Why You SHOULD Compose at the Piano
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 фев 2020
- In this video, I discuss one of my personal pet peeves; this being the notion that a composer shouldn't compose at the piano. While I will concede that you can do certain aspects of composing such as orchestration away from the piano, I still find the tactile relationship with an instrument crucial to creating music. But this is just my opinion, and this video is more of an informed rant.
Background Music:
Piano Sonata No. 1, 2nd Movement (composed by myself and performed by Julian Hedenborg)
Piano Sonata No. 2 3rd Movement (composed by myself and performed by Yukika Nishida)
There is a letter from Mozart to his father stating that he can't compose because his piano hasn't been moved into his new apartment yet. That's really all the evidence you need.
“He must be in the process of farting around.” I haven’t laughed so hard in a long while thank you sir.
When I compose, I ALWAYS use the piano. The piano is MY instrument, it got me into music, and it is my tool to make more music.
exactly!
I really don’t believe there is a “right” way for everyone. I think writing at the piano is great, and the vibrations of sound and how it effects us is definitely a real phenomenon.
Two videos in a row after a 9-month break? Greaaaat!!!! Glad to you around RUclips once again :)
I wish every composer - whether they write classical or jazz music, are young or old, amateur or professional - could watch this video so that once and for all we dispel this notion that you are committing the sin of all sins if you use the piano while composing! Many of the past and present masters relied on the instrument at various stages of composing to make sure the ideas they heard in their head worked just as well when played aloud. For some composers (such as Chopin, Elgar and Arnold Bax), improvising at the piano provided the inspiration or ideas for a work to be later written out. Others literally 'found' the notes for their compositions by testing out chords and melodic intervals - think of Stravinsky, Duke Ellington and Thomas Adès. There are those who are famous for conceiving most of, if not, an entire work mentally before committing it to paper (Mozart, Hindemith, Britten), but would play over what they had penned and make alterations if necessary. The last group I can think of would often write out a piece as a piano score and then orchestrate from this (the reasons for which are manifold) - Liszt, Ravel and Prokofiev spring to mind. Contrary to all this, there are many composers who did not, indeed, could not, play their music on the piano and their works have stood the test of time - Berlioz (zero keyboard skills), Schumann (hand injury) and Wagner (limited pianist). In short, let's accept both methods and be happy with the artistic fruits that are borne out of either or both approaches!
last night i watched documentary on Lalo Schifrin , he said exactly that- most of the greatest composers composed away from the instruments , himself also .
On some other video , grandson of Antonin Dvorak himself wrote that Antonin would always compose in complete silence .
A very sensible and complete comment. Cheers!
@@23logaritamYou raise an interesting point about Lalo Schifrin. Read the excellent comment below by Hippotropikas, who makes the distinction between composing AT the piano and WITH the piano. The former implies musical ideas conceived in the composer's head first which are extended and/or corrected with the use of a piano. Playing through a polyphonic work to make sure the harmony and counterpoint are sound is important, even if you have perfect or relative pitch and can hear the music in your inner ear; before the advent of MIDI playback, using the piano was your best option! Composing with the piano usually comes about by improvisation, landing upon a good idea and then writing it down. Many of us will know the story about how Elgar's Enigma Variations came into being to prove this point...
To put a case in favour of composing at or with the piano, I've heard some people express that those composers who didn't/couldn't play through their pieces on the piano wrote excessively or the quality of their output is uneven. There may be a grain of truth in this thought, but I still love the music of those masters whose names might fall under this category I'm thinking of but don't have the guts to post here, lol!
@Thank you for your kind words, much appreciated!
Woah this is a surprise! Glad to see you back!
I do a bit of both and also I have composed in my head before playing or writing it down. I like to compose as an artist would sketch.
Starting with a chord progression or melody and later adding the details. Very seldom with everything in place from start to finish. Chord progressions in the style of chord symbols usually at the piano but harmony and counterpoint done theoretically at a table. If come up with a melody first I cross check on a piano. The summit of a mountain is reached no matter what direction you approach it. Where there's an idea, there's a way.
Fumbling around at the piano usually gets me to a default melody and progression of what I have written or heard before.
Glad u are back again, thanks for sharing knowledge, welcome back.
I never knew this was an issue for some people, probably because I'm really a beginner in music (I had some training years before, but not much). But I always need to hear when I'm composing, since then I can find combinations of notes that I would not have used otherwise.
Something similar happens in the visual arts world. A lot of people says that a "real painter" don't need references to draw a human body. And is a so ridiculous thought when all the great artist had use references. Even some modern artist as Picasso. And everyone who is professional today.
It's sad that thing like this happens so much. Because not using an instrument or no using references can help to build or improve some abilities, they're not a bad thing. The human brain is powerful, but not omnipotent. Memory always can fail.
Great video, thanks for making it. Your style of editing is very accessible and easy to follow, whilst having thorough and interesting content. Cheers!
It's really great to see when someone shares the truth about this. My major wasn't composing, but unfortunately the unspoken "rule" of composing-at-the-piano-is-for-amatuers were in the air at my schools too, and the harm about it is that at the time I was younger and I believed that "rule", but at least later in my life I got free from many intentional (or unintentional) BS that my highschool-/university-/college of music tought me. I think high school of music or conservatoire or college of music or etc can be an awesome and safe bubble to learn in, but in my experience at leaat, unfortunatelly most bubbles tend to contain some harmful gas inside them, so to say.
In which point in history did classical music turn into an elitist school for egos rather than a school for music? At the end of the day, the goal is bring the listener to a journey, the listener doesn't care how the journey was made.
Lol I can't write without my piano. It's just impossible for me. Thanks for the great upload... Aaaand, any possible collaboration with Orchestration Online?
I don't think so, but who knows, maybe someday. We don't know each other, I just asked him a question in the group chat a few years back.
@@MusicaUniversalis I hope so!
Btw I'm really glad to see that you're back, really =)
When you started talking about Gershwin I about lost it 😅. Great video and wonderful points 👍.
For me I compose on piano and use a voice recorder. But sometimes I just compose in my head. Because I'm a pianist, the thing is when I'm improvising at the piano I often start thinking about how I play, not about composing itself - that's my problem. It's easier for me to improvise something while recording it on my phone, then re-listen it - I instatly have a lot of ideas how to change it. Composing in my head sometimes goes just simplier, because if I feel inspiration, music just appears and develops much easier - I'm focused only on music and what inspires me. Everything happens inside me. If I need to correct myself, compose a moment which is difficult technically, or there're REALLY MANY notes, I use piano.
So, yeah, I just use them both, depends on the situation.
Composing in my head and on the piano, "clarifying" mostly on the piano and sometimes listening to the audio records.
Thanks so much for this. Love the Stravinsky interview. I sold a grand piano to get more space and I now use a stage piano. I think I need to get an upright. 😊
Well said, and thank you. I *am* an amateur, and while I do couterpoint exercises away from the piano and do work out the intervals and rhythms of little motifs in my mind, I am otherwise completely hamstrung if I'm not sat with the keys under my fingers. The footage of Stravinsky and what he said was also intensely moving, and the music in the background (amazed to find it's your own) is beautiful! Where can I find more to listen to?
Nice to have you back :)
Hmmm... I think that this could go various ways for various composers. I recall the nearly lost cause that "ear training" was in college theory class and recognize that experience with some type of instrument can be very helpful... and as percussionist and choirister, I got better ear training than I ever did in a theory class. Of course, the issue here is much larger than ear training, but rather artistic production. On the one hand, I recall the poorness of my earliest compositions, which were greatly influenced by my familiarity with the percussion instruments that I played. On the other hand, I recognize the superiority of my recent compositions, for which the only instrument involved is the mouse on my laptop - yes, literally only my mouse, click by click! I never learned to play the piano because I really didn't care enough to confront the intimidating prospect of reading so many notes simultaneously and putting my ten digits in the right places at the right times. I sought the study of harmony, counterpoint, and orchestration - and was granted most access to instruction in harmony, moderate access to instruction in counterpoint, and zero access to instruction in orchestration... despite that orchestration is the topic that requires the most instruction because it is the most difficult to figure out from pure mathematical principles and on-paper analysis. (Autodidacticism is the absolute worst way to learn orchestration - and yet it is the only way afforded to ordinary people such as myself in the extremely conservative USA with its narrowly pre-defined roles for every person.) And yet, had I been a music major, I would have been required to play piano and guitar. Seems like the priorities of the academy are quite mis-aligned with the realities of real-world composition. From my present perspective, I recognize that I have completed my mastery of "ear training" by mouse clicking - yes, by hearing those notes on the staff being dragged around, sometimes even while having some completely un-related (probably progressive rock) piece being played on youtube simultaneously in my headphones, a strange situation which can lead to new learning. Great fun! I can do this without distraction because I hear music as I see it in my head: The sound of architecture. Your 3-dimensional model analogy (re: architects) speaks well to your point, but I would point out that I can visualize in three dimensions without any physical model. Likewise, I've composed canons in up to eight parts simply while walking down the street - because I trained myself to visualize the music as architecture. On the other hand, despite my deliberate caution and research into instrumentation, I recognize that my compositions sometimes put difficult or occasionally outright unrealistic demands upon the performers precisely because I am so clueless about the physical feelings involved in playing their instruments - and that can be embarrassing to me and harmful to the music. All of this is to say that various approaches have their merits and demerits and are more compatible or less compatible with various individual composers, depending upon our mentalities, intentions, etc. I would be a better composer if I played piano, for sure... at the very least because I would be capable of writing good music specifically for piano, something which is completely out of my reach. However, at what cost would the enormous effort required to learn this new instrument be to my time... time that I could instead spend composing in my presently extremely effective and fruitful way - yes, for serious symphony orchestras and chamber ensembles - and often involving degrees of polyphony that are well beyond anything that two or even four hands could demonstrate at a keyboard? It is hard enough composing much music while keeping down a full-time job as an engineer without having to deal with learning another instrument. All of that being said, of course, there should be zero shame in using all available tools for maximizing one's effectiveness as a composer (short of outsourcing and AI, which are cheating) - and we are all different in what tools might benefit us the most. Now, as for the word, "amateur": An amateur is one who does something for love. The opposite, a professional, is one who does something for money. One would be correct to call me a socialist... because I pursue everything for love and only begrudgingly for money... I know: downright "un-American" - and so be it. I fully intend and expect to never make one cent by composing music... and that is just fine with me - in fact, better for having no incentive for serving an idea other than one conceived in the love of a pure idea. But even one poorly orchestrated moment (of which I have had many!) is, to me, a painful travesty. Even if my music is frequently performed (concerted & recorded) by serious conservatory-trained musicians, I remain an amateur - and that is as it should be.
My harmony teacher always told me not to compose AT the piano (i.e. improvise then write down), even if he was OK with composing WITH the piano (write down then check the idea on the piano). His argument is that the idea must come from the mind, not from the instrument. I never fully understood what he meant by that, but the fact is that as soon as he told me this, I started composing away from the piano, probably because I trusted him. Now that I know many composers did compose at the piano, I lean towards the hypothesis that composing at the piano is not necessary or advisable to be a good composer. And your video come strengthen this idea. Thanks for bringing new (and unpopular) arguments!
On another subject, what do you think about composing at the computer?
why do you lean towards that idea if you are admitting that many composers including beethoven mozart bach and chopin composed at the piano? what youre saying is contradictory, oh and schubert stravinsky and others too
I think composing on the computer is fine and in fact it is quite a revolutionary thing for composers to be able to use computers to produce legible sheet music quickly. However, I think a composer still needs to know how to write with pen and paper. I prefer to use erasable pens 😂 and I for the most part collect motives in a sketch book and plan out the general layout of a piece and then organize everything in Sibelius.
However the advent of notation software means that composers need a more detailed orthographic knowledge of notation than many composers in the past had. Not many composers can rely on copyists and engravers to clean up their scribbles now.....
And finally a little analogy:
Nobody criticizes writers for typing novels on their computer. It’s about the end product, if they are a terrible writer, it doesn’t matter if a computer was used. Midi playback can help up until a point, in the end you still need to know what you’re doing. So it shouldn’t be frowned upon to write on the computer. Just my opinion. Other people disagree of course. The more you challenge yourself to write by hand, the more you train your mind. I say use the computer as a tool, but not as a crutch.
Even though I have perfect pitch and thus can visualize the notes without an instrument present, I still use my digital piano most of the time when I am stuck on what to compose next or just to get the ideas flowing. The plus of a digital piano is that I can connect it to my tablet which has an app specifically for recording what I'm playing at the piano and requires a MIDI connection to actually record. The plus of that? I can see roughly the dynamics in real time as I'm playing the piece. But, at extreme dynamics it tends to not be that accurate, using the velocity scale for dynamics. For example pianissimo will often register as piano or even mezzo-piano and fortissimo will often register as forte. But, I can still see when I am in the louder moments and when I am in the quieter moments. By the way, I am composing a woodwind quartet piece. Out of the quartets, I find woodwind quartet to be the easiest to compose for. Would you like to see that woodwind quartet piece when it is finished?
Thanks very much.
When are you continuing the Albrechtsberger series
I don’t think I will be doing so, it would require crazy amounts of editing and animating, and I just don’t have the time for that at the moment. I only realized this after starting the videos. Some of the lessons just aren’t that applicable and are too complex to put into video format, and judging by the views it’s way too specific to draw larger interest. A RUclipsr needs views to make money, and putting that much work into something so specific is probably not a good allocation of my time.
Hey, I just found your channel and subscribed, please make a video about sonata form, the longer the better! Great channel you have, thank you.
I have been putting off making a video on Sonata Form for far too long, but it’s definitely something I’ll be doing sooner rather than later.
Hi. It's not about composing with or without the piano. It depends on what you want and what you want to accomplish. Writing only in your head, with notation software, with DAW or the piano are different kinds of working and some might be more helpful for your work and others don't. As a composer myself, I worked them all, and it's just another way with or without them or using one or another. There is no one way for all.
If Morton Lauridsen can sit at the piano to compose ethereal a capella choral music (and that's exactly how he works) I think calling such a procedure "amateurish" is academic fiddle-faddle. I keep a sketchbook for ideas that occur to me when I am not near a keyboard. But most of my work is done at the piano.
I mainly compose mentally precisely because my improvisation/musical intuition/tactile relationship to the instrument(s) is amateurish/underdeveloped. I mainly compose for solo violin (eventually I'll get around to composing for piano and for ensembles), and though my playing chops are fine (I consider myself intermediate to advanced-intermediate, being able to reasonably play intermediate concertos and solo Bach), I lack the raw intuition to find good tunes on the fly. In this sense, I kinda flip this gatekeeping mantra on its head.
Do we know how Bach did it? I have this image in my head of him sitting at his desk churning out piece after piece in a non stop fashion. Maybe it's not quite right 🤔
A mix of both. Bach was an accomplished keyboardist, and improviser. Improvisers tend to rely heavily on the tactile relationship they have with their respective instruments.
Yes, thank you. Steer clear of those afflicted with certainty
Stravinskt definitely wrote at the piano. I think he said something like "how else will I make happy mistakes"
People should always try variety. If it's really a mental exercise, try working out short sections in the mind alone before writing them.
Orchestration at your desk, composing at the piano.
I would say at the end all that matters is the output and that you created it in a way that you like?
Music is not just the vibrations, but the tactile feedback of the fingers and the keys....the action, the intervals.
I'd say there's one more good reason to compose/arrange on that instrument, for that you write the scores:
When you play the melody that it shall be, you can check how it can/will be played, so you might avoid difficult fingersettings. On the other side - if you want to make it difficult for the musician, that's the way to check it.
I’m not good at playing piano (primarily a violinist) but I often use it for writing harmonies and single melodic lines. Being able to visualize the voiceleading in that way leads me to much more interesting ideas that I otherwise would not have found. At the same time though, some of my best pieces have been composed entirely away from the piano and some without even Musescore playback to give me an idea of their sound. Music is about the result. The listener does not care how you wrote it, only whether or not it was enjoyable.
Intresting subject! But the notion that composing at the piano is something bad or amaturish is ridiculous. Sure, some composers have been able to compose entirely in their heads and that might seem impressing, but in reality it is nothing strange at all. Why is only amateuorish to sit at the piano? Why not to make skatches on paper or to use a computer?? The fact is that when it came to more complex passages even composers like Mozart did make sketches.
I have always done a mix of these things. I spontaniously started to compose when I was in my lower teens. I sat at the piano played and singed one voice simultanisously. I wrote down my motives and made sketches. I rarely wrote my pieces down at the end though, but that's just because I had problems to concentrate and I didn't relize the importance of having the music on paper. I also went for long walks and composed in my head.
I would say that it depends on what aspects of cpomosing we are talking about. While I wouldn't dream of doing it in a way that others say I should, I must point out that there are several aspects that is simply impossible to do on the piano. You can't "hear" the form of a piece on the piano! When it comes to melodies it is far better to sing. So... While I do a lot of work on the piano and some work on paper (I rarely write anything down at all while I am sitting at the piano - I'm not disciplined enough for that - I get distracted) and to a minor degree by listening on the playback on a software, I am simply not talented enough to compose entirely on the piano - I have to do some of the work in my head, simply because some aspects of composing way easier that way and I sometimes get distracted by being at the piano. Another of these aspects are proportions; they are easy to feel in your head or while you sing, but if you play you get distracted. The things I often do in my head is the spontanious melodies and large-scale form and I rarely change my original idea. The rest is technique! This means that knowing how I want a piace from start to finish in respect to melody and form may take me a couple of hours while realizing my form in practice always take my months!
Another of these things people talk about is harmony. There almost seems to be a conspiratorial conscensus among composers that you must start with the harmony! Well, I tell you folks that I don't care a shit about harmony - that is just technique! This is of course an exaggeration, but the thing is that I feel harmony intuitevly which means that focosing on it too much would just be a distraction for me before I know the bigger picture. Yet, composers rarely complain about my harmonies when I take lessons!
So... I guess, the most important thing to realize is that we are all different. :) What I would strongly advice against is to rely on the computer and on the playback too much! There are a lot of pitfalls there!
Scott Bradley (Tom and Jerry) and Carl Stalling (Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies) also wrote at their pianos. Look them up. Plenty of pictures.
I tried both honestly. I understand the scales, intervals and music theory concepts. But composing without a reference makes it lose the feel a bit. While composing on the piano, i can feel how the music go.
Ohhhhh the Stravinsky clip explains why Beethoven’s autographs are barely legible! He wrote with his mouth!!
I'm OK with composers working both ways. Stravinsky prefered piano because he was great pianist and it worked for him. Berlioz however wasn't pianist so he had his ways to write. Piano is not my first instrument so if I write down only what is possible for my hands it would limit what I write. Of course I use piano when I write some simple piano parts in my works but when writting for orchestra I really prefer to do the things 'in my head' and to sketch on 2-3 staves all the voices I 'hear' no matter if 10 fingers are enough for them.
I usually compose while looking at the computer with MuseScore.
The more senses one engages while composing ( e.g. a sense of touch, etc.), the better the outcome.
I am not a piano player, i am an electronic music producer. That being said, i just finished my daily 30 minute warmup on 12 keys of melodic minor scales.
I feel bad for my fellow producers who don't know how to play a keyboard. Drum pads are cool af tho.
I would also say certain music written in recent decades is detached not only from the instruments it is for, but also the listener in a way. But then again everyone is free to do what they choose arristically and deal with the consequences. I know that you simply cannot arrive at something like Tosca, Elgar's 1st symphony or Stravinsky's Rake's Progress by pure logic and abstraction. It's not about style, about being more melodic, it's about losing a link with feeling and humanity. So yes, try things out on a piano, a violin etc...
Chopin literally composed through improvisation at his piano. He attempted to transcribe his improvisations. Though there is no "correct" way to compose, you can compose in any way that works for the individual composer.
I once posted an answer to the question of why humans enjoy music. Where did it come from? It was a quick answer, not well thought out, but it contained something of what I believe. When we were simple cellular organisms floating in a primordial soup, we experienced waves and vibrations at the cellular level from our liquid environment. It's never left us. Music is the greatest form of human expression: its abstract, structural aesthetic and simultaneous visceral appeal. The OP like it so much she asked if she could use it in a paper she was writing. Lol.
As much as I love dismantling the old and tired dogma of conservatory class rooms, I’m afraid you go too far in the other direction. There are composers who worked completely without the piano with great success, including Hector Berlioz (who literally wrote the book on instrumentation and orchestration). The attitude of relying on the piano being a negative derives incidentally from that book, or more accurately it’s introduction by it’s editor in 1904, Richard Strauss. There you have one great composer criticizing the scoring of Brahms and Beethoven and Schumann and Mozart as “overly pianistic in nature”, the implication being their reliance on the piano makes their orchestral works sound pianistic, in the introduction to the book written by another composer who couldn’t compose at the piano. I will not deny that trying to enact some kind of dogma over the creative process is a fruitless exercise, but that goes both ways. Please, don’t try to sell the piano as the common denominator behind all great composers; it isn’t and saying it is only puts down those composers who choose not to work at the piano, or lack the keyboard skill to use it effectively.
Oh no, I don’t say I disagree, and composers who didn’t play piano were equally capable of composing great music, but they are the exception. Most composers play the piano, and I’m tired of the notion that using it as a tool to compose is something foolish or amateurish. I will admit the piano has issues when it comes to translating tones to orchestration as the piano cannot sustain notes like a string or wind instrument. I personally have a small organ in order to aid in composing for these instruments. I think the dogma of conservatories is almost oppressively too far in the other direction. I have no issue in recommending people use their instruments, if only to dispel the notion that composing away from the piano is the only true way to compose. You can do both, and I don’t want to state unequivocally that one is better. But I tend to gravitate more towards composers who composed at the piano. Although I use Berlioz’s treatise on orchestration now and then, it isn’t really the best book on the subject in my opinion, and I’m not that enthralled with his music. Richard Strauss is also a mixed bag in my opinion. Some of his works are unnecessarily difficult for musicians, and he was notoriously disagreeable. My great great grandmother an opera singer worked with him on the premiere of Elektra at the Semperoper, apparently he was so unbearably strict and dictatorial she almost ruined her voice trying to please him. I still love a lot of his music, but I don’t hold him in the same esteem as “pianistic” composers such as Beethoven, Ravel or Stravinsky. But that’s just my opinion.
Musica Universalis You are right, composing without the piano has been the exception for effectively all of the common practice period. I think this new age dogma stems from composers being able to rely on playback. Seeing as most people do not have perfect pitch and struggle to hear the complete soundscape in their inner ear, I think the piano was honestly a necessity for most until very recently. Aaron Copland, just to name one example, was actually ashamed on his reliance of the piano until he learned that Stravinsky (his musical idol in his formative years) did the same.
I admit Berlioz has always had a soft spot with me, and my rather high opinion of him I’ve found isn’t often shared by my colleagues, but if you cannot find much value in his treatise as a guide then I recommend rethinking it in terms of historical significance. Berlioz’s treatise was the first of it’s kind, nowhere near as comprehensive as the Adler or Piston books to be sure, but it is the very first instance of a composer taking the time to give advice on instrumental and orchestral writing in a treatise any composer with so much as internet access can consult. It most certainly is outdated, and nowhere near as thorough as it’s successors, but it represents the sum total of orchestral thinking in the 19th Century, especially once the additions by Strauss are considered.
Your account of Strauss is actually quite fascinating, albeit predictable knowing who Strauss was. Speaking from experience as an orchestral bassist, you are right on the money about his demands for the orchestra. Ein Heldenleben is in contention for the most difficult orchestral part in the repertoire for us, and knowing how I had to completely rethink my way of playing just to make the Heldenleben excerpts possible makes that point strike a chord with me. With that said, I will say that I’ve learned there is a difference between difficult and awkward writing, though there is a lot of overlap. I’d call Schoenberg, just as an example, awkward in his instrumentation. Parts are clumsy and a hassle instead of a healthy challenge, he often makes demands for a sound that are awkward and display an ignorance of the specific instrument, in both his tonal and atonal works (I know you watch Orchestration Online, and his video on touch 5 harmonics highlights my point perfectly). I struggle to put it into words, but Strauss always feels difficult in an athletic sense, in that the part is very demanding but in a way that is mostly idiomatic and comes off by way of technical mastery.
I’ll end my meanderings with a prediction; it seems to me as the backgrounds and the musical skills of composers continues to diversify in the 21st century, I suspect the specific details of the creative process are going to matter less and less. Berlioz said in his introduction that music has a habit of moving through history in dialectics, and I think that’s exactly what’s happening. In the baroque and classical periods being a composer and a keyboardist were practically synonymous, and I very seriously doubt any composer would have luck finding a job if they couldn’t entertain their aristocratic patrons on the keyboard (perhaps with a spot of improvisation). Now that composers no longer have to even be performers it’s swinging too far the other way by trying to separate a composer from their instrument, in essence trying to completely segregate your self-perception as a performer from your self-perception as a composer. In time I think it will mediate to what we both want, the freedom to choose for ourselves how we treat the creative process, the freedom to compose our music our way.
I'll bet you made this video by farting around at your computer
Do it both. No problem.
Funny how Stravinsky picks up the pencil and puts it in his mouth just like he smokes his cigarettes. 🤣
El error es creer que el instrumento es absolutamente necesario para componer. Solo es una de mil maneras de componer.
Who wants to write in their head?! I want to hear it! I guess I'm stupid because I actually enjoy listening at my DAW to what I'm cooking up with my digital orchestra! It's serious fun, and I couldn't begin to want to write if I had to do it silently. Sheeeesh. Pure hoity toity Stoicism! Since when do I earn respect for not hearing what I write! I don't need to prove my skills---the proof is in the pudding, folks. How does listening harm your skills? Stupid professors.
The FL Studio of old fr, Ravel couldn’t play much of his work as far as I know- he just wrote it
Neither can I, or at least others can do it far better. This doesn’t mean I don’t/can’t compose at my instrument.
I didn’t mention it in the video, but I think composing at your instrument is a very different thing than orchestrating what you’ve composed. You can put ideas together at the piano, but when it comes to orchestration you have to be able to “visualize” (for lack of a better word) this in your head, and this often happens away from your instrument.
@@MusicaUniversalis I’ve been producing using a computer for about 19 years, and playing piano etc 25 ish - I’m definitely familiar, I was just saying since I think it’s an interesting enough fact
This head composing is true for postmodern music, and they force how you should do. Do all ways, but not the old way....
If you are able to compose without touching your instrument, AND compose something you actually hear in your head and that you actually love (and not just composing following some abstract theoretical system) then I guess good for you. Do it! However, if you need to play to hear it, then play it and write it. There is nothing wrong at all with composing at the piano.
I trust a composer who hears his work.
this is such a ridiculous notion. So if I can paint a picture in my head does it mean I am not allowed to play with colors and shapes at the canvas? As a dance improviser I also improvise at the piano and the touch of keys is extremely important. For me composition is a dialogue with an instrument, it's not a mathematical equation in my head. This is the artistic and creative approach. Not the mere calculation or writing in my head in silence. I love to hear music, I love to play and experiment, I love to feel music with my body, see the dance of patterns on the keyboard. There would be no joy for me to compose just in my head.
Other composiers who worked at the piano: Haydn, Schumann, Chopin, Wagner, Debussy, Ravel, Webern.
Aren’t the photos of them at the piano just posed to look like they are working? Also how do you know those composers used a keyboard to compose,
not challenging you, im just curious:)
@@willbrooksy478 I know you what you mean, for example, the photo of Ravel at the piano. But I've read that these composers worked at the piano. Charles Rosen commented on the sad fact of the aged Haydn who was "too weak to go to the piano and work out his musical ideas". And Mozart wrote to his father that he had many musical ideas brewing but that he was awaiting the delivery of a piano so he could begin to compose. I think that Mozart could probably have managed without a piano, but the anecdote showed that he found hearing the music useful.
@@TheGloryofMusic what about Schumann and Wagner, what evidence do we have
Basic advice to composers: whatever works.
Great video. Now stop farting around. Lol
a) i use a MIDI keyboard, not a piano
b) i don't fart at the piano
conclusion: that blog post is bulls*it
lol
I think it's a silly way of trying to separate composers and performers. That's precisely why so much modern music doesn't work
I agree the piano can be used but there is a more important point that you miss a bit. The ability to audiate is crucial and overrelying on the instrument can become a big limitation if you don't train the ability to hear imagined sounds. So while it's fine as a part of the process, you shouldn't need the instrument to conceive ideas and write them down. Students must be encouraged with this, the idea that writing at a desk is for composing with "rules" is a huge strawman.
Recap : to be a professional, enjoy being amateur. I wanna be composer so
You can compose without a piano, and just make horrible modern music like the academy teaches to do so since 20th century, and there's that music who nobody will ever remember, I mean atonalism in the classical genre. There're some exceptions like Shostakovich who locked down himself on a house without good comfort in the middle of the forest, with just a candlebox and a thick roll of scores, and there is his music also, some beautiful, some less interesting, but all rather less feelings and more emotions, tense music...
I never compose in front of a piano. People pose for photos - composers, too!
There is no such thing as a dogmatic composition method in my opinion
Sorry, but composing at the keyboard is only for those who need to plunk keys asking "Are you the one I want? Are YOU the one I want...?" Bach ridiculed those who needed the keyboard as a crutch to composition, calling them "Knights Of The Keyboard".
Well, who among has the technical prowess of Bach? Regardless, what is the musical result, that is the part that actually counts. The process is the composers problem to solve anyway they see fit.
Yes that is the definition of a Klavierritter. But Bach was a master improviser was he not? There is a difference between modern composers who are taught to compose only at their desks without ever learning tools for improvisation. Bach assuredly spent more time at the keyboard than the “Clavierritter” he mocked. Imagine thinking one could compose like Bach before being able to improvise.
@@MusicaUniversalis I've always wondered why we don't teach more improvisation these days. All through the Baroque and Classical eras, it was a fundamental skill. If you could not improvise, you were probably not a composer. Hardly anyone teaches Partimento anymore, or practices _playing_ basso continuo on first sight. Even if you're not going to be composing "classical" music, these things seem like solid foundations for learning the most basic fundamentals of western music.. and who knows, if we taught these things rigorously (with actual hands-on playing) we might end up with another Bach or Mozart (or at least another Handle).
I was told that composing at a keyboard means that your lack creativity and rely on chance to find something that sounds good… really upset me and makes me feel awful
@@willbrooksy478 You'll feel better about yourself if you study hard and learn how to compose without consulting a keyboard instrument. Composing is a spiritual discipline, not a manual technique. The best way to learn how to do that is to simply compose at the desk without a keyboard, then play it at the keyboard to see if it is what you want. If not, keep trying until you reach the stage where what you are notating equals what you really want. It takes hard work and practice to do that but practice makes perfect.
i hear entire orchestras in my head, compositions that do not exist in reality. by the time i get to the staff paper it is gone forever. in my opinion it makes much more sense to use the piano to match the chord progression i hear, then put it on notation software, making it real. the complimenting melodies will change from moment to moment, capture the best ones and appreciate the others for what they are. it makes more sense to me to capture from infinite potential then to create something finite and copy it onto the software. basically, the notation software is my piano; the actual piano is there to remember something quickly while i write it down. this will most likely change as my piano skill improves.