Piano proficiency

Is piano proficiency important for a composer ?.

I have friends who said Composers must be able to play piano while some disagree.Many did agree that composers must be able to play an instrument.I am not really interested in learning the piano but i am not sure if I should take start learning the piano.I do play trumpet at times.I need some advice here.

It is good to have a knowledge of the piano. However, I wouldn't say you need to play piano well to compose. As for an instrument, I think it is best to study and/or play musical instruments. It's possible to compose and have never touched an instrument - but - I think it makes you a better composer to at least know about the different instruments at your disposal. If you don't know anything about them, how can you compose for them?

It is good to have a knowledge of the piano. However, I wouldn't say you need to play piano well to compose. As for an instrument, I think it is best to study and/or play musical instruments. It's possible to compose and have never touched an instrument - but - I think it makes you a better composer to at least know about the different instruments at your disposal. If you don't know anything about them, how can you compose for them?

Hi,

I would like to know more about 'knowlege of piano', you mean play simple chords in a piano or up to a playing the piano up to a certain grade.I do agree with you it is best to study or play musical instruments.

Thank you for your reply.

Well, obviously, if you don't know how a piano operates or even the remote technicality involved in playing the instrument (limitations and restrictions, etc.) then you aren't going to be able to write for the piano well at all. I can remember my first works for the piano - prior to taking piano lessons - and, let me tell you, they were horrid! Now, to what grade a person should study piano... I think that one needs to just have a familiarity with the manner at which the instrument is played. For some, that should suffice. But for others, I think your basic college course requirements are enough.

Well, I use the piano as a composing tool. I think you should know how to play and where the notes are and such, but you don't need to be amazing at it.

And other instruments are good too..you can compose with any of them, but piano is easier because you have the whole orchestral range at your fingertips.

And yes, you have to know how to play an instrument to be a composer. (well at least I think so :jedi:)

I think a composer should know how to play at least one instrument. I don't believe that piano has to be that one instrument. Before the computer age, working out things on a piano or other keyboard instrument was the only way a composer could hear how a complex polyphonic work would sound, without actually getting it performed. However, now that we have programs such as Sibelius and Finale, we can hear what a passage sounds like without having to be able to play it ourselves.

Now, if you want to write for piano, then you should definitely study a little bit of piano, just so that you get an idea of what's possible to do on the instrument and what's not.

Thank you for your advice everybody.

Thank you for your advice everybody.

Okay, I'm going to beat the dead horse here and offer my own two cents.

I began music as a percussion player. I'm not a wind, brass, or string player to any degree of proficiency. I did complete my piano proficiency in college, but that in and of itself hasn't really done anything for me as a composer. The simple reality is we have technology today that makes the need for performing on any instrument practically nothing at all. You don't really -need- to be a performer. Does it help? Intuitively for some, yes. By and large though, we're talking about composition, which is not in any way associated with the motor skills involved in performing music UNLESS you're writing for an instrument you play and which you intend to perform the piece on. The only motor skills I imagine you will need to develop to a reasonable degree of proficiency are your conducting and singing skills, because these are absolutely necessary if you ever find yourself in a scenario where you're asked to rehearse the ensemble that is performing your work.

So, let's get to the meat and bones of what you absolutely need to be proficient in, and that's aural skills. You cannot, CANNOT be lacking in your ability to sing what you read on a page using referential or perfect pitch. The latter comes with a well-nurtured sound-association in early childhood development, and aural learners who study music tend to develop perfect pitch more easily than other learning types. If you don't have perfect pitch, you should work on your referential pitch extensively. You can practice humming a single interval throughout the day and periodically check yourself using a piano, a notation program, etc. I downloaded a free program called Ear Power that I periodically use to test my aural skills (and it's kind of fun if you make it a game and challenge yourself to do better). This is a critical skill to develop, and I have yet to encounter a rebuttal to this that would make me believe otherwise.

Another critical skill to develop is your listening skills, especially if you want to write for an ensemble with multiple instruments. This involves listening to a variety of musical works and styles, listening for a variety of things from instrumentation to how performers might "attack" when they play a pitch. You might listen for harmonic progressions that sound familiar to you or attempt to write out a melodic line from a piece you like using the score to check your work. You might try notating a rhythmic pattern that appeals to you. Using the existing library of music, there is more you can learn on your own from simply developing your listening skills than you may ever learn in college. Listening is a huge part of what we do as composers.

And that's my two cents. Nowhere in there does playing an instrument even factor into the equation. It's not about playing music, it's about understanding music. Requiring composers to perform on an instrument when they have SO MUCH ELSE to do in preparing themselves for a career in their field, in my opinion, squanders a composition student's time needed to develop these skills in many cases because the school wants a student recital every week. I mean, for a small school that's acceptable, but for large institutions it's such bureaucratic nonsense in my book.

My rant is over now.

You need nothing to be a composer. Stop overcomplicating it all.

Course, things are often more helpful than nothings.

You need nothing to be a composer. Stop overcomplicating it all.

Well well then

Take any person off the street, drag them to your house and tell them to write a piano piece.

What happens? Nothing. You need to know WHAT to do and HOW to do it to be a composer.

Well well then

Take any person off the street, drag them to your house and tell them to write a piano piece.

What happens? Nothing. You need to know WHAT to do and HOW to do it to be a composer.

Not really...

Any person off the street might come up with some really creative music.

...

If YOU were to take a blank canvas and some paint, could you not create a painting? You are not a trained artist... you don't know WHAT to do, nor HOW to do it. YET, you could easily paint something interesting and creative.

Likewise could John Q. Public create something.... in any artistic medium.

Technique (the WHAT and HOW) are but a very minor aspect of creating art ... don't presume that "technique" carries with it any intrinsic value, worth or artistry.

;)

Is piano proficiency important for a composer? I think it depends on what type of music you compose and what you plan to do with your musical abilities. If you want to conduct or teach theory and techniques of composition I would highly recommend that you become proficient at the piano in order to accompany, play sections of music for yourself, or demonstrate the music you will be teaching. Playing piano will make you a more marketable teacher. Of course teaching is not the same as composing, and piano proficiency is not a necessity to be a good composer. Like Antiatonality said, your aural skills (followed by knowledge of orchestration, notation, counterpoint, harmony, form, etc...) are your most important tools, but experience playing an instrument and playing that instrument in an ensemble generally comes before your first written compositions because the experience develops your skills. Things may be different if you compose straight into a computer. I think my first compositions were made using ACID loops in a time when I knew very little about music and certainly could not play the piano.

Not really...

Any person off the street might come up with some really creative music.

...

If YOU were to take a blank canvas and some paint, could you not create a painting? You are not a trained artist... you don't know WHAT to do, nor HOW to do it. YET, you could easily paint something interesting and creative.

Likewise could John Q. Public create something.... in any artistic medium.

Technique (the WHAT and HOW) are but a very minor aspect of creating art ... don't presume that "technique" carries with it any intrinsic value, worth or artistry.

;)

This is not universally true, though. It depends on the art, the genre of the art, and overall what the artist is trying to accomplish. A blanket statement like, "Technique is only a very minor aspect of creating art..." is just not a legitimate statement in every context.

Let's stick within the realm of composition for a moment. If a composer wanted to, say, create a piece of music that combines different sounds from a metropolitan area into one recorded work, there might be less to know about "composing" music than scoring orchestral music to a 100 minute film. There might be more technical know-how involved in the latter than the former, several years of study in music for scoring the film as opposed to recording sounds off the street.

Technique is certainly not a "minor" aspect of creating all forms of art. It's simply minor when technique is more accessible to the common individual through general-level knowledge and technology. But it's not universally the case that technique is ALWAYS a minor aspect of creating art... quite the opposite actually, especially when we start exploring different styles of music and the techniques involved. It really depends on the sound you seek to create that determines the type and amount of knowledge and technique needed to accomplish the task.

This is not universally true, though. It depends on the art, the genre of the art, and overall what the artist is trying to accomplish. A blanket statement like, "Technique is only a very minor aspect of creating art..." is just not a legitimate statement in every context.

Let's stick within the realm of composition for a moment. If a composer wanted to, say, create a piece of music that combines different sounds from a metropolitan area into one recorded work, there might be less to know about "composing" music than scoring orchestral music to a 100 minute film. There might be more technical know-how involved in the latter than the former, several years of study in music for scoring the film as opposed to recording sounds off the street.

Technique is certainly not a "minor" aspect of creating all forms of art. It's simply minor when technique is more accessible to the common individual through general-level knowledge and technology. But it's not universally the case that technique is ALWAYS a minor aspect of creating art... quite the opposite actually, especially when we start exploring different styles of music and the techniques involved. It really depends on the sound you seek to create that determines the type and amount of knowledge and technique needed to accomplish the task.

To be fair, I think ANY aspect of music - ALL OF THEM - are minor. There is no one single thing, of the 'elements' of music, that when removed would render a work "non musical" ... ...is there?

Anyway...my point was that `technique`isn`t the be-all and end-all of musical expression. Some of the WORST music I come across is technically flawless... but devoid of anything musical... why is it such blasphemy for me to say the opposite?

Because, I didn`t mean to say that Mr. Common Individual has no technique - indeed, quite the contrary ;) I mean to demonstrate that technique can be found in many different places - and OUR definition of academically honed TECHNIQUE may be very different from John Q. Publics unorthodox technique - however untrained he may be, his technique (or lack thereof) is no less valid or important than anyone else...

Why is it that I would be able to create a wondrous sculture or painting or story without any knowledge of the techniques required? Why is my own artistic technique inappropriate or incorrect?

I point you towards this book: http://www.amazon.co...62487691&sr=8-1

Music can be distilled to any number of elements (pitch, rhythm, technique, dynamics...etc) and the absence of one is easily overshadowed by excellence in the others.

:dunno:

To be fair, I think ANY aspect of music - ALL OF THEM - are minor. There is no one single thing, of the 'elements' of music, that when removed would render a work "non musical" ... ...is there?

This depends entirely on what you're trying to write. If you're speaking of a very specific set of techniques for scoring music to film in a specific, Hollywood sound, because that's what the director wants, Joe Schmoe isn't going to walk in off the street knowing nothing about music and be able to deliver that kind of work. Technique applies in different ways in different artistic mediums, but your position that any aspect of music is minor does not ALWAYS apply. You're speaking in generalizations.

Anyway...my point was that `technique`isn`t the be-all and end-all of musical expression. Some of the WORST music I come across is technically flawless... but devoid of anything musical... why is it such blasphemy for me to say the opposite?

Because it's not universally true that ANY aspect of music is minor throughout all styles/genres/types of music. Some music requires technical knowledge a lay person would not otherwise know unless they dedicated time to studying music, like my example of scoring music to film in the traditional "Hollywood," big orchestra sense.

Because, I didn`t mean to say that Mr. Common Individual has no technique - indeed, quite the contrary ;) I mean to demonstrate that technique can be found in many different places - and OUR definition of academically honed TECHNIQUE may be very different from John Q. Publics unorthodox technique - however untrained he may be, his technique (or lack thereof) is no less valid or important than anyone else...

No, but expectations exist in certain artistic media and thus, technique and skill would be expected from anyone saying they can write for that media.

Why is it that I would be able to create a wondrous sculpture or painting or story without any knowledge of the techniques required? Why is my own artistic technique inappropriate or incorrect?

It depends on what you're painting or sculpting and how much cost is involved on the part of others. You aren't, for example, going to get someone to contribute $50,000 to a grand sculpting project (for materials) if you haven't demonstrated skills and techniques that would lead one to believe you could complete the project if given the money. Your own artistic technique may not be appropriate or adequate for the project. Thus, technique becomes the deciding factor.

I point you towards this book: http://www.amazon.co...62487691&sr=8-1

Music can be distilled to any number of elements (pitch, rhythm, technique, dynamics...etc) and the absence of one is easily overshadowed by excellence in the others.

:dunno:

I'm sure the book supports or further argues your point, but I am simply pointing out that what you are applying as universally true of music composition is not universally true.

I personally agree with what AntiA said. I think aural skills plus understanding and knowledge of theory and techniques is what makes a composer. Technique is a must if you are going to make music for media and that's where composers should dedicate most of their time. You simply need to know that in order to fulfill their requirements for music in a certain style, and you should be familiar with lots of styles and their characteristics. Playing an instrument can be helpful, though. Personally, I am a terribly bad instrumentalist and would like to improve my keyboard skills. It is pretty useful when you want to quickly play your ideas and/or if you feel like improvising.

In an effort to get Uncle Nitpicky off my back:

I never once mentioned "Hollywood" or "$50,000 grants" ... I don't really know why you're trying to focus my perspective so much. I am speaking in generalizations - YES! What I'm absolutely not talking about are specifics!!

Yes, you're right.... of course no one is going to hire Steve R. McNobody (a bricklayer from Alabama) to score the next Pixar film.

I concede - there are instances when technique may be an important factor (in those instances, there are certainly other deciding criterea as well) For me, listening from a purely musical standpoint, techniqe is always but one minor facet of a whole; perhaps important, perhaps not.

... I simply said that MUSIC can be created by ANYONE. Just as a painting can be created by ANYONE - regardless of their supposed skill-level.

There is no prerequisite knowledge needed to create something ...

Generalizations... yes. So sue me!

;)

In an effort to get Uncle Nitpicky off my back:

Sorry, Robin. I like the nickname you've given me though. I'm going to add that to my profile now.

I never once mentioned "Hollywood" or "$50,000 grants" ... I don't really know why you're trying to focus my perspective so much. I am speaking in generalizations - YES! What I'm absolutely not talking about are specifics!!

Yes, you're right.... of course no one is going to hire Steve R. McNobody (a bricklayer from Alabama) to score the next Pixar film.

I concede - there are instances when technique may be an important factor (in those instances, there are certainly other deciding criterea as well) For me, listening from a purely musical standpoint, techniqe is always but one minor facet of a whole; perhaps important, perhaps not.

... I simply said that MUSIC can be created by ANYONE. Just as a painting can be created by ANYONE - regardless of their supposed skill-level.

There is no prerequisite knowledge needed to create something ...

Generalizations... yes. So sue me!

;)

Don't tempt me :) My wife practices law, you know... I'm totally NOT going to sue you though, unless you're some CEO of a billion dollar company that actually has money that would make it worth my while, of course :)

Yes, music can be created by anyone, but we shouldn't be so quick to marginalize the importance of learning techniques and skills that help us compose what we long to write. Thus, while this supposed skill-level issue is rather moot in light of the fact that anyone can do it (write music), those who do it well know their shite, right?

Of course, knowing your shite doesn't guarantee you'll write music well, as you pointed out. But I know of no one writing music who doesn't know their shite writing anything I'll remember in a year either. It doesn't mean that you have to know EVERYTHING there is to know about music, but you have to know enough to achieve a result that truly represents what you want to express in your music. This, by default, involves SOME KIND OF technique or skill, be it something easily accessible to anyone or something you'll only come to understand through years of study.

That's really all my point boils down to... and if that's nit-picky, so be it. :P