Luis Hernández

A fascinating topic. And lovely examples. I’m a huge fan of counterpoint, but I learnt it to use in other styles, and the issue of parallel voices sometimes slips my mind in this Baroque or similar context. I have written a few canons at the octave, but not for four voices. However, I can think of a possible alternative method; I’m going to give it a go...

The reason there are no violins or oboes is that I wanted the brass section to provide the sparkle in this short piece.

Hi I’ve really enjoyed these pieces you’ve mentioned. Video game music and the like is a subgenre that fascinates me, but one I know very little about. I’ve carried on listening to a few more tracks. I think the orchestration is very rich and colourful. It’s true that the brass really stands out. Thank you.

Hello I’ve written another sketch for orchestra. In this piece, I’ve used ‘sound mass’ techniques in some sections, and harmonies based on fourths… I haven’t really thought about any specific chords, just voice leading. The first section is the fanfare; the second is the more subdued, evocative section. There are no oboes or violins, so that the brilliance comes from the brass. Fanfarria.mp3 Fanfarria.pdf

If you are interested, this is what Rimsky-Korsakov says about melody in octaves using woodwinds: The use of two instruments of the same colour in octaves, e.g. 2 flutes, 2 clarinets or 2 bassoons etc., if not exactly to be avoided is certainly not to be recommended, as the instruments, playing in different registers will not correspond one with the other. Suggested combinations: Fl + Ob, Fl+Cl, Fl+Bs, Ob+Cl, Ob+Bs, Cl+Bs In his book, he also discusses doubling the melody in the very high register (with the piccolo) or in the low register (with the bassoon, contrabassoon or bass clarinet). He also mentions some combinations involving two instruments from the same family that do work (because they are actually distinct, such as the flute and alto flute). As well as doubling the melody in three- and four-part arrangements, etc. And with examples of everything. A classic but essential treatise. Alan Belkin also explain this issue: Professor Belkin Notes: There is in fact a good argument to be made that the WW are not one group at all, but rather, three (oboes and bassoons counting as one – double reed – family, with the English horn as intermediary). Unlike the strings, woodwinds do NOT behave similarly to one another in various registers. For example, flutes get softer as they get lower, whereas oboes/bassoons get louder. This diversity of color and of register is the main cause of the difficulty in writing well for winds. The beginner is advised to think of each woodwind instrument as really three in one: a high instrument, a medium one, and a low one. Although the transitions between registers are of course not really so drastic, combinations of woodwinds with each other and with from other families work differently depending on register. For example, a low flute melody requires a different accompaniment from a high flute melody. This is also the reason that it is actually easier to score for a larger woodwind section than a smaller one: When the auxiliaries are available, the range available IN ANY GIVEN HOMOGENOUS TIMBRE is much increased. A chord scored for alto flute, regular flutes and piccolo will present less problems of blend and balance than one scored for 2 flutes and 2 oboes. Of all the woodwinds, the oboe is one most likely to cause problems for the beginner. It is a natural “prima donna” and, while its melodic character can be wonderful in the right melody, it does not blend easily with most other timbres in the orchestra (exception: oboes blend quite well with SOFT, muted trumpets).

Hello, a fantastic piece. Some really great combinations of timbres – a few of them really caught me out. For example, glockenspiel + trumpet + strings in Sequence II. It would be helpful if you could indicate at the start how many of each instrument there are (Flute 1, 2… etc.). When an instrument from a group of two or three plays solo, you need to specify which one it is (Bassoon 1, for example, at the start of Sequence III), not just ‘solo’ (because then you don’t know which one it is). A comment (which isn’t mine but comes from classical orchestrators): when you have a melody in octaves, don’t use the same instrument for both (flutes in Sequence III, bar 70) because one will clearly dominate. In this case, the upper one, as the flute in the lower octave is in a much weaker register. In this instance, it is better to double the upper flute with another instrument that has the same range in the lower octave (a clarinet here, for example). When we’re talking about MELODY (not harmonic chords), as a general rule: double at the octave with different instruments; melody in thirds or fifths with the same instrument; melody in sixths with different instruments… There will always be justified exceptions. In this respect, the two clarinettists from bar 80 onwards are fantastic. Sorry, these are just suggestions based on what I’ve learnt about orchestration. I always respect what everyone else does. But if you try what I’m suggesting, it might sound better to you. The climax towards the end is brilliant. And one more thing: I don’t know if you’re concerned about practical, real-world issues. Sometimes I get the impression that you need a lot of percussionists, given the number of instruments playing at the same time. Although I’m sure you’ve got this sorted. Best regards.

@Seni-G Hello Thank you for listening and commenting. Yes, I also feel at home with this sort of more or less post-tonal music. I very much agree with what you say about using the orchestra’s timbres sparingly. There are a few reasons for this: it’s an exercise I completed in just two days; it’s so short that, well, this is how it turned out. And the priority was to work on the set of four notes.

Hello. A brilliant piece of work. I have to say I really liked it. It strikes me as fresh, well-crafted and natural all at once. I think the three movements complement each other. There’s just one thing I wouldn’t have done – though this is purely a matter of personal preference – and that’s repeating the opening section in the first movement. I know it’s a sonata, but this sort of piece, with such an ‘progressive’ musical character – constantly adding new elements and moving forward – doesn’t need a literal repetition. Besides, the length of the movements is just right. The first movement reminded me very much of one composer: Charles Ives. Mind you, I’m not drawing a direct parallel, as that composer’s textures were quite intense. Well, one always tries to find points of reference. And I love Ives. I found the second movement beautiful – nostalgic at first, and reflective in the second part. And the third… I liked the twist you’ve introduced here, which (this time, YES, in my view) is a neoclassical-neobaroque homage. Congratulations on your work.

Hello A few weeks ago, I was discussing the characteristic features of the 20th-century neoclassical style. I wrote a short minuet incorporating these features. A playful style, based on the 18th-century minuet dance, with broken accents, clean lines, bitonality, unexpected modulations... MINUETO_luis.mp3 MINUETO_luis.pdf

Hello I agree about the glockenspiel – it’s very, very piercing. So it should be reserved for moments of great brilliance or when the whole orchestra is playing at full volume. Or used very sparingly. But there’s one thing I’d like to mention. And that is that, for me, using a set of notes like this isn’t limiting at all. The possibilities offered by using something like this are limitless. It’s simply a framework to build upon, just like a major or minor mode, or a thousand other things.

@CrystalCanon Thanks for listening; I'm glad you liked it. This set of notes is very small—just four—but I saw it in a piece by Schoenberg and wanted to experiment with it. It’s hard to point out all the relationships in this short piece, but practically everything is derived from that set. Horizontal sequences appear, as well as vertical chords—rotated, inverted, and so on. I think the genesis of these pieces is like that of all others: planning a structure, marking the cadences, and planning the climactic moments, as well as the moments of tension and repose. From the previous version for solo piano:

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”.