Do you have a compositional bent, as a classical piano player?

[ranjit]

I've seen a few people who've learned to play piano, and very often, they don't seem to be interested in composition or improvisation. Like, they've played piano since they were four, but only ever learned repertoire for performance.

How common is this? For those here who have learned to play 'classically', what happens in lessons? Is improvisation relegated to 'jazz'? Is it assumed that you'll learn it, if ever, in college along with music theory? Did interest in composition grow automatically for you when you get better and learn to play more advanced pieces?

[ted]

Fortunately I had a very eclectic teacher in my youth, a professional composer and pianist skilled in several genres of music, so everything grew at once and each way of playing interacted with all the others. I always had a very strong creative drive though, no matter what the style, so I required little persuasion regarding composition and improvisation.

[cuberdrift]

Well, my guess is that "composition" and "piano performance" became two highly specialised and exclusive disciplines after the Romantic era. Liszt's pioneering the "piano recital" as a method of tribute to "the greats", starting out as a combo of both works from other composers as well as from the performing pianist, eventually evolved to become a ritual of performing works from OTHER composers only.

So as the demand for "interpreter-pianists" increased, and as the repertoire expanded (from playing just works from the 18th-19th centuries to works from the 18th-21st centuries), the elite art of "interpretation performance" had become fully formed, as well as the elite art of "composition" - composition not for the ears of the church, of aristocratic patrons, or even the public, but for the ears of the erudite academic composer - as disciplines independent of each other.

Horowitz seemed to be one of the last of the tradition of pianists who still improvised/composed - in "Horowitz: A Last Romantic" he quips after improvising, "I'm still a musician, you know!" or something along those lines.

[ranjit]

Well, my guess is that "composition" and "piano performance" became two highly specialised and exclusive disciplines after the Romantic era.

I have heard this argument before, and I agree. What I was wondering was if most teachers who taught beginner/intermediate/early advanced students according to a classical method completely neglect composition/improvisation, thus producing "well-trained monkeys" (granted that there is some musical ability involved in interpretation, but kids are taught even to fake that).

So, am I right about the current state of teaching in classical piano?

[dogperson]

No, you are not correct about the ‘trained monkey comment. Just because a classical teacher does not teach improvisation or composition does not mean their students are all little cookie cutter, trained little monkeys..... their students should and often do, develop lifetime skills that give them the building blocks  to explore and play.... maybe improvise and compose.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

No, you are not correct about the ‘trained monkey comment. Just because a classical teacher does not teach improvisation or composition does not mean their students are all little cookie cutter, trained little monkeys..... their students should and often do, develop lifetime skills that give them the building blocks  to explore and play.... maybe improvise and compose.

Nah like 99% of the time they turn out like that. 

I’ve only met a handful of pianists who are classically trained but also know how to get down

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I've seen a few people who've learned to play piano, and very often, they don't seem to be interested in composition or improvisation. Like, they've played piano since they were four, but only ever learned repertoire for performance.

I find this incredibly odd. However, experience suggests to me that it's the norm!

Personally, I'd rather be judged on the basis of improvisation than on performance, but again, I suspect this is abnormal.

[cuberdrift]

I have heard this argument before, and I agree. What I was wondering was if most teachers who taught beginner/intermediate/early advanced students according to a classical method completely neglect composition/improvisation, thus producing "well-trained monkeys" (granted that there is some musical ability involved in interpretation, but kids are taught even to fake that).

So, am I right about the current state of teaching in classical piano?

I think you're mostly right. I mean, the very nature of the art as "classical", i.e. the "reviving of the classics" means a focus on that very aspect of music-making.

However I personally believe one is missing out a great deal if they don't compose and improvise. There's just an enormous outlet of creativity in those that isn't found in straight piano performance. In fact, I think improvisation itself is the most essential skill out of the three. For me, at least.

[quantum]

I've studied classical music under private teachers and in university.  I also have had a long time fascination about musicians that have the ability to create music on the spot.  Many of my teachers focused on repertoire with little or no serious discussion about improvisation.  One of my teachers even once discouraged me from programming improvisation into a concert.  However, I never let that stop me from learning about improvisation, and actively putting it in practice.  I sought out people with a passion for improvisation and learned as much as I could from them. 

In university many profs have specialized fields.  You don't study exclusively with one person in this setting but rather choose from a variety of courses taught by different people.  Some schools prefer to aggressively pigeonhole students into well beaten classical paths such as performance, teaching, composition, etc., even to the point of disallowing students to take courses belonging to a stream that is not their own.  Sometimes students are not given the opportunity to experience a breadth in their music education.  Fortunately the school I attended was more open to crossing traditional boundaries of study. 


There is so much more learning to than takes place in the short time you are in school.  IMO, it is ultimately up to the individual to take charge of their own education.  You can pass through a very "classical" school and still turn out to be a well rounded musician, you just have to work smart at filling in the gaps in knowledge the school leaves behind. 

[ted]

However I personally believe one is missing out a great deal if they don't compose and improvise. There's just an enormous outlet of creativity in those that isn't found in straight piano performance. In fact, I think improvisation itself is the most essential skill out of the three. For me, at least.

Put it this way, losing the ability to play my repertoire, even my own compositions, would affect me nowhere near as adversely as losing my ability to improvise. Exactly why the majority of players lack all desire to improvise remains a mystery to me. At seventy-two I still cannot understand it, I cannot understand why people would not want to at least play around at the instrument looking for sounds they enjoy. In recent years I have reluctantly concluded that for very many skilled pianists enjoyment has nothing to do with their musical activity. It isn't a palatable conclusion but the overwhelming evidence for it among musicians of my acquaintance makes it difficult to refute.   

[ranjit]

My personal experience has been that once I understand a piece of music "well enough", i.e., I understand the feel really well, know the chord progressions used inside out, am able to keep track of which melodies are going where, etc., then improvisation follows naturally (even if it's just a poor imitation of the original). While I can't say so definitively because I've not had enough experience with the piano, it seems like a great way to develop a music "vocabulary", and musicality in general.

Again, this doesn't seem to be the norm. I wonder why, because I would expect that once you are able to stand in a composer's shoes, so to speak, you would be able to interpret them better.

[quantum]

My personal experience has been that once I understand a piece of music "well enough", i.e., I understand the feel really well, know the chord progressions used inside out, am able to keep track of which melodies are going where, etc., then improvisation follows naturally (even if it's just a poor imitation of the original). While I can't say so definitively because I've not had enough experience with the piano, it seems like a great way to develop a music "vocabulary", and musicality in general.

Again, this doesn't seem to be the norm. I wonder why, because I would expect that once you are able to stand in a composer's shoes, so to speak, you would be able to interpret them better.

You make a very good point: improvisation leads to a deeper understanding of repertoire, and repertoire adds to the vocabulary of an improvisers palette.  Many in the establishment still have not come to this realization, or just plain ignore it. 

[ranjit]

I would like to see what other people on the forum think of this as well.

[dogperson]

I would like to see what other people on the forum think of this as well.

If you want a variety of responses, you might refrain from calling  classically trained pianists who are not composers or improvisationalists ‘trained monkeys’. 

[ranjit]

Dogperson - I was referring more to those pianists who learn all the correct "hand movements", but don't try to have a genuine sense of musicality, not simply those who don't compose/improvise. Sometimes it really appears like players are just thinking "crescendo here, decrescendo here, play this mezzo forte", and reproducing the score without thinking deeper about it. Players who are advanced enough, who have learned at a conservatory for example, might point out that there's something wrong with the position I hold, and that's great! It's just that I've been rather disappointed with the average high level player (I think) as I expected that they would naturally "grow" along with the music they were playing, which doesn't seem to be the case.

Also, I think most people posting here are improvisers because the post kind of naturally resonates better with those who have a predilection towards composition. Many of the frequent posters in the forum improvise as well (which is rather unusual).

[quantum]

There is a philosophy practised by some learned musicians that nearly all of the authority of music creation originates from the composer, and that the performer's job is not to be creative but rather to recreate the intentions of the composer.  Additionally, there are those who take it a step further and profess: that in order to recreate the intentions of the composer you also need to replicate the conditions in which the composer wrote the music.

So following in the above, in order to play late Bach music we would need to cover up our eyes, in order to play Beethoven we need to plug our ears, in order to play Chopin we need to experience lung disease.  Sound ridiculous, it is!  Nonetheless, there are academics that go to great lengths to reproduce music under obsessive historical context all in the name of authentic performance.  It is one thing to experience music on a period instrument to get an idea of the sound a composer was immersed in, it is something completely different to go to extremes of recreation in the attempt to declare an authentic performance in our own time.

What I find perplexing is how little improvisation is mentioned in these historical context studies in performance.  The musicians of the day were more concerned with just creating music, and improvisation was an integral part of that. 

There are performers that have been trained to recreate but not to think and be creative, and this is likely what you have observed.  A mentality in search of "authentic perfection" at the same time devoid of creation.  But I can tell you not all classical music performance and music pedagogy follows down that path. 

[j_tour]

There are some truly reflective comments above, which I won't repeat:  more eloquent and sophisticated than my own tiny thoughts.

Here's a simple practical answer:  how many legit record companies would think they could sell improvisations to the public.

And if there's anyone more conservative than some musicians of a certain type, it's the classical music audience.

Well else are the majority of concerts programmed to include ... just plain old warhorses everybody's heard a million times?

IOW there's an economic or practical aspect that should at least be mentioned.

[cuberdrift]

You make a very good point: improvisation leads to a deeper understanding of repertoire, and repertoire adds to the vocabulary of an improvisers palette.  Many in the establishment still have not come to this realization, or just plain ignore it.

I want to comment on this a bit. I still feel that my side as a "performer" and as an "improviser" tend to remain separate generally. I actually can't really play in the style of Prokofiev or Scriabin for instance, even if I've tackled them before. I think one needs to sub-consciously associate the music as "improvisational" or "compositional" for it to actually be integrated to one's improvisation style. I think the key is mainly listening to, and appreciating, and liking the music that it becomes a "part of you" and then it somehow gets applied to the improvising.

In other words, I think the key element here is "feel" and "mood" when it comes to improvisation; repertoire surely can expand improvisation, but only if one approaches the pieces with a genuine desire to learn them; that is, if one really likes the music and the composer.

At least, that's how it is with me.

So I think the main element when improvising is more of listening than practicing and performing pieces of a certain style that one wants to emulate.

[ranjit]

In other words, I think the key element here is "feel" and "mood" when it comes to improvisation; repertoire surely can expand improvisation, but only if one approaches the pieces with a genuine desire to learn them; that is, if one really likes the music and the composer.

This is very interesting. So don't you need to understand a composer really well in the first place, in order to come up with a convincing interpretation? Can you play convincingly without "feel" or"mood"?

[cuberdrift]

This is very interesting. So don't you need to understand a composer really well in the first place, in order to come up with a convincing interpretation? Can you play convincingly without "feel" or"mood"?

I think the odds increase of you giving a "convincing interpretation" if you like the music  you're playing. However, it's probably still possible to give a performance that is unsatisfying to certain listeners even if you like the piece - in fact, strangely enough, there were a few times that I recorded myself doing an enjoyable performance and I wasn't really satisfied with that recording afterwards (I may have even been more satisfied with the performance which I didn't enjoy as much). Music is kind of confusing when it comes to these things.

But that was about performing classical works (pre-written). What I meant was that one has to "like" a musical style in order for it to probably come out in improvisation. One has to be familiar with the musical style, and for me at least, this sort of "familiarity" comes mainly with listening to that style, moreso than simply practicing and playing (classical) pieces from that style. For example, I can "imitate" Art Tatum's style to some degree because I keep listening to recordings of him and I think about his music many times; but I've never performed any Tatum arrangements before. On the other hand, I have performed Scriabin and Mozart, but I generally am not able to bring them out in improvisations.

I'm not a "good" improviser by the way, in the sense of being a jazz performer or whatnot. It's just something I do for fun by myself.

[cuberdrift]

This is getting to be a pretty interesting topic and the replies are fun to read and respond to, so I'll continue my thoughts.

Also, I think most people posting here are improvisers because the post kind of naturally resonates better with those who have a predilection towards composition. Many of the frequent posters in the forum improvise as well (which is rather unusual).

This struck me a bit. I think it's because those with an inclination to improvisation/composition are generally "deeper thinkers", for lack of a better term. Not that classical performance isn't "deep" per se, but I think one can get away with giving "perfect" performances (provided they have practiced the piece a lot and wisely) without thinking or feeling too much, whereas improvisation and composition in general, more often than not, probably necessitates "thinking/feeling" more.

And people who think and feel are probably more likely to discuss these thoughts/feelings.

There is a philosophy practised by some learned musicians that nearly all of the authority of music creation originates from the composer, and that the performer's job is not to be creative but rather to recreate the intentions of the composer.  Additionally, there are those who take it a step further and profess: that in order to recreate the intentions of the composer you also need to replicate the conditions in which the composer wrote the music.

What does the performer want for his audience? It's all about that I think. The "accuracy" movement is probably more about turning classical performance into a "documentary", making the listeners know "how it was like". Whereas a more "liberal" approach would mostly be about how the performer thinks the music should sound like, and that's it.

This is a good illustration of the "dilemma" of classical interpretation I think. How far do we want to get in "accuracy" of interpretation? What even does "interpretation" mean?

This gray area, this "forest", I believe, is where creativity in classical performance lies. It relies on the performer's understanding of the music, and also the audience's understanding of it. What is the audience looking for? Who are they - are they relatives of the performer? Panelists? Competition judges? Non-pianists? Etc.

It's a little like a speech. The credentials of the performer may even come into play. Maybe what he's wearing has an effect as well, as well as the idea that the audience perceives his demeanor or attire to project. The setting also has a role. Does it affect the acoustics? What type of piano is the performer using, and does it matter? How expensive is the concert, and for what purpose is the performer playing (charity? competition? self-fulfillment? advocacy of a certain composer or musical style? etc.)?

So, even if you're playing a set of pre-written notes, there's still so much to consider, so much to explore and work around. As someone who lives in a place where classical music is not "native", there's hardly a market here. I grew up with an inclination to common practice classical music, so my appreciation of it is something that many in my culture probably won't understand. This realisation frustrated me a bunch of times in the past, but it's also a challenge for me and a big question that I've set myself to work with for some time.

So "replicating the conditions" I imagine, won't do concerts in my environment a favour, because they don't know much about the history of this kind of music. It would probably be much easier to do it in Europe, I'd imagine, due to the pre-existing familiarity with the context of the music there.

What I find perplexing is how little improvisation is mentioned in these historical context studies in performance.  The musicians of the day were more concerned with just creating music, and improvisation was an integral part of that.

I think there are a few out there who tried improvising as well, like Gulda for instance, and I remember there was this wonderful recording of a period rendition of the Liszt Sonata with a prelude in the beginning.

"Just creating music". Indeed. That's what's strange about the whole classical music thing. It's hard to make people today experience the feel of the music because we didn't grow up in the circumstances of that music. We can get closer to it by reading about the composers of course, but that would require more effort.

Here's a simple practical answer:  how many legit record companies would think they could sell improvisations to the public.

Classical music fans probably want their favorite piece listened to. They're interested in the music they already know and they want to hear it. When you improvise, you're the composer, so by selling records of your improvisations it's practically the same as selling records of your compositions.