This Blog was first published by Oxford University Press: https://blog.oup.com/2017/02/fingering-choices-piano-performance/
The proper
use of fingering to perform accurately is of concern to all
instrumentalists. However, there is a dangerous
pitfall awaiting keyboard players that does not exist for other
instrumentalists. Simply put, for
non-keyboardists, wrong fingering usually equals wrong note. But for the
pianist, we can stumble along, playing the right pitches, while all the while
making a complete mess of the musical message because of inept fingering. As C. P. E. Bach cautions: “Today, much more
than in the past, no one can hope to play well who does not use his fingers
correctly.”[1] Therefore, it is not surprising that C. P. E.
Bach devotes 37 pages to proper scale fingerings of all stripes and colors for
good execution in chapter 1 of Versuch,
and Türk devotes 60 pages to the same in Klavierstücke.
What is distinctive to eighteenth-century performance
practice is the acknowledgment of the important role fingering plays in
musicality; how it is completely
interconnected. It is inseparable from interpretation. It serves a vital musical function so much so
that Bach believed the musical function of fingering was more important than
its technical role.
Clementi
puts it succinctly: “To produce the best
effect, by the easiest means, is
the great basis of the art of fingering.”[2] The best fingering is achieved by the easiest means, which is not always a 1-2-3-4-5 legato approach. Instead, this
suggests choosing fingering that supports a hand shape and execution which will
facilitate a reliable technical and musical outcome. Türk demonstrates the
concept well in Klavierstücke. As suggested in Discoveries from the Fortepiano (2015, OUP), try the excerpt below
using consecutive fingering (1-2, 2-3,
3-4…) while at the same time following the slur indications. Now, play it with Türk’s suggestions which
require one gesture, one muscle movement, gliding up and down the keyboard –
the best effect by the easiest means.
Oftentimes
today, scores are interpreted with a fully-connected, legato execution. The Mozart
example below is a case in point. The fingering choice suggested by the editor in
the right hand on beat one of measure 33 is 2-1-2-4-5.
This proposed fingering implies connecting the line through the slur which
contradicts the articulation subtleties Mozart notated. If we are to play the score as directed by Mozart, this “easiest”
fingering approach, in reality, becomes more
difficult to execute musically and
the following interpretation usually results.
Mozart, Piano Sonata, K. 309/II, mm. 33-36 (Henle)
Instead, using
1-2-4-5-3 on beat one of measure 33
produces Mozart’s notated articulation by using the natural inclination of the
fingers: starting with a heavier gesture with naturally heavier fingers,
breaking the legato after finger 5, and landing with a rich, thick finger
3. A natural gesture followed by a newly
articulated stroke. The best effect
by the easiest means. Listen to the
difference that is demonstrated on the fortepiano:
By following
these principles on the modern piano the same nuanced interpretation is readily
achieved:
The conscious
employment of this technical approach provides rational solutions to the
perceived “problems” of executing eighteenth-century repertoire. The added
bonus? A style that is easier to execute, that offers a variety of
articulation, that contains new palettes of color, and that provides imagined sound energy through intentionally executed technical paths.
[1] C.
P. E. Bach, Essay on the True Arts of
Playing Keyboard Instruments, (Leipzig: Schwickert, 1753, 1762), translated
by William J. Mitchell, (W. W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1949, renewed ©
1976 by Alice L. Mitchell), 41.
[2] Muzio Clementi, Introduction to the Art of Playing on the
Piano Forte (London: Clementi, Banger, Hyde, Collard & David, 1801),
reprinted (Da Capo Press, 1974), 14.
[3]
Daniel Gottlob Türk, Klavierschule
(1789, Leipzig and Halle), as translated by Raymond H. Haggh (University of
Nebraska Press, 1982), 158, with permission from the author’s daughter, Barbara
Haggh-Huglo.
