The Question: How to achieve a writer's proficiency at piano?

I don't know if I'd recommend the Levine book first. It's more about developing an artistry that's already there, and feels like it assumes a lot of knowledge is already there. The tiny section with rootless voicings of ii-V-I's is nowhere near enough to get someone from zero to playing real book tunes. It'd definitely be a big leap from the Pop Piano Book to Levine, wouldn't it?

I'd probably start with something like Dan Haerle's Jazz Piano Voicing Skills for getting basic voicings down - he really takes his time working through basic movements through shell voicings over roots, adding material slowly through rootless voicings, and finally through extensions. For getting the feel of what 'mainstream jazz piano' is like under the hands, I think it's a good way to start.

You might ask yourself what kind of pedagogy you want...basically, what kind of system for learning? Since you don't have much time to practice, you'll need a methodology that's already in place so you don't waste your time figuring out what to learn. It's another nice thing about the Haerle - because it gives you written out the most common cycles and types of ii-V-I in major, minor, etc., it's easier to keep track of what you're working on, test yourself and move forward. On the other hand, the thing about classical pedagogy is that it is spectacularly built up; any competent teacher can see you playing something and tell you what level you're at, what pieces are appropriate to be working on, what you should be able to play easily for reading practice, what etudes will develop the techniques you should be working on at your level, and scales and arpeggios appropriate to all of that. There's really no question about what to do - if you're at Grade 3, you go buy everything that says Grade 3 and just bust it apart.

Since you're planning and all - work smarter, not harder, right?

 

I always feel like a half played game of jenga

 

Thanks for the writeups! I appreciate your perspective here Doug, especially having learned a "composer's fluency" in 5 years.

A few questions:
-What precisely is the desired outcome of learning solfege? Is it ear training, to be able to sing varying intervals on command? Is it to be able to "memorize" the pitch and relative intervals of C as a tonic? Maybe I need to read through the posts more thoroughly but I'm in the dark as for what the purpose is.
-I've heard from others not to count intervals in semitones -- it's admittedly a somewhat confusing system too, as I'm used to the typical tonic-relative numbering with sharps and flats (i.e. b7, #9, etc). It's confusing if a 9 is now actually a major 6th.

 

We can chat over PM. I don't see any point in writing further on this topic here.

I spent an hour giving a detailed plan for the OP to reach his goal.

Then another person chimes in --- no you are wrong.

Not a big deal, as I explained.

I then spent nearly 3 hours to outline the many points why I made my suggestion. Then someone else comes in and posts ..... "nah, your wrong I'm right" without a single solid illustration backing their claim, or understanding of what I wrote. What was the point of that post ?
Everything about that post is utter rubbish and frankly just wrong.

In the end it sounds like it was a waste of time. Such is life.

 

Your original posts disappeared! I wanted to read through them more.

If you're interested in a PM I'll send one to you -- I hope I didn't come off as dismissive, and I agree re: fixed vs moveable doh (I don't see the point of moveable doh and nor do I think delving deeply into the debate is going to make me a better composer). What I'm simply wondering is what the desired benefits are and how one achieves them through any solfege. If it's as simple as the idea that it reinforces intervals and helps one mentally grasp the role of different scalar tones and the like, then great, sign me up.
I am curious (as I don't think it was discussed much here) whether or not counting semitones vs scalar tones (i.e. "#4" vs "7") achieves a different end?

 

Instead of focusing on piano skills, focus on teaching yourself to recognize intervals and to recognize chord motions. When you get reasonably good start going out into the real world and transcribing. The piano is just a tool. I barely have hand independence - I make Hans look like Liszt - but I can take an idea in my head and poke it out on the piano really quickly because I know how intervals "taste" when I hum them (impossible to explain LOL).

When I went to music school I knew a lot of pianist composers who thought they were hot shit, but all of their music was "piano music" - they couldn't orchestrate and they had grown up thinking of music solely in the vocabulary of idiomatic piano gestures. It was kind of a running joke in my youth orchestra that our least favorite kind of concertos to play were piano concertos because the young "virtuosos" had no idea of the give and take of playing with other musicians. At 41, you will never be a hot shit pianist but you haven't lost as much by that as you think. I honestly think that almost any other musical background is better preparation for composing than being a "concert pianist." (playing keyboards as a session musician or band member is a different story).

 

You are very welcome. I certainly hope you reach your musical goals and of course wish you all the very best !

(corn options: Fascinating)

 

This is exactly how I first started transcribing. You're on the right track. Outer voices are easy to hear and then you can experiment with the inner voices until it sounds "right." By doing this you eventually teach yourself to hear chord qualities, even of complicated chords. Learning to hear inner voices by themselves wil initially be difficult but the more you hammer away at it, you'll be surprised how fast and easy it gets. The way Mike does it in his classes, where he can hear a piece once and instantly reproduce all the voices by just playing it, is something that will only come after years. So don't expect that, instead just focus on getting voices right. Every time a chord isn't what you expected, you've learned a new chord...

 

In my opinion, Noam's post above is spot on. Again, just my opinion...

Mike

 

Nice post about transcribing, and the importance of singing.
I get the spirit of this, but this sentence is absurd.

Everyone has to learn about orchestration and not only the physical aspects but the psychological side too. One has to send time in orchestral rehearsals,
learn about each instrument and so on and so. So of, course being good at the piano does not mean one will orchestrate well, or even have a desire to compose. Many concert pianists are only interpreters.

With that disclaimer aside let me list a few composers who spent considerable time working on the "concert pianist" thing. (even if we think of them as composers.)

Bach
Mozart
Beethoven
Liszt
Mendelssohn
Brahms
Saint-Saëns
Ravel
Rachmaninoff
Shostakovich
Prokofiev
Bartok
John Williams
Jerry Goldsmith

That's just a few. They turned out ok. Also a lot of the great jazz pianist have spent time learning the classical "concert" rep.
I believe Fred Hersch who was head of Jazz piano at Manhattan school wrote that he makes all his students buy two books.
Charlie Parker omnibus, and Bach's Chorals.

I think Ravel and Goldsmith and Williams figured out how to orchestrate. (many others on that list too.)

 

I think a combination of one or two monophonic instruments as well as piano would be a good place to start.

But yeah, most of the composers I liked we're also excellent pianists