Luis Hernández

Hello Thank you for sharing this and recording it live. I’m a huge fan of the nocturnes. It doesn’t really matter where exactly the ‘imagery’ for the piece comes from, as it immediately exudes a sense of Romanticism. It’s a beautiful piece; the harmonic shifts come just where the drama is needed... Best regards.

Hello A number of interesting topics. I’m speaking from a position of inexperience and, more to the point, as I’m still learning, so all of this is just suggestions or other possible options. As I said, it sounds brilliant as it is. Firstly, the issue of transposition for orchestra. I agree with what your teacher (your piano teacher, that is) said. But I think we need to consider making things easier for the instrumentalists. Another point is that it doesn’t really matter to us. It’s going to sound the same, at least in the context of virtual instrument libraries. But the reality is that in this key of E flat minor, it’s more complicated for the strings because there are no open strings; they have to ‘press down’ with their fingers all the time, losing resonance, and so on… I can see problems for the harp too, because being tuned to six flats puts a lot of strain on it. And changes may be more difficult. I think the woodwinds would be most comfortable with this. This key is rarely used in the orchestral repertoire, and I think it’s sought after for dark, tragic, profound tones. Perhaps it would suit something like the Elegy. As far as I’m aware, in the symphonic repertoire, the only works in E-flat minor are by Russian composers: Prokofiev’s Symphony No. 6, Rimsky-Korsakov’s Symphony No. 1 (which he himself transposed to E minor later), and a few others. The other issue, that of arpeggios… You see, in my orchestration classes and seminars we’ve discussed this quite a lot, as well as Alberti basses, etc… How do you adapt them for an orchestra? As I said in my previous message, a literal translation can, of course, work, because there are instruments capable of playing those arpeggios. However, we’re now dealing with an orchestra. It doesn’t have to be a single instrument that does everything. The important thing, I believe, is that the rhythm is clearly marked (with accents and pizzicato, for example), and that the figures are in the appropriate pitches and note values for each instrument. This is also where the question of how faithful one wants to be to the original score comes into play. That’s down to personal preference; we can be very literal, or we can take the main ideas and create an orchestral version. It’s true that for some scores I find it less appropriate to take liberties (for example, when orchestrating Baroque counterpoint), I’ve written these few bars in one possible arrangement, which I’m sure could be improved; I also think it would sound softer on the strings, especially with mutes. Haha, in the very first lessons I had on all this, we worked on Mozart and pieces like that, precisely to translate those piano accompaniments into something else. Cheers. Proyecto.mp3

Hello That sounds fantastic. I just have one ‘objection’: the harp, as an almost literal substitute for the piano, doesn’t strike me as an orchestral solution. Piano arpeggios can be achieved in other ways using woodwinds or strings, or by combining them in a way that’s true to the instrument’s character, whilst maintaining the voice leading and rhythmic patterns. That would sound more symphonic. Yes, it takes a lot more effort to find the right solution, but it’s worth it. When I try to orchestrate piano pieces, I simply don’t use the harp. Perhaps later on, as an occasional supporting element or in specific moments…

Quite beautiful.

What is that? It looks great.

Hello It’s fine to experiment and explore different sounds. But these extreme approaches need to be handled with care. The piccolo is not, by its very nature, a solo instrument, but rather an extension of the flutes. Of course, there are passages where it can take a solo moment, and so on, with the necessary support. Even complete works. And there are reasons for this. And that is what I’d like to discuss, in the hope that it will spark debate and help us learn in general. If we turn to Rimsky-Korsakov’s classic treatise on orchestration: “Instruments operating above the high octave (i.e. notes higher than C6 or the C on the sixth additional line in the treble clef, such as the piccolo or the extreme register of the flute and the violins) have an extremely brilliant and penetrating sound, but lack body, ‘thickness’ and harmonic weight.” (Note that the piccolo sounds an octave higher than it is written.) There is, therefore, a ‘rule’ regarding lower doubling. Specifically for the piccolo or flutes playing above C6, the melody must be doubled an octave lower, assigned to the oboes, clarinets or violins. More recent authors (Adler and Piston) justify this as follows: -Loss of Fundamental: From C6 upwards, the human ear perceives the shrillness and upper harmonics very strongly, but the fundamental frequency loses its acoustic ‘weight’. The lower doubling ‘anchors’ the melody to the orchestra’s mid-range frequencies, giving it body. -The ‘Floating’ Effect: If the lower doubling is not performed, the melody becomes detached from the rest of the orchestral texture, sounding disconnected, thin and ‘floating’ above it without blending in. -Aural Fatigue: As noted in contemporary orchestral literature, maintaining pure melodic lines above C6 without a cushion or lower doubling causes fatigue in the listener due to a lack of frequency balance.

It sounds pretty good to me. The thing is, I don’t think music actually ‘describes’ anything. It’s a different matter if you explain which image or situation it accompanies, as is the case here. And yes, I think it fits that perfectly. I like the bit at the end where a section comes in – I’m not sure if it’s brass.

A very interesting piece. Although I don’t quite grasp the idea. I’m not sure if you mean that it begins with a movement that sounds very classical and then takes a few twists and turns. The second part seems to take a stylistic step back, as it sounds pre-Baroque with unadorned lines and a modal sound (perhaps Dorian F).

Hello I’m going to give my opinion on a few points, but without awarding a score. Firstly, the choice of the piccolo is a bit odd. Much of the part written for it could be played on a conventional flute. At certain points, however, this isn’t possible. One advantage of the piccolo is that, in the higher registers, it can be played less loudly than the flute. Although the dynamic markings are a bit sparse. One thing I don’t like is that the flute and viola play in octaves… two or three octaves apart. This creates a rather large and constant gap in between. Although at times it is ‘filled in’ with a note from the harp. The viola is also a bit odd because much of its part is in treble clef, which seems more appropriate for a violin. Writing for the harp isn’t easy either. Once the issue of whether pedal changes are feasible has been resolved (something I haven’t analysed), the problem is that it doesn’t seem very idiomatic for the left hand to be arpeggiating all the time. It’s an ostinato that already creates monotony. The range of the chords in each hand at that speed strikes me as far too wide; I’d limit it to an octave (for example, bar 23). I also find what happens in section B a bit complicated, where one whole hand is occupied and the other is too, doing different things. As for whether it captures the spirit of the piece, I won’t comment on that because it seems so subjective to me that I can’t really judge… I believe that a chamber piece of this style requires careful attention to dynamics, accents and balance. Best regards.

I really liked the replies and I couldn’t agree more. The ultimate purpose of music, as has been pointed out, is, I believe, to evoke emotions, whatever they may be. And taking it to extremes, whether one relies solely on inspiration or bases everything on theoretical and technical considerations, the result will be ineffective. I don’t think there’s a single composer, including in pop music, who has achieved any real success by relying predominantly on one or the other. Many pop musicians don’t have much technical training, but they have teams behind them who make up for all that. Relying solely on inspiration and intuition is like a surgeon who operates with great talent but knows nothing of anatomy. Conversely, an anatomist cannot operate on the basis of theoretical knowledge alone. These are inseparable aspects for any composer of even the most basic calibre. And as has also been said, ultimately it becomes a naturally interwoven process. The idea, the inspiration, can come from a great many sources, but technical knowledge allows you to greatly improve the result in every respect. I also believe that, nowadays, many composers are eclectic and draw on elements from various musical languages, depending on what they think will work best for what they wish to express. I don’t know – the broader the range of resources, the more varied and better the results can be. It’s like being a chef with 10 ingredients or with 100.

What prelude is it?

An interesting question. I think that, nowadays (or for the past few decades or so), even as a professional composer, it is almost impossible to develop a unique, new and personal style. I believe very few in history were like that. Bach, Wagner, Debussy, Schönberg… in the 20th century there are perhaps more: John Cage, Messiaen, Bartók… But there are other composers of equal or greater calibre who did not introduce ‘revolutionary’ new ideas, yet who took the music that was developing at the time and made it evolve and grow. These composers also have highly recognisable personal styles (Mozart, Beethoven, Verdi, Puccini, Brahms, Chopin, and many more). We currently face a ‘problem’: we are familiar with a vast number of musical languages and systems that emerged in the 20th century, and there are many of them. I believe that, nowadays, a composer must be eclectic and must be familiar with as many musical languages as possible, drawing from each the elements that suit them at any given moment. The ability to combine all of this is a sign of a composer’s maturity. Very often, we stick very closely to a particular style, or even a particular composer, and write pieces by imitating them as best we can. That’s fine, but I don’t think that amounts to developing one’s own style. I see it as absolutely necessary, especially for learning purposes. Regarding the second point you raise. It’s true, there are a great many widely used techniques and other things that software programmes cannot do. Although they are gradually incorporating them. Of course, I can’t see a DAW or an editor handling random elements. The notation for this has been sorted out, but the software-based performance cannot be random.

Right. I’ve always thought that, from our current perspective, it’s great to be familiar with all kinds of earlier systems and languages, including, of course, those of the 20th and 21st centuries. And that these foundations can be used however one wishes. Sometimes it’s good to try writing in the style of Mozart, or Debussy, or Webern, and so on… Especially when you’re learning. But when it comes to composing, I think you have to give free rein to your creativity and use elements from the systems that resonate with you at that moment. Lately, I’ve been delving a bit deeper into Stravinsky’s rotational matrices from his later period, and I find them fascinating, so I’ve incorporated them into some of the pieces I’m working on. Best regards.

Hello I’d like to comment on the first piece. I think it’s a very interesting, beautiful and original work. The impression I get is that in some parts it’s as if you had two separate works (the choir and the string quartet). In the first section (which is then repeated), some of the lines played by first and second violins become very active and chromatic, and either get a bit lost, or I don’t feel they quite fit together. I think section B is more balanced in that respect, as the strings tend to underline or accentuate the melody more.

Hello Firstly, I’d like to say that I think it’s a brilliant piece and I’ve really enjoyed it. I’m just as drawn to modern languages as I am to the classical ones. As for the notation you’ve suggested, I think it’s fine as it is. In this context, as long as it’s clear, whether or not there are enharmonic alterations is a secondary consideration. I’m not sure what your intention was with this piece – whether it was to draw closer to the style of expression of that Second Viennese School, or rather to use a highly chromatic language in your own way. I say this because, although the absence of stable tonal centres is evident, the way this quintet is written departs from the typical characteristics of expressionism. Things that I believe are not characteristic (and I’m not saying this is either better or worse): the use of ‘homophony’, of several parallel lines—some doubled, others at different intervals. Expressionism, when it employs chamber ensembles, is essentially contrapuntal and pointillistic. There are sections that have that effect to a greater extent. Composing within this system is by no means easy. Many people think you simply take a twelve-tone row or whatever and start placing notes, inverted rows, retrograde rows and so on… But no. The tricky bit is mastering the language to the point where you know exactly what you’re doing, primarily to control the moments of tension and release. Furthermore, cadences – not understood in terms of the functional tonal system – are also important.