I’d like to share a few of the most horrifying examples, and tell you why I’ve tried to make mine the opposite of these. I’m not naming names on the sources, but many of them are well-known and recognizable. Many come from players and pedagogues who I deeply respect for reasons other than their fingering-chart-making skill. (Please don’t identify them in the comments. I’ll edit you if you do.)

Case study no. 1

Here’s a partial saxophone fingering chart from my collection:

Commentary:

• Numbering multiple fingerings (such as the A-sharp/B-flat fingerings numbered 1-4) is confusing when keys are also identified by numerals. It also raises questions of ranking: are they numbered by priority/preference?
• The side F-sharp key and the Bis B-flat key are represented by both a circle and the name of the key—this breaks the conventions used for all other keys on the chart, and can appear as though the circle and the text each represent a different key. Also, the circle used for the side F-sharp key does not resemble the oblong key shown in the photo.
• The correct use of the numbered “LSK” and “RSK” keys is not immediately obvious; the labeled photo must be consulted in order to be sure which one is, for example, “LSK 3.”

Suggestions for improvement:

• Use a strictly visual representation and eliminate the text. Make the keys in the diagram look like they do on a saxophone, and do away with the labeled photo altogether.

More charts with similar problems (click for larger):

Why is the thumb hole square?

Case study no. 2

Here is a chart from a book of nothing but clarinet fingerings:

Commentary:

• This shows not only every key on the instrument, but also every bit of mechanism and an outline of the instrument’s body. It’s visually messy and difficult to read.
• The high level of visual detail doesn’t hold up well at this small size; in many of the diagrams it appears (incorrectly) as if perhaps the rings should be pressed, because the lines have bled together.
• The diagrams have apparently been colored in by hand, which adds to the visual distraction, introduces some ambiguities, and seems unprofessional for a published book.

Suggestions for improvement:

• Show the six main finger holes (and possibly a very few other keys) all the time for a point of reference, and introduce additional details only if they are relevant to the specific fingering. In most cases, there’s no need to show mechanism, rings, pad cups, or the instrument body.
• Color neatly for professionalism and especially for clarity.

More charts with similar problems (click for larger):

Unnecessary saxophone body outline

This illegible nightmare, which I tried to use in a woodwinds class, is what finally drove me to create the FDB

Case study no. 3

Two oboe charts, from the same book, on consecutive pages:

Commentary:

• Why use two different diagram systems in the same book?
• In the first chart, the right little finger keys within a circle are unusual and unclear, as is the diagonal slash through the left hand, first finger key.
• In the second chart, the upside-down (oboist’s-eye?) orientation is clever but nonstandard. It does require the outline of the instrument’s body so that the orientation is clear.
• In the second chart, the oboe appears to be foreshortened, which makes the traditionally round keys look oval-shaped, and harder to identify.
• In the second chart, the level of visual detail is needlessly high and distracting. The “broken oboe” outline also seems unnecessary (and slightly disturbing).

Suggestions for improvement:

• Be consistent. Pick one (good) diagram system, and go with it.
• Don’t reinvent the wheel unless you have a good reason to do so. The shapes of an oboe’s right hand little finger keys are distinctive and recognizable—make the ones in the diagram resemble them, instead of inventing new symbols.
• While I can see the value of a fingering diagram shown from the player’s perspective, almost every chart I’ve ever used shows the instrument from the audience’s perspective, and I’m accustomed to charts in that style. Remember that a drastic change like turning the image upside down, mirroring it, rotating it, or otherwise breaking from the basic layout of traditional fingering charts means that extra time and frustration for the reader.

More charts with similar problems (click for larger):

Oddly rotated

Front F, left hand stack keys, and Bis key are virtually indistinguishable

Conclusions

Based on my dissatisfaction with fingering charts like these ones (and oh, so many more), I decided that I wanted the FDB to produce diagrams with certain characteristics:

• Strictly visual symbols, no text. In cases where textual explanations are needed, you have to add them yourself in an image editor, word processing document, blog software, etc.
• Symbols based as much as possible on the actual shapes of keys. There are some exceptions to this; for example, almost all of the diagrams use six large, equally-sized, equally-spaced, and centrally-aligned circles to represent the main keys and/or holes operated by the three middle fingers of each hand, which I think provides a needed point of reference and also gives a nice consistency between the diagrams. And, of course, key shapes are not the same on all instrument models, so I’ve created shapes that I think are as clear and identifiable as possible.
• A bare minimum of visual clutter. By far the most frequent complaint I’ve gotten about the Fingering diagram builder is that, by default, it hides many unpressed keys. Although I feel strongly enough about this issue that I’m keeping that functionality (it’s good to be the king), I did cave and provide a “Blank diagram” button in the 0.2 version, which turns on all the keys for the selected diagram and preset.
• Standard audience-view orientation. An early, unreleased version of the FDB allowed for rotating the images in 90° increments, which I abandoned for both technical reasons and personal preference, and a few people have requested the ability to create mirror images. Users who want this badly enough will have to do it themselves with image-editing software.
• Appropriate line thicknesses for good visual clarity at small sizes. Rather than make this happen automatically, which I did consider, I’ve given users the ability to select their own line thicknesses. I personally prefer using thick lines most of the time.

One more note. My original intention in preparing this article was to contrast poor examples of fingering charts with better examples. After an hour digging through my file cabinets, I gave up on finding any good examples.

Try the (free!) Fingering diagram builder

This project developed from my own need to quickly and easily create fingering diagrams for the woodwind instruments that I play and teach. Frequently I find myself scribbling saxophone altissimo fingerings onto a scrap of paper during a private lesson, cutting-and-pasting at the photocopier to put together simplified charts for a woodwind methods class, or penciling cryptic markings into musical scores to remind myself which pinky finger to use.

And so, I’m pleased to introduce the Fingering diagram builder. I hope you’ll take it for a spin.

[One caveat: it currently doesn't work in any version of Internet Explorer, due to IE's lack of support for SVG graphics. If you're an IE user, I hope you'll consider downloading an excellent, free alternative browser and give the Fingering diagram builder a try anyway.]

Here’s a taste of what the Fingering diagram builder can do.

I created and downloaded this array of some of my favorite F-sharp fingerings in under two minutes (really). Click to see them larger.

flute	oboe	clarinet
bassoon	saxophone	recorder

These six instruments are immediately available, but I hope to add a few more soon. Hit me up with your requests.

Some of the instruments have cool options if you mess around with the “Keywork” toolbar. Here are a few of the most obvious examples:

The oboe chart has English horn keys, too.	The clarinet chart can do bass clarinet.	And the saxophone chart can accomodate a baritone’s low A (or even a soprano with a high G).

The “Options” toolbar lets you resize or customize the look of the diagrams:

Change the line thickness.		Use colors to show trills or optional keys.

The downloaded images are in .PNG format, which means they are compatible with virtually all current word processing, graphics, and music notation software. Plus the file sizes are small, so they can be easily dropped into an email or blog post. (You may have seen some early versions of these fingering diagrams appearing in my own blog over the past year or more.)

I’m interested in your feedback, so let me know if you run into any problems, or if you have an idea how the Fingering diagram builder can be more useful. Leave a comment below, or send me email.

And, be sure to subscribe to the feed so you won’t miss upcoming articles with tips and tricks on using the Fingering diagram builder.

So I wrote some test questions with a fingering chart for a theoretical woodwind instrument and a brief “musical passage.” I’ll reveal my answers and some of the students’ answers below, but take a shot at it yourself first. You can click the fingering chart for a closer look.

Here is part of a fingering chart for an imaginary woodwind instrument, and a musical passage. Answer the following questions (2 points each).

1. In measure 1, which C-sharp fingering would be the best?
2. What fingering issue(s) might you encounter if you used the other fingering?
3. In measure 2, which C-sharp fingering would be the best?
4. What fingering issue(s) might you encounter if you used the other fingering?
5. Based on your general knowledge of woodwind instruments and the fingerings provided so far, what notes are likely to be produced by the following fingerings?

Here are my answers:

1. Fingering 1 would be best.
2. Using fingering 2 would mean raising the right index finger while lowering the middle and ring fingers. While this should be doable for a skilled woodwind player, there is a risk of mis-timed fingers. This could result, for example, in briefly sounding an A (if the middle and ring fingers move before the index finger) or whatever pitch is produced with just the three left-hand fingers (in the opposite case). Fingering 1, however, would involve moving only one finger, and, therefore, would avoid all finger timing issues.
3. Fingering 2 would be best.
4. Using fingering 1 would mean that the right ring finger would have to move instantaneously from one key (or hole?) to another to avoid any extraneous sounds between the notes. Again, using the other fingering means only one finger in motion.
5. The given fingerings would likely produce these pitches:

My students did pretty well on the first four questions, using what they have learned from lectures and hands-on experience over the course of the semester. But the last question didn’t go as well.

I expected the question to make my students squirm a little bit. And, granted, there isn’t nearly enough information provided to give a 100% sure answer. Because of this, I ended up grading the question generously, and I may consider striking it altogether from future exams. But I had hoped that they would put the following things together:

• With all the major woodwinds, you get at least something close to stepwise upward motion if you start with the three middle fingers of each hand down, then raise them one at a time, starting from the distal one. Since, with this instrument, the first three notes in that scenario are A, B, and C, D is the most likely continuation of the sequence.
• Half-holing (or otherwise venting) with the proximal finger generally causes woodwind instruments to sound in a higher partial, most often an octave higher. This is the case with oboe and bassoon, and the concept can be applied to some clarinet fingerings as well (try playing D above the staff by half-holing instead of raising the LH index finger—a favorite fingering of mine). Thus, fingering an A on this instrument (six fingers down), then opening the half-hole, is likely to produce an A one octave higher.

It’s a small class, with only seven students this semester. Out of seven, only one answered the question the same as me. Two other students insisted that the first fingering would produce a G, and the second a D. This of course would make these fingerings a rough match to flute, oboe, saxophone, and clarion-register clarinet, but fails to take into account the pattern established in the fragmentary fingering chart provided.

Of the remaining students, most did pick D for the first theoretical fingering. But for the second fingering, most gave this answer:

This puzzled me at first, and I’ll confess I even flirted with the notion that one student had put this answer down as a wild guess and the others had cheated. But on further reflection I decided that my students are honest but were probably thinking of something more like this:

This, in my estimation, would produce a B-flat. I think my students saw the half-hole as likely to raise the pitch of the note by a half-step; to me, the likely error there is that that particular half-hole was positioned to serve better as a vent than as a tonehole. And even that kind of simple woodwind acoustics is really beyond the scope of a one-semester crash woodwinds course.

For a vessel flute like an ocarina, there aren’t any vent holes; every hole is a tonehole. You can half-hole with any hole to raise the pitch. If this had been an ocarina fingering chart, I think my students would have been right on the money. Unfortunately I don’t think I’ll be able to work a “folk/ethnic woodwind methods” class into my teaching load in the near future.

“Forked” fingerings, in which a lower tonehole is closed while one above it is open, often produce somewhat inferior results—notes that are mismatched in timbre and/or intonation. (Some modern woodwinds use special mechanisms to correct for this, such as the F resonance mechanism on a high-quality oboe.)

An electronic woodwind-style instrument, such as the Akai EWI series, uses a fingering system that is designed to be similar to a traditional woodwind, so that a traditional woodwind player can easily adapt to it. But this is an arbitrary choice. Since the instrument’s tone production system uses electronic circuitry and software, rather than a vibrating air column, the fingering system don’t necessarily have to use the fingers in sequence, and forked fingerings don’t have any inherent problems. The fingerings can be invented completely from scratch, with no acoustical limitations.

EWI fingerings are designed to draw upon the best of both worlds—the familiarity of traditional woodwind fingerings, and the flexibility of a non-acoustical fingering system.

Note that the current-model EWI4000s, using version 2.4 of the operating system, includes several fingering modes. The mode I am considering here is the “EWI” mode, as the “flute,” “oboe,” and “saxophone” modes sacrifice some flexibility for the sake of increased familiarity to traditional woodwind players. You might consider this article to be subtitled, “Why you should be using the ‘EWI’ fingering mode.”

The current manual (“revision D”) shows a mere 17 fingerings in its EWI mode fingering chart (11 chromatic pitches, with B-flat through D having fingerings in two octaves, and B-flat having one additional alternate fingering). But many, many more are possible.

We can consider the individual EWI keys as having individual functions, rather than being inherently interdependent. For example, pressing none of the keys produces a C-sharp:

C-sharp

Adding any key will alter the C-sharp pitch by a given amount:

If I press LH 1, LH 2, and LH 3, the pitch is lowered from C-sharp by a total of 6 semitones, producing the G fingering familiar to saxophonists, oboists, flutists, and clarinetists.

But that is only one possible combination. I could also produce a G with, for example, LH 1, LH 2, and RH 3. Or LH 3, LH pinky 2, RH 1, and RH pinky 2. These fingerings would be extremely unlikely to work on a traditional woodwind, but with the EWI the possibilities are wide open. As long as the total pitch change adds up to -6 (and accounting for any of the listed exceptions), you get a G.

Standard G fingering. (LH 1 + LH 2 + LH 3) = (-2 + -2 + -2) = -6 = G	One alternative G fingering. (LH 1 + LH 2 + RH 3) = (-2 + -2 + -2) = -6 = G	Another alternative G. (LH 3 + LH pinky 2 + RH 1 + RH pinky 2) = (-2 + -1 + -2 + -1) = -6 = G

These examples are illustrative but likely have few real-world applications. For a more practical example, consider trills, which among traditional woodwind players are a subject of endless discussion and books upon books of awkward, complicated fingerings. An ideal trill fingering involves moving only one finger, preferably one that can be moved in a rapid, controlled, non-awkward way.

Take a look at the following musical example (one that oboists will recognize).

This passage would be a nightmare to play using only Akai’s 17 listed fingerings, but is easily manageable if you take a moment to work out some alternatives.

Assuming that you are using the “side” B-flat fingering in the first measure, the most obvious A-flat to B-flat trill is to hold the B-flat fingering and trill will LH 3. However, if you prefer, LH 2 will work equally well, as will RH 3 or RH pinky 3. (LH 1 will not work, because of the LH 2 exception; that would produce an A-flat to B-natural tremolo.)

Awkward A-flat to B-flat trills using Akai’s published fingerings. (Alternate the blue and red keys.)		A much better trill fingering.

The next problematic trill is F to G-flat in the last measure of line 2. I suggest holding the F fingering and trilling with RH pinky 1. (LH pinky 1 is also serviceable, but I find RH easier because RH 3 is free.)

F to G-flat trill

For the G-flat to A-flat trill in the same measure, I would hold the G-flat trill fingering (standard F, plus RH pinky 1) and trill with RH 1. (Again, there are more possibilities. In many cases the standard A-flat fingering trilling RH 1 would make sense.)

G-flat to A-flat trill

Try that whole measure—the fingerings are unfamiliar at first, but they lie very comfortably under the fingers and make for effortless trills.

Here’s what it sounds like:

Play

Take a little time to experiment with your EWI’s fingerings, and see what you come up with!

First and second octave F on the oboe

The oboe typically plays Fs in three octaves. The lower two have a variety of available fingerings, which can be a challenge for new oboists to navigate, particularly because the available fingerings change depending upon the make of the instrument.

A typical “budget” student model instrument, for example, uses the following fingerings. (For all fingerings given in this article, the one shown corresponds to the lower octave; the higher octave is achieved by adding the first [thumb] octave key.)

Basic "right" F

"Forked" F, with E-flat key

The “right” F is the basic choice, to be used in almost all cases where it is possible to do so, as the tone produced by this fingering tends to be the best match to the tone of the surrounding notes.

The “forked” F tends toward a sound that might be described as “muted” or sometimes even “fuzzy,” and should therefore generally be avoided where possible (unless the muted or fuzzy sound is desirable for the musical situation—I do like to use the forked F, for example, in the beginning and ending sections of the second movement of the Saint-Saëns sonata).

Young oboists in beginning band programs learn very quickly to use the forked fingering, and some, unfortunately, learn to use it exclusively, due to the predominance of “flat” key signatures like B-flat and E-flat  major that provide a good compromise for most of the beginning band’s limited technical skill. The issue here is that the “right” fingering can only be used if the preceding and following notes do not use the right ring finger on its tonehole; otherwise an extra note would be audible while the finger was still in motion from F key to tonehole or vice versa. The “right” fingering is the superior choice in scalar passages in the keys of C or F major, but use of the forked fingering is a necessity when the key signature includes an E-flat.

One additional fingering option exists here, which is rarely discussed but which can be useful in rare cases.

Forked fingering using left E-flat

This could be used, for example, when moving from low C to F, avoiding a C-to-E-flat-key slide in the right hand.

For a more expensive “full-conservatory” instrument, the available F fingerings are somewhat different.

Basic "right" F

"Left" F

Forked F, with automatic resonance mechanism

The basic fingering remains the same, and an alternate “left” F key is provided. The left F key opens the same pad as the right F key, so, if the instrument is adjusted correctly, the note should be identical whichever key is used. (On a poorly-adjusted oboe, this pad might, for example, be opened to a different height by each of the keys.)

The forked fingering is simplified slightly on the full-conservatory oboe, due to the automatic “F resonance” mechanism. This mechanism opens a tonehole that is similar in size and placement to that of the E-flat key, but adjusted slightly to optimize the forked F. This should provide a forked F superior to that of the student model instrument, but will still be distinguishable from the basic fingering. In the case that this mechanism exists, the E-flat key should not be used, since in combination with the F resonance mechanism the F will be too sharp.

Now let’s examine a sample passage and determine the best fingering for each F.

The Fs in the first measure are probably best played with the “right” fingering. The first one could as easily be played with the left F, if present, but the second is best played with the right. This keeps the movement to the G in the next measure to three fingers on one hand, more reliably synchronized than a two-handed movement. Playing the first in the same way provides the advantage of consistency.

For the same reason of synchronization, the first F in the second measure should also be played with the right hand, but the second F in that measure cannot because it moves to a D-flat. Forked F is the only option for a student-model instrument, but a full-conservatory oboe presents two options: forked or left hand. A good argument can be made for the forked F here, because, again, the motion is kept to one hand, but the left F is likely to provide the advantages of better tone and/or pitch. These advantages should probably get special consideration in this passage because the preponderance of Fs will make a variation in timbre or tuning more noticeable. I suggest that the small technical disadvantage of the left F in this case will usually be outweighed by the tone and pitch issue, though an oboe with a particularly good forked F may give the oboist the luxury of preference.

The sequence D-flat, E-flat, F in the final measure virtually requires the use of the left E-flat and the forked F to avoid sliding; on a student-model instrument, the forked F with left E-flat may be appropriate. One alternative may be worth mentioning for the sake of completeness: if the passage is played slowly, the player could conceivably begin the E-flat with the left hand, then, while sustaining the note, add the right E-flat, then release the left E-flat, and finally play the F using the left hand. For most situations this complication is not likely to be worth the effort; it does also require that the oboe be adjusted well so that the E-flat pad is opened to precisely the same width by either the left or the right hand E-flat key.

Here is the passage with fingerings marked for a full-conservatory oboe. In practice it likely wouldn’t be necessary to mark all of the Rs. The forked fingering marking, which resembles a string downbow, is the one I’ve seen most commonly used. Marking the forked fingering with an “F” can lead to confusion—an F marked with an F?

Markings for full-conservatory oboe

And here are the markings for a student-model oboe.

Markings for student-model oboe

This is an important thing for woodwind doublers to understand, too, since they may be bringing with them some fingering habits that worked well on their other instrument(s), but which may not apply to clarinet in the same way.

The following notes on the clarinet require use of a pinky key:

These notes require left hand pinky	These notes require right hand pinky
These notes use EITHER left or right hand pinky

Pinky keys are also used in the altissimo register, in resonance fingerings, and so forth, but for today we’ll focus on the notes in the chart. If you’re unfamiliar with the fingerings, check them out at the Woodwind Fingering Guide.

The crucial decision-making deals with the notes in the last row of the chart, which each have two fingering possibilities—one using the left pinky, and one using the right pinky. If your clarinet is in proper adjustment, there shouldn’t be a difference in tone or intonation between the two fingerings, as they open or close the same toneholes. (With a poorly-adjusted clarinet, it’s possible for, say, one fingering to open a certain pad wider than another pad, perhaps affecting pitch and tone.) So our only criterion will be ease and precision of fingering.

Consider this passage, and we will walk through a systematic thought process for selecting fingerings:

The potential problem spots are the areas where we have two or more pinky notes in a row:

Now let’s narrow it down further to the notes that only have one possible fingering. We’ll mark the ones that require the left pinky with an L and those that require the right pinky with an R.

Wherever possible, we want to alternate pinkies, so that we are not trying to slide a pinky from one key to another. Take a look at the two groups of pinky notes in the first measure. Since all of those pinky notes have two possible fingerings, we have lots of possibilities. Let’s look at those possibilities, with the first pinky note of each group marked. If the first note is marked with an L, assume that the next note will be played with the right hand (and vice versa) to keep the pinkies alternating.

Any of those combinations works fine; for most players, it will probably make sense to use the same fingering combination for both pairs of notes.

For the pinky-note group in the second measure, the right pinky is our only option for the E-flat. That means the D-flat before it will have to be played with the left hand, and the C before that with the right hand. Since the C is the first of the pinky notes in that group, we’ll mark it with an R and then just remember to alternate from there.

The pinky-note group in the third measure is a problem, since the two E-flats and the A-flat make it impossible to do a strict alternation.

One possibility for the first two notes is to slide the right pinky off the E-flat key and onto the D-flat key. Because of the arrangement of the keys, this slide is pretty doable; some others aren’t.

For the next three notes, another trick will work, since a good slide isn’t possible: we’ll press the D-flat key initially with the right hand, then quickly add the left hand D-flat key, then lift the right hand key. The D-flat is still sounding, uninterrupted, and the right hand pinky is now free to press the E-flat key for the next note. Phew!

For advanced clarinetists, this decision process should become virtually automatic, habituated by diligent and meticulous practice of scales and arpeggios.

“Vade-Mecum” of the Clarinet-player

6 SPECIAL STUDIES

to

render the fingers and tongue rapidly supple

But this is what really sold me:

NOTICE

The aim of these 6 standard-studies (combining the essential parts generally contained in several exercise books) is to prepare instrumentalists in a very short space of time (about 1/2 hour) when, due to their occupations, they are not able to devote the time necessary for developed exercises and must nevertheless be ready to execute difficult passages, from the standpoint of lips, tongue and fingers.

The movements to which these Studies oblige the clarinet-player to submit will rapidly overcome those imperfections, the diminution or the passing weakness that might result from either fatigue or irregularity of technical work.

“…not able to devote the time necessary … and must nevertheless be ready to execute difficult passages…” This, in a nutshell, is the quandary of the woodwind doubler.

The Vade-Mecum is only six etudes (though some are as many as four pages long), but intensely focused. At this point I’m a long way from being able to play the whole book down in a half hour, but what a half hour that would be!

Check out the kind of stuff that’s packed into this book:

First, there’s a whole lot of this…

Not especially exciting, but great for getting your fingers moving and ironing out little hidden weaknesses. Think this is easy? Think again.

Then etudes that focus on problems of each hand. How fluent are you in the throat tones? No, I mean really? These tackle all your least favorite fingering issues…

Left hand

Right hand

Something for your tongue…

Then a quick tour though all the major and minor scales and arpeggios, with varied articulations…

And finally an expressive etude. This one really covers a lot of ground—extremes of range and dynamics, varied articulations, long phrases, lyrical passages and technical hurdles, and more expression and tempo markings than you would expect to find in the entire book. It even calls for vibrato in one spot.

The Vade-Mecum is a Leduc publication, so as usual it’s a little pricey for its 20 or so pages (currently $29.40 at my favorite source). But this is money well spent if you’re an intermediate to pro-level clarinetist and interested in a serious and thorough workout in a short time.

A few of tips:

• You’ll need your French dictionary. The text is very specific about which keys to use, etc., and only the front matter is translated into English (and German, Spanish, and Italian). Here are a few important words to get you started. Corrections/clarifications welcomed in the comments as I am not a real French speaker.
  • gauche = left; M.G. = L.H.
  • droite = right; M.D. = R.H.
  • sans = without
  • lâcher = release
  • clé = key
  • soulever = raise
  • pouce = thumb
  • et = and
  • ni = not
  • You’re on your own for the rest.
• Jeanjean uses a not-entirely-straightforward fingering scheme, and doesn’t provide a legend. As best I can tell:
  • 1 = LH E/B
  • 2 = LH F#/C#
  • 3 = RH F/C
  • 4 = RH G#/D#
  • 5 = RH sliver Bnat/F#
  • 6 = LH C#/G#
  • 7 = RH 1st (lowest) side key
  • 7 bis = LH sliver D#/A#
  • 8 = RH 2nd side key
  • 9 = LH throat G#
  • 10 = LH throat A
  • 10 bis = RH 3rd side key
  • 11 = RH 4th side key
  • 12 = LH thumb register key
  • A = RH E/B
  • diamond shape = LH thumb tonehole
• The man himself is a little mysterious: Paul Jeanjean’s pitifully short Wikipedia entry
• Here again is the link to buy it from the fine folks at Eble Music: spend money

Enjoy!