[3DS] Fire Emblem Echoes: Shadows of Valentia - "The Voice That Calls You" by Libera

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Fire Emblem
Game: Fire Emblem Echoes: Shadows of Valentia
Console: Nintendo 3DS
Title: The Voice That Calls You
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Libera

[attachment deleted by admin]

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Libera]

1/3 of the ending music.  Who knows when the other two will come.

[Khunjund]

I have to say, you have a talent for choosing indications of character that put me off, but I can see it working here.

As always, I don't like the con pedale indication, and it also makes your MIDI file really muddy. I know this isn't a big issue, but I just thought I'd point it out.

I feel like your arpeggio sign in measure 8 should be a tiny bit more to the right.

I'd put the dolce under the third beat of measure 8 rather than the first of 9.

I'd remove the slash from the grace note in measure 11, because it's a true appogiatura, unlike the other ones which are slides. I'd also suggest slurring all the grace notes, especially since that's the actual guitar articulation.

You should have a courtesy natural in front of the G in measure 43.

The chord in measure 58 sounds a lot lighter to me than how you have it; I'm pretty sure it's just an Eb-C dyad in the right hand. If you want to add notes, I recommend going for a more open voicing, such as adding a G in the left hand.

[Libera]

I have to say, you have a talent for choosing indications of character that put me off, but I can see it working here.

As always, I don't like the con pedale indication, and it also makes your MIDI file really muddy. I know this isn't a big issue, but I just thought I'd point it out.

Ok.

I feel like your arpeggio sign in measure 8 should be a tiny bit more to the right.

It's fine.

I'd put the dolce under the third beat of measure 8 rather than the first of 9.

I'd remove the slash from the grace note in measure 11, because it's a true appogiatura, unlike the other ones which are slides. I'd also suggest slurring all the grace notes, especially since that's the actual guitar articulation.

Fair.

You should have a courtesy natural in front of the G in measure 43.

I'm good.

The chord in measure 58 sounds a lot lighter to me than how you have it; I'm pretty sure it's just an Eb-C dyad in the right hand. If you want to add notes, I recommend going for a more open voicing, such as adding a G in the left hand.

Yeah I'm pretty sure that's not right.  On further inspection though I don't think the G is in there and I'm just hearing it from the previous bar, so I removed that.

Thanks for looking it over.

[Latios212]

Awesome, I love this song! (Even though I just discovered it yesterday.)

- Probably should list Yuka Tsujiyoko first as she's the original composer. (And maybe move the composer info down from the title a bit.)
- I'd also recommend slurring your grace notes.
- There isn't an F playing in the right hand in m. 16, I'd suggest taking it out especially since the left hand just struck it.
- I think I also have a slight preference for the natural in m. 43, but up to you.
- Measure 12 does a thing similar to m. 20 where the low voice descends so C on beat 3, though more subtly. Up to you on whether to include that or not.
- m. 54 sounds like it stats out on a low F instead of C.
- For the arpeggio in m. 8, just create a bit more room at the beginning of the measure (Measure tool > double click > extra space at beginning, add like 0.05 or something). Maybe in m. 4 too.
- Last chord looks good now!

[Bespinben]

I feel like your arpeggio sign in measure 8 should be a tiny bit more to the right.

It's fine.

I think D3ath is onto something here. There's too little space between the arpeggio and the barline; however, moving the arpeggio to the right would cause near-collision with the accidentals. The solution to this is to add space to the beginning of the measure itself.

• Select either the Selection or Measure tool.
  Right-click the measure and choose Edit Measure Attributes.
  Add a value to the Extra Space at Beginning field; I would recommend about 1/32 inch (0.03125").
  Click OK.

I would also recommend casting-off measure 28 as the last measure of page 1, as it's the only doable place for a page-turn.

[Libera]

New files!  As always, thanks for looking through it!

Awesome, I love this song!

Thanks!  Me too. <3

- Probably should list Yuka Tsujiyoko first as she's the original composer. (And maybe move the composer info down from the title a bit.)

I'd prefer to have them listed alphabetically by last name like I do on all my other sheets for consistency, but I understand the sentiment.

- I'd also recommend slurring your grace notes.

I really dislike articulations under pedal because they make no sense whatsoever to me.  If I was writing for guitar, I'd include them, but there's no way to realise any difference on the piano so I just don't see the point of putting them in.

- There isn't an F playing in the right hand in m. 16, I'd suggest taking it out especially since the left hand just struck it.

Yeah I remember noticing this myself and then I forgot to take it out, thanks for spotting it!

- I think I also have a slight preference for the natural in m. 43, but up to you.

I only really like to use courtesy accidentals in particular cases and I don't feel like this is one of those.

- Measure 12 does a thing similar to m. 20 where the low voice descends so C on beat 3, though more subtly. Up to you on whether to include that or not.

For consistency this makes more sense to me to include.  Thanks!

- m. 54 sounds like it stats out on a low F instead of C.

Whoops.

- For the arpeggio in m. 8, just create a bit more room at the beginning of the measure (Measure tool > double click > extra space at beginning, add like 0.05 or something). Maybe in m. 4 too.

There's too little space between the arpeggio and the barline; however, moving the arpeggio to the right would cause near-collision with the accidentals. The solution to this is to add space to the beginning of the measure itself.

Yeah this makes sense as a solution.  I'm not sure it's really necessary in bar 4 though.

I would also recommend casting-off measure 28 as the last measure of page 1, as it's the only doable place for a page-turn.

I don't think anyone is going to be printing this on one page double sided so I wasn't going to do this, but I found it relatively easy to redistribute everything to accommodate for it so I added it in anyway.

[Altissimo]

Ok.

It's fine.

Fair.

I'm good.

Yeah I'm pretty sure that's not right.  On further inspection though I don't think the G is in there and I'm just hearing it from the previous bar, so I removed that.

Thanks for looking it over.

Non-updater, and someone who recently raised concerns about staff, posts comments/suggestions. You give extremely terse one- or two-word replies and don't even attempt to start discussions, instead just shutting down any attempt at a discussion with replies like "It's good." (with no explanation of why you feel that way?) and "Yeah I'm pretty sure that's not right." which comes across as assholishly condescending and rude, and then you end it with "Thanks for looking it over." despite being extremely noncommittal and dismissive of almost every suggestion offered.

New files!  As always, thanks for looking through it!

Thanks!  Me too. <3

I'd prefer to have them listed alphabetically by last name like I do on all my other sheets for consistency, but I understand the sentiment.

I really dislike articulations under pedal because they make no sense whatsoever to me.  If I was writing for guitar, I'd include them, but there's no way to realise any difference on the piano so I just don't see the point of putting them in.

Yeah I remember noticing this myself and then I forgot to take it out, thanks for spotting it!

I only really like to use courtesy accidentals in particular cases and I don't feel like this is one of those.

For consistency this makes more sense to me to include.  Thanks!

Whoops.

Yeah this makes sense as a solution.  I'm not sure it's really necessary in bar 4 though.

I don't think anyone is going to be printing this on one page double sided so I wasn't going to do this, but I found it relatively easy to redistribute everything to accommodate for it so I added it in anyway.

Responses to two updaters. A very excited "As always, thanks for looking through it!" An attempt to engage in actual discussion by providing rationale for why you do some things the way you do and sometimes pointing out your own little ways of doing things and how they affect the way you write the sheet. Multi sentence feedback.

Death is one of the few, if not just plain only, non updaters on this forum who makes a concerted effort to post feedback on other people's sheets. He is extremely community minded and does so even though he is under no obligation to, not being an updater, and likely has little or no personal investment in the sheets of some others (like I doubt he cares personally about my Hamtaro submissions). To see him treated like this by a staff member, someone who is supposed to be a pillar of the community and a role model for others, is quite frankly infuriating. If you're angry with him for the whole preferential treatment thing - well, it sure as shit isn't helping your case that he's being mistreated by going on to dismiss his comments and generally be kind of condescending and rude. That's very childish of you.

And if you're not acting like this because of the preferential treatment thing - then what for? Is it because he's not an updater and therefore actually taking his suggestions is not necessary to get a sheet on site? In that case, the implication is that advice from community members is all but worthless and no one but an updater should ever bother to give feedback on anything. Is that the kind of community you want to foster here? One where the updaters are the be-all end-all of musical feedback because they have been selected by each other as keepers of the keys to the NSM website, and the advice of others is discouraged simply because they can't approve a sheet?

I suggest you (all!) rethink the way you interact with both Death and the community as a whole.

[Libera]

First of all, thanks Altissimo for calling me out.  It's sometimes easy to just let people do things that you think is wrong without saying anything and it says a lot about you (good things!) that you said something here.

I personally take issue with the manner in which D3ath gives feedback, and I let my annoyance get the better of me in this situation.  I assure you that this is in no way a response to D3ath's preferential treatment thing, neither is this reflective of my views on the community in general to giving feedback.  I haven't had much feedback recently from non-updaters, but if you look at past examples you'll hopefully see what I mean.

All that being said, you're absolutely right that the manner in which I responded last night was childish at best.  It's not reflective of the person I'd like to be, nor of how I should act as a staff member.  It's not a mistake I expect nor intend to make a second time.


@D3ath3657:

I apologise for the way in which I responded to your feedback last night.  The fact that I personally dislike your approach to giving feedback isn't good justification for me to treat you badly in response.  Obviously this would have been better in the first place, but let me give some actual responses to your comments.

I have to say, you have a talent for choosing indications of character that put me off, but I can see it working here.

I guess we have differences on what constitutes a good indication of character.  I actually spend a lot of time on them for all my sheets, so generally speaking I'm very unlikely to want to change them.  I'm glad at least that you can see it working though in this case.

As always, I don't like the con pedale indication, and it also makes your MIDI file really muddy. I know this isn't a big issue, but I just thought I'd point it out.

I like to make it explicitly clear when and where I want pedal.  If you don't see a con pedale indication at the start of one of my sheets, the only time I expect you to use pedal is if I explicitly write it in.  Also I agree that it makes the MIDI muddy, but it's not really a priority for me.  I often take the time to go through the sheet and place hidden pedal markings to make it sound ok, but this wasn't one of those times.

I feel like your arpeggio sign in measure 8 should be a tiny bit more to the right.

If it was more to the right then it would have been too close to the accidentals for my liking.  I hadn't considered adding extra space at the start of the bar, which is what I ended up doing.

I'd put the dolce under the third beat of measure 8 rather than the first of 9.

I'd remove the slash from the grace note in measure 11, because it's a true appogiatura, unlike the other ones which are slides.

Both of these were nice catches and I fixed both of these.  Thanks!

I'd also suggest slurring all the grace notes, especially since that's the actual guitar articulation.

You should have a courtesy natural in front of the G in measure 43.

I don't like writing in articulations over pedal because in my opinion they don't make a whole lot of sense.  The courtesy accidental is something that could be added, but I tend to err on the side of not adding them in if I don't think it's really necessary.

The chord in measure 58 sounds a lot lighter to me than how you have it; I'm pretty sure it's just an Eb-C dyad in the right hand. If you want to add notes, I recommend going for a more open voicing, such as adding a G in the left hand.

There definitely isn't an Eb in this chord, but this was probably just an accident on your part and you meant an En.  As I said previously, looking at this chord again did help me realise that there wasn't a G in it, so thanks for that anyway.


Once again, thanks Altissimo, and I hope that this doesn't colour your perception of me forever.

[Altissimo]

Thanks for being willing to listen to my rant, it actually does mean a lot you took it to heart. No harm done on my end - I can't speak for whether or not everything is fine for Death but far as my complaints are concerned you addressed the issue and made it clear it wasn't one of the things I bitched about, which was important.

[Khunjund]

I personally take issue with the manner in which D3ath gives feedback [...].

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I don't understand. Is it because I said "I'd have done this," instead of "I'd suggest doing this"? I didn't know it would make that big of a difference. I assumed that saying it's what I would have done should have been enough to avoid imposing these changes onto you. (I know this is a poor excuse, but English isn't my first language, so if there is a huge difference in language register between the two forms, I wasn't aware of it.) I'm trying to compare my comment to Latios's, and aside from that (and the formatting—please use the proper BBCode list function REEEE), the only difference I can see is starting with "I love this song!", which frankly, isn't a sentiment I share. Your arrangement is well-done, but I don't find it necessary for others to say that to me, and I didn't find it necessary to say it to you.

I guess we have differences on what constitutes a good indication of character.  I actually spend a lot of time on them for all my sheets, so generally speaking I'm very unlikely to want to change them.

I apologize, that comment about indication of character was my attempt at a joke, or small talk. I now understand how that might have offended you, and maybe you can see why I usually opt to be so serious and direct.

"I can see it working out," was a real understatement: it's very appropriate here—probably even more so than I realize, because I haven't played the game and therefore don't know the context. I can't say that's how I feel about all such indications of yours, unfortunately.

I like to make it explicitly clear when and where I want pedal.

That's exactly why I don't understand why you use it, since con pedale is basically the antithesis of precise pedal notation. I suppose that's not a problem for this sheet, since it's pretty clear that you have to change the pedal every measure and drop it when there's a rest, etc., but in another piece, it might not be so obvious. In any case, I think the arpeggio pattern already communicates the intended pedal usage clearly enough—seriously, I don't know anyone who'd play this kind of accompaniment without pedal. In all honesty, I don't know anyone who'd play any kind of piece without pedal, unless the writing is very contrapuntal and precise (and even there, it can still be used occasionally), or it's specifically written senza pedale, non legato, or something else to that effect.

For example, take the opening measures of "Far Away". If I actually have to interpret that, there's no way I'm playing that without pedal: for measure 1, I'd lower the pedal along with the first note of each slur, and release it just before the second; for measures 2 and 3, I'd change the pedal every two beats, perhaps wiggling it a little at the end of measure 3 to lose a bit of the extra resonance and help with the diminuendo. This allows for clear articulation while still getting that richness in sound the pedal offers, but it's obvious a simple con pedale wouldn't suffice to indicate this. The way I see it, the pedal usage of this type requires one of two courses of action: either notating it precisely (which can get really tedious, but is necessary sometimes), or notating nothing at all and letting other interprets come up with their own solution (which is what I usually go with).

You can keep the con pedale if you disagree, but this is why I don't like it: it's superfluous if the pedal usage is simple and intuitive, and it's useless if the pedal usage is more complex.

If it was more to the right then it would have been too close to the accidentals for my liking.  I hadn't considered adding extra space at the start of the bar, which is what I ended up doing.

Honestly, this was a dumb suggestion on my part, because it really wouldn't have made much of a difference. I hadn't thought of tinkering with measure length either.

I don't like writing in articulations over pedal because in my opinion they don't make a whole lot of sense.

I see it more of a typographical convention than a true articulation, but I've seen unslurred grace notes in a couple professional sheets—even in senza pedale sections—, so it's not a big deal.

Articulations can still be useful even with pedal for indicating the type of attack you want, however, as that still has an effect on the sound.

The courtesy accidental is something that could be added, but I tend to err on the side of not adding them in if I don't think it's really necessary.

I don't understand this either, because I relish placing courtesy accidentals, and you also seemed to favour utmost clarity in your sheets. Sure, sometimes it's rather obvious (it's clear that the G in measure 43 is part of a chromatic descent, so it'd be strange to have a second G#), but taking measure 8 for example, I have seen sheets where a low Gb like that would mean all other Gs in the measure were flat as well, regardless of height.

There definitely isn't an Eb in this chord, but this was probably just an accident on your part and you meant an En.

Yea, for some reason I thought the key was Bb major. I thought about editing it, but I saw you had already replied, and I didn't want there to be inconsistencies between my comment and your quoted text.

[Libera]

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I don't understand. Is it because I said "I'd have done this," instead of "I'd suggest doing this"? I didn't know it would make that big of a difference. I assumed that saying it's what I would have done should have been enough to avoid imposing these changes onto you. (I know this is a poor excuse, but English isn't my first language, so if there is a huge difference in language register between the two forms, I wasn't aware of it.) I'm trying to compare my comment to Latios's, and aside from that (and the formatting—please use the proper BBCode list function REEEE), the only difference I can see is starting with "I love this song!", which frankly, isn't a sentiment I share. Your arrangement is well-done, but I don't find it necessary for others to say that to me, and I didn't find it necessary to say it to you.

Ok, let's see if I can come up with a good way of explaining this.  So yes you're correct that the main difference between Latios' feedback and your own is a slight weakening of the language and the fact that he started it with saying how much he liked the song.  Now I'm not saying that you have to say that you like the piece, or even that you think the arrangement is good when giving feedback, but do you see that the fact that he said that at the start of his message changes the tone completely?  It immediately establishes 'the giver' as being on the same side, as it were, as 'the receiver'.  Saying that you like the piece or the arrangement isn't the only way of softening your tone when giving feedback, there are lots of other things you can do as well.

I apologize, that comment about indication of character was my attempt at a joke, or small talk. I now understand how that might have offended you, and maybe you can see why I usually opt to be so serious and direct.

This is great; making jokes is a great way of seeming more friendly and really brings down the tone of your feedback.  However, on text when you make a joke you need to make it really obvious that's what you're doing.  There are loads of ways of doing that such as emoticons (even a simple :P pretty much eliminates the possibility of anyone misinterpreting a joke as something else), strike through text, over exaggeration (although this one can be a little risky if it doesn't work), actually being funny (if that wasn't clear, that was a joke) and probably other ways I'm not thinking of at the moment. 

Jokes aren't the only thing you can do.  Even mentioning something that isn't directly related to the topic at hand and talking about something other than just the feedback.  That might seem pointless to you, but I assure you that it'll do wonders to how your feedback is received.  Doing these sorts of things make it seem more like it's a real person helping out rather than a robot churning out feedback.  Another thing you can do (which sounds like something you've already worked out a little) is that you can weaken the language you use.  Obviously this is an exaggeration for effect, but saying 'You must fix this.' is pretty clearly a bad way to give feedback.  'I'd do this' and 'I suggest doing this' are pretty similar but I'd say the second one is weaker.  When I'm giving feedback, I tend to try and give a range of statements since that comes across as most natural, but if something is at all up for interpretation, weaker statements are always best.  If you say 'You should change this' and the thing you're talking about is a courtesy accidental, or an articulation, or something similar, then this is going to come across poorly.

Hopefully some of what I said made some sense.  It's certainly not an easy thing by any means.


Anyway, onto responding to the stuff you said.

That's exactly why I don't understand why you use it, since con pedale is basically the antithesis of precise pedal notation. I suppose that's not a problem for this sheet, since it's pretty clear that you have to change the pedal every measure and drop it when there's a rest, etc., but in another piece, it might not be so obvious. In any case, I think the arpeggio pattern already communicates the intended pedal usage clearly enough—seriously, I don't know anyone who'd play this kind of accompaniment without pedal. In all honesty, I don't know anyone who'd play any kind of piece without pedal, unless the writing is very contrapuntal and precise (and even there, it can still be used occasionally), or it's specifically written senza pedale, non legato, or something else to that effect.

True.  I could also write out the first couple of bars with pedal for each bar and then write simile instead.  But I feel like the difference here is pretty minimal.  With regards to the opening bars of Far Away, I would play those without pedal as I have written.  That being said, there's nothing stopping anyone playing my sheets from adding in more pedal where they want to.

Articulations can still be useful even with pedal for indicating the type of attack you want, however, as that still has an effect on the sound.

Yeah I agree and you will see me write accents and such under pedal, but not slurs or things like that.

I don't understand this either, because I relish placing courtesy accidentals, and you also seemed to favour utmost clarity in your sheets. Sure, sometimes it's rather obvious (it's clear that the G in measure 43 is part of a chromatic descent, so it'd be strange to have a second G#), but taking measure 8 for example, I have seen sheets where a low Gb like that would mean all other Gs in the measure were flat as well, regardless of height.

I'm glad you enjoy writing in courtesy accidentals...?  Anyway, that's exactly how I feel about bar 43.  But, you make a great point about bar 8 and I've added that one in.  Nice spot.

[Latios212]

(Just interjecting to say I approve ^^)

[Sebastian]

Looks good. Just one suggestion: I would recommend slurring the grace notes to the next note. I've read in multiple sources that it's a good idea to clearly mark those.

[Libera]

- I'd also recommend slurring your grace notes.

I really dislike articulations under pedal because they make no sense whatsoever to me.  If I was writing for guitar, I'd include them, but there's no way to realise any difference on the piano so I just don't see the point of putting them in.