Piano arrangement

cromatismo wrote:

The piece for pf is one of the first things to be tackled, including the different pianistic modules.

ah well, so I must deduce that many have written books on composition, but none for the piano, much less in the style of Clementi, because it's not current, and anyway if you want to write for the piano you either go to a conservatory or nothing. Well at least I finally understood, thanks for the clarifications

AbateFaria wrote:

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.

gia', I had already seen it but thank you anyway for pointing it out. To tell the truth, I had already thought about it, but now I think it wouldn't be a good idea for me or for everyone to be part of it... the problem is that many people confuse technical judgments with subjective judgments on style etc., and it is something very common especially with those who teach; some time ago I also took private lessons from a composer, and after he told me that I write in an antiquated manner (surprise), I abandoned the lessons.

So thank you anyway, but I don't think it would be a good thing because who knows what kind of discussion would arise.... better not

Anyway, thank you nonetheless, Faria

I also take this opportunity to thank Frank and Simone, who even though I do not know personally, seem to me to be truly excellent people, very democratic and genuine. I am not saying that the others are my enemies, certainly not, everyone has their own opinion, but frankly it seems to me that we are all wasting time; unfortunately I need it for practice, I have a lot to catch up on, I am trying never to go below 3 hours a day, I would like to do 6 but with the internet I will never be able to, so I must eliminate it almost completely.

I thank Frank and Simone again and everyone who has given me positive advice. Bye

lidevosvuotare27, you started well, and now you've burned yourself out in an instant.

The problem is not in the substance but in the form, in the way you expressed your thought.

Those who know me know that I am not very diplomatic, but what some users wrote to you isn't actually that scandalous,

I don't mean especially the reference to a way of making music (composing in this case) which, yes, can be misunderstood, and on this I partly agree with you, defining it as an outdated "model", using as a point for "reflection" the fact that nowadays writing in a certain style (and if this is what was precisely and clearly intended, those who replied to you are not entirely wrong) is a bit outdated, if the result (not the goal one sets for oneself) is to re-propose a model we already know.

I also don't agree with the fact that the phrase "if someone composes in such a way that the works are a poor copy of what Mozart did, etc..." is used all too often, just as an example, because it's not necessarily true; one can also compose without taking (even if one may be partly influenced by it or not, more or less) one or more model composers, and still do what they like and feel, without thereby defining oneself (when it happens) as someone who has a personal style that does not refer to anyone in particular, because it is nonetheless difficult—not impossible, but difficult—to be immune to everything, even unconsciously. That being said, think about what would have happened if someone had replied to you the way some replied to me in another forum a few years ago, even saying that what I wrote (and still write, I think) made no sense, that in the hierarchy of those who said it, it was in last place after music (defined by him as) beautiful and ugly.

It is inevitable that now someone (workshops aside) will ask you to let them listen to something, because when one starts from certain premises, diplomacy fades slightly and a bit of "impatience" takes over.

I repeat, I am not saying this to justify you, nor the others; everyone has their reasons for asserting certain things, but the main question that could be asked now is: why are advice sought, perhaps approaching in an empathetic and calm way, if then as soon as someone begins—not to offend, but to give their opinion without it being law or the only way to see and understand things—this impatience enters the play and, in part, nervousness is noticeable? Then either one starts off angry and asserts things they believe in, even if clashing with everyone, or it's "not worth it" to start out "docile" and then reveal such a firm position.

Until a few years ago, I didn't have much sympathy for rules; this was also due to people I met in my "extremely long" journey, which isn't even really a musical journey,

people who, unlike others who showed passion and a lack of prejudice, or at least ideas that weren't too rooted and personal, based themselves, somewhat as you say, on some notions and nothing more, perhaps speaking based on something they were taught but did not deepen, remaining convinced of such assertions, ideas, preconceptions, idealisms, etc. Then even after some blows, I felt an increasing need to understand, which is increasingly difficult because the right moment has passed, and you feel it, but that doesn't mean for this reason I won't write how I feel like writing; I do so, however, with the care of trying to contemplate personal need with a minimum of technical concreteness, as much as I can.

Look, I don't care if I am told it is sad to write in a way that other composers have already brought to the highest levels, it's clear that whether now or forever, I cannot and will not be able to; this doesn't mean one settles, but that this is what they feel like doing, so I understand what you mean, and what many mean, except that in some people reasoning prevails, in others instinct (which annoys many), then there is personal experience, one's own life path, and these are things that influence everything one thinks, says, and does.

As far as I am concerned, the most difficult thing, even if some things perhaps will never be known, because for many reasons, if you cannot improve, you will not be able to know if you would have been capable of doing something or not, doing it well or not, making a masterpiece or not, is accepting one's own limits; I am someone who accepted them upfront, and this means that as I was saying a moment ago, I will never know where I could have reached; the only awareness I have is that I cannot study as I would like, and time stretches in an impressive way compared to those who can and are able; mine is not a complaint, it is a fact because I live my life and I know how it is, others"

they have theirs.

ah, anyway a couple of final things, Dante:

Dante wrote:

To understand each other, they were not traditionalists.

but what nonsense, evidently all the superficial study you have done has not taught you that even all the best composers learned from others and were inspired by others, subsequently adding their own ideas and developing them naturally. Many of Beethoven's works were influenced both by those of Mozart and by those of Clementi, and there are many other examples of many historical composers. What on earth are you talking about?

Even Mozart said that whoever thinks his Art came easily to him is completely mistaken, because there isn't A single influential composer whom he did not study. Perhaps you are comparable to Mozart in that you

Texture management is the subject of the lower composition course

Let me explain myself better, and for the last time, then we'll close this matter: I have already written piano pieces, which musically satisfy me fully (something I couldn't say about my music until a few years ago, because I've been working hard at it) and for the most part I also improvised them and at the same time I knew exactly what I was doing. I didn't say that I don't know how to write a piece for piano, and I mentioned Clementi for his style in the accompaniment of the piece in question; I chose an easy example because I didn't want to complicate things in my questions. My pieces are musically and structurally coherent and musical, because I have done my own studies and trained my ear in ways that they probably haven't even taught you at the conservatory, and I have received praise and compliments on my talent also from people whose experience is beyond doubt: from a composer and composition teacher, then a musicologist and composition teacher, and not one, but three concert pianists with much experience. All of them were truly surprised not only because I have my own ideas but by the fact that 90 percent of what I know I learned on my own, and I learned it well. In my discussion, I only wanted to know if anyone has written a book about composing directly on the piano, because why not, seeing as hundreds of books have been written on the piano for every type of thing, from technique to improvisation, accompaniment, etc.

I didn't say that I didn't know how to compose; I meant that I want to create a more classical accompaniment but one that is sufficiently unpredictable and more contrapuntal, precisely a mixture between block harmonies and counterpoint, and Clementi came to mind. I didn't say that I only listen to Clementi.

Look, I don't know how you sound and compose, I only hope that your music isn't at the absurd level of the nonsense you are saying. The problem you have is that you have a conservatory mentality where piano composition is 'the subject of the lower piano course'. What ridiculous nonsense, piano composition ranges from the cucaracha played with only one finger, to all the extremely difficult compositions created by absurdly technical minds. Conclusion: texture management is the subject of the lower composition course, material that I already know well, and in fact I was talking about more advanced levels, not the lower ones.

What a waste of time. Thanks for nothing

Petty, look, enough, I haven't even read what you wrote, nor will I read any future responses, I am fed up with wasting time; yesterday I lost hours choking on a stupid question that seemed clear and simple enough to me, but it would have been better to watch the wallpaper peeling off the wall day by day

sans rancor, goodbye, the closed mentality of a little conservatory student is not for me; I thought there were musicians here, there are some, but I see that many of you are stuck with a mentality full of ridiculous bullshit, like the 'confusion regarding interpretation' (who knows what the hell that meant? I am not interpreting anything, I am not an interpreter, I am simply writing music in a style that I am studying because I am simply interested in it, I like it for various reasons and that's it; who cares if so-and-so at the conservatory approves? To me, absolutely nothing).

Keep going like this, goodbye

And indeed it shows that you haven't read what I wrote, feel free to help yourself if you want.

I summarize the whole matter in one word: "credibility."

In my opinion, one is truly a composer if they are credible. Credibility is given by a series of factors that is too varied to be reducible to just one. The positive thing is that, with the proper nuances, it is an objective matter and that a score is perfectly capable of telling a story without too many words.

For this reason as well, composition workshops are means to tell about oneself and show one's own point of view (which is slightly different from telling it in words).

lidevosvuotare27 wrote:

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 necessarily 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,

I think you don't know how to read (at least Italian. Just as an aside, I read in 4 different languages, so the good news is that God exists, but relax, it's not you) since I wrote: In general

What does Clementi have to do with it? Moreover, I find him to be an interesting composer.

Anyway, you have decided to stay in your own little bubble (you have read opinions different from yours, you are not alone in the world), so good luck.

Frank wrote:

The positive thing is that, with the necessary nuances, it is an objective matter and that a score is perfectly capable of telling its story without too many words.

Fortunately, otherwise a Beethoven score would be worth as much as that of the latest composition student.

From my point of view, I acknowledge that growing up is always difficult. As long as there is time, there is hope.

lidevosvuotare27 wrote:

perhaps the only reason why I am happy I didn't go to the conservatory

Perhaps it is the only reason why you should have gone there; teaching can only deal with past things and not present ones, which one doesn't even know if they will have a future.

It doesn't take much to access the ministerial programs:

COMPOSITION

Ministerial programs - Completion exams

I.

Completion exams for the lower course

Four-part harmonization, with imitations, of a given bass.

Harmonization of a melody for voice and piano.

Composition of a short piece for piano on a given theme.

For each of these tests, a maximum time of 10 hours will be given.

Oral examination on harmony theory.

II.

Program for the completion exams of the middle course

Composition of a 4-part fugue on words and a theme assigned by the Commission to be performed within a maximum time of 18 hours.

Composition of double-chorus counterpoint on a chant assigned by the Commission to be performed within a maximum time of 18 hours.

Composition of a romance without words, for piano, on a theme assigned by the Commission, to be performed within a maximum time of 12 hours.

Piano reading of an ancient aria chosen by the Commission from those of the nineteenth century.

Culture tests:

a) extemporaneous essay of modulations at the piano;

b) written analysis of a fugue or other vocal contrapuntal composition chosen by the Commission, to be performed within a maximum time of 6 hours;

c) oral discussion on matters of harmonic and contrapuntal nature.

As you can see, there is everything that interests you and which in fact is not what professional composers typically do today. Therefore, your [statement] sounds only like prejudice or the type: The fox that cannot reach the grapes says they are sour.

Books on textures exist; there are thousands of works by composers to analyze, know, and explore. It is not pop music that can be dismissed with a hundred little pages of a book.

lidevosvuotare27 wrote:

ah, anyway a couple of last things, Dante:

what nonsense, evidently all the superficial study you have done has not taught you that even all the best composers learned from others and were inspired by others, subsequently adding their own ideas and developing them naturally. Many of Beethoven's works were influenced both by those of Mozart and by those of Clementi, and there are many other examples of many historical composers. What on earth are you talking about?

Even Mozart said that whoever thinks his Art came to him easily is completely mistaken, because there isn't A single influential composer that he did not study. Perhaps you are comparable to Mozart in that you

Texture management is the subject of the lower composition course

Let me explain myself better, and for the last time, then we'll close this matter: I have already written piano pieces, which musically satisfy me fully (something I couldn't say about my music until a few years ago, because I've been working hard at it) and for the most part I also improvised them and at the same time knew exactly what I was doing. I didn't say that I don't know how to write a piece for piano, and I mentioned Clementi for his style in the accompaniment of the piece in question; I chose an easy example because I didn't want to complicate things in my questions. My pieces are musically and structurally coherent and musical, because I have done my own studies and trained my ear in ways that they probably haven't even taught you at the conservatory, and I have received praise and compliments on my talent also from people whose experience is unquestionable: from a composer and composition teacher, then a musicologist and composition teacher, and not one, but three concert pianists with much experience. All of them were truly surprised not only because I have my own ideas but by the fact that 90 percent of what I know I learned on my own, and I learned it well. In my discussion, I only wanted to know if anyone has written a book about composing directly on the piano, because no, seeing as hundreds of books have been written about the piano for every type of thing, from technique to improvisation, accompaniment, etc.

I didn't say that I didn't know how to compose; I meant to say that I want to create an accompaniment that is more classical but sufficiently unpredictable and more contrapuntal, precisely a mixture between block harmonies and counterpoint, and Clementi came to mind. I didn't say that I only listen to Clementi.

Look, I don't know how you sound or compose, I only hope your music isn't at the absurd level of the nonsense you are saying. The problem you have is that you have a conservatory mentality where piano composition is 'the subject of the lower piano course'. What ridiculous nonsense, piano composition ranges from the cucaracha played with only one finger to all the extremely difficult compositions created by absurdly technical minds. Conclusion: texture management is the subject of the lower composition course, material that I already know well, and in fact I was talking about advanced levels, not lower ones.

What a waste of time. Thanks for nothing.

ah, anyway a couple of last things, Lidevosvuotare:

1. We challenge that Beethoven was influenced by Mozart; they were contemporaries but perfectly recognizable... it's not that they imitated Bach, they drew from Bach, which is different.

2. You didn't just ask for a text, you took shots at everything that wasn't Clementi

3. You started by saying you wanted to delve deeper into Clementi, and the only place that can let you do that is the conservatory.... or equivalent paths. You tried it and it went badly for you, you tried a composition teacher and it went badly... so then you feel authorized to lump everyone together. You are a populist, as your music probably is by reflection.

If you need a text, just ask for it, but if you bring in other aspects, you cannot expect people to read your ramblings without saying anything.

I am very far from the academic world, a passionate self-taught person. I have read things that are very agreeable (all of them, except for the remarks made by the topic author).

In practice, the opinion of the person attending the conservatory does not matter (even worse if it is a student, but it becomes useful if they give compliments), but if those who attended it or teach there provide positive feedback, it counts.

I haven't read the replies written to my previous response, because otherwise who knows how many discussions would arise, but I just wanted to add one more thing that I believe is important: I wrote what I wrote about the compliments I received from the people I mentioned before, but I didn't mean to say that I am Jesus Christ; I am not deluding myself as I am sure I interpreted those people's compliments correctly: I am doing well and I will continue to do well IF I keep myself busy, and there is plenty of work to do, but it is also true that I am sure I have done at least a good half of it. I am not deluding myself, I still have much to learn, but it is also true that I don't overestimate anyone, nor do I underestimate anyone; I would certainly never underestimate someone like Clementi, and it makes me laugh thinking that anyone today could do what he did. Something similar happened in a discussion about Czerny, so I think with me it's a recurring theme that is better to avoid. In my opinion, just because composer trends or public tastes change, it doesn't mean anything at all; the fact remains that I seriously doubt there is anyone who has gone through an intense apprenticeship like Clementi's. A master remains a master, and this type of master was not the kind of 'master' who would lounge at the piano for an hour a day with all the comforts available today; in Clementi's time life was much harder, yet look at what they accomplished, often within just a few years. I only accept criticism of any one of these masters from another true master, and from no one else. Period. In my opinion, even someone like Stravinsky said senseless nonsense, like what he said about Vivaldi... meanwhile Vivaldi was born many generations earlier and his music is studied even by Bach, and today who buys a record of Stravinsky's music? The Four Seasons seems to sell much more; they've even made pizzas out of it.

But again, again, I forgive Stravinsky for the thing about Vivaldi, at least he was Stravinsky. So the conclusion is: I am not trying to be an avant-garde musician, nor do I care to be; I am just exploring styles and trends that I like, simply because I like them. That's all. A musician needs no justification, and certainly not a socio-cultural one. Then, I'm not even saying that Clementi is contemporary... he isn't, and everyone knows this, myself included, but it doesn't mean that just because he isn't contemporary, one must necessarily ignore him. If that's the case, the reality is that no one creates a completely new style... as Don Sebesky wrote in his arrangement book, a new style is actually just an old style with slightly new things added.

Unless one is Schoenberg or someone like that, the fact remains that even Schoenberg had studied everything that came before him

But people (not everyone) aren't stupid or insensitive; it's not necessarily true that the opinion of authoritative composers or people in the industry is more important than other people who write music, especially regarding the primary aspect, namely the first impression, which in some cases, let's be clear, "comes in handy," because even if someone who (as you assume) criticized you and perhaps "underhandedly" doesn't understand anything, gives you compliments, doesn't "their judgment" also hold value in that case?

I don't really believe it, because compliments please everyone; then there are those who "analyze" them, weigh them, and do not allow themselves to be influenced (precisely) by demonstrations of "esteem" from people they do not consider prepared, with guts and so on, and on one hand this can also be right, understandable is a better term, but at this point we would return to the double interpretation, ambivalence indeed, between opinion, judgment (a word, a term that many see as discriminatory and prone to a priori undervaluation, when on the contrary it is a term that also contemplates positive aspects), impression, evaluation of the simple listener (who perhaps has their own ability to perceive a striking musicality, but not because of this is a graduate) and of the person who knows the subject very well.

It is indubitable that the latter carries more weight, but the moment we speak of taste, of sensitivity, of impressions, etc., everything reduces (or expands) to a personal evaluation.

What do I do, if to a person I say "to me you are just stupid" (then maybe I am more of an idiot myself), and 2 seconds later they compliment me, does this make me change my mind and grovel?

Sure, there might be a bit of embarrassment, but how do we deal with that?

I have received different feedback from people involved in music: a professional composer; an amateur; a conductor; a pianist; a harpsichordist; and without specifying now from whom I received a particular judgment or opinion, the words were: you have taste; it is senseless music; in my opinion they are valid ideas; I don't understand them and I don't enjoy playing them; I like them; you have talent; you don't know how to write for piano, but you can tell you've studied it a bit, because you couldn't play like that if you hadn't studied somehow; for me, you can complete piano studies in 5 years. Who should I listen to? What is certain is that I don't have the emotional drive I once had, I have never seriously studied an instrument, let alone composition since I still have to start progressions. Perhaps I will never know my limits, because you can only know them if you have solid foundations; you start from there and see what you can do, but if you start with limitations and also with few stimuli (for various reasons), it is difficult even to improve. The judgments or opinions are varied, and usually the most encouraging ones come from instrumentalists, the others from composers, and it's no coincidence, though there are exceptions involving professional composers and teachers, but that doesn't mean what I write gains value; on the contrary, I feel all too often that it is not going well.One thing I have always liked regarding the opinions of a composition teacher is that he never told me 'well done', but on the contrary, instead of making me believe that I was writing or had written something truly good, he pointed out that you must develop your ideas better, and this is something that (for me) is closely linked to lived experience; it is inseparable. If your life has never been and is not regular, it is unlikely that everything else can be, I experience this firsthand.

From my point of view, there has been a complete misunderstanding; a composer has no problems writing with a historicized language because their training allows them to write however they wish, whether it be Bach, Vivaldi, Clementi, or Beethoven.

Therefore, a book on Clementi is not necessary for the simple fact that if someone is a composer, they have no difficulty grasping the stylistic elements of another composer and "imitating" them.

Now, someone might say; "if one is not yet a composer, perhaps they need a text to write like Clementi". No, texts are designed and aimed at creating composers; writing like Clementi is implicitly included in the composition course (wherever it may be held).

Consequently, someone has indicated study paths to become composers, and among other things, felt obliged to remind that one of the first things addressed (in Italy) is precisely an eighteenth-century language.

That's all.

I agree with Gerardo, but I must add that study does not make one a composer, but rather a technician of composition, which means that one will have all the historical and technical tools to be able to express oneself. To summarize, being a composer means writing with total freedom the music that comes from one's own head, using technique and putting it at the service of one's own music.

And indeed RStrauss, as I think is clear to everyone, stylistic reconstruction is only a first step toward becoming autonomous; among other things, in conservatories like Milan, there is a course in the three-year degree called "Tonal and Modal Techniques" where one can take the opportunity to deepen their understanding of the style of a composer of choice. Why not Clementi? But what about Gesualdo? Or Messiaen, Stravinsky, etc.

Everyone has their own preferences