Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-09-11 22:48
BflatNH wrote:
>> Was it Stein who talked about least finger movement (least effort) key/fingering selection?>>
I'm told it was; though I haven't looked at that book for years.
>> My question is when playing a piece that is somewhat difficult (for you) and key fingering can make a difference in the relative ease of playing and therefore the total quality of the piece, how do you choose between playing a note fingering that has a somewhat better intonation (e.g, 1st line Eb with LH 1+2+sliver key) and playing an easier (least possible effort) to play in note sequence (e.g. 1st line Eb fork '1 & 1") that is only slightly stuffier or out just 10 cents??>>
Well, if it's me, the best that I can say is that I have to rely on my own judgement. (I can ask a colleague to listen, too, of course.)
As in another thread, if the passage needs to be very fast, then purity of intonation may need to defer to fluency. The listener (presumably) has the same cognitive difficulties that I do in hearing intonation precisely at speed, so if I judge that both that and the fluency match up to the requirements of the music, I adopt the 'simpler' fingering.
What do I mean by 'simpler'? Interestingly, 'simpler' doesn't mean, 'making the least effort', in the scientific sense of 'using the least force' or 'making the least movement', or even 'involving the least energy expenditure'.
If you're performing a difficult passage, then you don't have time to follow all of its course in detail. So in practising it, you do best to start off by doing what is called, 'chunking' -- that is to say, breaking the passage up into smaller pieces that you deal with first of all independently, and then join up later. (You can even do that more than once, further breaking up each of the chunks into smaller subchunks, and then sewing THOSE together before dealing with the same problem on the next level up.)
The important thing is to be able to grasp each chunk, initially, as a unit. Therefore, if a chunk involves several movements, it helps if they can be re-experienced as parts of one larger movement. This movement need not be the most economical movement -- in fact, using quite large but nevertheless smooth movements of the hand may be better.
Watch a great 'cellist deal with the complicated changes of left-hand position in a technical passage -- or a great pianist the complicated changes in BOTH hands. The details of the fingering show up as substructures of larger movements that seem to give the performer ample time to deal with the showers of notes.
I found that watching 'cellists helped me greatly in imagining the movements that allowed me to integrate the RH thumb movements involved in playing the period basset clarinet, for example.
So on the modern clarinet, 'simpler' fingerings means, ones that fit better into such larger movements, and so are good candidates for chunking in fast passages.
>> If you practice real, real, real hard, do all note fingerings (primary and alternates) become just as easy or integrated in the note pattern, or is it wise playing to use alternates if the trade-off is reasonable or am I just looking for an easy way out?>>
Well, something that I've experienced is that finding and then practising a simplified fingering can help me out with the OTHER important demand that a technical passage makes of us. See, we don't naturally think of a piece of demanding passagework as being to do with instrument address (tongue, embouchure and diaphragm actions)-- but actually, it is.
And because it is, that means that the work that you put in to learning an unusual fingering for a chunk of a passage therefore pays off EVEN IF YOU EVENTUALLY DISCARD IT. Your internal processes have learnt to deal with the chunk as a unit of address-modulation, if you like; and then the standard fingerings often fall into place much more naturally.
>> Does it affect your perceived standing as a player if you use alternates often?>>
If it works, only amongst idiots;-)
Tony
|
|
Keepers
