Luis Hernández

@CrystalCanon I completely agree that neoclassicism is a continuation (following a hiatus of more than a century). Of course, these composers looked to everything that came before, in response to what they considered “chaos” in the 20th century. But what prompted me to start this thread is the fact that many people automatically label music as neoclassical simply because it sounds like 18th-century music even though it was composed today. And that’s not the case. Neoclassicism has its own (new) characteristics. It uses dissonance—sometimes very subtle, other times blatantly so—along with polytonality. It employs surprise through rhythms and/or accents that become irregular and ever-changing. It shuns the idealized beauty of Classicism and seeks instead a sense of detachment and intellectual order (many composers omit violins for this reason). Here’s a very clear example:

@PeterthePapercomPoser That’s true, you’ve highlighted some of the interesting aspects of the style. This symphony is marvellous and very subtle. We could give other, much more ‘intense’ examples. If we don’t pay close attention, this sounds like ‘Mozart’, doesn’t it? But, for example, coming from D major, in bar 11, there’s a sudden (unprepared) modulation to C major. That wouldn’t happen in the Classical period. Another example is those tremendous leaps in the first violins a little further on.

What is Neoclassicism? I get the impression that many of us have the wrong idea about what Neoclassicism is. I often come across comments in posts such as: ‘Ah, this is in a Neoclassical style’, or even the composer themselves might say that their work is Neoclassical. But writing a piece that is reminiscent of Mozart, to take him as an example, is not the same as creating something Neoclassical. It is simply imitating, with varying degrees of success, the Classical style. Neoclassicism has a specific origin, a particular period (roughly 1920–1950) with its own historical background. And most importantly: it has its own defining characteristics. Without that, we are not creating Neoclassicism, but merely imitating the style of the 18th century. There are a great many composers who, at some stage in their lives, composed neoclassical works. To name a few off the top of my head: Ravel, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Poulenc, Bartók, Hindemith, Falla, Copland, Milhaud, Honegger, Chávez. And there are marvellous works by all of them – symphonies, operas, piano pieces, and so on... If you’re interested, we can discuss these characteristics and works. Best regards.

Hi What a fantastic piece. First of all, I’d like to say that the instrumental version works really well on its own. Although the version with Cantai is brilliant. I’m familiar with this virtual instrument and it’s still a bit of a headache, but the idea is brilliant. The sense of horizontality is absolute, and believe me, not many people write like this these days. There are moments that remind me of what I know of Gesualdo, such as the one in bar 39, ‘umbra mortis’ – oh, what biting, coinciding harmonies. Best regards.

A fantastic piece that I really liked. And a very detailed score.

OK, it’s a question of condensation. In other words, reducing the score as much as possible whilst still making it playable. In this case, the editor (Dorico) does this automatically, although you can change it if you wish.

Hello A brilliant piece I really like the idea of taking the melody from the hymn, as if it were a sort of modern ‘cantus firmus’ upon which to build the whole piece. On the one hand, it has reminded me of those composers who included almost – or not quite so almost – literal quotations from hymns and other sources (Charles Ives, for example). Although where I see the greatest influence – surely unintentional – is with Brahms, and I’ll tell you why (from my point of view). Because Brahms was an absolute master when it came to introducing melodies into the inner voices on the piano. And that’s what I see here, and it’s the richness of this piece.

Lovely melody and textures. Particularly the vocal line. I’m not entirely convinced by the final section; the high notes sound too loud. My main comment is about the harp – oh, the harp! There’s no indication whatsoever of initial pedal positions or changes. This isn’t mandatory, though personally, one should have it checked. There are things you simply can’t do, such as this: On the other hand, the harp part is notated by placing each note on the nearest of the two staves. But the correct way to do it, I believe, is to write on the upper stave what the upper hand plays and on the lower stave what the lower hand plays, bearing in mind that the groups (in passages that aren’t slow) consist of four notes per hand. Huge arpeggiated chords are also impossible to play if they’re fast. If it’s an effect where each note of the arpeggio follows the next slowly, then yes. But at that speed, it’s impossible. Each hand can cover a maximum of a tenth and four notes per hand. The chords must be simplified to that (or use two harps?). There are also some very questionable chords: The harp is a complicated instrument and you can’t think of it as if it were a piano. Saludos.

Honestly, I think it's a weird theme for writing variations because it's very bare. Even though there's an implicit harmony, it's really just a melodic line, not very rich rhythmically, doubled across three octaves. I feel like you have to break away from that vertical pattern because it gets monotonous pretty fast. Meaning, I'd try to write some variations that explore melodies hidden within it, and also fill in the harmonies that are sometimes incomplete in the original theme.

I wanted to share this reflection entitled ‘ORIGINALITY IN ART’ (the trap of wanting to be original). It is by Agustín Calabrese, a great composer and teacher. The video is in Spanish (he’s from Argentine), but I’ve transcribed almost all of it and run it through a translation tool. I think it offers a lot of insight on this subject. We must not worry about being original. At the very least, we must not consciously seek originality. Being the first to do something is not, a priori, a virtue. Claiming to be at the cutting edge today, or even believing that this is possible, makes no sense whatsoever. For the past few decades, we artists have had a global view of the entire history of art. That was not always the case. Bach was discovered and rediscovered several times, first by Mozart and half a century later by Mendelssohn. It is impossible to take things to an extreme that has not been explored before... [...] ‘Adolescent’ avant-garde impulses lead nowhere and fizzle out of their own accord; they are like a snake eating its own tail, and one cannot build in that direction. True innovations are rooted in tradition and build upon it. Innovation as something that breaks with a previous tradition, disparages it and treats earlier practices with irony is an anomaly of the twentieth century. In a healthy culture, styles evolve and transform progressively over a long period of time. Eighteenth-century positivism and the Enlightenment have led to the arts being evaluated using a method appropriate to the sciences. As if art were required to progress indefinitely. This doesn’t mean we have to repeat things that have already been done, but the only way to be original is to be true to ourselves. We shouldn’t write music that we think is politically correct or that people expect of us. Every person is a unique blend of tastes, influences, stories… If we let it flow without worrying about belonging to a particular movement, we will inevitably create something new.

@Lithl Hello I’ve listened to the music you mentioned by Jon Batiste and RDJ, as I wasn’t familiar with it. I think these artists have certainly chosen a style, but they haven’t created anything new – that is to say, a style of their own. There are loads of songwriters and composers who do this sort of thing, mostly by fusing styles or reinterpreting compositions. There are countless examples. From Stokowski with his orchestral versions of fugues and the like, to, for instance, Ben Lierhouse in the 2000s and his extensive discography, taking Wagner and infusing it with Cuban, Spanish and jazz rhythms, amongst others. Or, for example, Max Richter with Vivaldi’s Four Seasons. I think the examples you give follow that line of thought. And it’s fantastic music, of course. But the things they do or have done don’t introduce anything new. No compositional technique, or aesthetic… For example, the most recent composers (that I’m aware of) who have developed distinctive musical languages are Arvo Pärt and E. Rautavaara. Philip Glass, who developed his technique (which, according to him, isn’t minimalism) over decades. These are composers who are recognisable by their music. And on a different note, for example, Wuorinen is a fairly well-known composer (the opera Brokeback Mountain, etc.). But he uses dodecaphonism and serialism, which were invented over 100 years ago. There may well be other composers in this category whom I am not familiar with, of course. And I don’t think that’s a pessimistic view. Not at all. You can’t keep producing radical innovations all the time. And there’s no need to. In short, what I understand by ‘personal style’ has several levels. Is doing what you want or what you like a personal style? Well, all right then.

Hello In his short treatise, Messiaen says the following on this subject: To ensure this system is executed correctly without taxing the musician’s mind with constant changes in time signature (such as 5/16, 7/16, 11/16), Messiaen offers the following advice regarding the score: Omit the numerical time signature at the start of the system. Use bar lines only to delimit musical phrases or complete rhythmic periods, not to mark strong accents. Keep the plicae grouped together in logical clusters of notes so that the performer can visually identify the original ‘skeleton’. It is true that this system (I believe the composer himself mentions this as well) is not useful for orchestras, or even chamber ensembles, where changes in time signature must be indicated.

That’s absolutely true. It all depends on what we mean by ‘personal style’ (or simply ‘style’). One thing is clear: everyone tries to find the language, the techniques, the systems, etc., that suit them best, and to write music within that framework. But I don’t think anyone on this forum can claim to have a personal style that makes them unique and distinctive. That doesn’t mean there aren’t excellent composers. In fact, on the current scene, I don’t know of any composers who have that sort of style. I know of plenty of music that’s based on previous stories, and it’s brilliant.

In this case, I don’t see it as a major problem because the melody is clear and the arpeggio simply plays the note. The issue arises when the melody is overshadowed by a counter-melody, for example here. Perhaps First Violin could go up an octave at that point…

Hello I really liked it and it’s a pleasure to listen to. One thing I’m not sure if it’s related to the programme: the ‘natural’ (nat) marking at the start. At first I thought it was going to be a rather ‘boring’ piece, because in a four-bar phrase, having two or three instruments simply marking the harmony makes no sense. But I can see that in the middle section and the development, this changes radically and becomes very interesting. I’d like to make two observations: The first is that, even though these are virtual instruments, I think it would benefit if you were more precise with the dynamics and accents. And the second is that Violin II overlaps with Violin I quite frequently. Generally, this doesn’t seem to be a problem because they’re playing very different parts (one the melody and the other an arpeggio) and the overlap is occasional. But at certain points, such as in bars 23–24, it does become a bit confusing. Best