Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Mozart K310 fingering

Good, then I won't worry about it. Thanks

33 is a slide from a black to a white note. Can be done with any finger. Very useful.

It also isn't a quarter note in the version I'm looking at.

But if you want to play it that way, I would play it first with the RH, then restrike with the LH. Hold the value with the LH, and go down to 4 on the G, and finger the 2nd beat 4131, then you can use 2131 2132 4 and repeat.

Well, I know that.
What I didn't know was where.

To Jason (Beet314): Y'know, I was going through the piece in my head to try to see where this might be, and I thought I had the passage where it could be, but then looked in the score, and came up empty. So, I think it's nowhere.

UNLESS.....there is one place.....and now that I think about it, I do think "3-3" is the best fingering, for a certain musical effect, which is probably exactly the point. And it's the musical effect I want, even though when I played the piece, I think I didn't do it. But if I play it again, I think I will.

CODA, end of m. 353 going into 354, and again similarly in 355-356.
Even though I started out thinking it's no big deal to do it there because you can sort of do whatever you want, I owe you and your teacher a thank you. Even if that's not the place.

(I think I played what is probably the more obvious and more common fingering: 121212 323232 121212 323232)

And BTW, if I do it, I'd probably also do "2-2" between 354 and 355, for the same reason, and therefore I'd be doing:

232323 323232 232323 323232

You could easily avoid 2-2 by doing:

131313 323232 131313 etc.

....but I think the extra articulation you'd get with the first fingering would be better.


EDIT: When I first did this post, I made a mistake by saying that the "2-2" would be from a white note to a black note, rather than black to white like Prout said for this kind of thing in general. Dunno what I was thinking. Most assuredly it's from black to white also.

Oh, Mark... I'm so sorry to have wasted your time!

Looking through the score, I see that it wasn't a 33 at all! All I really remembered was that it was an unconventional fingering that totally worked, and that opened my eyes to the possibilities of unconventional fingerings. In particular, it showed me that sudden hand repositionings were possible, even within fluid lines.

Now that I have my score, I'll tell you exactly what it was: In measure 37, I use (probably like most people) 231234. But I was having trouble with a 5 on the next note, the D# (first note of m.38). I mean, I could play it, and play it at speed, but that part of the line just got swallowed up a bit. So the interesting fingering was to use a *2* on that D#. So that I'm playing 4 -> 2 on C# -> D#. Try it and see what you think!

I'm not sure that I find very useful your idea of "fingerings for the sake of the music". That may be the case if I had a perfect technique, but in the real world there are always compromises. My teacher didn't suggest the 2 out of the blue just for the musicality of it; but when we saw I was having some trouble, she suggested it, as a helpful and still musically viable alternative. And, actually, it works great, and really gives the line some vigor!

-Jason

EDIT: Actually, re-reading this, of course "fingerings for the sake of the music" is a useful and important idea. I just think there are grey areas too.

You didn't at all. You blessed me with a new and great fingering, although by accident.


That's the passage (not the exact place, but close) where I originally thought the "3-3" might be, from going through the piece in my head -- like about a couple of measures later.

You then made a substantial post describing the section. I'm confused because in my edition 353 is not in the coda at all; it falls in the middle of the trio.


You never tried 234123/41 etc?

I'm guessing that your score has some repeated sections written out rather than indicated by repeat marks as is done in other editions. I got the measure numbers from something called the Pierre Gouin edition (never heard of it before) on IMSLP. (The reason I clicked on that one was, it just seemed likely to include measure numbers, which most Chopin scores on IMSLP don't. Most of my own scores are in storage so I couldn't check those.)

The measures I talked about are the trill-like thingees right before the low F# octave and the famous repeated dissonant chord, which I guess is (let's see how I am on "analysis") .....I guess it's the dominant 7th of the Neapolitan but with a tonic dominant bass.

But if 31 is an option, why not just 21?

But looking at the figure itself, the 1 on the 2nd beat of each figure seems not so good. And 21 21 breaks the figure into two smaller figures which I think is not the idea here.

And the 4132 seems just too inviting to slur the 2 back to the 4

How about 1243 ?

I doubt at tempo there will be any idea of slurring going on . I think your suggestion would result in tension in my thumb at keeping it in a position of crossing under. It's fine for a few beats but after that it's problematic.

I think if another edition doesn't even have that quarter note (is it a 16th?) then there's no need to be fussy about it, IMO. Great suggestion though, thanks!

Obviously, I don't sight read words very well. I thought you said 'whatever'. mea culpa

Yep, the score I downloaded from IMSLP (Breitkopf & Hartel?) has a 16th, while my Peters Urtext has a quarter note.

I have three copies of this sonata. Presser, Weiner, and Henle.

All three have the C as a quarter note.

What I was doing was hitting the C with the right hand, and then clearing off, LH comes in and holds the second C with 1 while 2, 3 play B, A sixteenth notes. Thumb up at the same time 3 releases A, 4 plays G, LH thumb now ready to come back into action on next note A.

I'm not sure I'm making sense, but that's what I was doing.

Makes sense, and it is what was previously suggested. OK, majority rules, so I'll assume it should be a quarter and try this method out. Thanks

So, when I bought the Weiner version, I got the "facsimile" along with it because they didn't have any more left of the version without it.

It fell on the floor when I was looking for the measure in the printed score.

So this morning I picked it up to put it back and looked inside, and for whatever it's worth, it's a quarter note in Mozart's own hand, too, with two more quarter rests, then the eighth notes in the RH for the fourth beat. LH has sixteenth rest, then the sixteenth notes for the rest of the measure, phrasing over the sixteenth notes, under the rests:



I guess I finally found a purpose for the extra 5€ I spent on one sonata (the version without the high quality copy of the autograph was 10€ and this one was 15€). Though, given the fact that a) it probably doesn't much matter, and b) we've already come to a general consensus it's a quarter note anyway, I can't quiiiiite declare it 5€ well spent. Considering where I was when I spent it and the likelihood I'll ever need to refer to it for my own purposes, 5€ would have been more fun/tasty spent elsewhere. The café next door does a darn good espresso and breakfast pastry.

Still, it's nice to have that confirmation from the source. I think 5 euro isn't all that much in the grand scheme of things, and you have something that lasts longer than a coffee and pastry.

Well, enjoy! I, for my part, am going to go need to get myself some breakfast. I'll make it a Viennese coffee in Mozart's honor. And eat a croissant with it since the sonata was composed in Paris.