Keeping fingers down

Was wondering if it’s bad technique to keep as many fingers down as much as possible when changing notes. For example, when playing D-F#-A, I sometimes start with all my fingers down, then just lift the bottom middle finger to play the F# and then lift the top ring finger to play the A - all the time keeping my bottom ring covering the D and the two top fingers covering B and A.

It helps considerably when trying to increase speed - and the notes on most of my whistles seem to be in tune when I do this.

I also do it on tunes like Drowsy Maggie, keeping the index and middle fingers of my bottom hand on the E and F# during the “bouncy bits” on the E minor section.

Is this considered bad technique? And should I break myself of the habit - or is it perfectly OK to continue?

It is often referred to as lazy fingering, and it is very common. I’d go so far as to say it is explicitly good technique. Minimal unnecessary movement means better control. Just let your ear be your guide to intonation, and don’t overdo it. You should be able to play anything cleanly with non-lazy fingering as well. Practice both ways, and choose one or the other when it makes musical and physical sense.

I started doing it recently, and it helped a lot…but sometimes, it changes the pitch drastically - how, it depends on the whistle (for example, on my whistle, 2nd octave B sounds awfully off if held by any other than xooooo fingering).

Myself, I’d consider it very bad technique. Those notes you’re playing are very flat. Whistle players have a bad habit of going for speed over everything else, and it’s not worth sacrificing the accuracy of the notes you’re hitting for a wee bit more speed. Nobody’s really impressed by the speed you play at who wouldn’t be more impressed if you played slower and better.

When I first started playing whistle back in the 70’s I immediately noticed that the great traditional Irish players didn’t finger the way it said to in the books.

There are two very different ways Irish traditional music can be approached by an outsider (someone not raised with a lot of trad players around to pick up tunes and techniques from):
One is what I call the “musicalogical” approach or the “descriptive” approach, that is, to accept the way traditional players play and copy it as best one can, trying not to impose any foreign notions.
The other is what I call the “Yankee ingenuity” approach or the “proscriptive” approach, the approach where an outsider attempts to re-make the traditon according to their own notions of what is “right” (notions formed outside of the tradition in question and therefore foreign to it).

The parallel is in linguistics where the contrast is between “descriptive” and “proscriptive” grammar. The first accepts and describes how people actually talk, the second attempts to get people to talk in accordance with clinical notions of how English grammar ought to operate, notions usually originally borrowed from Latin and therefore irrelevant.

So how did all the “real” traditional Irish players play back when I was learning?

They left certain fingers down, fingers that ought to be up according to the Mel Bay whistle book.

The basic notion is called “economy of motion” and allows trad players to play more accurately at the high speeds required.

After playing for a few years it dawned on me that there existed on the whistle “shapes” not unlike chord shapes the fingers assume on the guitar.

There’s a “D shape” thus:

xxo xoo

which allow arpeggios based on a D chord to be easily played simply by moving two units, one unit consisting of the upper ring finger, the other unit consisting of the lower middle and ring fingers.

Try it by playing the D arpeggio

bottom D - low F# - low A - middle D - high F#- high A - and back down:

xxx xxx

xxx xoo

xxo xoo

xxx xxx

xxx xoo

xxo xoo and back down.

An example of the savings in motion and increase in clarity is the beginning of the reel The Mountain Road which if you use the Mel Bay fingering would start:

xxx xoo

xxo ooo

xxx xoo

xoo ooo

xxx xoo

xxo ooo

xxx xoo

but using trad fingering is simply:

xxx xoo

xxo xoo

xxx xoo

xoo xoo

xxx xoo

xxo xoo

xxx xoo

There are many passages in many tunes where ONLY the upper ring finger and lower middle and ring fingers are lifted.


Then there’s the “G shape” thus:

xoo oox

using which a G arpeggio involves only the movement of two units, one consisting of the upper-hand middle and ring fingers, the other unit consisting of the lower-hand index and middle fingers. So the G arpeggio:

bottom D - low G - low B - middle D - high G - high B and back down is fingered:

xxx xxx

xxx oox

xoo oox

xxx xxx

xxx oox

xoo oox and back down.

And there are many situation things, for example as mentioned above what might be thought of as an “E minor shape” thus:

xoo xxo

where the “rocking” passage B - E - B - F# - B goes:

xoo xxo

xxx xxo

xoo xxo

xxx xoo

xoo xxo

xxx xxo

xoo xxo

In general, many trad players tended to keep the lower-hand ring finger down for notes other than E and F#, using it as an “anchor” finger, except when playing a passage which used the “D shape”.

Now this whole approach was used back when everybody used Generation whistles. These whistles, having a relatively narrow bore, are fairly resistant to changing pitch when leaving fingers down and these trad players were able to play acceptably in tune.

Now that so many people are playing what I call “neo-whistles”, which often have a much larger bore (in a misguided attempt to make a whistle sound like a recorder), many of these fingerings produce notes which are not acceptably in tune.

One thing was brought out above: on many large-bore whistles high B must be fingered xoo ooo. The trad way of keeping the lower-hand ring finger down make high B hard to attack or in some cases high B won’t sound at all. This issue didn’t exist in the old days.

I’m using a Burke low D as my main whistle nowadays and I need to be careful to keep the lower fingers off when playing high B.

Oh- you say- what about all those middle D’s played closed??? My Mel Bay book says you must have your upper index finger off!

The “closed middle D” not only is easier to finger accurately, but on flute and low whistle has a wonderful percussive effect that’s crucial to making many tunes sound right. (This effect is lost, admittedly, on high whistles.)

Start the 2nd part of the Kesh Jig using closed Ds:

xoo oox (long roll on B)

xxx xxx

xoo xxx (!) (a handy B fingering)

xxx xxx

xxx xxo

xxx ooo

xxx xxo

xxx xxx

xoo oox

xxx oox etc

I’m a “leave the fingers where ever you can get away with leaving them” kind of player. See my post on the “shake” thread for an example. :smiley:

That’s some very interesting stuff about leaving fingers down to intentionally modify the notes you’re playing, although that seems less like lazy fingering to me, and more like advanced ways of working with the tone of your whistle.

Dameon, from your comments it sounds like you don’t have the technique yourself, and might not really understand what’s involved.

It’s not about speed, though better speed is a side effect. It’s not about playing “flat notes”, if your ear and intonation are sound. It’s about control and nuance and maximizing the capabilities of the instrument.

I’ve yet to encounter an accomplished whistler beyond the “Mel Bay” stage who doesn’t make use of lazy fingering to some degree as a normal part of their technique.

Check out Brother Steve’s page “Not lifting a finger: the lazy whistler’s guide to fingering” for some introductory tips on getting started.

http://www.rogermillington.com/siamsa/brosteve/notlifting.html

Any whistle, whether a Gen or a neo-whistle, presents a number of usable lazy fingering possibilities that can and should be exploited.

Isn’t the technique of keeping fingers down used by Uilliann pipe players as a matter of course, and considered the “correct” way to play?

Closed staccato fingering on the uilleann pipes is a different thing from lazy fingering, and is one of several fingering styles on the pipes:

http://chiffboard.mati.ca/viewtopic.php?p=806414#806414

I prefer “economy of motion” or “efficient” over “lazy” …sounds better…