Finger substitution
It is generally assumed that silent finger substitution was
used extensively in nineteenth-century organ playing and increasingly so in the course of that century. I don’t want to bother the reader with countless citations to support this statement--just one from a recent article by Hermann J. Busch:
It is widely acknowledged that a perfect legato, attained by
an intensive use of silent finger substitution for example, became the basis of organ playing in the nineteenth century . . .1
In his Organ Technique,2
published in 2002, Jacques van Oortmerssen takes a remarkably different
standpoint in this regard, one that goes totally against the prevailing
opinion. According to van Oortmerssen, the technique of silent finger
substitution was used sparingly in the nineteenth century; if it was used at
all, then only in a few special cases.
Generally speaking, I think that it is only to be applauded
if somebody challenges generally accepted opinions. It is to be expected,
however, that whoever does this has done his homework; in other words, he or she offers valid arguments in order to convince the reader.
First off, here is what van Oortmerssen tells us about
manual technique in the nineteenth century:
Silent finger substitution was only allowed on long notes
and over short stretches (Ex. 8); only in chorale-playing was the unlimited use of this technique found.3
August Reinhard: Studien für Harmonium
If we ask ourselves what the certainty of the author is
based on, we end up with music example 8 from the above citation. Oddly enough, that example does not refer to an organ method or to an organ work, but to the Studien für Harmonium (Studies for Harmonium), opus 74, by August Reinhard. Van Oortmerssen refers remarkably often to this work for harmonium (and indeed to harmonium methods in general) without even trying to prove that we are dealing with an important source of information for playing nineteenth-century organ music here. Nor does he mention or cite a single organ method that might support his statements. His main witness, really
his only witness, is the aforementioned harmonium method of August Reinhard.
Even if I were willing to follow the author’s misplaced line of thought that August Reinhard’s harmonium works can give
us essential information about the interpretation of nineteenth-century organ music, I would still believe that the rules van Oortmerssen thinks to find in Reinhard don’t do Reinhard’s intentions justice. To support this
statement, first of all a citation from the preface to Reinhard’s Studien
style='font-style:normal'>:
. . . [W]hether one attains the most perfect legato by
changing fingers on one key or by skillfully sliding with the same finger from
one key to another is irrelevant as long as one indeed attains it.4
Van Oortmerssen gives the same citation on page 40 of his
book and draws quite a remarkable conclusion from it:
From his examples, it is apparent that this does not mean
that one can choose freely between both techniques. Substitution can take place
only at the moments when there is time to do so.
I fail to see how the above citation would limit finger
substitution to a few special cases, as van Oortmerssen wants us to believe. We
will see in the following that Reinhard’s examples do not at all limit
the use of substitution to long notes. Something similar is found in
Reinhard’s footnote to study no. 19 in the aforementioned book. Van
Oortmerssen cites the beginning of this study but leaves out the footnote. This
is understandable because it puts his rules in a very different perspective:
Series of thirds or sixths that are to be played legato
require a careful, but more or less individual, fingering. Skillful change of
fingers on one and the same key [and] careful sliding from one key to another
will be best to help surmount the difficulties.5
Again, I don’t find any restriction here on the use of
finger substitution. Quite the contrary, sliding and substitution are offered
as equivalent possibilities here.
In the Harmonium-Schule
(Harmonium School), opus 16, by the same author we read the following under the
heading “Der Fingersatz” (Fingering):
Since the harmonium requires mostly perfect legato playing
and since this requires careful fingering, special attention needs to be paid
to the latter. In order to move without any disturbing interruption from one
tone or chord to another, the finger must often be exchanged for another one
while it keeps the key down.6
It seems to me that Reinhard states very clearly here that
finger substitution is a central means for legato playing. Moreover, this is
the only special technique he mentions under the heading “Der
Fingersatz.” I do not find a trace here of the rules that van Oortmerssen
thinks he has found. Here is another clear example in this context from
Reinhard’s Harmonium-Schule (Example
1). It is hard to maintain that these are examples of substitution on long
notes. The technical exercises for finger substitution in the same method are
not limited to long note values either (Example 2).
Even if we were to believe (as van Oortmerssen does) that
the harmonium works of August Reinhard offer central information for fingering
in nineteenth-century organ music, we clearly must conclude that van
Oortmerssen’s rules
don’t do Reinhard justice at all. Reinhard does not know of any
restriction regarding finger substitution. He does, however, emphasize on
various occasions the individuality of a chosen fingering and points out that
there are usually various possibilities.
Franck’s Bach Fingerings
Since van Oortmerssen discusses finger substitution
elsewhere in his book as well, we will now see whether we can find more
convincing arguments there. After citing Fétis, who praises Lemmens for
his frequent use of finger substitution, van Oortmerssen gives the following
comment:
In practice, finger substitution was rather infrequent.
Fingerings by Franck found in the works of Bach are basically the same as those
found in sources from German-speaking areas. In general, silent finger
substitutions, today so popular because of a lack of something better, were
rarely used. The reasons for restricting these substitutions are very
straightforward: they deform the hand, increase tension, and have a bad
influence on tone production, tone control, position playing, and orientation.7
Let us take a closer look at this reasoning: Franck
supposedly used the same fingerings as his German contemporaries; these fingerings made very little use of silent finger substitution. Van Oortmerssen refers to an article of Marie-Louise Jaquet-Langlais, published in 1988 in the French journal L’Orgue.8 In this article,
Marie-Louise Jaquet tells us how around 1968 Jean Langlais (her then-teacher and later husband) mentioned to her that around 1887 César Franck had provided fingerings for 31 organ works of Bach, notated in Braille, on request of the director of the Paris School for the Blind (Institution des Jeunes Aveugles; Franck maintained a very good relationship with the organ class at this institute).
At the time Jaquet wrote her article, the young American
organist and musicologist Karen Hastings (a student of Jean Langlais) was busy
deciphering all those fingerings. Jaquet’s article is based on two works
only: the Prelude and Fugue in D Major,
BWV 532, and the Concerto in A Minor, BWV 593. Jaquet notes that Franck makes
frequent use of substitution: “There are many substitutions among those
fingerings.”9
I do not find anything in this article that would support
van Oortmerssen’s statement in the very least, in fact quite the
contrary. But that is not the end of the story. Since 1990, we have extended
and detailed information about this matter from the very person who studied it
carefully: the aforementioned Karen Hastings. She prepared a transcription in
regular music notation of all the 31 organ works Franck provided with fingerings;
analyzed the fingerings and pedaling indications; and published them in The
American Organist.10 (Van Oortmerssen,
however, does not mention Karen Hastings and her fundamental study at all.) One
of the conclusions from this article makes short work of van
Oortmerssen’s claim: “Franck’s fingerings include a multitude
of substitutions.”11 That is completely at odds with what van Oortmerssen
writes: substitution was not exceptional at all; on the contrary, it was used
frequently by Franck in his Bach edition.
In the rest of this article I will show that this is
consistent with what happened in the German countries. Van Oortmerssen is
absolutely right in pointing out the similarities between Franck and the German
tradition; only the similarity is completely different from what he maintains.
His statement about Franck’s fingerings is now proven plain wrong;
moreover, in his Bach edition, Franck frequently prescribes fingerings that, in
the words of van Oortmerssen, “deform the hand, increase tension, and
have a bad influence on tone production.”
Here is a third citation from van Oortmerssen’s book:
Special techniques were often extensively covered in
historical organ method books. Considering the overwhelming quantity of
exercises, one could easily come to the conclusion that a certain technique had
to be applied frequently. Finger substitution is a very good example. The
number of exercises in organ methods could suggest that this technique could be
applied without restriction. Looking at the music itself, we realize that this
is not the case and that finger substitution was, especially in Germany,
chiefly used for chorale playing.12
What is van Oortmerssen saying here? If I understand him
correctly, it is this: many organ methods offer a multitude of exercises for
silent finger substitution; however, do not conclude that this means that this
technique could be used unrestrictedly: it was mainly used for hymn playing.
I find this a very remarkable argument. Why would a method
offer an “overwhelming quantity of exercises” for something that is
used only on a modest scale? And why would a method offer exercises for finger
substitution on short note values, something that did not occur in the practice
of hymn playing (after all, hymns were sung slowly)? And how does the author
know all this? Not on the basis of analysis of nineteenth-century organ
methods, it seems to me, but only because of his penetrating view:
“Looking at the music itself, we realize that this is not the
case.” I find this a very puzzling statement: by “looking at the
music itself” one can ascertain that all those exercises in the methods
were excess baggage, because this technique was only used on a modest scale
anyway.
I invite the reader to take a careful look at the situation
together. I will first give some citations from nineteenth-century organ
methods and some examples from pieces with fingerings by the writers of the
respective methods. I will then give some more examples from organ works with
fingerings. We have to ask ourselves two questions in order to find out whether
van Oortmerssen’s claims are based on facts: (1) was the use of finger
substitution outside hymn playing exceptional; and (2) was finger substitution
only used on long note values.
Friedrich Schütze: Practische Orgelschule
The Practische Orgelschule
normal'> (Practical Organ School) of Friedrich Wilhelm Schütze (1838) was
widely used during the nineteenth century. Many editions appeared of this book
and of its companion volume, the Handbuch zur praktischen Orgelschule
style='font-style:normal'> (Handbook to the Practical Organ School). The
influential author writes in the Handbuch zur praktischen Orgelschule
style='font-style:normal'>:
Equally important as the passing under and crossing over of
the fingers is--for organ playing in particular--the so-called silent
finger substitution . . . The substitution must always happen as quickly as
possible; after the substitution, the disengaged fingers always have to move
immediately [to their position] over the new keys.13
This citation mentions silent finger substitution as a very
important technique for organ playing (certainly not for hymn playing
exclusively), and the author’s emphasis on quick substitution surely does
not point to any restriction to long note values; after all, on long notes the
player has lots of time for substitution.
August Ritter: Die Kunst des Orgelspiels
August Gottfried Ritter is another author who has been very
influential on the development of nineteenth-century organ playing. In the
earliest editions of his Die Kunst des Orgelspiels
style='font-style:normal'> (The Art of Organ Playing, part 1), he does mention
the use of finger substitution, but we also find fingerings that seem to come
straight from the eighteenth century. This example comes from the third edition
(Example 3).
Over the years we find in successive editions of
Ritter’s organ method an increasingly frequent use of finger
substitution, although he does not strive for the kind of consistency that we later
find with Dupré. That, by the way, is a remarkable quality of many
nineteenth-century fingerings: in addition to finger substitution one also
finds other kinds of fingerings, for example using the little finger or the
thumb various times in a row. That often makes for fingerings that beg the
question: why sometimes finger substitution and in other, similar moments, use
the same finger on successive notes. With all the searching for legato playing,
there was apparently a fairly wide range in the degree of legato that was
desired or attainable. The following two examples with fingerings of August
Ritter and Marcel Dupré, respectively, may serve to clarify the great
differences between nineteenth-century and twentieth-century approaches
(Examples 4a & 4b: Erschienen ist der herrliche Tag
style='font-style:normal'>, BWV 629).
The second part of Ritter’s Kunst des Orgelspiels
style='font-style:normal'>, sometimes called Praktischer Lehr-Cursus
im Orgelspiel, was thoroughly revised by
the Swiss organist Alfred Glaus and published as “Neue Ausgabe”
(New Edition) by Peters (c. 1915); I believe it is still available. Glaus
expands the use of finger substitution even more than Ritter had done in the
later editions; the following example shows that finger substitution is in no
way restricted to long note values (Example 5).
Johannes Worp: Praktische Orgelschool style='font-style:normal'>
In 1877, the Dutch organist Johannes Worp published a
Praktische Orgelschool (Practical Organ
School). The following examples were taken from this method: they are all works
from the organ literature provided with fingerings by Worp; first, the
beginning of a piece by Kühmstedt (Example 6). On the basis of the
fingerings prescribed here it cannot possibly be concluded that silent finger
substitution was quite rare and limited to long note values. The following two
examples (printed anonymously in Worp’s book) require frequent finger
substitution on eight notes (Examples 7a and 7b).
The above examples from three organ methods may have caused
some doubt regarding van Oortmerssen’s statement; the following two music
examples can only increase this doubt. They are organ arrangements of
Bach’s Fugue in E major (BWV 878)
from The Well-tempered Clavier II.
The first example is from Jan Albertus van Eyken’s Fugen aus
dem Wohltemperirten Clavier, published in
the 1850s15 (Example 8: van Eyken).
The second appears in the aforementioned organ method by
Johannes Worp (Example 9: Worp). There are very remarkable differences between
these two arrangements, both in the use of fingerings and of pedal indications.
Van Eyken uses silent finger substitution sparingly, whereas Worp makes
extensive use of it. Both had studied in Germany, but the differences are
remarkable. Indeed, as far as both fingering and pedaling are concerned,
various traditions coexisted during the nineteenth century.
style="mso-spacerun: yes">
I come to my conclusion:
(1) There is no support whatsoever for van
Oortmerssen’s claim that during the nineteenth century silent finger
substitution was used infrequently outside hymn playing, neither in the organ
methods from the period nor in the music itself. In none of the many
nineteenth-century organ methods that I have examined over the years have I
ever encountered anything that points in the direction of van
Oortmerssen’s rules. While it is true that silent finger substitution is
particularly often used in hymn playing, there is no mention anywhere of any
restriction to hymn playing or to long note values.
(2) Van Oortmerssen’s main argument, the reference to
August Reinhard’s Studien für Harmonium, has been shown not to be
convincing or sufficient evidence in the least: I have shown that there is no
mention of restricted use of finger substitution here either.
(3) Van Oortmerssen’s claim that in his Bach edition
Franck makes the same infrequent use of silent finger substitution as his German
contemporaries is completely contradicted by those who have seen and studied
Franck’s fingerings.
If I discuss this matter so extensively it is not in order
to say unpleasant things about a colleague, but because it is my opinion that a
completely wrong picture is drawn here--and disseminated on a large
scale--of both German and French practices during the nineteenth century.
Pedal Technique
On page 40 of his book, van Oortmerssen reaches the
following conclusion about nineteenth-century pedal technique: “ . . .
[T]he heel was used sparingly because its overuse also encouraged tension and
made tone control considerably more difficult.” And on page 37 we read:
“Gliding from one key to the next and silent foot substitutions are two
techniques used sparingly.” Alternating toes in pedal playing remains the
rule, “ . . . even in extremely high or low positions on the
pedalboard.”
During the nineteenth century, a lot of discussion was going
on about what was the best pedal technique, and I agree with van Oortmerssen
that the general tendency is to use alternating toes as the basis and norm of
pedal playing. That does not mean, however, that little use was made of the
heel; some made extensive use of silent foot substitution as well.
On page 39 of his book, van Oortmerssen cites August Ritter
(not from an original edition, but the early-twentieth-century edition by
Alfred Glaus). The citation can be translated as follows: “It is true
that the use of the feet in which the toes of both feet alternate on a regular
basis--which we have practiced until now--has to be considered the
main technique.”16
There is something funny going on in this citation: the
“It is true that” (“zwar,” in the original German)
implies that the sentence does not end where van Oortmerssen put a period.
Indeed, the original text does not have a period here but a semicolon. The text
then continues:
. . . it is not
sufficient for all situations, however. One uses one and the same foot various
times after in a row by alternating the toe and the heel, or even--e.g.,
with two or three upper keys in a row--the so-called ball of the foot. The
supple strength of the ankle, a prerequisite for elegant pedal playing, will
only get fully developed through this new technique.17
According to Ritter-Glaus, then, toe-heel technique is a
necessary expansion of the technique of alternating toes. If we take a look at
what Ritter himself writes about this matter, things get even more interesting.
We see that Glaus left out a thing or two in his edition; these deletions
happen to be particularly instructive for our topic. In the ninth edition
(1872) of Ritter’s Praktischer Lehr-Cursus im Orgelspiel
style='font-style:normal'>we read:
Although the use of the feet in which the toes of both feet
alternate on a regular basis--which we have practiced until now--has
to be considered the main technique and practiced as such, because it is the
easiest and encourages a clear pedal playing, it is however not sufficient for
all situations. It creates particularly great inconveniences when the pedal
part moves now in the high, now in the low range: a fast motion [down or up] of
one foot would disturb the quiet posture. Similarly, only with great difficulty
can quick runs be played legato and flowingly using this technique. Therefore,
in such cases one and the same foot is used various times in a row by
alternating the toe and the heel, or even--e.g., with three upper keys in
a row--the so-called ball of the foot. Although this greatly facilitates
legato playing, the danger of lack of clarity is lurking. Therefore, attention
has to be paid to a decisive attack by means of the ankle. However, all this
should not be considered the main thing, but only a useful expansion of pedal
technique, and applied accordingly.18
So Ritter states clearly that toe-heel technique comes in
the second place after the technique of alternating toes. But it is
nevertheless an important technique, especially when the feet have to be used
quickly, one after the other, high and low on the pedalboard. Ritter knows yet
another remarkable use of toe-heel technique: in the first part of his Kunst
des Orgelspiels, he says that it is
advisable to play tones that belong to the same chord with the same foot. After
giving pedal indications for the theme of Bach’s Fugue in C
Minor, BWV 546, Ritter prints the chorale
prelude Meine Seele erhebt den Herrn,
BWV 648, with a remarkably frequent use of toe-heel technique (Example 10). It
really is remarkable how toe-heel technique suddenly plays a leading role
here--and how Ritter uses the left foot twice in a row in mm. 30–31,
making legato playing impossible.
In his aforementioned Bach edition, Franck sometimes asks
for remarkably modern pedaling too. The following examples are taken from the
article of Marie-Louise Jaquet-Langlais (Example 11).
An important difference with modern pedal technique is the
frequent use of silent foot substitution. What van Oortmerssen says about this
technique, namely that it was “used sparingly,”19 is simply not
true. Precisely the authors who strongly favor the use of the toes make
frequent use of silent foot substitution. To me, that seems a perfectly logical
consequence of their preference for playing with the toes alone: by means of
silent foot substitution, legato can be attained also on large intervals. Here
is an example, again from van Eyken. It is the Fugue in C-sharp Minor
style='font-style:normal'>, BWV 849, from The Well-tempered Clavier I
style='font-style:normal'> (Example 12).
As we see, van Eyken takes the use of alternating toes as
his point of departure, which often leads to impractical solutions in our
modern eyes. If alternating toes is not possible, he favors silent foot
substitution over the use of the heel.
In hymn playing, silent foot substitution was used very
often. I could give countless examples, but will limit myself to two. The first
one is from Güntersberg’s Der fertige Orgelspieler
style='font-style:normal'>20 (Example 13: 1 = right foot; 2 = left foot). My
second example comes from the aforementioned Praktische Orgelschool
style='font-style:normal'> of J. Worp (Example 14).
On page 39 of his book, van Oortmerssen tries to make a
connection between the pedal technique and the style of the work; in other
words, the degree of the use of the heel would depend on the style of the work
in question. He remarks that “[i]n a non-legato style the heel was not
used at all.”
As an example, he gives the beginning of a movement from the
Sixth Sonata of Samuel de Lange Jr. Van Oortmerssen clearly thinks he can
derive a rule from this single case. Such a rule never existed, however. An
example? August Ritter gives in his Praktischer Lehr-Cursus im Orgelspiel
style='font-style:normal'>, opus 15, a trio whose pedal part is to be played
non-legato (“sempre staccato”). This is quite similar to the
indication in the trio by Samuel de Lange, printed on page 39 of van
Oortmerssen’s book: the original edition reads “poco
stacc[ato]”21 (Example 15).
It is clear from Ritter’s pedal indications that there
is no question here of exclusive use of the toes. Finally, close study of the
two organ arrangements of the fugue from The Well-Tempered Clavier II
style='font-style:normal'> printed above makes clear how far the opinions about
pedal technique were apart. With van Eyken, we see a strong preference for
alternating toes, some use of silent foot substitution, and the heel used very
sparingly. Worp, on the other hand, makes extensive use of toe-heel technique
and--as a consequence--hardly uses silent foot substitution.
I believe that the reality of pedal playing in the nineteenth century was much more complicated and colorful than what van Oortmerssen leads us to believe.
The author extends his thanks to the Nederlands
Muziekinstituut, The Hague, for making available photocopies of compositions by
van Eyken; and to Dr. Joris Verdin for making available various Reinhardiana.
Translation: Dr. Jan-Piet Knijff, Queens College/CUNY.
* This article first appeared as “Zin en onzin over
stomme vingerwisseling en pedaalapplicatuur in de 19e eeuw” in Het Orgel
100 (2004), no. 3.
