Luis Hernández

There are all kinds of opinions on this. I think learning music theory is very helpful if you want to be a composer. Of course, you can compose without knowing anything—by ear or intuition—but the possibilities that open up when you have more knowledge will definitely make your compositions better. I don’t think you need to know a lot—or even a little—about music theory, or anything else for that matter, to comment on compositions in this forum. There’s an intuitive, emotional aspect—and so on—that we all have, and that’s perfectly fine to discuss. Simply saying “I liked it,” “it reminds me of this,” or asking a question about the piece is a positive way to comment. Nor do I think that knowing theory—or anything else for that matter—requires formal training at an accredited institution. I do think, however, that if you want to make serious, steady progress as a self-taught musician, there will be times—and in certain disciplines—when you’ll need guidance from someone: a teacher, a workshop, etc. That’s been my experience. I’ve always been self-taught in music (in fact, my profession is something entirely different). But I took a formal course in tonal and modal harmony, as well as some courses in harmonization and arranging. Later, taking a course in counterpoint was essential, as was a seminar on fugues. Another essential course was the one I took on Contemporary Composition Techniques. And finally, the one I’m taking now on orchestration. With that foundation, I can tackle anything that comes my way, understand it, and put it to use. I also believe that the foundation of it all is tonal harmony and the common classical period, from the Baroque to the Romantic era—even if you’re later interested in another style.

@PeterthePapercomPoser I think it’s a very good solution. Although there is a descending fourth interval in the bass (entirely associated with functional harmony), the modal character is very much present due to the D flat and the absence of the leading tone (B flat instead). You have to bear in mind that introducing an entirely foreign element is bound to strike the listener as odd. Turn it round: imagine a piece in C major that ends with a Locrian or Lydian cadence… It wouldn’t sound right. There are loads of pop songs that are modal—some 100 per cent so—and they’ve been ‘slipped past’ us as if it were nothing out of the ordinary. For example, ‘Stayin’ Alive’ (Bee Gees) is in the Dorian mode.

OK. They’re different things. I don’t think these systems can be compared because their foundations are very different. That doesn’t prevent them from being used in combination or simultaneously. What I said in my previous message applies to anything in music. If you introduce something completely unrelated to what’s playing—suddenly—and it doesn’t reappear… it will be perceived as a mistake. That’s why, if I were to do something like that (and I know I’ve done it many times—after all, modal exchange in tonal harmony is based on this very principle), I would combine both systems as the piece unfolds, so that it doesn’t sound strange. Repetition in music gives a piece familiarity, coherence, and memorability. Another way to do this—though I think it goes beyond what you’re aiming for, since it sounds much more radical—is what was common in Bartók’s music: polymodal chromaticism. That is, writing simultaneously in two modes. One can be tonal and functional, and the other can be non-tonal. Here: BARTÓK: CROMATICISMO POLIMODAL

Modal musical ends with the cadential harmony, in this case bII - I = Db - C min. Mixing modal and tonal is possible, of course. But if you stay modal along the piece and at the very end you use a perfect authentic cadence it sounds as a mistake. If you want to make a mixture you have to do it not only in the end. This is the way our ears will take it as “normal”.

Hello. A super interesting topic that could go a long way.... First of all, let me say that your short piece sounds very beautiful and I love it. I would only change one thing, which I will comment on later. I’m definitely going to say it here: I consider myself quite deeply involved in these matters of modality; in fact, my own curiosity led me to write a mini-manual where I explain how to develop musical systems from a scale-mode (any of the hundreds out there). The first thing to point out is that I think it’s a mistake to compare modal systems with tonal ones (and these with atonal ones). We need to forget about voice leading, 'forbidden' parallels, etc.... Modal music predates tonal music by more than a thousand years, and it didn't need any comparison. It must be understood as a horizontal, melodic system where there are no notes to avoid, and where certain colors (characteristic notes of the mode) are highlighted. The fact that we use chords in modal harmony today is a much later 'construct' in which the concept of the triad-chord is applied to the vertical coincidence of melodic lines in modal music. That is how harmony was born... From our perspective, since we are already familiar with functional-tonal harmony (which has thoroughly saturated our brains), we can approach a composition from an extremely wide spectrum. You can be purely modal, purely tonal, or a varying mix of both. Anything goes. In your composition, and based on your comments, one can sense a hesitation that comes and goes, which is more conceptual than musical, since the piece is completely valid and effective. But let me comment: the beginning establishes a C-G drone... typical modal style. It doesn't matter that you haven't introduced the third. The very moment the first Db note sounds on the violin, you are defining some mode of C Phrygian. In fact, it is a note that is heard at many points. If you were strictly following C Phrygian, the notes would be C, Db, Eb, F, G, Ab, Bb.... However, in measure 4, we see an E natural in the bass, then an F#... These can be interpreted as approaches to the following notes they resolve to... A typical tonal concept. In tonal music, notes resolve; in modal music, they don't—they are there to provide color. You want to use notes outside a scale-mode? There is no problem at all. It's just like using chromatic notes in a tonal composition. The problem is that if you want to maintain the color, the specific flavor of a mode, you have to be careful not to use tonal-functional resources that easily destroy that 'modal framework'. And that is what happens at the end of the composition, where there is a ii - V - I pattern ending in C major, which, for me, cancels out everything that came before. I insist that one can do whatever they want when composing. But our ears are so contaminated by tonal music that this progression ending in a perfect cadence G - C.... takes you right back to any period of the common practice. Especially the B-C..... That sounds like leading tone-tonic anywhere. But like I said: very beautiful music.

Hello I’m writing a series of short pieces for orchestra using ‘modern’ musical languages. I’m doing this because I enjoy it and to develop my skills in orchestration. I write them for piano first, but with orchestration already in mind. However, I don’t include the piano version. In this case, it’s a PC Set (postonal theory) consisting of just four notes, with the form (0125) corresponding to Forte 4-4. As an example, starting from C, it would be: C – C# – D – F. It is then treated in many different ways: horizontally, vertically, inverted, rotated, etc., etc.... The piece has been reviewed by an expert composer and orchestrator. Although, of course, there are a thousand things that could be said about it. SKETCH 4_4.mp3 SKETCH 4_4.pdf

Can you nominate colleagues here? I’d love to see @Alex Weidmann recognised as ‘Outstanding Orchestrator’

Hi Alex I’m here after having listened to Part 3 first. Sorry, I missed it, but anyway, it was well worth coming to listen. Congratulations on this piece. It’s beautiful. The delicacy with which you’ve handled this is tremendous. The work with the woodwinds in general, and especially in the first movement, is spectacular. I find it all very well balanced. I love the detailed score as well. I’ll be keeping an eye out for the other parts of this work you’re working on. I also really enjoy exploring and discovering these somewhat forgotten composers. Best regards.

Hi Alex, First of all, I’d like to say that I wasn’t familiar with this piece. Nor, I must confess, with this composer, although his name rang a bell. So I went on YouTube to listen to it and look at the score, and I absolutely loved it. This third movement in particular is so delicate… And it’s one of the trickiest parts to orchestrate. I really liked your orchestral arrangement and, to be honest, I’m not going to comment on anything in particular as I’m not in a position to assess it in such depth. I like the way the woodwinds unfold in bars 24, 25… the oboe mingling with the flutes, and so on… I just have one thing I’d like to learn. When the vibraphone comes in – which is a lovely element – how does it produce such big chords? I imagine it’s two mallets per hand… Best regards.

Hello I wasn’t familiar with this aria, so I’m not sure. But it’s very pleasant, and the counterpoint and fugue sound brilliant. What’s more, it’s in a tempo that I really like. When very ornate counterpoint is played at a very fast tempo, my brain can’t quite process it – haha, that’s just me.

Hello It’s a piece packed with ideas, and the interweaving of the string parts is well crafted. I’m not sure what your level of experience is, although you mention that you want to improve your harmonic structure… I mention this because the piano part reveals a certain lack of experience in handling the instrument’s idiom. One point in particular: when you’re accompanying with block chords, it isn’t necessary to ‘fill’ the entire range. And especially in the lower register – the left hand from F on the fourth line downwards, more or less – avoid stacking thirds, as it all sounds very muddled. In the lower register, you need to open up the intervals, to at least a fifth. This is very evident from bar 23 onwards, with the ‘presto giocoso’. Writing for solo instruments in ensembles such as quartets, etc., is very difficult because, on the one hand, you have to maintain the independence of each instrument and keep the listener engaged with what it is doing, whilst, on the other hand, ensuring that the combination results in proper counterpoint and derived harmony. I believe that to begin developing a grasp of harmony (more or less exclusively), it is best to write for a polyphonic instrument (piano) or for piano and a solo instrument.

@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.