Piano arrangement

lidevosvuotare27 wrote:

By the way, as far as you know, do you know any books on piano arrangement that are classically oriented? I have found some for organ but nothing for piano. Thanks

Regarding arrangement, perhaps it is worth opening an ad hoc topic, where maybe you can explain better what you mean. I will gladly give you my opinion on the matter; it is not at all trivial.

From my point of view, the arrangement does not depend on the instrument and the genre; the piano is just one of the colors. The fact that it is polyphonic (like the organ and other instruments where a minimum of polyphony holds up, such as vibraphone, guitar, etc.) and has a large range forces us to become aware of this peculiarity (but I think the same applies to others). But ultimately, it is a matter of instrumentation.

I don't know what goals you had set for yourself, but the first suggestion is to listen to and analyze many existing piano arrangements that you like, in order to grasp their salient aspects and make this art your own... which obviously cannot be limited to syntax or the instrument.

What kind of arrangement did you have in mind?

Gerardo wrote:

For the arrangement, it might be better to open an ad hoc topic, where perhaps you can explain better what you mean. I will gladly give you my opinion on the matter; it is not trivial at all.

undoubtedly it is a very vast issue, but I was wondering why one cannot find books on how to arrange a melody in a classical style (assuming that the arranger naturally already has a good knowledge of classical harmony and knows how to harmonize a melody well).

The piano arrangement books I have are for light music. Interesting but sometimes a bit banal, what becomes tiring in the long run is that arrangement is seen as a series of 'patterns' to be placed under a melody. In classical music, the arrangement 'merges' with the theme, almost as if it were a particular arrangement created specifically for that melody. I have searched far and wide, but it seems strange to me that entire treatises on orchestration have been written, yet nothing on piano arrangement.

Zazza wrote:

From my point of view, arrangement does not depend on the instrument and the genre; the piano is just one of the colors. The fact that it is polyphonic (like the organ and other instruments where a minimum of polyphony holds up, such as vibraphone, guitar, etc.) and has a large range forces us to become aware of this peculiarity (but I think the same applies to others). But ultimately, it is a matter of instrumentation.

I don't know what goals you had set for yourself, but the first suggestion is to listen to and analyze many existing piano arrangements by others that you like, in order to grasp their salient aspects and make this art your own... which obviously cannot be limited to syntax or the instrument.

What kind of arrangement did you have in mind?

Personally, I try to learn something from the classical style because it is the type of harmony that I have studied and understand. Clementi, for me, has an interesting style because the accompaniment parts have some polyphony but are not entirely contrapuntal. In Mozart or Czerny, it seems that the accompaniment is simpler, for example with the Alberti bass, which I know how to use well and which, honestly, I am tired of.

By 'arrangement', however, I do not mean just a matter of instrumentation, but also how to use the concept of variation—for example, by repeating a theme while changing dynamics, etc., or even by changing the structure itself, such as lengthening or shortening phrases.

In this sense, by 'arrangement' I mean more the modern meaning of it, rather than orchestration.

What you suggested, that is, to examine many arrangements that I like, I haven't done sufficiently yet, but thinking about it, you are right.

But if anyone is aware of books, etc., that have been written on the subject, please do not hesitate to let me know, thank you.... it seems a bit strange to me that no one has done so.

Put down like this Lidevosvuoaretutti27, I really think you need a composition course. It is no coincidence that great arrangers are, first and foremost, composers.

There are books that deal with harmony, counterpoint, orchestration, etc.; unfortunately, I fear I haven't fully understood the sense of CLASSICAL piano arrangement. If I understood correctly, but I really don't think so, you would want to take a melody and write an accompaniment "in the manner of"? (in this specific case, Clementi).

I don't simply want to put an accompaniment to a melody, I already know how to do that well.

I believe that composition has very little to do with arrangement; having a good theme and knowing how to harmonize it and knowing how to put it all together into a coherent musical structure does not mean knowing how to arrange......

composition concerns melody, harmony, and basic structure. Arrangement consists of how you present your piece. You can have the same melody, same harmony, same structure, and make 12 completely different versions of your piece, even if they are all in a classical style.

There are books that talk about harmony, counterpoint, orchestration, etc.;

i have already studied harmony and also some counterpoint, although with the latter the matter is not yet finished

unfortunately I fear I haven't fully understood the sense of CLASSICAL piano arrangement

well, I don't know what else to say....

anyway I realize that 'in Clementi's style' might not be clear at all.....when I say 'Clementi's style' I am referring to a type of accompaniment that, for example, is neither completely counterpoint, nor block chords, nor arpeggios, but a middle ground; for instance, it can be noticed in sonatina no. 36. I have always been interested in that type of single-note accompaniment, but much less predictable than other types of accompaniment. I think I need to get back to counterpoint, something I had to do anyway

If I understood correctly, you were struck by one of the textures that Clementi uses; the best way forward is to do an in-depth study of that style. The fact remains that Clementi's harmonic fabric is somewhat outdated.

http://www.edizionicurci.it/printed-music/scheda.asp?id=2371#ancora_top

Fundamental concepts of modern harmony

Dick GROVE

Harmony, arrangement, improvisation, composition and conducting

AbateFaria wrote:

If I understood correctly, you were struck by one of the textures used by Clementi; the best way forward is to delve deeper into that style. The fact remains that Clementi's harmonic fabric is somewhat outdated.

si, I think you found the right word, 'texture'. What is the analogous word in Italian? 'Tessitura' is something that has to do with the voice, a different thing, but the English word 'texture' defines what I mean, the way in which the piece is 'dressed'

As for Clementi's 'modernity', it is just someone else's opinion, so it doesn't worry me at all; I simply play and compose what I like, because if that's the case, then even Bach or Beethoven or Scott Joplin are not 'modern', yet their works are played

Also, I have never understood why Mozart's sonatas are so highly acclaimed and Clementi's are 'antiquated', given that not a few have said that Clementi even played better than Mozart. Not to take anything away from Mozart, for heaven's sake, but I cannot stand purism. That is the antiquated thing. Even Beethoven said that he liked Mozart's symphonies, not his sonatas, and that he considered Clementi a great master.

JamSession wrote:

http://www.edizionicurci.it/printed-music/scheda.asp?id=2371#ancora_top

Fundamental concepts of modern harmony

Dick GROVE

Harmony, arrangement, improvisation, composition and conducting

thanks but I already know the topics covered in Dick Grove's books like my multiplication tables... furthermore I am not talking about popular music styles

Texture management is the subject of the lower composition course; an arrangement manual is not needed, but rather a lot of analysis of masterworks.

Regarding the discussion on whether Clementi's syntax is current or not—though it would be the same if we were talking about Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Franck, etc.—I agree with Faria, and it is not even a subjective opinion. When they wrote, they used the texture of their time, but the contents were their own and contemporary (flourishes, syntax, articulations, etc.). To be clear, they were not pastists.

For example, one can compose in tonality without falling into past idioms or aesthetics distant from us. It is only a matter of credibility; if I have to choose between Clementi and his poor imitation, I will inevitably choose Clementi. That is why he is still performed (and listened to).

lidevosvuotare27 wrote:

not even Bach or Beethoven or Scott Joplin are 'current' and yet their works are played

Not today, but in their time, yes. You are a composer who writes today; it is as if Bach had written like Perotin, justifying himself by saying they were performed. These are two different things.

lidevosvuotare27 wrote:

Phen I never understood why Mozart's sonatas are so highly praised and Clementi's are 'antiquated', given that not a few have said that Clementi even played better than Mozart. Not to take anything away from Mozart, heaven forbid, but I cannot stand purism. And that is the antiquated thing. Even Beethoven said that he liked Mozart's symphonies, not his sonatas, and that he considered Clementi a great master.

Who said that? Honestly, it seems to me that you are making too much confusion between interpretative aspects and compositional ones. In general, if someone plays well, it doesn't mean they write equally well, and vice versa.

Turning back to the former, Faria said "Clementi's syntax is not very current," not so much in relation to Mozart but in relation to a composer writing in 2014.

Le beghe fra Mozart e Clementi (amesso che ce ne siano) sono un altro capitolo.

lidevosvuotare27 wrote:

thanks but I already know the topics covered in Dick Grove's books like my multiplication tables... furthermore, I am not talking about popular music styles

As has already been suggested to you, it might probably be useful for you to take a composition course. The piece for piano is one of the first things addressed, including different pianistic modules. If you are gifted in counterpoint, you will see that inserting contrapuntal lines within the accompaniment won't be complicated... as everyone used to do (including Mozart, it depends on the work, see the catalogue number, and the purpose of the work itself; is the galant style and its purposes present?).

Dante wrote:

To understand each other, they were not traditionalists.

Besides, it is a fashionable term... today. Any artist, through their own works, reflects the reality in which they live. Classicism is linked to historical "phenomena" and situations that are no longer current. Anything from the past can be reinterpreted, but not replicated... exactly as it was. Then, historical reconstructions and exercises in style are certainly made.

@lidevosvuotare27, seeing your passion for Clementi I am pointing out these 2 topics.

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/659-vi-piace-clementi

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/2756-muzio-clementi

Lidevosvuotare, in this workshop interesting ideas for your request might emerge

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/3532-partendo-da-una-melodia-2014/

You could compose a piano piece starting from that melody and play around with the textures, then compare them with the other workshop participants.

Dante wrote:

Texture management is the subject of the lower composition course; an arrangement manual is not needed, but rather a lot of analysis of masterworks.

Regarding the discussion on whether Clementi's syntax is current or not—though it would be the same if we were talking about Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Franck, etc.—I agree with Faria, and it is not even a subjective opinion. When they wrote, they adopted the texture of their time, but the contents were their own and contemporary (flourishes, syntax, articulations, etc.). To be clear, they were not traditionalists.

For example, one can compose in tonality without falling into past idioms or aesthetics distant from us. It is only a matter of credibility; if I have to choose between Clementi and his poor imitation, I will definitely choose Clementi. That is why he is still performed (and listened to).

Texture management is the subject of the lower composition course

tou say? who knows... because then, with all the composition books I have piled up—in fact, all those I have found, including those by Schoenberg, Goetschius, and many others—none of them actually explains anything at all about texture; they all focus on structure. Perhaps you possess some that I am unaware of. Let me know which ones, as I would gladly take them too.

Regarding the discussion on whether Clementi's syntax is current or not—though it would be the same if we were talking about Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Franck, etc.—I agree with Faria, and it is not even a subjective opinion.

Look, I will be very honest: with all due respect, on this matter, I don't give a damn about your opinion, nor about that of so-and-so.

In my opinion, someone who makes choices based on ridiculous parameters like 'currency' is a weak mind, because it means they make music based on things that have nothing to do with music... and fortunately, I don't have this problem. And it's not ignorance, because I have also studied the history of music, and I perfectly understand the difference, at a technical-musical level (or 'syntax' as you call it), between the Classical period and 20th-century music or whatever you want. But music is the art of sound, not the art of 'currency'... if that were the case, there are groups that specialize in Renaissance repertoire; do you think there are people who, myself included, buy their CD because their 'syntax' is current?

Real musicians don't give a damn about 'currency' and all these useless worries... they simply follow their desire and their artistic tendency, even if it seems strange or out of place to others... just because you don't understand why I am attracted to Clementi's style doesn't mean you have actually understood anything. If someone is attracted to the style of Franck, or whoever, they should study it, and if they don't do so for ridiculous reasons like 'currency', in my opinion, they should give their head a good whack against the wall.

For me, it isn't important what is current; I am not trying to enter some random charts or to please anyone; perhaps the only reason I am happy I didn't go to the conservatory is precisely that I wasn't influenced by all that pomposity, although I admit I regret not going for all the other reasons I find extremely useful.

Great Clementi, I like him very much

cromatismo wrote:

Not today, but in their time, yes. You are a composer writing today; it is as if Bach had written like Perotin, justifying himself by saying they were performed. They are two different things.

Who said that? Honestly, it seems to me that you are making too much confusion between interpretative aspects and compositional ones. In general, if someone plays well, it doesn't mean they write just as well, and vice versa.

Returning to the previous point, Faria said "Clementi's syntax is not very current," not so much compared to Mozart, but compared to a composer writing in 2014.

The squabbles between Mozart and Clementi (assuming there are any) are another chapter.

Who said that? Honestly, it seems to me that you are making too much confusion between interpretative aspects and compositional ones. In general, if someone plays well, it doesn't mean they write just as well, and vice versa.

What nonsense. First, there are many professionals who still write ragtime pieces, and people like me who buy their sheet music. Do you know how to write ragtime? Second, it seems that you also have the faculty to decide what kind of composer I should be, and, nothing less, even what Bach would have done in a parallel universe.

Who said that?

I'll tell you, having read biographies written by people authoritative both musically and historically, whose existence you probably don't even know, since they haven't been translated and since you probably read books in only one language, unlike me.

Honestly, it seems to me that you are making too much confusion between interpretative aspects and compositional ones. In general, if someone plays well, it doesn't mean they write just as well, and vice versa.

Look, honestly, your head is full of nonsense; if you are telling me that Clementi didn't write well, your situation is serious. At 13, Clementi had mastered various specialized areas of music, including the art of counterpoint, and wrote masses with considerable skill, and if all the history he made afterwards counts for nothing to you, it's obvious that the conservatory has gone to your head.