Eternal

Well, I'm past my writer's block and finally completed (at least the musical 'concept', if you will) my work, Eternal.

I wanted some initial feedback from anyone interested in giving it. You can save your comments on the score... it's not finished. I'm considering a full orchestration, but I'm so taken by the strings I might just leave it as a string ensemble and orchestrate it that way.

Just a word about the piece. It's probably the most personal, emotional piece I've ever written. My wife's mother (54) passed away in April, her niece (4 months) died in May, and this has undoubtedly been a very difficult year for us. I began this work before things became so awful, but the more things got worse, the more this piece began to grow within me.

There's no real 'effect' I'm going for here. It's simply a piece about all the things that carry on after we're gone... that in some small or large way, we leave some of ourselves behind in the memory of others. In that way, there is no end. And that's the way I'd like to remember my life when I'm nearing the end... when I remember that we are Eternal in the way we live with and treat one another.

So, hopefully that explains the piece. I also hope it carries some meaning for others, if not about 'life' then at least about something deeply personal and important to you.

Listen to the Finale/GarritanVST Recording

EDIT: Now arranged for full orchestra. The Orchestral Score is provided below:

Finale 2008a - [Eternal for Orchestra].pdf

Very beautiful piece, I can really hear the emotion and feelings in it all, from the soothing melancholy to the powerful dissonance.

The entire song gives me a picture of someone at a graveyard, possibly at a funeral of a loved one, with their thoughts jumping around through sadness to happiness of good memories and then back to the realisation that they have lost someone, with those last few dissonant chords.

On a lighter note, it reminds me quite a bit of music from "The legend of zelda". I think it could fit well into a video game ;)

Thanks for sharing it :)

-Jake

I wondered why I saw a empty piano and horn bar when it only for strings when I reread your initial post it was a draft and further to be orchestrated. So no comments anymore.

I feld the way you divided some chord between the strings was a bit strange, but i'm no expert... Look at ms 5 and 7: the second voice is played by the first and the second violins. (an A and a G) Why?

I understand in ms 11 yo want the melody to be stronger and therefore put it in both viola and cello. But I think the rest is getting too thin, out of balance. But maybe this is the etheral effect you want? I think it is in balance at ms 66 where you put the melody in octaves ff.

Sometimes the viola and cello play in unison or in ocatves, but in the same frase separate. I think here are some balance questions as well...

Overall, I did not get the harmonies yo wrote, but I dont think it does really matter for me to comment ;)

Keep on

I felt the way you divided some chord between the strings was a bit strange, but I'm no expert... Look at ms 5 and 7: the second voice is played by the first and the second violins. (an A and a G) Why?

I'm playing around with the thinness/airy-ness of the texture there. I'll likely make a change to that in the end, but the ethereal sound is what I'm going for, and doubling actually helps to create the effect I was going for in the beginning.

I understand in ms 11 yo want the melody to be stronger and therefore put it in both viola and cello. But I think the rest is getting too thin, out of balance. But maybe this is the etheral effect you want? I think it is in balance at ms 66 where you put the melody in octaves ff.

I'll keep that in mind. Again, it's all a play on that thinness/thickness of the sound. I'll take a look at it, though.

Sometimes the viola and cello play in unison or in octaves, but in the same phrase separate. I think here are some balance questions as well...

Can you be more specific? Are you referring to ms 72-74 as an example?

Overall, I did not get the harmonies yo wrote, but I don't think it really matters for me to comment ;)

Keep on

The opening is generally quartal and quintal harmonies (through ms 10), then you have a 'duet' between viola and cello (ms 11). Then you have some inverted triadic harmony (mm 24-67). The quartal/quintal harmonies come back forming a sort of 'bitonality' (mm 68-75).

Note: Bitonality as I am using the term is not referring to pitch or 'tonal' centers. It refers to two different harmonic contexts overlapping upon one another or working with/against each other in 'progression'.

The harmonic tension is released for a few measures (mm 76-80) before the tension returns to reinforce that 'bitonality' with an F#Maj (A# in the bass, first inversion triad) stacked with a suspension of the quartal harmony (Bb G -> B F# over C# F#) that resolves after the rest (mm 82-84). Does that help?

Can you be more specific? Are you referring to ms 72-74 as an example?

yep.

And ms 11. I would add: if you call that a duet I won't start in unisono. Why not give the cello some rests?

The opening is generally quartal and quintal harmonies (through ms 10), then you have a 'duet' between viola and cello (ms 11). Then you have some inverted triadic harmony (mm 24-67). The quartal/quintal harmonies come back forming a sort of 'bitonality' (mm 68-75).

...The harmonic tension is released for a few measures (mm 76-80) before the tension returns to reinforce that 'bitonality' with an F#Maj (A# in the bass, first inversion triad) stacked with a suspension of the quartal harmony (Bb G -> B F# over C# F#) that resolves after the rest (mm 82-84). Does that help?

Yeah this helped. I just recently discovered quartal harmonies. I just stack as many quints (usually 5) until there is a tertiary chord with added 2nd and 6th, or 5 quartals give a tertiary chord with added 4th and 7th :)

I go and take a look, because I am interested in enriching the common practice harmonies

I thought the 1st minute was quite beautiful and interesting, but i found the next 4 minutes didnt hold my interest. I just thought it didnt develop into anything.

I thought the 1st minute was quite beautiful and interesting, but i found the next 4 minutes didnt hold my interest. I just thought it didnt develop into anything.

Sorry that it didn't hold your interest. Would you care to explain why you think "it didn't develop into anything?" It's a qualitative comment about the work, so I hope you realize you're not just saying, "Hey, I didn't like it."

The piece develops at the gestural level. In other words, the smaller linear elements that make up the melody develop quite a bit. I'm quite sure I can show you where this happens in various sections of the work. But I have a hunch that you felt that it 'didn't develop' into anything because of my choice regarding form and growth in the work.

Overall, the form is not my concern... this is a meditation of sorts... so I really wanted a continuous, connected idea from beginning to end with the 'ethereal' sound to bookend the melodic and harmonic material within. The piece may feel like it doesn't 'develop' into anything because of this decision to work independently from traditional kinds of forms in this particular piece.

So, thanks for listening. Sorry you didn't 'like' the piece.

Very beautiful piece, I can really hear the emotion and feelings in it all, from the soothing melancholy to the powerful dissonance.

The entire song gives me a picture of someone at a graveyard, possibly at a funeral of a loved one, with their thoughts jumping around through sadness to happiness of good memories and then back to the realisation that they have lost someone, with those last few dissonant chords.

On a lighter note, it reminds me quite a bit of music from "The legend of zelda". I think it could fit well into a video game ;)

Thanks for sharing it :)

-Jake

Thank you, Jake. Sorry I didn't respond sooner to say thanks. I don't think I will be using this piece for anything commercially, but it won't preclude me from using some of these ideas in future works. So, I'll certainly keep that in mind. :)

I enjoyed it. I agree with your initially stated intention to maybe keep it to the strings. Given the sentiment behind the piece, I'm not sure addition of piano, horn, or anything else, to the string choir is appropriate.

What I mean is that the addition of other (inevitably distinctive) voices to the choir you have built the piece around would probably take it away from where it's supposed to be. You'd then be into the notion of different entities somehow vying with each other, and I think that would detract. IMHO, the unity of the string choir is the right realm for this piece.

My condolences.

Sorry for my rather short comment, no no i wasnt meaning anything to do with form, as regards to that, i think from beginning to end you make a cohesive structure, i listened to it a few more times before coming back. For me listening to it, as i said i really enjoyed the 1st minute, but then those next 3mins for me just seem to be stuck in some muddy ditch. Its hard to describe, its like there wasnt any momemtum, it sounded a bit plodding.

Now what i liked about the 1st min comes back again from 4mins onwards and i enjoyed it again, i just felt those middle 3mins seemed to lose focus.

I hope i explained myself better, and im glad i listened to piece a few more times and got a bit more out if it.

I enjoyed it. I agree with your initially stated intention to maybe keep it to the strings. Given the sentiment behind the piece, I'm not sure addition of piano, horn, or anything else, to the string choir is appropriate.

What I mean is that the addition of other (inevitably distinctive) voices to the choir you have built the piece around would probably take it away from where it's supposed to be. You'd then be into the notion of different entities somehow vying with each other, and I think that would detract. IMHO, the unity of the string choir is the right realm for this piece.

My condolences.

I've added full orchestration to the work, actually. In some ways you're right. Some of the timbres seem to be vying with each other. But in a weird way, a lot of the orchestration blends itself really well to the overall motion of the work... like a continuous wave of different colors phasing in and out. I'll post the score in a bit... still tweaking some things.

I loved the opening chords in the high violin register, they reminded me of stars. I'm very interested as to how you got that sound.

The whole piece moved like air which was great, however I'm not sure where you got the name eternal from. For me at least it felt more like some light, wispy, something or other than something eternal.

I really liked it though, sorry I can't give more in depth feedback, I don't have enough knowledge of theory or composition to do that yet.

I loved the opening chords in the high violin register, they reminded me of stars. I'm very interested as to how you got that sound.

Thanks. I'd recommend looking at the score to see what pitches I used. Generally, I used quartal/quintal harmony... stacking pitches by perfect fourth and perfect fifth intervals. I heard the highest pitch in my head... I experimented with the rest of the pitches by working down. Hope that helps.

The whole piece moved like air which was great, however I'm not sure where you got the name eternal from. For me at least it felt more like some light, wispy, something or other than something eternal.

I really liked it though, sorry I can't give more in depth feedback, I don't have enough knowledge of theory or composition to do that yet.

I appreciate your thoughts on the piece no matter what your theoretical knowledge or compositional experience is... which you don't really need to have an impression of "some light, wispy, something or other"... we all get something different from music. Thanks for listening.

- didnt sign where to play divisi or double stops...

- two low note for double bass at measure 11...D.B is sounds an octave lower than written....

This is my critique at first glance, but since I have things to do I will continue my comment later

Ps: I didnt listen to piece yet only saw the score...

- didnt sign where to play divisi or double stops...

- two low note for double bass at measure 11...D.B is sounds an octave lower than written....

This is my critique at first glance, but since I have things to do I will continue my comment later

Ps: I didnt listen to piece yet only saw the score...

Finale is funky like that... I had the score set to Concert, not Transposed. Finale just left the Double Bass 8vb, so you're seeing the sounding pitch, not the written one.

Also, the score (like I said in the OP) is not even close to final. I'll put up my orchestral mock-up here shortly. I'll also correct the String Version and upload the revision. And the Divisi stuff... that's editing stuff I just haven't done. I'll get to it eventually. I'm more interested in opinions on the music than the score, honestly. Just so you know...

Ok I listened to it. Its kinda beautiful and full with emotion, but not going anywhere if your understand...(I bet not, nevermind)...it says nothing to me in this form despite the fact I like it...it appears to me a bit random, sound like an accompaniment...anyway good.:thumbsup:

I added the score for Orchestra to the original post. The Harp gives the piece more motion, I think.

I'll update the VST rendering later (or add it as a separate listening option).

EDIT: Added... again, go here.

Eternal for Strings - It was really beautiful. I just feel that the part between the into and the climax could use some more work, to just make sure it doesn't get boring. However that beautiful climax was worth it!! I also loved the ending chord.

For Orchestra - Great job orchestrating! It's really nice!

Ok. I do need to point out a few things though. About the composition and score.

Composition:

Flutes. AHH!!!! Mes 64. No matter how beautiful this piece is, you can't write for flute that high. Add a piccolo if you want notes that high. You're asking for the tippy top of the range. 1) it WON'T sound pretty, 2) The fingerings are awkward so it's more complex then it needs to be. I'm sure you get what I mean haha. I mean, adding a Pic will solve that, but don't write stuff like that haha! That's just the flutes, however I'm sure there are more range issues in this bit. Especially around 64 and onwards.

Score - It's a good try, but it needs work. You need to explain that the bass is de-tuned to a D, as they won't know that. There are clashes everywhere. Try to give everything enough space so it doesn't clash with another symbol Eg. Bar 62, Clarinet 1 and Oboe 2.

I'm not an expert, so those are only a few things, but I mean. Yea. It's a really beautiful piece, so keep going with it. WELL DONE!!

Flutes. AHH!!!! Mes 64. No matter how beautiful this piece is, you can't write for flute that high. Add a piccolo if you want notes that high. You're asking for the tippy top of the range. 1) it WON'T sound pretty, 2) The fingerings are awkward so it's more complex then it needs to be. I'm sure you get what I mean haha. I mean, adding a Pic will solve that, but don't write stuff like that haha! That's just the flutes, however I'm sure there are more range issues in this bit. Especially around 64 and onwards.

Yeah, good point for that passage of sixteenth note six-tuplets. What I think I'll do is remove the 8va from those specific measures and put the second flute on piccolo for that one part... and beyond... or I might just have both flutes change to piccolos for that part. That's not exactly common (both flutes to piccolo, that is), but it might just be better for that part to change them over.

Score - It's a good try, but it needs work. You need to explain that the bass is de-tuned to a D, as they won't know that. There are clashes everywhere. Try to give everything enough space so it doesn't clash with another symbol Eg. Bar 62, Clarinet 1 and Oboe 2.

I'm not an expert, so those are only a few things, but I mean. Yea. It's a really beautiful piece, so keep going with it. WELL DONE!!

I spent a while trying to get Finale to re-space those staves. Since not everyone plays there, I thought that with the optimization I'd get the staves to automatically respace to fit the page... but argh! Sometimes Finale makes no sense. Got any suggestions for that?

Yeah, good point for that passage of sixteenth note six-tuplets. What I think I'll do is remove the 8va from those specific measures and put the second flute on piccolo for that one part... and beyond... or I might just have both flutes change to piccolos for that part. That's not exactly common (both flutes to piccolo, that is), but it might just be better for that part to change them over.

I spent a while trying to get Finale to re-space those staves. Since not everyone plays there, I thought that with the optimization I'd get the staves to automatically respace to fit the page... but argh! Sometimes Finale makes no sense. Got any suggestions for that?

Unfortunately the only thing I can suggest is get Sibelius haha!

Unfortunately the only thing I can suggest is get Sibelius haha!

I made updates to the score. The new file is attached.

Its beautiful...but there are a few errors in the score:

- If you used concert pitch, than that high G for the 1st Horn is above its range, if not you should sign that with changing the key (only for the horns) to G, it shows you are not in concert pitch...you can't just write that "transposed score"...

(also for the other instruments (in C major):

F horn: G (1 sharp)

B instruments: D (2 sharps) ˙<-- Trumpets, Clarinet e.g.

Take a look for example at John Williams partituras, usually uses transposed scores ( of course he uses the keys correctly...)

- another error: only write "divisi" to stringed instruments, caouse only for stringed instruments measures that the chord are played as double-stops or not...its pointless to use for examples to horns, they already in divisi (and can only play one note, and cant play a chord as the strings can do)...I saw that you signed that you only want the 3rd horns only or the 1st, its good...but you have to also sign that if you want them play unisono again with "a2"

- Violin 1,2 ; Violin 3,4 <--- wrong, Violin 1 ; Viloin 2 <--- correct

Do you know what double stops mean? A violin player can play 4 notes simultaniously (of course not works with every notes), but when you write divisi, the chords' notes played by the different desks of players so for the stringed instruments you dont have to write Violin 3,4....

- an orchestra usually uses two flute parts and one piccolo...not two piccolos

For first seeing I didnt find more errors...I hope it helps dude

(I can send you JW partituras if needed to see how transposed scores work correctly)

As I said the piece is nice, just take into consideration what I've said about the score :thumbsup:

Its beautiful...but there are a few errors in the score:

- If you used concert pitch, than that high G for the 1st Horn is above its range, if not you should sign that with changing the key (only for the horns) to G, it shows you are not in concert pitch...you can't just write that "transposed score"...

The score is a transposed score, meaning an F Horn sounds a Perfect Fifth lower than it is written. The G as written sounds as a C. It is high for the range, but an F Horn can play that pitch and higher. No staff uses a key signature, but the other parts are just fine as indicated. I see no reason to change the horns to reflect a key signature when no other transposing instrument needs it and the "Transposed Score" at the top clearly indicates that F Horns with a note of 'G' are actually sounding a concert pitch of 'C'.

- another error: only write "divisi" to stringed instruments, cause only for stringed instruments measures that the chord are played as double-stops or not...its pointless to use for examples to horns, they already in divisi (and can only play one note, and cant play a chord as the strings can do)...I saw that you signed that you only want the 3rd horns only or the 1st, its good...but you have to also sign that if you want them play unisono again with "a2"

Horn 1, 3 says the same thing as "a2" but clearer, as does Horn 2, 4. If I put Divisi into the Horn parts, that's just to be overly detailed. I'll go back and fix it if it's really THAT big of a deal.. not that it's really all that confusing. It simply indicates that Horns 1, 3 that are playing a unison line should expect to divide to their respective parts in the upcoming measure.

- Violin 1,2 ; Violin 3,4 <--- wrong, Violin 1 ; Violin 2 <--- correct

I can divide Violins in any number of sections I choose, actually. Dvorak divides the Violins into 8 different parts in some of his works, as does Mahler, Sibelius, and many others. I've never, NEVER heard of restricting that all down to Violin 1 ; Violin 2. Seems kind of petty to me.

Do you know what double stops mean? A violin player can play 4 notes simultaneously (of course not works with every notes), but when you write divisi, the chords' notes played by the different desks of players so for the stringed instruments you don't have to write Violin 3,4....

I know what double stops are...

- an orchestra usually uses two flute parts and one piccolo...not two piccolos

For the sound I need and the reinforcement of the upper register in that climactic moment, I need two piccolos. Most semi-pro flautists will have one of each... if not, well, then we can improvise an alternative approach to make it work if only one piccolo is available. In either case, it's a waste to create different staves for piccolos when flutes can double up on the instrument. Don't you think?

For first seeing I didn't find more errors...I hope it helps dude

(I can send you JW partituras if needed to see how transposed scores work correctly)

As I said the piece is nice, just take into consideration what I've said about the score :thumbsup:

Thanks for the offer of the JW partituras for review... I think some of the things you're mentioning are open to interpretation and possibly somewhat conventional. I'd rather not sacrifice efficiency for convention if that can be helped.

You still dont understand dude I see...You cant write at the top that "Transposed Score"...It works differently and you obviously dont know it how :)

But of course you can ignore all the errors you have in your score and also ignore my help...its your life

"I'd rather not sacrifice efficiency for convention "

Its not about efficiency buddy...its about lack of basic knowledge you have, I just mentioned them...

I suggest you to see more partituras...

...its about lack of basic knowledge you have, I just mentioned them...

I suggest you to see more partituras...

Lack of basic knowledge, or lack of interest or desire in being "conventional"? There's a difference.

For example, it's conventional to use a key signature, however this piece doesn't use a key signature. What is the point of putting French Horns in a key signature in a piece that uses NO KEY SIGNATURE?

It's conventional to give piccolo its own staff. But in a professional setting, that's another player the orchestra must hire to play a part that doesn't play for virtually most of the piece. It's more efficient to have both Flute 1 and Flute 2 double up on Piccolo. That's one less performer the orchestra pays for.

And the Violins? If it's that big of a deal, I can call it Violin 1 ; Violin 2. It makes no sense to me why we should be splitting hairs over that one when all it indicates is that the piece will involve four sections of Violins total. It makes more sense to me to indicate four sections at the beginning.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but you're telling me I 'lack basic knowledge' when I have perfectly practical reasons for doing what I am doing.

I cant take you serious, I cant help sry :toothygrin::toothygrin: