I've recently observed that my intonation while ascending is noticeably better than my intonation while descending. I think my shifting accuracy suffers while travelling from higher to lower positions, but I'm not sure why this is. Any thoughts on how to correct this?

I am not sure why, but to state the obvious, you are usually using different fingerings as you descend than when you ascended, correct? So in a sense its like climbing a mountain - just because you get up there safely doesn't mean you are coming down without falling.

So the more I think I suck, the better I am?

Yep. I´ve noticed that.

R2D2

Chris: There's a concept called "explain the shift" which my teacher uses. She got it from Fred Zimmerman. Before I do a long treatise, have you heard of it?

This is not about what kind of shift to make, but how to think about whatever shift you choose. Waiting for Chris.

Don: Haven't heard of this technique. I think, though, that my problem stems from the fact that in descending I use 1-4 shifts or 2-4 shifts (shifting from the strongest to the weakest finger) whereas ascending I use 4-1 or 4-2 shifts.

I'm waiting to hear about "explain the shift," but in the mean time I'll chime in.

Chris, you say you know what the problem is, shifting from 1 to 4 and from 2 to 4. If you spend five minutes a day for a few days practicing those shifts your problem will be solved. Make up some quick easy exercises that mimic the problem. For example, play C on the G string with 1, shift
to play Bb w/4, w/2. With a metronome, start slow, maybe half note equals 50. When you can play it in tune, increase the tempo to half note equals 52, etc. Proceed until you reach half note equals 100, knock the metronome back down to 50, but this time it's quarter note equals 50. Work up to 100.

When shifting from playing C w/1 to Bb w/4, your first finger is really shifting down a major third, to Bb w/2 your first finger moves a minor third. So another exercise would be to practice 1-1 shifts in descending thirds. If you can shift from 1 on C to 1 on Ab in tune, you should be able to put 4 down and Bb is in tune. If not, you're not maintaining good hand shape.

"Explain the shift" means that regardless of what finger is currently holding the string, and regardless of what finger will hold the string after the shift, on an upshift you must know in advance where 1 will land in relation to the current position. E.g. 1 is on Ab, and you're going to play C with 4. The explanation is "1 goes to 4", i.e., 1 goes from Ab to Bb, and 4 lands on C. Or, playing Bb with 4, shifting to play D with 2 and Eb with 4, you say "1 goes 1 and a half over 4", i.e., 1 will land on Db - 1 1/2 over Bb. On DOWNSHIFTS, you must be able to say where 4 will go in relation to the current position, e.g. "4 goes to 2" or "4 goes 1 under 1".
When Linda McKnight first pulled this on me, I said "This is nuts." (NOT out loud). I didn't believe I could do it. Wrong. I can, you can. It's complicated, and having a teacher present is very helpful, but it works. Any time my intonation goes off, Linda yells "explain the shift", I rethink my hand position, and intonation self-corrects. This keeps the 1-2-4 "frame" intact, makes you aware of where notes are. At first, you're focusing and thinking deeply, but after a while it becomes second nature. You may question how the hell you can handle "1 goes 2 1/2 over 4" with accuracy, but you'd be surprised. Think about it. Won't it be easier to tune the finger nearest the current position rather than the one furthest away?
OK,it's not easy to be reading a passage and thinking of notes you're not going to play. And it can be tricky, such as when the notes are descending but your hand is shifting up be cause you're crossing strings. Like I said, she got this from Fred Zimmerman, and it should be done with a teacher to minimize confusion. But it absolutely works, even though I suspect I've sewn alot of confusion.


[Edited by Don Higdon on 01-24-2001 at 09:35 AM]

Thanks. The "explain the shift" technique seems to help, insofar as it employs the placement of the stronger finger (1 or 2) as a reference point for descending shifts.

Using Special K's examples:
On the G string
1. From C with 1 to Bb with 4: "4 goes 1 under 1"
2. From C with 1 to Bb with 2: "4 goes half under 1"

Chris, the downshift reference is always 4. Where is it going?

Jeez, it looks like you were all waiting for me.

Originally posted by Don Higdon
Chris, the downshift reference is always 4. Where is it going?

Don, why not use 1 as the reference since regardless of what finger is stopping the note (except thumb pos.) 1 is down? Because the first finger never leaves the string, it makes sense to me to explain every shift, ascending and descending, as 1-1.

Is there an advantage to using 4 as the downshift reference?

In a down shift where the new frame is beyond the prior frame, 4 is closest to the prior frame, therefore easier to calibrate and keep in tune, so it's easier to consistently refer to 1 going up and 4 going down. E.g, going down, it's easier to envision "4 is half under 1" than "1 is 1 1/2 under 1".

Head heavy and confused. I gotta try this, I am a sucker for this sorta stuff.

I was sure I'd have to defend myself today. What gives?

Originally posted by Don Higdon
In a down shift where the new frame is beyond the prior frame, 4 is closest to the prior frame, therefore easier to calibrate and keep in tune

But if 4 was the reference of the prior "frame" (which I take to mean position), and is the reference for the new "frame", the intervallic size of the shift is the same regardless of which finger you think of as the reference. In the example of playing C with 1 then Bb with 4 your hand moves a major third.

I think the reason why you've been waiting all day, Don, is because, I for one, still don't understand the jargon (4 under 1 etc.), and there isn't much to dispute. The feeling has to be in your hand one way or another. I'm sure that if I had a better understanding of the concept (read: if you had explained it better :) ) I'd see why it makes more sense. But I have to admit I was thinking about this this morning while I was letting Nanny Etude de Virtuosite #2 knock me around a bit. That one is all thirds. I think the feeling in my hand is exactly the opposite from Zimmerman's concept. When I shift up, I think it feels like the 4th finger side of my hand does the measuring, and the first finger on the way down. Maybe that's why I play the notes between the notes so often.

When Linda McKnight tells me to do something, I do it and think about it later. And since the system works so well, I just do it without analyzing why. Therefore, my explanation is my reading of why it works, not hers. And, I was taught to explain upshifts in terms of where 1 goes, and downshifts in terms of where 4 goes.
Re terminology: Assume downshift on G string
from 1-C, 2-Db, 4-D
to 1-Ab, 2-A, 4-Bb
In this case 4 goes to Bb, which is 1 whole step below where 1 was (C). I was taught to think "4 goes 1 under 1".

from 1-Eb, 2-E, 4-F
to 1-D, 2-Eb, 4-E is described as "4 goes to 2" (from F to E)
-
from 1-Eb, 2-E, 4-F
to 1-C, 2-Db, 4-D is described as "4 goes half under 1", i.e., D (4) is a half step under Eb (1)

So in every downshift, I must say where 4 goes in comparison to the prior position. All the above applies no matter what finger is being bowed in either position.

To repeat: initially, this is slow and confusing, and is best started with a teacher explaining and watching. Working your way through a Marcello sonata movement can take 4-5 times as long. But sooner than you expect, the fog lifts and you can analyze the shift on the fly, in an instant. Also to repeat: When McKnight hears a shift slightly off, she says "explain the shift", and I do, and when I play it again, intonation self-corrects. Every time. Finally, I see it as one more way to take total command of the instrument.

I completely endorse Don's explanations, and find it especially useful when shifting and crossing string. Another important point to good intonation is to maintain that space between fingers 1 and 2. Very often the intonation improves when you concentrate on achieving proper finger spacing, which has to be increased when descending. This goes in addition to practicing a good "landing" when shifting.

[Edited by olivier on 01-26-2001 at 08:07 AM]

E to B
4 goes 1 under 1
easy to envision

Thanks for the great explanation, Don! I see now how that's a very efficient way of determining exactly where your hand should be going. I also like the way it makes the intervals you have to think about smaller. Thanks again.

Thanks for the thanks, but the thanks go to Fred Zimmerman, who, thankfully, taught Linda McKnight, who taught me this, for which I am thankful, although I still have to pay her.

Yes. Kudos Don. Worked on some exercises with this last night. Much easier to determine position. Thanks for the tip.

E to B

4 goes 1 and 1/2 under 1?

I was responding to JS example of 4 on E, shifting to play B with 2

Sometimes too much "science" muddies the water.
What Janos Starker (the reknowned cellist and pedagogue) says: "Solidify the note you're leaving."

In other words, think about where you're leaving from as much as where you're going, in either direction.

shifting down in pitch is nearly always more difficult, as we think less about it, plus it's moving against gravity, so there's more muscle movement to throw things off.

Just practice (*VERY*)slowly, record yourself (every minute of your practice session, too - and listen to yourself every 20 minutes or so) and form your own teaching phrase to rectify the situation.

Originally posted by kpo
Just practice (*VERY*)slowly, record yourself (every minute of your practice session, too - and listen to yourself every 20 minutes or so) and form your own teaching phrase to rectify the situation.

Slow is the key and recording yourself is good. Something else that's good is to record three octave scales on the piano at 30bpm as a reference to play along with. The piano don't lie.

Originally posted by jeffbonny
. [/B]

Slow is the key and recording yourself is good. Something else that's good is to record three octave scales on the piano at 30bpm as a reference to play along with. The piano don't lie. [/B][/QUOTE]

Actually, the piano *does* lie. Midi/piano recordings are a great thing for excerpts for rhtythm, etc, but Equal Temperament is NOT IN TUNE, and practicing scales with a piano will NOT help your intonation for when you play in an orchestra. In your above suggestion, even though you're matching pitch at a slow speed, you're learning out of tune scales, and your ear knows it!

Even when you play with a piano in, say, a sonata, your ear makes the adjustment to what is really in tune, based on tonic. If you consciously try to play in "equal temperament" along with a piano the result will always be unsatisfying; "not quite right"; - never "in tune" - unless you're playing only literal unisons with the piano, with no chords sounding.

For a better layout of what is really in tune and what your ear really hears, visit:
http://thetuningcd.com/newpage1.htm
This is for a relatively cheesy new product but contains very important information.

To practice intonation you must practice with a droning pitch: tonic of the key you will be playing in. I recommend this rather than the product at the link I gave (but that product is teaching the right ideas...).

Originally posted by kpo
Actually, the piano *does* lie. Midi/piano recordings are a great thing for excerpts for rhtythm, etc, but Equal Temperament is NOT IN TUNE, and practicing scales with a piano will NOT help your intonation for when you play in an orchestra. In your above suggestion, even though you're matching pitch at a slow speed, you're learning out of tune scales, and your ear knows it!


Jeez, I guess we should just get rid of those damn useless outta tune pianos? Look, the tempered scale is not enough over three octaves to ruin your sense of being tune and is a valuable point of reference. If the piano doesn't help your intonation playing with an orchestra it certainly won't hurt your intonation when playing with a piano. If you really wanna be anal about it record the scales on a guitar.

Originally posted by jeffbonny

[/B]

Jeez, I guess we should just get rid of those damn useless outta tune pianos? Look, the tempered scale is not enough over three octaves to ruin your sense of being tune and is a valuable point of reference. If the piano doesn't help your intonation playing with an orchestra it certainly won't hurt your intonation when playing with a piano. If you really wanna be anal about it record the scales on a guitar. [/B][/QUOTE]

Did I say it would ruin your intonation? Not exactly, just that it *won't help* for when you go to play in a group - 'cause good intonation is *not* that of a piano!

You can call it "Anal", but hey, if you're not practicing being really in tune, then you're practicing being out of tune. If you're not practicing with a metronome, or thinking rhythmically, you're practicing being not-in-time. Recording yourself in both situations will bear this out.

If you really want to be Anal about playing scales, then just play with the tonic note droning, and loudly. Practicing scales by matching pitches is not "analy" accurate no matter what you're comparing it to, but relating everything to tonic IS in tune.

As bass players it behoves us to think and hear in intervals, rather than matching pitches. All bass instruments must put their usually-harmonic-and-not-melodic pitches in relation to the tonic of the key. And of course when it's melody, it's gotta be that way even more-so.
The real catch is that most other players in, say, and orchestra, can't really hear our pitches, so we have to tune in reverse, make our fundamental in tune with their melody...

I'm only offering my observations and trying to help, just like the rest of us!

Can we talk?
The linked article on understanding temperaments is interesting, but I'm too old to start taking courses in physics and trig to fully understand it. And having comprehended it, then what? There's such aural chaos in an orchestra, what with the violins upping the A to 448 or more, the oboe stuck where it is (and not always 440) I believe everybody just breaks their a$$ just to make it "sound right". Which is tangentially your point, I know. One of my notions is to avoid open strings, to allow for more expressiveness, but also to allow maximum pitch adjustment. But friends in the highest rated orchestras dismiss that totally. And there are times when I just have to take the easy path. And you know there are passages where the only way to play a note is to hit a harmonic. It's a mess. An orchestra playing "in tune" is the result of a countless number of continuing minute adjustments made on the fly. It's marvelous.
Meanwhile, I tune with the fork at home, and with my Korg on the gig. In joints, I scope the piano first and scope-tune the bass accordingly.

[Edited by Don Higdon on 02-12-2001 at 01:24 PM]

""""The linked article on understanding temperaments is interesting, but I'm too old to start taking courses in physics and trig to fully understand it.""""

All you have to do is look at the chart and see that there are relative values for how far 'in-tune' varies from 'equal temperament' on particular notes in each scale - you don't have to measure anything, just be aware of it while you're practicing with a drone... Your ear really does all the work anyway - you just have to let it!

Originally posted by kpo

If you really want to be Anal about playing scales, then just play with the tonic note droning, and loudly. Practicing scales by matching pitches is not "analy" accurate no matter what you're comparing it to, but relating everything to tonic IS in tune.

As bass players it behoves us to think and hear in intervals, rather than matching pitches.

In the real world you need to be able to do both hear intervals and match pitch. Everything you've suggested has value and is worth consideration but is not the only way. I was perhaps a little hasty with the use of the term "anal" though and since you've been offended I'll retract.

Many years ago I encountered an untempered harpsichord and realized then I was in effect tempering scales when I transposed from one key to another. I don't consider using the piano as a pitch reference to be practicing out of tune. Rather I am practicing the tempered scale that by virtue of the piano's position as the primary composition tool in modern western music is simply one of the ways I hear music. I appreciate your quest for purity of intonation (I think it's something we're all thinking about) but in my experience once you factor in all the real world outta tune-ness the advantages of playing along with the piano greatly out-weigh the drawbacks. To be clear about this I'm suggesting it only as an exercise and not how one needs practice all scales always. The more gross the tuning problems the more value it has.

Yeah, I think what I do is play off the tonic as much as possible when practicing - trying to perfect my ear for intervals based on the tonic as kpo said. However, like Don says, the thing about playing in a group, even a small one, is that you use your practiced knowledge, or even your 'perfect pitch' if that's something you happen to possess, as a starting point and usually have to make some adjustments.

For that "absolute" sense of pitch, I generally tend to practice with my chromatic tuner in front of me - I just leave it on for a while without looking at it (with my eyes closed), playing scales. After a while I stop at a random note in the scale and check it against the tuner. Then I try to analyze how I got off (I am usually at least a little off). This all done with nothing droning. Don't know if this is "right", but that's how I do it.

Originally posted by lermgalieu
For that "absolute" sense of pitch, I generally tend to practice with my chromatic tuner in front of me - I just leave it on for a while without looking at it (with my eyes closed), playing scales. After a while I stop at a random note in the scale and check it against the tuner. Then I try to analyze how I got off (I am usually at least a little off). This all done with nothing droning. Don't know if this is "right", but that's how I do it.

That's not helping you hear any better and your wasting time. You'll develop your ear faster and you won't have to,"analyze how you got off," if you use an electronic tuning device that plays pitches. I have a little Yamaha gizmo the size of a cassette tape that is a metronome and tuner. It will play any pitch and can be tuned within a frequency range. It's loud, and can make you insane if used in long stretches. I highly recommend it. Buy something that will drone pitches while you practice.

Thanks for the suggestion. My teacher told me about the tuner thing, I am surprised you think its a complete waste of time (not saying you're wrong, your suggestion seems more productive to me actually)....

Originally posted by lermgalieu
Thanks for the suggestion. My teacher told me about the tuner thing, I am surprised you think its a complete waste of time (not saying you're wrong, your suggestion seems more productive to me actually)....

One could argue about "wrong", but the reality is that your scale may have been very honestly in tune, but the meter only knows how to read notes that fit into the equal temperament system (unless you have a relaly expensive model that changes tempereaments) - and Equal Temp. is really racously out-of-tune!

You're actually **uncorrecting** your scale just to please a "silly little meter"!

This reminds me of a story Gage told me. At the I.S.B. convention, Ray Brown told a guy he could help him with his question, and to come by his hotel room the next morning. At 8 AM, as the guy walked down the corridor, coming from the room was the sound of Ray bowing long, slow scales.

I figured out my metronome has this feature, the problem is that its damn loud and it bugs the $#$ out of my wife. I guess I will need to do that part of my practicing while she's at work...

Originally posted by lermgalieu
I figured out my metronome has this feature, the problem is that its damn loud and it bugs the $#$ out of my wife. I guess I will need to do that part of my practicing while she's at work...

You can save it for times when she's home but you wish she wasn't :)

Now THAT'S an excellent suggestion!

Don!
It's been a while since I've posted (you know what it's like when you're on tour) and I thank you for your valuable advice on orchestral playing. I'm always looking to expand my horizons. While at a gig in Trois-Rivieres (Three Rivers) Quebec Canada I noticed that I was having difficulty maintaining strict intonation using the left hand as if it were one large finger restricted to traveling the ebon stretch of double bass we lovingly call the "fingerboard" in "block formation." I'd like your input as to how I could "explain the shift," especially in performace situations when the "heat is on."
Could you please elaborate on the following example you gave earlier in the forum?

"1 is on Ab, and you're going to play C with 4. The explanation is "1 goes to 4", i.e., 1 goes from Ab to Bb, and 4 lands on C. Or, playing Bb with 4, shifting to play D with 2 and Eb with 4, you say "1 goes 1 and a half over 4", i.e., 1 will land on Db - 1 1/2 over Bb. On DOWNSHIFTS, you must be able to say where 4 will go in relation to the current position, e.g. "4 goes to 2" or "4 goes 1 under 1". "

By the way, while tour Quebec I had the opportunity to hear some amazing French-Canadian folk music, which I would like to transcribe for the double bass. Perhaps a great Canadian Double bass virtuoso could record them! It would be valuable to have a counterpart to the CD of Stephen Foster songs. Does anyone know any Canadian bassists who may be interested?

Until next time!

Basserino!

First of all, you can't try new things in a performance. This concept has to be done in your practice sessions where you're free to stop, think it out, do it, go back and do it again. When you truly learn it, it will become automatic, and easy.

No matter what note you're playing with what finger, your fingers will be in a frame, a half step apart. Even though you're only playing one note, you should be aware of what notes are under the unused fingers.

On every upshift, you must be able to say where your first finger will end up in relation to the present 'frame'.

In the example, on the G string, if you're playing Ab with 1, unused 2 is at A, and unused 4 is at Bb. Assuming the passage calls for the next note to be C played with the 4th finger, 1 will end up at Bb, which is where 4 is now. So the shift is explained as "1 goes to 4."
Next example starts in the same position as the first example. On the G string, assume you're playing a Bb with 4, and the passage next calls for a D played by 2, then Eb played by 4. You make one shift, in which 4 ends at Eb, 2 ends at D, 1 ends at Db. Db is 1 1/2 steps above the note where 4 is now (Bb), so the shift is explained as 1 goes 1 1/2 over 4.

I'll stop here, and you can post or e-mail if you follow it before I go to downshifts. I'll just say again, that this gets learned slowy, is confusing at the start, then suddenly the fog lifts and you're alert to every note. An unyielding teacher helps.

Don,

You are right. practicing does help this technique grow. thank you. i think i getting it now. could you please continue!!!

A question for you. do you use the "5 digit" (4 fingers and one thumb) technique in the lower positions of the bass. in the half position to third or fourth position....(i think that is what the simandle calls them)

thanks again don!!!!

Basserino!!!!

rino:
"5 digit technique" is a new name for me. If I'm in half position, 1 is on Ab, 2 on A, 4 is on Bb. I use 1,2,4 through the octave, where I use 1,2,3.
In down shifts, you explain the shift in terms of where 4 is going relative to the existing position, e.g., 4 goes to 2, 4 goes 1 under (below) 1, whatever.
The tricky part is when you cross strings and you shift up even though the note is going down, and vice versa.

no one on this old subject made reference to shifts that will place the hand in a good spot for following notes on other strings which, of course, takes some amazing planning when sight readin' .
ade

I used to find that true, I think it is just easier to hear the note progression while ascending. But as they say, "practice makes perminent", not perfect, cause if you practice wrong you won't play right.

And it is true that the better you get the worse you will think you are, cause you will be able to see where you need/want to be better. The better you get, the harder it is to improve.

Originally posted by ade
no one on this old subject made reference to shifts that will place the hand in a good spot for following notes on other strings which, of course, takes some amazing planning when sight readin' .
ade

Sounds like a subject for another thread, maybe that's why it wasn't mentioned; or am I missing something?

FWIW, I don't think playing across the strings while sight reading takes amazing planning. When your sight-reading there's not really much time to consider how best to finger a passage. I think this is an area where all the years you've spent studying and playing help the hand work on autopilot. If you've practiced going across the strings there's really not much to plan. The only time I'm really thinking about fingerings is when I'm learning a piece or passage and I want to consider the options in an effort to make it as clean and easy as possible. I don't know how anyone could "plan" fingerings while sight reading in time.

I suppose if you read two or three bars ahead as I was told to achieve many years ago and yet to master, but I assume most string players including piano work this out in advance and rely on there memory.

Originally posted by ade
I suppose if you read two or three bars ahead as I was told to achieve many years ago and yet to master, but I assume most string players including piano work this out in advance and rely on there memory.

Yeah, I read about a bar ahead, not two or three (yet). And I'm not doing any conscious thinking about my left hand; I'm not planning, the fingerings are pretty much automatic. The kind of fingerings I was talking about working out in advance are things like the fourth movement of Beethoven's ninth symphony, or stuff like I'm currently working on: the Allemande from the third Bach cello suite, Nanny's Vingt Etudes et Virtuosite #3, and Donna Lee.

I worked out fingerings for the Bach to solve musicality issues. The phrases have to be smooth. But the Allemande is a single instrument playing a two part counterpoint, so you want to think about the best fingering to bring that out. I worked out some fingerings for the Nanny because etude #3 is just some hard ****. And Donna Lee played arco in Db major is just inhuman.

IMO, working out fingerings speeds up the process of learning a piece and gets you onto playing the music faster, without having to think about what a good fingering would be while you're trying to make the music. Get that part out of the way. When I'm approaching something new I'll read through it slowly, stopping at any particularly challenging parts. I'll work out a fingering, mark it in the score, and move on. Over time I might change some of those fingerings, or mark in fingerings for other spots, as I address phrasing issues and concentrate on the music.

If you're not working out some fingering issues for this kind of stuff, you must be an amazing player. Here's a true story: I heard of a guy who can sight *sing* three measures ahead of what he's playing!

To get even further from this thread topic, do think in terms of chord structure (Major, minor, etc.) when working out hand positions for peices like Donna Lea and if so would there be a similar technique for visualizing Bach that you know of?
ade

Originally posted by ade
To get even further from this thread topic, do think in terms of chord structure (Major, minor, etc.) when working out hand positions for peices like Donna Lea and if so would there be a similar technique for visualizing Bach that you know of?
ade

I'm not sure what you mean but, when I'm working something out, I certainly try to recognize scalar passages and arpeggios for what they are and try to understand what's going on harmonically, but that is more for playing in tune and interpretation than for fingerings (I'm taking "hand positions" to mean fingerings), although sometimes interpretation influences fingerings as in the Allemande.

For working out fingerings, I start out approaching everything the same way: I look for the easiest way to navigate the geography sounding good. But as I discover the music, hearing the phrases and the mood, I'll alter some fingerings to accomodate that; or more precisely, to bring that out of the music more.

If you rephrase the question I might be able to better answer it.

Mr.K,
This is a discussion between a popular music bassist and classical musician. My humble approach to the bass starts with the chord structure of the music which is made clear on the page in front of you. My hand positions or fingering positions are planned so I might sustain notes with a minimum of shifting (for instance playing the tonic and the 10th in harmony. As I understand it, a classical musician interprets the structure of the peice from the music as a whole and plans his performance through study and practise. Both methods can produce a beautiful result but you may not agree.
ade

Exactly. I play classical music and I wouldnt think "Ok. this is a Bb7 chord. I'll play this fingering." But I'll just figure it out before (at least for hard or awkward bits, otherwise your relying on instinct).

When I used to play jazz on BG, i would have seperate fingerings for different scales so everything would depend on that. But in classical that doesnt really apply.

Originally posted by ade
This is a discussion between a popular music bassist and classical musician. My humble approach to the bass starts with the chord structure of the music which is made clear on the page in front of you.

No, it's not. I'm much more of a jazz musician than I am a classical musician. Earlier in the thread I thought we were talking about fingerings for written lines, eg. Bach, the head of Donna Lee, etc., so that's what I was addressing.

But, when I'm looking at a chart/playing changes I'm not thinking about fingerings, nor am I concerned with where my hand is positioned. It's automatic. Maybe that's the result of having studied, I don't know. But for the sake of discussion, let's say I have almost a dozen different ways of playing a three octave F7 arpeggio (I've never counted, but I'm sure it's close to that), even if I'm not playing a three octave F7 arpeggio in it's entirety in my line (which would be rare, if ever), all of those possible positions and fingerings are worked out. The result is, hopefully, that whatever I hear in my head, my hand is already going where it needs to be. And unfortunately, any limitations in my technique will alter what I play.

I read in another one of your posts that you've never had any formal training. I think that may be the only difference between us.

Originally posted by nickchalk
[BWhen I used to play jazz on BG, i would have seperate fingerings for different scales so everything would depend on that. [/B]

I try to have as many different fingerings for the same scale as possible so nothing depends on that.

Originally posted by David Kaczorowski


I try to have as many different fingerings for the same scale as possible so nothing depends on that.

Yes but I was talking about me, along time ago...

I give up on the above concept and I admit that I play lines of music based on instinct gained from years of experience and not skillful planning. Playing in tune while descending, then, can only be achieved by practise.
ade

Originally posted by Don Higdon
This is not about what kind of shift to make, but how to think about whatever shift you choose. Waiting for Chris.

Hi everybody, this is my first post and I want to get something clear right away, I am in no way shape or form associated with Bassturbator. I saw the name and thought it was funny, so I did a little variation on the theme. But I did this before I actually read any of his posts. When I did get aroung to reading a couple of his posts I realized he is not only a idiot but a jerk as well. So now that I have got that cleared up. I have a question about this expaining the shift, well a question on how I would explain a specific shift. In the Scherzo of Beethoven's 5th, how would you explain the shift from the f on the d-string to the Ab above the half string harmonic on the G-string. I have been working on this passage and cannot seem to get it, I was hoping you could help Don.
Basturbasso

Your disclaimer was a wise decision.
In order to answer you, I have to know what finger is playing the F, on what string and in what octave (or position), and what finger and string for the Ab string in what position or ocatve

2nd finger on f on the d-string in first position(using the simandl postion system), to 3rd finger Ab on g-string

It looks like you're at bar 56 in the last movement, using Oscar Zimmerman fingering.
OK, 2 is on F on the D string. Since we're shifting to the G string, think of where 4 is on the G. 4 is at Gb on the D, and at Cb (B) on the G. (this gets tough because the key is Eb, therefore we should talk flats rather than sharps. Also, you've just run a Bb minor arpeggio. You are shifting up to put 3 on Ab. When that happens, 1 will be on Gb (Wow. I can see you're shifting tonality, going to a sharp key) On an upshift, you describe where 1 will land in respect to the prior position:
1 goes 3 1/2 above 4, i.e.
Gb is 3 1/2 above Cb
Cb to Db = 1
Db to Eb = 1
Eb to F = 1
F to Gb = 1/2

You picked a difficult example, in isolation. As I said earlier, initially this seems insane, but you'll see it working in a short time. It's best learned with a teacher who uses the concept.

P.S. If you want to think in terms of B rather than Cb, it works the same way
2 on F, 4 on B of the G string. In the shift, 1 lands on F#.
B to C = 1/2
C to D = 1
D to E = 1
E to F# = 1
Either way, 1 goes 3 1/2 over 4

is there no way to plan that passage so that you wind up with the first finger on the F on the A string ?

No. What are you trying to accomplish and why?
If 3 is on Ab, 1 is on Ab on the A string.

no, Don, I meant if 1 is on F on the A string it is an easier jump to 3 on Ab on the G string or maybe you don't agree.

ade:
Bassturbasso's question was how to explain the specific shift from 2 on F on D to 3 on Ab on G and I answered it. The answer is not "Don't be on the D string to begin with".
Fingerings can't be determined in a vacuum; they are affected by the prior and following material. If you're going to tell me to start from F on A, you also have to tell me how and why your refingering of the preceding material is superior to the one written by Oscar Zimmerman, which puts the player at F on the D string.

I'm afraid that if I jump 3 and a half positions I'll miss it. I know, I know....practise.

Don,
Thanks for the advice it was helpful. However a little complex, I did some researching of shifting technique and found something along the same line but a little less complex that has been a great help. It is a Stuart Sankey rule, shift with the last finger you played up the last string you played. So in my example I would just go from f with 2 to the half string harmonic with 2 and then cross and play 3 on Ab. Of coure I am haveing a little problem getting it smoothe but as far as hitting the note it has worked great. So as you can see it is similar to your way just instead of always using 1 and 4 as referance you just use the last finger you played. Just thought some people on here might be interested in this little tid bit of info.

One could argue about "wrong", but the reality is that your scale may have been very honestly in tune, but the meter only knows how to read notes that fit into the equal temperament system (unless you have a relaly expensive model that changes tempereaments) - and Equal Temp. is really racously out-of-tune!

You're actually **uncorrecting** your scale just to please a "silly little meter"!

Well, this is not completely true - isn't it the case that octaves 4ths and 5ths are perfect, and therefore the use of the metronome while practicing justified, if only for these notes of the scale?