The Name Game Pro Tip:
  1. Didja accidentally blow through the whole, "We're using our real names" thing on registration? No problem, just send me (Mike) a Conversation message and I'll get you sorted, by which I mean hammered-into-obedient-line because I'm SO about having a lot of individuality-destroying, oppressive shit all over my forum.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. You're only as good as the harshest criticism you're willing to hear.
    Dismiss Notice

Writing on Piano

Discussion in 'Tips, Tricks & Talk' started by Rohann van Rensburg, Aug 3, 2017.

  1. #1 Rohann van Rensburg, Aug 3, 2017
    Posted this in Comp 1 but not much traffic there:

    Mike (and others), I think you mention in this video (don't remember if it's Comp 1 or 2 now) that it's important to boil down ideas into basic, two-hand playable parts before orchestrating and fleshing them out.

    I have to ask -- does writing parts intended for different instruments get easier with a lot of transcription and time? I assume the answer is obvious, but I more specifically wonder if one can "hear" the instruments in one's head more easily when writing on piano eventually. For example, I often find trying to write something purely on piano that's intended for strings to be a difficult task; similarly, I often find "purely" writing on piano to feel dry and uninspiring, whereas playing with instrument patches (or even a synth patch on a keyboard) to get me more in the headspace. It's as simple as piano notes being percussive and not sustaining, nor being adjustable (dynamics-wise) mid-note.

    The reason I ask is because I notice a profound difference for writing on guitar -- many prolific guitarists I know/am a fan of, despite being highly educated (i.e. Berkeley grads) and obviously understanding theory, still approach writing on guitar in a more "shape" oriented manner as they find it more intuitive and enjoyable, which is obviously a rather different approach than piano (for me at least). Similarly, the kind of things I play or aim for with different types of instrument colours changes dramatically while using different VI's, etc.
     
  2. #2 Doug Gibson, Aug 3, 2017

    Well...... First the piano really is the "king" of all instruments (voice too) for composers. The more you can have a connection (fingers, singing) the better.
    The main point is that one cannot reply on the computer to give an accurate idea of how a real string orchestra would sound. That probably cannot be stressed enough.

    The benefit of having a piano reduction is you can check that the foundational ideas of the composition work are solid.
    If you have a strong foundation .... you can build a lot on it.
    Piano is also wonderful for training your mind to hear more than a single line in your mind.
    I think both the co-ordination of the hands, reading and memorizing etc really make you learn the stuff at a deeper level. Harmony used to always be taught at the piano, and perhaps it never should have become a separate topic.

    The question of writing first on piano, or go right into orchestration. Each has it's challenges and pitfalls. I think indeed it is better to work from a reduction out, until you have done it enough. This is why in orchestration classes often you are assigned piano works to orchestrate.
    This is also something you can do. If you find it un-inspiring to write for strings while sitting the piano, find a piece already composed at the piano and then orchestrate it.

    The other direction is important too. A string section is capable of doing many things that are not playable on a piano.
    Also what fits under the hands on the piano is not always the case with the strings.

    I agree with what you say about the attack vs sustain. I speak about it a lot. I am happy to share a video example on this exact idea

     
    Kaan Güner and Anders Dahnielson like this.
  3. #3 Rohann van Rensburg, Aug 16, 2017
    Thanks Doug. Good points.

    I assume reducing string pieces to piano would probably help one internalize the connection there. Orchestrating piano pieces is something I need to do more.

    I have to wonder though, how does this fit in with experimenting to hunt for a new idea via playing around with other instruments? I'll often get ideas for a piece or a part while playing around with one of my VI's, or a synth patch, etc. I really don't have this inspiration when I sit down at a piano, and I find I veer into similar territory when I sit down at piano. Much the same way that I get very different ideas for guitar if I mess around with heavy reverb/delay and a vibrato bar than when playing dry (though the best guitar-oriented bands I listen to write everything on acoustic before applying it to electric guitar with distortion, the logic being that if it sounds aggressive and heavy on acoustic it will sound far better on electric, probably something to glean from that). It really could simply be a lack of experience.

    Would it be beneficial, say, to play around and get ideas, write those ideas down for piano and play them together to get a sense of the "essence" of the piece, and then orchestrate again?
     
  4. #4 Brian Bunker, Aug 17, 2017
    I just thought it'd be appropriate to mention that there are literally hundreds of works arranged for 2-hands piano of orchestral pieces, from all of the Beethoven, Brahms, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Schubert and Tchaik symphonies to tone poems and chunks of opera, from vocal scores to bleeding chunks from Tannhauser, that kind of thing. All free on IMSLP.

    Some of them even have orchestration information within them - I've got a cool old vocal score copy of Boheme out from the library (well, that one isn't on IMSLP...) that has notes for who plays what in solos.

    I don't know that just playing them would make you a better orchestrator - but personally I think they're pretty darn useful.
     
  5. #5 Rohann van Rensburg, Aug 18, 2017
    The problem I've found with a handful of user-made piano reductions (not necessarily the case with classical works mind you) is that it's just that -- a reduction, meaning there are sometimes harmonic parts and sections that are missing. For a simple chamber strings piece that would be a little more useful, but I've found transcription more revealing when it comes to more complex works. I'm not sure if this is the case for most classical works though.

    PS -- Doug, not sure how I missed it but I didn't read the "until you've done it enough" part. I imagine this may be rather useful, especially starting out.

    Again though, I tend to get more interesting ideas playing around with sounds -- would it be inadvisable to write while playing around with other instruments and then take what one has written and reduce it to piano to see if one is on the right track? I can absolutely see why an interesting piece on solo piano will sound fantastic orchestrated, and how an orchestrated piece, if uninteresting in essence, will likely be uninteresting orchestrated, but I hesitate to drop creative ideas I gravitate towards altogether.
    Having the desire to fill the gap Mike talks about (the "sound design" meets "long-form competent" composer), is it simply a matter of practice to imagine ideas while playing piano? I'm not arguing the value, but I find it hard to understand how one comes up with pieces branching out of the classical/conventional orchestra purely writing on piano with piano sounds.
     
  6. #6 Mike Verta, Aug 18, 2017
    The issue with piano reductions of orchestral work is that the end result rarely represents the input process. That is, it is not useful as a way for us to understand the how-to-compose-for-orchestra-on-piano. The reductions are reverse-engineered, but they rarely reveal anything resembling what the composer actually worked from - even if it was originally two-handed piano. Somebody once did a two-handed piano reduction of The Race and I thought it was a fantastic reduction. It also had virtually nothing in common with how I played it on piano when writing it. I think perhaps they're useful for harmonic study, because it compresses the chords into something more visually manageable. But if we believe that we would have to compose/play the Rite of Spring based on how it ended up in a reduction, we'd be making it much more intimidating than it needs to be. It tends to be that our piano inputs are MUCH more streamlined and simple than what a fully-orchestrated piano reduction looks like. And simpler, to me, is a good thing.
     
    Rohann van Rensburg likes this.
  7. #7 Rohann van Rensburg, Aug 18, 2017
    You put into words precisely what I suspected, great point.
     
  8. #8 Doug Gibson, Aug 18, 2017
    After re-reading my post, I see I mis-spoke and used a term I was not intending. When I wrote "reduction" what I had in my own mind was like a short score/sketch that YOU write. I did not mean to imply taking anyone else work. You are correct in that reduction is commonly referred to in this way. I think short score or piano score would have been clearer....... basically you writing out your piece at the piano first.

    My 2nd point about the orchestration classes also was meant only for "Piano works" that get orchestrated. I had to orchestrate all of Debussy's preludes from book 2 at my school. The plus ...... you don't have to worry about writing the piece and focus solely on the orchestration. The minus: It's still required for you to write YOUR own ideas and music. You can always integrate stuff.

    For example...... let's say there is a piano work that you really like. Transcribe it. Now that you have transcribed it...... orchestrate it.
    This way you are integrating your skills.

    So ex.1


    Ex.2

     
  9. #9 Evan Arnett, Aug 18, 2017

    I might be way off the mark here, but how strong is your actual solo piano writing?

    I thought I was having the same problem as you, but what I've figured out is that I've been relying far too heavily on the sounds/samples to drive the composition itself, and the reason the piano feels uninspiring is that my traditional musical fundamentals are weak. I'm just speaking for myself here, but I suspect a lot of composers of my generation and younger are also having this problem. I personally don't yet have a broad enough intuitive harmonic vocabulary to sustain compelling development, and more generally, I'm just not at the point where I can quickly and confidently realize compelling melodic and harmonic structures on the piano and get them down.

    Granted, there are all these modern electronic and textural genres, including in scoring, where the sound IS the music. And that's completely fine, that's actually where I got my start. When I'm writing for clients who want that, I stay away from the piano because it's a waste of time. However, when I started to try to write more traditional stuff, I started realizing the computer is functioning less as a bicycle and more as a wheelchair.

    Someone in another thread recommended "The Pop Piano Book". I have started working my way through that and I think it's going to help a lot.
     
    Adam Alake likes this.
  10. #10 Rohann van Rensburg, Aug 19, 2017
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2017
    Oh no you're dead on. It's poor. Piano skills are the highest thing on my priorities list. I can plink away and understand the theory well enough but I'm nowhere near competent enough to be remotely happy with my piano composition. I'd likely say the same -- I'm not harmonically or melodically competent enough to confidently realize and get them down quickly.

    One thing I struggle with still is the sound-design vs classical-composer dilemma. I'm awfully tired of the no horizontal development, three-chord-run-of-the-mill sound-design-only score, but there are scores I grew up loving that bear little resemblance to a classical composition in terms of texture and instrument grouping but still contain decent melodic and harmonic development. Maybe it comes with time, but I again bring back the guitar analogy -- the way one writes for it is vastly different in many cases than one writes on piano, but it would be hard to say the piano is melodically superior in any sort of objective way. There must be a way to effectively and interestingly marry the two disciplines of competent composition and the use of atmospheric texture -- this is a common thread with every single one of my favourite bands (i.e. Porcupine Tree, fantastic use of both). I think it just may be my ultimate goal in composition.

    I.e. I just can't picture coming up with more ambient or atmospheric pieces like this on piano (which still contain melodic and harmonic ideas and are related to the context of the whole but are less straightforward and thematic):


    Practically, I wonder if bouncing back between the use of textures and strong theme is effective? I see what you mean about not letting texture drive composition, but often times I'll get an idea for a melody or harmony largely based on the timbre of an instrument. I don't think I'll ever write something again without checking it on piano though.


    I think it was more in reference to what Brian was saying actually, I wasn't confused with your use of the term "reduction".
     
    Evan Arnett likes this.
  11. #11 Mike Verta, Aug 19, 2017
    Yes. This is what I advocate strongly because the natural places you play the piece/ the sort of techniques you use can tell you so much about the orchestration automatically.
     
    Rohann van Rensburg likes this.
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)

Share This Page