Horrible Piano Writing

Okay, recently I have been told that my writing for piano music isn't that great... and I totally disagree, In fact, not only is my piano writing not great, its absolutely horrible, I detest it. I just can't do it, i don't know maybe its just the program (Finale) that I always work with. Also, I see a lot of other people told the same thing. I would like to improve so any helpful replies would be greatly appreciated.

So, let me ask a few questions.

What constitutes good piano writing?

What are signs of bad piano writing?

Piano writing is definately not my best area. Anyone else, have anything to say about it? are you good, or bad or what are your weak points???

I think I put this is the wrong community. :laugh: :laugh: Ah well, thats me!

What constitutes good piano writing?[/b]

Treat the piano like any other instrument. It has a range of tones and styles that fit it best. Write what the piano can do well, with attention payed to playability, and don't think of it as being a foreign or different instrument from anything else.

What are signs of bad piano writing?

For the most part, anything that would be bad writing on any instrument, with the addition of any impossible or uncharacteristic writing for the instrument.

Good Piano Writing:

*We all know that repetitive passages can be a bit boring sometimes. So in all cases repetitive passages, for example repeating the same chord with 8th notes for the whole measure, can be avoided to and replaced with more creative ideas to increase the quality. However, there is one catch, look for example chopin's prelude in E minor for piano. It's all based on 8th note repetitive chords. So why is it not boring ? because the harmonies ! the progression is so nice that you do not care about the repeated 8th notes. In music there must always a balance. In this case, Chopin avoided the fact that 8th notes are repeated over and over again and put very nice harmonic progression in there to make it up for this. See the balance ?

1: Keep the balance.

*Know what the piano is capable of doing and dont restrict yourself with what you know. Explore more, if you have piano, make crazy improvisation and realise what can be done with piano.

2. Know the instrument

*THE PIANO IS AN ORCHESTRA! dont forget that. Let's say you are writing a piece for orchestra, you wouldnt write a simple accompaniment on the strings and just one melody in whatever other instrument. Piano is like an orchestra, use it as if you are composing for an orchestra. Consider layers: Top layer, middle layer and lower layer. Include counterpoint on all layers. exactly as you would do with an orchestra.

3. Use the full potential

*There are number of ways to play the chords on the piano. Voicing of these chords alter the overal sound. Learn which inversions sound good. Avoid triads, use open voicing. Since pianos range is huge, you could do all sorts of voicings, considering the fingers ofcourse

4. Voicing of Chords

*A difficult passage does not always mean an Interesting passage! however seemingly unnecessary dificulty seems more of an amateur writing. If you want to write virtuosic passages to piano, make sensible difficulties, sometimes what seems to be an easy passage may prove to be difficult to play on piano.

5. Be sensible when writing difficult passages

*Never use Finale or other notation program to compose piano music or any other music. You would be mistaken when it comes to reality, because finale can virtually play anything. Use the piano for composing for it. Not only you will have more ideas since you will be experimenting and improvising, also you will notice what is playable and what is not. Ofcourse you dont need to be a pianist to do this, but you can play your composition at much much slower tempo.

6.Use the piano when composing

I will add more later.. hope this helps

Some reference from literature:

Skryabin Piano sonatta 1,4,5: listen these, you will be amazed what can be done with piano as much as I am still amazed with these sonatas.

Bartok, Mikrokosmos (all)

really good advice - thanks!

Piano music is hard to notate properly in Finale (and I assume Sibelius too). That's because like Nightfly said, you are basically writing the texture of the orchestra for one instrument, but you have to do it on 2 staves instead of 15.

Make sure you know the ins and outs of Finale - do you know how to use layers? They are essential to writing piano music.

Assuming these things, when writing for the piano you need to keep in mind the concept of figuration. On the piano, note values die away almost immediately after being played, this is especially true at low dynamic levels. However, the piano is able to compensate for this with all of the unique figurations that are available on the instrument. A figuration is basically a hand or finger pattern that is translated onto the instrument. The better suited your figurations are for the pianist's hands, the better that said pianist will be able to do something with them. A very basic figuration is the Alberti bass, which is one of the very first common figurations. Mozart used this to death in his piano writing. Other simple figurations, such as trills and tremolos have been around for a long time and are also possible on other instruments, such as the flute, violin ,etc. Some figurations are only available on the piano however - you should try and use these as much as possible.

I would recommend staying away from cliche figurations and piano writing - such as Alberti bass, simple melody and chords. That's not to say you shouldn't ever use these devices, just that you should only use them when you feel you have something creative to say about them (which is hard to do with cliche devices).

Is the piano music you write uncomfortable or exceedingly difficult (for the sound produced) to play? This is also a sign of bad writing. When you write anything for the piano, try it yourself and make sure it makes sense for the hands, that is crucial. There is a reason why almost all of the great piano music was written by composer-pianists (with the exception of Ligeti of course!)

Hmmmm. very true, great advice thanks a lot, anything more to say about these little things exclusive to piano - O mean beside the - piano is an orchestra thing???

I think the biggest problem is for me is that I make everything way too simple, it's just not complex or creative, also any other reccomandations for piano scores to look at would be good too. So far I have the Scriabin sonatas. Thanks again!

Hmmmm. very true, great advice thanks a lot, anything more to say about these little things exclusive to piano - O mean beside the - piano is an orchestra thing???

I think the biggest problem is for me is that I make everything way too simple, it's just not complex or creative, also any other reccomandations for piano scores to look at would be good too. So far I have the Scriabin sonatas. Thanks again!

If you want complicated, look at some of Prokofiev's etudes, preludes, and toccata, and Chopin's etudes, sonatas, and preludes.

Yes, I too recommend Chopin (and also Liszt) for learning the basics of good piano writing. From there, look at Prokofiev (as John Galt mentioned), Rachmaninoff, Scriabin for slightly more complex writing. I would also recommend the piano music of Debussy and Ravel for some insteresting uses of the instrument. And from there, you can look at Sorabji, Ligeti, and perhaps Finnissy and Rzewski for the most elaborate and inventive piano music.

What are signs of bad piano writing?

Generally, my piano writing consists of little more than slashes, chord changes, and a few shots or cues. Maybe I'll write in a bass line or particular voicing. But, since none of my piano writing is for classical accompanyment, I can get away with it....I'm actually really worried about writing for piano. eek.

Anyway - someone I know from another forum has answered this exact question, so here she is:

Originally posted by 'Precious'

1. I have 10 fingers, five per hand. I can't stand it when someone writes chords with 6 notes that I can't possibly hit all of. I've played some chords where I can 'double up' on keys, meaning hit two keys with one finger, but in the rare occasion that it happens, the composer often puts it in a run of 8th or 16th notes, making it difficult (at best) or often impossible to play.

2. Unbalanced sound. Bass too heavy or treble too heavy. I can usually tell what the composer usually plays because it is the predominant sound through the piece.

3. Non-linear transitions. Don't ask me to play 16th notes at 188bpm in the extreme bass and switch to 32nd notes at 220bpm in the extreme treble clef. YES, I am fast on the keys, but not THAT fast. Give me a beat or so to get my hands there, or run the notes up there, don't just skip from a low c to a triple a playing 16th notes at 188bmp. If you are switching from one sound to another, put a fermata above the ending chord, and give at least 2 beats for the transition. Let the old style sink in before the new starts.

4. Looks pretty on paper, sounds like crap on the keys. *LISTEN* to what you write before you ask someone to play something. Wonky chords that might sound cool on the computer will give a pianist heartburn upon first reading. "That doesn't sound right" is what they will say, especially if you throw in a minor 7th in the middle of something that was previously major and happyish sounding. Minor sounds sad and depressed (most of what Chopin wrote was in minor keys, hence his "sad sound"), and putting that minor 7th in the middle of something happy will sound like a cat just jumped on the keys. You might like how it sounds on the computer, but will throw the player off base for a while.

5. Too damn fast. Yeah a run of 32nd notes sounds awesome at 220bmp, but if you can't tongue that fast, please dont think I can move my fingers that fast. Again, it might sound good to your ear, but it is a nightmare for even the best of us. There is nothing wrong with a slow and lovely piece (I again reference Chopin) every now and then.

6. Too much pedal. Pianists will inevitably break up whatever pedal markings you have, or totally ignore the pedal all together if we think it sounds too blurred or mushy. (I am so guilty of that it isn't funny)

7. Impossible fingerings, meaning you have a run that goes wonky on the keys and ties our fingers in knots. Most of the time I can work it out, but I've been emailed some whoppers.

8. FFFF for the whole piece. Your finger tips are a very sensitive part of your body, and while a pianist is somewhat desensitized to pounding ivory, playing FFFF for 329 measures HURTS. Hurts fingers, hurts hand and lower arm muscles.

9. Getting pissed when a pianist of any level tells you that your music isn't their style, is crap, or offers suggestions. If you the composer can't play, then dont criticize us that have been playing for most of our lives when we tell you something is impossible.

10. Impossible stretches on chords. Liszt had enormous hands, and wrote for their size, which is why I don't play any of his stuff. Some people have large hands, some people have small, and some people are like me, who have TINY hands but are still capable of playing nearly (not all) everything. I can hit a 9th, some players can hit an 11th, fewer yet can hit that 12th. If you want that 12th, find a way for one hand to hit one note while the other hand hits the other.

And there you have it...

I agree that the best way to write for a piano is to PLAY for a piano, because any computer playback will sound like scraggy, because unlike a human being, a computer doesn't know how to raise and lower tention in specific fingers, nor does it even have any fingers...

I've noticed to that often if I write something that sounds pretty decent and play it back on Finale, it doesn't sound at all as good as on a piano. Again, it's because of the tension release

I would recommend staying away from cliche figurations and piano writing - such as Alberti bass, simple melody and chords. That's not to say you shouldn't ever use these devices, just that you should only use them when you feel you have something creative to say about them (which is hard to do with cliche devices).

You have a point, in that if one abuses a certain figuration too much one is inclined to lose touch with the creative flow and then one's piano writing tends to "waffle on" as it were. However I personally believe that creativity in music has little to do with the specific figurations you use. That is to say, I think one could write an infinite number of fascinating pieces all using alberti bass, or all using a rolling triplet style bass like is common in the Romantic era. Real musical originality lies in the timing and overall arrangement of things, I believe. I've been abusing various extremely common figurations for 5 years and I still haven't run out of interesting things to say with them. I don't think it is possible---music is an incredibly vast landscape. Think of the accompaniment of Indian sitar music. Its usually extremely similar from Raga to Raga, however the rhythm, melodies, atmosphere and overall arrangement and timing are vastly different from piece to piece. I feel the same is true about Western music. We are too obsessed with profound originality in the West. It seems to me originality and individuality are much more subtle things, or "big picture" things. One cannot say "ah, there's an alberti bass! therefore, the piece is unoriginal." that is nonsense.

*edit* I'd like to add something in addition. It seems to me the most interesting music USUALLY (definitely not always) has at least some degree of contrapuntal movement in it. The figurations we have discussed here can all be woven into contrapuntal movement---this is very common in piano writing and sounds really good! The common figurations all have very pleasing "shapes" to them but the real interest of any piece comes from the melodic movement of voices, the most noticable of which are usually the lowest note and the highest note. Of course if you go far enough with this you'll be concerned with the affect of all the voices in your writing. Sometimes I like to improvise with two voices in the right hand against an accompaniment + melodic bassline in the left. Its tricky to do this but it is well worth learning because when it takes off it sounds really cool!

really learnt a lot.....thnx :D :laugh:

Yes, I too recommend Chopin (and also Liszt) for learning the basics of good piano writing. From there, look at Prokofiev (as John Galt mentioned), Rachmaninoff, Scriabin for slightly more complex writing. I would also recommend the piano music of Debussy and Ravel for some insteresting uses of the instrument. And from there, you can look at Sorabji, Ligeti, and perhaps Finnissy and Rzewski for the most elaborate and inventive piano music.

you left out Liszt :shifty:

Huh??? He mentions Liszt in the first line.

Anyway, I don't agree with completely leaving out clich

I don't agree with leaving *in* Liszt :shifty:

I agree that the best way to write for a piano is to PLAY for a piano, because any computer playback will sound like scraggy, because unlike a human being, a computer doesn't know how to raise and lower tention in specific fingers, nor does it even have any fingers...

I've noticed to that often if I write something that sounds pretty decent and play it back on Finale, it doesn't sound at all as good as on a piano. Again, it's because of the tension release

If you're only going to use Finale for music, then you'll never understand that computers can playback just as well as humans. How do you think those people with a midi keyboard do it? They play it and record it using Finale, Sibelius, anything, you name it. It's still sequenced the exact same way except they don't put in the notes by mouse, they do it with a midi keyboard. If you'd bother taking the time looking into midi controllers and velocity layering, then you'd know that computers can playback just as well.

Don't blame it on the computers.

Anyway.

I think the biggest problem is for me is that I make everything way too simple, it's just not complex or creative, also any other reccomandations for piano scores to look at would be good too. So far I have the Scriabin sonatas. Thanks again!

Don't worry if it's too simple. Some of the most beautiful piano music out there is simple music. Sit on the piano and just play around with some chords, some techniques, some melodies. I'm sure eventually you'll be able to come up with something unique and nice.

If you're only going to use Finale for music, then you'll never understand that computers can playback just as well as humans.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

*gasp for breath*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

You poor, poor misinformed soul. Machines don't even come close to a human playback.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

*gasp for breath*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

You poor, poor misinformed soul. Machines don't even come close to a human playback.

prove me wrong.

prove me wrong.

Listen to a human.

Ta-da!

Computers still do a horrible job emulating humans. GPO and similar programs will probably never be able to accurately immitate a human. Why? Because humans respond to the music. Prokofiev's Overture on Hebrew Themes for Clarinet, Piano, 2 Violins, Viola, and Cello requires a particular and edgy tone to the clarinet line to produce the best tone for the piece. Such tone is impossible on computers. Why? It would take rerecording an entire clarinet range in the new tone. Even then, tones aren't cut-and-dried. There are almost inumerable variations, and the tone varies from person to person.

Why do you think different people have different preferences when it comes to things like classical piano players? It's all about playing style and interpritation. Computers cannot do that. A computer cannot convey emotion through music.

Here's my rebuttal:

listen to a computer.

Here's my rebuttal:

listen to a computer.

Refresh the page and look at what I added.

Also, I write on a computer almost nonstop. I write most of my pieces that I like, however, only using real people. The computer butchers them.

Listen to a human.

Ta-da!

Computers still do a horrible job emulating humans. GPO and similar programs will probably never be able to accurately immitate a human. Why? Because humans respond to the music. Prokofiev's Overture on Hebrew Themes for Clarinet, Piano, 2 Violins, Viola, and Cello requires a particular and edgy tone to the clarinet line to produce the best tone for the piece. Such tone is impossible on computers. Why? It would take rerecording an entire clarinet range in the new tone. Even then, tones aren't cut-and-dried. There are almost inumerable variations, and the tone varies from person to person.

Why do you think different people have different preferences when it comes to things like classical piano players? It's all about playing style and interpritation. Computers cannot do that. A computer cannot convey emotion through music.

true. computers cannot express emotions. but you have to remember. we're talking about computers. not robots. computers don't create the music by itself. what's behind the computer is a human being. you, being the human, have that emotional sense. you can recreate that emotion on the computer by manipulative work. if you're saying computers cannot convey emotion, then you're simply saying you don't have emotion. otherwise, you're just not putting enough work into the music.

let me tell you this. garritan sucks donkey. only reason why you're comparing humans to garritan is because finale only has garritan. give some others for a try. if you're familiar with them, have you ever considered why eastwest comes in 20~30 dvd's? why vsl has about 250 gb of samples? whereas garritan is merely packed in one dvd? in short: Gary Garritan is a lazy bum.

like i said. look into what midi controllers are. there are 127 of them. they're not there for nothing, they're there to create realism.

true. computers cannot express emotions. but you have to remember. we're talking about computers. not robots. computers don't create the music by itself. what's behind the computer is a human being. you, being the human, have that emotional sense. you can recreate that emotion on the computer by manipulative work. if you're saying computers cannot convey emotion, then you're simply saying you don't have emotion. otherwise, you're just not putting enough work into the music.

let me tell you this. garritan sucks donkey. only reason why you're comparing humans to garritan is because finale only has garritan. give some others for a try. if you're familiar with them, have you ever considered why eastwest comes in 20~30 dvd's? why vsl has about 250 gb of samples? whereas garritan is merely packed in one dvd? in short: Gary Garritan is a lazy bum.

like i said. look into what midi controllers are. there are 127 of them. they're not there for nothing, they're there to create realism.

But the realism they create is still mechanical. I've done sequencing, used all sorts of sampling libraries, and nothing comes close to just sitting down with a good human player. Computers can't tell if the part is too hard physicly, or hard for the instrument to handle. Computers force instruments to sound well in their extreme registers, and nothing gets close to the sheer amount of tonal qualities available for the instruments.

I don't want my piece sounding the same every time. I refuse to program what limited expression I can in. I'll give my music to a human to get what I want. No computer can ever replicate that.

But the realism they create is still mechanical. I've done sequencing, used all sorts of sampling libraries, and nothing comes close to just sitting down with a good human player. Computers can't tell if the part is too hard physicly, or hard for the instrument to handle. Computers force instruments to sound well in their extreme registers, and nothing gets close to the sheer amount of tonal qualities available for the instruments.

I don't want my piece sounding the same every time. I refuse to program what limited expression I can in. I'll give my music to a human to get what I want. No computer can ever replicate that.

you're not getting my point. the point is. the computer is you. whatever comes out of those speakers, isn't because of the computer. it's you. you're the one who wrote the music. you're the one who processed it. you're right. computers can't tell if the part is too hard physically. but you, as a person, would know that. you're the one putting the music on the computer. if it's too hard for the a real live player. then it's you who's at fault. not the computer. you're the one who's supposed to make that change.

you don't want your piece sounding the same. so you get a live player to do it. no. it's more like. a real live player can never play the same piece exactly the same way twice. a player can play it good one time but not so good another time. if you process your music right on the computer, it will always sound nice. if you want it to sound different, then you can go through and do some extra work to make it sound different. it's only logical.