Double Bass Simandl Shifting Counterintuitive?

[fu22ba55]

So, it's time to eat my vegetables and spend some more time with Simandl. (I'm primarily a jazz pizz player, but I'm trying to strengthen my fundamentals a bit more.)

I'm paying close(r) attention to the fingerings in the Orange / Zimmerman / (with Japanese) edition, and I'm running into the following convention:

The fingerings repeatedly suggest shifting UP the string (sharper) with the 4th finger, and DOWN the string (flatter) with the 1st finger.

Now I know it's been a while since I've spent some quality time with Simandl et al, but I've been playing jazz pizz for about 10 years now, and that's the exact opposite of what I remember being taught back in the day?

I've always shifted UP the string (sharper) using the 1st (or 2nd) finger, and down the string (flatter) with the 4th or (2nd finger).

Am I forgetting something? Have I dimension-skipped into some parallel-universe-upsidedown-land?

 

[Wasnex]

Can you post an example?

I learned on Simandl and I believe this is the fingering I was taught for the G major scale (ascending on G string).

Open,1>2,4>1,5>2,3.

I will use > to indicate shift up and < to indicate shift down.

The descending pattern uses the same fingers and shifts (in reverse order).

3,2<5,1<4,2,<1,Open

A Major (on G string) is similar except you start and end with 1,4.

1,4>2,4>1,5>2,3
3,2<5,1<4,2<4,1

 

[fu22ba55]

Can you post an example?

It's not in the Major Scale fingerings I remember... it occurs in the middle of some of the illustrative exercises.

I get that he wants me to be comfortable shifting up and down the G string, but some of these fingerings seem cuckoo to me?

Page 23

And page 47

 

[Wasnex]

It's not in the Major Scale fingerings I remember... it occurs in the middle of some of the illustrative exercises.

I get that he wants me to be comfortable shifting up and down the G string, but some of these fingerings seem cuckoo to me?

Page 23
View attachment 4927156

And page 47
View attachment 4927157

I haven't actually played upright for a long time. This is a good reminder for why I switched from Simandl to OFPF on bass guitar.

The fingering in the first excerpt looks like I would expect. I think there are probably better choices for the marked areas of the second excerpt.

In the 1st bar of the 3rd line, I think I would play the 2nd and 3rd C# in the bar with 1. The D on the downbeat of the second bar would be played with 2. I don't like the 4th finger to 4th finger shift.

In the 3rd bar, I would play D to B (beat 4) with 4 to 1. IMHO 4 to 2 does not make sense.

The downbeat of the fourth bar would be played with 2.

In the 2nd bar of the 4th line, I would probably cross over to the D string instead of jumping down the neck 3 to 4, then 1 to 1.


Just guesses...I would need access to a real log to confirm. I worked this on my Tacoma Thunderchief...so at least it was acoustic .

 

[fu22ba55]

The fingering in the first excerpt looks like I would expect. I think there are probably better choices for the marked areas of the second excerpt.

I'm totally willing to accept that 'the method' is trying to teach me something specific--to condition me to make certain shifts whenever I see certain groupings. And to respect the longest string length as often as possible.

I'm definitely craving a more structured 'system' for mapping the neck (hence my return to Simandl), but I know other options exist (Rabbath/Vance). I've just conditioned myself to never shift this way unless I'm under duress. I'm assuming I should soldier through these fingerings a bit and discover some of what Simandl is trying to impart to me.

 

[Lee Moses]

As I see it, choosing what finger to shift with takes into account multiple considerations. For one, what notes are you going to have to play once you make the shift? On that A string C# to E shift, I don't love the 4 to 4...but I see the point. It puts you in position to where the shift will only be a half step position between the D string A and the G string B (following measure). I see similar things going on in some of the following questionable shift choices.

 

[Wasnex]

As I see it, choosing what finger to shift with takes into account multiple considerations. For one, what notes are you going to have to play once you make the shift? On that A string C# to E shift, I don't love the 4 to 4...but I see the point. It puts you in position to where the shift will only be a half step position between the D string A and the G string B (following measure).

IMHO, shifts should typically be as small as possible. Some of the indicated fingerings seem to violate this rule without reason.

 

[BassFalcon]

You’re not wrong. Some of the fingerings are cuckoo, that’s the point. In the orchestral repertoire you encounter near endless possible fingerings. The more you can think of, the bigger your tool box , the easier you can stitch together sections etc etc. I believe Rabbath pointed out 144 ways to finger a major scale. It’s all just putting up reps to make showtime go smoothly.

 

[Lee Moses]

With any of these types of etudes and exercises, I'll typically try to learn them with fingerings exactly as written. As you observed, they usually are chosen for a purpose. Then, later on, I'll try to improve on the fingerings. By that time, I'll usually understand better why Simandl (or whoever) chose the fingerings he did.

 

[Wasnex]

I'm assuming I should soldier through these fingerings a bit and discover some of what Simandl is trying to impart to me.

Pretty sure the various instructors I took lessons from scratched their own fingerings over those in the book they thought were nonsensical.

IMHO it's not a good idea to practice bad habits.

My advice: If you don't know any better, follow the book. If you do know better, work out the fingering that works best for you.

 

[Wasnex]

Same fingerings in my Simandl book.

 

[ILIA]

Shifting higher in pitch on fourth finger (a 4th finger on the departure note in a lower position to a 4th finger on the arrival note in a higher position) is not the theoretical optimal choice, but sometimes it's the best choice in some contexts. In the example that you post and label ***, it's a good place for a 4-to-4 shift.

4-to-4 can work just fine, as long as your technique supports that 4th finger. So, on the shift, your other fingers (especially the ring finger) should be down, also, in order to support the fourth finger. This assumes that your left arm (especially forearm) and overall LH hand shape and LH thumb placement are also in the right place to provide the support to the 4th finger.

 

[fu22ba55]

As I see it, choosing what finger to shift with takes into account multiple considerations.

Shifting higher in pitch on fourth finger (a 4th finger on the departure note in a lower position to a 4th finger on the arrival note in a higher position) is not the theoretical optimal choice, but sometimes it's the best choice in some contexts.

Both of your explanations DO help justify the reasoning for the fingering choices (and answer my original question)... and I know there are 100s of possible fingerings... I was just craving some kind of "higher order" or more systematic approach. I've been using my own logical and case-by-case fingerings for the last few years, but I think if I open my mind and play though some of these fingerings for a while it might help me to see the value in them.

More options is always good.

 

[neilG]

Simandl had to give one fingering, and I've always thought that in order to cover a lot of ground in the etudes, he stuck in satisfactory but gratuitously awkward fingerings so a student wouldn't miss out on, say, a note in a particular position. When I teach those etudes I have my students do what's written, and maybe a couple of better alternatives.
For instance in the etude on page 23 where you indicated "*** is this?", he wants to make sure you know where that E, G# and A are in 3rd position, however, there is no good reason to land on 2nd finger B# after an open string. Land on 1st finger and now you have a fingering that makes musical and technical sense.

 

[Bruce Calin]

Simandl had to give one fingering, and I've always thought that in order to cover a lot of ground in the etudes, he stuck in satisfactory but gratuitously awkward fingerings so a student wouldn't miss out on, say, a note in a particular position. When I teach those etudes I have my students do what's written, and maybe a couple of better alternatives.
For instance in the etude on page 23 where you indicated "*** is this?", he wants to make sure you know where that E, G# and A are in 3rd position, however, there is no good reason to land on 2nd finger B# after an open string. Land on 1st finger and now you have a fingering that makes musical and technical sense.

The idea in that case is that you have played the E in the previous measure with your first finger so you only have to make one shift to play up to the A. It also seems that there is a tendency to favor playing on the G and D strings, maybe because the method was written in the gut string only era. This can make for some what seem to be awkward choices. The "what position is that?" orientation of Simandl has always seemed a limitation to me but having said that I can still play these etudes from memory several decades after learning them. They do have their uses.

 

[David Potts]

My gripe is that maybe not Simandl but the editor (Zimmerman, Drew....) has overmarked the music with fingerings and signs in the examples that you have given. I choose to teach Simandl positions in this order - Ist, Half, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, basic Thumb Position - so that I establish the layout of the "white" notes on the fingerboard with the easiest-to-read Major keys (G, F and Bflat, C, D, F two octaves and Bflat two octaves in that order). The music is fingered less and the student can understand alternatives more clearly before going back and adding more sharps and flats to keys with heaps more overmarking (eg D flat and A flat exercises in 2 1/2 Position) that frankly makes Simandl tedious and boring IMO.

Like fu22ba55 I find the examples he picked out to be weird and so easily improved on. The position being studied assumes that it sets the top limit of note and position finding. I believe in only shifting on the same finger when there is no other suitable alternatives. The index and second fingers are strong enough to maintain their arch in same-finger shifts but the pinkie 4 - 4 going up is especially prone to collapse and is my "no-no". I want to land in that next position with my fingers spaced correctly to immediately play any surrounding notes in tune. I would rather use 1 - 2 - 4 - 2 - 1 (finger-to-finger-to finger) in the example Gsharp - A B A Gsharp rather than 1 - 1 - 4 - 1 - 1 especially at any speed (then again Simandl up to Page 68 is not about speed). I teach my students to immediately look for a better alternative if the see 1 - 1 - 1 in any exercise.

Welcome to the Weird and Wacky World of Fingering, folks !!

 

[damonsmith]

IMO, it is the actual sound of the music that makes it hard to play out of tune. The fingerings are less important. It IS often counter intuitive because he is trying to get you moving around in way that you wouldn't do on your own. Do what the book says, but then use any fingering you can think of.

 

[fu22ba55]

...he is trying to get you moving around in way that you wouldn't do on your own.

Mission accomplished.

I don't mind a bit of "wax on, wax off" and "trust the process" as long as it pays off with some dividend down the road.

It might not be teaching me what I thought I would get out of Simandl, but I think it is teaching me something.

 

[damonsmith]

I don't mind a bit of "wax on, wax off" and "trust the process" as long as it pays off with some dividend down the road.

That is exactly what happens. Do no evaluate how Simandl is going, evaluate how much easier the music you want to play is.

 

[Bruce Calin]

Years ago a mentor demonstrated a "trick" to finger a passage in the New World Symphony. It involved keeping the thumb in one spot while rotating the hand to cover a minor third while crossing between the D and A strings. He didn't call it a pivot but that's what it was. Even then, pre-Rabbath, there were workarounds to some of Simandl's limitations. In my old edition I have fingering changes marked in from situations I don't remember but must have been important at the time. I think it is a useful method for many reasons. One is to show what notes are available when the hand is in a particular place on the neck. That's even more useful now that modern strings make all of the notes practical. Getting between these places and determining what fingers to use is when the fun starts.