vtfreestyle224

Sorry to revisit this topic again, but I have a few more to add after listening to more string quartets. Mendelssohn 2 and 4 and Beethoven 9 and 13 (for some reason I'm not that big a fan of number 14, but I've only listened to the first movement at this point) are all awesome. Anyone who questions Mendelssohn's strength as a composer needs to listen to his string quartets. If his parents hadn't attempted to conceal his brilliance, he might have been received as as much a of prodigy as Mozart (although he's much better in my opinion).

It tends to be pretty easy to control dynamics of natural harmonics, but the same rule applies as stated above that the higher you go, the lower the volume limit.

To somehow find time in my crazy schedule to finish the string quartet I'm working on. Also, to explore more styles of composition, become better at fugal writing, perhaps learn more about atonal music, and write for larger ensembles.

Keep in mind that the great composers didn't have Sibelius...

I would definitely look into information about each of the individual instruments, such a range, timbre, bowing techniques, etc. All of the instruments in a quartet are actually capable of playing four notes at one time (called a chord), but only capable of sustaining two at one time (called a double stop). As mentioned above, the best way to learn how to write a string quartet is probably to listen to a lot of them. Personally, I would add a few of Mendelssohn's quartets to the list above, directly after Beethoven. String quartets differ from piano music in that most string quartets (excluding newer pieces) rely on heavy use of counterpoint. Even "accompaniment" lines must be melodic in some way. Remember that as opposed to a piano, where all of the notes "mix" because you are playing on one instrument, and a symphony, where the notes mix from the number of instruments used, in a string quartet, you are only given four instruments and must simultaneously present good melodic material and fill harmonic requirements.

Or we could try having mature discussions that don't digress to personal stabs at each other's composition styles. From what I can see, a large percent of the public admires Mozart's music because it's all they really know, and they like what they've heard. However, I would trust that most people on this website have been exposed to multiple other composers and styles, and thus, they have the right to take an informed position on what is better. If someone has listened to both classical and modern music and decides, "wow, classical music is waaayyyy better", then by all means they are entitled to that opinion. Regarding Mozart, I definitely think he was capable of writing bad music. I pretty much despise all of his symphonies up until the 20s, but have any of you ever heard his 39th, 40th, and 41st symphonies? I think it's pretty hard to deny that they're true masterpieces. I would also have to agree with Austenite that no one on this site has yet written something that can counter the perfection of one of Mozart's masterpieces. Of course, there are many who would denounce the criteria I would use to determine what a "masterpiece" really is, but I suppose I've already written too much.

I find many of his minor key works to be very good. I think it's a shame that he didn't write more. I think I heard somewhere that he liked writing in major keys because it made minor key development sections more interesting.

I actually love his 20th piano concerto, I just haven't listened to enough piano concertos to have a list of favorite composers in that category.

I guess I might as well answer my own question: Symphonies: Beethoven, Mahler, Tchaikovsky String Quartets: Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Schubert Piano Chamber Music: Brahms, Dvorak, Schubert Overtures: Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Tchaikovsky Violin Concertos: Goldmark, Mendelssohn, Sibelius Viola Concertos: Bartok, Hindemith Cello Concertos: Dvorak, Elgar Piano solos: Debussy, Rachmaninoff, Ravel, Schubert Overall favorite: ...... probably Tchaikovsky, but it's hard to pick.

I wrote my first 12 or so pieces using Sibelius. However, I have since discovered that overuse of the playback feature makes me compose for the computer, rather than the actual instruments that will end up playing the composition. Needless to say, handwriting takes much more time, but for me, that's good thing, because taking time to think things through helps me. That will vary depending on the composing. I am still working on my first truly handwritten piece (a string quartet in f minor) with the help of a piano, but I am much happier with the results.

Hi everyone, I just had a quick question about a String Quartet that I am writing right now. The quartet is in F minor, and as you might expect, the second theme in the exposition begins in A-flat major. However, the second theme briefly returns to F minor before ending in A-flat major again, creating three subsections. In the recapitulation, would it be acceptable to play the first subsection of the second theme in F major (or F minor, but I don't think this section will work as well in a minor key), the second in F minor (using a different transition, of course), and skipping the third subsection to go directly to the coda? I know that composers have taken other liberties with sonata forms, including skipping the first theme altogether in the recapitulation.

In no particular order: 1. Mozart 41 (I've yet to hear anything written in C major that is as exciting as the last movement, plus I love the second movement) 2. Tchaikovsky 6 (Beautiful and emotional) 3. Mahler 8 (Perhaps the most powerful finale ever written) 4. Dvorak 9 (Fantastic overall work) 5. Beethoven 3 (I love the development section of the first movement, also very musically revolutionary) I also like Schubert 8, Mahler 2, Tchaikovsky 2 (mainly the finale), Mozart 35 and 40, and Beethoven 5, 6, and 9. I'm also trying to explore newer symphonic works.

Before you have your piece performed, you can always ask a local orchestra or some such group to play through your piece at a rehearsal. I wouldn't expect much in terms of the quality of the performance, but at least it will give you some idea of what the piece will sound like with real instruments. After that, the main question you need to ask yourself is if it sounds the way that you intended for it to sound. If the answer is yes, then the piece is worthy of performance. Quite frankly, it really doesn't matter what anyone else thinks unless you wrote the piece to explain their emotions, ideas, etc (and I'm guessing that you probably didn't).

As I said in the original post, I was interested in knowing people's favorite composers by composition type. In fact, that's the title of the thread....

I'm sorry if this overlaps with other topics, but I thought this might be an interesting idea. I think we too often see questions like "who is the best overall classical composer?", when in reality, many of them excelled in some areas and were weaker in others. I thought it would be interesting to break down this question into the various composition types. For example: Who is the best composer of... - symphonies - operas - piano pieces - violin pieces - string quartets/quintets - piano chamber music - etc. And of course, you can mention your favorite overall composer as well.