I had a big breakthrough this morning, and after 37 years of cello playing I think I finally understand the dubious logic behind the traditional / Suzuki cello position naming system.
Perhaps it makes sense to other cellists, but not one has been able to explain it to me adequately. Countless students of mine have asked me to explain the reason the positions are numbered as they are, and I’ve shrugged my shoulders. “It’s just how it is,” I’ve had to say.
Ever since studying cello with Laurien Laufman, I’ve used Janos Starker’s chromatic position naming system instead. I find it more sensible than the traditional / Suzuki one.
This biggest mystery with the traditional system has been the existence of “upper” and “lower” versions of some positions, and not others. What’s reason?
For years, my working theory has been that it’s based on the location of accidentals in the diatonic major scale. A Major is perhaps the basis, chosen because of the parallel between that scale and the beginning of the musical alphabet. My reasoning has been: in A major, the first three pitches are A, B and C sharp. C sharp creates an obvious duality with C natural — and therefore there are two possible second positions — the first “lower” second position starting on C natural, and the second “upper” second position starting on C sharp
The trouble was that I also found my working “diatonic major” theory flawed. It reasonably explains the existence of upper and lower second position but not upper and lower fourth position. Why should we consider putting the first finger on the pitch named enharmonically D sharp and E flat as lower fourth position? It could just as well be called upper third position, as neither D sharp nor E flat are in any of the diatonic major scales starting on an open cello string. And if it’s acceptable to have two names for one position, why is this not the case with with the lower positions?
Bang bang went my head into this problem. And then this morning I was sipping coffee and thinking about a beginning violin student in my middle school orchestra, I had the big “aha.”
The position naming system is most likely based on the violin hand and finger shape, which has been carelessly ported over to cello without much thought regarding applicability.
On the violin, the second finger is mobile — it covers two potential pitches. On the A string in first position, these are C sharp and C natural. The second finger has an “upper” and a “lower” position, and this is likely where the nomenclature “upper second position” and “lower second position” comes from!
What’s more, the violin fourth finger is also mobile, covering two possible pitches on the A string: E natural and E flat. Regardless of whether we consider this latter pitch enharmonically as an E flat or a D sharp, it is still played by the fourth finger. Hence the “upper” and “lower” fourth position nomenclature.
And just like that, mystery solved.
I guess it all makes sense on violin. But it’s more clear to me now why this naming system doesn’t make sense on cello — we use different fingerings! And I’m even more certain that Janos Starker’s chromatic-based system is a more sensible alternative.
Hope this helps you on your cello journey!
Rock The Cello 