Submission Information:
Series: Other
Game: CrossCode
Console: PC
Title: Valse d'Ahoge
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Greg (https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=2231)
[attachment deleted by admin]
Some stuff i noticed:
m. 4 sounds like you should have a diminished chord in the bass, not just a minor
m. 37 sounds like the melody ends on an A, not a D
m. 48 sounds like the bass chord should be Gm7 now, not Gm9
m. 54's first chord should be an augmented chord (just like m. 2)
Thanks for catching those!
CrossCode arrangements for the CrossCode god!
Formatting-wise, the margins need a little adjustment I think. The top and bottom margins should be 0.5 (and then the title, copyright, subtitle, page numbers etc. should be brought inside those margins.) Then for the measure distribution (which seems to be finale default again) I think it should be five systems on the first page and four on the second with an even six bars per system (the uniformity of the arrangement lends itself to a uniform distribution I think). Also, I've mentioned this before I think, but remember to lock measures! It helps enormously when sorting out the distribution of an arrangement.
Other things:
-In the right hand the section bars 19-33 adds in what I believe is a third harmony beneath the melody line that would be nice to get in I feel. That we get a sense of progression from the previous 3-18 section and it matches the original better.
-We need double barlines at bars 34 and 42 for the key signature changes.
-The notes seem there to me, but the inversions of the chords are off in places so I'd recommend fiddling with the voicings to get the correct bass notes (as those are the most important notes). I'm thinking things like F# in the bass in bar 8, Dn in bar 10, Bn in bar 46 etc.
-The quaver arpeggio pattern I think is the most tricky bit, in my opinion. At the moment we have it dropping in and out which gives the arrangement a bit of a wonky sound (particularly when it cuts out). To alleviate that wonky-ness I think the thing to do is to try and work the pattern in more consistently, though there are a lot of ways you could go about doing that. The other option would be to cut it out entirely, but I feel like the arrangement might lose too much that way. Still, have a go at incorporating it more (you can always shift the octaves around if that helps because the most important thing here is the contour of the pattern and the rhythm itself) and ask if you need more concrete suggestions.
-A related point, but I don't think the second right hand voice warrants small noteheads as the melody can be clearly made out as the top voice.
-The second layer quaver rests (bars 3-4, 19-20) could be brought up to their usual height, and I would recommend that.
-It might just be me but I find the swapping between mp and f a little confusing in the 36-42 section, but I'm not really clear on a better way to notate it. Might be worth seeing if anyone else has thoughts on that section? Even if we're sticking with that, the mp in bar 37 should begin on beat 2.5 not 1 to fit with everywhere else.
-In bar 42 you notate the bass note as the optional one in that chord, but to keep the harmony correct it should really be the top note bracketed. Especially since the right hand is also playing a Bb at the moment anyway.
Thanks for looking it over.
- whoops I totally missed that... I think I got all of it this time? Maybe? It's kinda hard to tell, honestly.
- Sure.
- It does sound better this way (I was prioritizing getting the upper notes correct before). There's one incorrect inversion left in m.30 which I left intentionally to get a bassier sound.
- I did... stuff. It's still a bit weird but it's better than before at least. If you've got any suggestions I'd love to hear 'em.
- Sure.
- oops
- I'm not clear on the best way to notate this either. It's basically an echo so maybe using that word? (Although I'd have to stick it above each occurrence of the mp anyway so that's not much of an improvement.) As for the bar 37 mp that was intentionally placed since the piano drops out for that note leaving the mp backing only. I'd be fine with moving it in line with the other dynamics for simplicity's sake, though.
- Good call, pretty sure I just added the bass note last and that's why I bracketed it.
Sorry for taking a while to respond, been thinking about this on and off.
Quote from: Greg on April 24, 2019, 10:54:40 PMI did... stuff. It's still a bit weird but it's better than before at least. If you've got any suggestions I'd love to hear 'em.
I myself am not 100% sure what to do with the arpeggio pattern, but I'm thinking that particularly bar 14 we should bring it an octave down to below the melody. I think that at the moment the melody is probably going to get lost under that particular figure. Might be worth seeing what someone else thinks, but perhaps we've got the best we can do in most places.
Other things I noticed:
-The Fb in bar 20 should be a En (it would also resolve the awkwardness that the proceeding natural sign brings.)
-The triplet semiquavers in bar 23 might be better as grace notes (like the ones in bar 3). Also I think slurring the grace notes onto the following note would be a good idea throughout the sheet.
-Something that might be worthwhile trying is in to write the two alternating voices in bars 35-42 as two separate voices on the sheet. That might help make it more clear how the dynamics apply to them and would help the performer see the call and response nature of that section.
Quote from: Libera on May 05, 2019, 04:24:25 PM-The triplet semiquavers in bar 23 might be better as grace notes (like the ones in bar 3). Also I think slurring the grace notes onto the following note would be a good idea throughout the sheet.
I think I'd actually prefer to change bar 3 here and convert the grace notes into actual notes, since they take up a pretty well-defined amount of rhythmic space. I agree they should be consistent, though! For now I left them as-is in case people have dissenting opinions.
Took care of the other stuff you mentioned.
Intro should look like this
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/4mZbIuH.jpg)
When you want a dynamic to only apply to one hand, put it above the staff (like m35-42) please put the dynamic above the staff. This was incredibly confusing as it was written because of that.
And here we come to my main issue with this piece. The chord inversions you have are just
weird. The 4th note you've added to a bunch of them doesn't really ever show up. In m11-12 you have this:
(https://i.imgur.com/EKK4s9K.jpg)
A literal transcription would look like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/c008jgl.jpg)
What you have tries to capture the notes of the original, but by trying to avoid the RH, you completely lose the shape of the accompaniment in the process. Stuff like this happens throughout the piece.
And that brings me to my final point: I'm honestly not sure how much the 2nd layer adds to the song. It's distorted where it has to change octaves at seemingly random times and cuts in and out. In addition, it makes the song exponentially harder to play. It's up to you if you want to keep it, but I'm not sure it's worth it.
I don't mind what octave you place the right hand at the start, but I agree with Maelstrom regarding the left.
For your chromatic notes, pay closer attention to the resolutions. Whenever you have a C major to C augmented progression, the chromatic line should be spelled G>G#, not Ab, since it eventually resolves on the A of the F major chord. (Contrast measure 54, in which the Ab resolves down to G.) Similarly, the diminished chord in measure 4 and elsewhere should be spelled F-G#-Bn; again, if you look at the individual lines, you'll see that the A and C of the F major chord dip down a semitone before rising back to their initial position.
When you have non-staccato note followed by a staccato (e.g. the melody in measures 5–6, consider slurring the first note to the second; it just makes everything more clear for the interpret—without this, it can look as though you simply forgot to write the staccato on one of the notes.) Similarly, when you have contrasting articulations juxtaposed with each other like in measures 11 and 12, consider adding a slur to the legato idea to emphasize this difference in articulation.
I believe the top note of beat one in measure 45 should be a C, not an Eb (the echo does go up to Eb in the following measure); the motif here is a fourth down and a repeated note, which is mirrored in measure 38 with a perfect fourth up and a repeated note.
Consider moving all the echo lines up an octave here, to give it a distinct timbre that sets it apart from the melody; they're somewhat confounded here. (Similarly, I think you could have the line in measure 49 at its original height for colour.)
Finally, you might want to go over your left hand chord voice-leading to make it a little smoother, even if it doesn't necessarily follow the original 100% accurately.
Updated, sorry about the delay. I had some trouble reconciling Libera and Maelstrom's feedback with the LH, hopefully I struck a reasonable balance. The voice leading should be smoother now, instead of sticking closely to the original and abruptly jumping when it becomes impossible to do that.
Some specific comments:
Quote from: Maelstrom on May 06, 2019, 05:49:57 PMAnd that brings me to my final point: I'm honestly not sure how much the 2nd layer adds to the song. It's distorted where it has to change octaves at seemingly random times and cuts in and out. In addition, it makes the song exponentially harder to play. It's up to you if you want to keep it, but I'm not sure it's worth it.
I'd like to keep it if at all possible, the piece sounds pretty flat and boring without it. Maybe mark it as optional somehow? I did change m.13 to reduce the amount of screwy jumping in that part.
Quote from: D3ath3657 on May 12, 2019, 12:52:07 PMI believe the top note of beat one in measure 45 should be a C, not an Eb (the echo does go up to Eb in the following measure); the motif here is a fourth down and a repeated note, which is mirrored in measure 38 with a perfect fourth up and a repeated note.
I still hear an Eb there, although after listening again it might be coming from a different instrument? I think it's still prominent enough to leave in though. Honestly it works fine anyway like this, since it matches the echo immediately afterwards.
Quote from: D3ath3657 on May 12, 2019, 12:52:07 PMConsider moving all the echo lines up an octave here, to give it a distinct timbre that sets it apart from the melody; they're somewhat confounded here. (Similarly, I think you could have the line in measure 49 at its original height for colour.)
Really like this idea, thanks for suggesting it.
In the time since I last checked this sheet, I started playing the game. And a fun game it is.
Anyway, the sheet:
let's start with the LH:
-m5-6 should look like this:
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/NBhzWHf.jpg)
-m13 - delete the D in the first chord to emphasize the lowering of the notes the accordion is playing.
-m16 - the lowest voice isn't present here, so delete that low C. It's supposed to sound incomplete
-m37 beat 3 - that Eb should actually be an E natural.
-m40 - I'm hearing no change between the 1st and 2nd cord. Just move that C down to a Bb and it'll be fine.
-m44 - hearing no change as well; the second chord seems to be the correct one here.
-m45 - I'm hearing the exact same chords here as b3 from m44. There's no change in them between the two measures
-m47-49 - all chords except for b3 of m49 should be identical to the chord on b3 of m48. Also b2 of m50
-m51-52 chords should all be Ab-Db-F, including the one in b3 of the RH in m52
You've got a few accidental issues here and there. For example, all the flats in m18 should be sharps because it's an augmented chord and a EM chord in the other hand.
I'm running out of steam, but I have one more big suggestion - to indicate that the notes are optional, you can shrink them. That's a common strategy used. For an example, look at the last page of this (https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/download/pdf/4056) sheet.
I changed most of the stuff, but some I listened to again and still hear things as I wrote them, hopefully that's alright:
Quote from: Maelstrom on June 16, 2019, 11:01:02 AM-m40 - I'm hearing no change between the 1st and 2nd cord. Just move that C down to a Bb and it'll be fine.
-m45 - I'm hearing the exact same chords here as b3 from m44. There's no change in them between the two measures (I did invert the chords here to be more in line with m.44 but kept the C#)
-m47-49 - all chords except for b3 of m49 should be identical to the chord on b3 of m48. Also b2 of m50 (these chords still sound different to me, especially in measure 48)
Thanks for the feedback, glad you're also enjoying the game.
Just a few remaining accidentals:
- The layer two Abs in measures 4 and 20 should be G#s.
- The A#s in measure 18 should be Bbs; to the ear, there's only a major second interval, but you're still apreggiating a C7(#5) chord: C-E-G#-Bb.
as well as two notes I hear differently:
- I'm pretty sure the first note of the right-hand arpeggio in measure 16 is a Bb.
- Likewise, I'm positive the right hand in measure 37 plays an Eb (over the En in the bass).
Lovely piece!
Done, done, done, and done. Thanks for looking over it again!
RH time:
Melody line:
m37 - Chord should be Bb-D-A on beat 1
And now, for the long awaited feedback on the 2nd layer on page 1.
Simply put, I don't like it. I don't like it at all. To start, it's really unnatural to play. The fingering required is horrible. For example, the only way to somewhat connect the 2nd layer in m6 is to play beat 3 with a 2nd finger on the C and 5th on the C an octave higher. I don't think you need a piano to figure out that's really uncomfortable. There's the option to "simply not play it" but in that case, what's it even doing in the sheet if no one will or even can play it? Not to mention the notes are completely changed in m7 and especially 8, where the change in the last 2 2nd layer notes can't be demonstrated by the inversion you chose. Of course, there's also the issue of it muddling the melody, no matter how you slice it. Like in m5, where the melody moves to a note right as the 2nd layer leaves it, taking away the change in pitch because it was just played already. Then there's places like m21 where it just gets confused and messy. I know your biggest argument was that the song would sound too empty without it. I disagree. The original has that 2nd layer as a much quieter background layer that's hard to discern in places at all. It's not a big part of the original and the original would work just as fine without it. So, why can't the piano do the same? This isn't to say I'd argue for it being 100% removed. It still serves an important role in m16-18 and it should stay in there at the very least. What do you think? Try playing it on a piano and see if you can get what I'm saying.
Finally got back to this: you're absolutely right, so I cut most of that part out. Also made some improvements to m.29-30 to improve playability.
looks solid
Sweet, just some boring stuff left from me.
-The left margin should be larger than 0.5 in case people want to hole punch sheets. Something around 0.6-0.7 usually works fine.
-Could all the systems on the second page be brought a little lower? They're kinda close to the page number and subtitle at the moment and there's plenty of white space at the bottom to move into.
-The 8vas could do with starting a little more to the left to better cover the notes. Especially important here to make those contrasting lines clearer!
It'll be good to wrap this one up!
You got it.
Weeeee.
This submission has been accepted by Libera (https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=5291).
~Zeta, your friendly NSM-Bot