Pianistic Writing

lately I've been working on writing idiomatically for the piano, but it's been kind of troublesome (I'm not a pianist). Are there any good scores to study or tips, lessons, etc. that could help me and/or anyone else trying to do the same thing?

EDIT:

now that I think about it, this probably should have been posted in the advice section. oh well.

PEOPLE, PLEASE NOTICE THIS THREAD. I have the same problem :wacko:

Yes, here are some tips. Look at a lot of other piano compositions by composers. Think about how much fingers can extend, and remember, pianist have limits too...

Just keep in mind the basics:

Range. Typically the octave is the limit as anyone is guaranteed to be able to play it, but that hasn't stopped people from writting with 9ths or 10ths to be played with one hand.

Playability. This isn't so much a 'if' question as it is a 'how easy' question regarding the piano. While it's definately possible to write passages that are just physically too wide in range to be played by one player and thus unplayable by default, determining playability based on difficulty is obviously harder because it's an individual thing. However, some standards exist, and it's always good to make your music as accessible as possible. In this respect, certain efforts should be made to write passages in a manner that can be easily sight-read, especially in large runs or other such techniques. However, not being a pianist, you may look at a passage and consider it unplayable while someone trained may look at the same passage and think "easy", so get players to review your work.

Musical tools. Don't forget the results of using such pianistic effects as octave doubling, thick chords, very fast passagework, double/triple/quadruple trills/tremolo (tremoli?), etc... For scores that really speak to the keyboardists hands there are really too many to list, and even trying to do so is pretty futile. Still, to get an understanding of how the keyboardist thinks check Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Debussy, Lizst, Schumann, Alkan, Rachmaninov, Scriabin, etc...

Other than that just read scores and maybe a piano technique book.

Just to chip in some personal opinion:

It is quite irritating sometimes to see chords span more than an octave but pianist understood that once it goes beyond their limit, they play them in as a fast arpeggio, like what a violinist would do when they need to do triple stops or more. Sometimes the pedal would come into help, for long holding notes.

Good pianists know how to ensure even playing with all fingers. Extra care is taken on the thumb as there is a tendency for it to be sound louder. It's somewhat liked the open string. Less of a worry for good pianist.

It is also not easy to do two voicing within one hand. It is always challenging to ensure the two voices are heard distinctively rather than a chord. In more technically demanding pieces, some fingers would have to play louder while others soft to make the melody stands out.

Trill using the last two fingers is very hard. Playing thirds and sixs (in fact any interval) smoothly in a scale-liked manner up or down in fast passages is very hard. Staccato would be easier.

You can abuse a bit on the slurs as our hands are not like the violin up or down bow. The pianist would do a slight cut-off or lift-off at the end of the slurline. It is fun to do that sometimes.

I just add on to Nik's list with Ravel and Saint Saens.

As Nik said, having a pianist friend certainly helps! This is the best option.

Two of my piano works in my very young days for your listening pleasure. The 2nd one is slightly unplayable.

chuangnoct1.mid

chuangnoct2.mid

http://www.nikolas-sideris.com/stuff/Piano.PDF

A looooong project which doesn't want to finish, unfortunately. Still it might come in handy...

I think you should only worry if it's physically playable and you need only one person to play it. I've seen "for piano" pieces which need 2 or 3 people. Cowell comes to mind. There's also the impossibly difficult Stockhausen pieces I actually like very much, so there's all sorts of stuff which you will NOT find by any of the examples named already.

Overall, there's no such thing as "idiomatic," you either go the historical way (whichever that is) or you do your own thing cuz as far as I'm concerned you can as well take cues from Lachenmann or Kurtag for your piano writing and it's something entirely different.

Another thing to consider is that you can write for all sorts of things that you can do with a piano (think Cowell and Lachenmann here) and how to mess with the strings and harmonics (or prepared piano ala Cage/Crumb) So really, your question I guess is more historically oriented since right now there's no single way to "write for" piano.

PS: I hate the whole "idiomatic" thing to begin with, it's entirely obsolete. You can write whatever you want for whatever instrument in whatever way you want, so long as you're aware of what you want obviously. Working with a pianist can be OK but you can do without too, specially if they aren't used to playing modern music or aren't aware of all the things done for the instrument. It's obvious that you need to do some research to find something you like, but clearly asking how to write "properly" or whatever such word for piano is completely irrelevant unless we're talking about historical recreations.

The comments have helped a lot, thanks for all your quick responses! And lol SSC ok.

SSC:

I don't exactly agree with the idiomatic idea either, but ignorance and choice are two completely different issues and can be shown!

Yes, you can do whatever your heart and mind tell you... I remember seeing a concert where the composer was dumping buckets of water inside two Steinway pianos. Yeah, cool sounds and effects, but the piano was created and still is built - sorry, you modernists - with the basic and sometimes too-much-played Classic and Romantic repertoire in mind, for performers who, today, are technically transcending the traditional techniques. Why not just use electronic devices, or write "impossible" things for player pianos? I think ignoring what came before us historically is an silly concept, whether in music or the arts or films... Your choices, no matter how new and revolutionary, should be informed, whether you write contemporary or old music. Being a gifted artist is not enough to be a great one without a deep knowledge of your craft and ALL fields and genres of music written or orally transmitted during the last few thousand years. I agree that there are things that composers can do without today, but knowing to a certain professional degree how to write for an instrument before inventing your own technique can't be ignored for many reasons (being able to write all kind of stuff such as commercial music, limits of an instrument, etc.). Many despise Romantic music, but Chopin and Liszt KNEW the instrument AND the techniques that came before them, AND expanded the possibilities of the piano nevertheless, reaching the limits of what could be done with two hands and ten fingers. I think the only true modernist solution, would be to write for a non-traditional instrument. A piano is a piano. A trombone is a trombone. After you have physically taken them apart, you gotta move on to another sound producing device.:)

Extreme ways of "playing" a traditional piano could look like putting a clown costume on a dinosaur: new, but ultimately silly. Why not going back to the lab and create a new "specie" instead?

No.

The piano could've been built with the intention of dropping it on people for comedy, I don't really care. As for the clown comment, what the hell?

You can study history and choose to disregard it when it comes to your compositions, you can ignore everyone ELSE for that matter or what anyone else says. So, no, the piano is just an object and there's a tradition around it which can be ignored, bypassed, etc, just like any instrument. Using your fingers to play the keys is just as "extreme" as playing with the piano harp with an open pedal, why is one more extreme than the other? This sort of orthodoxy for no real reason is really what is silly, specially when it concerns artistic expression and freedom.

You don't get to decide what is necessary to "be a real composer," speaking of which, nobody does. Moreover, the comparison with Liszt or Chopin is completely irrelevant as extended techniques don't start showing up till a little later (Satie was one of the first to modify a piano.) I bet you would tell Berio not to write what he wrote in the Sequenzas because "A flute is a flute," or "An oboe is an Oboe!" What the hell kind of thinking is that?

A piano or an oboe are tools to produce sound, they're on the same footing as garbage truck or electric toothbrush when it comes to producing sounds except they have more people thinking they're musical instruments while the other are in practical terms the same damn thing only without such a huge fanbase.

As for "Why don't they write for other instruments" why don't pianists play Chopin and Liszt on synthesizers or other instruments rather than piano? Why not? Oh because these pieces were "meant" for piano? Well look at that, so were Lachenmann's, Kurtag's, Stockhausen's, Boulez, etc etc etc etc. You don't get to decide what is "worthy" of being played on piano or written for piano, people will do whatever they want and you just have to accept that.

Jeesh.

As for Nikolas: By no means do I advocate ignorance, lol. I'm simply pointing out that one way is recreating old styles and another is the actual reality we live in where there is no such a thing as "idiomatic" or any of that.

http://www.nikolas-sideris.com/stuff/Piano.PDF

A looooong project which doesn't want to finish, unfortunately. Still it might come in handy...

(Just curious what your sources are for that link. I found some of your illustrated examples to be awkward to play, but certainly not "almost impossible." They were all very possible to play and I am a pianist not much better than average.) :whistling:

Back on topic, writing for piano isn't as tough for non-pianists as one might think. I have played many pieces for piano by non-pianists and the most common thing I run into is a non-pianist being afraid their piece is too difficult when really the pieces end up easy enough that early students can tackle them.

Here is a summary of things to keep in mind, in my own words:

--Intervals of a 10th and smaller are always okay. Writing in 10ths is common; no need to limit to an octave.

--Jumps can be quite large; even fast jumps can be 2 octaves.

--Use 8va and 15ma rather than tons of ledger lines.

--Either hand can use treble or bass cleff; don't get fancy and use a C cleff these days even though I know Bach, et al composed primarily using movable C cleffs even in their keyboard works.

--Learn the correct markings for each of the three pedals. Keep in mind only grand pianos use all three pedals in their true ways (and a few uprights, but not in most households).

--The last upper octave and a half of the register doesn't have dampers and the notes ring weakly.

--The lowest register gets mushy with fast notes unless you are playing a piano of amazing quality.

--The sustain pedal is incorrectly often called the "loud" pedal. If that pedal actually makes things louder, then the pianist is completely unskilled.

--Just like the "soft pedal" (una corda) is for COLOR change. If a pianist uses the left pedal simply to make things softer, then they are completely unskilled. The color change is most dramatic in softer/quieter passages, though, so you wouldn't use the left pedal in a forte passage.

Look at scores for reference:

Bach--Great examples of multiple voices in one hand.

Schubert--His piano music is considered to be pretty "easy" in the whole scope of the piano world.

Mozart Sonatas--good example for close, fast passage work. Also not considered all that difficult generally speaking.

Chopin--His music is extremely "pianistic" and ranges from easy to rather challenging. Chopin is probably the best source for examples I can think of in terms of what a piano can do.

Ligeti Etudes--Now these are pieces that very few pianists can actually play well.

Xenakis--Here is an example of music that is truly impossible to play (as written). The music is about the gestures and not hitting actual notes. Xenakis himself said that if you hit 80% of the notes, that is plenty good enough.

"Pianistic:" This is a term that means a piece for piano is very playable and flows nicely among the fingers and between the hands. A horrific-sounding "pianistic" piece can be quite easy to play compared to an easy-sounding but completely "unpianistic" piece which is a challenge to play.

(Just curious what your sources are for that link. I found some of your illustrated examples to be awkward to play, but certainly not "almost impossible." They were all very possible to play and I am a pianist not much better than average.) :whistling:

"almost impossible", might indeed be a poor choice of a word, but it was reffering to the 1st example I believe (1-2), and it does depend on how fast you'll end up playing the accel. When you record it, as an average player, do come and let me know if it's easy at "very fast" speed or not.

Although your signature:

Instructor of Piano and Educator of Music.

this should be a good piece .. but hard to play by pianist

but i find that it is a dream of SOUND

dark-enjoy

(Just curious what your sources are for that link. I found some of your illustrated examples to be awkward to play, but certainly not "almost impossible." They were all very possible to play and I am a pianist not much better than average.) :whistling:

Back on topic, writing for piano isn't as tough for non-pianists as one might think. I have played many pieces for piano by non-pianists and the most common thing I run into is a non-pianist being afraid their piece is too difficult when really the pieces end up easy enough that early students can tackle them.

Here is a summary of things to keep in mind, in my own words:

--Intervals of a 10th and smaller are always okay. Writing in 10ths is common; no need to limit to an octave.

--Jumps can be quite large; even fast jumps can be 2 octaves.

--Use 8va and 15ma rather than tons of ledger lines.

--Either hand can use treble or bass cleff; don't get fancy and use a C cleff these days even though I know Bach, et al composed primarily using movable C cleffs even in their keyboard works.

--Learn the correct markings for each of the three pedals. Keep in mind only grand pianos use all three pedals in their true ways (and a few uprights, but not in most households).

--The last upper octave and a half of the register doesn't have dampers and the notes ring weakly.

--The lowest register gets mushy with fast notes unless you are playing a piano of amazing quality.

--The sustain pedal is incorrectly often called the "loud" pedal. If that pedal actually makes things louder, then the pianist is completely unskilled.

--Just like the "soft pedal" (una corda) is for COLOR change. If a pianist uses the left pedal simply to make things softer, then they are completely unskilled. The color change is most dramatic in softer/quieter passages, though, so you wouldn't use the left pedal in a forte passage.

Look at scores for reference:

Bach--Great examples of multiple voices in one hand.

Schubert--His piano music is considered to be pretty "easy" in the whole scope of the piano world.

Mozart Sonatas--good example for close, fast passage work. Also not considered all that difficult generally speaking.

Chopin--His music is extremely "pianistic" and ranges from easy to rather challenging. Chopin is probably the best source for examples I can think of in terms of what a piano can do.

Ligeti Etudes--Now these are pieces that very few pianists can actually play well.

Xenakis--Here is an example of music that is truly impossible to play (as written). The music is about the gestures and not hitting actual notes. Xenakis himself said that if you hit 80% of the notes, that is plenty good enough.

"Pianistic:" This is a term that means a piece for piano is very playable and flows nicely among the fingers and between the hands. A horrific-sounding "pianistic" piece can be quite easy to play compared to an easy-sounding but completely "unpianistic" piece which is a challenge to play.

I have a few qualms with this. First off, Schubert is not easy.... take a look at his piano sonatas and you will see that they can be as demanding as Beethoven to play and interpret.

Writing fast consecutive 10ths is not pianistic either... Scriabin wrote an etude in fast 9ths and even he couldn't play it. Using a 10th in a chord or in slower passages is fine but note that some 10ths are easier to play than others. It is easier to play a tenth from F to an A above it than E to a G# above it. Most pianists will have to roll that tenth. You should clarify what you mean by allowing 10ths and fast jumps greater than an octave. Depending on how these are written could mean the difference between simple to play and super-virtuoso.

And again, many pianists would take offense to your claim that Mozart is not all that difficult.

Technique is one thing, performance is another, interpretation is another! (although all 3 give what we call... music).

Scriabine, I believe, actually had small hands and could NOT play his own etudes! :D (could be mistaken though)

I wonder how much Liszt or Chopin you actually can play to say what you did. Before I say anything more - I don't really know you - I would think plain ignorance was the base of your statement. The reason you couldn't play most of Chopin or Liszt on an synth. is because it would be very unnatural or impossible for your fingers to do, even on an instrument with balanced keys and all - another thing that tells me you might not be a pianist after all.

Excuse me?

Why is being able to play Liszt or Chopin relevant at all to knowing anything about piano writing in the 21st century? That's like saying you can't sing Wagner's Tristan & Isolde so you don't know anything about how to write for singers. Or that you can't play Mozart's clarinet concerto so you don't know anything about writing for clarinet, ETC.

Also, I don't know if you realize it but you can just sequence Chopin and Liszt's pieces to play on a PC or anything of the such without having anyone really play it. I guess THAT doesn't count, haha. Even if you want to play it, your claim you can't simply play it on a synthesizer keyboard is insane. Why not? Unnatural or impossible? scraggy, I thought Yamaha made some great keyboards that emulate pianos rather nicely (AND function as synthesizer input devices, look at that!) But I guess "Unnatural" and "impossible." Right. Unfortunately for you, not only have I seen pianists do what you say is impossible and unnatural but this kind of elitism doesn't get anyone anywhere.

As for ignorance? Well, scraggy, I didn't just say playing Chopin and Liszt on a synthesizer was unnatural or impossible.

Voce -

Here is the simplest suggestion I can give AND avoid arguements about what one needs to know to write for piano -

1) LISTEN TO PIANO MUSIC AND THE SCORES YOU REALLY, REALLY LIKE

2) WRITE SOMETHING - CHEAT IF YOU WANT. THAT IS JUST TAKE A FIGURE FROM BACH, LIGETI, SCARLATTI, ETC AND WRITE SOMETHING OFF OF IT.

3) POST IT AND I WILL TRY IT OUT AND GIVE YOU MY COMMENTS AS WILL OTHER PIANISTS.

PS. Ok, I've stop shouting text. One suggestion, before you start exploring prepared piano techniques, mallets on the strings, singing into the soundboard while several pedals are depressed along with a few tones silently depressed (All of which do produce some wonderful sounds and music), stick with writing a little more traditional - eg up to Debussy/Ravel/Bartok - for your first "pianistic" piece.

3) POST IT AND I WILL TRY IT OUT AND GIVE YOU MY COMMENTS AS WILL OTHER PIANISTS.

^ Best reply so far.

There is no need to argue wether or not a pianist can do [insert idea] when the composer may not even try to write [an idea] in the first place when the question is this generalized.

I have joyfully read through composer's piano music here before and I would gladly do it again. And I would hope others would do the same if I wrote an obeo sonata, etc.

Once again you have proven me you DON'T have a clue as to what really playing a PIANO means and entails. Just as I thought. Go ahead and have your computer do your composing... and playing. And relax. :D

?

No, actually, I won't dignify this insult (and idiocy) with a real reply.

Excuse me?

Why is being able to play Liszt or Chopin relevant at all to knowing anything about piano writing in the 21st century?

That's like saying you can't sing Wagner's Tristan & Isolde so you don't know anything about how to write for singers. Or that you can't play Mozart's clarinet concerto so you don't know anything about writing for clarinet, ETC.

Also, I don't know if you realize it but you can just sequence Chopin and Liszt's pieces to play on a PC or anything of the such without having anyone really play it. I guess THAT doesn't count, haha.

Even if you want to play it, your claim you can't simply play it on a synthesizer keyboard is insane. Why not? Unnatural or impossible? scraggy, I thought Yamaha made some great keyboards that emulate pianos rather nicely (AND function as synthesizer input devices, look at that!) But I guess "Unnatural" and "impossible." Right. Unfortunately for you, not only have I seen pianists do what you say is impossible and unnatural but this kind of elitism doesn't get anyone anywhere.

As for ignorance? Well, scraggy, I didn't just say playing Chopin and Liszt on a synthesizer was unnatural or impossible.

There is NO logic for someone to believe (composer or otherwise) that there's any good reason NOT to learn how to play piano on a basic level, especially :w00t: if in fact you have a desire to write music FOR it. This logic makes about as much sense as those people who spend all their time trying to win the Guitar Hero computer game, when they could have just as well spent their time learning how to play a REAL GUITAR!

There is NO logic for someone to believe (composer or otherwise) that there's any good reason NOT to learn how to play piano on a basic level, especially :w00t: if in fact you have a desire to write music FOR it. This logic makes about as much sense as those people who spend all their time trying to win the Guitar Hero computer game, when they could have just as well spent their time learning how to play a REAL GUITAR!

Entertainment, I guess, is not good enough of a reason.

Anyways, this is bullshit and I'm obviously not addressing it, way to waste your time. Learn to read.

PROTIP: Read the rest of the posts before you address my god-damn reply, since you clearly missed what I was addressing and you took me entirely out of context.

Entertainment, I guess, is not good enough of a reason.

Anyways, this is bullshit and I'm obviously not addressing it, way to waste your time. Learn to read.

PROTIP: Read the rest of the posts before you address my god-damn reply, since you clearly missed what I was addressing and you took me entirely out of context.

You clearly give no evidence of what you are ranting about in THIS reply of yours. I did read all the posts. Did I stutter? :-) Also, how did I "take you out of context" if I quoted your entire message? And it didn't waste my time at all. To quote you one more time, it was completely worth replying to you, unless you believe "Entertainment, is not good enough of a reason." Your reply WAS highly entertaining, after all.... :toothygrin:

Uh, this thread was to assist Voce, right?

Indeed! The best advice for someone wanting to write a composition for piano is to learn how to play piano....

Nightscape, I respect you as most of anyone on the forum, so I hope I can clear some things up and not end up debating uselessly.

I have a few qualms with this. First off, Schubert is not easy.... take a look at his piano sonatas and you will see that they can be as demanding as Beethoven to play and interpret.

Yes, Schubert's sonatas are his most demanding work...you are preaching to the choir here. But, in the entire scope of standard piano repertoire, his music is regarded as quite accessible and Schubert himself was regarded as an amateur pianist. Is his music still great? Absolutely! Is it still difficult? Sure, of course. My point to the OP was that it's a great example of straight-forward pianistic writing.

Writing fast consecutive 10ths is not pianistic either...

Any parallel intervals are difficult. I wouldn't consider parallel 3rds to be any more or less pianistc or unpianistic than 10ths. Sure, 3rds are more common, though. I have huge hands and I happen to find parallel 3rds quite difficult, with 7ths being the most difficult. I do best with octaves and 4ths, but can certainly reach parallel 10ths. So, either all parallel intervals are pianistic or all are not. This consideration will differ greatly between pianists. I stated this because most people were writing as though octaves were the definitive limit--a lot of pianists can't even reach an octave, so if 10ths are unrealistic, then octaves could be to some, as well, despite that octaves are likely the most common parallel interval you would see in standard piano music.

And again, many pianists would take offense to your claim that Mozart is not all that difficult.

This was a misunderstanding, too, and again you are preaching to the choir. My point was--in the context of the OP--that Mozart's writing is straight-forward reference regarding what a piano can do. Mozart doesn't use any extended or unusual or contraversial techniques of the instrument. There is nothing questionable about what Mozart wrote for the piano.

If you want to see truly unpianistic writing, look at the Short-Tempered Clavier by P.D.Q.Bach. The music is fun and sounds easy, but really unpianistic and some of the movements are quite challenging...

How in any way would my advice not be correct?

Is IS the BEST advice.

How would it not be?

LOL.

It depends on a lot of factors if that's the best advice or not. Composition does not imply playing any instrument, nor is it necessary to play personally anything. You should consider that not everyone has access to a piano, WANTS to play piano and even really cares for playing an instrument what so ever (yet wants to write for it anyways.)

These are lots of ways in which your "advice" would be not only wrong but downright unrealistic.

Plus, do you follow your own "best" advice? Do you play every single instrument before writing for it? If so (LOL!) at concert-levels? With all sorts of modern repertoire?

Wonderful advice, yeah. Infallible.