How to make a bad fingering chart

ByBret Pimentel

The fingering diagrams I’ve provided in the Fingering diagram builder came into existence gradually over the last several years. As part of the process of developing them, I’ve looked at a great many fingering charts.

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

Similar Posts

  • Crossing the break (or not) on saxophone

    ByBret Pimentel

    Much has been made of “the break” on clarinet—the point at which the chalumeau register and throat tones cross over to the clarion register—but all modern woodwind instruments have at least one break in their “standard” ranges. The saxophone has exactly one (ignoring the altissimo range), between the second C-sharp and the second D.

    From an acoustical perspective, that point is the division between the fundamental pitches and the first overtone. When playing a lower-register note, the air column’s vibration is at its simplest. The pitch is determined by the effective length of the saxophone, which depends on which toneholes the player opens or closes. In the upper register, the air column is manipulated into vibrating twice as fast (by changing the airstream and/or opening a register vent), and a sound an octave higher is produced.

    This means that there is, technically, some overlap between the registers shown above, which really are based on one specific set of “standard” fingerings. The fingerings for low B-flat, B, C, and C-sharp can be used to produce sounds in the second overtone, and the fingerings for high D through F-sharp can likewise produce sounds at the fundamental. In theory, this should mean an overlap of over a fifth:

    If you’ve experimented with those fingerings, you know that they don’t work quite as expected in practice. The low B-flat fingering with the octave key added, for example doesn’t sound great, and neither does the high F-sharp fingering with no octave key. But with some experimentation, a few usable alternative fingerings can be found within this range. Read More “Crossing the break (or not) on saxophone”

  • Balancing voicing and breath support

    ByBret Pimentel

    My oboe students frequently have this problem:

    These notes don’t respond well These notes are sharp and thin-sounding

    (Okay, sometimes I also have this problem.)

    The solution, in most cases, is quite simple.

    Step 1: Use the correct voicing. For oboe it should be low and open, like blowing very warm air. This is usually the result:

    These notes respond beautifully These notes are flat and tubby-sounding

    Step 2: Use powerful abdominal breath support. Voilà:

    These notes respond beautifully These notes are in tune and full-sounding

    I find that once voicing and breath support are balanced against each other, a good oboe with a good reed is one of the easiest woodwinds to play in tune, and responds easily in all registers.

    This is, generally speaking, true of all of the woodwinds: solid breath support plus a stable voicing appropriate to the instrument are the recipe for reliable, in-tune notes from low to high.

  • Achieving an ideal tone

    ByBret Pimentel

    A lot of the questions people have about woodwind playing center on tone: how can I get a better tone? a darker tone? a tone like _____’s? There’s not a lot of clarity on this, for a few reasons:

    • Firstly, of course, “good” tone is subjective, and trying to communicate clearly about tone in more dispassionate terms is problematic due to inconsistent vocabulary.
    • Tone is made from a recipe of factors, so it’s hard to isolate individual ones. Will adding another egg improve your cake? Depends on what else is in it. Will a certain warm-up exercise or piece of equipment have a specific effect on your tone? Depends on what other equipment and playing techniques you are using.
    • Much of what affects tone is difficult or impossible to observe and measure.

    Let’s look at the physical factors that influence tone:

    • Yes, of course, equipment. It’s axiomatic in woodwind playing that your equipment does affect your tone, but not as much as you affect your tone. Still, your particular combination of headjoint, reed, mouthpiece, ligature, barrel, bocal, instrument, and various other parts and accessories does influence in some way the sound that you make. Equipment of good design and construction, and within typical parameters, will contribute to an essentially characteristic tone quality. (By characteristic I mean easily identifiable as a specific instrument by someone with a musically-educated ear.)
    • Basic woodwind-playing techniques, including most notably breath support, voicing, and embouchure. Assuming these are well-trained, they also contribute to a characteristic tone quality.
    • Some subtle aspects of those woodwind-playing techniques that are hard to pin down. These small things determine how the tone fits into the larger world of characteristic tone qualities, usually described poorly in vague terms like “good” or “pure” or “rich” or “buttery” or “vocal.” For example, an oboist’s embouchure puts different pressures on different parts of the reed. Those pressures can be adjusted very subtly using the small and flexible muscles of the embouchure, but most oboists probably aren’t very aware of exactly what adjustments they are making (though they may know what it feels like). Most are also not very capable of passing that wisdom (i.e. a feeling) along to a student or colleague. Some of them can be described in too-general terms (“bring the corners of your mouth in more”), or can be evoked with spotty accuracy through metaphor or through tone exercises.
    photo, Tom Page
    photo, Tom Page

    So, how do you ever develop a tone that is characteristic, personal, and beautiful?

    • Use appropriate equipment.
    • Employ solid fundamental woodwind-playing techniques.
    • Listen frequently, widely, and at length to good music, particularly on your instrument, to develop a tone concept—an aural impression of your ideal tone. In early stages, that might be based on how deeply you have absorbed the sound of a favorite musician, perhaps your teacher. In later stages, it might be a sort of composite of your favorite aspects of many tones that you have internalized, perhaps even things that inspired you about a performance on an instrument other than your own (or a voice). Ultimately, it might be a tone that you have never heard before, but which you can imagine.

    Here’s why tone concept is so crucial:

    All those subtleties of woodwind technique that affect tone, the ones that are so hard to understand and communicate? You can find them with patient and dedicated practice, if you know what you are listening for. As you have already discovered, your tone tends to change from day to day. This inconsistency can be a problem, but can also be a way of stumbling, even subconsciously, onto something positive. (When it’s a conscious process, your thought might be, “when I hold my embouchure this way, I get a sound that is more _____.”) Additionally, a clear tone concept may aid you in intuitively pursuing it; you already use the muscles of breathing, voicing, and embouchure to intuitively produce a huge and subtly-differentiated set of speech sounds, and for most of those you would be hard-pressed to explain how you make them. If you get comfortable and familiar enough with your instrument through years of practice, you can begin to tap into that intuitive control, but again: only if you know what sound you want to make.

    An ideal tone is a lifelong pursuit—invest in yours by listening and practicing daily.

  • Woodwind Doubler Census 2021 results, part 1: demographics

    ByBret Pimentel

    Thanks to all who participated in my 2021 woodwind doubling survey, and to those who helped spread the word. I’m releasing the results in installments, so be sure to use my social media links, RSS feeds, etc. to keep up.

    I got 284 responses, an improvement over 2011’s 187. The numbers for each of these questions don’t necessarily add up to exactly that number, since not everybody responded to every question.

    Gender identity

    I provided more options for gender identity than in 2011’s survey. Here’s the breakdown. (Percentages are of those who answered the question.)

    2021 Data
    Male 222 78%
    Female 49 17%
    Female, Transgender 1 ~0%
    Nonbinary/nonconforming 10 4%
    Transgender, Nonbinary/nonconforming 1 ~0%

    2011 Data
    Male 146 78%
    Female 41 22%

    Age

    As was the case 10 years ago, the numbers skew toward the younger end. I’m not sure if this is affected by the survey being distributed primarily online. No respondents claimed to be younger than teenaged or older than in their 70s.

    2021 Data
    Teenage 22 8%
    20s 72 25%
    30s 67 24%
    40s 40 14%
    50s 41 14%
    60s 35 12%
    70s 6 2%

    2011 Data
    Younger than 20 19 1%
    20s 54 10%
    30s 31 29%
    40s 36 17%
    50s 33 19%
    60s 12 18%
    70s 1 6%

    Region

    I provided options for this that broke down by continent. A few of you island dwellers responded with “other” and specified locations in Oceania and the Caribbean. I probably need to rethink this question for 2031, but for purposes of data reporting I have lumped everyone together into continents for now.

    The continued absence of responses from Africa and South America may be related to language barriers and/or other factors. I did get a few responses from Asia this year, which I didn’t in 2011.

    2021 Data
    Asia 3 1%
    Australia 11 4%
    Europe 20 7%
    North America 249 88%

    2011 Data
    Australia 11 6%
    Europe 12 6%
    North America 162 87%

    Which of these best describes where you live?

    The “city, but not a ‘major’ one” option was added based on feedback from the 2011 survey. A few of you used the “other” option to explain more complicated living situations (such as multiple locations), and for reporting purposes I’ve taken the liberty of lumping those into the categories I thought were the closest match.

    2021 Data
    major city or metropolitan area 127 45%
    city, but not a “major” one 69 24%
    suburb or exurb 63 22%
    rural or remote area 24 8%

    2011 Data
    major city or metropolitan area 93 50%
    suburban area 66 35%
    rural or remote area 23 12%
    other 5 3%

    Describe your current level of formal education (in any field).

    “Less than high school diploma” is a new option this yea. The categories in the graph are abbreviated; the full text from the survey is in the data table.

    2021 dATA
    Less than high school diploma 8 3%
    High school diploma or equivalent 6 2%
    Some college 33 12%
    Bachelors degree 70 25%
    Some graduate school 18 6%
    Masters degree 103 37%
    Doctorate 38 13%
    Other degree type or comparable certification 6 2%

    2011 Data
    High school diploma or equivalent 8 4%
    Some college 28 15%
    Bachelors degree 59 32%
    Some graduate school 16 9%
    Masters degree 53 28%
    Doctorate 16 9%
    Other degree type or comparable certification 6 3%

    Thanks again for your participation and stay tuned for more survey results.

  • Experiments with electric woodwinds

    ByBret Pimentel

    Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, at no cost to you.

    I’ve been having fun with woodwinds enhanced with pickups or microphones. (If you’re interested in natively-electronic instruments like wind controllers, I’ve written about those elsewhere.)

    I still have a lot to learn about working with electronics. But here are a few observations in case anyone finds them helpful.

    Which instrument(s) to use? I find lower-pitched instruments to be more fun, since they can provide convincing bass lines. Electronics can pitch a high instrument down, of course, but I haven’t had the success I would like making this sound good. So far I’ve installed pickups into a bassoon bocal, a bass clarinet neck, and an English horn bocal. I’ve used microphones for other instruments.

    Which gadgets to use? I’m personally using the Little-Jake pickups, a looper, and a multi-effects unit. When I started getting into effects pedals, I found it alarmingly easy to accumulate quite a few. This was a good and inexpensive way to get started. But I quickly discovered that it was becoming unwieldy to try use use more than a few in performance (I literally had to walk back and forth across the stage to get to them all). A multi-effects unit turned out to be much more practical, with a few foot switches I can configure to operate a large number of effects. (I’m currently using one by Boss.) It takes a little more advance setup than individual pedals, but greatly simplifies the onstage footwork. And I was pretty easily able to sell off the individual pedals to fund the purchase.

    Which effects to use? I think the best-known guitar-type effects are distortion, delay/echo, and reverb. Those are fun to play with, but I’ve become more interested in ones I can use to give my instruments new capabilities, rather than just give their sounds a little grittiness or echo. For example, smart harmonizers (which add harmony lines based on a selected key) and pitch shifters (which add harmony lines based on selected intervals) make my instruments polyphonic, a significant upgrade for a woodwind player. And a looper, or even a cleverly-used delay, can create counterpoint.

    Here are a few examples of my experiments:

    There are eight audio tracks here, but each one is performed “live.” I’m trying to somewhat replicate sounds from the original song: two vocal parts, two guitars, piano, electric piano, and electric bass, plus various synthesizer lines that I’ve consolidated into one. I’m using harmonizers and pitch shifters on the “guitars” and “keyboards” to perform chords in real time. I’m also pitch shifting the “bass” to let the English horn play much lower than its natural range.

    I’m using a harmonizer here similarly to how I used it in the English horn video, but you can get a better view of what that involves footwork-wise. I’m using several carefully-programmed footswitches to change the harmonizer’s parameters as I go, in order to get the chromatic harmony that I want. On the A sections of the tune, I’m also using a pitch shifter to double the melody up an octave. The separate bass part that starts at about 0:28 uses pitch shift to drop the sound down an octave.

    This is an example of using a looper (the red unit) to layer multiple lines, while using the multi-effects unit (black) to do real-time harmony and some other things. The “bass” part, shifted down two octaves, isn’t as convincing as I would like (you may have to use earphones to hear it).

    Here’s a live-performance example using looper plus multi-effects unit.

    Here I’m using the multi-effects unit to perform the melody “call” and harmonized “response” (unfortunately distorted and too soft), and using the looper to provide backing for an improvised solo.

    Here’s an attempt to replicate one of Paul Hanson’s incredible electric bassoon “hocket” performances (I fell a bit short). The technique uses a delay to create a single well-timed echo, with the result being that I’m only playing every other note you hear; the in-between notes are echoes of previously-played ones. To get the full effect, check out Paul’s video.

    This one you can actually buy sheet music for; the arranger, Melissa Keeling, provides parameters for using a harmonizer and a delay (which could be separate pedals or functions of a multi-effects unit).

  • A woodwind player’s introduction to: recorders

    ByBret Pimentel

    Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, at no cost to you.

    For a “modern” woodwind player, recorders might show up in “period” classical music performance or in commercial situations like musical theater or studio gigs. They might be used in commercial settings to evoke Renaissance or Baroque periods, to function generically as “world” or folk flutes with robust chromatic capabilities, or (maybe due to their association with elementary school classroom music) to suggest themes of childhood or naivete.

    The use of recorders in classroom settings is an odd one, as something like a pennywhistle has a similar just-blow “fipple” (duct) mouthpiece and a much simpler fingering scheme. The effort required to play recorders fluently and convincingly shouldn’t be underestimated.

    Here are some important things to know:

    • While the finest recorders are usually made of wood, there are high-quality and relatively inexpensive ones made of plastic that are quite playable. The top-of-the-line plastic ones made by Yamaha and Aulos are well worth considering, at least as a starting point.
    • The alto (“treble”) recorder is the primary instrument of Baroque repertoire, with a solo range similar to the Baroque flute. The soprano (“descant”) is the one used in elementary classrooms.
    • Recorders are available in “modern” pitch (A=440 or similar) and in various historical pitches, which may be required for playing with period ensembles.
    • Recorders are often misunderstood as being in the “keys” of C or F. This isn’t quite the same thing as, say, clarinets in B-flat and E-flat, since properly-written recorder parts are always written in concert pitch (sometimes with octave displacements). Rather than learning one set of fingerings and reading from transposed parts, recorder players learn two different sets of fingerings, and may read in multiple clefs. (I’ve written more about this in a previous post.) However, some composers and orchestrators get this wrong, and transpose parts for “F” recorders as they would for F horns.
    • Recorders require much less breath than “modern” woodwinds. Like most fipple flutes, they don’t have much dynamic range, since blowing harder tends to cause sharpness or unwanted leaps into the upper registers.
    • The recorder’s left-hand thumbhole functions as an octave vent (this feature distinguishes the recorders from pennywhistles and other fipple flutes). The thumb octave vent helps balance the volume of the upper and lower registers, and gives the player some agility for moving between them.
    • Recorders respond best to a low, open voicing.
    • Vibrato may be produced on recorders using the breath-pulse technique used on modern flutes and double reeds. It can also be done with flattement, a microtonal trill technique common in the Baroque period.
    • There are many historical and modern method books available for recorders; I like Walter Van Hauwe’s The Modern Recorder Player (in three volumes) as a good introduction that assumes a strong musical background.

2 Comments

  1. The worst offender of a bad fingering chart comes from an intermediate method for clarinet (put out by a company whose name rhymes with flank, but who is actually owned by mega-corp music publishing, AND it hasn’t been edited in 60+ years) Each key on the clarinet is identified with either a letter or number. ABCD for right pinky keys, 123 for left keys. So a middle B in the right is signaled with a B, but in the left it’s a 2 (or 2B for both), which can make reading the exercises cluttered and confusing.

    Another interesting thought on fingering charts, is with the Bis Bb, how can they show you that both keys should be played with 1 finger? I’ve had numerous students look ahead and try to play the bis with the 1st and 2nd fingers.

    Have you seen “Fingering for Woodwinds for iPhone/iPad”? It’s not bad for the basics and the design looks great, but there are some usability issues as well as being a bit too generic (for example, sax fingerings don’t change from horn to horn so there is no low A in the diagram/database).

    Reply

    1. Letters do seem especially problematic, since they overlap with note names. Key A isn’t going to correspond with the note A.

      I’ve also had issues with students using the wrong fingers for the side and high F-sharp keys on saxophone. I think finger placement information would have to be provided with a labeled diagram of some kind, but would generally only be necessary at a beginner level. Most of the time, woodwind players will check a fingering chart to see which keys to use, not which fingers.

      I’ve looked at the iPhone/iPad fingering app in the App Store, but haven’t felt the need to spend $4.99 for it ($6.99 for iPad). I wonder what the source is for the fingerings? That very high oboe C fingering seems like it could have been lifted from the Woodwind Fingering Guide.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments that take a negative or confrontational tone are subject to email and name verification before being approved. In other words: no anonymous trolls allowed—take responsibility for your words.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.