|
Hughmoris posted:If I'm reading it right, it states that a melodic minor scale would be played in ascending order, while a natural minor would be played in a descending order. Does ascending and descending as described here physically mean moving from left to right (ascending) or right to left (descending) on the keyboard? "Ascending" and "descending" are always used with respect to pitch - ascending means "moving towards higher pitches," and descending is just the opposite. It might help to know why the melodic minor mode was made in the first place: that 7th degree of the major scale, the "leading tone," is very important for building up tension and resolution in a piece - the way it wants to resolve to the tonic helps to make your finales more final, for example. The flat 7th scale degree of the natural minor doesn't do that as well, so composers just started using the un-flatted 7, right along with the other notes of the minor scale. But they ran into a problem with their melodies - the jump from the flat 6th to the un-flatted 7th is a tone-and-a-half, which they considered to be big and ugly and unmelodic. So, when they wrote ascending melodies that made use of that un-flattened seventh, they stated using the un-flattened sixth as well. That's the ascending melodic minor mode. Now, you could conceivably use the same notes for the descending parts of your melodies. You just don't NEED to: there's no need to un-flatten the 7th when you're descending, because that 7th can only ever resolve UP to the tonic. Since you don't need to un-flat the 7th, there's also no necessity to un-flat the 6th. That's why we say that the "proper" melodic minor is 1-2-b3-4-5-6-7-1 ascending, and 1-b7-b6-5-4-b3-2-1 descending. It's really just a convention. EDIT: durr, I didn't actually answer your question. Physically speaking: moving right on the piano, you'd play the distinct intervals of the melodic minor mode; moving left, you play the ordinary, natural minor intervals. That site you linked to has a certain format for the way they describe scales - they always list the intervals in ascending order, even though you could normally play them ascending or descending, no? Well, for the melodic minor they put (ascending) and (descending) in the title to say "Hey, these are the intervals you're using, but only the (ascending) or (descending) direction." Ok, I hope this big huge chunk of text for such a simple, simple question helped... 
pyknosis fucked around with this message at 05:55 on Nov 24, 2007 |
#
¿
Nov 24, 2007 04:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 00:09 |
|
|
Anyone remember this thread? It's been dead for a little while. So, I just got a nice new keyboard for christmas, and I'm taking the university's basic piano class next semester, and I'll probably end up taking lessons over the summer. I'm starting my music major, and I'll most likely focus on bass and/or classical guitar, but I want to get to know the piano pretty well too. That leads me to my question - can anyone recommend a good method book for piano? I have plenty of theory background and whatnot, but I need something that will help me build up my sight-reading and technique from a very basic level. Also, wow, everyone in this thread seems to be making awesome progress, congrats. Any more recent updates?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2007 16:40
|
|
|
Bob Shadycharacter posted:What I can't wrap my brain around is the modes. Maybe someday. Bob Shadycharacter, ten seconds before posted:The pattern is different and that's why they sound so different. That's really all there is to it, if you're talking about the "church modes" or whatever they're called nowadays. If you're talking about the "modes" of the minor scale, i.e. harmonic and melodic, well I think I already rambled on about those a page or two ago...
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2008 02:52
|
|
|
Alizee posted:Best way to fix or lessen it is to just play in front of as many people as possible and make it a plan that whenever people are around to play out all that much more. Yeah, this mostly. I'll tell you something that works for me: Before you start practicing (i.e. before you get nervous at all), just sit still in an upright position and relax your whole body. Try to feel and remember what it's like to be loose and relaxed and not tense. Then go and sit down at the piano, and let the nerves come... When I get nervous, it's somewhat like a giddy and super-heightened sense of awareness. And the natural reaction would be to tense up - but instead, try to think back to what being loose was like, and try to imitate that. Then just start playing. If none of that does anything for you, then just keep playing, you get used to it over time. I'm in two performance classes right now (piano and guitar), and I try to play loud and convincingly when we're playing as a class, and most of the time I make horrible, painful mistakes. Nobody's judging, though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2008 04:07
|
|
|
80k posted:It doesn't hurt to go try out different brands at the store before you buy, even if you are a total noob, unless it is awfully inconvenient for you to do so. Yeah, you can just mash keys and fiddle with switches and see what the different kinds are like. You're less likely to be disappointed with an instrument that you played before you bought, I think.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2008 23:37
|
|
|
ShinAli posted:Also, any suggestions for music books on 20/21st century pieces? I want to play something a little new for once. Mikrokosmos is a set of exercises / small pieces by Bela Bartok, which he wrote in ascending order of difficulty. You seem talented so you could probably plow straight through a lot of them. Here's a video of two of the harder ones (note their high numbers): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ly2ggiDoow&feature=related
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2008 13:08
|
|
|
Alizee posted:No, that comes naturally. And really, unless you're sight reading or needing cues from band members/ directors why shouldn't you look at your hands. I know it's something that just takes time, because it came to me eventually on the guitar, but I don't suppose you have any brilliant tips for playing-without-looking on a piano? Sight reading is pretty much the only kind of piano playing I do these days.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2008 20:41
|
|
|
Foiltha posted:Thought I might post this question here instead of creating a new thread. I've been looking at some MIDI-keyboards for a while now and I've got my eyes set on an Axiom 61, mostly because the keys felt a lot nicer than several other MIDI-keyboards. I do know that a MIDI-keyboard is not exactly ideal for keyboard/piano playing but it's also going to serve as a production tool. I'm not going to be playing classical or jazz, but I would like to play some more traditional pop covers and such. Anyhow, I was wondering how much will 61 keys restrict me? 61 keys is minus two octaves (actually a little bit less). You'll be missing the very highest and very lowest keys that are likely never used in "traditional pop covers." I have a question: what's the point of putting those four keys below bottom C on a piano? I don't know if I've ever seen them used...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2008 22:25
|
|
|
Zorodius posted:
Yes you are describing it right. Make sure you mind the downbeats and upbeats correctly. From the beginning of that measure: 1) on the first beat, play the low E with your left hand and the G# with your right 2) on the upbeat, release your left hand and play that B with your right hand 3) on the second beat, move all the way up to that higher E with your left hand, and play the G# with your right hand. And now for the tricky part, but it's not so bad: 4) on the upbeat, release your left hand and play the E with your right hand instead Then go on from there. The way you deal with problematic spots like this is to SLOW WWAAAAYYYY DOWN, and isolate the problem, and tackle it over and over. Play this measure in a loop, maybe, and don't go back to the piece as a whole until you have the measure down. Don't just play the whole piece over and over, because you'll keep messing up this one spot, and what's worse, you'll get in the habit of messing up and then you'll find it much harder to correct the error. So good luck with that!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2008 17:17
|
|
|
Sure. I don't actually play much piano but I'm pretty sure that the bottom staff is always played with the left hand, and the top staff with the right.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2008 14:06
|
|
|
Vanmani posted:I've been playing for 14 years and it still took me well over a week to learn Space Dementia I don't suppose you've played any of Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto No. 2 in those fourteen years? I'm just saying, the first movement and Space Dementia sound awfully similar in spots...
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2008 06:52
|
|
|
Bob Shadycharacter posted:Would everyone be like "get the gently caress out!" if I posted recordings of myself? I really doubt it, this thread is more like the general Piano discussion thread anyways. I remember in the short-lived classical guitar thread, recordings were up on the first page. So yeah I'd like to hear anyways, I'm a non-pianist who is working on a short piano piece right now, so if you're flashy and impressive maybe I'll try to beg you to record my piece for me v  v
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2008 19:37
|
|
|
I think a well-kept secret is that, on pretty much any instrument, the players of average to above average fluency still don't sight-read like crazy. My main instrument is the classical guitar, and I can play without looking only as far as the notes keep my hands in one position on the neck. When I have to move my hands, I absolutely have to look away from the sheet. I think piano is pretty much the same way. Vanmani posted:Truth is even most proficient piano teachers don't play perfectly from sight except on the very simplest of pieces, they need to "know" the song to some extent and use the sheet as a trigger to remind them how it goes. This is how my teacher tells me to deal with sheet music. Actually, he tells me to work on memorizing my concert pieces by re-notating them when I'm away from my instrument, just me and blank staff paper. I've been too lazy to actually do this but it seems like a good idea... The point is that you're going over the physical side in your head, and then linking that to the notes that you write down, so that when you're on stage the notes will trigger the physical memory. Eli Cash posted:I also have trouble actually recognizing notes on the sheet, and I hope to get better at this by playing easier music. This will get better with time. It's that simple -- I mean, it's frustrating how slow and painstaking the process can be, but there's really no way to speed things up. I'll bet you're not doing anything wrong here, just keep at it. Eli Cash posted:I'm just worried that I'm learning so slow and using too much muscle memory to a point where I'm memorizing the just the piece and not becoming familiar with the notes and how they should feel. Speaking as a musician in general, this what you ought to worry yourself about more. It's good that you're developing to the point that you can notice this, so just run with it. Here's what me and my teacher do, with my big old book of graded guitar pieces: 1) I play through every piece in a section, not for perfection but to practice reading the notes and fingering the fingerings and whatnot. 2) We get together and he points at one or two of those. Then he gives me advice, not so much about technique as about volumes, phrasings, articulations... you know, expression. 3) I go home and practice just those pieces, working on expression. These are the ones that I memorize, usually just by repetition. 4) Repeat. I don't know if you have a teacher, but you should have a big old book of graded piano pieces regardless. So this is something you can do on your own: just read through a big chunk of them quickly, then go back and pick one or two that sounded good to you, and make them sound better. Of course, you probably don't have as much time as I do for practice (it's my job)... So just do what you can. Everyone has a different pace, and if you don't set artificial goals for yourself, you'll probably enjoy playing more AND move faster inadvertently.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2009 00:00
|
|
|
Those are not two separate lines. The 8vb line began on the first system and continues onto the second. The (8) is there to remind you what that line is, just in case that second system wound up on a separate page or something. So did a classmate make that in sibelius for you to play, or something?
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2009 00:12
|
|
|
Oh well I bet the person engraved it in sibelius, it looks like the default font and I know sibelius does those kinds of things with the lines. Which song is it?
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2009 05:16
|
|
|
Zyklon B Zombie posted:This is going to sound dumb, but are there any composers who did really epic dramatic sounding stuff like they use in a lot of Japanese video games, with the huge arpeggios and runs and such? I'm not to familiar with the video games but from your description, the earlier Beethoven piano sonatas come to mind as something that might be well-suited for you.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2009 03:53
|
|
|
Fat Turkey posted:So I'm trying to work out why those seemed to work. F#/B/D is playing a Bm chord, so why does it segue well into C or Em? Is there a rule for each chord? Is there no actual rule and what I found just seems to work in my head but isn't really there? Let's talk less about rules and more about the musical experience. The first time you used that chord, it felt really natural and smooth and proper, right? And the next time it felt a bit jarring and unusual? Let's see if we can find any reasons why that might be. But first: Vanmani posted:For whatever reason the human ear tends to follow the root you play (the lowest note of the chord) I hate to be nitpicky, but that's not the proper definition of root. The "bass" is the lowest pitch, and the movements of the lowest pitches form the "bassline". "Root" describes the tonal center of whatever particular harmony you're hearing. It's something of an abstraction, but a useful one. Let's say that, from low to high, you see the following notes in a chord: C - G - C - E - G - C. What chord is it? It's C major, pretty simple. All three of the notes present, C E and G, form a triad, and C is at the bottom of the abstracted triad, so we call it "C major" and say that C is its root. But imagine you see this, low to high: E - C - E - G - E - G. Since there's an E on the bottom, you might start to think it's an "E something" chord. But it's just like last time: all of the notes present, C E and G, form a triad and C is at the bottom of the ABSTRACTED triad, even if it's not at the bottom of the actual chord we're hearing. (Same goes if you had, for example, G - C - E - C.) So, and this is important: it's a chord with E in the bass but with C as it's root. You'll see that "bass" is a very practical term, and "root" is more analytical. You play the bass and hear the bass, but you have to stop and analyze to see what the root is. You'll see why that's important if you keep reading... G - Em - G - C is in the key of G major. You can be sure of that because of how the G is repeated, and because of the plagal cadence, C to G, finishing off the phrase. So in roman numerals it's I - vi - I - IV. That's all root movement by thirds and fourths/fifths, which is no surprise to someone reading a theory textbook. Fourths/fifths root movement will always have a natural and simple and predictable "stepping forward" kind of feel to it... just because.* (This is why you almost always see that kind of movement towards I at the end of the song, for example, G - C or F - C in the key of C.) Movement by third is similarly smooth, and not very dramatic or rough at all. So, if that's true, you'd think that an easy way to embellish these chords is to stick another fourth/fifth root movement in there somewhere. Like I - iii - vi, which is what you did. Sticking that Bm in there gives an extra little push in the direction of Em, which is where you end up. And what's more, the way you voiced the chords gives you a nice stepwise motion in the bass, G - F# - E. This brings out that "little push" thing even more, resulting in a very natural passing harmony. Now, since everything's "pushing" towards Em, it's going to be a bit weird when you repeat it but end up at C instead. For one thing, Bm to C is a root movement by second. That's definitely the least smooth, since all three notes of the triad have to change. If you're familiar with the term "deceptive cadence," there is a reason why the most typical deceptive cadence is V - vi. Now, this passing chord I - iii - IV thing isn't a cadence, but it's certainly deceptive for the same reasons. The natural movement-by-fifths makes you expect Em, and the G - F# stepwise movement in the bass makes you expect an E for the next note, not a C. C and F# are a tritone apart, which probably the most dissonant (i.e. jarring, rough, dramatic) diatonic interval you could have picked. All of that explains why the Bm - C movement is not as smooth. But I want to stress that this doesn't make it a BAD thing in itself. I actually have a piece I wrote, on piano, in the key of G, that approaches a C chord very similarly, and it works to great effect. (The Bm is a D instead, but the bass still goes F# to C.) The difference is that I used that movement deliberately as a surprise, something that's somewhat jarring and deceptive, rough and dramatic. What you were looking for is very different -- a "passing harmony" (or chord) is by definition smooth and predictable (i.e. going where you expect it to once you hear it), and something that doesn't call quite so much attention to itself. I hope that was at least comprehensible. Here's something you might try: Play the I - iii - vi just like you were, with G - F# - E in the bass. Then play I - iii - IV but keep the G - F# - E in the bass, so the C chord is voiced in first inversion. Basically, play C's in the C chord where you used to have B's in the Em chord. That could be interesting... (Wow that's a lot of words about just a passing chord, huh) * Here's a good, basic description of what we call "Circle of Fifths progressions," which also explains some of the terms I'm using here, if you don't already know them: http://www.musictheory.net/lessons/html/id56_en.html pyknosis fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Jul 18, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2009 03:15
|
|
|
You would enjoy Chopin's Cm Prelude, I bet. Look in here: http://imslp.org/wiki/Preludes,_Op.28_%28Chopin,_Frederic%29 it's number 20. Oh and I can share a video I guess. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jdso4VZok1E However, the recording doesn't quite convey what it's like hearing this one on a real piano, if you're playing it properly. pyknosis fucked around with this message at 14:37 on Aug 6, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2009 14:33
|
|
|
Yeah seriously. Well, maybe not. It depends on what you really mean when you say "rock piano," since the word "rock" is used in a very non-specific way these days. Try this: go figure out what the piano is doing in "Rock and Roll" by Led Zeppelin, and learn it and play it. Then, basically, just do that exact same thing in any other song you want to play. If you don't like the thought of that, then maybe what you really want to play is some Coldplay stuff, or something.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2009 03:48
|
|
|
Along the same lines, Seaside Rendezvous doesn't sound too hard https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CkzXroTbv8
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2009 16:10
|
|
|
I'd recommend looking at some rags.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2009 22:27
|
|
|
Scale exercises are all about articulation. Pianists don't get direct control over sound production like other instruments do -- you don't get to set the string in motion yourself. So your piano sound can get monotonous very quickly if you don't work on getting every tiny shade of nuance out of your keystrokes that you can. So don't just play scales, play them staccato and legato, and then super-legato and super-staccato, and then various degrees of legato, and then go between soft staccato and the heaviest marcato you can... you get the idea. But make sure you know the fingering patterns first, that's the foundation you build on.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2009 02:42
|
|
|
Faux Crow posted:add9 would mean it's added on top of the chord. I'd call this a Cadd2 chord. Doesn't get much use, though. I've never heard of chord symbols dictating the voicing of the chord (with the exception of slash chords of course). Cadd9 and Cadd2 ought to mean the same thing: C E G triad, leave out the B or B-flat you would expect (otherwise it'd be written as simply C9 or CM9), and throw in a D. Of course, chord symbols are about as standardized as dialects in India, where you go from one village to the next and no one can understand you, so... e: By the way, we're talking about identifying a sonority, not deciphering a lead sheet, so wracking our brains over a chord symbol is pointless. What the chord is is a major triad with a M2 above the bass added in, or a series of M2's with a 5th above the bass added in, or something. Think of it like that, and the labels don't really add anything essential. pyknosis fucked around with this message at 14:30 on Oct 20, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2009 14:25
|
|
|
I've never seen Cadd2 or C2, so it'd probably stop me dead in my tracks. (Which is bad for lead sheets.) And given a bit more thought, I might misinterpret it as a sus2 or a substitution of 2 for 3. Partly because I'm used to figured basses.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2009 15:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 00:09 |
|
|
Yeah and I absolutely agree, but chord symbols don't tell you anything about voicing, except for slash chords.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2009 04:18
|
|