Luis Hernández

Hello It sounds brilliant to me. A good balance of textures, not always crammed full of all the vocals – I like that. The organ sound is a bit odd because of the attack-release or whatever, but then again, it’s such a massive instrument that it’s spot on. Well done.

Hello The important thing: a massive piece of work... Very interesting, it really draws me in, and it’s very well presented; the sound is brilliant. I must admit that variations aren’t really my favourite genre, but then again, when there’s quality, there’s quality. One thing I particularly liked is that, although some of the variations are very short, the transitions between them are, on the whole, very well executed. That gives it continuity, within the nature of the genre: variation. I’ll just mention a couple of things: One is a matter of personal taste: all those fast sections – vivace, presto, prestissimo, etc. – tire me out a bit. But as I say, that’s subjective. And another thing – this I do find a bit odd. Bars 20 and 24 in the first variation… My ears and brain weren’t prepared for that. Mind you, I’m no stranger to dissonance, but it has to be in context. Those extremely strong minor second dissonances – there aren’t any more powerful ones in the entire consonant tonal environment – sound like a mistake. If they’d been set up, if they were repeated… but like this, so suddenly and in isolation… You could have used other, more subtle dissonances here and there… Yes, we sometimes think that in music ‘anything goes’, but well, in moderation. Later on there are sections that include dissonances, but they’re well contextualised. Congratulations on your work.

Let me add something, even though it goes beyond the specific work in question; by chance, I came across an example just today. This is part of the first page of E. Elgar’s Concerto for Violin and Orchestra. A dense piece… Note that for the contrabassoon and the tuba it says ‘ad lib’ (ad libitum). This does not mean that these instruments should ‘play whatever they like’. It means this: -Optional instruments: The contrabassoon and tuba may be omitted. -Lack of players: If the orchestra does not have them, the piece is performed as normal. -Conductor’s decision: The conductor decides whether to include these instruments. This is what I was referring to earlier. Best regards.

Good luck! That's a very good one. I’ve been thinking about the comment on the role of the contrabassoon here, following on from what’s already been said. I understand that you’d like to use the woodwinds as a bass line in those sections; that’s simply a matter of timbre and so on. Although I’m a firm believer in absolute freedom when it comes to composing, it’s true that I also bear in mind certain general principles. One is the ‘economy’ of instruments. Although I’ll never have a symphony orchestra or anything of the sort at my disposal, I do like to write as realistically as I can. That’s why, if the parts for one instrument can be played by another, I don’t use it. The other principle is to double the bass (an octave up or down), and I notice you do this. This is something I was taught very early on. And there’s a reason for it: the low register is the least audible to our ears. There are exceptions, of course: when the orchestral texture is very light, it isn’t necessary. In this piece, most of the notes for the contrabassoon can be played by the bassoon. Let’s say up to the low C (B flat, actually). To put it another way, I might have used the bassoon for that contrabassoon line and supported it on the lowest notes with the tuba or the double bass. There are sections of the contrabassoon part that can be taken over by bassoon 2, for example in bars 22 and 24. It’s true that the bassoons are in part 2, but it isn’t necessary (with those dynamics – diinuendo and ppp). Well, anyway, that’s just my opinion, based partly on how I learnt it. I was taught that instruments such as the contrabassoon, the bass clarinet, and even higher-pitched ones like the piccolo, were there for when the standard instruments couldn’t play the parts. Sometimes I’ve been guilty of wanting to be too literal when transposing a piano piece for the orchestra. But I’ve also realised that there are times when you have to take certain liberties or make changes to adapt the sound to the orchestra. Best regards.

A lovely, expressive little piece. It reminds me of those solo instrumental phrases that Messiaen would suddenly write into his works. I think it makes excellent use of the oboe’s most effective range, bringing out the expression in some of the high and low notes as well. As for the notation, well, it depends on how you look at it or interpret it. In my view, the piece is in D flat major. There are a few moments where it strays from the key (bars 12 and 13, and also 20 and 21) only to return immediately. There are indeed many passing or incidental notes. Even though a piece is for a solo instrument, the harmony is implicit (whether tonal or otherwise). It would be interesting to harmonise this.

It’s a beautiful piece and your version is fantastic. It’s restrained and balanced, without any superfluous filler that ultimately makes it sound muddy and indistinct. And it sounds absolutely lovely. You’ve done a great job of separating the different voices implicit in the keyboard version, and that voice leading accounts for a large part of the orchestration’s success. In my opinion. I think the brass section is good, as it’s handled delicately and adds that touch of colour. I also really like the English horn, though I do tend to hear it more in solo passages than in the ensemble because it has such a distinctive timbre. Orchestrating a fugue is a bit different; I did one recently (by Bach). And well, I think with these styles you have to be very faithful to the original and add very little (in terms of melody or harmonies). And keep the parts very well separated. In this case, there’s an added difficulty because, although it’s a Baroque-style fugue, it’s clearly Romantic, meaning that, as well as the horizontal voices, Franck allows himself to add chords and thicken the textures as he pleases. A challenge that can be very rewarding.

This is a piece that I consider to be special. I have spent weeks working on it bit by bit, making one decision after another. It is Prelude No. 10 from Debussy’s Second Book, entitled ‘Canope’. A canope is the vessel in which the remains of mummies were stored in ancient Egypt; these were sealed with small sculptures of Anubis’s head. The piano piece is spectacular, with harmonies that defy all logic within the tonal world. I’m providing the score in concert pitch and in transposed pitch. Canope.mp3 Canope concert pitch.pdf Canope transposed pitch.pdf Link to the piano original version:

Wow, this sounds truly symphonic. I really liked it. To be honest, the whole business of bands is a bit of a mystery. Where I live, there are loads of them – they’re street bands… marching bands? What stands out here is that there are loads of clarinets. They’re bands designed to accompany parades and play ‘pasodoble’-style music and the like. I suppose there are lots of different set-ups.

@Alex Weidmann Thank you for listening. Yes, the piano version is very different – more ‘intimate’, perhaps? – despite that crescendo. I was in no doubt that the brass section was meant for that part... When I orchestrate something that already exists (for piano, generally speaking), I have two options: 1) to be as faithful as possible, which in some cases is almost essential, 2) to recreate the piece for the orchestra. In this case, it usually turns out quite differently.

Hello, This modified version flows very naturally and feels more balanced. I also like the fact that the transitions between sections are smooth.

Hello It’s a rather mixed bag. Some tracks seem to be aimed at a sort of children’s album, like ‘Pulling Together’ or ‘Little Walk’ – which isn’t to say they’re bad. Others have a more serious feel to them. Overall, it’s worth a listen, but those challenges of writing a piece a day… I don’t know, we’ve all had moments doing that or thinking about it… but in the end, and over time, I think you learn to try and make the most of the ideas that stand out. And even then, you might like them or you might not. Best regards.

Hello I was surprised by this piece, which is in a very different style to what I’m used to. I must say that the melody works well and it gives me the feeling of a ballad from a 1960s film. I’m not sure to what extent you’ve worked in these styles, or in styles other than ornate counterpoint. What I notice here is that, curiously, there isn’t much of a counterpoint underpinning, which is nevertheless present in the Romantic period. I think the rhythmic motif, in particular, becomes a bit monotonous after more than 4 minutes. I also notice that the bass is underused as an accompaniment, and that the chords are excessively dense; the arpeggio loses its effect when it’s played all the time. And some sections are unplayable unless you resort to arpeggios again. (bars 8, 9 ...) The idea is good, but I think the overall approach falls a little short. Oh, I’d also like to mention (something I’ve said before) that Chopin’s Prelude in E minor takes a very different approach. The chords are the essence of the piece, due to their minimal movement and the perfect voice leading they achieve.

I think transitional periods are very interesting. This is the case with the galant style, which is firmly rooted in Baroque conventions but where dense counterpoint begins to give way to clearer melodies and accompaniment. Something similar happens between the Classical and early Romantic periods. I’m listening to your recommendation of Kraus, whom I wasn’t familiar with (Symphony in C minor), and it’s fantastic. I think the choice of instruments in your symphony is spot on. It depends on whether the approach is more chamber-music-like, as seems to be the case here, where there are many independent lines. As if it were an expanded quartet… It’s true that as soon as you move on a little in the style, chronologically speaking, you already come across flutes, oboes, bassoons and horns in pairs. Besides, if you don’t know what to do with so many instruments, you’re bound to get it only half right. This reminds me, albeit in a different context, of the fantastic versions of Chopin’s two piano concertos with a string quartet or quintet. Although it seems that Chopin himself used this arrangement for the music salons of the time, there are versions arranged by other composers. What I mean is that some pieces lend themselves to different approaches. Others do not lend themselves to interpretations that stray too far from their original spirit. Like when Wagner reorchestrated Bellini’s Norma in a ‘massive’ style, and then disowned his own version (it’s never performed; Bellini requires lightness, not a Wagnerian orchestra). Anyway, I’m getting off topic. Best regards

Hello It’s a beautiful ballad that stands out for its delicacy. It’s true that some accompaniment patterns are repeated quite often. Particularly the quarter-note chords in a steady rhythm. Yes, I know that when this happens, many people say: ‘Ah, look what Chopin does in Prelude No. 28, No. 4’. That’s true, but in that piece – apart from the fact that it’s very short – those steady-rhythm chords are the essence, because the charm lies in the voice leading within the same chord. There are many ways to explore changing that. You could even try moving the melody to the left hand and the chords on top…

An interesting question. I’m not going to add anything substantially new to what has already been said. What would happen if a generation of children were exposed only to contemporary music, completely ignoring tonal music? We’ll never know. The point is that we cannot ignore tonal-functional music. For two reasons: 1) Historical. It is impossible to understand how Impressionism, late Romanticism and Schoenberg emerged. 2) Some musical languages are closer to the traditional (Impressionism?), but they will always be based on concepts from earlier music. Furthermore, since the 20th century, there has been an enormous explosion of styles. Many composers developed their own musical languages (Bartók, Messiaen, Cage, etc., etc....). I believe that delving into each one requires that solid foundation. The same applies to understanding and using extended harmonies, harmonies in fourths or seconds, clusters, mirror composition and a thousand other things....