How do I define my music?

I define my music, for music fans, as normal music with more dissonance than usual. The added dissonance adds interest to the piece and is used to emphasize emotional moments as well as to serve as a greater contrast to beautiful segments. In Moses, an Oratorio, for example, in the segment called The Burning Bush, we have the orchestra sometimes in one key while Moses and the choir are in a different key. This creates a clash that the moment warrants. However, if you just listen to the soloist, you realize that the melody is easy to follow.

I refuse to believe that  modern composers cannot use beautiful chords, that the traditional chords are the exclusive property of Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms. However, I also refuse to write using only those chords, as contemporary music has opened up the color palette of the composer and it would be silly not to use all the resources we have available to create more interesting music. In addition to that, I use devices of my own creation for transitions and many of my phrases end up in question marks.

One more thing. In choral music I tend to be more traditional than in my instrumental music. That is bdue to the nature of singing in a group as opposed to playing instruments. The singer orients himself with the notes of the other singers and the level of difficulty of a piece is raised exponentially if one decides not to use the traditional harmonic system. When playing an instrument you depend more on the written note than on other performers, so it is harder to get disoriented. So I go less far afield in my choral works than in my instrumental creations.

About Writing Contemporary Music

With the premiere of my String Quartet, I realized that writing New Music keeps being a big priority for me. It is a great challenge to write music that is accesible, yet fresh, which is what I want to do. I just finished writing a 5 minute work for a group collaboration, the story of David, which will be presented in November at UCLA. The project is to tell the story of David through the eyes of about a dozen composers, each chapter told through a very different lens, as we have all sorts of composers in the group, including atonal writers, Jazz writers, songwriters, TV and movie composers, and people that write with extended harmonies, like me. After writing Moses, which is a modal piece, which would sound familiar to you but a bit odd in some places, it was a relief to write something not so constrained by the normal rules. I actually think that I can write effective, even beautiful, melodies that do not have  a particular key, which was a great discovery for me. We will see how that piece is received in November.  And hearing the quartet made me realize I abandoned an experimental path I liked very much about 10 years ago. I am now looking forward to writing new works by retaking that path, following some of the new forms I was working on and abandoning others which, after 10 years, do not seem as promising.



wrote the String Quartet, almost 10 years ago


In the XXI century, by breaking the conventions and the traditional relations of sounds as used in the XVIII and XIX centuries, sometimes the music seems to go nowhere. There are changes in the music but one is expecting the music to go somewhere in a certain way and it does not. The chords don’t change too much and although you hear that the notes are changing,  you cannot detect a melodic thread that is pushing you forward. IN other words, the instruments may be playing all kinds of notes and yet you feel you aren’t going anywhere.

I found this happening recently when I was hearing new choral music at the American Choral Directors Association convention. Much music didn’t have a clear melodic element, you couldn’t come out of the concert remembering even one melody, and yet the compositions were varied, interesting and sometimes emotionally moving. So the music might feel like is not really moving, it might feel static and yet be able to affect you emotionally in a different way.

I’m still a fan of melodies but I can see the emergence of music that can impact you emotionally and intellectually without leaving you humming anything. It is something new. And I am seeing it more in choral than in instrumental music. But I am talking about classical music, not pop or rock or commercial music. That music is still using the harmonies of the past, the patterns and conventions of Western Music as practiced in the XVIII and XIX centuries, the “common practice” period of music. But I feel there is a light at the end of the tunnel and there is something new coming. We’ll see how that affects my writing in the future.


This is another dichotomy that is in evidence in the XXI century.  While music during the Romantic era tried to appeal to our emotions and to make us feel our humanity, music became more interested in appealing to the intellect in the XX century. Schoenberg and his music based on numerical sequences was trying to develop a system that would make people listen to his sequences of pitches in a different way than they were used to, guided by a concept of series of numbers, trying to follow that sequence of numbers throughout a piece, regardless of  past usage of thos pitches or of conventions. This, I think, was an attempt of breaking our emotional bonds with the musical structures of the past through the use of our intellect. I think Schoenberg might have been trying to develop different conventions and have certain series of notes mean something emotionally different that they had meant up to that point. However,  I think that the effort, in general, failed. That type of music has not changed popular music to any marked degree. Maybe it has expanded the chords that one can use. Maybe it has allowed us to envision a different music but we are still in a tonal universe, where major and minor scales are used all the time. Which leads me to another dichotomy:

Simplicity- Complexity

This is an important dichotomy in order  to understand music of the XX century and classical music in general.  Many times there is a great simplicity associated with beauty. Some of Beethoven’s most beloved works are simple works, like the piano piece “Fur Elise”  or the first movement of the Moonlight Sonata. Bach wrote works of great complexity but the “Air for the G String” has been heard many times in all kinds of settings and arrangements. However,  complexity can make a piece more interesting if the listener agrees to commit to unravel the complexity of the piece and to make an effort to understand it..

I find that there is an optimum level of the ratio of simplicity to complexity for each individual. Too much simplicity makes the work boring. Too much complexity makes the work frustrating as the listener feels left out of the game. This is a very basic dichotomy and I think that much of  XX century music tended toward the complex and that is the reason that minimalism was able to thrive. People were so tired of complexity that when Phillip Glass appeared on the scene, the door was wide open for a more repetitive, simplistic approach to music making.

So these dichotomies are like swinging pendulums. Sometimes you get complex music, sometimes simple. This phenomenon happened also at the end of the Baroque era and the beginning of the Classical period. The complexity of Johann Sebastian Bach was such that the arrival of Mozart and Haydn, with their “galant style” which consisted mainly of a melody with an accompaniment  was very welcome.

But there is another factor involved here, another dichotomy:


I am going to continue my meditations on music and on a framework to understand it better. I was going to abandon them but I will finish them before embarking on something else.

I have put a lot of thought a lot about what the opposite of melody is, or what I could contrast with it and I think randomness is the best choice. Melody is a unifying factor in music. It puts order in a series of sounds heard consecutively. It helps us remember the music.

Melodies are structured in different ways in different musical systems. If you heard an Arabic melody it would be different from a Chinese melody as well as  from an Occidental melody. But the concatenation of different pitches is a fundamental part of all the music we hear. When we cannot link the sounds, and we cannot put some linear order into the music, we tend to reject it. In fact, when playing classical music of the XVIII and XIX century, the performers have to use a considerable amount of judgement in their performance so as to bring out  to melodic lines, allowing the public to follow the logic of the piece. Some atonal melodies are linked by a concept or by an arbitrary numeric succession, as in serialism. This will either result in a person being able to link the sounds, in which case he may like the work, or will result in a confusion, which many times will also lead to the rejection of the work.

There is another key word which we should bring into the conversation here,  and that is “motive”. A motive is a short sequence of notes that repeats throughout a composition. A good example of a motive are the first four notes of Beethoven’s fifth symphony. This motive is repeated many times in the first minute of the work in order to form a melody but the whole basis of the piece is a motive. Still, if the motives are not used to form longer thoughts, we might get melodically lost in the piece and start to perceive it as a bunch of random sounds. Which leads us to the next dichotomy:

A Recommitment to Contemporary Music

Before I continue to explain my framework to describe music, I have to share something that happened to me three days ago. I was composing a prayer for Sinai Temple, a cantorial, very tonal, piece,  and I decided to look into  the last piano pieces I composed before I started to compose choral music. I listened to my 12 preludes and to a piece called Melody,Harmony and Rhythm.  These pieces haven’t seen the light of day yet, nobody has played them. But something very curious happened. I loved the Preludes and then I couldn’t quite grasp the Melody, Harmony and Rhythm one.  I listened to that piece several times, its three sections, and it started to come back to me what I had been doing and I realized that piece was probably the deepest expression of myself I had attempted to date. I had been skipping concerts of new music because I didn’t like most of what I heard and I had been writing mostly tonal music. Sometimes in my choral music I would use extended harmonies (not your normal chords but different, more dissonant ones), bitonality (two scales used at the same time), modal harmonies (medieval scales) and I enjoyed doing that but after hearing my Melody, Harmony  & Rhythm I realized earlier I had been on a deep quest to discover my own music, something more unique, and that I had put it aside for a while to write music that more people could understand. However, I realized that when I left the search it had really started to get to a different level and that I could not abandon it any more than I could abandon music itself in my life. So I just wanted to let you know that whatever else I do in my musical life, I will keep this exploration going and, hopefully, I will get to where this journey has been taking me for many, many years.


So why would a composer abandon beauty in a musical composition? Here we get to the second dichotomy in music: Interesting-Boring. If a composer used a very beautiful chord and repeated it 20 times, even if it was the most beautiful chord in the world, your mind would probably start wandering or you would change the track in your device. Music has to be interesting. The composer has to engage his listener. This might actually be the most important dichotomy. Throughout the history of music, changes were introduced in the most part to make it interesting. That is the origin of the language of XX century music. It got really dissonant and the structures were changed radically because the sounds that had been used in the XVIII and XIX century had been used so much that even though they were very beautiful, they were boring to the composers. They were also boring to parts of the public particularly to the true connoisseurs, and to some of the critics. That explains the rise of atonal music and the backing it received in some critical circles.

Now, in popular music the lyrics of a song contribute greatly to the interest of the song but in classical instrumental music, we have to create interest in different ways. And so we get to the third dichotomy:


The first dichotomy we will use when talking about music is ugliness-beauty. This is a very important dichotomy in all the arts, as the achievement of beauty has long been a goal of artists. However, as Plato said: “Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder”. I have found, nevertheless, that there is a general agreement in our society as to what constitutes beauty and what doesn’t, in music. We actually have words that describe sounds that go well together, or are generally agreeable to our ears (consonances) and sounds that clash when played at the same time (dissonances). The fact that there is some sort of agreement as to what is consonant and what is dissonant means that there is some sort of agreement on beauty. That is the first part of beauty I am going to use in my evaluations, “consonant-dissonant”. Now, the agreement as to what is consonant and dissonant has varied through time. I won’t get into technical details about that. Suffice to say that when I am talking about music I am doing so with the ears of a classical musician that is living at the beginning of the XXI century.

The second part of beauty-ugliness I will use is the quality of each sound itself. After much consideration I think the proper dichotomy to use would be: “Harsh-Mellow”. A harsh sound would be a violin used in its highest range, while a mellow sound would be a violin being played in its usual range. Harsh could also be a violin being hit with the bow in a lower range but giving us a disagreeable sound. This is judging each sound by itself, not in relationship to other sounds. We find harsher sounds being used in the 20th and 21st Centuries and mellower sounds in the 18th and 19th centuries. So we will use consonance-dissonance and harsh-mellow because I consider them more objective than beautiful-ugly.

Understanding Music

Music is a complex subject. How can we understand it fully without studying it professionally? I’m talking about classical music, of course, or as they call it in Latin-American countries, “serious music”. Of course, the more you know, the easier it will be for you to relate to this type of music, particularly to the contemporary brand of it; however, I think that we can communicate better about it and thus achieve a better understanding if we relate to music though the use of dichotomies. I mentioned this in my last blog post, almost a year ago, but I didn’t get to develop the concept. I intend to do so now. Paragraph by paragraph I will endeavor to post regularly until the basic terms and parameters are defined and then I intend to talk about the music of our times.