Chromatic fingering
I was taught to finger chromatic scales in the style of 1-2-1-2-3-4, in other words, using clean shifts rather than slides, like 1-1-2-2-3-3 etc. What are the advantages of either? Guessing tells me that slow tempo could accommodate 1-1-2-2-3-3, whereas presto tempi really need 1-2-1-2-3-4 for clean-ness. To add to the confusion, we know that comtemporary players always use the latter when playing (eg) the end of the intro (and at the very end) of Pag's Caprice # 5, Flight of the Bumble Bee and the like, but usually printed editions of these have the old 1-1-2-2-3-3-4-4 fingering, which to me could be a bit sloppy if performed at speed. What's everyone else here using in chromatic passages?
Replies (19)
it also depends on the song. Stylisticly and the group you are playing with, solo or ensemble? In "Night on Bald Mountain" I was told to use the 1-2-1-2-3-4 fingering whereas I felt comfortable in the 1-1-2-2-3-3-4-4 and could play it up to speed. However if the ENTIRE orchestra did the "old" style it could sound "slidey?" so it also depends on what the conductor wants the section to sound like. I know in "Concerto for Orchestra" by Bartok, he gave all the instruments chromatics EXCEPT the basses! He gave them a giant glissando! ahah so I guess a little slide woldnt be a problem :). I say whatever sounds good and is comfortable!
I also prefer 0-1-2-1-2-3-4, but I most often use a fingering (ascending only) that I saw somewhere decades ago: 0-1-2-3-2-3-4.
I changed to 0-1-2-1-2-3-4, (which they used to call "Carl Flesch fingering") when already in a professional job, not being a "left-hand-staccato" freak and wanting cleaner results. But in passages that mix tones and semitones some use of the same finger twice is helpful e.g. 4-3-3-2-1 for g-f-e-d-c way up on the E string. The same thing going upwards is even better. Youth for me was a LONG time ago, and they were still teaching slither-fingers then.
In Bartok's concerto for Orchestra there are quite a few wrong notes in the parts - they don't agree with the score. The astonished look on one conductor's face when I asked is a treasured memory ! I had not noticed the glissando simplification of the chromatics for the basses (from fig 533) before - thanks for your erudition, Corey.
I use both, and some others, e.g. 123123 or sometimes 234234. This because sometimes I want to break the line with a discernable shift, and sometimes I don't. Sometimes, in improvisation, I am in a corner, technically, and the only way out is an unorthodox fingering.
I am also a big fan of the semitone slide within a diatonic phrase or line. You can do a three octave scale with no hearable "finger over finger" shifts, if you slide up on every semitone (and back again, going down).
gc
"left-hand-staccato" ... would that be notes bowed individually (1 note per bow direction) or several notes, slurred 1-1-2-2-3-3 etc in a single bow direction? Are there any named examples on YouTube? Thanks.
Jim
I generally favor the 1-2-1-2-3-4 fingering, but it really depends on the particular passage. At the end of the day, it is more important to serve the music than to do something that's technically comfortable.
I prefer the 1-1-2-2-... sliding fingering for longer chromatic scales because it's easier to learn, but the disadvantage is that unless you're very precise, you'll get a sliding sound. I sometimes use the 1-2-1-2... fingering since it produces clearer notes without as much effort.
I use them both, it just depends on the tempo, and what I'm going for stylistically, I try my best to keep to performance practices of the time. Like in Vieuxtemps I try to do the classic chromatic fingering, and with more modern pieces, Ysaye comes to mind, I use the cleaner version.
I'm having a little bit of trouble imagining 1-1-2-2-3-3-4-4. In particular the 4-4 part of it. For simplification, if the first 1 is started in "first position", would reaching for that final 4 mean temporarily shifting your hand up one position? Seems a little hard to hit that note intonation-wise to me.
One two! One two!/ And through and through,/ The vorpal blade/ went snicker-snack.
Thus wrote Lewis Carrol in Jabberwocky, predating Carl Flesch by some few years.
11was a race horse
22 was 12
111a race
22112
Peter : "I'm having a little bit of trouble imagining 1-1-2-2-3-3-4-4. In particular the 4-4 part of it. For simplification, if the first 1 is started in "first position", would reaching for that final 4 mean temporarily shifting your hand up one position? Seems a little hard to hit that note intonation-wise to me."
A bit of confusion there ... you probably would never use the last 4th finger in that pattern. The point of the post was just to differentiate between using 1 finger for 2 consecutive semitones, (1-1-2-2-3-3 etc) and using one separate finger for each semitone (1-2-1-2-3 or 1-2-3-1-2-3 or 1-2-3-4-1-2, or a similar combination). I happen to think that the latter is cleaner and more efficient for fast runs, whereas other members don't.
Buri, I didn't understand your last post at all - it went right over my head. Either I'm missing something, or are paint remover fumes involved? :) :)
Mus be an Anglo thing, Buri.
Jim, its a play on words.
FWIW, I'm always a little annoyed when the line reads "1111 race and 22112", rather than "1111 race 1 day, and 22112". Its just better rhythm.
Ah yes! it's better when it's explained 121 :)
Jim
For those of us muddled by Buri's genius:
11 was a race horse
22 was 12
111a race
22112
Can be translated as: One-one was a race horse. Two-two was one too. One-one won a race. Two-two won one too.
Jim, it went right over my head too. Thanks, Sharelle, for the tip!
Jim, doesn't the 1-1-2-2-3-3-4 begin with a backwards extension (rather than half-position) so by the time you arrive at 4 you are still in first position and usually ready to start all over on the next string? There's not much call for 4-4.
I am surprised there's not more 0-1-2-3-1-2-3-0-1-2-3- etc.
Chromaticism is a very interesting tonal approach. Most of the examples referred to here are straight lines of semitones, or sets of chromatic groups, either ascending or descending These lines are usually rather faster than slower in tempo, and they lend themselves to being played evenly, using either the 11223344 or 121234 fingerings..
However, if one is playing lines where chromaticism is used melodically, with notes of different lengths and positioning within the bar, then you start to need to use all manner of fingerings.
I can't give any examples from the repertoire off the top of my head, but in my improvisations, I have found myself playing chromatic lines that push me into places where I might very well play 0123123 or, say, 122344. It entirely depends on what trouble I have got myself into, and which notes are falling on strong beats, or are asking for longer durations
gc
In the Henle / Barbieri edition of Paganini 16 both are used, so that the shifts coincide with the accents. I'd be delighted if I could play either way cleanly!
This discussion has been archived and is no longer accepting responses.
Violinist.com is made possible by...
Dimitri Musafia, Master Maker of Violin and Viola Cases
Johnson String Instrument/Carriage House Violins
Subscribe
Laurie's Books
Discover the best of Violinist.com in these collections of editor Laurie Niles' exclusive interviews.
Violinist.com Interviews Volume 1, with introduction by Hilary Hahn
Violinist.com Interviews Volume 2, with introduction by Rachel Barton Pine
July 23, 2010 at 11:46 PM ·
1-1-2-2-3-3-4-4 can be done very cleanly at a very fast tempo if practiced well...there are plenty of examples of it, just go to youtube. its a sort of staccato of the left hand, they are not slides or shifts even...its like lightening!
that said, i prefer 1-2-1-2-3-4, because its far easier at a fast tempo. however, i think that the 'old' fingering sounds better when done well. It has a rounder and more even sound. 1-2-1-2-3-4 causes a shift that you can almost always hear (though it can be very slight).
my 2 cents