F Sharp Minor Fingering

Just wondering what your thoughts are on something. Having analysed scales and attempted to put them in fingering categories, I'd be interested to know what you think of the fingering for F sharp minor. C sharp minor is quite literally fingered and played as an E major scale (aside from the relevant raised semitones). Bearing this in mind, can you see any good reason why F sharp minor is taught to start on 4, in the left hand? Doesn't it make more sense to start on 3 (with the As forming a kind of anchor point for both thumbs- just as the Es form an anchor point in C sharp minor)? F sharp major starts on a 4, but that is a very different case (where the thumbs always coincide twice throughout, as in F major and B major etc). How did F sharp minor get to be given a completely unique fingering pattern that involves no synchronisation of thumbs at all? It even necessitates a change of fingering for the melodic, on the way down! This seems inept for the task to the point of being comical to think that it is used at all, nevermind specified in Associated Board Scale books! It seems so much easier to relate it to the A major fingering- with the same fingering in both directions. As far as the hand positions go, I see no benefit from the regular fingering. The A major fingering seems every bit as comfortable, physically speaking. I'd be extremely interested to hear your thoughts. Personally, I now always teach students to use the A major equivalent fingering- which I consider to be far more straightforward. Although I had used the 'normal' fingering all my life, this new fingering already feels at least as comfortable.I just cannot understand where the 'correct' fingering ever originated from or why. The usual fingering isn't exactly very hard, for an experienced player, but it seems crazy that we're routinely teaching such an odd lack of synchronisation in the thumbs to young kids. Would you agree, or am I missing something? Andrew

Here is a fine thread on scale fingerings that covers exactly this issue:

Interesting thread, but I didn't see anything that relates at all to the F sharp minor issue. Frankly, I think the guy's talking absolute crap. I heard a rumour about these principles before, but never saw them in detail. I imagine that Alan would dispute the wisdom in reaching the top of a l.h. F major scale on 1-3, before having to return straight to the thumb to descend(?) This would surely cause HUGE problems at speed, (in terms of the lobster's claw idea) for beginners and pros alike! Imagine a kid trying to bridge that change of direction smoothly, with the thumb trapped under the hand, as the line begins to go back down. The guy has simply not thought about musical context! Time after time, you will find scales within music that finish on the tonic note and then descend. Admittedly, l.h. flat scales have a near-similar difficulty (although it's easier fingering the awkard turn-around with black keys at the top, than with white keys)- but why make such a difficulty commonplace, rather than the exception? Isn't it common sense to fit these standard patterns to the shape of the hand? Anything based on that system alone would grossly simply limit the chance of an all-round technical development. Also, what about when the hands are in unison (I don't even want to think about thirds and sixths apart)? The thumbs would rarely coincide at all and there would be all kinds of different combinations going on. Standard scales primarily use one of two patterns. '3-4-3' (ie for the r.h. ascending 123 1234 123 12345) in each hand or thumbs ALWAYS in sync. There aren't too many exceptions other than some flat scales (although even A flat is a regular 343 if conceived around the anchor point of C- start on that note and you have a mere C major fingering throughout!) That guy's manner of breaking this approach really couldn't be further from my idea about F sharp minor. The whole idea of my suggested fingering is that firstly, it is analgous to a simple A major (just as C sharp minor is always done as being analagous to a simple E major) and secondly, it puts the thumbs in sync between the hands (and thirdly it omits the ludicrous change of fingering that is necessitated for the melodic minor's descent). I'm not talking about some sort of whacko fingering. The 'standard' fingering really does breaks with all common sense and logical consistency in this case. (Do any professional pianists seriously follow that approach as a basis- rather than as an occasional variant?) EDIT- I just checked, by the way, and he lists the standard fingering of 4 on the F sharp. Does anyone else here use the A major fingering for F sharp minor?

I have just been to the piano to try your suggested LH fingering for the f# minor scale - it certainly results in a much more fluid execution with less 'flapping' (i.e. getting first your 3rd onto the c# and then your 4th onto the f# using the standard fingering). I find with your A maj analagous fingering that the 4th passes with more ease (in this case from the thumb on ) and that the hand is more 'stable' and less 'busy' - if that makes any sense. Just one question - how does it 'omit the ludicrous change of fingering...necessitated for the mel. minor's descent'? Isn't the ludicrous change you're talking about to be seen in the RH? Many thanks for this very interesting insight!

) and that the hand is more 'stable' and less 'busy' - if that makes any sense. Just one question - how does it 'omit the ludicrous change of fingering...necessitated for the mel. minor's descent'? Isn't the ludicrous change you're talking about to be seen in the RH? Many thanks for this very interesting insight! Yeah, personally I'd agree that (not only does it seem more logical) but that it's more physically comfortable. Sorry! I just checked the 'official' fingering in the scale book and there isn't actually a change of fingering for the left-hand. Apologies for the error! I think the reason I had suspected this is that when I used to play the 'correct' l.h. fingering going up, my hands had always naturally tended to veer back to the more natural A major fingering for the way down- rather than have the oddity of what is effectively an A major scale with the left hand thumb out of phase. As you say, the only change of fingering comes in the right-hand for the melodic version- as the thumb would otherwise fall on the black note that is produced by the raised 6th. Admittedly, I'd forgotten all about that detail! Interestingly though, the necessity of an altered r.h. fingering is completely analgous to that required for C sharp minor melodic! Going up, it seems to make sense to do both with a standard thumbs-always-landing-together principle (like scales on B and F etc.) and then descend on the standard relative major fingering. That way, each direction is based around one of the two most standard scale patterns, without any unusual (lack of any) thumb syncing. The more I think about it, the more I struggle to see a single positive in the widely accepted notion that the left hand starts F sharp minor on 4. Andrew

Hi! I beleive you can use any fingering you want we all have different hands, different use of hands flat fingers or curved?and different posture at the piano.And it also depends on the musical context very very fast ppp or very clear etc? In other words I use different fingering. Joesph Lhevinne's little book Playing the piano has a nice chapter about practising scales, as you might know he was a great spookesman for scaleplaying. A lot of very fine pianists never practise scales there is enough in the literature Eric

Hi! I beleive you can use any fingering you want we all have different hands, different use of hands flat fingers or curved?and different posture at the piano.And it also depends on the musical context very very fast ppp or very clear etc? In other words I use different fingering. Indeed, I'm not suggesting that there are no acceptable variants for scale playing in context. If a scale ran from E to E an octave higher, say, it would clearly be pretty dumb to start on 3 (rather than 1) simply because that's the 'correct' fingering for C major. However, the point I'm making is that the 'standard' fingering for F sharp minor is inconsistent with analagous scales, for reasons that (assuming any actually exist) I cannot see. I now teach all students to use the A major fingering, because I can't see any benefit to throwing in the confusion of thumbs that never sync, rather than a logical basis on the relative major. Aside from that case, however, I wouldn't like to think of anyone failing to learn the regular patterns, before resorting to such unusual methods as those mentioned on the other forum. I love the idea of playing the descending chromatic scales in Wild Jagd with two groups of five fingers in each hand (as suggested by Busoni) but I certainly wouldn't want to start doing that without having learned the foundations of the regular chromatic scale pattern. As for those who didn't practise scales, they were either geniuses who developed neural pathways exceptionally easily, or they spent plenty of time laying rock-solid foundations when they were young (or they were simply liars). The fact that music is based so heavily around scales seems to me the very reason to ensure that you can play them properly in the first place, rather than a reason why you shouldn't need to practise them. Golfers spend plenty of time driving in a standard round, but I don't think many would suggest that means they that they should only be practising on the course, rather than working on the basics of their swing at a driving range (something that applies to beginners and pros alike) Saying that practising scales is unnecessary is useless advice for all but the most supremely talented players. If a person can't play a controlled scale in isolation, they would be far better off working on the specific problem, than spending all their time on music that would inevitably be musically compromised by their defects- ultimately leading to far greater frustration than working on the problem directly. Having had appalling scales and virtually zero finger technique for years, I speak from plenty of experience on this issue.

Hi, I agree there are huge benefits knowing scales up and down especially in avistaplaying and thats why a "standard" fingering is helpful the fingers finds their place quickly. But as for golfers it is also individual.Some spend less time at the drivingrange than others. Francois Rene Duchable is addicted to playing scales as was Rachmaninoff, Hanon was his Bible, and G Cziffra thought it useless. But most conservatories have (or had?) scale-evaluations with playing scales in public so most musicians-at least in Europe and Russia- have their part whatever they state later... I found it especially rewarding to play thirds and sixths with both hands and since I started out with Alan's stuff I've digged up my old Hanon (it's from 1963!) this helps me implementing the ideas. So in a way there is now a clear purpose of practising them it's more a practise of orchestration keeping the arch, strengthening the functionality in thumb, digging out inner voices, slapping and so on. Much more fun than it used to be. I've been thinking of your post and I must admit that I spend a lot of time practising scales in compositions, a time that I probably could have used better if having practised scales more diligently. Eric

Hi, I agree there are huge benefits knowing scales up and down especially in avistaplaying and thats why a "standard" fingering is helpful the fingers finds their place quickly. But as for golfers it is also individual.Some spend less time at the drivingrange than others. Francois Rene Duchable is addicted to playing scales as was Rachmaninoff, Hanon was his Bible, and G Cziffra thought it useless. But most conservatories have (or had?) scale-evaluations with playing scales in public so most musicians-at least in Europe and Russia- have their part whatever they state later... I found it especially rewarding to play thirds and sixths with both hands and since I started out with Alan's stuff I've digged up my old Hanon (it's from 1963!) this helps me implementing the ideas. So in a way there is now a clear purpose of practising them it's more a practise of orchestration keeping the arch, strengthening the functionality in thumb, digging out inner voices, slapping and so on. Much more fun than it used to be. I've been thinking of your post and I must admit that I spend a lot of time practising scales in compositions, a time that I probably could have used better if having practised scales more diligently. Eric Yeah, personally I'd cite Duchable as an example of the dangers of overdoing scales (I really can't say I've been impressed by anything of him on youtube) but Rachmaninoff shows how you don't have to become a souless or mechancal, from working on scales in isolation. Incidentally, while I'm no advocate of taking scales 100% out of any musical context (I like crescendos, diminuendos ands varied accent patterns etc.), I've honestly come to think that it can be more productive to focus on a technical flaw in a 'less musical' (as opposed to 'non-musical') context on many occasions. This is taken as an apalling thing to suggest today, but if you have to work on a passage from a composition incessantly (simply in order to be capable of executing it) it can get to the point where you CANNOT continue to focus on the music, no matter how pure the intentions, before or after. If you have acquired the mechanics elsewhere, you won't have to endure the risk of drilling what is (supposed to be) a musical phrase to the point where you practically hate the sound of it. You can go straight into musically beneficial practise, without having to numb your brain to the piece of music itself. Personally, I find on many days that I have to spend thirty minutes or more working on extremely slow scales and arpeggios, before I can feel my hands opening out into a strong, comfortable position. If I worked on musical passages during this warm-up, I would either risk doing them technical harm (due to insufficient flexibility) or be forced to go extremely slowly and firmly (which could cause musical harm, if overdone). I think the only danger of scales is when they become a goal in themself- rather than a basis with which to prevent unnecessary amounts of predominantly technical work during the process of note-learning. Duchable seems to fall into the former group, judging from the performances I've heard.

I must apologize: 1) I have been on the road and very busy; 2) it looks like I don't get notified any more when a new thread starts - this thread has been going for ages and I never knew about it until just now! In any case, there are many nice thoughts here and some new thoughts for me. I never thought of using "simultaneous thumbs" as a basis for scale fingerings although I did notice the thumbs come together in B major and F major... I guess my "unifying principle", if I have any, would be "thumb follows the black note" (I mean, the thumb falls on the first white key after a black note) for the right hand ascending. I think this holds true for virtually all the scales, both sharp and flat keys. For the left hand, in the sharp keys the left mirrors the right hand fingering in contrary motion, for the flat keys it follows the "thumb after black key" rule in descending scales, except for F major. Anybody else think along those lines? I heartily agree that scales can be a wonderfully rich practice domain, as Rachmaninoff and Lhevinne have proved, but that done mechanically they are musical death. And yes, I also agree that although I often use a passage within a work for technical practice, it is possible to over-practice that passage and suck the musical life right out of it. Christmas greetings from my snowy ancestral home in Bear River, Nova Scotia, Canada, AFF