Leaderboard

I've always wondered what's so 'stupid' about writing meaningful music. On the contrary, if all what flows from our minds is a collection of meaningless sounds arbitrarily put together (and quite often under pretentious, esotherical titles), we should be sorry. Anyway, in my view naming a piece doesn't convey any ideal, Romantic or whatsoever (heh, we all know Renacentists, Baroquists and Modernists did never, ever name a piece :P ). It's just a way to identify a particular piece from any other, just like a child is named to tell him/her from any other human being. When I name a piece, I tend to be quite generic (i.e. Piano Sonata N° 3, String Serenade, Symphony N° 1) - but even then a piece might be trying to convey a message, story or idea of its own, and quite often I'm not afraid of openly stating it (i.e. Adriana Suite, Emma Overture, Northanger Sonata). I don't think that doing either is by any means a symptom of stupidity.

always try put impressive word in title like "Mankind" and "Fate"

If it doesn´t, why bother doing it? There´s a big difference between true humility and admiration and cockyness diguised as it.

The question is way, way, way too formal. It's impossible to answer in a couple of sentences. First learn how to write for violin, viola, cello. Ranges, arc playing, fingering. And listen a lot of literature for string quartet with scores.

I think they're really lame.

Thanks Phil! I agree; I've had past compositions where I've tried having counterpoint with every single instrument at once; quite frankly it was a mess! My main concern is with each of the instrument's capabilities - obviously most of the writing won't be idiomatic (I'm not sure anyone can claim to play EVERY orchestral instrument there is...) and so I want to avoid composing something too easy or, indeed, completely impossible for the musician!