phrases legato or at least as legato as possible without pedal. Of course, you will not always want to actually PLAY legato but always having the OPTION (considering that you can always play a note staccato regardless of the fingering) can be great. Also, legato fingering is generally just better for the flow of movement of the body.

5. You can make your motions more flowing and better co-ordinated because not only are they planned, they are optimised (insofar as your ability at fingering)

6. The process of complete fingering allows you to analyse your pieces in minute detail, helping you notice nuances you might otherwise miss.

7. Complete fingering helps you plan your use of fingers in such a way as will help you get those exact durations right. This is excellent for contrapuntal work where each voice needs to be held for its full duration.

8. Complete fingering allows you to identify the exact nature of the technical difficulties in any piece and makes it easier to solve them.

9. Complete fingering improves performance as you have a clear plan you have been working on from the start on how to play your pieces.

Now there are some counter arguments I can anticipate, which I would like to address.

Won't this hamper your ability to play without fingering, to sight read?

This is perhaps the biggest argument and I admit, there is quite a bit of validity to it, I struggle with sight reading but then, I always have. However, if you are spending so much time working intelligently on fingering then I think your fingering "IQ" will increase allowing for better playing, even in sight reading.

Might this not result in an over calculated, cold performance?

Not at all in my experience, I was actually asked this question by a non-musician and nothing is more freeing than not having to worry about your fingers at all because they've already been taken care of.

This seems unnecessary, can't I just do a bit of fingering and leave it at that?

Perhaps, but I should say that if you really look closely and think outside the box and listen to your body as you finger, you can discover opportunities for improvement on conventional fingering almost everywhere in a piece. Also to really do it right you have to factor in much of what goes before and much of what comes after any part of music you finger, it's best to just do it all, or at leas the vast majority in my experience.

So, what do you all think? Do you want to try my approach? Do you think I'm a crazy moron?

I'd be happy to offer my advice to anyone who wants to try my approach, I highly encourage you to at least give it a shot and see if it helps. We practice these pieces for hours and hours trying to get them right, what could it hurt to spend a session or two working on this important aspect of playing?

[outin]

I've seen some teachers recommend to write in every single finger number. That's too much for me, numbers on scores easily disorient me (due to my dyscalcylia). For the same reason writing fingerings down is terribly slow and tedious work for me and I make a lot of silly mistakes and don't even notice them.

But still, from my point of view there's not even another option, I always finger my pieces myself and write as much as is needed for unambiguousness, which is usually quite a lot. For practicing in short sections it's good to be able to immediately see which fingers to start with. I prefer fingerless scores because they don't get so messy when I write down my own. Standard fingerings don't often work for me because of my small span. Need to be creative.

But then again... My fingerings also change when the piece evolves. I often find better solutions when working on the piece.

[josh93248]

I've seen some teachers recommend to write in every single finger number. That's too much for me, numbers on scores easily disorient me (due to my dyscalcylia). For the same reason writing fingerings down is terribly slow and tedious work for me and I make a lot of silly mistakes and don't even notice them.

But stil, I always finger my pieces myself and write as much as is needed for unambiguousness, which is usually quite a lot. For practicing in short sections it's good to be able to immediately see which fingers to start with. I prefer fingerless scores because they don't get so messy when I write down my own. Standard fingerings don't often work for me because of my small span. Need to be creative.

But then again... My fingerings also change when the piece evolves. I often find better solutions when working on the piece.

Fair enough. maybe my approach isn't exactly for you. But it sounds like you have your own established approach that works well enough for you.

Sometimes my fingering changes, but that's what a pencil and rubber are for!

[outin]

Fair enough. maybe my approach isn't exactly for you. But it sounds like you have your own established approach that works well enough for you.

Sometimes my fingering changes, but that's what a pencil and rubber are for!

Yep...but it's really annoying when that thing (whatever you call it, rubber residue?) get all over the keyboard 

I think we agree that fingering is the basis of learning the piece and must be done carefully first before starting to really practice. But also some patterns will become so familiar that you immediately know how to play them, even in a new piece, right?

Also, what do you see as a benefit of fingering every note as opposed to only fingering notes that defer from the natural finger progression, such as a 5 finger scale? Do you actively read the numbers while you are practicing? Do you memorize your pieces for performance/recording?

[dogperson]

At one time I would have thought you were a crazy moron to finger everything, because I didn't.  Some of the instinctive choices I made were not grounded in theory or the best in practicality.  

BUT I've had a new piano teacher for a few months who has made me a believer that the failure to plan fingering has created problems for me in developing more speed and the best possible legato. She has made me realize that fingering consistency between similar passages is critical.

  Therefore, I now finger ( in blue pencil so it is more prominent)-  obviously, not all,but just  the primary finger changes.  This pre-planning is really helping me.

More robotic?  no.  It really has given me more freedom to express the music the way I intend.  It really seems to improve my sight-reading as I develop more of a mental library of fingering.  Regardless, if I am truly sight-reading, I don't sweat the fingering.

I would have argued the free-spirit approach a few months ago, but now I am a believer.

[josh93248]

@ outin

I suppose they can become familiar, I have a few shortcuts so I don't have to write EVERY number, but I always evaluate everything. Also, it can be worth looking at even common figures to see if you can find a better way, also the transitions to and from these common passages may make some modification of the standard better.

I progressively read them less and less but I know that having them there, in my peripheral vision, helps.

I actually prefer to have the music handy when performing and recording as I feel looking at the score enables me to better plan my interpretation and also keeps me exact in my note durations and such. Also I have so much rep atm that it's just easier to not memorise just yet.

@ dogperson

Fingering consistency can help, but even the smallest difference between similar passages should be looked at in my opinion.

Yeah, that was an odd argument about being robotic but I have heard it.

Good that you more or less agree, thanks dogperson! And try a complete fingering sometime if you have a particularly complex piece, it may help.

[outin]

It actually never even crossed my mind that someone serious about learning would not do some proper fingering work with their pieces

Some of my Baroque scores probably look like yours, full of numbers, because there's almost no repetition, every passage is slightly different.

[josh93248]

Perhaps I see it as being a bit radical in that I know I make some unconventional choices in fingering and have some other principles in how I finger that go against the grain...

[outin]

Perhaps I see it as being a bit radical in that I know I make some unconventional choices in fingering and have some other principles in how I finger that go against the grain...

You're not using your thumb on a black key are you? 


Seriously, if it really works, then it's as good as any other...

[josh93248]

You're not using your thumb on a black key are you? 


Seriously, if it really works, then it's as good as any other...

Hahaha, I DO 

I suppose that's true... But I have that temptation to believe I really have come up with some good ones, and, dare I say, some ideal ones?

[outin]

Hahaha, I DO 

I suppose that's true... But I have that temptation to believe I really have come up with some good ones, and, dare I say, some ideal ones?

Why not? I have some personal specialties as well, since I have a really long, flexible and handy shaped middle finger

[josh93248]

Why not? I have some personal specialties as well, since I have a really long, flexible and handy shaped middle finger

Oh outin, you're a funny bugger

[bronnestam]

Every time I am careless with my fingering I have to pay afterwards, because I never learn the piece very good if my fingering is not dead sure.
But, as outin points out, fingering is something that tend to develop for me. For example, when I whack my first shy attempts through the piece I think I have found a good fingering, and when I have worked up more speed and expression, I have to re-consider. My mandatory tools during learning is a pencil and a rubber!

Graham Fitch suggests that you should, at least, write the fingering for every FIRST and maybe every LAST note in every bar. This means that if you have to make an interruption, you will easily be able to go on with next bar without much thinking. My own principle is, if I'm careful, to write out the fingering every time I shift my hand position and it is not elementary, like a standard D major scale or a basic chord or something.

I also think I learn faster by playing "skeletons", which could mean that my left hand is just playing the first note/chord in every bar while the right hand is more detailed, and vice versa, until I know where to put my hands even if the details still are a bit fuzzy ... This assumes that you stick to the fingering which should be final, and that means that the fingering must be worked out and that you MUST write it for every first note in every bar, just as I just mentioned.

Another favourite "trick" of mine, which speeds up learning significantly, is to play the notes as block groups, rather than single entities. To make a schematic example just for illustration: let's say you are to play a C major scale up and you are not quite sure how to do it ...   and most of all, when you try, it is painfully slow. Instead, you can play the C-D-E as a firm chord with your fingers 1-2-3, and then you make a quick shift to the next position and play F-G-A-B with your fingers 1-2-3-4, and then you play the final C with your thumb, ready to proceed upwards.

The disadvantage is that it sounds AWFUL, but after just a few attempts you will find that you can position your fingers very quickly and also play very, very fast if you like.  
But, again - you need to be dead sure of the fingering before you can do this. And if the sequence  includes movements up AND down, you have to play them as separate groups. Let's say you are to play C-E-D-F ... then you make two groups out of C-E and then D-F.

[bzzzzzt]

I don't finger every note.  But I did recently start writing a LOT more fingerings in.  For me:

a. If something doesn't sound quite right then it helps me analyse what's going wrong.  Rubbing out and changing fingerings is one way I learn what works better.

b. When I read the music it helps visualise my next hand position (rather than just what notes I need to play)

by the way, Josh - nice playing in your videos!

[dcstudio]

, if you are spending so much time working intelligently on fingering then I think your fingering "IQ" will increase allowing for better playing, even in sight reading.

Josh.. the more I read your posts the more I like you.    your finger IQ will become automatic as you progress...so I would be interested in speaking with you in a year or two and see how you feel about this then.  

I have had several students who did exactly what you are doing...  it would drive me crazy to try to read along with them--so I always made a clean copy for me.  What I noticed  is that they were very uncomfortable without those fingerings... even on very simple pieces.  Really though, if you are making music--and it's true to the intentions of the composer--then does it really matter that much if you took a few different steps to get there? Not in my book.   It works for you...and that's all that matters really.

I will admit...usually I have big problems with 4 year piano vets handing out advice...usually because they have no idea what they are talking about.   You are a serious student though and you have stated your methods quite clearly... impressive.
 

[josh93248]

Thanks a lot bzzzzzzt, I'm glad you enjoyed them

Thanks Dc for what you said too, I realise I'm still a relative newcomer, I just wanted to share these ideas because I feel they could help people or at least create some debate.

I also have quite liked a lot of your posts and your general attitude

[rmbarbosa]

Very strange for me...
I never finger... fingering is a so natural thing when we play... it`s like when we talk: we dont need to think the words, they flow spontaneously ...

And I do play black keys with my first finger, if needed. Why not?
When I studied the scales, I played all them with the same fingering: 123-1234-1.... even C sharp and the other scales beggining in black keys. The same for harps and its invertions. I practised the hole tone scales with 12345-1... then 2345-1 and so on... so, to me, it´s quite simple to play something spontaneously. I put my hands on the keyboard and... I play... that`s all

[adodd81802]

I agree that fingers should be natural - however things flow when we talk because we have rules on how to talk, the order of things. commas, full stops, capitalization, grammar, word order.

I think thumbs on black keys is a very unnatural thing unless playing solely on black keys for a piece and I am not really sure how you would comfortably play some scales with that method, I mean 123-1234 for F major scale? .... no, not really. Maybe that works for you, but I believe personally think this is some revolutionary way we are yet to observe.

I think if anything having more rules on how you should play makes playing pieces easier as a lot of the unnecessary work is done for you, and it brings consistent learning, patterns to fingering etc. I wouldn't say writing all fingers for every piece is necessary, i think indicating 1 and 5's are important or any unusual cross overs example playing for instance a legato B+E 1-5 to a Bb+Eb 2-4.

It does come down to hand and finger size, but I think if you adopt good set of rules to how you should play early on, it will become more intuitive when playing new pieces.

[josh93248]

Hmmm... My position is not that spontaneous fingering is wrong or even bad but that there are meaningful advantages to complete fingering worth exploring for those curious.

To use the language metaphor, let us say that a good improvisatory speaker can come up with some excellent pieces of language on the fly but is there not even more capacity for brilliance if more time is expended and a structured approach with planning is used? This would vary from person to person, how good they would do in either mode but surely the tendency is for there to be a better result with time and planning.

[roncesvalles]

I have just started to write down fingerings, and I just tend to write my 1s and 5s as well, to indicate hand position.   For contrapuntal works, though, I sometimes write a little more, because a lot of the time the most natural fingering for a single note is not the best for a contrapuntal passage.  It often suffices just to write down the fingering for what had been the problem note, because what follows is often dependent on that fingering.   I also write in finger substitutions because I have the bad habit of pedaling after getting caught without switching fingers.  

Another case where I write in fingerings is if I have an idea to have something unusual done in terms of fingering.   I had been playing Zhelobinsky's 12th Prelude's arpeggios, which are a thin texture and spaced over nearly two octaves, with two hand positions on each four note arpeggio, but then I  realized that I could play them with a single rolling motion with one hand position (kind of like a slower motion figuration of the type in Godowsky's left hand version of Chopin's Op. 10 no. 1), which wouldn't require pedaling except for a quick touch between arpeggios that would be necessary anyway.  

[rmbarbosa]

Yes, it`s quite easy to play F scale with 123-1234-1...
Yes, in this scale, if we do so, the B is a black key but it is not difficult to play a black key with finger 1...
the rule "never play a black key with finger 1" is a outdate rule.
Also, we can play scales only with fingers 3, 4 and 5 or 1,2 and 3 or one note with a RH finger and the next with a left hand finger and so on...
Then, when we are going to play real music, everything becomes so easy... because we choose the easiest way.

[liszt1022]

College teacher had me completely finger Bach's E major P&F from Book I, and the first mvt of Italian Concerto. I learned a lot! I was better at finding good fingerings after that.

[adodd81802]

Yes, it`s quite easy to play F scale with 123-1234-1...
Yes, in this scale, if we do so, the B is a black key but it is not difficult to play a black key with finger 1...
the rule "never play a black key with finger 1" is a outdate rule.
Also, we can play scales only with fingers 3, 4 and 5 or 1,2 and 3 or one note with a RH finger and the next with a left hand finger and so on...
Then, when we are going to play real music, everything becomes so easy... because we choose the easiest way.

I'll be honest I completely disagree. it's up for debate and just personal opinion. Fair enough I will agree that sometimes it's appropriate to use the thumb on black notes, but i think it's rarely necessary. Chopin one of my favorite composers started students on the B major scale because it was the most natural setting for the hand. Thumb and little on the whites, rest can do the blacks.

I certainly wouldn't play the F major scale with my thumb on Bb and think it's near impossible to get the same quality of sound playing that way.

You are right in saying one thing though - people love to choose the easy way "cheaters win" right? But I don't think they gain respect. Genius composers didn't make their music for people to abuse ways of playing it. That's just my opinion. I am sure you are a good pianist but your approach to playing is like telling me 2+2 = 5 it makes my head hurt lol.

[dcstudio]

the only problem I have with the complete finger  method is that it tends to be a crutch and it's hard to get them to let go of it once they are used to it.   The first couple of tunes in most method books use finger numbers and notes.... it is an easy way to read... but it's not reading music,  Most students who do this only look at the numbers they don't read the notes on the staff... so their sight reading ability is almost nonexistent ...

it also looks so crappy with all those markings on the page.   most piano teachers try to steer their students away from this.  It's really impossible to employ this method on the higher end pieces...it's just not efficient.   Most abandon this totally by about their 2nd or 3rd year of study.


it's kind of a misleading practice you know... it feels like you are putting in extra time and doing extra work...but you are really preventing yourself from learning to read ...




'

[outin]

I'll be honest I completely disagree. it's up for debate and just personal opinion. Fair enough I will agree that sometimes it's appropriate to use the thumb on black notes, but i think it's rarely necessary.

People still argue about that? 
It's practically impossible to play a lot of romantic stuff with many voices without the thumb regularly on black keys, unless your hands are huge.

I personally prefer traditional scale fingerings, but it's also a matter of hand shape. There are people with shorter fingers of even length and for those it's probably not a big deal.

[outin]

it's kind of a misleading practice you know... it feels like you are putting in extra time and doing extra work...but you are really preventing yourself from learning to read ...

Í can see how it could be so if someone writes in every number and then just reads those. But they would still need to read if they write in the fingerings themself

I think complete fingerings (usually not written by themselves) are only a problem for beginners who may get into the habit of reading just the numbers.

At least for me fingering is a most important part of the technical study of the piece that I will memorize anyway and it really makes no difference to my reading. As I mentioned earlier I hardly even notice the numbers after writing them in, unless I am doing some really detailed practice. Sight reading practice one can do with other pieces and then I prefer minimal fingerings on the score. For me the numbers just make reading harder. The cleaner the score, the easier it is for me to read. While sight reading I am taking advantage of all the fingering work I have done for the other pieces, because that teaches me what works with my hands and with different figurations.

[dcstudio]

Í can see how it could be so if someone writes in every number and then just reads those. But they would still need to read if they write in the fingerings themself

outside of the one time they may read them when they write the numbers in no---they don't read the notes. in my experiences anyway.

you would think so... but that's not the case usually... they are only looking at the numbers they have written in.. they usually cannot tell you what key they are playing in--(usually) and some don't even know the note names... I have had students come to me after playing that way for a couple of years and they have a rough time getting past a certain point because they can't just rely on finger numbers anymore..   that's why I always try to steer my students away from that practice

I don't mean to suggest that Josh is playing this way...  but most of the time they have the piece pretty well memorized and they are kind of using the numbers as a crutch,   if they look at their hands instead of the music they cake...  having the music in front of them keeps their eyes busy

[keypeg]

I think two different things are being discussed here.

1.  The issue of beginner students especially who "read" finger numbers, and don't learn to read notes, and thus develop a debilitating dependence on finger numbers.  This is dcpiano's concern.  It's a valid one.

2.  The importance of good effective fingering which is found, and then used consistently thereafter.  This has been drummed in to me, and I've adopted it because it makes sense and works.  The question then is - how to reach this.

Like someone else said, lots of passages will just naturally play themselves a certain way along familiar patterns, or because that's how your hand is.   The way I learned it, the first step is to go through the piece, note anything that needs to be worked out, and mark in fingering that works for those sections, planning it out and testing it.  Consider suggested fingering in the music and whether it works for your hand.  Many teachers test-drive the pieces they commonly teach, suggesting fingering that works for the majority of their students, and then go from there.

I would not mark in every single finger, but rather a few spots.  Often a "guide finger" will be enough.  I.e. if the next section starts on F for 5 notes, marking 1 for RH on F also takes care of 2,3,4,5 for the next notes - they are not needed.

The rest of the strategy is to work on smaller sections at first to make them secure, and to always consistently use the same fingering.  

@dcpiano - would you have marked in fingering here and there where needed for your students?  Is there anything similar or different to what I described that you might recommend?

[dcstudio]

I think two different things are being discussed here.

@dcpiano - would you have marked in fingering here and there where needed for your students?  Is there anything similar or different to what I described that you might recommend?

of course I marked fingerings---oh please---I don't mean NEVER mark fingerings...I apologize for not making that clear.....yes there are passages that I always added a number here and there and the places I would mark fingerings usually meant a position change or modulation

and I don't mean to suggest that you shouldn't figure out every fingering ahead of time either.... if that is what you mean by complete fingering then I am all for it.   I am behind that 100%

what I am hearing in this description is that all the finger numbers are being written in... now I have seen scores where this has been attempted --many of them in fact... it's pretty much impossible ---unless you really have a OCD to the max student who writes in typeface---to decipher even the rhythms after every finger number has been added (usually in blue or black ink).   sometimes they put them right on the staff--some try to write them in above--but it's a mess almost every time.

now once they have done this--they never look again at the music--they play it by ear and look at the finger numbers...  mistakes in rhythm they make at the beginning of the week are completely  programmed in the hands by the time they come back for their next lesson...and a lot of times they will argue fiercely that they are playing it correctly and you have it wrong...

they also insist that this is the only way they can learn a song...  they play it better this way...this is the way their other teacher taught them... she is a better teacher than you... it sounds right to me so why can't I play it this way....  well. that's just how I play it... I am playing a D there!  see!      --no dear, that's an A--

who cares what key it's in if I can play it I don't need to know that...   I like to do it this way better...  my dad says it sounds better this way...


dude....  I could go on for days...lol.

sorry if I was unclear.

[keypeg]

dc studio, you were perfectly clear.  But since you are a teacher with experience I framed my question so that there will be the benefit of your advice on this subject as well.  To start off with we only had the idea presented by Josh, and what struck me is that there are actually two concerns.  One of them is this fingering-dependence that can develop which kills reading.  The other is the importance of good fingering.  As a teacher you would have straddled that apparent dichotomy in an optimum manner.

Thank you for sharing your input with everyone.  


Btw, my gut feeling is that finger numbers on every note is simply too much.  And yours is not the first concern I've heard expressed about it.

[dcstudio]

I was always taught to think of fingerings in groups--and to think of the hand as one unit not five fingers... this is one of the walls that students really have trouble with.   They will look at fingerings and one finger at a time they find the keys--that is mentally grueling...   we were taught to look at the phrase and think of how the entire hand will move---the finger numbers being part of the whole process--not to be thought of individually.  

as an example--Minuet in G--simple enough... the fingering in the right hand in the first two measures  5--1-2-3-4-5--1---1 -- she had me hold my hand over that G position above the keys and pretend to play it--then move to the next position still holding the hand above the keys and pretend to play it.    She also made sure I thought of all five keys in that position and all 5 fingers over those keys--then moving the hand to hover over the next position--not simply thinking pinky to D.. if that makes sense?

 I have seen students stretch their 5 finger out ahead of their hand and try to get it there ahead of the rest of their fingers...which pulls the hand out of that natural relaxed state.   Other times they try to hold on to the old position stretch the 5 finger out and sort of "pull" the rest of their fingers along...  again causing tension which has to be released before the fingers can continue on.   Sometimes they think the keys are going to move out from under their fingers if they don't hang on to them it seems.  They think one finger at a time to one note at a time... think of people who play guitar and pause while they change chords... times 1000...lol.

Again... I will hear the same lines...

I have to do it this way...  well, this is how I do it... your way is too hard..   my mom says it's ok if I want to do it this way... (I love that one..lol)    I am so playing it right...  I counted!  the metronome is off...  this is too hard of a song...  my friend played it this way...  

IMO--these are the habits that REALLY cause problems later...   arguing with your teacher about basic technique... I saw college students do this to professors from time to time...  they didn't stay in the program very long...

it's always been my theory that is the real reason so many people struggle with technique--they wouldn't listen in the beginning.  All this complaining about bad teaching lately..

not one word about the poor teacher who tries and tries to get the student to listen... 

It ain't easy guys...  that's why I get especially angry when people complain bitterly about it -- who have never tried to do it themselves,

[outin]

I was always taught to think of fingerings in groups--and to think of the hand as one unit not five fingers... this is one of the walls that students really have trouble with.   They will look at fingerings and one finger at a time they find the keys--that is mentally grueling...   we were taught to look at the phrase and think of how the entire hand will move---the finger numbers being part of the whole process--not to be thought of individually.  

as an example--Minuet in G--simple enough... the fingering in the right hand in the first two measures  5--1-2-3-4-5--1---1 -- she had me hold my hand over that G position above the keys and pretend to play it--then move to the next position still holding the hand above the keys and pretend to play it.    She also made sure I thought of all five keys in that position and all 5 fingers over those keys--then moving the hand to hover over the next position--not simply thinking pinky to D.. if that makes sense?

Makes perfect sense and this is how I always operated. Maybe there's actually some benefits in having problems with numbers, if I tried to think of every individual finger number my head would blow off 

I will write down the fingerings that will guide my hand to the right position and also any "anomaly" to the natural flow. These are remainders, not clutches. What you describe your students doing is really tedious.... I think you would need to find a way for them to realize it themselves and see that your way is really easier. How to do that I cannot tell, I never work with kids...

[dcstudio]

Josh... I know you mean well.. but you are not giving solid advice here. 

I know you are a better than average player for your four years of experience... but when you post these complete fingering claims and tell us you have six students... is this the method you will use to teach them?

later on when you really do want to start teaching... you may not want these kinds of posts floating around out here.

It is exciting to get better at the piano...  I know...  but you are kind of acting like "guru josh" ---writing these long posts...offering information on this system... come on.  Students have been trying to write in the finger numbers instead of reading the notes for centuries.    Most of the people who read your post didn't understand -- but anyone with any teaching exp saw it right away... 

your system is already starting to hold you back and you have already had hand issues. I am all for self-teaching--when it works---but you have closed yourself off and decide that you know what's best for learning how to play. 

I mean no disrespect...  I have just been doing this a really long time.. 

humble is better, my friend.... you may want to ask some of them for advice...

[outin]

To be fair, Josh isn't the only one promoting this idea. Here's a link:
https://www.key-notes.com/writing-in-fingerings.html

[keypeg]

To be fair, Josh isn't the only one promoting this idea. Here's a link:
https://www.key-notes.com/writing-in-fingerings.html

I'm familiar with Albert Frantz.  He's pretty solid and thorough with a strong background.   It would be better to look at some of what he actually says.

(Albert Frantz)
....The purpose of writing in your fingerings is clarity. Obsessively writing every single fingering in every piece of music can be counterproductive; in some pieces this practice impedes clarity and will interfere with learning music. The fingering for many passages will be obvious. While Liszt’s music is among the most physically complex, very often—I dare say even most of the time—the fingering is self-evident; there is often only one option. In such cases, writing in every last finger number will sometimes make the music harder to read rather than easier........

Again, good fingering is a very important principle in piano.  Secondly, consistently using the same good fingering, once it has been found, is an important principle.  The MEANS to this end is not writing in every single finger - but writing in finger numbers where necessary.  That is what I've been taught.  I go by it because it makes sense and works - rather than out of any blind loyalty.

[keypeg]

I was always taught to think of fingerings in groups--and to think of the hand as one unit not five fingers... this is one of the walls that students really have trouble with.   They will look at fingerings and one finger at a time they find the keys--that is mentally grueling...   we were taught to look at the phrase and think of how the entire hand will move---the finger numbers being part of the whole process--not to be thought of individually.  

Yes, that makes sense.

as an example--Minuet in G--simple enough... the fingering in the right hand in the first two measures  5--1-2-3-4-5--1---1 -- she had me hold my hand over that G position above the keys and pretend to play it--then move to the next position still holding the hand above the keys and pretend to play it.    She also made sure I thought of all five keys in that position and all 5 fingers over those keys--then moving the hand to hover over the next position--not simply thinking pinky to D.. if that makes sense? 

That also makes sense.

Though you also have mordents here and there (if we're thinking of the same piece) and we want to be in the right position to be able to play the mordent with easy fingering, but again the whole hand moves to and from that spot.  (Came up recently).

I have seen students stretch their 5 finger out ahead of their hand and try to get it there ahead of the rest of their fingers...which pulls the hand out of that natural relaxed state.   Other times they try to hold on to the old position stretch the 5 finger out and sort of "pull" the rest of their fingers along...  again causing tension which has to be released before the fingers can continue on.

This goes back to what you wrote earlier about thinking of the whole hand.  I don't know if this is always thinking about fingers individually, though.  When I was self-taught I'd do some finger-reaching and it did indeed cause tension: or I'd hold the shape of a chord while transporting the hand, and again it was rigidity.  There's kind of a crossover between technique and fingering at times I'm thinking.

Again... I will hear the same lines...

I have to do it this way...  well, this is how I do it... your way is too hard..   my mom says it's ok if I want to do it this way... (I love that one..lol)    I am so playing it right...  I counted!  the metronome is off...  this is too hard of a song...  my friend played it this way...  

This is a new topic, but it does segue to the old one, because I asked you some of what you might teach by way of approach.  Moving the whole hand to a new position is an approach that makes playing easier and prevents problems.  The point is not to produce a piece and impress yourself or others.  The point is to get the approaches and skills that will serve you.

I think that Josh is also thinking about approaches, which is why he moved from random fingering to deliberate planned fingering.  The principle is a good one, but it might need tweaking.  Sometimes also there are new ways of seeing things, which is a paradigm shift.  When you write of moving the hand, the shift also goes from thinking of fingers to thinking of the hand as a unit.  I can think of even more spinoffs from there. 

[outin]

I'm familiar with Albert Frantz.  He's pretty solid and thorough with a strong background.   It would be better to look at some of what he actually says.Again, good fingering is a very important principle in piano.  Secondly, consistently using the same good fingering, once it has been found, is an important principle.  The MEANS to this end is not writing in every single finger - but writing in finger numbers where necessary.  That is what I've been taught.  I go by it because it makes sense and works - rather than out of any blind loyalty.

I did read. I was referring to what he says about Demus.

[keypeg]

I did read. I was referring to what he says about Demus.

The problem is that we don't have Demus in front of us, and whether Albert Frank was saying that Demus wrote in every single finger always, or whether Demus approached it more in the way of the part I quoted.  Edited: I see that he is talking specifically about fugues at this point, and he explains his reasoning.  Got it.

However in a general consideration, I think that the quote that I provided from your link gives us a good, rounded view that most of us would probably agree on.

[outin]

The problem is that we don't have Demus in front of us, and whether Albert Frank was saying that Demus wrote in every single finger always, or whether Demus approached it more in the way of the part I quoted.  Edited: I see that he is talking specifically about fugues at this point, and he explains his reasoning.  Got it.

However in a general consideration, I think that the quote that I provided from your link gives us a good, rounded view that most of us would probably agree on.

I never thought the approach is based on writing in every single finger for all pieces. The need to write in would naturally diminish when advanced. But in general there is this approach that sees the numbering a good thing and obviously some teachers see it as a bad thing. I think it can be either depending on the individual and the whole study approach used. I am not arguing for or against, just discussing. I have to admit that from what I hear students around here are not quite as difficult to coach than wherever dcs teaches...

I must say that whatever Josh does seems to work rather well for him considering the results after just a few years. I'm sure his approach will develope or change also with time.

[keypeg]

So, what do you all think? Do you want to try my approach? Do you think I'm a crazy moron?

I'd be happy to offer my advice to anyone who wants to try my approach, I highly encourage you to at least give it a shot and see if it helps. We practice these pieces for hours and hours trying to get them right, what could it hurt to spend a session or two working on this important aspect of playing?

To answer - No, I do not want to try your approach because I am under good guidance which includes a variant of your idea plus a few others.  I think you are on the right track in having discovered planning and analysis as part of the process, but you may have gotten stuck on a single tangent.  So why don't we (all of us) share our knowledge and ideas with open minds (yours included)?

Some thoughts at random - this is not complete nor is it special in any way:

* We've already all discussed and agreed that good fingering is important, but there are various strategies to this and not just that of writing in every fingering.
* Anticipation - know where you are going to before you get there.  Dcpiano has included whole hand movement in that.  The example of kids stretching out a finger before going there, causing tension in the hand is part of poor timing and part of this idea too.  You mentioned the body.  If you have a passage way up on the piano, what happens in your hips, torso, and when does it happen and what moves first?
* Studying the score to really understand it, and not only from the fingering point of view.
* Working in sections and blending those sections, so that each of them is solid.  In other words, not "practising" by starting on the first note and ending on the last, playing it over and over, hoping to improve over time.
* In regards to pedal - to legato.  The piano has a pedal for a reason.  Rubinstein said that the pedal is the soul of the piano.  Using pedal is a skill that should be learned and practised carefully.  It should not be a crutch, nor should it end up creating note-soup.  But good use of the pedal frees the hand, helping it to relax or to release between notes or chords, and it's a coordination by itself.
* Again the idea of fingers, hands, and arms.  The piano is not played with the fingers.  The fingers are part of a larger mechanism.  The 3D planes along which everything can move is much more varied than we might realize.

I am working with teachers, which is just one reason why I will not take on your invitation to try your idea.  I started off self-taught because I had no choice and I've made a lot of changes based on advice and feedback I've got and am getting, combined with my own instincts.  The teachers I've found to be effective seem to ask for intelligent work, rather than being followed robotically - finding that balance is a tricky thing.  I would recommend supplementing what you are doing with some feedback from someone who is trustworthy (competent) and trying what comes up in an intelligent manner.  It's a good combination.  

[keypeg]

I never thought the approach is based on writing in every single finger for all pieces.

That is the million dollar question.  Right now the impression is that Josh is advocating writing in every single finger for all pieces.  And that is where the concern is.  But we can't be sure (I can't be, in any case.).

The need to write in would naturally diminish when advanced. But in general there is this approach that sees the numbering a good thing and obviously some teachers see it as a bad thing.

I see an extrapolation to an experience with students who end up reading finger numbers instead of notes, and use finger numbers as a crutch.  I honestly don't think that is happening here.

I must say that whatever Josh does seems to work rather well for him considering the results after just a few years. I'm sure his approach will develop or change also with time.

I agree.  I think caution should be taken, however, on using this as advice.  But yes to experimenting with the idea.  For example, if a self-teaching student out there has been dashing through pieces with no thought to fingering, and realizes through this thread that fingering is an important element in piano, then that will be a good influence.

[outin]

That is the million dollar question.  Right now the impression is that Josh is advocating writing in every single finger for all pieces. 

He is, I was taking about the linked article. Josh takes it further, but may well modify his approach with time and NOT be harmed in any way.

To be honest, I think anyone who reads piano learning advice on a website like this should approach what they read with a critical mind, possibly experimenting with what seems interesting and feasible in one's own situation, but within reason. Or otherwise it's better to just trust they teachers or get one.

[keypeg]

He is, I was taking about the linked article. Josh takes it further, but may well modify his approach with time and NOT be harmed in any way.

To be honest, I think anyone who reads piano learning advice on a website like this should approach what they read with a critical mind, possibly experimenting with what seems interesting and feasible in one's own situation, but within reason. Or otherwise it's better to just trust they teachers or get one.

I essentially agree with what you wrote.

[keypeg]

There is a subtopic and it has come up in two threads, and I think I'd like to address it.

arguing with your teacher about basic technique... I saw college students do this to professors from time to time...  they didn't stay in the program very long...

it's always been my theory that is the real reason so many people struggle with technique--they wouldn't listen in the beginning.  All this complaining about bad teaching lately..

not one word about the poor teacher who tries and tries to get the student to listen... 

It ain't easy guys...  that's why I get especially angry when people complain bitterly about it -- who have never tried to do it themselves.

First, the type of scenario you describe.  Say for example you are trying to give your students reading skills, but they write in finger numbers as a crutch and use that plus memorizing.  With that kind of strategy, the student will not gain reading skills.  If the student moves and transfers to another teacher, that teacher may say "Omg, this child had two years of lessons and still can't read!  What kind of teacher was that!" though if the same attitude continues, the new teacher will figure it out.  But really, this is unfair to the teacher, and hence your frustration.

One aspect is that the student and/or parent may be looking at the end result - that piece of music, learned as fast as possible, so it sounds nice.  The teacher is looking at skills she wants to build in stages, which will support that playing.  The fastest route to this week's piece is not necessarily any kind of route to skills that are needed.  There is a disconnect as each inhabits a different world.  There has to be cooperation or the thing won't work.

That said, I also have a huge sense of caution when I read this:

arguing with your teacher about basic technique... I saw college students do this to professors from time to time...  they didn't stay in the program very long...

it's always been my theory that is the real reason so many people struggle with technique--they wouldn't listen in the beginning. 

This would be true if every teacher were fully competent, not only knowing how technique etc. worked, but also how to shape it in a student - and if every student correctly understand what he was being asked to do, when the instruction itself is actually good instruction.  That is not the reality, however.   Arguing with a teacher - I agree that this is a no-no.  But it can and does happen that there is something amiss in instructions, or missing.  There can be many reasons.  What about the teacher who still does the "pretend you're holding a ball" - and I have actually seen one use the word "claw" as a positive thing to aim for!  Or the teacher ("teacher"?) who pressures a student to do advanced music very early and "be musical" in order to impress parents / compete with other "fast" teachers, without giving skills or time for those skills to gel?  There are many scenarios and they are real.  Especially at the college level I know several stories where the professor had some pet thing, which almost destroyed a student's playing.

I will even venture that some problems with technique have been caused by poor, wrong, or negligent teaching.  That does not make the opposite wrong - not listening to good guidance can prevent the acquisition of good technique and lead to difficulties.  But this other side also exists.

It is an extremely tricky issue, in fact.  Say, for example, that you were self-taught, or you began with a teacher who whizzed you through pieces but gave you no good strategies.  Whatever you have done so far feels comfortable, familiar, and easy.  If you and your teacher now address some weak area, you may actually play worse for a while.  You won't zip through pieces by memorizing them when you are learning to read (finally) so it sounds slow and awkward, comparatively.  If your technique was based on something destructive that has created a dead on to your progress, and you have to rebuild from the ground up, the very base of your playing is now "under construction" and it will feel unfamiliar and shaky for a while.  So how can you tell?  I mean - how can you tell whether this new awkwardness and temporary shakiness are due to this factor - or whether your technique is actually being gradually undermined or destroyed at this point?

Some of us have danced around these kinds of issues.  In fact, almost every teacher and musician I have talked to who actually made it had at least one teacher in their background, where they had to undo the effects.  And/or they totally misunderstood what was meant.

As I'm writing, I'm thinking that if you work with a teacher, and problems occur, there should be communication but which does not come out as blame.  "I'm trying what you asked me to do, but I'm not comfortable with what is happening.  Can you please have a look?"  A good teacher will look - will want to know whether what she has proposed actually works for that student.  She may say "What you are experiencing is perfectly normal at this stage.  Give it time."  Or "I see what's going on.  You  haven't quite grasped what I asked you to do.  Let's try......"  A poorish teacher may get defensive and blame and attack the student - if s/he says that ALL her students never manage to do this, then there is probably a problem with the instruction itself.

Reasonable?

[cinnamon21]

That said, I also have a huge sense of caution when I read this:This would be true if every teacher were fully competent, not only knowing how technique etc. worked, but also how to shape it in a student - and if every student correctly understand what he was being asked to do, when the instruction itself is actually good instruction.  That is not the reality, however.    Arguing with a teacher - I agree that this is a no-no.  But it can and does happen that there is something amiss in instructions, or missing.  There can be many reasons.  What about the teacher who still does the "pretend you're holding a ball" - and I have actually seen one use the word "claw" as a positive thing to aim for!  Or the teacher ("teacher"?) who pressures a student to do advanced music very early and "be musical" in order to impress parents / compete with other "fast" teachers, without giving skills or time for those skills to gel?  There are many scenarios and they are real.  Especially at the college level I know several stories where the professor had some pet thing, which almost destroyed a student's playing.

I will even venture that some problems with technique have been caused by poor, wrong, or negligent teaching.  That does not make the opposite wrong - not listening to good guidance can prevent the acquisition of good technique and lead to difficulties.  But this other side also exists.

It is an extremely tricky issue, in fact.  Say, for example, that you were self-taught, or you began with a teacher who whizzed you through pieces but gave you no good strategies.  Whatever you have done so far feels comfortable, familiar, and easy.  If you and your teacher now address some weak area, you may actually play worse for a while.  You won't zip through pieces by memorizing them when you are learning to read (finally) so it sounds slow and awkward, comparatively.  If your technique was based on something destructive that has created a dead on to your progress, and you have to rebuild from the ground up, the very base of your playing is now "under construction" and it will feel unfamiliar and shaky for a while.  So how can you tell?  I mean - how can you tell whether this new awkwardness and temporary shakiness are due to this factor - or whether your technique is actually being gradually undermined or destroyed at this point?

Some of us have danced around these kinds of issues.  In fact, almost every teacher and musician I have talked to who actually made it had at least one teacher in their background, where they had to undo the effects.  And/or they totally misunderstood what was meant.

As I'm writing, I'm thinking that if you work with a teacher, and problems occur, there should be communication but which does not come out as blame.  "I'm trying what you asked me to do, but I'm not comfortable with what is happening.  Can you please have a look?"  A good teacher will look - will want to know whether what she has proposed actually works for that student.  She may say "What you are experiencing is perfectly normal at this stage.  Give it time."  Or "I see what's going on.  You  haven't quite grasped what I asked you to do.  Let's try......"  A poorish teacher may get defensive and blame and attack the student - if s/he says that ALL her students never manage to do this, then there is probably a problem with the instruction itself.

Reasonable?

Sounds like my previous teacher. She basically ruined my playing by telling and letting me play advanced pieces that are far above my level (I agreed because I trust her and want to move forward). When faced with technical difficulties, she would not explain the strategy or practice methods to overcome the issue but started telling me stories and told me to be 'musical'. "As long as you're musical..." How do you play Chopin Op. 10 no. 10 with small hands without tension? "Just play it slowly and beautifully." I would look at her with the are-you-serious face and she'd say "It will get better and better the more you practice it." When I told her that my forearms hurt, she'd say "Hmm...don't think too much. Just be confident."And to think she is a professor in a conservatory. Sorry for the rants guys, I'm still bitter till now. But she would be an example of bad teaching. 

[keypeg]

Sounds like my previous teacher. She basically ruined my playing by telling and letting me play advanced pieces that are far above my level (I agreed because I trust her and want to move forward). When faced with technical difficulties, she would not explain the strategy or practice methods to overcome the issue but started telling me stories and told me to be 'musical'. "As long as you're musical..." How do you play Chopin Op. 10 no. 10 with small hands without tension? "Just play it slowly and beautifully." I would look at her with the are-you-serious face and she'd say "It will get better and better the more you practice it." When I told her that my forearms hurt, she'd say "Hmm...don't think too much. Just be confident."And to think she is a professor in a conservatory. Sorry for the rants guys, I'm still bitter till now. But she would be an example of bad teaching.  

I just went back through your posts to get a more complete picture.  First I thought you had started as an adult student, because the pattern of being thrown into advanced pieces early without being given much by way of technique or fundamentals is a common one encountered by adults, who won't know what's happening as novices.  But you started younger.

I'd like to ask - What happened before that high school performance with an orchestra at age 17?  How did you get to that stage?  Did you have a teacher(s) to get you that far, and if so, were you given things like technique and other tools - or just shoved through the grades?  When I read how the college professor told you the various things about fingers, and such, there is nothing like "This was different than (the same as) what my childhood teacher taught me." which makes me think maybe you got none of that.  Either because a first teacher didn't give this to you, or you were self-taught up to age 17.

Anyway, I read the lot of it.  You are where you are right now, and the thing is to get to where you want to be, which starts with how to get there.  That is my own path presently.  I have one instrument (piano) that I learned self-taught as a child, and then resumed 35 years later, at which point I knew I needed to get the actual technique etc.  I have been VERY fortunate in the teacher I am with who sort of fell from the sky (eventually).  Prior to that I also started another instrument, with a teacher, not touching it before the first actual lesson, and that went sour for a period after a brilliant start for the kinds of reasons that got enumerated on top.  Part of that in turn was due to the fact that many older students will quit rather than doing what it takes, so everything was light on technique - simplified ways of doing things which eventually created problems.

On piano I have a crazy dualistic path, because in musical understanding I am way ahead of fundamental technique.  When you remediate, not only are you building new ways of doing things, but you are also abandoning old ways which are habits - while keeping those things that you already have which are actually good and that work.  On the other instrument, I didn't touch it for 7 years.  When you struggle for several years it cannot help but have some emotional associations - when I did return to it (relatively recently, and initially sporadically, tentatively), it was along different angles than before.  I'm restarting a lot of things.  For the moment it is without a teacher, so that I can take my time, go as slowly as I need.

I will say that your playing has not been ruined.  You've just been taken on a long side trip.  Now you have to get the missing pieces and rebuild. Finding the resources (a teacher if you can - and learning to trust that teacher, which after such experiences doesn't happen overnight), is not easy.  One day at a time.

I will also pass on what I've been told.  That nothing you have done up to now has been a waste of time, and ultimately it will all be an asset.  Think, for example, if everything had been smooth sailing.  You might be doing good things subconsciously without knowing how or why.  (Which also wouldn't make you a good teacher, if you ever decided to go that route.)  When you've had to struggle and think about things, seeing all sides of it, that adds depth to what you do.

Best of luck.