Luis Hernández
Members
-
Joined
-
Last visited
-
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 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....
-
I’ve listened to the current version. I must say I loved it. And I’ll make a little confession. I like all musical styles and periods, from early music to contemporary. I have my favourite periods (the Baroque and Galant periods, late Romanticism, Impressionism and Expressionism, and in contemporary music, some things I like and others less so). The truth is that when I took the time to study music a little chronologically, I discovered how things develop. I say this because the Classical period is one of the ones that appeals to me the least. I think it’s down to the aesthetic they use, which is somewhat restrained – and well, we all know what this style is like. Your symphony seems to be in the Classical style, with hints of early Romanticism. It’s not that I’m obsessed with categorising things, but it helps to find points of reference. Regardless of that, when someone writes something like this with creativity, inspiration and a lot of hard work behind it, I love it, whatever it sounds like. Here I notice that the orchestra is of an early style; the woodwinds aren’t even in pairs and there are no brass instruments. But the way it sounds, it isn’t really necessary, to be honest. One of the things I’ve really liked is the clarity with which all the instruments sound when they have to stand out against, at times, a denser texture. There’s a moment when the bassoon takes the lead and it’s brilliant (bar 58). There are some lovely moments of counterpoint, such as the woodwinds from bar 20 or thereabouts. I think the score has been very carefully put together. What’s more, the music library sounds brilliant (is it the one from MuseScore?). Best regards.
-
Hello, thank you for listening. I agree with what you say on these two points: 1) that a piece of music is worth more or less (to each person) depending on whether it ‘speaks’ to them. It’s just like when you read a poem. I understand that many people feel comfortable listening to and making more traditional music. And one of the ‘mistakes’ I often notice is trying to apply patterns, structures or whatever from pre-20th-century music to music that aims to have a different, contemporary style. And I’m not just referring to dissonance, which for me isn’t really dissonance at all. It’s a question of tension and release, achieved through many different mechanisms. 2) Of course, from experience I know that there’s nothing random about making music of this kind. Or at least that’s the intention. The form isn’t traditional either. I’ve always liked writing music of this kind in a mosaic format, or as units or blocks that follow one another as one sees fit (as Stravinsky or Cage did). I’ll probably revise this in due course. Not necessarily to make it longer, but to refine certain transitions.
-
-
Hello A few years ago, whilst on a course I took on ‘Contemporary Composition Techniques’, I wrote a short piece for piano which I later revised and titled ‘One more try’. Recently, I had the idea of orchestrating it. It is written in a free, non-functional, chromatic style. The score isn’t condensed because the instruments that come in pairs often have very different or distant lines. It’s in concert pitch. Below is a video of the piano version. One more try orch.pdf One more try 2.mp3 One more try 2.pdf
-
A lovely piece. I like the relative simplicity of the composition. A suggestion: given the calm, dreamy, almost ethereal nature of the piece, perhaps you might have tried using harmonics on the violins in the upper register, as these are long notes that are relatively easy to play. I don’t know if you’re familiar with this, but it’s a very effective technique for pieces like this. Almost like a ‘rule of orchestration’, I think the harp should have a note at the very end. Otherwise, the player is left ‘hanging’. Of course, you can write whatever you like. Best regards.
-
