# How important is to be a good pianist/keyboard player as composer?



## Aceituna (Oct 12, 2020)

How important is it?
As a priority, would it be more important to have focused in the initial stages in learning piano and then dedicate time to other skills? (harmony, ...)


----------



## mikeh-375 (Oct 12, 2020)

Fluency at the keyboard gives you more freedom and ability to improvise and search for ideas.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 12, 2020)

It all depends. If you hear it all in your head, and can then either sequence or type a score straight from that, keyboard skills don't matter. If you like to improvise and then "improve", keyboard skills are more important. However the downside of this is that you will tend to play things that your hands want to do, rather than search for something different.

Personally, whilst I have good keyboard skills, I compose in my head before going anywhere near a computer or manuscript paper. You could also try singing and recoding your efforts, no matter how bad your voice might be...!


----------



## Aceituna (Oct 12, 2020)

Daryl said:


> It all depends. If you hear it all in your head, and can then either sequence or type a score straight from that, keyboard skills don't matter. If you like to improvise and then "improve", keyboard skills are more important. However the downside of this is that you will tend to play things that your hands want to do, rather than search for something different.
> 
> Personally, whilst I have good keyboard skills, I compose in my head before going anywhere near a computer or manuscript paper. You could also try singing and recoding your efforts, no matter how bad your voice might be...!


I known what you mean.
I'm trying to prioritize my goals.
I really sense that the space to look for is the one that leads you to interpret on the piano what you hum in your mind.
I'm a guitarist and I know the danger of improvisation that leads you to repeat patterns.
Actually, at this moment, I am considering dedicating my efforts to improve on the piano, both to be able to capture ideas on the fly, and to facilitate realism in mockups.


----------



## Arbee (Oct 12, 2020)

The clearest way I can think of it is to relate the question to the building industry. Composers are architects as I see it, so does being a skilled bricklayer or carpenter help you be a better architect? I suggest that being one is not as important as understanding how they work and the inherent limitations. So if you aspire to be purely an architect, there is a limit to the value of finessing your trade skills too much. As an architect you need vision and conceptual understanding. I cycled through a number of instruments when I started to orchestrate, and even at the most basic level the practical knowledge was incredibly useful.

The warnings stated by others in this thread are all very true, your muscle memory and playing habits can really limit your creative options. I love that cliche "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.". I'm a decent pianist and guitarist but I try desperately to stay away from my instruments while composing, or at least once I have a seed of an idea. Then it's on to "head and paper" for a while before heading back to the computer and instruments. I also agree that singing (even badly) can be really useful, don't underestimate it.


----------



## youngpokie (Oct 12, 2020)

I think anyone would make the most progress pursuing 2 goals in parallel and incrementally:

- ear training
- functional harmony

With ear training, you can learn to reliably identify the melodies and harmonies you're hearing (including in your head). Compare this with when you hear something and then try to recreate it blindly by trial and error, spending hours and getting frustrated. Nothing kills inspiration faster...

Ear training usually starts with basic intervals, which is a little boring. But once you get to chords, you'll never listen to music the same way again. 

With harmony, the focus should be on the harmonic patterns and cadences (based on TDST), rather than the individual chords and voice leading, at least in the beginning. 

Sadly, traditional (academic) study of harmony is focused in depth on the individual chords, which completely obscures the big picture ---- 99.9% of classical and film music is nothing more than a basic version of TSDT pattern. Once the patterns are clear, the feeling, mood and style are completely transformed by using the technique of chord substitution, where multiple classes of chords can play the function of T, D or S within the given home key and based on rather simple logic. 

These 2 things sound a little theoretical and boring. And also it's not easy to find good information on the the underlying logic of chord substitution in English. But, with these 2 skills you'll be able to "deconstruct" how music is actually made - on the fly. 

You'll start hearing the harmonic patterns whenever music is played and with the ear training you'll be able to identify chord types and transcribe melodies. These two skills in my opinion will provide fluency, confidence and foundational toolbox.


----------



## Aceituna (Oct 12, 2020)

Wow, thanks.



youngpokie said:


> I think anyone would make the most progress pursuing 2 goals in parallel and incrementally:
> 
> - ear training
> - functional harmony
> ...


Which tool do you recommend?



youngpokie said:


> With harmony, the focus should be on the harmonic patterns and cadences (based on TDST), rather than the individual chords and voice leading, at least in the beginning.
> 
> Sadly, traditional (academic) study of harmony is focused in depth on the individual chords, which completely obscures the big picture ---- 99.9% of classical and film music is nothing more than a basic version of TSDT pattern. Once the patterns are clear, the feeling, mood and style are completely transformed by using the technique of chord substitution, where multiple classes of chords can play the function of T, D or S within the given home key and based on rather simple logic.
> 
> ...


Same question


----------



## Babe (Oct 18, 2020)

Can you think of a top classical composer who was not a good piano player?


----------



## CT (Oct 18, 2020)

Babe said:


> Can you think of a top classical composer who was not a good piano player?



John Adams.


----------



## Babe (Oct 18, 2020)

That's 3 things I have in common with John Adams. Both not good piano players, both went to the same school, and both play clarinet. The similarities end there.


----------



## dcoscina (Oct 18, 2020)

You're screwed if you aren't concert level...

JK. In some ways, I think being adept at piano straighjackets one when it comes to writing for orchestra. If your whole lexicon is based around that instrument, it won't necessarily translate well to writing for other instrument groups within the orchestra. Now, sometimes it's handy to check a chord voicing out or something but again, that's not necessarily conducive for orchestra writing since there aren't many instruments that are polyphonic. 

Liszt, who admittedly was one of the world's greatest pianists, composed on a wee little 3 octave keyboard built into a desk for his orchestral music. That is somewhat telling...


----------



## CT (Oct 18, 2020)

dcoscina said:


> You're screwed if you aren't concert level...
> 
> JK. In some ways, I think being adept at piano straighjackets one when it comes to writing for orchestra. If your whole lexicon is based around that instrument, it won't necessarily translate well to writing for other instrument groups within the orchestra. Now, sometimes it's handy to check a chord voicing out or something but again, that's not necessarily conducive for orchestra writing since there aren't many instruments that are polyphonic.
> 
> Liszt, who admittedly was one of the world's greatest pianists, composed on a wee little 3 octave keyboard built into a desk for his orchestral music. That is somewhat telling...



Who's Liszt, is he a member? I want the blueprint for that desk.


----------



## JJP (Oct 19, 2020)

I don't play piano. I play percussion. I was a jazz vibraphonist before I moved into composing, orchestration, and music prep. Some of the busiest orchestrators I know in LA are a drummer, woodwind player, trombonist, and trumpet player.

Whether you need to be a "good" pianist perhaps rests on what people consider "good". Having basic piano skills is important, but not performance level skills.

Being able to play any instrument (or sing) at a high level is definitely recommended. Doing so means you have developed your knowledge, ear, and musicality to a sufficient level.


----------



## madfloyd (Nov 16, 2020)

youngpokie said:


> TDST



What the heck is TDST?


----------



## EgM (Nov 16, 2020)

Tonic, Dominant, Subdominant, Tonic

...At least I think so, I'm just a guitarist


----------



## GNP (Nov 16, 2020)

Any instrument that you're comfortable with should be good enough.


----------



## Stringtree (Nov 16, 2020)

madfloyd said:


> What the heck is TDST?



Tonic, dominant, subdominant, tonic again. A little flipped around as you put it, but these are something a guitarist would know even:

E A B E. (TSDT) (1 4 5 1) (I IV V I).

The tendency in western music for things to start at home (1), move to the (4), then the (5) that really really really wants to go home, and then (1). Ahhh. 1 4 5 1. 

Or as in Rome: I IV V I.

But that's just an example. Piano literature (music) has a bunch of interesting inversions that a person can play by oneself so that hearing becomes really easy after a while. Similar inversions can be done on guitar, but the mammoth stretch of the piano keyboard far surpasses the range of what can be played on the guitar by one fretting hand. Things get ouchy.

Lots of jazz is II V I. 

To the OP's question, playing some chordal instrument makes interrelationships easier and more intuitive to understand. The piano is really easy, because it's visual. Something like a harp or guitar doesn't have the same pattern-based repetition going up chromatically note-by-note. 

Yeah, piano's a winner in this regard.


----------



## JohnG (Nov 16, 2020)

If you're asking, "do I need to be able to play very difficult music on the piano at a concert level?" then I think we'd all agree that the answer is, "no."

That said, if the subtext of the question is a search for reassurance that you don't need to be proficient on any instrument at all but somehow still be great, then the answer to that also is, "no." Or at least, "maybe, but how many are there?"

Every single successful composer can / could play _something_ proficiently. Voice, guitar, woodwinds, the cello, keyboard, drums / percussion -- something. John Adams was / is a virtuoso clarinet player. Haydn played violin and keyboards. Beethoven was a famous keyboard player. Duruflé played the organ. Most pop stars play something, or sing well. Jimi Hendrix could play any scale in the world with lightning speed, as could Eddie Van Halen (check out the videos).

As part of the journey, I think it pays to practice a little whenever you can.


----------



## nolotrippen (Nov 16, 2020)

Aceituna said:


> How important is it?
> As a priority, would it be more important to have focused in the initial stages in learning piano and then dedicate time to other skills? (harmony, ...)



Berlioz and Respighi come to mind. Not that they couldn't noodle the 88s, but they would probably not be considered "pianists" - on the other hand, they're two of the greatst orchestrators ever! But you don't have to forgo composition for piano playing or vice versa.


----------



## youngpokie (Nov 16, 2020)

madfloyd said:


> What the heck is TDST?



As others have said, it's tonic, dominant, subdominant, tonic (in a slightly screwed up order). The idea is that chords can be substituted with other chords as long as their function (T, S, D, T) is preserved in any given pattern (such as 8 or 16 bars), and the different styles of this substitution is what we call Classic, Romantic and Modern periods in music.

But, the point I actually wanted to make is that _if you have to choose _because of age, time, etc - it's always better to have ear training and knowledge of harmony than proficiency in a musical instrument.

If you know harmony, can hear intervals and can play entry-level scales on the keyboard, you can produce complex music you hear in your head.

A lot of people who advocate instrument proficiency (or repeat this stereotype) are coming from [instrument -->composition] tradition a-la Beethoven, Mozart and others. The majority of these famous names started off as child prodigies on some instrument, by the way.

The other pathway is [harmony, form ---> composition]. Wagner had basic piano lessons at age 7 but started harmony already at age 15. So he never mastered the piano at the level of proficiency needed to write a piano concerto. By some standards, his piano playing was quite basic, but he wrote some amazing music anyway. Berlioz only studied flute and moved on to composition immediately after that - he never learned to play piano properly at all.

Berlioz famously said that by skipping piano he avoided piano-driven compositional style with piano playing techniques transplanted into other instruments and orchestration.

The big, big difference between the two approaches is that Wagner and Berlioz moved into a different mindset (orchestration, composition) almost immediately - and they skipped the multi-year step of mastering an instrument that the child prodigies took or were forced to take the parents.

So, in the end, I think ear training and the foundational disciplines (harmony, form and orchestration) matter more to a composer than mastery of any instrument.


----------



## Rossy (Nov 16, 2020)

I am taking an online music course because at 54, I want to be able to express myself that I feel I cant do as a self learner for over 35 years. I agree with everyone here but as I work harder on learning piano with music, my composition has gotten better as I am able to play and compose pieces that I couldn't before as my piano playing. In saying that, I'm sure its not essential but it can't hurt.


----------



## Aceituna (Nov 17, 2020)

youngpokie said:


> Ear training usually starts with basic intervals, which is a little boring. But once you get to chords, you'll never listen to music the same way again.



Could be transcribing the best way to improve Ear?


----------



## AudioLoco (Nov 17, 2020)

I am a guitarist (I play other stuff but guitar is my main instrument) and would have loved to have better keyboard skills, especially timing wise, so I could program less and play more.... I really envy some people for that.


----------



## youngpokie (Nov 17, 2020)

Aceituna said:


> Could be transcribing the best way to improve Ear?



Simpler than that: make it a habit to spend time every day on ear training. (When I studied music as a child at school, we would spend a total of 1 hour a week on this split into short segments. You could probably manage more as you're likely a more mature person than a 6 year old  )

For intervals: Interval Ear Training (tonesavvy.com) 

For chords: Chord Ear Training (tonesavvy.com) 

These run like a never-ending quiz each and you should start from the simplest gradually moving on to more complex. It's important to stress that this needs to be done consistently and incrementally in complexity. When you train, listen to the color of the interval - the distances between tones produce subtle but distinct impression. It's important to do this from the beginning because later on the intervals will become obscured by doublings....

It might feel dumb at first, but as you make progress you will start recognizing the intervals used in the melodies whenever you listen to music or hear it in your head, and identify chord types. 

And remember - yes, if you want to spend hours improvising or composing music for piano it's important to be proficient at playing it. But if you want to compose for the orchestra your priority is composition (+harmony, orchestration), not piano playing. All you need on the piano is ability to play chords and basic scales. 

Cheers!


----------



## Gerbil (Nov 17, 2020)

If you can move stuff around a piano roll and it ends up sounding good then that might be enough. It's when it comes to demonstrating things in real time that playing a keyboard istrument can really help. Nobody wants to twiddle their thumbs while you're fannying around with your mouse. If you can play and improvise confidently to help suggest ideas then that can really help.


----------



## ChrisSiuMusic (Nov 17, 2020)

It certainly doesn’t hurt!


----------



## Babe (Nov 21, 2020)

nolotrippen said:


> Berlioz and Respighi come to mind. Not that they couldn't noodle the 88s, but they would probably not be considered "pianists" - on the other hand, they're two of the greatst orchestrators ever! But you don't have to forgo composition for piano playing or vice versa.


Pianos didn't have 88 keys in Berlioz' day.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Nov 21, 2020)

dcoscina said:


>



Now that's something for the "show me your d...esk" thread. Awesome setup Liszt, is that an Ikea DIY?


----------



## mikrokosmiko (Nov 22, 2020)

As a pro pianist, I would say it is not important at all. I think only basic skills are needed


----------



## Ivan M. (Nov 22, 2020)

Aceituna said:


> How important is it?
> As a priority, would it be more important to have focused in the initial stages in learning piano and then dedicate time to other skills? (harmony, ...)



You don't want all your concentration going into materializing notes, playing. We only have so much brain power. You need a way to express your musical thoughts fluently, without too much effort. Imagine writing a novel, while struggling to write, strugling to use a pencil?
When I was a boy, it felt kinda bad that I couldn't play the things I could imagine. Now I sort of can.


----------

