Hi there

This is a piece for piano and string quintet. I am planning to make a little series of pieces with this ensemble, and this is simply the first one, #1.


I'm looking for overall feedback/critics ;)

Cheers, Fredrik

piano and string quintet #1.mp3

piano and string quintet #1.pdf

You need to be a member of Composers' Forum to add comments!

Join Composers' Forum

Email me when people reply –


  • Just noticed there's some notation errors going on (the 2. violin playing what the 1. violin should be playing in some bars, for example in bar 24).
  • Its a very good piece, very early classical era in its feel. I do wish that more of the melody was shared among the instruments and that the contrabass had more of a part instead of just doubling  the piano. I would have like to see more expression markings as well.


    There were also some notation errors. The biggest one I had was unaligned formatas and missing formatas in instruments that are resting. Take measure 4 for example:  With the violin, piano, and contrabass holding on 1 and the cello holding on 2 and the second vionlin holding on 3 and the poor viola having no idea that there is a formata, the result will be a lot of very confused performers coming back in off the formata at different times. The way to fix this is the use tied notes and divide the notes so that they all have a note on beat 3 with a formata over it. For the first violin, contrabass, and piano that is as easy as having a half note tied to a quarter with the quarter having the formata. Cello can have just quarter notes with the last two being tied and the last one with a formata. And the viola, just add some half and quarter rest and place a formata over the third beat.

    You need to do that to all the places you have unaligned formatas.


    Aside from that, it was a very solid and good piece of music. Would love to see what else you have planned for this music.

    Great job

  • Hi there, 


    I feel like I wanted more or your motive. I am talking about the idea that appears in the 1st Violin in measure 5. I feel like you barely used that idea, and it had potential to be moved around to different voices, and inverted, retrograded, all of that fun stuff. Really playing with that idea will make your piece longer, and will probably change the structure that you have set up. An example of what I would do, introduce the idea like you did in measure 5, and continue introducing the idea in 6 without the piano supporting it. Add something like eight measures in-between 6 and 7 and continue working that idea. Let it move around, and play throughout the entirety of the piece. I would say that idea is really the life your your piece and to cut it short is unfair to the music, and the listener.


    Good Job.

  • nice writing! not sure if you really want the whole piece to be Piano - Pianissimo... i'd suggest at least Mezzoforte, even forte in places, the expressive qualities of the strings are usually better at Forte i find... but if you want this piece to be VERY quiet, then its fine. Tyler is right, you gotta have fermata's on every instrument, even if its just over a rest. dont let sibelius influence your dynamic choices as, on real instruments, the levels will be totally different. also, make sure dynamics are under a note, you cant have a "P" rest... eg bar 17, in Vla, Cello and contrabass. apart from those problems, score is very good.
  • Thank you all for sharing your thoughts! I'll fix the notation problems, and I'll try to make something more out of the different ideas ;) for example what Andrew are suggestioning. And as a double bass player myself I shall indeed try to write something new for the double bass part ;)


    As you say, tom, I'll try to make myself less influenced by sibelius ;) The piece is not meant to be VERY quiet or static, so I'll try to work something more interesting dynamic and expressive wise.


    Again, thank for your thoughts! It's what I both needed and kind of hoped to hear :)


    EDIT: I forgot to ask; what do you think of the piano playing a lot of 8ths? The reason I wrote the piano like that is simply because I wanted it sound bigger, but I wonder if it's necessary to do that? Would you say that's sibelius tricking me again?

This reply was deleted.