Pianistic Writing

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.

Perhaps, but nothing you wrote above does anything to disprove my assertion that if one wants to write for piano, the best advice is to learn the basics about playing it. A composer can WANT to write for whatever instrument the choose, that doesn't mean they will succeed.

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.

Writing for piano is a much different animal than writing for a flute or a trumpet and similar instruments that can play only one note at a time. A composer has a much better chance of writing something correctly for those types of instruments if one makes sure to stay within their range, and uses keys which are better suited for the instruments.

But with things like double and triple stops on violins my advice would hold true. If you want to write highly complex solo violin music with multiple stops etc. you better know some basics about playing violin.

Again my simple point (which somehow still seems to elude you) is like Chris Rock said, "You can drive a car with your feet if you want to, but that doesn't make it a good idea."

Just BECAUSE a composer CAN write music without having a clue how to play anything doesn't make it the best solution for creating actual music for REAL players of real instruments. Pick what you want to do. If you're happy hitting a button on your computer and hearing it rattle off your newest typings, be my guest. But the moment you take those notes out into the real world and ask a real performer (piano or otherwise) to play them, you're mostly going to show yourself to be completely clueless and ignorant if you spout the meaningless logic you are spewing here....

:P Have fun :-)

Perhaps, but nothing you wrote above does anything to disprove my assertion that if one wants to write for piano, the best advice is to learn the basics about playing it. A composer can WANT to write for whatever instrument the choose, that doesn't mean they will succeed.

I see what you did there. Your advice was:

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

Not:

"Learn the basics about playing."

These things are not the same, so, of course, anything you say at this point is nonsense because you changed your argument to begin with.

Also, doesn't disprove? It obviously can't disprove a point you didn't previously loving make, you silly-hat. Speaking of which, who defines success anyways? You? Who named you president of the international association of composers?

Again my simple point (which somehow still seems to elude you) is like Chris Rock said, "You can drive a car with your feet if you want to, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

That's cute, but of course you don't realize the simple fact that YOU don't decide what makes a "good" or "bad" idea musically. You can say your opinion, but it's just that. An opinion. Art is not driving a car (always with the subjective vs objective argument, will people never learn?), so the comparison is absurd and inadequate.

What if the point is writing something unplayable? What then? Oh it's a "bad idea" according to you. Again, cute, but your opinion is only as important as anyone else's.

Why is it always some Newb who comes in stirring up scraggy without a goddamn clue?

I see what you did there. Your advice was:

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

Not:

"Learn the basics about playing."

These things are not the same, so, of course, anything you say at this point is nonsense because you changed your argument to begin with.

Also, doesn't disprove? It obviously can't disprove a point you didn't previously loving make, you silly-hat.

Speaking of which, who defines success anyways? You? Who named you president of the international association of composers?

Actually the point I continue to wait to see you refute is the initial point that if one wishes to write music for piano, being able to play piano (basics or otherwise) is the best advice. Until you refute that basic claim my point still stands.

Regarding your whining about the details of "success," the subject of this thread is the concept of writing music for piano without knowing how to play piano. Success in such a case would have nothing to do with the "quality" of the music. It would have to do with whether one has succeeded in writing music convincingly written for piano. And the ones who would judge that would be those pianists trying to PLAY the music, not me....

That's cute, but of course you don't realize the simple fact that YOU don't decide what makes a "good" or "bad" idea musically. You can say your opinion, but it's just that. An opinion. Art is not driving a car (always with the subjective vs objective argument, will people never learn?), so the comparison is absurd and inadequate.

Simple analogies seem necessary for you and your understanding, since somehow you are still arguing a mostly unwinnable point.

What if the point is writing something unplayable? What then? Oh it's a "bad idea" according to you. Again, cute, but your opinion is only as important as anyone else's.

Everyone's entitled to their weak and illogical opinion, including you. Congradulations....

Feel free to spend all your time writing intentionally unplayable music. I guess its a better hobby than holding your breath till you pass out, though the rest of the musical world might disagree :-)

Why is it always some Newb who comes in stirring up scraggy without a goddamn clue?

What don't I "have a clue" about? Again, I'm still waiting for you to refute my basic and simple claim that if one wants to write piano music, one's best plan of action is to learn how to play piano. Please inform me, Oh CLUELESS one, I await your higher mental abilities to show me the errors of my ways. The only "stirring" I am doing here is irritating you because you can't seem to put 2 words together that make any logical sense...

Ah, good defense. When in doubt and you run out of thoughts to prove your case, just back out....

Nice talking to ya.....:toothygrin:

I'm obviously not the one changing his arguments mid-discussion, I'm not the one using absolute terms in a subjective context, I'm not the one making completely irrational analogies, I'm not the one ignoring the arguments previously made and the answers previously given, I'm not the one presuming my position is irrefutable when it has already been refuted.

Nope, I'm not doing any of those things. You on the other hand...

PS: Burden of proof is on you, I addressed your "best advice" and you simply glossed over it, so really what do you want? There's only so much I can do if you're ignoring what is being written.

I'm obviously not the one changing his arguments mid-discussion, I'm not the one using absolute terms in a subjective context, I'm not the one making completely irrational analogies, I'm not the one ignoring the arguments previously made and the answers previously given, I'm not the one presuming my position is irrefutable when it has already been refuted.

Nope, I'm not doing any of those things. You on the other hand...

PS: Burden of evidence is on you, I addressed your "best advice" and you simply glossed over it, so really what do you want? There's only so much I can do if you're ignoring what is being written.

Are those the gems of genius from you that I should have taken more seriously?