Piano fingering example

[John Ruggero]

Does anyone else find the placement of the fingering problematic?


attachment=0]Fingering example.png[/attachment]

[MichelRE]

Not necessarily "problematic" (except for that thumb indicator in the right hand first measure)

However, I find it nauseatingly excessive, particularly considering the apparent level of difficulty of the music. This level of "fingerings on every single note and chord" is normally the type of thing one sees in beginner music, or in the rare case of a very specific edition with a specific pianist's fingerings (like maybe the Cortot Chopin Études.)

But who knows. Maybe I'm wrong. I've always detested piano music that was this heavily annotated. It felt restrictive and micro-managed.

[John Ruggero]

It's dense with fingering because it's a manufactured example of various fingering possibilities from a book on music engraving.

I'm not keen on that style of thumb indication either, and prefer it next to the notes if used. But I just use two 1's.

I'm talking more about the placement of the numbers. No one bothered by it?

[MichelRE]

the thumb indication in the first and last bars right hand are poorly chosen (as far as I'm concerned) in regard to position. I'd avoid the number entirely and use only the bracket, this one placed always to the left of the notes.

the left hand's very first beat, I don't see any reason for the fingering to be placed to the left of the notes.

I don't mind fingering placed under the slur or under a beam, IF it's only an occasional fingering, but if it's going to be dense with fingering I'd rather consistency with every over beams/slurs, or everything below beams/slurs.

I'm not keen on fingering numbers (specifically, in contrast to the brackets for thumb) being within the staff.

something like beat three (counting in 8th notes) of bar two, right hand, I think I'd rather only see the fingering for those inner notes, and not those for the octave (which is self-evident)

beat two of measure three, right hand, I am presuming that the stem-down staccato notes are both meant to be played by the thumb, so I would actually NOT want to see the first thumb indication above, but rather as a sort of substitution 1____ below the staff.

And the very last note in the left hand... just no. bracket the thumb if necessary, except that's impossible to finger any other way without having alien-sized hands, but as placed in the example? no.

By the way, I don't approve of the use of two "1" indications for two notes both depressed by the thumb. It's self evident to a pianist if one uses only a bracket since there is no other way to finger the notes. using the numeral twice takes up room, creates clutter.

[John Ruggero]

Thanks, MichelRE. I agree with most of your points. Fingering brackets are often accompanied by a number, but I see nothing wrong with your practice of omitting the number, since as you said, it is generally obvious which finger is holding the two (or three keys. Recently, I decided that I preferred just using the finger numbers, which is also standard practice.

What I find fascinating about the example (in a weird way) is that everything about it bothers me.

Generally:

1. The placement of the fingering is entirely inconsistent throughout, most of it placed to the left of the note heads, a little to the right, and hardly any of it actually centered over the note heads or stems, as would be standard.

2. The stacked numbers are not evenly spaced and just a little too close together, perhaps because the numbers are rather large.

Specifically:

3. I have seen fingering to the left or right of the note head offset as in the lower staff at the beginning of the example, but I consider it a bad practice, because it could easily lead to confusion in some situations. Similarly, when fingering is placed on the staff, under or over the note heads, as in second measure of the lower staff, it is usually placed a fourth higher or lower than closest note head. This is fairly standard practice.

4. There has to be a good reason that fingering is placed between the note heads and the beam. That is not the case in the example.

5. The example appears to be over-fingered because care was not taken in the way the example was "composed" to motivate the fingering decisions.

As a result, I think that the example presents a misleading picture of how piano fingering should be engraved. Unfortunately, it appears on page 309 of Behind Bars.

[MichelRE]

Unfortunately, it appears on page 309 of Behind Bars.

Please tell me that it has a paragraph that specifically says "NEVER EVER DO THIS"?

[John Ruggero]

No such paragraph. This is not an area in which Gould delves deeply, and her comments and this accompanying illustration are very general. Unfortunately, this gives the impression that almost anything goes when it comes to fingering. But that is not what one sees in well-edited and well-engraved music. There are standard practices for fingering as with all aspects of music notation.

[Anders Hedelin]

The example appears to be over-fingered because care was not taken in the way the example was "composed" to motivate the fingering decisions.

Good point. I would say consideration was not shown for the intelligence of the pianist.

On the other hand, Gould may very well have intended to show a map of all possible kinds of placements of fingerings. However, as it stands, it may be read by non-pianists as the recommended way of doing it. Unfortunate, if so.

[John Ruggero]

Yes, as MichelRE wrote, it appears to be an illustration of many possible incorrect placements of finger numbers; but this was certainly not the intention.

[David Ward]

… … … … Unfortunately, it appears on page 309 of Behind Bars.

I'm ill-qualified to comment on keyboard fingering, being a very poor pianist, but I suspect a problem with this example from Elaine Gould's book might be that it's trying to illustrate too many different things in one example. (I leave keyboard fingering to the player, so can happily ignore this section of the book.)