# Classical era quartet exercise, with improvements



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Hello everyone,

A bit back, I wrote a classical style piece for string quartet. A lot of people gave me advice. For this new quartet movement, I tried to incorporate all of your suggestions. Things I tried to improve on were: rhythmic drive of melodic line, note-by-note counterpoint, harmonic rhythm and bassline motion counterpoint, motivic unity without over-repetition, and restriction to the classical style's harmonic grammar.

The piece is here: https://musescore.com/user/4084206/scores/2321931

This will be my last classical era piece for a long time. I am currently learning Webern's late style. My goal in all of this is merely to learn how music works.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

This has a much stronger sense of harmonic direction than your earlier quartet movements. Keys are articulated clearly and modulations are handled relatively well.

A few thoughts:

Strong and clear opening, but then we have many needlessly complicated parts that, if heard individually, sound like a series of run-on sentences.

Clear transition to the second theme, though the theme itself lacks in identity, and a nice interruption.

The exposition is quite long, and I'm not sure we need a full repeat.

Pay more attention to ensemble rhythms. When you write in a classical style, you shouldn't simply fill up the space with notes, but let there be demarcation between more homophonic and more contrapuntal passages.

The repeated sixteenths motif used at the end of the exposition to stabilize the dominant key is an odd choice for the development.

Two bars for holding on the dominant would have been enough. There's no need for seven(!) It's complete overkill.

What is the point of the dissonance at bar 97? It sounds like a mistake, and you should probably make the bass an F (which is then sustained in the memory through to bar 99), making it a I6/4 rather than a IV with major seventh and no third(?).


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Many many thanks! That was a lot of useful input. Thanks for putting in the effort.

I think I'm confident enough to do most of those fixes. Some of them are easy, some of them will require effort, but I think I can figure it out.

I agree with the last three points. The last two are easy fixes, and I'll think about what I can do. The point about "The repeated sixteenths motif used at the end of the exposition to stabilize the dominant key is an odd choice for the development" I agree with now that you mention it: I don't know of a classical piece that just puts in the post-cadential pedal theme at the end of an exposition into the development section out of nowhere without it being a continuation. It's like a contradiction, and not a good one. I'll figure out something else to write for those 4 measures.

As for point 1, it is possible that violin 1, measures 5-8, and violin 2, measures 9-12 are a bit overkill with the running sixteenth notes. The problem is that if I change those, a lot comes crashing down. I still need to make contact with violin 2 measures 35-36, which is the exact inversion of that line and an important signpost of recall... that's a major problem. I don't want to change measures 5-6 because that would screw up measures 35-36 which are supposed to be the inversion, and which are supposed to not just recall but propel the stretto-climax-cadence. Also, the highly essential bridge section measures 20-21 directly derive from measure 5. Maybe I can just change violin 1, measures 7 and 8, and violin 2 measures 10 and 12? Would that address the issue?

As for point 2, the second theme, initially played in the cello: the whole point is that it's the inversion of the main theme! That was supposed to provide it identity! There's a lot of inversion and retrograde, and diminution and augmentation throughout the piece relating all the motifs. Maybe I can put this second theme against something else in the development section.

You are right that there should have been a stronger demarcation between homophonic and contrapuntal parts. I was afraid that it wouldn't be contrapuntal enough, actually, but it's good to know that I need to subtract rather than add. I could, in measures 14-19, instead of three lines echoing each other, have only two, with the third line just playing an ostinato, maybe a similar kind of ostinato that's in measure 24 to foreshadow it. I could also foreshadow measure 25's cello second theme here, and that way it could have more identity. I'll find some way to make measures 14-19 less busy, without essential purpose. I'll think about it.

Finally, while I highly agree with and will fix everything you've said, I do disagree with point 3. The emphatic dominant cadence needs to be repeated. I can't just go into the dominant minor of the development or the strength of the dominant at the end of the exposition is severely lessened. In fact, I initially didn't have the repeat but, with the development section being of nontrivial length and the strength of the dominant needing to be established, I decided upon some listenings to the piece that I needed the repeat.

That was a lot of help. I won't ask you to respond to all of these points, I think they are reasonable addressings of what you said. I only have one request: do you mind just responding to the question about violin 1's measures 5-8? Can I just change measures 7 and 8? It's hard to change measures 5 and 6 because so much in the rest of the piece is dependent on it.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

SeptimalTritone said:


> That was a lot of help. I won't ask you to respond to all of these points, I think they are reasonable addressings of what you said. I only have one request: do you mind just responding to the question about violin 1's measures 5-8? Can I just change measures 7 and 8? It's hard to change measures 5 and 6 because so much in the rest of the piece is dependent on it.


That would certainly help, yes. I wasn't necessarily saying all of the active sections need to be cut out, just that you should think both about the continuity of individual lines as well as the general harmonic-motivic direction.

I did notice the many inversions throughout, but you shouldn't rely on a listener identifying an element on that basis, much less taking it in as being an important new theme simply because it is an inversion of an old one.


----------



## prasad94 (Jul 11, 2016)

I liked it very much. Strong sense of harmonic movement.

I'll keep it short and simple, even though I found it pleasant to the ear, I'd highly suggest taking a look at Prokofiev's Classical Symphony 1. The score is readily available along with the music on Youtube! I don't see much in terms of articulation and dynamics. Understand, the string section is the most expressive of all other instrument families. The reason so is because of the HUUUUGE array of dynamics that the strings are capable of. They can crescendo from pianissimo to forte in a beautiful way. The _pizzicato_ technique is one that is just so amazing when used in the right way.

There are many ways to write for a string section, but I suggest Prokofiev's Classical Symphony 1 to give you an understanding on how string dynamics work. The strings are not a central part of the composition, but they are written very well! All that aside, very nice melodies and harmonies! The complexity of your work can be furthered by learning about the dynamic capabilities in the string section!


----------

