Turning a piece into a nocturne.

[chauchalink]

I'm not sure if this is the right section for this but it has to do with repetoire.

I have been listening to a lot of Chopin nocturnes recently and have been looking into the technique required to play them, leading me to his etudes.  The etudes are simply studies if I understand correctly.

I ended up about thinking what makes nocturnes different from other music.  I thought about the ABA form and the B kind of as a dream sequence and the A's are kind of repetitions of catchy themes altered in various ways. 

I then thought of short and easy pieces I learned that were very repetitive, it doesnt seem to hard to alter the fingerings a bit and turn them into nocturnes.  (and I mean practice pieces from a piano text book)  Is this a good idea? (am i on to something smart?)

[prestoconfuocco]

I say, the more nocturnes the merrier!
You have to take in mind that a nocturne is a pretty free form - though the usual structure is ABA, you can see variation forms, rondos, and many more. (Try listening to some of John Field's nocturnes, who was the inventor of the form.)
Chopin's nocturnes, as a musical form, are not that special. The thing that makes people love them is not the structure, but the lyric flowing melody. So though you can take practice pieces, modify them a bit and make them nocturne-like, you need some hard work to make them as sweet and moving as Chopin's nocturnes.
But, if you do try, please post them here!
Good luck!

[chauchalink]

I say, the more nocturnes the merrier!
You have to take in mind that a nocturne is a pretty free form - though the usual structure is ABA, you can see variation forms, rondos, and many more. (Try listening to some of John Field's nocturnes, who was the inventor of the form.)
Chopin's nocturnes, as a musical form, are not that special. The thing that makes people love them is not the structure, but the lyric flowing melody. So though you can take practice pieces, modify them a bit and make them nocturne-like, you need some hard work to make them as sweet and moving as Chopin's nocturnes.
But, if you do try, please post them here!
Good luck!

That is exactly what I had in mind.  Make maybe 1 basic phrase[I suggested one could take such a phrase from a piano text book] and stretch it out in form like, waking life[A], dream[B.](could even, and if chopin I believe often is, a nightmare) , waking life[A](perhaps startled).  Usually you fall asleep at night, so it would be an exercise in that hard work to make them as "sweet and moving as Chopin's nocturnes." 

Maybe it could even turn into an improvisation technique once fully developed?

*fixed bold error caused by "[B ]"

[lojay]

In honor of pianoslav and George Carlin, I will be taking a no bs approach to answering questions from now on.

@chuchalink: Hi, I remember you expressing interest in joining the study group.  I hope you've done your readings!  About 3 months from now, if you've stuck with the group and spent time studying you'll be able to do a basic but thorough analysis of the Chopin Nocturnes.

The etudes are simply studies if I understand correctly.

I disagree.  I consider them more than mere studies, but great pieces of music.  A lot of the Chopin Etudes may be short sketches (that are musically satisfying at least for me), but some of them can really stand alone as individual pieces.

I then thought of short and easy pieces I learned that were very repetitive, it doesnt seem to hard to alter the fingerings a bit and turn them into nocturnes.  (and I mean practice pieces from a piano text book)  Is this a good idea? (am i on to something smart?)

Yes, I'm going to be that guy.  From what I'm understanding, I don't think you're "turn[ing] them into nocturnes" by "alter[ing] the fingerings a bit".  Also, at this point I don't think this exercise serves any purpose other than wasting your time.

I also think you're misunderstanding the nocturne. While the A-B-A structure may be characteristic of most Chopin nocturnes, I don't think you can make that generalization for ALL nocturnes.  Check out this article from Wikipedia.  Chopin didn't write the only nocturnes!

I'd suggest that you take a look at all the examples cited in the Wikipedia article and thoroughly analyze them (you may or may not have the ability to do this yet!).  Once you have a better understanding of what a Nocturne is, reread your original post and see how you feel about your comments.

[chauchalink]

In honor of pianoslav and George Carlin, I will be taking a no bs approach to answering questions from now on.



@chuchalink: Hi, I remember you expressing interest in joining the study group.  I hope you've done your readings!  About 3 months from now, if you've stuck with the group and spent time studying you'll be able to do a basic but thorough analysis of the Chopin Nocturnes.

Hey, if you remember in that post i wrote that I have already a basic music theory understanding, as I will be entering music theory 5d (out of a 6 course series, a-f).


"I disagree.  I consider them more than mere studies, but great pieces of music.  A lot of the Chopin Etudes may be short sketches (that are musically satisfying at least for me), but some of them can really stand alone as individual pieces."

I never said they were mere studies, and I believe the contrary to be true.  That is I too consider them more than mere studies, and also consider them great pieces of music.  I agree with all parts of your statement.


Yes, I'm going to be that guy.  From what I'm understanding, I don't think you're "turn[ing] them into nocturnes" by "alter[ing] the fingerings a bit".  "

[see 1 below]

Also, at this point I don't think this exercise serves any purpose other than wasting your time."
This is basically all I want to know.  Am I refining a skill? Am I working on any skills?  Am I proving technically or musically?  Might this have more benefit than scales?    Could or Will exercises like these help me find my voice as an artist?

"I also think you're misunderstanding the nocturne. While the A-B-A structure may be characteristic of most Chopin nocturnes, I don't think you can make that generalization for ALL nocturnes.  Check out this article from Wikipedia.  Chopin didn't write the only nocturnes!"

1. If you don't think I'm turning themes into nocturnes then yes it is merely a difference in our opinions of a nocturne.  However I do have a greater understanding than what my first post could have caused you to infer. 

2. My first post was internally written to grab attention and provoke thought about a simple concept.  It was written with general terms to not have to go into semantics about my train of thought.  I apologize for any confusion.

3.  I know many others have written nocturnes.  That's partly what makes me think of freeform or others can make one.  I don't think all nocturnes have aba structure, that as just an easy way of applying my idea.

"I'd suggest that you take a look at all the examples cited in the Wikipedia article and thoroughly analyze them (you may or may not have the ability to do this yet!).  Once you have a better understanding of what a Nocturne is, reread your original post and see how you feel about your comments.

I can analyze them, as well as other nocturnes. 

Why don't you entertain the idea that you and I have the same idea of a nocturne?



P.s.  I'm new to the forums but I couldn't help but feel you were being a tad condescending in your reply.  And you're no bs approach honorary mention did not make me feel otherwise after reading it.
P.s.s. being new, I don't know how to work the post system yet.  I've only lurked for a little while

[lojay]

I'm new to the forums but I couldn't help but feel you were being a tad condescending in your reply.

Sorry if I was condescending.  That wasn't my intent.  I posted that on Friday night and I was still a bit tipsy from my night out.

Why don't you entertain the idea that you and I have the same idea of a nocturne?

I don't know what you know; however, you did write a post, and based on what you wrote, I posted.
For example:

I ended up about thinking what makes nocturnes different from other music.  I thought about the ABA form...

You imply that all Nocturnes have this ABA form.

Another example:

I then thought of short and easy pieces I learned that were very repetitive, it doesnt seem to hard to alter the fingerings a bit and turn them into nocturnes.  (and I mean practice pieces from a piano text book)...

This sentence for me shows me that you're disregarding the most important characteristic of the Nocturnes composed by Fields and composers after his time.

What defines these Nocturnes?

You essentially state that repetition of a theme is all that's needed to copose Nocturnes.



To address the sections you but in block quote:
You state:
"Hey, if you remember in that post i wrote that I have already a basic music theory understanding, as I will be entering music theory 5d (out of a 6 course series, a-f)."

I did remember; but your statement was very general.  What you consider basic might be advanced for me or vice versa.

I can only speak for the standard in the US, but even getting A+s in courses doesn't mean that the student has learned the material.  I've aced many courses where I didn't have a clue about what the material was really about.  Most of the students I know are very similar to me.  The fact is that most students are taking the courses for the diploma and only regret not learning the material properly after they've graduated and can't find a job because they can't answer any interview questions.

My point is that I won't presume you have an understanding of theory unless you actually post something applying your theory (not that something like this matters).  For example, if you gave a good detailed analysis of a Chopin Nocturne, then I would say, "Yeah, this guy knows his stuff."  Saying you've taken courses doesn't mean much to me.



You state:
"I never said they were mere studies, and I believe the contrary to be true..."

You did state that they are "simply studies"...

The etudes are simply studies if I understand correctly.

You state:
This is basically all I want to know.  Am I refining a skill? Am I working on any skills?  Am I proving technically or musically?  Might this have more benefit than scales?    Could or Will exercises like these help me find my voice as an artist?

You are refining skills by doing this.  I would consider these compositional exercises.  Doing something like this MAY provide insights that can affect your playing, but I personally think this is highly unlikely.

Also, I'm not so sure if you're posting from a composer's or a pianist's standpoint.



You state:
"If you don't think I'm turning themes into nocturnes then yes it is merely a difference in our opinions of a nocturne..."

I'm going to rant a little bit here about the liberal arts education and mentality.  I absolutely despise the liberal arts mentality that most of the US's higher education institutions embrace and teach.  We all end up graduating expounded by this "everyone's opinion is valid" mentality. What about opinions that are poorly conceived or just plain wrong?

Can you just compose a piece of music, put it in A-B-A form and call it a Nocturne?  I feel that if you choose to ignore key characteristics of a genre, there needs to be justification, otherwise you're not composing a Nocturne (look at the history of Sonata form for example).

[chauchalink]

@lojay, your most recent post post was very helpful to me to figure out where I should increase clarity in my writing. Thank you for that.

I don't know what you know; however, you did write a post, and based on what you wrote, I posted.

You imply that all Nocturnes have this ABA form.

I already acknowledged that my original post may cause confusion, as it was written only to spark ideas not to be technically accurate.  I also clarified that I do not believe all nocturnes have an ABA format.
For further clarity.  When I originally wrote

I ended up about thinking what makes nocturnes different from other music.  I thought about the ABA form

this was more of a basic outline of my brain process, not a logical map.


I've already already addressed "simply studies" in my previous post.

You essentially state that repetition of a theme is all that's needed to copose Nocturnes.

No I don't. If my post did in fact entail anything about what I believe is essential to a nocturne, it's theme repetition.  What that means is that, the repetition of a theme is essential to nocturnes.  That does not mean a repeition is "all" that's needed to co[m]pose Nocturnes.



Also, yes the fact that I have taken and passed courses does not prove that I understand the material.  However, is it THAT unbelievable that I do understand the things I am going to classes for?  I'm not saying everyone who takes any particular classes learns the material they should have learnt.  I'm just asking you to accept that I have basic music theory understanding without me having to actually prove it to you.  This way we can talk about music theory it self, (if you want to), or focus on another aspect.  Rather than focusing on whether or not I know music theory.

Also, I'm not so sure if you're posting from a composer's or a pianist's standpoint.

from a musicians standpoint.  That is someone who plays and understands music.

I'm going to rant a little bit here about the liberal arts education and mentality.  I absolutely despise the liberal arts mentality that most of the US's higher education institutions embrace and teach.  We all end up graduating expounded by this "everyone's opinion is valid" mentality. What about opinions that are poorly conceived or just plain wrong?

Can you just compose a piece of music, put it in A-B-A form and call it a Nocturne?  I feel that if you choose to ignore key characteristics of a genre, there needs to be justification, otherwise you're not composing a Nocturne (look at the history of Sonata form for example).

I don't believe "everyone's opinion is valid."  I do believe if two contradictory opinions are truly believed then you'd be in for a challenge if trying to change the others opinion.

What I mean in my post was, if I believe I'm turning pieces into nocturnes (based on everything I know about nocturnes) and you believe I'm not (without knowing at all what I am doing my themes, or what I know about nocturnes).  Then we both must have different fundamental ideas of nocturnes(neither of us knows what the other one believes nocturne really is at this point),<in which case one of us could be right and the other is wrong,(or both could be wrong) it is currently impossible to tell.


to solve this problem i suggested you to entertain the idea we both had the same idea of a nocturne.

your sonata point is intriguing though.

[lojay]

If my post did in fact entail anything about what I believe is essential to a nocturne, it's theme repetition.  What that means is that, the repetition of a theme is essential to nocturnes.  That does not mean a repeition is "all" that's needed to co[m]pose Nocturnes.

Entertain my example:
Someone goes up to you and talks about Cheesecake.  He only talks about how sweet the cake is. Then he asks whether it's a good idea to make a Cheesecake by taking another cake and altering the sugar in it.

Don't you think that person is overlooking something?  What do you think of that person?

What I mean in my post was, if I believe I'm turning pieces into nocturnes (based on everything I know about nocturnes) and you believe I'm not (without knowing at all what I am doing my themes, or what I know about nocturnes).

I only know what you've stated and make inferences based on that.  Like the person who wants to make Cheesecake, you seem to be overlooking something fundamental (from what you stated so far), perhaps this is so obvious you take it for granted.

In your original post when you state, "it doesnt seem to hard to alter the fingerings a bit and turn them into nocturnes".  I took "alter the fingerings" to mean that you were going to embellish and ornament the themes.  In most of the cases, I think you'll need to completely alter the themes significantly to the point where it's unrecognizable.

Then we both must have different fundamental ideas of nocturnes(neither of us knows what the other one believes nocturne really is at this point),<in which case one of us could be right and the other is wrong,(or both could be wrong) it is currently impossible to tell.

Note: I have very limited knowledge of music theory (most of my music theory is from learning pieces) and the amount of music that I have more than a superficial familiarity with isn't very large.  So I completely acknowledge I can be terribly wrong about this.


For me, repetition is an aspect of virtually all music.  I actually initially typed 'a lot of music' instead of 'virtually all music', but then I thought about it and I cannot think of a single example of anything I consider music where there's no repetition.  All the musical forms I'm familiar with have repetition in some form.

I believe one thing about Nocturnes that I've been fishing for you to state, and I'm not just going to give it to you.  What is it?

If you still can't get it, let me put it another way:
For me, the Nocturne includes a large variety of styles and forms (you seem to agree with me on this point), but is united by one aspect: subject matter.  In other words to compose a Nocturne you must deal with ___________.

What do you think goes in that blank?

to solve this problem i suggested you to entertain the idea we both had the same idea of a nocturne.

If I do this, I'll be giving you something (that's very easy to figure out) that I was hoping you'd be able to figure out yourself.

[chauchalink]

@lojay this just became so fun!

filling in that blank is hard for me, i must be overlooking something obvious.  but i feel there are so many good answers.

a guess i have is:
dynamics? and you want me to elaborate on how one must "alter the fingerings a little bit" ? 
yeah i agree that is vague, and i did mean more than literally just that.  I meant alter the fingerings a little bit to free your hands up to invent music.

--After writing that i thought maybe you meant

Composition? That is definitely something I overlooked but I never really thought of what I am trying to do, or am doing, as a form of composition.  I thought it was more of using a theme and telling a story that one might not *probably almost definitely didnt* think of.  This sounds a lot like it would be composition, but the method which i'm taking to get to that point doesn't really seem like composition to me.  It dealt more with musicality.

Musicality? is that what you are looking for? one must deal with musicality? I did take for granted that not all people play music for fun, or for musical expression purposes.  Or perhaps are very good at expressing themselves musically.  Did you want me to elaborate on that?

--another guess I had was

Improvisation?  but that required elements of those categories ^^ as well.  But I suppose what I  meant when I said turning themes into nocturnes did require a bit of improvisation to get started and thinking critically about the musicality of each theme.  If you didn't listen to enough X nocturne composer(s) to understand what a nocturne was or you are no good at thinking about musical expression while you play pieces you know.  you might not be able to create nocturnes in the style of what you listen to.

Knowledge? Did it have to do with what your knowledge of a nocturne was?




See too many guesses I must be missing it completely

[j_menz]

Let me chip in with a clue. Starts with the same letter as Nocturne and is usually dark, unless you're one of Santa's neighbours.

[lojay]

Let me chip in with a clue. Starts with the same letter as Nocturne and is usually dark, unless you're one of Santa's neighbours.

We're onto something!

[dima_76557]

Let me chip in with a clue. Starts with the same letter as Nocturne and is usually dark, unless you're one of Santa's neighbours.

Please allow me to add to this that the originator of this kind of pieces was half-Russian and was greatly impressed with and inspired by St. Petersburg's "white" ones.

[lojay]

See too many guesses I must be missing it completely

Your effort is admirable.

I mean the hints above were alright, but my hint will really highlight the answer. Try to make three more educated guesses so you've made around eight total guesses.  In hindsight, you'll laugh at what you were missing.

I mean literally, the answer is in plain sight.

[chauchalink]

All these clues really confused me. 

Creativity? nope doesn't make sense

Night? i mean if this was it, lmao, that's what the name Nocturne means.  Starts with N...and "Santa's neighbors" like it turns night once a year in the north pole?  plain sight?

but "in order to compose a nocturne you must deal with night"? 


did you want me to elaborate on how to make the themes sound more nocturnal (wow that's confusing, i mean nocturnal in the scientific since of the word as a opposed to nocturne like (which would be begging the question))?

[lojay]

Your effort is admirable.

I mean the hints above were alright, but my hint will really highlight the answer. Try to make three more educated guesses so you've made around eight total guesses.  In hindsight, you'll laugh at what you were missing.

I mean literally, the answer is in plain sight.

That was my attempt to be cute.

Night is correct!


Anyway, an example of a conflict of opinion would be a scenario where you wrote a piece and said, "I was inspired to write this piece by my nights in Russia" and I told you that for me it didn't remind of the night.

Once you remove the night aspect, we no longer have a nocturne.

Taking any "practice piece from a piano text book" and claiming you're writing a nocturne without significant changing the theme kind of defeats the purpose of a nocturne.  In my opinion, you're writing a transcription.  Perhaps you could make the argument that you're writing a variation on a theme, but a Nocturne?  That's a huge stretch...

[chauchalink]

Ohhh ok! I finally understand your point!

However the point of my exercise would be to take the non-nocturnal theme, and slowly, but drastically change it to become something dark.  Creepy maybe. 

Taking any "practice piece from a piano text book" and claiming you're writing a nocturne without significant changing the theme

I do however plan to significantly change the theme, in the sense that I would be adding a lot of musical information in between parts of the theme.  The theme borrowed from a text book should become something like the spinal chord of a fish, the other bones the work that one adds to turn the theme into a nocturne.

In Chopin's nocturnes (I specifically have op. 9 no 3 in mind, to avoid generalization mistakes) the main theme is introduced, and then stretched out and modified in exactly the way I mean.  Although that main theme isn't exactly from a text book, and I will even concede has something nocturnal in quality in itself (probably all the chromatic passing tones so beautifully integrated within the first few notes of the theme), after experimenting a tad with a few non nocturnal themes (one comes from my textbook and is called "chromatic ragtime" the other is the melody of heart and soul) There is quite a chilling effect that can be added, if you look to nocturnes and see how it is achieved and apply it yourself.

(hence the etude thought process)