How to compose music on the piano

For me the title is wrong, the content of the topic is not how one composes at the piano. In reality, a theme is how one composes; eventually, there is the aspect of orchestration at the piano.

Knowing how to harmonize a melody (unreleased) in any style is an atom of the compositional world.

... anyway, I appreciate the effort

I find the improvisational aspects, of following the ear and simplicity—I would say essentiality to be more precise—to be important. However, the two words used regarding treating a melody all point towards banality (not simplicity), an absence of improvisational exemplification, and if following the ear means getting more likes on YouTube... then we're done.

In effect, it is not understood what these over 100 pieces of ("per", better) piano are or who they are for... there are composers like Webern who, with 30 pieces, rewrote a century of music.

With sympathy

...I would say that Natan has hit a sore spot; everyone is free to do what they want, but in this life there are still people like György Kurtág who have never taught anything or created misleading videos, deluding anyone into thinking they can compose.

... let's just say it would be wonderful if he taught, but rightly so, He thinks about writing

If I may, I would like to shift the discussion slightly onto another plane. I should preface this by saying that I am not a composer. I am merely a piano graduate (or rather, today one would say a degree holder, under the old system) and therefore I have only passed the exam in complementary harmony, as all pianists do. Subsequently, I studied a 4th-year program in principal harmony, which I did not actually sit for. Both in the complementary and principal courses, it is a "fairly" primitive thing to know how to harmonize a melody or a bass line, first in writing and then, perhaps, at the piano, always observing the main, few, and "sound" rules that are part of our DNA as musicians (no parallel fifths and octaves, the third is not omitted and not doubled, the fifth can be doubled and can be omitted, etc.). Then we discover that there can be a chord on every degree of the scale and that with this sufficient little "game," we can use the "harmonized scale"... then we can evaluate and classify seventh chords, framing everything within a richer harmony, etc. If we venture into the sonorities of the '1900s'... everything even shatters; harmonic hierarchies and monarchies fall. The tonic is no longer the King, the dominant is no longer the Prime Minister, the third of the chord (which decides the mode) is no longer the Queen, and... the leading tone... is no longer the Sovereign's lover. Even in other application modes of modern harmony, such as jazz, ninths, thirteenths, and so on appear, which season the dish of dated melodies revisited for the umpteenth time. Even in Blues, some notes of the melody become uncertain, oscillating, dancing, vibrating, especially in the human voice and/or in instruments with non-fixed pitch. Music, as Massimo Mila metaphorically describes it—as a young girl with all legs and few curves—becomes an interesting mature woman, with great charm and elegance.

This boring preface of mine is to argue that we are in an era of Music where one must renounce the "banal" and truly not confuse it with "simplicity." Various Allevi and Einaudi think they are imposing a simple Music accessible to everyone, and those who approach their music finally find it accessible. Obviously, one learns quickly and thinks that banality and the exasperated repetition of musical figures finally open new horizons. In airports, in stations, at all the Musikmessen in Frankfurt... one often hears people trying to play Einaudi's "waves"... I would almost say, observing the pianist, with an effort and a "transport" similar to that produced by a Chopin ballad. This is a widespread and cunningly commercial phenomenon: making people believe they are saying something easy and interesting, directed mainly at those approaching Music for the first time. I see several socio-cultural disadvantages in these operations. First of all, a distancing from true knowledge of Music and Art. A confusion sown among new generations of aspiring musicians and the public. A refusal to understand or at least to approach the study of musical structures, in whatever mode they present themselves (classical, pop, rock, jazz, etc.), in order to embrace precisely "easy banality."

One must consider the necessity of having the "tools," the implements, and the knowledge to use them available. Therefore, it is difficult or almost impossible to suggest to a simple "music lover" how to conclude a composition, how to manage it, or how to start it, etc. It is not enough to apply a recipe or a sequence of operations; just as to pilot an airplane, it is not enough to have a pilot near us telling us which buttons and levers to use to bring that "beast" down... without risking getting hurt. Instead, I hope for an ever-increasing approach to study and to the Masters who can transmit notions and knowledge (even if not always strictly academic) and, above all, who can instill and transmit, despite the "do-it-yourself" attitude, their precious experiences.

Do not hold it against me for these "established" convictions of mine. Thank you for reading me for so long.

Happy studying to all

It's been quite a while since I've been on the forum due to decidedly intense work problems; in the evening when I returned home, the last thing I wanted to see was the computer. I am gradually reading all the discussions that I have fallen behind on. On many of them I did not intervene because they seemed quite exhausted to me, but on this discussion, I would also like to have my say...

I believe that this is simply not the right place to propose such a "tutorial."

Personally, I believe that composing music is not "sitting at the piano and looking for notes that go well together," and I say this without being a composer but as a person of sound logic who does not believe in fairy tales: with nothing, nothing is done; all things done at a certain level require study and commitment, and the concept one wants to convey is not valid even if one tries to scribble down a few chords to make the hit song of the moment. Not by chance, even the most indecent authors write musical sketches that are then passed to professional arrangers, and that is where they take shape. I do not believe it is possible to do high-level things without having studied, but merely by sitting at the piano "looking for notes" that might please the ear. It does not occur to me that in history (I am not speaking specifically of music history but of human history in general) anyone has ever conceived something important without researching and dedicating years of their life to it. Even Mozart had to study composition heavily with two different Masters, and if he had to do it, perhaps this is necessary!

A person cannot improvise as a mechanic without even knowing how an engine works, just as a pianist cannot improvise as a concert performer having played only a few notes.

In life, sacrifice is needed; that is why I find these videos very sterile in which they want to communicate to the interlocutors "how to play the piano," "how to tune a piano," "how to compose." We now live in a world where all information is at our fingertips, and by reading a paragraph of Wikipedia, one immediately and automatically thinks they are educated on everything, like professionals. We live in the period of exemplification, where everything is simple. Repairing an engine, tuning a piano, learning to play an instrument... none of these things is possible through a video that does not allow for two-way communication; I have repeated these concepts millions of times in my videos and I will not contradict myself or pretend nothing happened just because it is inconvenient to say it to a forum member.

A person who barely knows how an engine works, if they try to redo the cylinder head, can only cause worse damage; we must stop with this farce that everything can be done simply because it is not true. You don't build a skyscraper without having any foundation in building engineering; you cannot do an industrial electrical system without having studied advanced electrical engineering. Everything we use today that simplifies our lives so much was not born from those who sat down doing the easy things. The computer we use to write above is a set of extremely complex electronic devices that were not put there at random because they looked nice to whoever was looking at them, trying to see if powering them up made them do their job; the airplanes that allow us to cover enormous distances in a few hours, which previously were covered by ships in dozens of days, were not created by trying to attach two long things at will to a fuselage. I don't see why music should not fall into the same logic in the same way. And let's not make the mistake of thinking that Einaudi or Yiruma or Allevi would be unable to write more complex things. They don't do it mainly due to marketing choices. Why break my head writing something complex that would take so much time and so much energy, only to end up not selling even a single copy, when there is a mass of ignorant nothing-doers like goats to whom, by submitting a repetitive 4-note theme, I can earn millions of euros a year?

I believe this video would have more traction in some other place, perhaps in forums frequented by non-academics or even better by beginners; certainly not in a forum where the majority of members come from the academic world because the content seems decidedly anti-academic to me; here it seems to me that we are precisely in the case where at a conference of scientists one wants to pass off as good a mathematical theory judged to be futuristic (but only by the person presenting it) being based on addition and subtraction because "simplicity is the key to beauty." It could also be a truly futuristic theory, but I want some more motivation than the simple explanation linked to the fact that it was conceived.

only with additions and subtractions. Even General Relativity presents a formula of incredible elegance and simplicity (I am not referring to the very famous e=mc^2, that is special relativity), but behind it certainly there are no sums and subtractions; and above all, it is unapproachable for anyone who does not have very solid foundations in physics and mathematics (once again, we return to sacrifice).

If everything were within everyone's reach, then schools would not exist, there would be no need to study because whoever you ask will tell you that music knows no rules, the same old tired arguments, repeated over and over, which however are always mathematically proposed to me by the same people: people who have never opened a music book, who have never listened to anything outside of the commercial music of their time, people totally ignorant of the subject; could it be a coincidence? I don't think so.

I also listen to everything, and I like all music, but I know how to differentiate, because my musical culture—but more generally my ear—does not stop at Vasco Rossi. I have listened from Gregorian compositions to Xenakis and Berio, moving on to Vasco Rossi, Corona, and Tribal House music.

No one is able to objectively justify why Ligabue is not up to the level of Beethoven; this too is a tired argument, in the same way that Yiruma should not be up to the level of Mozart. I believe one should just apply common sense. Mozart's music has lived for 200 years; will it be the same for Yiruma's music? We cannot know, but it is certain that Yiruma's music reaches the ears of our generation more easily because it is a generation that has not exercised its ear to listen to anything else and has never made an effort to learn, because as I said before, we are in the era of 'everything immediately' without effort, but some things must be worked hard for, and this video seems to me the emblem of this reasoning.

Forgive my frankness, but you published a public post and just as you are willing to accept praise, you must also be willing to accept criticism; criticism that, as I understand it, has upset almost everyone (evidence that strengthens my reasoning regarding the inadequacy of the place where you decided to post that video), but this is a free place where you have all the rights to post your video, just as I can say that I do not agree even with a concept expressed in that video.

I'll make it shorter Simone, free advertising to scavenge a couple of Likes (maybe!)

Generally speaking, I agree with all the comments, but in particular, I feel the need to make a clarification regarding Simone's. It seems, only on the surface, that pop music cannot be "judged," but it is possible. In fact, comparing Beethoven to such a Lazzeroni is a sterile exercise, but certainly... such a Lazzeroni can be evaluated by comparing him to those who make music of his genre; in effect, as my grandfather would have said, "he must have eaten a lot of bread [he's been through a lot]." I say this because, aside from the 4 notes of the melody... in which one can glimpse a certain interest from a pop point of view, the rest is embarrassing.

The worst Baglioni is worth a thousand times the "stylistic exercise" proposed... not to mention the "educational" content of the video. Content?

There are those who touch it softly...

it may seem to minimize in a "reductive" way, but I believe one must have models. And the best model, even more so than ecstatic listening or analytical reading, is playing repertoire music seriously for years. At that point you have models and you work on them, in geostationary orbit..