What should I, as a sort-of- beginner, focus on the most?

[kittenyarn]

Hii!

There just seems to be so many different things to know about playing the piano. I am not a total beginner, but it sometimes sure feels like it; I am not very good either. I'm wondering what I should focus on the most as a beginner to make the most progress?

[j_tour]

Well, I can't say, but maybe try a bit of a "release valve" while still at the keyboard.

I don't know what that would be for you, but maybe just some rock and roll, or blues, or something that you can play without thinking too much.

But you still remain attached to the keyboard, so, there's no need to feel bad about it.

(But, caution, you can still hurt yourself playing improvised, simpler music....moderation is key!)

A benefit is that you'll still come back to the same fundamentals — octaves, tremolos, trills, scales, arpeggios — but, you won't have to stress about it, since you choose what to do at any given second.

///////////

ETA:  you might try some things that might seem useless, but that's arguable.  Like whole-half octatonic scales in thirds and b5s.  Or doing modes of the major or harmonic minor scale.  That's not probably very interesting to you, but sometimes I like stuff like that. 

Sort of the keyboard equivalent of playing solitaire on the computer or whatever.

Yet, sometimes you find some good sounds in there. 

Or, just play along to the TV/Netflix or whatever.  No matter what the incidental music is in the background, just play along to it.  It's pretty simple to do, but once the initial revulsion subsides, it's moderately amusing.  Soon you'll categorize things as "horn" keys and "string" keys, and whence, who knows.

[lostinidlewonder]

Learn lots of pieces succesfully this will help train your playing ability, technique, sight reading, musicality and practice method. All of my beginners after one year play around 50-100+ small pieces. Exactly what pieces you choose is the challenge, there should be a little challenge here and there with each one you play but it should predominantly be manageable. When self learning there is little danger studying too many easy pieces but a lot of danger studying pieces which are too advanced.

[ranjit]

One thing I would say is that if you are strongly motivated by something to the extent that you're willing to devote hours a day learning to play it, it's a good idea to go along with that, because natural motivation and passion are excellent at facilitating progress.

The ways of learning how to play the piano are in some sense multifaceted, and several hours a day of fun practice/playing can do much more to develop your playing, musicality and personal style, than half an hour of mindlessly repeated exercises or pieces, even if the latter is technically more efficient per unit time.

There is a difference between being disciplined and clinical to the point of boredom. There is a nice quote which I've heard in relation to video games: People, when given the chance, will optimize the fun out of a game.

It's all too common for people to do that with an instrument as well.

None of this implies injuring yourself or burning yourself out. Avoid that.

[compline]

All the above advice is good, but I would like to add that in my case  rhythm and timing was my challenge, still can be..  So I clap out the beats and rhythm  reading the sheet music.

[dogperson]

I would advise to follow LIW’s advice, as he has a history of successfully teaching for many years.  If you find a piece, far too difficult for you,  practice on it ‘as dessert’  with the bulk of your time spent on a large volume of varied music.  Limit the time you indulge in the dessert.

[tomp86]

When self learning there is little danger studying too many easy pieces but a lot of danger studying pieces which are too advanced.

Hello lostinidlewonder. I am new to the forum. I was hoping you could please explain to me what the danger is of playing pieces that are too advanced. I know some of the reasons must be risk of injury and trying to do movements without having enough knowledge and experience to move effectively?  Would the second part (not knowing how to move correctly yet) be the reason people say playing too advanced pieces is "inefficent practice"?

[lostinidlewonder]

Hello lostinidlewonder. I am new to the forum. I was hoping you could please explain to me what the danger is of playing pieces that are too advanced. I know some of the reasons must be risk of injury and trying to do movements without having enough knowledge and experience to move effectively?  Would the second part (not knowing how to move correctly yet) be the reason people say playing too advanced pieces is "inefficent practice"?

Studying pieces too difficult for you has its benefits, so it is not all bad. Some people thrive on studying pieces that challenge them a great deal. It can act as a catalyst for your technical understanding and also make easier works feel easier. Difficult works can also be used in sight reading training if you include constraints like slowing down tempo, ignoring rhythm, etc. So there is nothing wrong with studying difficult works but they should not contribute to the majority of your study material.

Most who study pieces too difficult for them tend to use them for memorized repertoire. The standard that they apply as to how well they manage it is various, some clever ones aim for concert standard and manage it to certain degrees, others aim for degrees of estimated playing with inefficient movements and expression that struggles to come through.

The opportunity cost from studying a difficult piece vs many smaller pieces is there in terms of developing practice method (this includes all skills which relate to how you learn a piece and the processes of polishing it up), sight reading skills, musical language understanding etc. The more pieces you learn the more you anticipate all sorts of actions and sounds at the keyboard, the more you can connect difficult technical movements to combinations of simpler ones, everything starts to look like what you have done before in some manner.

With easier pieces you also can get to know what playing with control is all about. Playing something with complete control is a joy and there is freedom for the musical expression to flow. This can be sorely missed if you waste a lot of time with pieces you struggle to master. Also thinking that all pieces need a long time to learn and master is not really something that should be accepted. The rate at which we can master our pieces should be scrutinzed and studying many easier pieces helps with that for the vast majority of people, much more so than laboring on difficult pieces.

Often once you have many smaller pieces under your belt when you attempt more difficult works you have more tools to deal with the problems you face. You may start to feel more brave to tackle more difficult works because you find you can somewhat get through them. Still you should build your skills and only work with pieces which challenge you slightly and which you can complete in an estimated short time you can measure.

[tomp86]

Thank you for the detailed reply lostinidlewonder.  Your logic makes sense to me and I seem to be being impatient and only learning pieces I want to learn no matter what difficulty they are and it's affecting my learning to possess the tools I need to become a proficient pianist.

For me, the main problem to learn the more basic level pieces is that I don't enjoy the songs nearly as much nor do they impress anyone.

Learning hundreds of these songs that I don't really have any strong interest in seems so painful, but that's just me I guess.

You have suggested learning many small pieces and for me when I learn any song I just memorize it to memory so I don't need the sheet music. However, when you say learn lots of pieces successfully do you mean committing them to memory so no sheet music is required or to master them using sheet music to remember the note order?  ​
A follow-up question I'm also interested in is, is master a song via sight-reading adding the song to your muscle memory in any way and how do you find it differs to memorizing a song without sight-reading and just memorizing notes

[ranjit]

For me, the main problem to learn the more basic level pieces is that I don't enjoy the songs nearly as much nor do they impress anyone.

I don't see any harm in doing both, as long as you're not overdoing it. Also, it may be that certain pieces are easy for you even though they technically aren't your "grade level", and I think that if you can learn a piece within a week it should be fair game.

I think that learning hard pieces was a good thing for me, personally, in a lot of ways. What I'd suggest is to occasionally take the "interesting" measures which have difficult techniques or new ideas, and try to "solve" them, instead of trudging through a piece and attempting to force technique. If it feels natural and doesn't produce any strain on your hand, while it may not be "ideal", I don't think it's harmful, most of the time.  Eventually, once those techniques become natural, learning hard pieces will feel basically as easy as learning easy ones, although they may take more time to memorize due to the more complicated structures.

Just my 2c, as someone who's been in your situation before.

[tomp86]

Thanks for your two cents. I can tell you now I definitely can't learn how to learn pieces in one week. The memorization process takes some time and the most time is taken figuring out hand coordination and being able to play it at a decent speed.
On pieces that require a lot of hand independence, my brain has to think about each note and I can't play it at the required tempo which is often very fast. That is a major hold up in my learning. Another issue I currently face is when playing at tempo, I hit the right notes however my left hand and right hand are not in perfect rhythm and I'm not exactly sure why. I think my left hand is slightly slower.
Learning eaiser pieces to build up a skillset to play gradually harder pieces makes sense to me and could be applied to many skill-related professions.
If possible lostinidlewonder, could you please reply to my previous post as I'd love to hear your advice regarding sightreading vs memorization on basic songs. I'm not exactly sure if sight-reading is learned on an individual piece-by-piece basis as a memorization trait or as an overall skill. Please explain how it works 

[brogers70]

Thank you for the detailed reply lostinidlewonder.  Your logic makes sense to me and I seem to be being impatient and only learning pieces I want to learn no matter what difficulty they are and it's affecting my learning to possess the tools I need to become a proficient pianist.

For me, the main problem to learn the more basic level pieces is that I don't enjoy the songs nearly as much nor do they impress anyone.

Learning hundreds of these songs that I don't really have any strong interest in seems so painful, but that's just me I guess.

You have suggested learning many small pieces and for me when I learn any song I just memorize it to memory so I don't need the sheet music. However, when you say learn lots of pieces successfully do you mean committing them to memory so no sheet music is required or to master them using sheet music to remember the note order?  ​
A follow-up question I'm also interested in is, is master a song via sight-reading adding the song to your muscle memory in any way and how do you find it differs to memorizing a song without sight-reading and just memorizing notes

LiW's advice about learning easier pieces is very good. Here's my experience. I started playing piano at 40, after having studied classical guitar, voice, and theory when I was younger. I loved music and was familiar with lots of music and therefore wanted to get to "real" music quickly - Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven sonatas, the Well-Tempered Clavier, all those things. I didn't have a very engaged teacher, so I just plowed ahead on my own. I started working on those sorts of pieces much too soon. I was happy, in a way, spending a lot of time working on them, but after years of trying to do things by brute determination I still could not really play anything well enough that someone would want to listen to it. Eventually I found a good teacher and she started correcting the poor, tense technique I'd developed, but even so, she was happy to have a motivated adult student who knew music theory and history, she enjoyed teaching "real" pieces, and she didn't push me to easier ones. I got better, but I still tended to fall apart under the pressure of playing for even a small audience.

Then it occurred to me that when I was a kid learning classical guitar I used to spend my weekends just reading through tons of simple stuff and playing it over and over. Probably 90% of the time I was playing the guitar I was playing things that were not way out on the outskirts of my technical ability. So I'd gotten very comfortable with playing it; the guitar seemed like a friend, not an adversary, like the piano. And so when I played in competitions or gave recitals, my technique didn't collapse under the stress. On the other hand, on the piano I really had no experience at all of playing things that I could play easily and fluently - it was thousands of hours of always struggling with stuff that was too hard. So I decided (at first against my teacher's advice, but she came round in the end) to spend a whole year just playing very easy stuff, things from the Music for Millions books and other similar beginner level pieces. I'd play them until I got comfortable with them - which didn't take long since they were easy - and then play them as musically as I could with all the imagination I could muster. I'd think about every phrase and how I wanted it to sound. I'd imagine orchestrations of the simplest little Mozart Andantes, I'd play a little classical allegro and imagine strings and oboes playing along with me, etc.

After a year of doing that I had a completely different relationship with the piano. I was comfortable and relaxed because I wasn't always at the limits of my technique. When I switched back to the "real", more difficult repertoire I was interested in, it felt much, much easier. So I'd say that the harm of not playing plenty of pieces that are pretty easy for you is that you may not develop the kind of ease and fluency that comes from many hours of happily playing stuff that you can manage. I think you'll get to your dream pieces faster if you don't spend too much time on them too soon (though a bit of dabbling with them sometimes, as others have said, probably won't do any harm).

[tomp86]

Wow, that is living proof that we need to start with easier pieces brogers70. When you were learning the easier pieces did you play them using sight-reading or did you memorize the notes?

[brogers70]

Wow, that is living proof that we need to start with easier pieces brogers70. When you were learning the easier pieces did you play them using sight-reading or did you memorize the notes?

I started by reading them and eventually they mostly memorized themselves. I don't think it matters that much - if you can play them comfortably and fluently while reading the score, you're still playing them fluently, which is the main point.

Personally, I memorize quickly and almost without thinking about it - that's nice, since lots of folks have to work hard at it. But...memorizing very easily, I think, kept me from developing the skill of playing at sight without looking at my hands very much and so now I am having to work on that as a separate skill.

[ranjit]

I started by reading them and eventually they mostly memorized themselves. I don't think it matters that much - if you can play them comfortably and fluently while reading the score, you're still playing them fluently, which is the main point.

Personally, I memorize quickly and almost without thinking about it - that's nice, since lots of folks have to work hard at it. But...memorizing very easily, I think, kept me from developing the skill of playing at sight without looking at my hands very much and so now I am having to work on that as a separate skill.

I'm genuinely curious about this -- how do you memorize pieces? How does it work for you? Can you repeatedly sight-read, and then one day take away the score, and have it memorized automatically? Does this happen even if the piece is simple or boring? How long does the memory last?

From my perspective, I don't have an exceptionally hard time memorizing -- I can probably memorize a lot of pieces in a week or two, but I have to actively work at it and strategize. I also have to force myself away from the score to solidify the memory.

[lostinidlewonder]

You have suggested learning many small pieces and for me when I learn any song I just memorize it to memory so I don't need the sheet music. However, when you say learn lots of pieces successfully do you mean committing them to memory so no sheet music is required or to master them using sheet music to remember the note order?  ​

I think it is not necessary to be able to memorize a piece before you move on, that is simply going to cause you to learn quite slowly. Sure have repertoire that you want to memorize but along side that should be a vast amount of music you are learning to read and play. Even with reading the passages become memorized but need to be helped by the sheet music by varying degrees, the more you read something the less the sheets are required to assist you.

The same slow problem occurs if someone needs to perfectly master everything they play before they move on (this is commonly found amongst students who have only ever done examinations and nothing else). Of course you need to study pieces and polish them up as far as possible but it doesn't need to be done with everything.

The process of simply learning a piece, polishing it up somewhat then moving on and continuing that process over and over again will develop your skills. You don't need to remember the pieces although unavoidably they will be stored in your brain in some way, perhaps you will forget how to play a piece after a while but if you return to it you will gain control over it faster than when you first attempted it. That is a very important nature of relearning pieces and should help you not to worry about forgetting pieces you learned in the past.

Exactly how you should go about doing it is hard for me to explain because I need to know how you work and process the information. I can only give generalized responses but it should offer at least some type of basic strategy you can follow.

A follow-up question I'm also interested in is, is master a song via sight-reading adding the song to your muscle memory in any way and how do you find it differs to memorizing a song without sight-reading and just memorizing notes.

Sight reading and memorization go hand in hand and synergize to create the most efficient practice method for the vast majority of people. Good sight reading skills actually draw upon a lot of memory, anticipation of sound, patterns, fingerings etc. You don't read every single bit of information on the page you learn to read it all at once, just like reading words. When we start of course we are sounding out everything and it all feels very tedious. That is why it is important to train sight reading skills predominantly with very easy works that you can do successfully.

Often you simply can sight read a piece multiple times and thus master it. You may not be able to play the piece without the sheets but the degree of mastery is no different with or without the sheets. Each reading attempt though lessens the amount of information you need. I can feel so free while reading just as if I have memorized the work but with the sheets I feel even more secure because I have low chance to make error and if any error does occur I can instantly recover. Relying totally on muscular memory, well people can tell you how mistakes can make you forget everything that comes next! I find it absolutely useless to memorize music I can play via reading with complete mastery and that includes an insane amount of music, so much so I cannot play them all in my lifetime.

Memorizing music is fine but one really wants to get good at sight reading because it opens up a whole world of music for you and your progress becomes faster and faster. If you are stuck memorizing everything you come across you will always feel disabled and it is quite annoying to think you must work hours at a piece before you can play it where sight readers do it instantly. Something to consider.

[lostinidlewonder]

...Here's my experience. I started playing piano at 40, after having studied classical guitar, voice, and theory when I was younger. I loved music and was familiar with lots of music and therefore wanted to get to "real" music quickly - Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven sonatas, the Well-Tempered Clavier, all those things. I didn't have a very engaged teacher, so I just plowed ahead on my own. I started working on those sorts of pieces much too soon. I was happy, in a way, spending a lot of time working on them, but after years of trying to do things by brute determination I still could not really play anything well enough that someone would want to listen to it. Eventually I found a good teacher and she started correcting the poor, tense technique I'd developed, but even so, she was happy to have a motivated adult student who knew music theory and history, she enjoyed teaching "real" pieces, and she didn't push me to easier ones. I got better, but I still tended to fall apart under the pressure of playing for even a small audience.

Then it occurred to me that when I was a kid learning classical guitar I used to spend my weekends just reading through tons of simple stuff and playing it over and over. Probably 90% of the time I was playing the guitar I was playing things that were not way out on the outskirts of my technical ability. So I'd gotten very comfortable with playing it; the guitar seemed like a friend, not an adversary, like the piano. And so when I played in competitions or gave recitals, my technique didn't collapse under the stress. On the other hand, on the piano I really had no experience at all of playing things that I could play easily and fluently - it was thousands of hours of always struggling with stuff that was too hard. So I decided (at first against my teacher's advice, but she came round in the end) to spend a whole year just playing very easy stuff, things from the Music for Millions books and other similar beginner level pieces. I'd play them until I got comfortable with them - which didn't take long since they were easy - and then play them as musically as I could with all the imagination I could muster. I'd think about every phrase and how I wanted it to sound. I'd imagine orchestrations of the simplest little Mozart Andantes, I'd play a little classical allegro and imagine strings and oboes playing along with me, etc.

After a year of doing that I had a completely different relationship with the piano. I was comfortable and relaxed because I wasn't always at the limits of my technique. When I switched back to the "real", more difficult repertoire I was interested in, it felt much, much easier. So I'd say that the harm of not playing plenty of pieces that are pretty easy for you is that you may not develop the kind of ease and fluency that comes from many hours of happily playing stuff that you can manage. I think you'll get to your dream pieces faster if you don't spend too much time on them too soon (though a bit of dabbling with them sometimes, as others have said, probably won't do any harm).

People should print your experience out and read it a lot. I wish I could insert this kind of realization into many students I've come across. I think one has to experience it in their own way though to really trust it, you have to experience and compare then come to conclusions. Still one can stand on shoulders of giants and skip out on this testing.

You mentioned this series: https://www.halleonard.com/feature/11700011/music-for-millions-series. These are excellent books and I have used them for many years. Denes Agay's books should be done by all developing pianists they are top quality, I haven't yet tried the newer ones yet which don't have his name included.

tomp86 asked:
When you were learning the easier pieces did you play them using sight-reading or did you memorize the notes?

brogers70 responded:
...I don't think it matters that much - if you can play them comfortably and fluently while reading the score, you're still playing them fluently, which is the main point.


Once you get to the point where your sight reading attempts are just as good as mastered playing you come to a realization that not all music actually needs to be memorized to play at a high standard. It is very empowering especially as you start seeing the bar raise as to what is possible for you to effectively sight read. This is what will get you pretty excited to study lots of easy works for sight reading training.

It is nice to get a collection of random sheet music PDFs you think are manageable and then just go ahead and try them out. I have found so much interesting repertoire for myself and also to teach my students. As a teacher this has motivated me with my sight reading training, I really did need to know more repertoire that was possible to teach. However the most excitement was to see the bar raise as to what I could easily sight read, my repertoire never expanded so quickly with any other study and that is saying a huge amount for the benefits of investing time with reading skills.

I can tell you now I definitely can't learn how to learn pieces in one week.

You just haven't looked easy enough. Look at super basic pieces I am sure you can solve them in a minute. Nothing wrong with starting at the very easiest levels, at least it will get you to start reading. Perhaps playing a piece which only using one single note is not too foolish if you have never practiced your reading skills. You need to think pathetically simple and then build from there.

I do not suggest reading if someone doesn't know how to play. That is an important tip I find. People don't read before they can speak, so too with piano you don't really learn to read before you can play. There are ways to avoid reading sheet music at the early stages, we discussed this with a couple members in this thread earlier this month:
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=67509

[brogers70]

I'm genuinely curious about this -- how do you memorize pieces? How does it work for you? Can you repeatedly sight-read, and then one day take away the score, and have it memorized automatically? Does this happen even if the piece is simple or boring? How long does the memory last?

From my perspective, I don't have an exceptionally hard time memorizing -- I can probably memorize a lot of pieces in a week or two, but I have to actively work at it and strategize. I also have to force myself away from the score to solidify the memory.

Yes, pretty much if I read a piece while I practice for a week or so (depending on the length of course) then it's just in my memory without any special effort. I never set aside special time to work on memorizing things. The first time I told someone about this they said, no, that's no good, you're just using muscle memory and it's unreliable. But, first, my memory is not actually unreliable; I remember playing the guitar in a lot of competitions and recitals and I can only think of two minor memory slips. When I introspected a bit, though, I found that I was using a lot of things other than muscle memory. First, I have a good background in theory, so I was naming all the chord progressions (sort of naming them, I mean, I wasn't thinking about the word to describe them as I was playing, but I knew what they were). So if it looked like I was forgetting something, I'd think, "Oh, right, that's a ii chord in first inversion" and think that name as I played it. Also, I remember things like "OK this is the second theme, just like in the exposition, but now it's in the tonic and the bass is doubled at the octave," and just those two bits of information would spare me having to consciously memorize that part of the recapitulation. Also, I just naturally remember the sound of the piece, so since I've done some ear training, if I know that the next interval in the bass is a descending minor sixth, I know what note it is and how far to go independent of muscle memory.

I keep about two hours of music in my head most of the time. If I play a piece enough it seems to be permanently engrained in there. I had gone twenty years without playing the guitar and someone offered me one to play on at a party and I managed a Villa Lobos Choros and a Bach Fugue from memory because I had played them so much as a teenager.

The downside, as I said, though is that memorizing easily meant that I never properly developed sight reading skills when I was beginning and I'm now having to work hard at them to make up for it.

[lelle]

For me, the main problem to learn the more basic level pieces is that I don't enjoy the songs nearly as much nor do they impress anyone.

This was a real problem for me when I went through the early years of my piano playing - I wanted to play pieces that sounded impressive and hated the small, silly pieces I was forced to play at many occasions But now that I am older and have seen a bigger quantity of repertoire I'd say that there are plenty of easier pieces that still sound good, that you can find and learn.

Also, I'd like to ask you, is it really worth it to try to impress anyone if the price you pay is tanking your entire long term progress at the piano and acquiring many tense, inefficient habits that will hinder your future playing?

I think you can still dabble a bit with harder pieces just because it's fun, but find some easier pieces that you think are great too and focus on those. What level are you at currently? Maybe we could give you some suggestions.

[tomp86]

perhaps you will forget how to play a piece after a while but if you return to it you will gain control over it faster than when you first attempted it. That is a very important nature of relearning pieces and should help you not to worry about forgetting pieces you learned in the past.

Thanks for this wealth of information lostinidlewonder, brogers70 and ranjit.
I'm completely convinced sight-reading easier pieces is the way for me to go to further develop my piano skill and move up the levels.
I just wanted to mention that sight-reading limitations were a big contributing factor as to why I gave up piano about 25 years ago. I felt like my progress was very slow and I could not play any intermediate or advanced pieces. Whereas, last year I learned many musicians actually memorize pieces to help them play them at fast tempo and for me I found it much more intermediate-level pieces. For example, I can play Canon in D without much problem however I still hit wrong notes now and then.
I have memorized some of fantasy impromptu and although I could memorize it there is no way I could play it at that tempo accurately.  I need the foundation of skills you are talking about by playing many many pieces successfully and gradually work my way up to this level.

I also wanted to mention I learned to sight-read a song called O Christmas tree from "Favourite Melodies Over the World" and I could play it perfectly sight-reading and one week later I completely forgot how to play the piece (even with the sheet). And that never happens to me with non-sheet music memorization. However, this is explained in your sentence above as I have not exposed myself to enough small songs and have not considered that it may take a little less time to learn the next time around.  But still, as a learner, it's a little demotivating.

Also, I'd like to ask you, is it really worth it to try to impress anyone if the price you pay is tanking your entire long term progress at the piano and acquiring many tense, inefficient habits that will hinder your future playing?

I think you can still dabble a bit with harder pieces just because it's fun, but find some easier pieces that you think are great too and focus on those. What level are you at currently? Maybe we could give you some suggestions.

The answer should be obvious, but you know we can be impatient and not want to wait 10+ years to reach the point where we can play a song we can play by putting it on YouTube or a CD. It's just hard to invest so much time into pieces that don't mean anything to me just to get to that point where I can play a handful of pieces I really love

The beautiful thing about piano is you can personalize the sound the notes make and the arrangement so you can make the piece sound just the way you think it should. I love the piano. For me, it would just be a struggle staying motivated through the boring progress to get where I want to be.

When I was about 10, I had 2 years of lessons with a piano teacher and he taught me how to read music, write music on paper, sight-read basic music and all the basics of piano.  I got not too bad at sight-reading, but felt like I would struggle too much when I saw more advanced pieces so I sort of gave it up at some point I thought you need to be musical minded genius to play them. And as a teenager I got addicted to video games in a hut is.  So in my adult life, I am relearning everything and I initially wanted to avoid sight-reading altogether due to the reasons explained above however, I'm going to soldier on with it to develop my skills as efficiently as possible.  I don't know what my level is, but I think for sight-reading my level probably level II Favorite Melodies the World Over by Jane Bastien which my teacher gave me 25 years ago. He died of cancer, unfortunately, but he gave me all the materials I need however I'd like to know some more pieces if you know any. I already have memorized minuet in g, canon, rondo alla turca, some of my heart will go on, tarantella napoletana, silent night. However, I cannot sight-read these as I learned them via note order.

[tomp86]

A couple of follow-up questions for this topic. I spent some hours practicing sight-reading songs today and I wonder if any of you have opinions on whether or not you should look at your hands while playing the piece or stay focused on the sheet music always (in particular I seem to get caught out on the sharps and flats) and when playing more simple pieces to isolate the left-hand and right-hand and learn them through first or just play them both together. From an efficiency standpoint which is preferred?

[brogers70]

A couple of follow-up questions for this topic. I spent some hours practicing sight-reading songs today and I wonder if any of you have opinions on whether or not you should look at your hands while playing the piece or stay focused on the sheet music always (in particular I seem to get caught out on the sharps and flats) and when playing more simple pieces to isolate the left-hand and right-hand and learn them through first or just play them both together. From an efficiency standpoint which is preferred?

The answer will depend a bit on what you are already comfortable with. Sight reading can mean different things to different people and it requires several different skills. Some people, when they say they want to get good at sight reading mean that they want to be able to play more or less at tempo well enough to accompany a singer or instrumentalist well enough that the other musician will be happy about the interaction. My last piano teacher could pick up a new Schubert Lieder and play it well enough that a singer would not have to worry about the piano messing up noticeably. That's a pretty advanced goal.

Other people mean that they want to be able to play a piece while looking at the score as well as if they had already memorized it, but they don't insist on doing it the first time round. Others when they want to improve their sight reading just mean that they'd like to be able to play through a piece, maybe a bit below tempo, but musically, to get an idea what it sounds like and to be able to learn it faster.

Then there are multiple skills. Obviously you have to be really comfortable with music notation. You have to be able to see things as simple chunks - ie an Alberti bass pattern, rather than a set of individual notes to hunt for. You have to have some idea how phrases generally ought to be shaped. And you have to know how to get from one note to another without having to "hunt and peck." For that last skill, it is very helpful to read without looking at your hands at all, even if you have to go quite slowly. For the first, advanced goal (I'm not even close, but I've been told) that it's important just to learn to keep going full speed in rhythm and ignore missed or wrong notes, and also to learn to identify very quickly less important notes that you can leave out if you need to. If you are still a bit weak on musical notation itself, then I don't see any harm in looking at your hands once in a while.

The thing is, you cannot learn all those separate skills at the same time, but you also cannot learn them completely independently of each other. So you have to play around and change what you are doing from time to time. If notation itself is an obstacle, then let yourself read slowly, in rhythm, hands separate, looking at your hands when you need to. But as you get better at that, start doing the same thing hands together,  or while disciplining yourself not to look at your hands.

As I said in an earlier post, my own experience was that I came to the piano already knowing music notation and theory reasonably well, so my main problem with sight reading was (and is) just finding my way around the piano while looking at the score. For that, playing simple things without letting myself look at my hands has helped a lot.

[timothy42b]

Gieseking and Leimer in the classic book Piano Technique says the most important thing, and the most badly taught, is learning to listen to your playing. 

[lelle]

I can recommend the Gieseking/Leimer book. Lots of good insights and sound but unconventional advice on learning and practising. Did you find it useful @timothy42b?

[ranjit]

I felt that Gieseking-Liemer was very good from a motivational perspective. However, I don't think his advice can necessarily be applied by everyone. I wasn't able to play scales very evenly in the past. Now I've realized that it was a technical issue, but I needed someone to point out to me what exactly I was doing wrong.

Similarly, I have played by ear a lot and I listen to a piece of music to figure out how it should sound, and then imitate that. However, this doesn't automatically result in good technique, because you can use inefficient or even uncontrolled movements to get a particular sound, and this often happens with people who have a good ear.

His idea on memorizing pieces only using the score isn't something I can really do. However, I sometimes do something similar when I'm stuck -- I sit down with the score for half an hour, and memorize 4-8 bars by "sight", although I do cheat a bit in that I allow myself to listen to a recording because I can't just hear stuff off the page. I've found that that conceptual memory can be very strong, and can also "activate" my memory, so to speak.

[lostinidlewonder]

...I wonder if any of you have opinions on whether or not you should look at your hands while playing the piece or stay focused on the sheet music always (in particular I seem to get caught out on the sharps and flats) and when playing more simple pieces to isolate the left-hand and right-hand and learn them through first or just play them both together. From an efficiency standpoint which is preferred?

Sometimes of course you will have to look at your hands, especially if there are large leaps (but with enough experience even these can be done without sight although its not something you are going to have to obsess about in the early stages). Overall however you should not look at your hands and that should start very early on with your reading training. If your eyes are looking at the hands you are disconnected from the sheet music so will not be reading, that is a problem, and when you look back at the sheets often you can lose your place. You need to be able to feel the keyboard in your hand without looking and be able to make movements of position without looking, of course this requires you play music easy enough for you to manage this, it is no good playing something that is going to have you guess where you are moving all the time.

You should be able to close your eyes and see the piano keyboard in your minds eye while you are playing notes with your fingers. 

[tomp86]

Then there are multiple skills. Obviously you have to be really comfortable with music notation. You have to be able to see things as simple chunks - ie an Alberti bass pattern, rather than a set of individual notes to hunt for. You have to have some idea how phrases generally ought to be shaped. And you have to know how to get from one note to another without having to "hunt and peck." For that last skill, it is very helpful to read without looking at your hands at all, even if you have to go quite slowly. For the first, advanced goal (I'm not even close, but I've been told) that it's important just to learn to keep going full speed in rhythm and ignore missed or wrong notes, and also to learn to identify very quickly less important notes that you can leave out if you need to. If you are still a bit weak on musical notation itself, then I don't see any harm in looking at your hands once in a while.

The thing is, you cannot learn all those separate skills at the same time, but you also cannot learn them completely independently of each other. So you have to play around and change what you are doing from time to time. If notation itself is an obstacle, then let yourself read slowly, in rhythm, hands separate, looking at your hands when you need to. But as you get better at that, start doing the same thing hands together,  or while disciplining yourself not to look at your hands.

Great information here brogers. You isolated each skill very well and will be helpful for us to keep an eye on our progress in each area.
There is just one other skill in my mind that I fear I may be playing a role and that is the use of good textbook fingering. By that I mean a good formula to know when which finger to put on each note. 90% of the sheet music online seems to have no fingering. And I do not wish to pick up any bad habits that may affect my long-term piano technique. To counter this I've been doing a long process of slowing down videos and writing down which finger, 1-5, experienced players press each note in famous scores.  Do you have any opinions on how to learn correct fingering during the process of learning how to hunt and peck at the notes?

Overall however you should not look at your hands and that should start very early on with your reading training

Thanks, spot on reinforcement to what brogers has said. I'll not look at hands unless it is required for me to learn notation or a leap

timothy42b, lelle, ranjit - Gieseking-Liemer.  I'll have a look into this as some night reading. Thank you

memorizing pieces only using the score

Yes, that done seem difficult

[brogers70]

There is just one other skill in my mind that I fear I may be playing a role and that is the use of good textbook fingering. By that I mean a good formula to know when which finger to put on each note. 90% of the sheet music online seems to have no fingering. And I do not wish to pick up any bad habits that may affect my long-term piano technique. To counter this I've been doing a long process of slowing down videos and writing down which finger, 1-5, experienced players press each note in famous scores.  Do you have any opinions on how to learn correct fingering during the process of learning how to hunt and peck at the notes?

If you learn the standard fingering for scales and arpeggios in all the keys (eventually but you can start with the keys your pieces use) they'll become pretty automatic and they will be applicable fairly often in your pieces. That's not always true, sometimes you'll play a bit of a scale in your piece and find you need to use a different fingering than you would playing the scale on its own, but at least it's a place to start.

Find some anthologies of pieces at the beginner level - many of these do have fingerings written in and they are a good place to start. On more advanced pieces the fingerings are often not written in, but by the time you're ready to play them, you should have a good idea of how to figure out an appropriate fingering anyway.

It's also very helpful to look ahead so you see where a phrase or a run is headed and make sure you don't run out of fingers before you get to the end. At the beginning you may want to avoid using your thumb for the black keys, although as you get more advanced you'll learn to do that, too - but in easy pieces you don't generally need to  get the thumb up there.

I'd say rather than trying to copy down fingerings by watching videos and writing madly, it would be worth spending a few dollars to get some anthologies of easy pieces with the fingerings written in. The Music for Millions series is good. I am sure there are others. You can find it on Amazon or sheetmusic plus. They have at least two volumes of easy pieces.

[ranjit]

There is just one other skill in my mind that I fear I may be playing a role and that is the use of good textbook fingering. By that I mean a good formula to know when which finger to put on each note. 90% of the sheet music online seems to have no fingering. And I do not wish to pick up any bad habits that may affect my long-term piano technique.

I think, at the same time, you should not be afraid to think of fingerings on your own and try to see why they do or don't work. I've acquired a decent grasp of fingering over the years, to the point where I don't have to think about it consciously while improvising. I think one of the factors which played a major role was improvising, and discovering fingering logic on my own. Only trying to copy fingerings from other publishers will not give you any confidence in your internal logic behind fingering, and it will be hard to make the transition to fingering spontaneously.

To counter this I've been doing a long process of slowing down videos and writing down which finger, 1-5, experienced players press each note in famous scores.  Do you have any opinions on how to learn correct fingering during the process of learning how to hunt and peck at the notes?

I would suggest imitating how they are moving their hands, rather than writing down the fingering. Otherwise, for example, if they transition from 5 to 1, they might do a complete lift of the hand, and you might strain your hand trying to do an awkward stretch. Imitation won't be perfect, but it will be much better than simply reading which finger to press where. At any rate, there are multiple ways to finger a passage -- at the beginning, I think it's more important to achieve comfortable and secure hand movements. Another tip is to watch the hand groupings rather than the individual notes. See them in connected groups of 4-10 notes and how they interrelate.

I'll not look at hands unless it is required for me to learn notation or a leap

Not at all, you should definitely look at your hands, or else you will develop poor technique. You're possibly overthinking the fingering aspect, while at the same time you don't realize how important a smooth and controlled touch is at the piano. You don't just "peck" a key, there is a lot of technique involved which you need to learn, for which you certainly have to look.

timothy42b, lelle, ranjit - Gieseking-Liemer.  I'll have a look into this as some night reading.

I wouldn't advise reading that book. I mean, you can read it for fun, but it is meant for advanced students, teachers or pianists, not for beginners. As a beginner, it's very easy to misunderstand the things he's trying to say -- and it's not clear whether many of those mental techniques are even practical for seasoned pianists.

For a free book, to be honest, I'd suggest taking a look at Fundamentals of Piano Practice by C Chang (the pdf is available online). Not everything he says is 100% correct, but it was one of the first books that I read, and I found his ideas to be very useful to start thinking in the right direction. But, as with everything when self-teaching, discernment is key. You need to do a lot of mental weightlifting to self-teach effectively, figuring out which things work among a sea of conflicting information, constantly questioning whether you understood something correctly, even if it seems obvious. Read the posts by bernhard and others on this forum as well. There are hundreds of posts, but if you're a fast reader, you'll get through them soon enough.

[kittenyarn]

Wow I never expected there would be so many answers  It sounds like the consensus is that I should learn many pieces that are easy for me, rather than focusing on hard pieces?

[tomp86]

sometimes you'll play a bit of a scale in your piece and find you need to use a different fingering than you would playing the scale on its own

Yes, this often seems to be the case and makes mapping out the piano keys all the more complex. I guess that's why it helps to keep playing heaps of little songs so you learn different fingers on each node on different key signatures so you get a better overall mind map of the piano for every single finger and every key.

On more advanced pieces the fingerings are often not written in, but by the time you're ready to play them, you should have a good idea of how to figure out an appropriate fingering

Because I've studied a lot of high-level pianists, I've also noticed many have their preferred fingering styles and they use completely different fingers to accomplish the same task. I guess this is just personal preference and duty to what books they learned earlier on to help advise them on fingering.

The Music for Millions series is good. I am sure there are others. You can find it on Amazon or sheetmusic plus. They have at least two volumes of easy pieces.

thank you. I'll try to get it at my local music shop.

So scales, arpeggios, and studying notated fingering from many many small pieces in short should teach us the basics of fingering

I've acquired a decent grasp of fingering over the years, to the point where I don't have to think about it consciously while improvising. I think one of the factors which played a major role was improvising

Wow. That sounds like a good tip however I dont think I'm ready for improvising yet I'll just stick with the easier exercises.

Great tips for studying how the hands/arms should move and thinking of it in terms of groups and studying how hands should nativate the piano to create the desired sound and move at required speed. Although, perhaps that a little more advance exercise that is independent of sight reading. For now I think I just need to work on sight-reading as brogers and lostinidlewonder have suggested to get more familiar with mapping the piano into my mind.

I wouldn't advise reading that book.

okay thanks for clarifying. I'll invest in "Fundamentals of Piano Practice by C Chang"  instead 👍😁

Wow I never expected there would be so many answers  It sounds like the consensus is that I should learn many pieces that are easy for me, rather than focusing on hard pieces?

Yes, based on entire conversation it will be more efficient for you to learn from smaller and more basic pieces. As pointed out though, for fun it is okay for you to learn some more difficult pieces however should not be the majority of your learning material

[lostinidlewonder]

There is just one other skill in my mind that I fear I may be playing a role and that is the use of good textbook fingering. By that I mean a good formula to know when which finger to put on each note...... I do not wish to pick up any bad habits that may affect my long-term piano technique. To counter this I've been doing a long process of slowing down videos and writing down which finger, 1-5, experienced players press each note in famous scores.  Do you have any opinions on how to learn correct fingering during the process of learning how to hunt and peck at the notes?

In terms of sight reading study you should not require someone to spoonfeed you the correct fingerings and they should be apparent to you. In fact if you play a piece where you don't know how to determine the fingers for yourself you should try something else. This doesn't always mean finding the correct fingerings instantly you can take time to solve them and this plays an important role in your sight reading training. The more you take time to calculate the correct fingers the faster you will get at it and eventually many situations are solved immediately because you have seen it so often. Sight reading study is not simply playing something immediately it is all the skills that come with it and that may mean you stop to calculate.

You can study all sorts of scales, chords, arpeggios and these will give you many generalized fingerings and positions used in pieces. You could play an ascending D major scale with the standard RH: 123#1234#5, but what about other fingerings playing the same string of notes, what about looking into different bounds of the scale from different starting and finishing points and determining various fingerings that could play that too? What about combinations of notes in those positions? You can determine all types of fingering options and technical adjustments you need to use to make them possible and also others which would be out of the question.

[tomp86]

In terms of sight reading study you should not require someone to spoonfeed you the correct fingerings and they should be apparent to you.

You can determine all types of fingering options and technical adjustments you need to use to make them possible and also others which would be out of the question.

Well said. Good advice. So if you analyze a piece thoroughly you will notice there are many different valid fingering options available to you. Some may or may not be slightly better for playing at fast tempo, but in general there are many ways to skin a cat and I shouldn't be thinking of it as if there is only one correct textbook way to play a piece.

[timothy42b]

So if you analyze a piece thoroughly you will notice there are many different valid fingering options available to you. Some may or may not be slightly better for playing at fast tempo, but in general there are many ways to skin a cat and I shouldn't be thinking of it as if there is only one correct textbook way to play a piece.

For a given piece of music there might be an optimum fingering.  But might there also be a default fingering, probably genre specific, that is useful for sightreading? 

For example with SATB hymns there are lots of times when chords cross hands.  Do you always catch those the first time sightreading?  Maybe, maybe not, maybe you've arrived at a standard way of doing that, that you might not use if you've had time to work on it.  There are probably lots of other examples. 

[lelle]

Well said. Good advice. So if you analyze a piece thoroughly you will notice there are many different valid fingering options available to you. Some may or may not be slightly better for playing at fast tempo, but in general there are many ways to skin a cat and I shouldn't be thinking of it as if there is only one correct textbook way to play a piece.

You will be well on your way just by having the default scale fingerings well learned in your system. Experience will over time teach you where you may have to deviate. This is another reasons why scales are useful!

[tomp86]

For example with SATB hymns there are lots of times when chords cross hands.

I've not actually played a piece where I've needed to cross hands to play the piece yet. I see your point about devloping a standard way of sightreading a piece tho.

You will be well on your way just by having the default scale fingerings well learned in your system. Experience will over time teach you where you may have to deviate. This is another reasons why scales are useful!

Yes agreed. Before I play a piece in new signature I play the scale

Let me give you guys an example of where I see many artists use different fingering to play the same note sequence.  The beginning of canon in d (in RH). Every pro pianist plays it with different fingering. No one can really say what is the correct fingering to play that as there are many different ways.  Unless someone has an opinion on this?

[timothy42b]

I've not actually played a piece where I've needed to cross hands to play the piece yet. I see your point about devloping a standard way of sightreading a piece tho.

I explained that poorly.  Let me try again with an example.

I just grabbed a hymnal and opened it at random, to Welcome Happy Morning, appropriate for holy week as we approach Easter.

In the first measure the bass clef goes from D in the staff to D above, the treble clef goes from D below to B in the middle.  You can leave the right hand in the treble and the left in the bass, if you want to.  And sightreading just to make it simple you might choose to. Soprano and alto in the right hand, tenor and bass in the left. 

But if you look closer you see the first beat is a G major chord, with G and B in the left hand and D in the right.  You could "cross" hands to play all three of those note in the left hand just as well.  In fact it would be easier, because your thumb will stay on the upper D the whole measure, and little finger catches the octave on beat 3. 

Then look at measure 2 - no choice now, left hand is a tenth on beat one and twelth on beat two.  You're going to have to let the right hand catch those tenor notes and the left hand do the bass line.  Etc.  By crossing hands I really meant that a chord crosses staffs, not that the right hand crosses over the left. 

No decent church pianist is sightreading a hymn this familiar.  There are 721 hymns in my hymnal and we probably repeat 20 or 30 many times, there's no excuse for not working them out, but then there are others you just get one shot at when a visiting preacher wants one you've never heard of.   

[lelle]

Let me give you guys an example of where I see many artists use different fingering to play the same note sequence.  The beginning of canon in d (in RH). Every pro pianist plays it with different fingering. No one can really say what is the correct fingering to play that as there are many different ways.  Unless someone has an opinion on this?

Well in that passage it doesn't really matter so much. Any fingering that helps you achieve whatever you want to achieve as your musical goals is fine. Still, patterns from scale fingerings are a useful template, for example 321 321 23 because you "just know" that will work, and then you can use whatever fingering for the D major double third scale which suits you the best for the thirds.

[lostinidlewonder]

Let me give you guys an example of where I see many artists use different fingering to play the same note sequence.  The beginning of canon in d (in RH). Every pro pianist plays it with different fingering. No one can really say what is the correct fingering to play that as there are many different ways.  Unless someone has an opinion on this?

Although there are multiple options I think really there is only one which is the most efficient and which takes into account the context of what comes next. I think fingering is one of the most important parts of piano playing and we should be quite concerned if we have multiple solutions to a passage and don't know which one is best. There should be a clear winner for your hands.

One could use: 321 321 etc however when you start the thirds you on longer use those positions and would have to use a different solution. That would thus cause you to use two solutions to solve bars 1-4 and 5-8. Instead you would use 54321212, this then would allow (35)(24)(13)(24)(13) which follow the exact same fingering position (although of course when you cross downwards with the 2 the first time the thumb remains in position where the 2nd time round it comes down when the 24 plays) followed by (12) which only requires a thumb movement, then returning to (13)(24). The start of the following pattern in bar 9 also calls for (35) in the RH which again connects with our initial solution. This provides "harmony" in the fingering to solve multiple parts and you are not creating different solutions needlessly.

Sure you can get away with all sorts of fingers but I think if you use fingerings which have relationship to one another this is a stronger solution.

Those who apply basic scale logic might not consider even using the 5th on the F#, but given the context of the first 9 bars it simply calls for it to produce the simplest solution both for the hands and for the memory acquisition of the RH. This is a simple situation so people will certainly be able to get away with whatever they like but I think there really is a best solution.

[tomp86]

54321212, this then would allow (35)(24)(13)(24)(13) which follow the exact same fingering position

Very interesting I'm trying to work out your left hand fingering for the second half of 7th and 8th measures though. Is this more optional? I like your logic lostinidlewonder. I think you are a perfectionist.  Putting the 5th finger on the F# in the 1st measure seems the most logical I agree, but just wanted to point out most of the famous players on yt anyway use 4th finger on the f# on the first note then they change to 53 on the first third. (but some play completely differently).  I honestly find your solution easier to play

Well in that passage it doesn't really matter so much. Any fingering that helps you achieve whatever you want to achieve as your musical goals is fine.

True true, I think what liiw has said about the memory acquisition of the RH keeping it consistent can be very helpful technique though.

Then look at measure 2 - no choice now, left hand is a tenth on beat one and twelth on beat two.  You're going to have to let the right hand catch those tenor notes and the left

Hi Timothy. Can you please send me a link to the sheet music that is the same as your hym because there seems to be many many different arrangements and cannot find the one that lines up with your piece    I think I understand your concept though and that's why it's very important to scan ahead. When asked to play a piece for your preacher on the spot that you've never played before Im sure you will play it the first time with a few minor pauses to adjust for running out of fingers etc if it turns out difficult. I don't see any other solution unless you are really good at sight-reading and can process it all instantly

[timothy42b]

I'll post something tonight and show you what I mean.

With SATB hymns in a particular denomination there are patterns that recur frequently and once learned help greatly.  Anglican (mine) and Lutheran are pretty close.  Catholic is easy, mostly lead sheets when I've played there, or simple chord progressions on chant.  Baptist is a whole different ball game I never got good at. 

I've not been playing church music or piano lately due to COVID and the work schedule (and a talented young player who handles all the sub work).  Next year after I retire I may be able to focus more.  So I don't claim I can do this right now, but my strategy was never pause - just leave out the tenor line or whatever is hard.  Stay on the beat at all costs and get the other fingers back in the game when you can.  At times I try to catch the harmony and ignore what is written - you should be able to spot a major chord and play whatever inversion your fingers are close to.  I don't know how others do it, I never did play at a high level, I just did what i could to help out. 

[lostinidlewonder]

...I'm trying to work out your left hand fingering for the second half of 7th and 8th measures though.

I didn't mention anything about the LH, do you mean you want me to write the LH fingering too?

[timothy42b]

I will attempt to post an example of a hymn where in the first measure you have the option to split hands by treble and bass staffs, or you can use one hand to catch notes in the other.

But in the second measure you don't have a choice, if you want to play all the notes you have to have hands reach across the staffs.  Or, if sightreading at speed, you could leave the hands separated and catch the notes you can reach. 

[tomp86]

I didn't mention anything about the LH, do you mean you want me to write the LH fingering too?

Sorry, a typo, I meant the RH for the 7 1/2th and 8th measure. (54)(32)(12)(12)(35 24)(13 24)(13 ??)(?? ??). Does this make sense?

But in the second measure you don't have a choice, if you want to play all the notes you have to have hands reach across the staffs.  Or, if sightreading at speed, you could leave the hands separated and catch the notes you can reach.

I see what you mean. If you wanted you could still play the higher left-hand notes with your right thumb if you wanted. I thought we play all the notes in treble in right hand and bass in the left hand. The arranger has worked it out for us. Or is this not the case?

[lostinidlewonder]

Sorry, a typo, I meant the RH for the 7 1/2th and 8th measure. (54)(32)(12)(12)(35 24)(13 24)(13 ??)(?? ??). Does this make sense?

Yes, so you mean when the RH plays a thumb on the F#. The (13)-(1#2)-(13) type movement with the mobile thumb is not so uncommon. You of course do not want to twist your wrist to allow the thumb to play the F#, you should play more inside the keyboard so you can keep your wrist straight. I don't think a cross over option with the 2nd finger on F# would be any improvement but you could of course get away with it.

[timothy42b]

. I thought we play all the notes in treble in right hand and bass in the left hand. The arranger has worked it out for us. Or is this not the case?

In lesson pieces yes, usually that is true.  At least at our level. 

But in other music it is often impossible.  SATB hymns are written to be sung, so they are arranged at pitches that fit people's voices and that sound good, but aren't necessarily easy to play.  So often you have to make decisions about what hand plays what notes. 

[tomp86]

But in other music it is often impossible.  SATB hymns are written to be sung, so they are arranged at pitches that fit people's voices and that sound good, but aren't necessarily easy to play.  So often you have to make decisions about what hand plays what notes.

Ahh okay. Good point I'll have to look out for that. I've not yet come across a piece where I've need to do that.

Yes, so you mean when the RH plays a thumb on the F#. The (13)-(1#2)-(13) type movement with the mobile thumb is not so uncommon. You of course do not want to twist your wrist to allow the thumb to play the F#, you should play more inside the keyboard so you can keep your wrist straight. I don't think a cross over option with the 2nd finger on F# would be any improvement but you could of course get away with it.

Thanks. Good tip on the wrist and moving 3 further in. I've been playing (35) there which is comfortable but it not fantastic for memorization

[lostinidlewonder]

...I've been playing (35) there which is comfortable but it not fantastic for memorization

Playing 35 instead of 13? I don't understand how you manage to get to 35 or find leading away from it when you hit the final chord in bar 8 convenient.

[1piano4joe]

You of course do not want to twist your wrist to allow the thumb to play the F#, you should play more inside the keyboard so you can keep your wrist straight.

I applied this tip to measure 14 of Bach Invention #1 where my right thumb must play a G#. I found this measure quite awkward until I read this. Wow, what a big difference. I now can play this measure with no twisting. I get in quick and then I get out quick.

Thanks so much for this tip, Joe.

[1piano4joe]

Although there are multiple options I think really there is only one which is the most efficient and which takes into account the context of what comes next. I think fingering is one of the most important parts of piano playing and we should be quite concerned if we have multiple solutions to a passage and don't know which one is best. There should be a clear winner for your hands.

One could use: 321 321 etc however when you start the thirds you on longer use those positions and would have to use a different solution. That would thus cause you to use two solutions to solve bars 1-4 and 5-8. Instead you would use 54321212, this then would allow (35)(24)(13)(24)(13) which follow the exact same fingering position (although of course when you cross downwards with the 2 the first time the thumb remains in position where the 2nd time round it comes down when the 24 plays) followed by (12) which only requires a thumb movement, then returning to (13)(24). The start of the following pattern in bar 9 also calls for (35) in the RH which again connects with our initial solution. This provides "harmony" in the fingering to solve multiple parts and you are not creating different solutions needlessly.

Sure you can get away with all sorts of fingers but I think if you use fingerings which have relationship to one another this is a stronger solution.

Those who apply basic scale logic might not consider even using the 5th on the F#, but given the context of the first 9 bars it simply calls for it to produce the simplest solution both for the hands and for the memory acquisition of the RH. This is a simple situation so people will certainly be able to get away with whatever they like but I think there really is a best solution.

I really, really needed to read this. I thought I was a little "touched" with being such a stickler for the "ideal" fingering. It is comforting to know that that's exactly what I'm supposed to be doing.

I have an especially hard time finding the "perfect" fingering. However, I do recognize it when I see it. So, I guess it's not all bad.

There must be something wrong with me since I would never realize to start with my pinkie in this case on the F#. I can see this now as a simple descending  "B minor pentascale". I studied these many, many years ago as they are part of the "Preparatory technical requirements of RCM".

I only wish I could see that at once. It is by far such a superior fingering.

In general, I often can't tell whether to just shift my hand, skip a finger like 31 on adjacent notes, substitute a finger or cross over or under. Especially with Bach, it just gets "funky"!

I've been working hard trying to improve this "deficiency" but after this many years, I don't see that happening. I'm more or less resigned to just doing some digging because very often my fingering is "non ideal" and I know it, which is a good thing.

I once learned a piece with very inefficient fingering. It was a bear to play that way but doable. After I saw a YouTube video (showing me the light), man did I feel like a moron. That's what happens when I don't prepare properly! Whoever said, "Ignorance is bliss" evidently never played piano.

Any suggestions on how to improve fingering decisions/choices?

Thank You, Joe.