# String Quartet



## SeptimalTritone

Hello everyone, I'm a hobbyist composer that's looking for some critique on a string quartet I wrote (or at least have a first draft of). Here are two different MIDI sound possibilities:

http://musescore.com/user/172178/scores/228896
http://musescore.com/node/233136

I'll offer my own critique of myself and point out a few things that I think are lacking (let me know if you guys agree) . There is a lack of rhythmic variety and syncopation, and the music often drives forward without many grand pauses. There could also be more sections where fewer instruments play. There could also be a better variation in texture: there are no sections with octave unisons, for example.

Also, are there things that are lacking that I haven't addressed yet (perhaps harmonic or form problems)?

I would really appreciate the help. No, I'm not a "serious" composer, but suggestions do help me compose better things that express more emotion and interest. Thanks!


----------



## Mahlerian

There are a bunch of things that just don't quite work too well yet. With reference to the exposition alone:

Does the exposition really need to be repeated? It's quite long as it is.
In bar 5, the cello line crosses above the viola, and then in bar 6 it meets in a unison A before jumping down to the lower octave. If the parts have more distinctive lines this might work, but here the viola part just sort of disappears temporarily.
In bar 13, we reach our first cadence. Emphasize the difference in the bars that lead up to this with some kind of difference in rhythm and texture.
Where does the first violin go in bar 15? It just trails off for no apparent reason.
The D# in the viola in bar 16 forms an odd-sounding cross relation with the D natural just vacated by the second violin, which has just leapt out of the way.
Why have so many modulations without any connection to the themes before pausing and jumping into D-flat major? Why not skip most of those modulations and head straight for D-flat after introducing the minor subdominant at bar 31?
I think Bar 109 would be more effective as a deceptive cadence.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Thanks so much for the help! To be honest, however, I'm a bit confused for some of your suggestions. Perhaps it's a lack of knowledge of lack of good decision-making on my part, but I need some clarification. Well actually, some of your suggestions make perfect sense, but some of them I don't understand.

Bar 5-6: You're absolutely right that the viola disappears into the cello for a moment by crossing voices. I'll fix this up.
Bar 13: I thought that I did provide contrast because in 11 two low instruments play 16ths and in 12 three low instruments play 16ths, a good build up of energy into the cadence. Wouldn't having one or more lower voices playing 32nds be a bit too much, or did you have something else in mind?
Bar 15: Isn't it good to not have all the instruments playing all the time, and why not precisely do this after the cadence? For the next few bars the first violin is absent except for interjecting a few 16th note patterns, which I thought was a nice thing...
Bar 16: You're right about this. I was looking to do an augmented sixth chord into A dominant but the cross-relation is an error so I'll just do a regular sixth chord with a D natural in the viola.

As far as the modulations in the bridge section going through a bunch of keys, why not? Why not view the F minor/D flat major section from 36 to 43 as sort of a prelude of whats to come, the bridge section from 46 to 68 as an uncertain exciting tension with several modulations that ends in A flat major, which is perfect to drop down to D flat major for the second theme? That was literally my thought process when I planned it out.
And as for theme connections the bridge does have motives that are announced and fleshed out more in the second theme group.
Bar 108-109: Shouldn't it be an authentic cadence into D flat major instead of a deceptive cadence into B flat minor (or something else)? After all, this second theme group is in D flat and we have here a good V9 - I cadence.

Thanks again for helping me out. From lurking on this forum before signing up I know you're quite knowledgeable, but you have to realize that some of what you suggested I just didn't understand.


----------



## Mahlerian

SeptimalTritone said:


> Bar 13: I thought that I did provide contrast because in 11 two low instruments play 16ths and in 12 three low instruments play 16ths, a good build up of energy into the cadence. Wouldn't having one or more lower voices playing 32nds be a bit too much, or did you have something else in mind?


The problem is that the first violin line doesn't give much indication that this is a cadence. The rhythm of a melody is as important as a pitch. Here the top line plays an unbroken series of eighth notes that stay almost entirely in a single octave, moving by step. Have some pauses or something simply to emphasize that this is the end of a period. Just as importantly, the violin continues with the eighth notes for the next bar, which once again provides no differentiation.



> Bar 15: Isn't it good to not have all the instruments playing all the time, and why not precisely do this after the cadence? For the next few bars the first violin is absent except for interjecting a few 16th note patterns, which I thought was a nice thing...


The idea is fine, but you have to realize that the violin part up to here has been an unbroken line. When the next phrase begins, you're still hearing the violin as the main line. You hear the sixteenths, and you expect them to go somewhere. Just add one note in the next bar (jumping down a fourth to C, maybe?) so that even this little fragment has some shape to it.



> As far as the modulations in the bridge section going through a bunch of keys, why not? Why not view the F minor/D flat major section from 36 to 43 as sort of a prelude of whats to come, the bridge section from 46 to 68 as an uncertain exciting tension with several modulations that ends in A flat major, which is perfect to drop down to D flat major for the second theme? That was literally my thought process when I planned it out.


Once again, the idea isn't necessarily wrong. Part of the problem is that the A-flat major cadence feels like a stopping point, and it's not obvious why it has to keep going from there. Your music should feel like it's generating itself.

Also, I felt the semi-sequence in bars 55-56, with its parallel fifths between first violin and cello, sounds pretty bad. That may be personal taste, though.



> And as for theme connections the bridge does have motives that are announced and fleshed out more in the second theme group.


Yes, but all of these relationships seem musically unrelated to the basic material. We go from sort-of F-minorish to C major, then A minor, then G major, then another weird cross relation between C and C# in bar 62, then we finally head for a full-sounding cadence in A-flat. But where does it come from? There's no clear connection between the harmonic adventures and the rising chromatic lines that follow, nor the material that preceded it.



> Bar 108-109: Shouldn't it be an authentic cadence into D flat major instead of a deceptive cadence into B flat minor (or something else)? After all, this second theme group is in D flat and we have here a good V9 - I cadence.


We have an authentic cadence a few bars later anyway. The problem here is that the phrase length is wrong for a strong cadence. You have 3 bars before it (105 is heard as an upbeat, not part of the phrase), and then we're suddenly at tonic, and we stay there. Adding a deceptive cadence, shifting back towards the dominant with the slower notes, and then ending the phrase as you do would be more effective.



> Thanks again for helping me out. From lurking on this forum before signing up I know you're quite knowledgeable, but you have to realize that some of what you suggested I just didn't understand.


I don't mean to sound too harsh or anything. You've obviously worked on this for quite a while (I'm sure you've seen lots of pieces on Musescore that were clearly written in about as much time as they last...), and you certainly have the basic shape of a sonata form movement here, I'm just not convinced by the way the content and the form work together.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

I see more clearly now! You're right, in the first period leading up to the first cadence, the first violin (not necessarily the lower instruments) needs to have some kind of interest besides just a series of eighth notes. Maybe some kind of short sixteenths, or a pause in the first violin after the cadence. And the little sixteenth figure in the first violin should end down to a C.

As for as the choice of journey of keys in the bridge section, you do raise a point. It's a bit arbitrary why those keys were chosen in particular, other than F minor - C major - (something arbitrary) - A flat major. Perhaps I should stay in C major (the expected thing in sonata form) for longer instead of shifting into other keys and then do one simple, decisive modulation to A flat major (without the bad cross relation), then cadence in A flat? Or would this simpler plan also not pan out?

And after the A flat major cadence, what's wrong with pausing and starting a new train of thought a fifth lower? Plenty of more standard sonata form pieces (that just modulate to the dominant) in, say, F major would cadence on C or G at the end of the bridge, pause, then start the second theme in C. I was essentially going for that, but going to the submediant as the destination.

I see what you mean about the deceptive/authentic cadence at the end of measure 108, it's not that the authentic cadence is wrong in a vacuum but what's before it and after it, which you explained well.

Finally, do you have a few general pointers on the development (which goes through a bunch of keys, which you might think would be too unfocused?) and the recapitulation (some of the problems are exactly the same as the exposition that you pointed out, but the key journey is different as well).


----------



## violadude

I agree with Mahlerian. I think there are some interesting ideas here but there are quite a few things here and there that don't seem to work as well as they could. Still, by far not the worst thing that's ever been posted here. It's a pretty good start.


----------



## EdwardBast

I won't go into specific technical issues at first, but will make a general point: In writing music in this style, you need to start with melody. Forget completely about harmony and write themes you care about. Then think about what will best articulate and clarify the melodic content. And don't automatically jump to the assumption that the other parts must fill out a succession of harmonies or that they must fill out whole triads or seventh chords. It is quite clear you are thinking of the work as a succession of harmonies and keys, and that is a deadly strategy. It will not work. Don't even begin to arrange the structure until you have melodies that matter to you. 

There are some interesting successions of harmonies, especially in the development. But, in general, the progressions just seem to meander and land on arbitrary keys. The problem is that there is no unifying thread. Once again, melody must lead. Forget harmony, forget key successions. Without melody it will always sound formless.

Specific issues: In mm. 15-17 the voice-leading is all wrong, especially a bad tritone resolution (C#-G, the G can't go up.)
In m. 62, the B-flat in the first violin should be B-natural. 

There are voice-leading problems everywhere, in fact, but don't worry about that. Write melodies. Spend a month writing and refining melodies. Then pick a couple of those melodies, ones that seem to have an interesting relationship, perhaps a contrasting one. Then try making a quartet movement from them.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Wow... I didn't realize that there were voice leading problems "everywhere", or at least a lot of them. It's hard when to me, I can't really tell when a voice leading error actually sounds wrong. I just look at what I write after each measure or two and try to pick out the errors mathematically, but a parallel fifth, improper tritone resolution, cross relation never _sounds_ wrong to me.

As for melody though, I see what you mean. In general, there should be a stronger and varied melody. And as for key progressions, are you suggesting that I should only modulate, say, when the melody goes to something chromatic? As in decide what stuff the melody will do first and write that, then decide whether a modulation or at least a chromatic harmony would fit with it? Is this the suggestion you're trying to make? Would this solve the problem of too many key changes without a unifying thread?

I think I'm going to go through and analyze (measure by measure) the first movement of Beethoven op 18 no 4. As far as dialogue between instruments goes, it's not the greatest piece, but it probably would explain better the idea of a good melodic line dictating where the rest of the harmony goes. Would this help?


----------



## Mahlerian

> And after the A flat major cadence, what's wrong with pausing and starting a new train of thought a fifth lower? Plenty of more standard sonata form pieces (that just modulate to the dominant) in, say, F major would cadence on C or G at the end of the bridge, pause, then start the second theme in C. I was essentially going for that, but going to the submediant as the destination.
> 
> Finally, do you have a few general pointers on the development (which goes through a bunch of keys, which you might think would be too unfocused?) and the recapitulation (some of the problems are exactly the same as the exposition that you pointed out, but the key journey is different as well).


The abrupt transition to secondary theme group will be handled as a half cadence, though, rather than a full cadence as here. Classically, the appearance of the secondary key should be an increase in tension, not a diminishing of it.

On the other hand, you do have examples like Bruckner:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcBg-tXn0fs#t=66

Everything here happens on a proportionally longer scale than would be normally expected. The first full cadence isn't until 2:55, and then the music moves towards V-of-V (the V of the ending key of the exposition, like yours). A pause follows, where the F is held over (the original version has a general pause, which works just as well, because the relationship between the sections is clear), and becomes the third of D-flat, the subtonic (flattened VII), and does constitute a decrease in tension, but thematically and harmonically, it's related to what came before, as harmonic motion in thirds has already been a prominent feature. When the music reaches the dominant, everything so far has been related back to the initial theme group's material.

The same goes for the development. All of the chromatic stuff is related to material we've heard before. The biggest events are the arrival at E-flat minor (the first introduction of a minor tonality in the work), which moves to B-flat, and then to G major for the chorale, which becomes G minor and then we arrive at the recapitulation, which moves the second theme group into B major (enharmonically C-flat, the flattened submediant, as before!).

The coda brings the whole thing full circle, because the final cadence is reached from the minor subdominant, emphasizing the same E-flat to C-flat relationship as the opening melody.



SeptimalTritone said:


> Wow... I didn't realize that there were voice leading problems "everywhere", or at least a lot of them. It's hard when to me, I can't really tell when a voice leading error actually sounds wrong. I just look at what I write after each measure or two and try to pick out the errors mathematically, but a parallel fifth, improper tritone resolution, cross relation never _sounds_ wrong to me.


There are a whole bunch of "hidden" fifths in the inner parts too, but it's considered a lesser sin. Good voice leading (or part writing, if you prefer), is about making the parts work together well while remaining distinct. An infraction of the rules done for effect is fine, but inadvertently and all over the place makes the construction sound sloppy.



> As for melody though, I see what you mean. In general, there should be a stronger and varied melody. And as for key progressions, are you suggesting that I should only modulate, say, when the melody goes to something chromatic? As in decide what stuff the melody will do first and write that, then decide whether a modulation or at least a chromatic harmony would fit with it? Is this the suggestion you're trying to make? Would this solve the problem of too many key changes without a unifying thread?


The idea is that melody and harmony should give rise to each other, and not be constructed separately.


----------



## EdwardBast

SeptimalTritone said:


> As for melody though, I see what you mean. In general, there should be a stronger and varied melody. And as for key progressions, are you suggesting that I should only modulate, say, when the melody goes to something chromatic? As in decide what stuff the melody will do first and write that, then decide whether a modulation or at least a chromatic harmony would fit with it? Is this the suggestion you're trying to make? Would this solve the problem of too many key changes without a unifying thread?


What I am saying is that if you put melody first, then you will be in a better position to put modulations to judicious use. There might, for example, be a modulation within the theme itself that could be a model for further modulations, which would then sound like they were "internally motivated" because they have a source within the main idea. Or there might be a striking note from a foreign key within the melody that will suggest a destination key. Or after you compose a theme, there might be some aspect of its harmonization (if it wants to be harmonized), like a strange altered mediant relationship or something, that will suggest a course of modulations. The point is that the more things on the large scale seem to be tied to the details of the main idea(s), the more coherent the piece will sound. To use a limited literary analogy: You have been writing the events and actions of a novel before you have created a character to perform them. I am suggesting that if you get melodies with definite needs and predilections, they will often tell you where they want to go and what they want to do. Or if you have two melodies you like, the act of getting from one to the other might demand a certain kind of modulation.



SeptimalTritone said:


> I think I'm going to go through and analyze (measure by measure) the first movement of Beethoven op 18 no 4. As far as dialogue between instruments goes, it's not the greatest piece, but it probably would explain better the idea of a good melodic line dictating where the rest of the harmony goes. Would this help?


Beethoven would be great to examine in thinking about the role of melody. But I wouldn't get bogged down in a particular piece or go measure by measure - or even limit myself to quartets. Look at the general ways he goes about constructing his themes, the rhythmic variety, the use of contrasting motives. He was great at finding themes that had internal conflicts and tensions - the sort of things that motivate development. There is nothing wrong with lyricism either, of course. Not every piece has to be a drama.

Perhaps after writing a melody or theme you like, it wouldn't hurt to look at quartets by Beethoven, Haydn, Schubert etc., to see the kind of textures they might have used in dressing it up or setting in relief similar melodies?


----------



## SeptimalTritone

So, I went through the exposition sections of some Beethoven first movements and I have like a million questions for each of them. Let me try to pick out the important ones though.

First, the Waldstein sonata. This piece really goes through a bunch of keys even in the first 10 or so bars, from C - G - B flat - F major/minor - C minor - pause. Then it goes back to C and soon after there's a big intense moment with the progression A minor - augmented sixth - B dominant chord. It stays at the B dominant chord at a heightened state of tension with a bunch of scales and arpeggios before settling to E major for the second theme.

The question is: why all these choices? Especially since before the first pause at C minor flat keys are emphasized, then suddenly at random we go A minor - augmented sixth - B dominant to the realm of sharp keys. This doesn't seem so motivated at all. Why not instead do some progression to B flat dominant and do the second theme in E flat major? Shouldn't that be more motivated and expected, especially with all the stuff in flat keys that happens at the beginning?

Or take the Archduke trio. I won't say as much here, other than the second theme is in G, and the essential modulation happens when we go from B flat - D (64) - A7 - D and later on G. This is the section where the piano plays the triplet neighboring tone figures while the cello plays the main motive. Why this, when none of the sharp keys happen beforehand, and to me, the most interesting stuff that happens beforehand is the G flat note (as part of E flat minor) and the F flat note (as part of an augmented sixth going into E flat major). Where is the unity here?

So as you can see, I don't understand the concept of long range unity of keys at all, even with just these examples.


----------



## Vasks

Before I mention some things about the Waldstein, I have to clear up one misconception. Chords do not equal keys. In the first 10 bars the "G" you mention is the dominant chord (V) of tonic KEY (C major). There is a sequential shift in m.5 to B-flat (with its dominant F chord; again not the key of F) but this potential key is not fully confirmed as by m.10 everything is back in the KEY of C. 

The passage of mss. 14-34 is called a transition (the phrase after the principal tonal area - C major-is done). It starts in C (14-17). then sequences (not modulating as all the pitches of mss. 18-21 are still chords found in C major). m.22 is the modulating pivot chord (yes, an augmented; but actually it's called an augmented 6th chord; the Italian 6th in E major). The modulation is a "chromatic one where the pitch "A" of m.21 becomes "A#" in m.22 and goes to "B" in m.23). The rest of the transition is merely the dominant chord (a B major chord) extremely stretched out of the upcoming key of E major.


----------



## Vasks

SeptimalTritone said:


> The question is: why all these choices? Especially since before the first pause at C minor flat keys are emphasized, then suddenly at random we go A minor - augmented sixth - B dominant to the realm of sharp keys. This doesn't seem so motivated at all. Why not instead do some progression to B flat dominant and do the second theme in E flat major? Shouldn't that be more motivated and expected, especially with all the stuff in flat keys that happens at the beginning?.


Beethoven believed that parallel major and minors (C major and c minor in this instance) are to be treated as the same (C - period). The key of the secondary tonal area (m. 35 and beyond) is usually the dominant (in this case usually G major). But Beethoven being himself figured out that G major is related to e minor (they have the same key signature) and he believes that e minor is "the same thing" as E major, so that explains why E major is the key for m.35 onward in the exposition.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Ok I see what you mean. I did confuse chord changes with modulation (and of course a chord change is not a modulation). And throughout the whole first page it's really in C major/C minor. The first bit sequences down, and the second bit sequences down, but it's all in C. Thanks for clarifying that Vasks.

But... when we get to the actual modulation A minor - augmented sixth chord - B dominant where does that "come from"? Maybe that's a strange question, with your guys's emphasis on not modulating for no reason, what was the reason to modulate to E major rather than the usual G major? After all, we don't go G major - E minor - E major, we do a chromatic modulation with the augmented sixth chord instead.

And the same question goes for the modulation in the Archduke trio... don't you need a good reason to modulate to something other than the dominant in sonata form? And indeed, what if the second theme is in a flatter key than the main key (like in the Bruckner 4, or some of Beethoven's late works like op 130)? Is that normally not allowed unless there's a good reason? What would count as a good reason?

I still don't understand the idea of long range key unity... Maybe you guys can recommend something to read?


----------



## Vasks

SeptimalTritone said:


> But... when we get to the actual modulation A minor - augmented sixth chord - B dominant where does that "come from"?
> 
> .. don't you need a good reason to modulate to something other than the dominant in sonata form? And indeed, what if the second theme is in a flatter key than the main key (like in the Bruckner 4, or some of Beethoven's late works like op 130)? Is that normally not allowed unless there's a good reason? What would count as a good reason?


It is actually a fairly normal chromatic modulation, Septi. Haydn and Mozart did them prior to Beethoven's arrival and without checking probably Bach did some too. Now for why Beethoven chose to go to E major instead of the traditional G major for the secondary area. I believe he was trying to be dramatic and dynamic without completely ignoring the "rules" of Classic sonata form. I explained his "justification"

As he got even older, Beethoven sensed the world changing around him. Contemporaries like Schubert (his Unfinished Symphony's first movement goes from B minor to G major!!) no longer felt the need to adhere to those rules, yet he never fully abandoned that in which he was trained. So when some people like myself view Beethoven as the bridge between Classicism & Romanticism, it is this very aspect I've touched on that suggests it. After Beethoven, with Romanticism in full bloom, composers felt no allegiance to the old regulated tonal schemes of sonata form.


----------



## Mahlerian

SeptimalTritone said:


> And indeed, what if the second theme is in a flatter key than the main key (like in the Bruckner 4, or some of Beethoven's late works like op 130)? Is that normally not allowed unless there's a good reason? What would count as a good reason?


Generally, and simplified drastically, if you want a decrease in tension, you modulate in the subdominant direction, and if you want an increase in tension, you modulate in the dominant direction. You can do it, but you need to be aware of the effect it has and make use of it.



SeptimalTritone said:


> I still don't understand the idea of long range key unity... Maybe you guys can recommend something to read?


In a piece of music, keys are related to each other, one to the next, but the listener will hear all of these modulations in the context of the initial key, to a point (how far this can go depends on both composer and listener). Be aware of relative tonal distance and all of the tonal areas that you encounter throughout a movement.


----------



## EdwardBast

SeptimalTritone said:


> But... when we get to the actual modulation A minor - augmented sixth chord - B dominant where does that "come from"? Maybe that's a strange question, with your guys's emphasis on not modulating for no reason, what was the reason to modulate to E major rather than the usual G major?


Why E rather than G? The reason is embedded in the natural tendencies of the theme:

-The first period (mm. 1-13) can be understood as a couple of motions by fifth a major second apart, C-G, then B-flat to F. F major is the subdominant and leads naturally to the dominant (with coloration from the parallel minor).
-The next part, the transition, is constructed the same way, two motions by fifth a major second apart, C-G, d-a. A is the subdominant of what? Of E. It leads to the dominant of E which, with coloration from the parallel minor, leads naturally to the new tonic.

This is a simple and elegant bit of parallel construction building on the natural tendencies of the first part of the theme. This is exactly what I was advising that you do: Create an interesting theme and lay out its course according to its natural tendencies.



SeptimalTritone said:


> And the same question goes for the modulation in the Archduke trio... don't you need a good reason to modulate to something other than the dominant in sonata form? And indeed, what if the second theme is in a flatter key than the main key (like in the Bruckner 4, or some of Beethoven's late works like op 130)? Is that normally not allowed unless there's a good reason? What would count as a good reason?


No, one does not need a good reason to go someplace other than the dominant in sonata form. Going to the dominant was easy, conventional, and folks were used to it. It wasn't all that unusual for Beethoven to go to mediant or submediant keys. (Add the first movements of Op. 57, Op. 95 to your list of aberrant modulations.)



SeptimalTritone said:


> I still don't understand the idea of long range key unity... Maybe you guys can recommend something to read?


There aren't any general principles for this. Best just to study on a case by case basis. My main advice, however, is to stop thinking about modulations and write melodies for a while. You know how to modulate. You need reasons for doing so. You will find them in the melodic materials you create.


----------

