[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
GG: Fingering, Memory
At 03:11 AM 4/20/01 -0400, Dominic Lesnar wrote:
>equally legato. Even more tellingly, there's a place (measure 26) where GG
>plays an alto note with 4, switches to 5, and switches back to 4...even
>though 4 and 3 have nothing else to do during any of that! It's as if he
>automatically swaps out to 5 whenever he *might* need the rest of his hand
>for something, but he doesn't need to know ahead of time.
I've wondered why more players haven't commented on this, too. Why hasn't
someone written a doctoral thesis on "The Digital Selection and
Substitution of Glenn Gould in Relation to Compositional and Structural
Analysis"! Just seeing his fingers moving around with no thought of the
next measure can really tire me! For example, watch his fingers stating
the subject in the Contrapuctus I performance of the Monsaingeon
film. There should be an economy of movement, since it would be simple to
play 1-5-3-1-2-1-2-3, but look at his fingers! No wonder technical talk
reminded GG of the caterpillar who..., his fingers ARE caterpillar-like
in the way they constantly move around! It looks like he uses twice the
energy necessary.
I have the impression that GG was replaying the score in his head as he
played; he would mentally sight-read the music, and his fingerings would
conform to his vision of the score during that particular measure. This
way, GG most likely learned music as a succession of motivic movement
instead of the muscle memory of fingering. It is even possible that GG
would convert three-part or four-part pieces into a "mental" open score,
not consciously of course, but I bet he could've played any part at
moment's notice- "Glenn, play the alto part from the Allemande in the
Second English Suite". To be certain, fingering was low on his priorities.
Agreed.
I guess a related question would be: how many (any?) concert pianists DO
memorize specific motions and fingerings throughout pieces, beyond the
physically tricky spots that can go only one way?
For somebody like Gould who sight-read and memorized music very quickly,
improvising fingerings all the way through, it would be a major annoyance
to have to work on specific fingerings anywhere. It would (I project from
experience) feel like a waste of time, since the piece is being learned
"adequately" without it.
But take away that "requirement" of memorizing the music: it's mostly a
19th-century showmanship thing anyway. (Or perhaps, in Gould's case, the
score got in the way of freedom to internalize and interpret the
music.) If the performer is allowed to use a score in performance, now it
makes great sense to work out specific fingerings. One can choose
fingerings strategically to give the desired sound to the music.
For example, Schnabel's edition of the Beethoven sonatas is packed with
fingerings that look really odd to a sight-reader, but upon reflection they
make great sense in sculpting the sound of a phrase.
Schnabel's preface: "The fingering in this edition may here and there
appear somewhat strange. In explanation of the more unusual kinds let it
be said that the selection was not made exclusively with a view to
technical facility, but rather from the desire to secure--at least
approximately--the correct musical expression of the passages in question
(as the Editor feels they should be interpreted). Quite often the Editor
was guided by the pedagogic conception of a piano of which the tone
colouring is unaided by the pedal--the fact being that the pedal is very
seldom used in the classic piano literature as a means of colouring. In
accordance with this conception the use of the pedal is rarely indicated in
this edition. It must be the player's aim to succeed in rendering
song-like passages, as if cast in _one_ mould, without recurring to the pedal.
"The fingerings and pedal indications are almost without exception by the
Editor; the original texts, especially those of earlier works, contain next
to none. The slurs as well as the accents and indications relative to
touch were noted by the composer in such an obvious and confusing
flightiness and carelessness--especially in his early works--that the
Editor felt himself not only musical justified, but in duty bound to change
them occasionally according to his best judgment, sense and taste: to
abbreviate, to lengthen, to supplement, to interpret. Changes of this kind
are not especially noted; all other additions made by the Editor are to be
recognized either by smaller print or by brackets." - Artur Schnabel, 1935
I don't know if Schnabel used these fingerings himself in his own
performances and recordings, but they are pedagogically a great way to
analyze the music. The famous slow movement of the "Pathetique" ("Hello
Everyone!" - Karl Haas) is a case in point. Schnabel's fingerings work
beautifully with hardly any pedal...but how many pianists play this without
much pedal? I learned the piece from this edition 20+ years ago and I know
I *never* looked at his fingerings until this morning. The fingerings
didn't seem to be part of the music, and since the piece could be
sight-read relatively easily without paying any attention to the
fingerings, and everything connected with pedal, I didn't bother looking at
them.
The right-hand part in the last few measures has, melodically:
EDCD FED C CBAB DCB A CBAB DCB A (mostly with flats)
4323 323 2 4323 324 3 4323 324 3
(The thumb also has a note in the last two of these three patterns.) The
more obvious and convenient fingering would be 5-4-3-2 or 4-3-2-1 in all
three of those descending motives. But 3-2-3-2 and 3-2-4-3 give a
completely different sound. The popular von Bulow edition simply gives
4-3-2-1 in all of those. But the music is simple enough at that point to
be memorized in just a few moments; why trouble to work out a
fingering? Whatever Gould is using at that point, from the sound it is
obviously not anything like 3-2-3-2 or 3-2-4-3.
Or take the finale of the Sonata #6 in F, Op 10 #2. It begins with a
fugato, started by the left hand, and Schnabel's fingerings are:
C F F F C A A A F C C CDCB A A ABAG A (those being B-flats in English)
4 1 3 2 5 1 3 2 5 1 3 2123 4 3 2123 2
I would wager a thousand bottles of Poland water that Gould never played or
even considered going 1-3-2 on those repeated notes; it's
counter-intuitive. He probably didn't put his thumb on that B-flat,
either. But *musically* it makes good sense, especially if one is
concerned with looking ahead instead of just using the most convenient
finger at any given moment. The line is so easy to memorize with just one
glance: why bother working out counter-intuitive fingerings when convenient
fingers do well enough?
None of this is to say that Schnabel's fingerings, or anyone else's, are
"the right way." I'm merely saying that it's an aesthetic choice to pick
fingerings that plan ahead and/or give a specific sound, and Gould clearly
never bothered with any of this. I'm suggesting it had to do with
memorizing quickly and always playing from memory.
Too bad Bazzana didn't do a "Fingering" chapter! Evidently he (and Gould)
didn't consider it very important.
Back to playing with score instead of from memory: if the score is
available, the performer can do all the analytical work and solve the
fingering puzzles ahead of time, marking the score thoroughly. Then during
performance there is a visual representation of the gestures to be read
from the page; the syntactic meaning of every note/phrase/fingering can be
seen at a glance, freeing the performer from having to solve it again in
the moment. The moment can be given to other important concerns instead of
parsing the composition. (The performer can improvise an interpretation
and react to the audience's attention without distraction from all the
merely mechanical details of syntax.) Of course, all of this can be done
when playing from memory too. But if one has a high goal of playing with
analytical clarity, it certainly is easier if the score is there showing
all the preparatory work! Why make the mind work harder in performance
than it has to, remembering all the notes and finding fingerings "on the
fly," when all this can be prepared ahead and marked? Clear the mental
buffers for the *important* things!
I wonder how different Gould would have sounded if he'd played from score
instead of always from memory. He was already detail-oriented (but also
sometimes arbitrary or capricious in detail, such as note lengths); would
his performances have been even more detailed? More imaginative? Less
imaginative?
Bradley Lehman, Dayton VA
home: http://i.am/bpl or http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl
clavichord CD's: http://listen.to/bpl or http://www.mp3.com/bpl
trumpet and organ: http://www.mp3.com/hlduo
"Music must cause fire to flare up from the spirit - and not only sparks
from the clavier...." - Alfred Cortot