Dissonance

[georgeschiro]

It was suggested that I post more, so here goes.

This was originally posted for a Piano World recital in 2014.

I hope you enjoy it.

Note: first attempt at attachment upload failed. Please ignore the "0 kB" attachment.

[j_tour]

I listened:  very nice improvisation. 

I like the title:  it's, to me, an ironic comment on how the major seventh<-->tonic interval defines dissonance, within the structure of an harmonic system based upon resolution.  Which your piece fulfills, without the lasting dissonance of an atonal piece.

Well done.

[ted]

Some pretty moments here. Nothing seemed especially dissonant to me but I guess the term is subjective. The form of the piece is precise for an improvisation which suits the clearly defined ideas.

[georgeschiro]

I thank you both for the kind words.

[quantum]

I think you are taking after the classical period treatment of dissonance, succinct crunchy dissonances economically placed within a balanced tonal palette.  This piece has a clear defined character.

Well done.

[georgeschiro]

Thank you.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Nice idea to use acciaccature as the framework for the title.

[georgeschiro]

 

[lettersquash]

Yeah that's well crafted, and certainly has enough dissonance to fit the bill. I'm not sure about the way the term "improvisation" is being used on the forum. This sounds like it's been composed rather than played spontaneously. I was thinking "improvisation" was either wholly or largely made up on the spot (maybe even just the melody over established chords). I'd be interested to know which it is. If you did this off the cuff, hats off to you (but if not, I'm still majorly impressed). Any of my improvs have massive dissonances in them, but not too many on purpose!

[georgeschiro]

It really was an improvisation. That's all I know how to do.

Here's what I wrote back in 2014 (see "Recitals by Performer" https://recitals.pianoworld.com/reportRecitalsbyPerformer.php?name=George%20Schiro, my last posted performance on "Piano World"):

    Just another feeling? Note: this recording was
    submitted after several takes "as is" with warts and
    all (ie. no edits).

All that said, thank you so much for your kind words!

[lettersquash]

Thanks George. I wonder if we're talking at cross purposes. Listening to your earlier recording, it seems to me to be very similar indeed, if not precisely the same notes as the one posted here, and you talk about it as a piece you've played several times (and recorded without edits, perhaps). Now, I don't mean this as a criticism at all, merely a technical point. And it could be me who is using the term wrongly - that's what I'm trying to figure out. I have several pieces that I can play through. I haven't written them down on paper, but I know how they go. I may also play them differently, swapping sections or shortening them, even changing the rhythm. That's not "improvising" in my understanding. It's "composing" and "reciting" established pieces. Improvising is where you sit down at the instrument and make stuff up you've never played before.

Obviously, all musical performances will be on a scale somewhere between those extremes, because nobody can play a piece exactly the same twice even if they try, and nobody can be sure that they're not repeating some sequence they've played before (or heard before). But you get my drift, hopefully.

When I make things up, I make attempts, try different things, try to remember the good bits, and gradually work out a piece. So improvising is part of composing, towards an end product you can repeat. Improvising something like yours here - to me - would mean you've never played those notes in that order before, or anywhere close.

I'll end by repeating that it doesn't matter - what you've composed is something to be proud of, I just rather wonder if it should be in the parent category (or if there's another section for personally composed recitals as opposed to playing Chopin or whatever). Sitting down and improvising what you play here without hitting 'bum' notes would be another level of difficulty, IMHO. There are recordings here like that, and I think the players have a refined knowledge of music theory and/or a lot of experience finding their way around the keys.

[georgeschiro]

First, it would be nice to have a real name to banter with. My name is George. What's yours? Anyway, hopefully "Letter" will suffice for now.

Perhaps some background will help Letter.

I am self-taught on the piano. I don't read music (I can - with considerable effort - but I don't) and I don't know anything about music theory. All I know is what sounds pleasing to me. So it's entirely plausible that I don't understand what the word improvisation really means.

Now I will describe the process I use and what I think is "improvising" - with the specific intent to record a session (like I did for the recitals).

0. I think about a simple musical idea, what a theorist would call a motif (I think). It's something I will try to remember and have recur (with variations) throughout the session.

Note: in the case of "Dissonance" the main idea is actually the pulse that first happens as the opening 8 notes. In addition (as a kind of half-motif) I decided to also do an acciaccature throughout (which I didn't have a name for prior to this thread - thank you "Ronde", you are exactly right). So even though it's not the main idea, I decided "Dissonance" sounds better than "Pulse" as a title.

1. I press "Record" on my digital piano.

2. I play for at least a few minutes until I reach a (hopefully) satisfying conclusion.

3. I press "Record" again to stop the recording and save it.

I usually repeat the process once or twice to get it just right. In the case of "Dissonance" I may have repeated it 3 or 4 times, but no more.

That's it.

In my view, that's improvising.

Did I ever play "Dissonance" before? No. Could I play it again? Not really. I could play something similar or at least the first several bars, but then it would trail off into something different. To be honest, most of my playing - something that I am not specifically planning to record (like for a recital) sounds more like "Ambivalence" than "Dissonance." In fact, "Dissonance" was rather unusual for me.

You wrote:

    Listening to your earlier recording, it seems to me to
    be very similar indeed, if not precisely the same notes
    as the one posted here, and you talk about it as a
    piece you've played several times (and recorded without
    edits, perhaps).

The "earlier recording" is not just similar, it's exactly the same recording - from 2014 - uploaded to this forum last week. When I wrote "submitted after several takes", I meant I followed the same 3 step process described above - and then repeated it perhaps 3 or 4 times over the course of at most 30 minutes on April 25, 2014 - until I was happy with the result. I knew full well that it would be submitted for the recital a few months later. It was never played before nor since.

I hope that helps Letter.

[lettersquash]

Oh, I see. My mistake, then. It's improvised (or certainly very close to that end of my "scale"). Thank you and well done.

I seem to have riled you. I went to some lengths to avoid it.

I'm not sure why you feel it's important to have the name I was given as a child to one I made up. I banter with people all the time with their made up names. Will you be requiring everyone here to give their full names?

Cheers,
lettersquash (not "Letter")

[georgeschiro]

No, not at all lettersquash. I apologize if I my previous response came off as angry in any way. That was certainly not my intention.

Of course it's not really important to use real names. It just seems odd not to (for me). I would feel like I was being less than real if I didn't use my real name. That said, we each must do what's comfortable.

Thank you again for taking enough of an interest to challenge me. That is a good thing, sincerely.

[j_tour]

I will be honest, maybe smooth things over, not that it needs to be, but my initial reaction was:  "that's a pretty good way of intuiting structure."

I'm just a jazz guy, if that, but it's like taking a solo is how I took it:  sort of can't help but have a rough structure.

You know, some sounds, voicings of chords.

Initially, I did think, "that's no improv!  I am offended!," but that's not how I approach it.

I still stand by my statement that the title is meant to be a bit ironic.  Because the major 7th to tonic is and isn't dissonant.

It's still a very good piece.  I believe 100% it was improvised, with perhaps some subconscious sounds serving as guideposts.

It is, to be fair, a beautifully structured improvisation. 

Yet, good improvisers, at least to me ears, are pretty good musicians in the first place. 

I stand by my appraisal:  you did good, kid!  Do more!

[lettersquash]

Glad we got that sorted out, and sorry to distract from your posting a super piece, georgeschiro.

But it has been enlightening for me to think about that. I do really think there's a continuum of sorts between improv and composition. I suppose, like j_tour, I was a little sceptical at first because it sounds rather polished, and then of course I totally misunderstood about the other website.

It made me think more about what's happening when I improvise, which I do from time to time. I'm mostly aware of judging intervals, following the tune/chord/whatever playing in my head, and then I might hit a bum note (since I'm not thinking about theory virtually at all, since I know virtually none) and I'll just misjudge the interval, which might feed into what I'm "composing" in my head, if I can accommodate it. If not, it's just a bum note and I'll probably hit the right note and continue (which makes recordings of my improvs awful, but are useful to come back to, because it's AMAZING what happens by accident-design in improvising).

There are rare moments - usually when off my .... - when I can play seriously good modern jazz this way - either that or I only think it's seriously good modern jazz and it's really awful.

Because the major 7th to tonic is and isn't dissonant.

I think I see what you mean, but let's check. To my mind, and it's often said generally I think, a major 7th creates a "tension" that is resolved (often) in the tonic, so I guess whether we call that suspense "dissonant" is a semantic issue. What popped into my head was the memory of hearing that at one time the second inversion - is it? - an E at the bass of a C major - was considered dissonant and a complete no-no (I forget when, where, etc.). It does still have a slightly unresolved feel, but is used all the time. I think this is what happens with music, as with other forms of art: novel, dischordant, jarring things are accommodated and become part of the landscape.

Oops, better shut up - sorry to go on.

[j_tour]

I think I see what you mean, but let's check. To my mind, and it's often said generally I think, a major 7th creates a "tension" that is resolved (often) in the tonic, so I guess whether we call that suspense "dissonant" is a semantic issue.

No, that's all I meant:  it's the very definition of dissonance.  The half step to the tonic.  It kind of implies the V7->I cadence. 

But, the sound itself can be accomodated.  Like in the Scriabin Op. 65 no. 2 "Allegretto" late étude where there are stark root+maj7 voicings.  And in all kinds of bebop or other jazz pianos, in the bass register.

Yes, I would call that a dissonance one can get used to, as you say.  That's why I suggested the title was slightly ironic:  we're all used to that interval and its resolution, but the OP managed to create a very nice piece which, to my mind, highlights the meaning of the term.

[ivorycherry]

Hello,
I’m not really advanced like these other people but it sounded very good. An impressive improvisation especially from someone self taught without any knowledge of music theory. I really enjoyed listening.

Bravo!

[georgeschiro]

The ongoing words of kindness are heartwarming and ever so much appreciated. Thank you all!