Luis Hernández

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.

A fantastic little piece. The harpsichord is an instrument I really like.

A very pleasant sonata with clean lines. I’d classify it as early classical in style, perhaps with hints of musique galante. I think it would sound good on a harpsichord. But given that the piano has been chosen, I do think it’s advisable – as @MK_Piano rightly points out – to be thorough and precise with the articulations.

@danishali903 "...when Debussy orchestrated, he didn’t care about the number of instruments – it was all in the service of colour." OK, I think I didn’t express myself very well on this point. What I meant was that it’s not unusual for him to use a large number of musicians, precisely, as you say, to experiment with all those timbres and ranges. When you look at the instrumentation he uses in some of these orchestral pieces, you tend to think it’s going to sound ‘grand’ in the style of Mahler or something like that. But of course, he does it to create all those wonderful atmospheres. As for the harmonics played with a 5th touch, I agree, and that’s something I’ll bear in mind (i.e. using the 4th artificial harmonics). Cheers.

Hello It has a very classical sound. First of all, I find it strange that there are no cellos. Or is it the double bass line that’s written an octave higher? Apart from that, it all sounds rather ‘homophonic’ to me; in other words, although there’s a certain degree of counterpoint here and there, the melody is played on all the instruments for much of the time, either doubled or in octaves. Given that the rhythmic motif appears constantly, it does end up sounding a bit monotonous. I think that in a classical orchestration of this kind, there need to be some basic orchestral layers: a bass line (usually reinforced), a purer melodic line—not overwhelmed by too many instruments at once—and harmonic support. And then you can add counter-melodies, transitions, ‘riffs’ and ornamentation. All of this serves to emphasise the climactic moments.

Hello The score is just as terrifying as the music. The former in a downward sense, the latter in an upward sense. The music fulfils its purpose well.

Hi @danishali903 I appreciate your comments and will reply to a few in case anyone’s interested I don’t usually write expression slurs (legato) on the strings, except for very short groups of notes. Instead, if I want to do this, I specify ‘legato’ (as an articulation, which the software I use does recognise) and hide the text. Bear in mind that this is an exercise and that the economy of instrumentalists/instruments has not been the priority, although it was not intended to be used indiscriminately either. That is why there is a piccolo alongside the flute and the alto flute, because that line in bar 18 requires three instruments from the same family. The same applies to the four horns and the tuba. Another of the ideas is that, as far as possible, the families should sound harmonically complete, as in the chord in bar 9. As for the harmonics, they have all been checked and are feasible, though I may have made a mistake. I’ve had another look at the ones you mention and they’re fine. In this regard, I recommend this webpage, which lists all the natural and artificial harmonics that can be played (and those that are best avoided). https://conductit.eu/study-room/rehearsal/rehearsal-4/4-6-string-harmonics/ When it comes to orchestration, there are endless possibilities. Probably, by assigning a few lines to other instruments, I could have done without the piccolo or one of the two horns… But then again, let’s be realistic: when Debussy orchestrated, he didn’t care about the number of instruments – it was all in the service of colour. Best. Addendum The issue of legato slurs in the strings is something I’m going to consider writing about (always bearing in mind what they might do, as I understand it). It’s a more specific point. In fact, as I have a few final amendments to make to this orchestration, I’m going to include that point. Thank you. I’m still at 5% in my orchestration skills.