Leaderboard

A very enjoyable piece. Leaving aside some noise and clicking issues in the audio, I think it lacks something to bring it closer to the style, and that is dynamics. Although classicism (and Mozart, of course) did not make extensive use of gradual dynamic contrasts (but rather more powerful ones such as piano and forte), there are none here either. More than that, it is the accents, sforzandos, etc., which were very common in this period, that make it sound like it.

We staff have decided that it might be a good idea to open the awarding of badges up to the members, not just the staff. The staff aren't perfect and can sometimes miss some good opportunities to award badges to members for some of their excellent or distinctive content. So if you feel like you have been overlooked for an award you deserve - let us know! Tell us which piece you think deserves what kind of award/badge and why and we will consider granting it to you. You can also suggest awards for other fellow composers' works! Refer to the following list of manually awardable badges. If a badge doesn't exist for your particular achievement you can suggest new badges/awards in that thread:

Hi @Cafebabe! This is a nice classical sonata! The thing that bothers me when listening to this at first is the really bad balance between the melodic right hand and the accompanying left hand. The left hand should be softer and the melody in the right brought out more to be in high relief. Before, the only way to make this happen is to use MS Basic Soundfonts and use velocity values for the right hand. But I don't know if you know about a recent trick I learned in writing piano music in Musescore Studio 4 using the Musesounds Piano. What I do now is I write the piece for two tracks of basically two separate pianos - one for each hand. I go to the layout options and have each piano displayed with only one clef in one staff rather than in a grand staff for both. Then I bracket them as if they're one grand staff but each retains its own individual identity. This way I can give each hand its own dedicated dynamics and volume, reverb and other settings giving me more control over what is the most prominent part of the composition at any given point. I also noticed that you don't have any dynamics in your piece at all. Maybe you didn't find it necessary, and it could be argued, it is more historically accurate if its meant to be played on a period instrument. Musically, I find the retransition back to F major at the end of the exposition a little abrupt and forced. Another thing is that I'd expect each theme in a sonata to have ample time to speak before going into transitional figures. This would usually be done by giving the themes a full period, double period or sentence form which you don't do and it makes the themes seem like they can't stand still and start to flit about try to run away from themselves before the listener has even had a chance to absorb them. Also, when the development section starts, it seems like it's just a chord progression without really any relation to the themes. It makes me question what, if anything, is being developed. Although I had a lot of critiques of this piece, I did find it an overall enjoyable easy listening experience. Thanks for sharing!

The subject of this one first came to mind roughly 7 hours ago already in its current form, and realizing its potential I wasted no time in writing it down, lest I forgot its exact melodic contour whose progression has been able to accommodate for elaborate chromaticisms in the other voices. Now, after yet another sleepless night put to good use with tireless contrapuntal machinations, this little fugue for string trio is at last complete in my eyes. YouTube video link:

Hello everyone, I recently updated a little draft of music for string quintet on the incomplete works forum and I just developed it into a full piece. After some thought, the section felt somehow like a developed theme, so I composed a main theme by using some of the musical features found in that draft I composed. I also changed instrumentation, having two cellos instead of a double bass (as in the initial draft) and increased the tempo from 60bpm to 70bpm. The piece is an elegy and has the following sections: [m.1~m.9] Introduction -- The introduction was composed by making use of the most important harmonies of the piece: Cmaj, Cminor, Dbmaj and Gmaj. [m.10 ~ m.25] Main theme -- Main theme in C minor. It works as a period but, in this case, both statements end in a half cadence (the second has a stronger modulation to G) [m.26 ~ m.40] Development section (original draft) -- Developmental section which starts with the main theme in Cmaj. This section is repeated once. [m.41 ~ m.51] Restatement of main theme -- second part of the main theme repeated once, this time ending in a perfect cadence (with picardy third in last chord). I think the atmosphere fits the title of "elegy", but let me know what you think! Also, a distinctive feature retained from the draft is the use of pauses that resemble deep sighs (or holding ones breath). I took as much care as possible to make those moments sound natural but the midi sounds showed its limitation in those cases :S. I am thinking on updating it so both violins get to play the melody at some time, doing some voice exchange like that one I did in measures 14-15. Is it standard practice to share melodic material between the two violins in order to create an echo effect and add variety for both performers, even if the melody could be written entirely for Violin I? Also, I used dotted notes for those moments in which they need to cut the phrase a little earlier. Would there be a better way for notating that? As always, every feedback is more than welcome and hope you enjoy it!

Sounds great. I think my only complaints is that I think you overuse the sudden rests a bit in the latter half of the piece, but it is good listening and does what it says on the tin.