Speaking musical sentences? Teachers, please help!

[just_me]

Hi.  I am a musician interested in composing.  I am a pianist of intermediate level. I have been studying Aldwell and Schachter's purple theory book (harmony and voice leading).  I took theory courses with this book at college, received As in the courses, but really I only learned the theory to pass the exams.  Now that I am interested in composing, I am both confused and overwhelmed. Of the Things I Would Like to Do in This Lifetime is learn how to speak the language of the piano and the language of music as fluently as possible---as one learning to speak French or Japanese would learn a language.  In the foreword, the authors of the text advise the student to "learn to speak musical sentences".  What do you focus on in doing that? The student is advised to read the book appendices, containing common chord progressions.  If you play them enough, they're in your ear. However, in actual music, we all know that such progressions are flipped, reversed and spun on their heads.  Other than the obvious (e.g., that V-I with 7-8 resolving in the soprano, standard cadences), what does one focus on when playing chord progressions with the ultimate goal of acquiring music as a language. Should I memorize the sounds of bass lines? soprano lines? Your help in this matter is ~greatly~ appreciated. Also, if one was fluent in piano, what would you expect of them??
thank you, thank you.

[pianonut]

it seems that in some modern music, you have more 'interference' in the musical sentences (more rests, unrepetitive rhythms, frequently changed tempos).  to me, the easiest way to learn musical sentences is simply to make up a sentence yourself (from poetry, too) and then add your own melody.  don't make it a song.  just a question/answer thing.  then, put harmony to it.  once you get that idea, you can see how composer's like mozart then took pieces of the sentence (motives) and used them to transition to the next idea.  you have transition passages which simply use these motives going up or down chromatically, scale-wise, or something like that - and then the piece moves on. 

with modern music - you sometime have to think percussiveness qualities and not so much sentences, but succession of sounds/notes and what they might represent.  computers, walking downtown, etc.  you can 'phrase them according to their representations.'  this is different than the typical crescendo/decrescendo of question/answer phrases and gets into different sounds/attacks you make on the keyboard.  maybe some light passages, percussive sounds, and they may not make sense in a sentence structure - but more as drama and/or being danced to.  there is a grace to movement/music of most kinds if you put in time to interpret it and not just play the notes.  like ice-skaters have, when they hear the phrasing in their music - or, as in modern music - stop and start with the sound and playfully experiment with what the sounds mean to them.

[Bob]

I'm guessing the authors mean to think in terms of phrases.  Phrase by phrase so that chunk of music makes more sense.  It's one way to look at music.

Or it just sounds good to write that in the book.


It sounds like they're saying to study theory, ear training, and harmony.  Probably keyboard harmony work too.  All straightforward stuff and a huge amount of territory to cover -- no end to it.

Another nice saying is "find your own voice."  The more classical composers I've seen have their own sound and their own way of doing things -- their own logic behind what they do that guides things.  They got that style by writing lots of pieces and honed down their technique to get the point across that they wanted.

Maybe it's like writing?  You have some broader purpose when you write.  It's not just to be grammatically correct and write things that are perfectly structured.  There's a point that guides what you say.  But if you don't know how to put words together, then you don't get your point across very well.  Words can flow or be stiff and stilted just like music too.

[jeremyjchilds]

Hi.  I am a musician interested in composing.  I am a pianist of intermediate level. I have been studying Aldwell and Schachter's purple theory book (harmony and voice leading).  I took theory courses with this book at college, received As in the courses, but really I only learned the theory to pass the exams.  Now that I am interested in composing, I am both confused and overwhelmed. Of the Things I Would Like to Do in This Lifetime is learn how to speak the language of the piano and the language of music as fluently as possible---as one learning to speak French or Japanese would learn a language.  In the foreword, the authors of the text advise the student to "learn to speak musical sentences".  What do you focus on in doing that? The student is advised to read the book appendices, containing common chord progressions.  If you play them enough, they're in your ear. However, in actual music, we all know that such progressions are flipped, reversed and spun on their heads. 

Your dilemma is common..I think that the main problem is developing a sense of context in your composition. to continue with the language metaphor-Pretend that you are studying english, and in the back of the textbook are common sentences in english...big help....

I think your best bet is to find a good series of charts that outline basic diatonic chord function...and go from there, that will give you a piont of departure. (Google it,and see what you find, my charts are from a series of Jazz textbooks)  Analyze progressions from all kinds of music and follow the chart to see what is really happening. That is really the best way to learn how rythm, texture, harmony, melody, timbre, and style form a unified whole. take detailed notes and file them in an organized fashion.

If you spent an hour each day analyzing, and comparing to your charts, within 6 months you would be easily versed in a lot of common chord progressions and thier functions. 

I would suggest that you fight the urge to slack off at this time. THere is a definite place for originality and freedom in harmonic language, But I think it is true that the best time to be a pioneer is when the original systems are understood thoroughly, not because the original systems are understood poorly.

(Not that I think you would slack off... this is just in case my students are reading...those slackers  )

[jeremyjchilds]

Also, if one was fluent in piano, what would you expect of them??
thank you, thank you.

Are you asking what it takes to be "fluent" ??

Well...it would mean a lot of things to a lot of people. I guess that people who are fluent in english are not necessarrily english scholars...but I would still expect a higher level to be considered "fluent" in piano (Just my style I guess)

1) To me...fluent means being able to play the intermediate-advanced classical repertiore with ease, as well as having the co-reqiosite skills to back it up...taht would mean roughly a gr 10 or ARCT in piano performance.
2) on top of that, fluency involves an ability to play modern styles Jazz, and pop with ease and at sight, with convincing stylistic and rythmic nuances, with or without a musical group.
3) Fluency would indicate an ability to perform regularily without excessive stress,
4) Fluency would involve a theoretical background strong enough to form cohesive musical elements on demand in an improvisitory or group setting, in any style required.
5) Fluency would include the ability to take what has been learned and teach the concepts sensitively and thoughtfully.
6) Fluency would include an understanding of both acoustic and electronic instruments and the ability to use each to the extent of thier appropriateness

By the way...I'm not there yet...but I will likely consider myself to be fluent when I reach that level...I only know of one or two people that I would put into that category.

[abell88]

1) To me...fluent means being able to play the intermediate-advanced classical repertiore with ease, as well as having the co-reqiosite skills to back it up...taht would mean roughly a gr 10 or ARCT in piano performance.
2) on top of that, fluency involves an ability to play modern styles Jazz, and pop with ease and at sight, with convincing stylistic and rythmic nuances, with or without a musical group.
3) Fluency would indicate an ability to perform regularily without excessive stress,
4) Fluency would involve a theoretical background strong enough to form cohesive musical elements on demand in an improvisitory or group setting, in any style required.
5) Fluency would include the ability to take what has been learned and teach the concepts sensitively and thoughtfully.
6) Fluency would include an understanding of both acoustic and electronic instruments and the ability to use each to the extent of thier appropriateness

"Your list of the common extent of accomplishments," said Darcy, "has too much truth...I cannot boast of knowing more than half a dozen, in the whole range of my acquaintance , that are really accomplished."
....
   "Then," observed Elizabeth, "you must comprehend a great deal in your idea of an accomplished woman."
      "Yes; I do comprehend a gret deal in it."
     "Oh! certainly," cried his faithful assistant, "no one can be really esteemed accomplished, who does not greatly surpass what is usually met with. A woman must have a thorough knowledge of music, singing, drawing, dancing, and the modern languages to deserve the word; and besides all this, she must possess a certain something in her air and manner of walking, the tone of her voice, her address and expressions, or the word will be but half deserved."
     "All this she must possess," added Darcy, "and to all this she must yet add something more substantial, in the improvement of her mind by extensive reading."
     "I am no longer surprised at your knowing only six accomplished women. I rather wonder now at your knowing any."

---Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice

[just_me]

thanks for all of your help. your comments and suggestions really helped me consider how to chart a course for "how to become fluent in music"...i'll tell you how it turns out it a 100 or so years, but music is worth a lifetime of learning.

  signed, a very happy piano student

[jeremyjchilds]

"Your list of the common extent of accomplishments," said Darcy, "has too much truth...I cannot boast of knowing more than half a dozen, in the whole range of my acquaintance , that are really accomplished."
....
   "Then," observed Elizabeth, "you must comprehend a great deal in your idea of an accomplished woman."
      "Yes; I do comprehend a gret deal in it."
     "Oh! certainly," cried his faithful assistant, "no one can be really esteemed accomplished, who does not greatly surpass what is usually met with. A woman must have a thorough knowledge of music, singing, drawing, dancing, and the modern languages to deserve the word; and besides all this, she must possess a certain something in her air and manner of walking, the tone of her voice, her address and expressions, or the word will be but half deserved."
     "All this she must possess," added Darcy, "and to all this she must yet add something more substantial, in the improvement of her mind by extensive reading."
     "I am no longer surprised at your knowing only six accomplished women. I rather wonder now at your knowing any."

---Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice

Maybe I didn't pay attention in class much but... I don't get it..

[ted]

"Fluency" for me is a broad term describing a state wherein a player has something to say and the means to say it naturally and without effort. This looser definition admits players such as Waller, Tatum, Roberts, Morton and so on, whose lack of comprehensive musical knowledge and ability in all styles, would exclude them according to some of the stated definitions. People such as these have exhibited fluency to an extraordinary degree with their completely natural facility in expressing ideas instantly at the keyboard.

So, aside from being used in the purely gymnastic sense, i.e. solely physical fluency, for me the word has a distinctly creative aspect to it - much the same as certain people have the happy ability to produce a brilliant phrase in writing and speaking.

[dorfmouse]

Maybe I didn't pay attention in class much but...  I don't get it..

Look up "Irony"  

[jeremyjchilds]

"Fluency" for me is a broad term describing a state wherein a player has something to say and the means to say it naturally and without effort. This looser definition admits players such as Waller, Tatum, Roberts, Morton and so on, whose lack of comprehensive musical knowledge and ability in all styles, would exclude them according to some of the stated definitions. People such as these have exhibited fluency to an extraordinary degree with their completely natural facility in expressing ideas instantly at the keyboard.

So, aside from being used in the purely gymnastic sense, i.e. solely physical fluency, for me the word has a distinctly creative aspect to it - much the same as certain people have the happy ability to produce a brilliant phrase in writing and speaking.

I hope my rendition of "fluency" didn't come off as purely "gymnastic" I do like what you said about the "old jazz greats" though...awesome.

I'm not sure if our different interpretations of fluency  part thier ways at mine being "physical", and yours being "creative"...I think they part thier ways at mine being a broad "all rounder" and yours baing focused and masterful at specific things.

Good post, especially the part about "having something to say" 

[abell88]

Maybe I didn't pay attention in class much but...  I don't get it..

Anyone with all the attributes on your list would certainly deserve to be called fluent...I just think that a person need not have *all* those abilities to be called fluent. For example, a fine classical player might not be able to play jazz, or might not be interested in non-acoustic instruments...yet could still be considered fluent.