New String Orchestra piece

The Written Promise

I wrote this last night in one night, yes one night. It is a string orchestra piece with harp written for a girl on YouTube named Mary, user wrtnpromise. The title has a double meaning. Of course it is a play on her username, but it is also a reference to the Bible, God's literal written promise to His people. God promised us eternal life through His never-ending love, the ultimate promise. This piece is meant to depict that promise, the sacrifice of God's son Jesus for humanity and His love for us in the process.

And this is the promise that He has promised us—eternal life.

- 1 John 2:25

PDF

mp3

The Written Promise

This was-... no. This is* amazing.

This is very peaceful and relaxing to me.

Superb.

i like our way more

From this piece . repeated unit are too much , that is why you compose that fast , i can also do so , but the main problem is , your texture have a bit problem , i cannot understand about your texture which is homophony or heterphony , i think you should try to fix this out

dark-@@

and the high level of problem is . i dont feel this piece are talking about bible , i feel that this piece like a science fiction movie soundtrack

Ok, good melodic material an nice contrasts of orchestration - especially the recap and the pp section around 38. Also some nice harmonic contrasts. Also, it is successful as it sounds heartfelt and quite reverent

Of course in live performance this will sound much more lush.

My main problem is it needs a little pruning - for example after the few opening bars you have a neat figure that emphasizes the tonic A and i little surprise cadence before going back to the root position A major chord. I would have preferred a different inversion or color to accompany the statement of the theme - or you have a sparer instrumentation in the opening measures. Another spot is the harmonies before the harp gliss are wonderful but I think you move too quickly to the A major key area- a more gradual harmonic transition would be better. Finally the last section from about mm 92 sounds unnecessary. The harp could have led to the A major cadence or an unexpected deceptive cadence before concluding with the neat texture you had going on about 89 - 90. In fact that texture would be good to allude to earlier - it would also offer more variety to the textures earlier in your piece. Sometimes I think you get a little too enamoured by the harp arpeggios supported by some of the strings and emphasized further by the eighth note figure in your melody on the strong beat.

In sum, for the amount of time you wrote it this is very good but I think it needs a little pruning and rethinking how you want your textures to unfold - you have a very good idea but I think you don't allow a few textural ideas to flower more. I'd even say the same but to a much lesser degree with your harmonic movement in a few spots - I'd like to have heard greater exploration before coming close to the related keys of A major (again in particular before the big harp gliss)

Texture has been discussed. I will not say a thing about it.

You really, really, really, really, really, really, really need to take some time,

and sit down,

and look at string pieces written by string players.

Not a Mahler symphony, nor a schumann symphony... but something by someone who writes well for strings...

And you need to do what they do.

Your articulations, phrase and slur markings, and use of the instruments are just... off.

Texture has been discussed. I will not say a thing about it.

You really, really, really, really, really, really, really need to take some time,

and sit down,

and look at string pieces written by string players.

Not a Mahler symphony, nor a schumann symphony... but something by someone who writes well for strings...

And you need to do what they do.

Your articulations, phrase and slur markings, and use of the instruments are just... off.

Well thank you for that. Now, in the spirit of being helpful, can you provide some examples of string mastery? Also, specifically, what particular phrase/slur markings/articulations etc. are off?

Jason you can do 2 major things to improve your writing for strings.

First, tessitura. Here is how tessitura works in strings.

The bottom note on every string instrument is in almost the same place on their respective staves. So if you overlay the written pitches in a single staff you can see where each instrument is in its register.

Anything that pops out in the "written chord" WILL BE foregrounded in the "sounding chord" whether you want it to or not (for example the cello C in the first chord).

Sometimes you do want it to come through. This is why the celli can play a melody on the A string and be in the foreground even while the violins are playing notes that are higher in pitch: those notes are lower in register.

But if you are aiming for a blend then the example on the left is not well orchestrated.

Now let's apply this principle to your music. There are places where the violins are carrying the melody yet you have orchestrated the celli "above" them. There are places in this piece where you write a melody for 1/3 of the violas (1/3!) an octave in register below the celli... and you expect that to sound? :) etc.

Second. Divisi. You constantly divide the violas, and sometimes divide the celli, while leaving the violins unison.

Here is what that will look like on stage:

Under IDEAL conditions you'd have something like 14 firsts, 14 seconds, 12 violas, etc. Which means your parts are being read, from top to bottom, by 14, 14, 6, 6 players.... or 14, 14, 4, 4, 4 when you divide the violas in three! If you want to divide strings look at Elgar for examples, String Serenade, Introduction & Allegro etc. Elgar is a masterful string writer because he always considers the numerical "balance of power" in the string orchestra.

On dividing the basses: DON'T. "The effect is disappointing and is almost never used in orchestral scoring" (Kennan Technique of Orchestration 6th ed).

I enjoyed the piece but I think it will have lots of problems when rehearsed with a real orchestra due to these two issues.

Of course in live performance this will sound much more lush.

Lush? :|

If I were assigned to conduct this piece the first thing I would do is get on my knees and pray for God to multiply the viola section like he did with the loaves and fishes.

Because otherwise many of these beautiful parts will simply not sound.

You really, really, really, really, really, really, really need to take some time,

and sit down,

and look at string pieces written by string players.

Not a Mahler symphony, nor a schumann symphony... but something by someone who writes well for strings...

And you need to do what they do.

I disagree; this approach, while it may help, may also be limiting. I do think you need to take a look/listen at some of the great string material out there. However, since I am a great believer in the power of the workaround (I'll explain in a second), go for pieces that you like the sound of - pieces that include string writing that you want to learn to emulate. For this ensemble, I'd suggest Copland's Concerto for Clarinet and String Orchestra; other than the clarinet, it is the ensemble you're working with. Aurally, the effects you seem to be going for in this piece are similar to a lot of mid/late-early 20th-Century composers of the "Boulanger" school - Barber, Copland, et al.

Bar 7 - 15 in Cello 1 - consider changing to tenor clef. Ledger lines suck. :P

Bar 77 - the harp gliss can be notated by writing the first full-octave of notes (to show pedal positions) followed by a wavy gliss line to the ending pitch. If you want playback to still work, just hide the remaining notes and the tuplet.

Now, the "workaround" thing. Weca makes some good points re: range and volume. However, that's only taking into account raw pitch and registration. With a little more focus on dynamics and extended techniques, it's perfectly possible to attenuate the parts so that the ones you want will come out. Most of your dynamics in this score are across-the-board - all the parts are playing at the same volume. This does present a problem if they're playing in the same range, so you might want to go back and take a minute to lower the volume on the non-foregrounded part. It might even be effective to go through your score and use Schoenberg's "HS" and "NS" (hauptstimme and nebenstimme) markings to articulate to yourself where you want voices to be stronger and weaker. It does take significantly more attention and care, especially if you want each part to have its own melodic significance, but I trust you'll be able to work it out.

Also - I don't see any parts in the score where the violas are divisi in three...

LET ME TELL YOU WHAT THE PROBLEMS ARE

detailly

1.The nonchord are very werid , i dont know what the non chord you use at the beginning

2. What the texture from the starting phrase ?

3. At the beginning ,is it the doubling from violin and viola or just a heterphony or half alien heterphony or alien doubling , i dont know how to call this skill

4. At the begining The viola can it be divide into to parts ? i dont know? why ?

5. At the beginning ,I cannot see the semi-phrasing and weird cadence , even no cadence at all

6.

7.Where is this object (bar 12 viola and violin 1)come from ?

8. what is the relationship between the phase A from the beginning (bar 1 to bar 5 ) and the phrase B (bar 15 to bar 19 violin 1 )?

9. The bass lilne at bar 15 come out too rush without prepare

10. is it the bass line doubling by harp and cello from bar 20 to 22 ? but it look alien way to doubling becasue you did not doubling some nonchord notes

will be continous tmr

dark

As a string player I second the vast majority of advice here on the scoring. I'm going to address the harp part, seeing as it hasn't really been mentioned already. (Without wanting to seem self-promoting, I am in the process of writing an article on the wiki here called 'Scoring for strings', which I hope will be of additional help).

- Firstly, you have specified the instrumentation as 'string orchestra and harp'. Since there are many strings and only the one harp, I would expect the harp to have at least some more individual material, or a solo passage, but in this piece it does almost nothing than double the strings, other than perhaps the gliss in bar 77. A more independent part would greater justify its inclusion - see Vaughan Williams' Five Variants of Dives and Lazarus or Ravel's Introduction and Allegro for some inspiration. Even if the harp only plays chords, make use of its brilliant upper register for a colour the strings cannot achieve. There is no point asking for an instrument in your ensemble if others can do its job for it.

- The harp part is always written on a grand staff, even if only one hand is used. In this chamber piece, it would be wise to show the harp at all times even if it not playing for a page or two. And you should always show all the instruments involved on the first page.

- Harpists need to know what pedal settings to tune their instrument too before they are required, although they can change pedals whilst playing, as you probably know. As far as I can see, all the pedal changes in this piece are OK, but you need to write them in on the score - the conductor needs to know as well as the player.

- Bars 15 onwards: Repeating the same note in a short space of time is not encouraged, as the low register here will mean that the harpist has to try and silence the string before re-plucking it due to its resonance. I would suggest elaborating this rather simple figure with the same pitches in other registers to avoid this issue.

- Bar 27: You don't use the harp here, yet it is the loudest part of the piece. Some glissandi could really add a nice colouristic touch, even though the harp cannot compete in volume witht he full strings.

- Similarly, in the following quiet bars, soft bisbligando would augment the string tremolos wonderfully.

- Bar 77: It's best to write just the pedal settings, the start and end notes of the glissando and let the harpist do the rest. Yes, I know it won't playback in Sibelius, but you can write out the glissando like you do here and then hide it if you want the sound.

-Bar 93: Following the previous faster figure, it's not that easy to get eight fingers round those closely spaced notes, and it's in a rather bland register of the instrument. The rich resonance of the low register would be very effective here, but whatever you do, space the chord out a bit more.

Be aware, also that harpists will often take liberties with parts, for example rolling chords even if it is not indicated, adding extra notes and elaborating glissandi.

WECA - Good points but I agree with Christopher that if the dynamics are sorted out then this will have a very lush sound. I abstained from making comments on the string orchestra writing as this is not my expertise - I have written strings in a chamber setting. This may be one part of the problem with the piece - it is written more as a chamber string piece rather than string orchestra. Yet I know Tokke can write weel for string orchestra, so that is another reason why I didn't go into it - I figured he wrote this in one day so it will need revision. Yeah too about the cello parts i recall seeing they were in quite a brilliant range competing against the violins - glad you mentioned that.

Tokke - don't get too discouraged by all of this. Much good info and honestly I think just adjusting the range you have some of the parts and balancing the dynamics will be a huge help in clarifying this piece.

I disagree; this approach, while it may help, may also be limiting. I do think you need to take a look/listen at some of the great string material out there. However, since I am a great believer in the power of the workaround (I'll explain in a second), go for pieces that you like the sound of - pieces that include string writing that you want to learn to emulate. For this ensemble, I'd suggest Copland's Concerto for Clarinet and String Orchestra; other than the clarinet, it is the ensemble you're working with. Aurally, the effects you seem to be going for in this piece are similar to a lot of mid/late-early 20th-Century composers of the "Boulanger" school - Barber, Copland, et al.

Bar 7 - 15 in Cello 1 - consider changing to tenor clef. Ledger lines suck. :P

Bar 77 - the harp gliss can be notated by writing the first full-octave of notes (to show pedal positions) followed by a wavy gliss line to the ending pitch. If you want playback to still work, just hide the remaining notes and the tuplet.

Now, the "workaround" thing. Weca makes some good points re: range and volume. However, that's only taking into account raw pitch and registration. With a little more focus on dynamics and extended techniques, it's perfectly possible to attenuate the parts so that the ones you want will come out. Most of your dynamics in this score are across-the-board - all the parts are playing at the same volume. This does present a problem if they're playing in the same range, so you might want to go back and take a minute to lower the volume on the non-foregrounded part. It might even be effective to go through your score and use Schoenberg's "HS" and "NS" (hauptstimme and nebenstimme) markings to articulate to yourself where you want voices to be stronger and weaker. It does take significantly more attention and care, especially if you want each part to have its own melodic significance, but I trust you'll be able to work it out.

Also - I don't see any parts in the score where the violas are divisi in three...

I get what you mean. However, I think it is best for someone like Justin to stick within models. He usually does that anyway.

In the interest of being helpful.

Look at Bach's works for solo strings.

Look at Kreutzer and Paganini's books of etudes.

Look at Bart

WECA - Good points but I agree with Christopher that if the dynamics are sorted out then this will have a very lush sound.

Players don't see each others' dynamic indications. Two sections sitting next to each other marked mp and mf respectively will end up playing the same volume.

Orchestration constitutes dynamics, especially for violin/viola/cello which have such wide registers and thus such a wide range of INTENSITY across their "overtone series" (not exactly the right word since each string has its own overtone series, but whatever). If you orchestrate something in the intense register, it WILL sound intense, and no amount of writing "pp" will keep it from covering up a solo in another section's duller register.

You can't band-aid unbalanced orchestration with dynamics.

The idea is to orchestrate in such a way that you could use "block dynamics" (all sections mf, f or p) and it would work out decently.

Players don't see each others' dynamic indications. Two sections sitting next to each other marked mp and mf respectively will end up playing the same volume.

I don't know what crap orchestra you've been involved with.

But.

Good orchestras pay attention to the big picture.

Especially with conductors.

Use dynamics. Write the actual -music- so that what you want comes across, but. Use dynamics also.

Hmm, Belkin agrees (orchestration text from the masterclass here):

The best rule for a beginner is: Orchestrate your dynamics instead of just writing them as textual indications.... act as though there are only four dynamic levels: pp, mf, f, and ff. First, orchestrate the passage so that the absolute dynamic level desired results naturally from the choice of instruments and registers. Second, think of dynamics as character indications. Choose which dynamic of the above four best suits the passage. Third, avoid the middle dynamics (mp, mf) as starting points: these are what players do when there are no dynamics notated at all. Finally, beginners should avoid writing different dynamics for different instruments; this requires a great deal of experience: Players normally do not see each others' dynamic indications, and normally aim for approximate balance, unless the conductor specifies otherwise.

Yes a conductor could make sure the players are aware of subtle differences but seriously, it is like putting a band aid on a band aid and the sound will still be worse than if you had just orchestrated your dynamics.

These aren't horrible mistakes for a piece he wrote in ONE NIGHT, something I could never do, but he should definitely revise the piece if he wants it performed.

Hmm, Belkin agrees (orchestration text from the masterclass here):

Yes a conductor could make sure the players are aware of subtle differences but seriously, it is like putting a band aid on a band aid and the sound will still be worse than if you had just orchestrated your dynamics.

These aren't horrible mistakes for a piece he wrote in ONE NIGHT, something I could never do, but he should definitely revise the piece if he wants it performed.

Weca is right, and QC ALWAYS harped on that.

Read.

Use dynamics. Write the actual -music- so that what you want comes across, but. Use dynamics also.

Half-sentence number 2.

What he's citing is right. Though he isn't communicating very strongly what is meant. I'll just say the Belkin is right then.

In a very traditional piece like this I tend to agree. But of course that doesn't apply in a lot of other music, where the performers don't have the same expectations of "balance" and such clear preconceptions about how a piece is "supposed" to sound.

If an orchestra plays a contemporary piece where quite obviously different dynamics are intended for different instruments, it's nothing but sloppiness to ignore them, and any reasonable conductor would see to it that they are executed as written. And really, stuff like "avoid middle dynamics as starting points" falls under the exact same category. If you want someone to play mezzopiano, then write a mezzopiano and have some trust in the conductor/performers.

Belkin certainly knows what he's talking about in a traditional context - but then, his text is very conservative throughout and many things wouldn't apply like that for a professional contemporary orchestra playing a contemporary piece.

Belkin certainly knows what he's talking about in a traditional context - but then, his text is very conservative throughout and many things wouldn't apply like that for a professional contemporary orchestra playing a contemporary piece.

I love your what if's... along with Voce's... But obviously, with this music in mind, there is anything out of the ordinary. I don't think the composer is the kind of person to deviate from that either.

BTW: the idea of overlaying the written notes actually comes from Scott Smalley (Hollywood orchestrator and son of Jack Smalley). He calls it the "Z clef" and recommends that strings be within a sixth of each other on the Z clef to blend well. One thing I maybe explained poorly about his idea is that it's only about creating blending sounds. If you want to foreground a line then it's good to write it such that it stands out on the Z clef.

You can do use the Z clef with most of the other instruments too. The idea is that most instruments are transposed so as to be MOSTLY within the staff (for the convenience of the player), thus overlaying them is more or less the same as overlaying their overtone series.

This one unifying concept explains why horns above the staff punch through (because they are in the highest, strained part of their series), why cello solos on the A string succeed, etc.