help me differentiate all these?

[sashanka]

I am trying to play piano as hobby. i enjoy trying to learn different things. i don't have training of any sort in music, no one family also knows.

i have seen many musical pieces and their names. there seems to be some logic but i am not able to get it
first of all i would like to what is difference between
SONATAS WALTZES NOCTURNE etc.. why different names ?

[perprocrastinate]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonata

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waltz_%28music%29

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocturne

[j_menz]

That's a huge topic, and not really one that can be usefully answered on a forum like this.  I suggest you explore some of the resources available on the web at your leisure, and gain a good general understanding that way (follow the links around as you like and see where it takes you).  Some places to start that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Music

https://www.naxos.com/education/introduction.asp

https://classicalmusic.about.com/od/classicalmusic101/a/intro072104.htm

[sashanka]

I will read them and come back

[grosvenor]

Waltzes, nocturnes, mazurkas, sonatas, symphonies, concertos etc. are names for different forms of music. You can liken them to literary works - prose, poems, essays, research papers...

The list goes on and on and on, so yup, just Google a term whenever you come across an unfamiliar one!

[ajspiano]

That's a huge topic, and not really one that can be usefully answered on a forum like this.

I stand to correct you with a short explanation for the overall, and one for each listed style.

1. Different names represent different forms - meaning the way the music is constructed, its purpose and sometimes how it was inspired.

a) Sonata - "Son" from sonorous, meaning sounded or full of sound - it literally means a piece of music. But more specifically, it is one played by an instrument, as opposed to sung by the human voice. Works that are sung may be termed "Cantata".

b) Waltz - While there are works that will fall into this description and not be a waltz, and waltzs that fall outside this description. - The primary feature is that the time signature will be a triple meter. 3/4. It is also a work that generally intended as an accompaniment to a dance. As such strict waltzes often have definable and consistent rhythms as well as time. Although, as with many 'dance forms' (minuet, gigue, bouree etc.) the form was expanded on and they came to be frequently performed as pieces in their own right without dancers present.

c) Nocturne - Put as simply as possible, they are nocturnal - inspired by the night, or perhaps more originally written for and performed at evening/night time parties or events. The most famous ones were of course written by chopin and probably not written for parties, and the first piano nocturnes were written by John Field, before that they were ensemble works.

...

Other work names have other back stories, and in most cases the form varies in some way because it was conceived and then developed over a very extended period. For example, Domenico Scarlatti was a baroque period composer who wrote over 500 sonatas, many of which are short single movement works - where as later sonatas are generally longer and have multiple movements as well as other elements of form that define them as a sonata rather than as another form.

The different names tell us some basic information about how the piece is to be interpreted and what the composer intended the work to be for. This is obviously very evident with titles such as "etude" which litterly means "a study - a work for which the purpose is to teach the performer something".

[gleeok]

Ajs never stops amazing me with his explanations full of depth and detail lol.

Since we are in this topic, may I ask; do you guys know if there are any other Canons outside Pachelbel's, in the same line of its complexity, for piano?

And..since a Canon is composed of more than 4 voices/instruments at least, does that mean a Canon transcribed for piano is not exactly a Canon? And that all Canons will necessarily be made for sets of for example a couple violins and cellos?

I'm confused about this whole thing, and I wonder If one day I'll find a piece that sounds in the same field of that one work from Pachelbel which I am absolutely obsessed with, I don't know I just like the sound being lead and crossing over, fitting very well like if what came before (or after) was its soul-mate, and in the piano that goes very faintly (sort of?) because of the transcription.

[ajspiano]

I'm confused about this whole thing

Sounds like it!

A "canon" is not composed of multiple instruments or even necessarily of 4 voices as you suggest.

Actually, there must be at least 2 parts, and one mirrors the other..  for example, the opening of bachs invention number 8 is canonic. You'll see that the RH part is then copied by the LH.

Most simple piano arrangements of pachelbels canon are not all that canon like at all, at least not by my definition (or perhaps not the ones I've looked at). Probably because the recognizable part is the bass line, and the harmonies that go with it - so its easy to write an arrangment of this that is clearly identifiable yet lacks the elements of a "canon". If you were to look at the original string arrangement though you'd find its a lot closer, with 3 voices operating in canon (essentially echoing each other) over the bass line.

To get the idea of what "canon" actually means try these out -
https://archive.org/download/twohundredshortt00kunz/twohundredshortt00kunz_bw.pdf

^Konrad Max Kunz wrote 200 (! he must have loved the form !) progressive canons for beginner piano students..  the first few are REALLY dull, but there after they begin to present some cool little coordination challenges that can be learnt quickly because they are all just short exercises. Observe the fingering, they are all in stationary 5 finger positions.

[j_menz]

I wonder If one day I'll find a piece that sounds in the same field of that one work from Pachelbel which I am absolutely obsessed with, I don't know I just like the sound being lead and crossing over, fitting very well like if what came before (or after) was its soul-mate, and in the piano that goes very faintly (sort ?) because of the transcription.

In addition to what AJ has suggested, I would add that you might also like to have a look at Pachelbel's Fugues on the Magnificat.  Slightly trickier, but not all that much so, and really lovely works by the same guy.  A canon, by the way, is actually a simple form of fugue.

[ajspiano]

"I just like the sound being lead and crossing over, fitting very well like if what came before (or after) was its soul-mate"

Pretty sure I could reword this into some kind of everlasting advert for a large portion of bach.

[j_menz]

"I just like the sound being lead and crossing over, fitting very well like if what came before (or after) was its soul-mate"

Pretty sure I could reword this into some kind of everlasting advert for a large portion of bach.

Advert?! 

Great advice for anyone wondering "how do I play Bach/counterpoint/polyphony" though.

[ajspiano]

Advert?! 

Sick of tone-deaf classical hipsters bombarding you with atonal atrocities? Imagine a composition where one voice leads another, a never ending romance of magically consonant 3rds and 6ths. A composition where each phrase is its own, yet flows seemingly as one between the hands as if that which came before (and which goes after) could be its musical soul-mate...

Live the dream today.

Bach.

[j_menz]

Sick of tone-deaf classical hipsters bombarding you with atonal atrocities? Imagine a composition where one voice leads another, a never ending romance of magically consonant 3rds and 6ths. A composition where each phrase is its own, yet flows seemingly as one between the hands as if that which came before (and which goes after) could be its musical soul-mate...

Live the dream today.

Bach.

Don't give up your day job. 

3rds and 6ths? It may be tonal, but it's a great deal more harmonically interesting than that, and don't forget the dissonances that dismayed the classicists and inspired the romantics.

[ajspiano]

Don't give up your day job. 

3rds and 6ths? It may be tonal, but it's a great deal more harmonically interesting than that, and don't forget the dissonances that dismayed the classicists and inspired the romantics.

Firstly, obviously I know that.. but when has advertising ever been about the whole truth, or truth at all? ..maybe I was tailoring my approach to a specific market.

Secondly, when would anyone want to go out of being a music teacher and into advertising?

[j_menz]

Secondly, when would anyone want to go out of being a music teacher and into advertising?

I had always assumed that that was how jingles were born.

[ajspiano]

I had always assumed that that was how jingles were born.

Perhaps, but I would hope that it would be out of necessity rather than desire.

[gleeok]

Sounds like it!

Thanks for clearing my ignorance once again ! hahaha I feel much better now 

[gleeok]

Firstly, obviously I know that.. but when has advertising ever been about the whole truth, or truth at all? ..maybe I was tailoring my approach to a specific market.

I didn't notice the error at first, I bet there is something wrong with me... your malicious tricks are working, terribly 

Maybe the specific market are those defenseless students, you evil teacher 

ok that wasn't fun at all o-o maybe I should go to bed...thats me ruining conversations as always /phew-phew

[j_menz]

I didn't notice the error at first, I bet there is something wrong with me... your malicious tricks are working, terribly 

Maybe the specific market are those defenseless students, you evil teacher 

ok that wasn't fun at all o-o maybe I should go to bed...thats me ruining conversations as always /phew-phew

Actually, both AJ and I were rather taken with your description of the Pachelbel Canon and rather ran with it.  It's actually a really good description of a range of such music, which you might like to explore starting with the suggestions above.

[gleeok]

Actually, both AJ and I were rather taken with your description of the Pachelbel Canon and rather ran with it.  It's actually a really good description of a range of such music, which you might like to explore starting with the suggestions above.

Really? Thats nice to hear haha! I take the risks and most often end up in terrible nonsenses  , but its good to hear I got it more or less there this time  .

I will surely! I'm thankful you mentioned these names, now I guess I'm in a good position to start going further into that musical form, because of your references. Specially Pachelbel's works, because usually when looking for his works online all that comes up are more and more versions of his Canon, because of its huge popularity it ends up hurting all his other works, which is quite sad :/.

[j_menz]

Amazon has the Pachelbel fugues available at a reasonable price here: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0486250377/ref=oh_details_o03_s01_i01

They are available on IMSLP here: https://imslp.org/wiki/Fugues_on_the_Magnificat_(Pachelbel,_Johann) - They're listed as for organ, but that's the keyboard version (ie, no pedal)

[ajspiano]

They are available on IMSLP

Comparitively to the rest of the world I'm sure this places me in a real minority - but they look like sO mUcH fUn!!! =D

[j_menz]

Comparitively to the rest of the world I'm sure this places me in a real minority - but they look like sO mUcH fUn!!! =D

Welcome to the Asylum. 

[ajspiano]

Welcome to the Asylum. 

*Rach_forever becomes even more assured that we are the same person, and also vomits at the notion that fugues are fun.

Also, thankyou for the "welcome" - is there any kind of initiation ceremony i'll have to undertake?

[outin]

Comparitively to the rest of the world I'm sure this places me in a real minority - but they look like sO mUcH fUn!!! =D

Don't know about the fun part, but they looked useful, so printed them out. Maybe I'll find some time to work in these. I have actively avoided canons and fugues, but these seem manageable. At least the first ones 
Thanks for the link J_menz!

[j_menz]

Don't know about the fun part, but they looked useful, so printed them out. Maybe I'll find some time to work in these. I have actively avoided canons and fugues, but these seem manageable. At least the first ones 
Thanks for the link J_menz!

At first you may find them rather heavy going; it takes a while to get used to the forms. I do encourage you to persevere, though. These really are lovely pieces in their own right, and what you will learn from doing them will enhance your playing of everything else as well as your appreciation of everything you listen to.  You will get to the fun in time, I promise. 

[outin]

At first you may find them rather heavy going; it takes a while to get used to the forms. I do encourage you to persevere, though. These really are lovely pieces in their own right, and what you will learn from doing them will enhance your playing of everything else as well as your appreciation of everything you listen to.

Hmm... Even Bach?

 

You will get to the fun in time, I promise. 

I should trust promises from a guy with multiple identities 

[j_menz]

Hmm... Even Bach?

Indeed. What you will learn goes to the very heart of Bach's music and will enable you to see, appreciate and enjoy his true genius.

I should trust promises from a guy with multiple identities 

** wonders if legal action is necessary to finally clear up this nonsense

[outin]

Indeed. What you will learn goes to the very heart of Bach's music and will enable you to see, appreciate and enjoy his true genius.

Oh, but I already appreciate his genius, it's just the music that I don't care for 

So what you are saying is that if I eat surströmming (don't try it!) every day I will start liking it?

[j_menz]

Oh, but I already appreciate his genius, it's just the music that I don't care for 

So what you are saying is that if I eat surströmming (don't try it!) every day I will start liking it?

No. Gah!! Yech!! I can't even come at rollmops.

What I mean is there is a difference between appreciating the genius of Bach in an intellectual sense and appreciating it in a true musical sense.  I suspect you can see that it is clever, but do not understand it, cannot hear it its true glory.  The Pachelbel will help you do that. Prepare to be amazed.

[ajspiano]

What I mean is there is a difference between appreciating the genius of Bach in an intellectual sense and appreciating it in a true musical sense.

I tend to think that it would be extraordinarily difficult to have a true appreciation of bach without having learnt to play a fugue at a the keyboard, or at least learnt to play on a single note instrument within an ensemble playing a similar work.

I feel like you can't really appreciate it properly until you've learn how to keep track of multiple voices simultaneously, which is probably neither easy or natural for most of us. If you're hearing it vertically it can sound fairly .. well..  less than inspired..   

[j_menz]

I feel like you can't really appreciate it properly until you've learn how to keep track of multiple voices simultaneously, which is probably neither easy or natural for most of us.

I do sometimes wonder whether that is true.  Certainly in the modern west, and probably in a number of other cultures as well, the music one hears, from birth, is pretty much exclusively of the tune/harmony variety. It is what is taught from the earliest days.

There are other cultures, however, wher polyphony is the norm (some african and oriental musics). Some african-american music would probably fit here too, as may the rich Welsh choral tradition.

Is it that it is not natural or easy to learn; or is it just as natural but unlearnt early?

[outin]

I do sometimes wonder whether that is true.  Certainly in the modern west, and probably in a number of other cultures as well, the music one hears, from birth, is pretty much exclusively of the tune/harmony variety. It is what is taught from the earliest days.

There are other cultures, however, wher polyphony is the norm (some african and oriental musics). Some african-american music would probably fit here too, as may the rich Welsh choral tradition.

Is it that it is not natural or easy to learn; or is it just as natural but unlearnt early?

I wonder about this too sometimes. What part of it is learnt, what is unlearnt and what is a natural difference between individuals (their genetic makeup). I always have had a natural dislike for too much polyphony, I don't like to listen to choral singing and I always prefer music with less instruments to more (not much fan of orchestral music). So either I have unlearnt at a very young age or it has something to do with the physical makeup of my neural and hearing system or the way my brain works. Which seems to be quite different to an average person anyway.

[outin]

Oops, what I actually printed and meant was the Kuntz pdf linked by ajspiano, not the Pachebel ones, which would give me an instand headache 

You idea of fun is beoynd me...both of YOU?

[ajspiano]

Oops, what I actually printed and meant was the Kuntz pdf linked by ajspiano, not the Pachebel ones, which would give me an instand headache 

You idea of fun is beoynd me...both of YOU?

Oh my. I suggest firstly that you omit the unnessary "t" next time. I personally find the kunz canons a bit dull.. Not a whole lot of music there, but I find a lot of people like the short and specific challenges.

Secondly, based on the things I've seen in your signature and past conversation, I suspect that one day you will find the fun in a mass of short fugues.

[outin]

Oh my. I suggest firstly that you omit the unnessary "t" next time. I personally find the kunz canons a bit dull.. Not a whole lot of music there, but I find a lot of people like the short and specific challenges.

Just being sloppy, people tend to bother me all the time with less important stuff while I am at work 

Dull sure, but maybe a bit less intimidating?

Secondly, based on the things I've seen in your signature and past conversation, I suspect that one day you will find the fun in a mass of short fugues.

I am doubtful...

[ajspiano]

Dull sure, but maybe a bit less intimidating?

That's why I like/use them..  Challenging enough that they require some mental focus and consolidation over the week. Easy enough that your not going to laboring for ling enough to cause any huge frustration.

[outin]

That's why I like/use them..  Challenging enough that they require some mental focus and consolidation over the week. Easy enough that your not going to laboring for ling enough to cause any huge frustration.

I seriously think I need to completely rewire my brain to be able to do/hear multiple melodic lines...so it would be best to start with something really simple.

But there are quite a few parts of my brain that need rewiring at the moment plus all the physical issues...the work just keeps accumulating. So these will have to wait.

[ajspiano]

I seriously think I need to completely rewire my brain to be able to do/hear multiple melodic lines...so it would be best to start with something really simple.

Indeed, I suspect that its as j_menz suggested.. not unnatural, but if its not learnt early its a can present a reasonable difficulty. All you really need to do is take small sections or simpler works and try to sing one part while you play the other though (and swap them), practice/memorise it like you would anything else..  obviously there are other things you can do to help it also, but I feel like the singing is the main one.

Or perhaps its just the easiest one for me to gauge where someone else is making an error?

as far as how natural it is..  when I have kids I'll place them in some kind of "bach cage" for significant portions of the day, from conception. Then in 10 years we will revisit this topic.