Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
In another post or thread ..... it was mentioned that ... in our history .... every once in a long while ..... a new sort of music can pop up. Eg. a new genre. The main thing is to not underestimate people.
Also adding ..... as for finger methods ... the existing playing methods appear to be very well developed. So maybe no need for improvement in that area. Although .... we know that surprises can sometimes pop up.
I also usually change the given fingering in pieces. However, you like me are a beginner, and if you change the given fingering too much, you will never learn to be comfortable with 1 2 5 and only be comfortable with 2 3 5. But you'll need to be able to also play 1 2 5 comfortably! For instance, in a piece, there may be a bigger distance between the second and the third note, so you can only reach that distance with 2 and 5, not with 3 and 5. Therefore, when practising scales, I try to keep the given fingering, even if I would prefer to change it.
Good advice. One should learn "standard" fingering for inversion, scales, arpeggios, etc.
Thank you! I got this advice myself here in a thread at PW.
Playing the piano is learning to create, playfully and deeply seriously, our own music in the world. * ... feeling like the pianist on the Titanic ...
I also usually change the given fingering in pieces. However, you like me are a beginner, and if you change the given fingering too much, you will never learn to be comfortable with 1 2 5 and only be comfortable with 2 3 5. But you'll need to be able to also play 1 2 5 comfortably! For instance, in a piece, there may be a bigger distance between the second and the third note, so you can only reach that distance with 2 and 5, not with 3 and 5. Therefore, when practising scales, I try to keep the given fingering, even if I would prefer to change it.
Good advice. One should learn "standard" fingering for inversion, scales, arpeggios, etc.
Thank you! I got this advice myself here in a thread at PW.
Give yourself credit for recognizing the validity of the advice 🙂
"Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist". Pablo Picasso
OK, so long as we can break the rules that clearly won't work. If you have set fingering for your 1st inversion and it already includes your 5 finger what happens when the melody isn't what your RH 5 finger is already playing? The melody can still be anywhere of course, but if your fingers are set to play the inversion you have nothing left to reach it. The fingering for this inversion, MUST change in these circumstances, if you want to play solo piano, or you won't be able to follow the melody. Please explain how I am wrong about this?
Just for chords it works fine, but as soon as you add melody, it doesn't always work and the method breaks down.
The concept for early beginner's is perhaps fine, for basic stuff, that always will work with set fingering. Otherwise, this this won't take you very far.
Not trying to cause a fuss, just stating a fact as I see it.
Thank you for the suggestion. Please know, that I am seriously trying to think this through on why there is this gap of how this is taught and how I understand inversions.
My solution to the issue of following the melody is outlined in my 2nd post in this thread and is simple for anyone to understand. Even me.
What I think is going on is that when we play a chord in the RH only, for example like a C chord. but we are starting on E as the lowest note in the RH. we are calling this a first inversion of C. But when we go to play real music using both hands, it could just as easily be a root chord if C is in the bass with your LH. It is only an inversion (C/E) if E is in the bass regardless of the order you play the notes in RH.
But we don't think of this when just looking at the RH. That i believe is the disconnect.
Any quasi inversion you play in the RH is a root chord if the root is in your bass and it usually is.
So to reach your melody in RH you can simply change the order of notes in RH, but this is not a true inversion. Like, it wouldn't be a C/E when you come across in a score. It would simply be a C with a C melody and E and G harmony. Looks like a 1st inversion but it isn't.
Hope that is clear as mudd. It really is terminology that needs to be sorted out, because it gets mixed up all the time and not just by me.
Everybody progressing through will encounter this. It becomes a natural part of the learning experience .....because ... at a certain stage everybody that is building the skill level will know it becomes necessary to figure out a suitable finger pattern/sequence to get things done properly.
Remember also that we are playing with both hands. To change the inversion thus, you simply need to change the bass note and nothing at all needs to move in your RH. Theoretically at least.
So to simplify things, you could let your LH control the inversion (like play C,E or G for root, 1st and 2nd inversion of C chord) and just worry about following the melody in your RH with some harmony that will fit as the inversion is already established by your LH.
I don't know about the OP but most people here are playing classical and don't have a choice but to play what's written.
I get your point about the bass deciding what inversion it is and I would add that sometimes playing hands together results in a totally different chord than with the right hand alone because of how the notes are spread out. But it's still useful to think in terms of hand shapes and "inversions" using the standard fingering. When you have drilled that fingering so much that it becomes second nature then it's very easy to accommodate changes.
[quote=Greener What I think is going on is that when we play a chord in the RH only, for example like a C chord. but we are starting on E as the lowest note in the RH. we are calling this a first inversion of C. But when we go to play real music using both hands, it could just as easily be a root chord if C is in the bass with your LH. It is only an inversion (C/E) if E is in the bass regardless of the order you play the notes in RH.
But we don't think of this when just looking at the RH. That i believe is the disconnect.
Any quasi inversion you play in the RH is a root chord if the root is in your bass and it usually is.
So to reach your melody in RH you can simply change the order of notes in RH, but this is not a true inversion. Like, it wouldn't be a C/E when you come across in a score. It would simply be a C with a C melody and E and G harmony. Looks like a 1st inversion but it isn't.
Hope that is clear as mudd. It really is terminology that needs to be sorted out, because it gets mixed up all the time and not just by me.[/quote]
What the chord is functionally speaking is unrelated to how one should play it. Whether it is a true inversion or a false inversion does not matter from a fingering perspective. The only thing that is important is the physical comfort/reliability to play it, the musical intention and the context before and after. Whenever possible using the standard fingering is best because it is what we are mostly used to, but if not possible for whatever reason, then the player must adjust. I think it is a rather simple issue.
I get your point about the bass deciding what inversion it is and I would add that sometimes playing hands together results in a totally different chord than with the right hand alone because of how the notes are spread out. But it's still useful to think in terms of hand shapes and "inversions" using the standard fingering. When you have drilled that fingering so much that it becomes second nature then it's very easy to accommodate changes.
True. It looks like that - if somebody is asking about inversions, then this will be about not following a score, or it will be a modification of a score, or improvisation or composing etc.
I agree. For regular inversions - or the number of them - for triads at least, there are only a few combinations for closed chords. Remember hand shapes is a very nice approach.
Inversions based on four note chords was a bit odd for me when I was looking into that area ---- in terms of understanding the 'rules'.
Eg. G7 chord ---- G-B-D-F. If we then purposely leave out the 'B', so that we just play G-D-F with the left hand----- and then use the right hand to play the 'B'. Obviously, the overall cyclic sequence isn't in the order of G-B-D-F or F-G-B-D or G-B-D-F or B-D-F-G.
The new sequence is actually G-D-F-B ...... which once surprised me when somebody mentioned that it's still an 'inversion' of the G7 chord. Anybody know if that really is an accepted 'inversion' of G7?
But - in any case --- absolutely - when it comes to playing a piece in an intended way (with good timing, flow, etc etc etc), then everybody is certainly going to be needing to use a suitable finger pattern arrangement to get the job done -- properly/reliably/consistently (ie. done well).
Remember also that we are playing with both hands. To change the inversion thus, you simply need to change the bass note and nothing at all needs to move in your RH. Theoretically at least.
So to simplify things, you could let your LH control the inversion (like play C,E or G for root, 1st and 2nd inversion of C chord) and just worry about following the melody in your RH with some harmony that will fit as the inversion is already established by your LH.
I don't know about the OP but most people here are playing classical and don't have a choice but to play what's written.
I get your point about the bass deciding what inversion it is and I would add that sometimes playing hands together results in a totally different chord than with the right hand alone because of how the notes are spread out. But it's still useful to think in terms of hand shapes and "inversions" using the standard fingering... When you have drilled that fingering so much that it becomes second nature then it's very easy to accommodate changes.
Good, we're on the same page. So long as you understand this distinction is ok for me if ok for you. This is pretty much it in a nutshell.
Originally Posted by Sidokar
... What the chord is functionally speaking is unrelated to how one should play it. Whether it is a true inversion or a false inversion does not matter from a fingering perspective. The only thing that is important is the physical comfort/reliability to play it... Whenever possible using the standard fingering is best because it is what we are mostly used to, but if not possible for whatever reason, then the player must adjust. I think it is a rather simple issue.
Not on same page. It does matter and why I keep hounding on it. If you play a nice comfortable full C chord in your favorite fixed finger fingering, I expect you will be playing C,E,G,C in your RH. So, how are you going to play an E or G melody? If you say you just need to make a simple adjustment, you will need to make an adjustment with every chord, so you may as well view the chords in their entirety in the first place.
Originally Posted by SouthPark
... But - in any case --- absolutely - when it comes to playing a piece in an intended way (with good timing, flow, etc etc etc), then everybody is certainly going to be needing to use a suitable finger pattern arrangement to get the job done -- properly/reliably/consistently (ie. done well).
Yes, and that means following the melody and not follow fixed fingering for only half the chord.
If you really want to understand how chords actually function in real music (classical or otherwise) this becomes an important issue.
Yes, and that means following the melody and not follow fixed fingering for only half the chord. If you really want to understand how chords actually function in real music (classical or otherwise) this becomes an important issue.
Not on same page. It does matter and why I keep hounding on it. If you play a nice comfortable full C chord in your favorite fixed finger fingering, I expect you will be playing C,E,G,C in your RH. So, how are you going to play an E or G melody? If you say you just need to make a simple adjustment, you will need to make an adjustment with every chord, so you may as well view the chords in their entirety in the first place.
Not to put a cat among the pigeons, but in classical, you can have - and frequently do have - a melodic note in the midst of a chord with notes above as well as below it. Melodic notes don't have to be the top notes of chords.
For instance, this well-known intermediate-level piece that (probably) most people here have played:
The melody in the middle of RH needs to be played as if by a third hand (or sung by a singer), individually voiced and phrased from the surrounding accompaniment, which stays at the same subdued dynamic level. Notice also how the LH bass octaves imitates a little later on and thus becomes the melodic notes (therefore, voiced accordingly by LH thumb) - another frequent 'device' used by classical composers.
The ability to voice individual melodic notes within chords (and swirling arpeggios - even more commonly) is something that needs to be mastered by all aspiring classical pianists.
Thank you bennevis, but this is a different topic still and I am not totally convinced we fully have our heads around the 1st can of fish I have opened up.
You're absolutely right though, the melody doesn't always have to be or will be on the very top. For beginner's it is though.
Not on same page. It does matter and why I keep hounding on it. If you play a nice comfortable full C chord in your favorite fixed finger fingering, I expect you will be playing C,E,G,C in your RH. So, how are you going to play an E or G melody? If you say you just need to make a simple adjustment, you will need to make an adjustment with every chord, so you may as well view the chords in their entirety in the first place.
I dont see what the issue is. You use whatever fingering works given the configuration. If the standard fingering is possible, I'll use it by preference, if not then I'll adjust. If I have to play E,G,C chord in the RH that could be just about anything: a C chord, a cadential 6-4, a seventh on A, a third inversion of a dominant 7th of F major or something else. Unless there is a specific constraint before or after due to counterpoint mouvement, I would still use preferably the same fingering in all those cases. The fingering does not depend on the nature of the chord but on the musical/physical constraints to execute a given sequence.
Now if E, G, C is now part of an arpeggio which starts and continues with other notes, I may need to shift my fingering to better adjust to the sequence, not because it is a different chord but because of physical constraints to get the most fluid and comfortable mouvement.
... I dont see what the issue is. You use whatever fingering works given the configuration. If the standard fingering is possible, I'll use it by preference, if not then I'll adjust. If I have to play E,G,C chord in the RH that could be just about anything: a C chord, a cadential 6-4, a seventh on A, a third inversion of a dominant 7th of F major or something else. Unless there is a specific constraint before or after due to counterpoint mouvement, I would still use preferably the same fingering in all those cases. The fingering does not depend on the nature of the chord but on the musical/physical constraints to execute a given sequence. ...
Yes, I see what you mean by this Sidokar, and entirely agree with you. From a fingering perspective it makes no difference. Sure, if I am going to play this cluster of 3 or whatever notes in this order, we can decide we will always play with these fingers, whatever it is called.
Indeed I was getting more caught up in what we are really playing in terms of the chord. But, you're right that it is a fingering question and there was never any mention by the OP of the LH. LH was not even brought up until I came along to stir the pot.
Personally, I am always far more concerned about how and when I am going to try and harmonize the melody. It's moving around all over the place and you never know what is going to happen next. So, I usually just worry about that vs. specific fingering for specific patterns. My LH is often playing most of the chord anyway. But, If exact fingering for patterns of notes helps with the confidence aspect, great.
It was also mentioned that with classical everything is pretty much spelled out anyway, but even so it is nice to see how some of the greats harmonized melody so as to get ideas from that too.
Suppose I needed to think about this out loud to really get my own head around what I was really objecting to. As it turns out, nothing really, just not how I would go about it.
Anyway my mind is clearer now and I will go away and practice, until the next time something doesn't sit quite right.
