Jump to content

Luis Hernández

Reviewers
  • Content Count

    1,629
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    129

Luis Hernández last won the day on October 11

Luis Hernández had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

389 Excellent

About Luis Hernández

  • Rank
    Elite Composer
  • Birthday November 2

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Spain
  • Occupation
    Physician
  • Interests
    Animals, Photography
  • Favorite Composers
    Now: Peteris Vasks
  • My Compositional Styles
    Eclectic
  • Notation Software/Sequencers
    Finale, Dorico, Logic
  • Instruments Played
    piano, guitar, bass

Recent Profile Visitors

7,715 profile views
  1. Don't worry. All we say are just opinions. I NEVER think there is anything wrong in music. But no one can prevent that other has a feeling about what he is listening to. It's just that. So you can write in the style or manner you like, that's all. In other words, I don't suggest you have to change anything, but I imagine how I would have done it if it was my composition (which is not).
  2. @caters I never think nor say anything is wrong. One element may sound strange or not depending on what is happening, on the background. When something unusual happens in a piece of music (let's say a dissonance, a rest, a syncopation) the listener will think it's a mistake. But if you repeat that element, it becomes "normal". In other words: repetition legitimizes. Here you have prepared the rests in the right hand, in m. 3 and 9, it's nice. What is new is the left hand rests. The first time I hear it it sounds odd. In the repetition, I know what to expect. So I think you're using quite well this resource. You mix syncopation with off-time notes. I don't know how to translate into English "contratiempo", I think it could be "off-time". It's not the same.
  3. That's very good! what @Monarcheon says. Anticipate some material. I see you have a change of sections aprox. in 00:42, ending in Gm and beginning again in Gm. I think you can improve the cadence. Making a good spot of rest allows to hear better what comes next. To reinforce the cadence you can make many things: increase the harmonic rhythm, put a rest somewhere, ritardando, etc.... Opposite to this, you can link one part to another. In this case, write a short "codetta" for the first part that harmonically goes to the next. Obviously with a sort of predominant-dominant progression. Put your imagination at work. Use here dis7 chords, or augmented sixth progressions... That would bring color to the music.
  4. It has the spirit and flavor of a nocturne. It reminds me more of John Field.
  5. I think it's fine, although the stops in the cadence m. 16-17 sound a bit awkward. The resolution here m. 17-18 is in parallel motion but with a retardation in the right hand. I would change it.
  6. Hi, I also like it. Nice contrast between the fast and the central section. You apparently rely on simple motives but you exploit them very well.
  7. This is a great beautiful work, built on complex counterpoint between all the parts. I think some pedal changes in the harp are extremely difficult or not possible (4 pitches at a time?). I also doubt about the effect of changing pedals in the middle of a glissando.
  8. It's very ecstatic until 3:30 where a bit of "drama" comes in. From this point it's more interesting. It's just that the first part is a big section with litlle contrast, although there is color. I suppose one percussionist is able to change instruments so quickly. good piece.
  9. In what context are you using parallel harmony? This harmony becomes non-functional if used coherently. Take a look at Debussy.
  10. Nice composition. I think it would fit better in 6/8, or 6/4 (in most parts) Until measurre 58 the rhythm remains constant with tuplets. Perhaps it's too much (for me, I would expect some variation). The second part ir more erratic. I see a lot of contrary motion, which is good. This part becomes passionate.... In m. 160 it comes back to the fist part. Here it seems that the rhythm of both hands was different, not vertically parallel, which is what we heard before. I like it, too.
  11. I think 4/4, particularly with the stacatto strings.
  12. It's a big work. With this kind of pieces I feel a bit tired of repetitions. In times of classicism repetitions were needed because all these works were made to dance. And the music had to go over and over to the same parts. What strikes me is that you call it Turkish. In Germany, there was tradition about wars against the otomanes, and that's why sometimes composers bring turkish elements to their compositions. Mozart wrote a signspiel full of this music (Die Entführung aus dem Serail, El Rapto en el Serrallo). Turkish music is always in a fast tempo, and almost always is a march. When a orchestra was used, additional percussion instruments were scores: bass drum, triangle, cymbals. Also the piccolo. When the composition is for piano solo, some rhythmic patterns are present. There is a heavy marcatto (go to Beethoven's). Beethoven also wrote a Turkish March for the IV movement of his 9th symphony (12:50): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zhk1OnaYJg The final movement of Mozart's 5th violin concerto has a turkish part (23:13): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aecQlKc_Vfg Haydn also wrote turkish music in the 2nd mov of his Military Symphony. Beethoven did it again in Wellington's Victory, in the very beginning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mczvfByofiw There are many other examples of turkish marchs: Michael Haydn, Rameau, Rossini. Gluck, Spohr, etc... But of the most representatives is the overture of The Abduction from the Seragilo, Die Entführung aus dem Serail): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJhIChIS9pM In that sense, I would say that the prelude to Act I in the opera Carmen by Bizet is totally influenced by this music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6eO3groGwA
  13. I think it's amazing I love it. I thought it could be boring (.... one more waltz) but it's interesting all through. I only find a bit strange the way you notate de accelerando and ritardando, but as it's clear, for mi it's OK. Very detailed score.
  14. OK, but you keep thining in those classic terms all the time, and that's fine. From my point of view (not only mine, thank God) those forms have trascended from what they exactaly were into other things. It's like if you take "the idea" or "your idea" of what a sonata is, not thinking in its exact structure and rules. If not, how do you explain, for example, the Sonata for Cello and Piano by Webern (atonal) lasting about 2 minutes? The composers named it Sonata. Was he wrong? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6fcALtNgIA
×
×
  • Create New...