How to add body to a piano chord without muddying it up?

I have been told by several people now that my piano chords are muddy, what with the close voiced bass chords. They would be if I used the pedal, certainly, but outside of some specific pieces that I compose such as nocturnes and a few dance pieces, I don't use the pedal for my chords with very few exceptions, especially at forte, when the chord will sustain audibly without the pedal for up to 2 4/4 bars at 120 BPM. And when I do use the pedal for chords in nocturnes and dance pieces, I use chords in this form:

Single bass note, possibly in octaves followed by a full chord at least an octave above the bass note(or if the bass is in octaves, at least a fifth above the highest note of the octave)

And yes, I took that excerpt from Chopin's Nocturne in C minor.

However, when I use that Beethovenian, close voiced bass, I definitely don't use the pedal outside of the occasional long chord, since that would cause muddiness. Nobody would pedal all the way through the first 4 bars of the Pathetique Sonata. If I want to pedal through a close voiced bass harmony, I use arpeggios instead of chords. So this is my default for adding body when I feel that the right hand is unable to contribute either because of distance from the chords or melodic involvement, especially when I want that dramatic, Beethovenian vibe:

Close voiced bass, no pedal outside of long chords(and even then, quite long, almost a half note at Grave, over 2 bars at Allegro before I use the pedal)

Similarly, with repeated chords, I don't use the pedal unless it is repeated only a few times, and especially not if it is a repeated diminished seventh chord. And as a composer I'm like:

Quote

If I want to use the pedal I will mark it. If I don't want the pedal to be used, I won't mark it, plain and simple. Surely any performing pianist will understand that I only want the pedaling where it is specifically marked.

I think that people that say that my Beethovenian chords are muddy are assuming the pianist is going to pedal the chords, when that is in fact, not what I would do as a pianist myself. I have listened to other pieces and I only really found 2 solutions to said muddiness issue that add body to the chords AND have the melody being played by the right hand, those being:

• Melody and chords simultaneously in 1 hand
• Chordal melody

They both are hard for me to write, especially the first one. And the second one, the melody formed from chords seems like it would be best used for these situations:

• Slow tempo
• Dramatic twist
• Bach Chorale type moments, where 2-4 part counterpoint arises from harmonic progressions

Indeed the intro to the Pathetique sonata is an example of that third situation and the first situation. And the Piu Allegro of Mozart's C minor Fantasia is an example of the second situation. Some Chopin pieces also match up with that third situation.

But the hardest of the 2 solutions is the Melody and chords being played simultaneously in 1 hand. I have seen a lot of Liszt pieces that do exactly that. But Liszt could reach a 12th, so he had significant advantages with that. I can barely reach a ninth, which really restricts the melodic motion available with the simultaneous melody and chords option. That in turn makes it hard for me to use this solution, because my melodies get quite involved sometimes, leaping up an octave or further.

But, I only use the Beethovenian, close voiced bass in these situations:

• A simple octave width chord of just the root and fifth or a single note in octaves won’t suffice for whatever reason

• Moving the chord up an octave will bring it either too close to the melody(which is why I only use octaves on the first and third beats of a waltz, because the second beat is when the melody and bass are likely to be at their closest) or subtract too much body from the chord to get the sound I want

• I want more body to the chord than 3 notes will give me

That happens to limit it to mainly forte and fortissimo passages, especially those with diminished sevenths that I use the close voicing for. With diminished sevenths, I'm like:

Quote

It doesn't matter if it is muddy when it is a diminished seventh. In fact, muddiness can sometimes add to, not subtract from, the diminished seventh's effectiveness. As long as there is no pedal that is.

And for triads, like I stated near the beginning, I don't use the pedal unless the chords are long when they are in a close voicing in the bass.

So am I really doing something wrong by having close voiced bass chords in the left hand of the piano when I want more body to the chord and moving the chord up an octave will subtract too much from the chord or bring it too close to the melody? I'm just trying to acheive that bass richness that I feel that I need in such situations, and I mainly do it for passages at a loud dynamic, especially where there is tension.

maybe an arpeggio that leaves out 3rds in the first octave

If you have dissonant chords, lets say c, e, g, ab. ( you could also have the ab in the upper voice) I think that voicing is fine (DISCLAIMER: Many people say that lower notes sound muddier, because they do.) If you have a dissonant note you have in the left hand in a lower octave, I would omit as muck of the chord as possible but still have the "sound" that you want. Those are my two cents, however worth they are. If you could put a picture of one of your own examples that would help a lot too! 🙂

Closed voice bass chords just don't work on the modern piano as well as they did on the fortepiano. There's far to much resonance. Also, most pianists would pedal large chords to get the most resonance possible from the instrument. 

You can have open voiced bass chords and still get the same resonance from the chord. Maybe a chord built:10th/5th/Root can still work.

3 hours ago, caters said:

If I want to use the pedal I will mark it. If I don't want the pedal to be used, I won't mark it, plain and simple. Surely any performing pianist will understand that I only want the pedaling where it is specifically marked.

Debussy famously said that he refused to write pedal, because every piano is different and one pedalling will sound great on one piano and awful on another. It still applies today, with so many different pianos. Don't expect your performer to pedal only exactly where it is marked.

3 hours ago, caters said:

And the second one, the melody formed from chords seems like it would be best used for these situations:

• Slow tempo
• Dramatic twist
• Bach Chorale type moments, where 2-4 part counterpoint arises from harmonic progressions

Let's have a look at some examples from the piano literature. First up, Grieg!

The passage starts at 1:03

There's a melody formed from chords, but it doesn't fulfill any of your three criteria.

Now some Beethoven, seeing how you always talk about him. Sonata in C Major, Op 10 No. 3:

The 4th movement start at 20:22. It's a melody from chords. It's not slow, dramatic or a chorale.

There must be countless other examples that don't fit what you said. It's easy enough to write a melody with chords.

3 hours ago, caters said:

So am I really doing something wrong by having close voiced bass chords in the left hand of the piano when I want more body to the chord and moving the chord up an octave will subtract too much from the chord or bring it too close to the melody? I'm just trying to acheive that bass richness that I feel that I need in such situations, and I mainly do it for passages at a loud dynamic, especially where there is tension.

On the modern piano, yes you are. You can just spread the notes out a bit more, without bringing the whole chord up an octave. In fact, that solution doesn't really help anything, it just makes it less noticeable.

I'll leave you with one last example. Look at how Rachmaninoff voices his chords in the well-known Prelude in G minor.

The only things that can make a chord muddy or sound weird are:

- Unprepared coming notes (dissonants)
- Excessive notes and their type (too much notes, or doubling the 7th grade in a V7 for example)
- Block chords that are not prepared (rythmically or harmonically, progression, some block of chords without the 3th, but with tonic doubled)
- Very distanced voices (basic in part writing, it shouldn't be more than 10th distance between them, and if it does, sometimes an octave lower or upper makes a great difference on how a bass chord will sound. This has very different context, because the distance being more than 10th is not an issue if using them well).


 

Have you considered the way you are presenting them.

The piano puts out a wide array of frequencies. Sometimes in the recording process

you just have 'too much' this or too much that.

I'm not sure it's theoretical as I think any chord on a piano

can sound right. You also have to consider the instrument

cause some old pianos have that 'dead' response also.

I'm not sure a piano was known for clarity it's quite noisy and muddy by 

nature

@aMusicComposer Um, what do you mean raising the chord an octave doesn't help with muddiness? As you go higher up the piano, you get more clarity and less muddiness, but you also get less and less body to the notes. It's a tradeoff. And like I said in the original post, it is mainly forte and fortissimo passages in which I use this close voicing in the bass, because it is natural to want more body to the chords at forte than at piano. An open voicing like C-G-C can work very well at piano for both C major and C minor. And at forte, it still works pretty well for C major. But what about C minor? There, if you have an open voicing like C-G-C at forte and the only Eb you have is in the right hand, you might not get enough of the minor sonority, especially if it is the tonic that is minor, so adding the minor third to the left hand increases the minor sonority. And I also feel that there are some chords for which close voicing increases the effectiveness of both the chord and its resolution, namely:

• Augmented triads - An open voicing of these, where the third is above all the other notes can easily sound like the VI of a minor key with a non-chord tone, whereas if you have the third right in between the root and augmented fifth, you get more of that augmented sonority. This is less of a problem with bowed strings and woodwinds than it is on the piano.
• Diminished sevenths - Now, with this chord, you don't have that enharmonic reinterpretation problem that you get with open voiced augmented triads, it is going to sound diminished no matter what. Inversion, open voicing, nothing will get rid of that diminished sound. Instead, with the diminished seventh, a close voicing brings even more tension than an open voicing, and since diminished sevenths are all about tension, a close voicing of the diminished seventh increases the effectiveness of the forthcoming resolution and any suspension of the resolution such as moving to another diminished seventh a half step away or repeating the diminished seventh over and over for more than a measure also becomes more effective with the close voicing.

Minor seventh chords, which I use for a peaceful ambient quality and feel don't need to resolve in any way because of the complete lack of tendency tones, are also more effective with a close voicing, but only because an open voicing can easily make it sound like a dominant seventh chord. For example is this a dominant seventh or a minor seventh?

I'd venture to guess that you would say it is a dominant seventh with a chromatically altered third because of the C-G-Bb in the bass. If the Eb was 2 octaves lower down, it would unmistakably be a minor seventh chord, not a dominant seventh that has been chromatically altered. This is yet another example of where close and open voicings change the harmonic interpretation, even though the notes used are either exactly the same or enharmonic equivalents.

19 minutes ago, caters said:

There, if you have an open voicing like C-G-C at forte and the only Eb you have is in the right hand, you might not get enough of the minor sonority, especially if it is the tonic that is minor, so adding the minor third to the left hand increases the minor sonority.

Technically, increasing the amount of third in chord just confuses it. Having the setup that you mentioned there is a good solution.

20 minutes ago, caters said:

I'd venture to guess that you would say it is a dominant seventh with a chromatically altered third because of the C-G-Bb in the bass.

Actually, no. Since it has C-Eb-G-Bb in it, it's a minor seventh chord. Completely out of context, these four notes make a minor seventh chord on C. (Or a M6 chord on Eb.) I would say it is a minor seventh chord. We can't have any harmonic interpretation of a single chord.

You still haven't seemed to take on the fact that close voiced chords don't work on the modern piano like they did on the fortepiano.

There's a nice little piece of Liszt's that counts on this richness. 

.

2 hours ago, caters said:

@aMusicComposer Um, what do you mean raising the chord an octave doesn't help with muddiness? As you go higher up the piano, you get more clarity and less muddiness, but you also get less and less body to the notes. It's a tradeoff. And like I said in the original post, it is mainly forte and fortissimo passages in which I use this close voicing in the bass, because it is natural to want more body to the chords at forte than at piano. An open voicing like C-G-C can work very well at piano for both C major and C minor. And at forte, it still works pretty well for C major. But what about C minor? There, if you have an open voicing like C-G-C at forte and the only Eb you have is in the right hand, you might not get enough of the minor sonority, especially if it is the tonic that is minor, so adding the minor third to the left hand increases the minor sonority. And I also feel that there are some chords for which close voicing increases the effectiveness of both the chord and its resolution, namely:

• Augmented triads - An open voicing of these, where the third is above all the other notes can easily sound like the VI of a minor key with a non-chord tone, whereas if you have the third right in between the root and augmented fifth, you get more of that augmented sonority. This is less of a problem with bowed strings and woodwinds than it is on the piano.
• Diminished sevenths - Now, with this chord, you don't have that enharmonic reinterpretation problem that you get with open voiced augmented triads, it is going to sound diminished no matter what. Inversion, open voicing, nothing will get rid of that diminished sound. Instead, with the diminished seventh, a close voicing brings even more tension than an open voicing, and since diminished sevenths are all about tension, a close voicing of the diminished seventh increases the effectiveness of the forthcoming resolution and any suspension of the resolution such as moving to another diminished seventh a half step away or repeating the diminished seventh over and over for more than a measure also becomes more effective with the close voicing.

Minor seventh chords, which I use for a peaceful ambient quality and feel don't need to resolve in any way because of the complete lack of tendency tones, are also more effective with a close voicing, but only because an open voicing can easily make it sound like a dominant seventh chord. For example is this a dominant seventh or a minor seventh?

I'd venture to guess that you would say it is a dominant seventh with a chromatically altered third because of the C-G-Bb in the bass. If the Eb was 2 octaves lower down, it would unmistakably be a minor seventh chord, not a dominant seventh that has been chromatically altered. This is yet another example of where close and open voicings change the harmonic interpretation, even though the notes used are either exactly the same or enharmonic equivalents.

 

That chord is none of these. A C7 chord would have not flattened E, and a diminished 7th would be a C7 with with sharpened root or a double flattened 7th (and so flaten 3 and 5). So a C7 wants to go to Fmaj/minor, and a Cdim7 wants to go to C#maj/min, because a Cdim7 is actually a B7(#root) or C3b5b7bb that leads other way. What you have there is a Cmin7 or a C7-3b, which would lead to a Dmin5b chord, or possibly C# maj/min.

Eb wants to go D to resolve (or Db), while the natural E naturally leads to F and in the other hand, the D# on a Cdim7 wants to resolve to E. Remember it C7->F(maj or min), B#dim7->C#(maj or min) or C3b5b7bb -> Db, C or Abmin5b

@caters

Look at Quinn's post here:

1 hour ago, Quinn said:

There's a nice little piece of Liszt's that counts on this richness. 

.

You can see, even though the chords a big, there is a definite gap between the lowest and next lowest notes. Also, look how the right hand is carrying both the melody and upper notes of the chords.

@Quinn What piece is this? It looks nice to play.

16 hours ago, caters said:

I have been told by several people now that my piano chords are muddy, what with the close voiced bass chords.

Pay less attention to those several people, then.  Honestly there's a lot of ways to write for piano and none of it is "wrong." It may sound different depending on each instrument, but there's much to be said here on the role of the interpreter rather than just the composer. There's plenty of examples in this thread already of vastly different piano writing, so it's not like there isn't a precedent.

In the end, what matters is that you know what you're getting when you write things a certain way and that you're OK with that. Everything else isn't worth your time.

13 hours ago, aMusicComposer said:

@caters

Look at Quinn's post here:

You can see, even though the chords a big, there is a definite gap between the lowest and next lowest notes. Also, look how the right hand is carrying both the melody and upper notes of the chords.

@Quinn What piece is this? It looks nice to play.

 

Thank you.

It's one of his Studies (I hope I can get this right: Études d'exécution transcendante) 9, Ricordanza. Has its difficulties but you spotted the problem with these chords, bringing out the melody with the little finger while playing the rest of the upper chord quieter.  Also takes practice getting the left hand quiet and even. 

I had a lot of trouble playing quiet chords with their component notes sounding together.

1 hour ago, Quinn said:

Thank you.

 

It's one of his Studies (I hope I can get this right: Études d'exécution transcendante) 9, Ricordanza. Has its difficulties but you spotted the problem with these chords, bringing out the melody with the little finger while playing the rest of the upper chord quieter.  Also takes practice getting the left hand quiet and even. 

I had a lot of trouble playing quiet chords with their component notes sounding together.

 

Okay. I listened to the whole thing. There are definitely some beautiful chord sonorities. No. 6 (Vision) also has some lovely deep chordal sounds at the start (although they are arpeggiated).

19 hours ago, SSC said:

Pay less attention to those several people, then.  Honestly there's a lot of ways to write for piano and none of it is "wrong." It may sound different depending on each instrument, but there's much to be said here on the role of the interpreter rather than just the composer. There's plenty of examples in this thread already of vastly different piano writing, so it's not like there isn't a precedent.

 

In the end, what matters is that you know what you're getting when you write things a certain way and that you're OK with that. Everything else isn't worth your time.

 

I highly disagree. There's many things that indicate wherever some writing and specially in piano/keyboard is good or not, as we can see what every composer has avoided to do as the time passed, and when they did something different. The only time when you can ignore these rules is when the music you create ends being beautiful enough or when you have some other abstract goal, from making a very special étude/piece (as Ligeti's Music ricercare), trying to print a really specific feeling/vision (using different modes or unconventional techniques) or others reason decent enough.

I respect and I belive that each one is free to create the music they want to, and using what they want, but if you're going to publish that music (more like share it with others) rather than just keep it for yourself, then you have to be open to critics, and be able to understand which things are expected from you to follow. I might be wrong, but as I perceive it now, unless you totally write for yourself which is respectable and a great goal, you should care about what "can" be done and when.

On 4/15/2020 at 6:33 PM, J.Santos said:

I might be wrong

Huh, well...

On 4/15/2020 at 6:33 PM, J.Santos said:

I respect and I belive that each one is free to create the music they want to, and using what they want, but if you're going to publish that music (more like share it with others) rather than just keep it for yourself, then you have to be open to critics, and be able to understand which things are expected from you to follow.

Well what's "respect" for if you can't let people do their own thing their own way? You DON'T have to be open for criticism if you don't want to, and you DON'T need to follow what others are doing if you don't want to either. In fact, this is the entire point of having creative freedom, something you supposedly respect but apparently only superficially.

Composition is not a democracy. You are very well in the position to ask a pianist to shove hay into the piano to feed it (cuz it's hungry,) if that's what you want to do. You can ask anything you want, and you can in fact demand it and carry it out unopposed, it's just a question of how and if that's really what you want to do. You can write for others, or for yourself, or for your pet rocks, it doesn't matter, the only person you really should be answering to is yourself, nobody else. If YOU want to appease other people, that's on YOU, but you can't push that onto others or pretend it's some kind of "standard." That defeats, again, the point of having artistic freedom to begin with.

On 4/15/2020 at 6:33 PM, J.Santos said:

every composer

That's a rather long list of people, you know that right? I mean, that's me, you, Schoenberg, Beethoven, Antheil, Lachenmann, Liszt, Stockhausen, Hindemith, Bartok, Kurtag, Martinu, Vierne, Fauré, Janacek, Ginastera, Villa-Lobos, Cowell, and so on. Tell me what kind of common ground do you see between all those mentioned? I mean, they used a piano and that's arguable the further back you go. I suspect that your list of "Every composer" is probably quite a little bit shorter than mine, lol.

10 hours ago, SSC said:

Huh, well...

Well what's "respect" for if you can't let people do their own thing their own way? You DON'T have to be open for criticism if you don't want to, and you DON'T need to follow what others are doing if you don't want to either. In fact, this is the entire point of having creative freedom, something you supposedly respect but apparently only superficially.

 

Composition is not a democracy. You are very well in the position to ask a pianist to shove hay into the piano to feed it (cuz it's hungry,) if that's what you want to do. You can ask anything you want, and you can in fact demand it and carry it out unopposed, it's just a question of how and if that's really what you want to do. You can write for others, or for yourself, or for your pet rocks, it doesn't matter, the only person you really should be answering to is yourself, nobody else. If YOU want to appease other people, that's on YOU, but you can't push that onto others or pretend it's some kind of "standard." That defeats, again, the point of having artistic freedom to begin with.

That's a rather long list of people, you know that right? I mean, that's me, you, Schoenberg, Beethoven, Antheil, Lachenmann, Liszt, Stockhausen, Hindemith, Bartok, Kurtag, Martinu, Vierne, Fauré, Janacek, Ginastera, Villa-Lobos, Cowell, and so on. Tell me what kind of common ground do you see between all those mentioned? I mean, they used a piano and that's arguable the further back you go. I suspect that your list of "Every composer" is probably quite a little bit shorter than mine, lol.

 

"Every composer", I was refering more to someone that has its music published and mostly well known classical, as I previously said and in the context we're talking. It's easy to take appart what someone said if you just take each part broken unconsistenly and then answer when out of context and left unmentioned the main argument. I remember you that THE MOST IMPORTANT PART of my text, which you didn't quoted is this:
 

Quote

The only time when you can ignore these rules is when the music you create ends being beautiful enough or when you have some other abstract goal, from making a very special étude/piece (as Ligeti's Music ricercare), trying to print a really specific feeling/vision (using different modes or unconventional techniques) or others reason decent enough.

Even when Schoenberg did broke most of tonal rules, for example, he was following other rules in polytonal and atonal systems, and so happen with every composer, when they do break a rule, it's either because it creates a more beautiful music (as Beethoven did his entire life), it can be use consistently because the context (as Bach did pararell fifths as in his masterpiece Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor), or because again it has some other goals (as Schoenberg did). Again, everyone breaking rules here, ended up following others, creating an art and having their music published.

It's great if you create your own music on your own way, and again that's not anything to argue about, but the same way that if you ignore certain rules (out of thousand of styles), then you will have troubles with "your art". These rules (unless discovered other way), if not followed to an extent, would make see your piece as a sculpture would be seen if instead of hammer and chisel you used a wrecking ball to create it, or used a broom to make small sized painting.

So if you're going to wreck tfout of a rock to create a sculpture, at least make it where there's no people near.
 

40 minutes ago, J.Santos said:

"Every composer", I was refering more to someone that has its music published and mostly well known classical, as I previously said and in the context we're talking.

Oh, so it's only the composers you liked. I figured.

42 minutes ago, J.Santos said:

THE MOST IMPORTANT PART of my text

Yeah, huh, you know, that didn't actually amount to anything other than saying that you like certain exceptions, and you don't like others. That's really it tho. But here, let's dissect it.

42 minutes ago, J.Santos said:

The only time when you can ignore these rules is when the music you create ends being beautiful enough or when you have some other abstract goal, from making a very special étude/piece (as Ligeti's Music ricercare), trying to print a really specific feeling/vision (using different modes or unconventional techniques) or others reason decent enough.

RULES. Right? Set by a central composition committee which we all must respect or risk being sent to the composer Gulag, right? This is really only your opinion, which is fine and all, but nothing more. There are no such thing as "Rules," there are stylistic conventions and tropes. You can use them, you can throw them away, nobody really cares because everything's been done before even if it wasn't done by one of your sanctioned "Every Composers (tm)"

Quick reminder, what's "Beautiful" to you, may not be for someone else. Or are we going down the rabbit hole of "My tastes are absolute for everyone"???

4 hours ago, SSC said:

Oh, so it's only the composers you liked. I figured.

 

Yeah, huh, you know, that didn't actually amount to anything other than saying that you like certain exceptions, and you don't like others. That's really it tho. But here, let's dissect it.

RULES. Right? Set by a central composition committee which we all must respect or risk being sent to the composer Gulag, right? This is really only your opinion, which is fine and all, but nothing more. There are no such thing as "Rules," there are stylistic conventions and tropes. You can use them, you can throw them away, nobody really cares because everything's been done before even if it wasn't done by one of your sanctioned "Every Composers (tm)"

 

Quick reminder, what's "Beautiful" to you, may not be for someone else. Or are we going down the rabbit hole of "My tastes are absolute for everyone"???

 

Answering like that kind of make you see as childish or either disrespectful.

It's not every composer I liked. I don't like some of Bach sons' music, I don't like Händel, Mahler, Stravinsky, Verdi, Berlioz, Elgar, Fauré, there's tone of composer that I don't like (if not dislike at least not as much as the others), or I just like one single piece as much, and they still fit the meaning of a classical composer that has their music published.

Even if I don't like their music or style, I still know that the music they create has those aspect I described before. There's a huge difference on comprehesion here. I don't know yours, but my use of the concept of beautiful is something that is incredibly well done, not something that is "cute". An obscure Shakespearean drama is not beautiful in that meaning, but it's incredibly well done, and that's what counts. When I see a Barlowe's painting, I see a beautiful art of piece, eventhought since it's a very abstract representation of hell is pretty dark-creepy, I still know that it's well done.

Yeah, beautiful has its meanings, and is subjetive, but what is not subjetive in its roots? Everything we call "objetive" is but a mere congregation of intersubjetive proposals that works for us to abstract from our own subjetive when possible. To take an example, imagine a person kind of similar to daltonic, but its disease makes what is to us red, to him/her as "yellow" and the what is yellow for us, as "red" for him/her. If she learns that his/her yellow is called red, and her/his red is called yellow, then you both will see different things, but call it the same.

We can properly know if educated enough when something is beautiful  and not, and most of times, the difference comes from lack education rather than subjetiveness. There's no rule for the arts, you can create what you want, and no one oblies you and I never meant that (that you seem to realise and using very agressively against me), I just said that there's a huge difference between what is well done and what is not, and if you do something "wrong" (not well done) and share it, don't just expect everyone to simply watch and say "oh, nice!"

Edit: Also you seem to forget that specifically Caters mentioned how is trying to compose like Beethoven, and as far as I know this person constantly is trying to follow the classsical-late classical style, which again, there's 2 ways to proceed with this as a base:

1. You follow those rules perfectly and make music within the style, as Mozart did (most of times)
2. You break partially or totally those rules to make a new type of music or variation that is not less beautiful (if not better) than the previous, as Beethoven did.

Other kind of approach to classical style as base wouldn't be possible, since then you would be following other style or techniques. Even if not said, those new creations also should have a consistent use of its own implicit "rules" or rather so you understand better "guide lines" to even start calling it an art. Again, there's 2 ways to approach something to analyse if its art or not, "1 guy hitting a box made of wood":

1. You hit it unconsistently and without clear purpose, which will make you be seem as a chimpanze trying to imitate music.
2. You make this

 

Can you tell which one is "beautiful" within these descriptions?

The easiest way to make you chords "clean" is by making the lowest voice the tonic or either the fifth. 

I would say that the "mudiest" of all inversions is the first inversión specially in major chords because of the minor 6th.

Like all the others said, the piano has changed and today has more ressonance that before so, things that in 1800 sounded well, today can sound a little muddy. 

Idk if someone has already recommended but, try to listen to rachmaninoff, his music is the more clear modern example of thick chords without being muddy. Honestly is impressive to see 10 notes chords. 

I think his dark style fits perfectly with beethoven (talking about chords), because in music he is a LOT different. 

1 hour ago, J.Santos said:

Yeah, beautiful has its meanings, and is subjetive, but what is not subjetive in its roots? Everything we call "objetive" is but a mere congregation of intersubjetive proposals that works for us to abstract from our own subjetive when possible.

... Uh, there are quite a few things that are not subjective. I mean, your opinion on what you think is beautiful is subjective to a large degree, sure. But Acoustics as a field is not subjective, as are fields like neuroscience and many others. Even history itself should not be subjective, but of course as its told by people it is inevitably colored by people's opinions and so on (this is why you try to have multiple sources, to weed out the subjectiveness of the historical facts.)

1 hour ago, J.Santos said:

I still know that the music they create has those aspect I described before.

Yeah, well, I suppose if you have studied carefully every single composition by every single composer that existed, sure. But that's kind of impossible, so I don't know what you're trying to imply here other than whatever you think applies globally just because you declare it does.

1 hour ago, J.Santos said:

We can properly know if educated enough when something is beautiful  and not, and most of times, the difference comes from lack education rather than subjetiveness. There's no rule for the arts, you can create what you want, and no one oblies you and I never meant that (that you seem to realise and using very agressively against me), I just said that there's a huge difference between what is well done and what is not, and if you do something "wrong" (not well done) and share it, don't just expect everyone to simply watch and say "oh, nice!"

That's rich. So, what kind of education do you think allows you to know something is "beautiful," huh? Also, something "wrong"?? Not well done? What exactly does that mean? Something not up to your aesthetic standards?

Y'see, this is the kind of pointless gatekeeping that makes people nervous when they want to actually improve their ability. Your definitions of what's beautiful or what's "wrong" are all nice and well for you, but they don't mean anything to anyone else just because you said so. Additionally, it's a grave mistake to attribute your opinion as something general, no matter how you try to rationalize it (or backpedal, as with your rules that suddenly don't exist, yet do?)

1 hour ago, J.Santos said:

Also you seem to forget that specifically Caters mentioned how is trying to compose like Beethoven, and as far as I know this person constantly is trying to follow the classsical-late classical style, which again, there's 2 ways to proceed with this as a base:

1. You follow those rules perfectly and make music within the style, as Mozart did (most of times)
2. You break partially or totally those rules to make a new type of music or variation that is not less beautiful (if not better) than the previous, as Beethoven did.

What rules? Which rules? Galant style? CPE Bach? Copying Mozart's style? You can derive "rules" out of historical analysis, but they only work within a limited scope. Beethoven himself wrote in very different ways depending on where you look, as did Mozart. There is no "Mozart style," or "Beethoven style." You can copy specific techniques and styles within a very specific historical context, but it will only apply to that.

Unless you mean to tell me that Beethoven's later works have the exact same musical content and execution as his early music, in which case, well. That's why talking about "rules" is pointless.

1 hour ago, Tortualex said:

The easiest way to make you chords "clean" is by making the lowest voice the tonic or either the fifth. 

I would say that the "mudiest" of all inversions is the first inversión specially in major chords because of the minor 6th.

Like all the others said, the piano has changed and today has more ressonance that before so, things that in 1800 sounded well, today can sound a little muddy. 

Idk if someone has already recommended but, try to listen to rachmaninoff, his music is the more clear modern example of thick chords without being muddy. Honestly is impressive to see 10 notes chords. 

I think his dark style fits perfectly with beethoven (talking about chords), because in music he is a LOT different. 

 

I agree with you, Rachmaninoff is a perfect example of thicc chords with clear voicing

The way I see it, the texture (or textures) should be used in accordance with what you are trying to express in the piece. In the case of chords in music, you should choose what to use based on the emotion of the piece, or section within the piece. Beethoven's thick chord texture in the Pathetique Sonata introduction was chosen to create a dramatic and animated effect, whilst Chopin's lighter chord texture in his C minor nocturne was used to create a sadder, more melancholic effect. They well could have chosen any texture; for example, Beethoven could have used a texture similar to Chopin's, or Chopin Beethoven's. But instead, they chose the textures they used, because for them, it best conveyed what they were trying to express.

Ultimately, I think it comes down to what you personally wants to say. Of course, somebody can suggest ideas to you, and you may like those ideas, but ultimately, it's what you believe works best for the piece. As for the rules set in the past, I would say feel free to use them, or break them; whatever best serves your musical message. (But personally, I would not recommend breaking rules just for the sake of breaking them, or following rules just for the sake of following them. Then you're only writing music for the theory's sake, not the music's sake.)

In regards to not muddying chords, then I think it's probably best to change the pedal within a "chord-y" section frequently as possible; for example, every change of harmony. But again, if the desired effect is to have a muddy section, then by all means use it. Whatever you think is most beautiful for your piece.

2 hours ago, SSC said:

... Uh, there are quite a few things that are not subjective. I mean, your opinion on what you think is beautiful is subjective to a large degree, sure. But Acoustics as a field is not subjective, as are fields like neuroscience and many others. Even history itself should not be subjective, but of course as its told by people it is inevitably colored by people's opinions and so on (this is why you try to have multiple sources, to weed out the subjectiveness of the historical facts.)

Yeah, well, I suppose if you have studied carefully every single composition by every single composer that existed, sure. But that's kind of impossible, so I don't know what you're trying to imply here other than whatever you think applies globally just because you declare it does.

 

That's rich. So, what kind of education do you think allows you to know something is "beautiful," huh? Also, something "wrong"?? Not well done? What exactly does that mean? Something not up to your aesthetic standards?

 

Y'see, this is the kind of pointless gatekeeping that makes people nervous when they want to actually improve their ability. Your definitions of what's beautiful or what's "wrong" are all nice and well for you, but they don't mean anything to anyone else just because you said so. Additionally, it's a grave mistake to attribute your opinion as something general, no matter how you try to rationalize it (or backpedal, as with your rules that suddenly don't exist, yet do?)

 

What rules? Which rules? Galant style? CPE Bach? Copying Mozart's style? You can derive "rules" out of historical analysis, but they only work within a limited scope. Beethoven himself wrote in very different ways depending on where you look, as did Mozart. There is no "Mozart style," or "Beethoven style." You can copy specific techniques and styles within a very specific historical context, but it will only apply to that.

 

Unless you mean to tell me that Beethoven's later works have the exact same musical content and execution as his early music, in which case, well. That's why talking about "rules" is pointless.

 

I won't answer more since it's useless. You keep trying to take the things out of context and as a single atom to answer and "disecting" my "organs"with the hope so that they "keep working" themselves... Not only you that, but constantly hitting with your annoyance the same tree with a toy axe with the hope of making it fall (yeah, it's useless to keep using my own words against me when I already clarified all that "beautiful" or "rules" stuff) along with that hypocresy of "is subjetive X, Y it's not the only way, etc.." while you keep assuming what I'm thinking and other stuff that shows how you're actually making a hole in my boat that happens to be the same one that you're taking.

To make it more clear, and stop this non sense: RULES has various uses too, as beautiful. What I mean with rules are not the synomin of laws, but again, as i've already said and you seem to ignore since it benefits your own argumentary, "GUIDE LINES" ("a determinate method for performing ... and obtaining a certain result"). Yeah my message couldn't be more clear, even if you try to keep to "know what i'm thinking" eventhought I clarified it in the previous comment, and so I conclude this stupid non-sense:

If you cannot really create (do not have resources, methods, etc...) whole music, then follow those GUIDE LINES to make it until you're able to create your own style.

It's really pointless, specially when this person is asking because she/he wants to improve and you just give this kind of output, which certainly is not bad at the very short term and can help with block or others such discouragement, but is pretty damaging on the long term, when this person can't achieve a change that he/she desires, and the best is that I can tell you being that convinced because I've been in his/her situation, and thanks to people like me right now I'm more than happy of what I've been able to create more lately.

Seriously, I couldn't care less if you think as me, or so do others, but as I see it right now, that's a pretty bad advice (yours isn't the only way of seeing it, we agree right?) and since I'm trying to help a person and I see the opposite as damaging input I said what it should be said in my opinion. Could be wrong, correct, whatever, at least my comment has the goal to help, yours might doesn't, who knows. Keep barguing if you want about "what is my trouble" and "why i'm wrong" anyway I've already said "what is the correct procedure" and "why that ideas doesn't work, and that's the only necessary things here, not someone pressing the same key while the piece still keeps going.

3 hours ago, J.Santos said:

If you cannot really create (do not have resources, methods, etc...) whole music, then follow those GUIDE LINES to make it until you're able to create your own style.

That's interesting. So yeah, fake it till you make it, right? I'm pretty much against the idea of having a "style," cuz that's also a great way to be very lazy without realizing it. However, this is by far the most agreeable thing you've said so far! Maybe we had a misunderstanding, let's see.

On 4/14/2020 at 11:06 PM, SSC said:

In the end, what matters is that you know what you're getting when you write things a certain way and that you're OK with that. Everything else isn't worth your time.

This refers to the type of writing. If you want to sound like Beethoven and you copy Beethoven, that seems like a good plan if you have no other idea of how to proceed. But the point is, the that you know the actual musical result that you're going to get, and that it's something you want. Really simple.

As for everything else being worthless? Yeah, stuff like the nebulous terminology used when trying to describe something that isn't really concrete. I think it's dumb to say "this chord sounds muddy." What the hell is "muddy"???? It could be that the chord is lacking certain frequencies, that some notes are less present than others, that there's other stuff going on that overshadow it, and so on. I think it's important to be as precise as possible when talking about music, specially something that has to do with timbre or how things can be perceived.

I know the context is that chords played on the bass register of a piano have less definition due to the lack of mid/high frequencies (you can get a lot more technical if you want, but a good experiment is grabbing a spectral analyzer and playing chords on the piano in different registers and seeing visually which harmonics are stronger in each register. Fascinating stuff.)  Yeah, but this isn't automatically a bad or a good thing. It's a characteristic of those chords in that instrument in that register. However, OP isn't sure that "muddy" means that, but they're assuming it does and going from there because it's what made sense to them.

On 4/14/2020 at 6:18 AM, caters said:

So am I really doing something wrong by having close voiced bass chords in the left hand of the piano when I want more body to the chord and moving the chord up an octave will subtract too much from the chord or bring it too close to the melody? I'm just trying to acheive that bass richness that I feel that I need in such situations, and I mainly do it for passages at a loud dynamic, especially where there is tension.

So when they ask this, the obvious answer is NO. They're not doing anything wrong and they have a motive and it's a result they clearly like (otherwise they wouldn't do it) AND they even have examples of other composers doing the exact same thing (with a musical result that they also like.) None of this has to do with rules or beauty or any of that sh!t.