[SWITCH] Luigi's Mansion 3 - "2F: Mezzanine"
[MUSX] (https://www.dropbox.com/s/pjy2y86vqvbm3k7/Luigi%27s%20Mansion%203%202F%20Mezzanine%20Piano%20Solo.musx?dl=0) [MUS] (https://www.dropbox.com/s/kve89mu003rflvk/Luigi%27s%20Mansion%203%202F%20Mezzanine%20Piano%20Solo.mus?dl=0) [MIDI] (https://www.dropbox.com/s/bkncwkq230kumyy/Luigi%27s%20Mansion%203%202F%20Mezzanine%20Piano%20Solo.midi?dl=0) [PDF] (https://www.dropbox.com/s/zvz4vr5vthwl8gd/Luigi%27s%20Mansion%203%202F%20Mezzanine%20Piano%20Solo%20Final%20-%20Score.pdf?dl=0) [WAV] (https://www.dropbox.com/s/j75aizwzej4nzb9/Luigi%27s%20Mansion%203%20Mezzanine%20Piano%20Solo.wav?dl=0)
I decided to challenge myself a bit by writing this, rather than in B-flat minor (the less extreme option), in the enharmonic key of A♯ minor. This resulted in really challenging part-writing. For example, in measures 11-12. This part of the RH phrase is totally diatonic to A♯ minor, with the exception of the D-double-sharp that ends the phrase. In this case, you might think E♮ makes more sense, and it is certainly easier to read, but if you think tonally, the function of this pitch is actually as a #4, not a ♭5. The non-harmonic tone being accented and the implied resolution up to 5 (E♯) being withheld only serve to complicate this a little more. Tl;dr -- this really tested my theory knowledge.
Because of all the fun accidentals going on, I tried to include courtesies wherever I thought they might be helpful. It's possible I missed some.
Looking forward to finally being a part of this update!
All right I fucked up and this is actually 2F, not 3F, but I'll fix that after getting feedback.
Nice to see Luigi's Mansion 3 getting some more attention!
- I know A# minor is a fun key to work in as an arranger, but I would actually suggest writing this in Bb minor (and later Eb minor) for the benefit of the reader (with a few alterations):
- m7-8: Instead of transposing this to Ebb minor, keep it as D minor like it was in A# minor. I think this more clearly shows the pseudo-dominant functionality it has going back to the Bb minor chord.
- Maybe it's just me being used to flat keys as a brass player, but I think it's way easier to read in this key, like night and day. That Gx major chord is just... Really cumbersome to say the least.
- The left edge of the tempo marking ("Valse") should line up with the left edge of the time signature. It may look like it sticks out too far but this is actually preferred.
- Maybe move the systems down a bit so that the composer/arranger text isn't right next to the title. There's enough space at the bottom to do this.
Really awesome arrangement overall, nice work.
I see, I'll consider the key change. Maybe I got carried away. But also, isn't that part of what makes music so fun is these technical possibilities that aren't terribly practical? (Not to mention even Bach favored some 7-sharp keys over 5-flats in the Well-Tempered Clavier, so it might be good practice for people to look at...)
Thanks for the advice, I'll update the sheet for the formatting later this week regardless of whether I end up changing the key signatures. I'm assuming there aren't any actual pitch errors you found?
Quote from: SlowPokemon on October 05, 2020, 06:48:15 PMI see, I'll consider the key change. Maybe I got carried away. But also, isn't that part of what makes music so fun is these technical possibilities that aren't terribly practical? (Not to mention even Bach favored some 7-sharp keys over 5-flats in the Well-Tempered Clavier, so it might be good practice for people to look at...)
Thanks for the advice, I'll update the sheet for the formatting later this week regardless of whether I end up changing the key signatures. I'm assuming there aren't any actual pitch errors you found?
I understand lol, I mean I have a sheet with 8 sharps (yes, E# minor with a Fx in the keysig) laying around somewhere... I'm just thinking about it more generally, like how most people will perceive the sheet. Usually I think it's best to go with whatever the simplest option is.
I didn't find any pitch errors when I looked though.
Whoa that's intense. 😂 I don't know what I would do if I saw that key signature. What's the sheet???
It's this (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6i3fGvW_38VLWhncm94YXBkZU0/view). I used it to keep the same interval from an earlier modulation from E minor to G# minor, but this time from C# minor to E# minor. That said, I arranged this a few years ago and would probably change it if I ever submitted it.
I agree with the suggestion here to write in flats instead of sharps. Among other things, seeing Bx as part of that Gx chord is... yikes xD
Yeah, it's a lot. 😂
Finished editing the sheet. I did not rewrite it in B-flat minor. The links in this post are updated to contain the new files.
Looks good overall, I just have a few other things to mention:
- m16 beat 3 RH: I'm assuming you want the B to be restruck since it's part of the melodic line there, so I would remove the parentheses so there's no confusion that it should be played (it's fine that there's a B earlier). The melody B should have a higher priority than the accompaniment.
- m21-22 RH: The slur is now colliding with the LH, this probably happened when you were adjusting the spacing.
- m29 LH: The parentheses are colliding with the natural sign.
- You might want to consider not using parentheses around courtesy accidentals. At least from my experience reading music, it's easier to read through a bunch of non-parenthesized accidentals simply because there's less symbols to read. I also just think it looks nicer on the sheet by reducing clutter. Less is more, sometimes. It's up to you though.
- Since you want to keep this in A# minor, m7-8 should be written with sharps instead of naturals.
- I would still very very strongly suggest writing this with flats. I really think it's much easier to read because there's way less double accidentals (~35 double sharps vs. only 7 double flats). In addition, the distant chords of Gx major and A# major are harder to understand at a glance compared to Bbb major because of their location on the circle of 4ths/5ths (Bbb scale only contains 1 double flat). And even more simply, a key signature with 5 accidentals is just plain easier to read than a key signature with 7; it's just less to think about. I know it's fun to think in weird keys, I really know, but it's not a good reader experience. I think it's really helpful to think about how an amateur would sight read a piece like this since that ultimately is the audience here at NSM - not music theorists.
All right, fixed that stuff. Thanks for your help.
Quote from: Static on October 12, 2020, 09:52:47 AMAnd even more simply, a key signature with 5 accidentals is just plain easier to read than a key signature with 7; it's just less to think about. I know it's fun to think in weird keys, I really know, but it's not a good reader experience. I think it's really helpful to think about how an amateur would sight read a piece like this since that ultimately is the audience here at NSM - not music theorists.
I get where you're coming from, but I respectfully disagree on a fundamental level. It's only harder to read in 7 sharps because the trajectory of music has led people to practice reading in 7 sharps much less (or not at all). Key signatures like E major, with 4 sharps, can easily be read without any additional "things to think about" through practice; the same goes for keys in these extreme signatures. The only way to get these keys to be a "good reader experience" is to use them. Amateurs can handle a lot more than you'd think, and since my arrangement itself is fairly easy to play, I'm in favor of giving the performer the reading experience of 7 sharps that they probably wouldn't encounter otherwise. When I taught music theory last year, there were students who had a hell of a time trying to catch up in these concepts, and most of the issue was that they had never been assigned music in a key more extreme than B-flat or maybe E-flat. If you guys want to add a rule that we can't go beyond six accidentals as a starting key for an arrangement here (which I think would be a mistake), I'll change my arrangement, but otherwise I really don't want to.
Quote from: SlowPokemon on October 12, 2020, 12:09:30 PMI get where you're coming from, but I respectfully disagree on a fundamental level. It's only harder to read in 7 sharps because the trajectory of music has led people to practice reading in 7 sharps much less (or not at all). Key signatures like E major, with 4 sharps, can easily be read without any additional "things to think about" through practice; the same goes for keys in these extreme signatures. The only way to get these keys to be a "good reader experience" is to use them. Amateurs can handle a lot more than you'd think, and since my arrangement itself is fairly easy to play, I'm in favor of giving the performer the reading experience of 7 sharps that they probably wouldn't encounter otherwise. When I taught music theory last year, there were students who had a hell of a time trying to catch up in these concepts, and most of the issue was that they had never been assigned music in a key more extreme than B-flat or maybe E-flat. If you guys want to add a rule that we can't go beyond six accidentals as a starting key for an arrangement here (which I think would be a mistake), I'll change my arrangement, but otherwise I really don't want to.
Personally, I think it's better to write what is simplest and easiest to understand for the performer. I could write a piece in Ab major in G# major because players wouldn't otherwise encounter such a key, but why would I? It's cumbersome for the sake of being cumbersome. I would rather my musical ideas be clear and easy to execute the first time than waste valuable rehearsal time trying to figure out a passage with B double sharps. It's like writing a 4/4 piece in 4/64 or something, with lots of 256th notes everywhere. Sure it would sound the same and musicians should be able to decipher it, but most people aren't going to encounter anything like that outside of a theory or aural skills class, and most people who use this site are not music school students. It's just as you said: "most of the issue was that they had never been assigned music in a key more extreme than B-flat or maybe E-flat". I don't mean to imply everyone who isn't a formal music student is bad at music or anything, but I don't see a reason to write something complicated just to "test" our users or something, we're not a school. There's a very good reason why these kinds of keys are not used very much. I say this as a music student myself.
Also, music notation is not concrete. For example, in 99% of jazz charts, any chord with a #9 is almost always spelled as a b3 (sometimes this means having both the major and minor 3rd in the same chord); theoretically this isn't correct, but it is technically correct because it makes things less complicated (depending on key of course). Similarly, the #4 and b5 are sometimes interchangeable in order to make a musical line easy to read (Fn-F#-Fn-F# over and over again is kind of annoying to write and read). Why would composers make these simplifications? It's because getting good results on the first read is important. I know this piece isn't jazz but the same principles can apply to any written music.
Of course it's not like there isn't a use for 7-accidental key signatures, and I would actually prefer you to write this in A# minor if the piece contained many double flats in Bb minor, since it would be easier to read with naturals in A# major. But what you have is the opposite - many double sharps that don't need to be double sharps. In this case specifically, switching to Bb minor eliminates almost all of the double sharps without introducing many double flats.
Sorry for rambling lol, but hopefully this explains where I'm coming from a bit better.
With that said, if you really think that having this piece in A# minor makes the musical ideas in this piece more clear for the reader, then you can leave it, and I'll
approve.
Quote from: Static on October 12, 2020, 12:45:03 PMI could write a piece in Ab major in G# major because players wouldn't otherwise encounter such a key, but why would I? It's cumbersome for the sake of being cumbersome.
Seconded.
Not to add another voice to the fray, especially one without a lot of formal training, but I think I agree with static. Looking at the two side by side, I could instantly tell what notes were being played in the Bb version while I had to think for a second looking at the A# version because every note in the chord had a double sharp. It's just not pleasant to sight read at all for what I feel is no good reason at all. If that's because of what I played, then I don't see the problem of it. To me, it feels like making the performer play in A# is like force feeding them veggies when there is no need to. Yes, it might be good for them, but, chances are, they'll just avoid it altogether next time and not gain from it. Personally, if I was browsing through sheets, I would just not touch it because of the excess of double sharps. Again, like static says, there is a time and a place for A# minor: to avoid an excess of double flats in Bb minor. But that is not the case here. I didn't mean to type this much, sorry if it comes across weirdly.
Quote from: mastersuperfan on October 12, 2020, 01:08:35 PMSeconded.
No, that's different, because G# major is not a key on the circle of fifths and therefore not traditionally acceptable. A# minor is perfectly acceptable (as I said, even Bach used seven sharp keys).
Quote from: SlowPokemon on October 12, 2020, 02:16:04 PMNo, that's different, because G# major is not a key on the circle of fifths and therefore not traditionally acceptable. A# minor is perfectly acceptable (as I said, even Bach used seven sharp keys).
Whether or not it's "traditionally acceptable" is not the point here. The important part is that Bb minor is significantly easier to read than A# minor, just like Ab major is significantly easier to read than G# major. There's no point in forcing people to learn how to read a less familiar key signature when it provides zero benefit for the actual sheet itself.
Quote from: mastersuperfan on October 12, 2020, 02:22:36 PMWhether or not it's "traditionally acceptable" is not the point here. The important part is that Bb minor is significantly easier to read than A# minor, just like Ab major is significantly easier to read than G# major. There's no point in forcing people to learn how to read a less familiar key signature when it provides zero benefit for the actual sheet itself.
Just to clarify, I'm not arguing that Bb minor is universally a better key just because it only has 5 flats. I just think that it's more appropriate for this specific piece due to the abundance of double sharps in A# minor.
Whether you write something diatonic to the nontraditional key of G# major or use chromatic chords in the traditional key of A# minor, the end result is the same: a lot of double sharps and a headache.
I actually agree that you have fantastic points (I meant what I said, I get where you're coming from), it's just that I'm just always going to advocate for everyone who plays the piano to challenge themselves outside of their comfort zones occasionally. This is something that's important to me personally. When it comes down to it, regardless of arguments about B-flat minor being a simpler key to read in or needing fewer double accidentals, the reason everyone wants it changed comes down to wanting an easier experience. Which I get, but in this case I'm not going to agree. I do apologize for being so stubborn.
Just want to say that I agree with Static, msf and Maelstrom. This isn't challenging people outside of the comfort zone, it's just writing things in an annoying way for no benefit. There's lots of things in sheet music that you could write out in more 'difficult' ways that would only amount to annoying the reader for no reason. The purpose of sheet music is to convey the musical information of the piece in the clearest form, not to 'challenge [people] outside of their comfort zones'. Complicated sheet music should be reserved for conveying complicated musical ideas, rather than just to make music more difficult to read.
Respectfully disagree—I think it's valuable
As I said, it may be valuable, but it's force feeding veggies to a poor unsuspected performer. NSM isn't a site for force feeding veggies, that's for piano lessons. Here, our goal is accessibility in notation and providing sheets that can be sight read by most pianists.
Quote from: SlowPokemon on October 12, 2020, 02:38:47 PMI actually agree that you have fantastic points (I meant what I said, I get where you're coming from), it's just that I'm just always going to advocate for everyone who plays the piano to challenge themselves outside of their comfort zones occasionally. This is something that's important to me personally. When it comes down to it, regardless of arguments about B-flat minor being a simpler key to read in or needing fewer double accidentals, the reason everyone wants it changed comes down to wanting an easier experience. Which I get, but in this case I'm not going to agree. I do apologize for being so stubborn.
The thing is, reading a bunch of double sharps isn't really that difficult - it's just annoying and time-consuming. Why should someone sightreading this piece waste their time combing over all the accidentals instead of focusing on the music itself? There is literally no reason to put this piece in A# minor other than purposefully forcing other people to spend time looking at all the accidentals - and quite frankly I think most people who would click on this for their first time would probably just go back because it looks too complicated (even though like you said it shouldn't be that hard). Who benefits from this? The reader is just going to be annoyed, they're not going to learn anything and they probably won't really care afterward because most players here are not professional performers. Most people are probably going to write in annotations anyway like "A-C#-E" because reading Gx-Bx-Dx is just unnecessarily annoying. Why make people jump through all these extra hoops just to play a simple sheet like this? What's the point? You aren't challenging the performer by doing this, you're challenging the performer's patience.
Reading overly convoluted music is important for music theory and aural classes because it exercises musicians' skills that they need to be competent professional musicians. But once you get out of music school, how often do you see music like this? When composers and arrangers and other companies hire musicians and they only have time for 1 take (sightreading of course), they don't want the musicians to try to decipher notation that could've been written in a much clearer way. Time is money, as they say. And this is for professional musicians; there's even less of a reason to notate music like this when writing for amateur musicians.
NinSheetMusic is not a music teacher, it's not our job to try and educate people about complex music theory topics when most of our users don't care about any of that anyway. They just want to be able to find their favorite video game pieces and sit down and play them on piano - they're hobbyists not professionals. And again, I don't mean to demean amateur musicians, but most people have busy lives outside of music and don't care about music theory and Gx major chords and all that. If you can write something more simply and the music sounds the same when performing it, there's not really a reason to make it more complicated. Practicality is much more important for our purposes, at least I think so.
I know by now I've written like a novel on this topic, but I think you should reconsider; there aren't really any benefits to A# minor in this specific case.
Edit: If you want a similar example to your sheet, take a look at my Halloween submission. I put the piece in D# minor specifically because of all the double (and even triple!) flats that appear if it was in Eb minor. And as a result, It's much easier to parse. As valuable as it is as an exercise for a proper music student, no one wants to read this in a practical setting:
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/47fKTgg.png)
One last thing from me about the title of this song, since this was brought up by Rubikium in this thread (https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/index.php?topic=11469.0).
We should probably go by whatever the official title of the song is - I don't have the game or my switch with my right now but I'm assuming it's probably like "Mezzanine - Track 1" or something similar. There should be an in-game sound test. I'd be fine using an alternate title scheme as well, but your sheet and Rubikium's should match.
Just "Mezzanine" would probably be a good title.
The in-game sound test doesn't label any of the tracks, so it's just "track 4" of the Mezzanine album. It's a weird lazy point of the game that's otherwise really polished. I used the floor number so that if the other floor themes are arranged by people, they could be in the correct order on site if the arrangers used the same system. Going by this method, Rubikium's would be "B2F - Boilerworks." Let me know if you still want to change it, I don't mind at all and I agree that they should be uniform.
I would remove the parentheses in m28-29. I assume that you intend for the pianist to re-articulate the notes with the LH, but the parentheses imply that they shouldn't be re-articulated. (If you don't intend for the notes to be re-articulated, then I would suggest just removing the notes from the LH entirely.) So I think the parentheses just create unnecessary ambiguity.
Apart from that, the key signature: I'm still completely in favor of changing the key signature to Bb minor. Frankly, I don't feel comfortable accepting this sheet as is. There's not a whole lot more I can say here—the arguments have been posted already, and it's pretty clear that none of the updaters are on board with keeping it in A# minor.
Not an expert here, but I agree with the updating staff. Bach's not the best example for this situation, as his keyboard music was written to be technically challenging as a way of teaching his students, children and other less experienced musicians; we're not trying to be teachers. People can put their talents to the test elsewhere, as NSM sheets are only as challenging as they absolutely need to be.
Quote from: SlowPokemon on October 22, 2020, 05:07:08 PMThe in-game sound test doesn't label any of the tracks, so it's just "track 4" of the Mezzanine album. It's a weird lazy point of the game that's otherwise really polished. I used the floor number so that if the other floor themes are arranged by people, they could be in the correct order on site if the arrangers used the same system. Going by this method, Rubikium's would be "B2F - Boilerworks." Let me know if you still want to change it, I don't mind at all and I agree that they should be uniform.
I think using the floor numbers would be good - although B2 instead of B2F because that's how it's shown in the game. I'll let Rubikium know, and you can keep this title the same.
Gotcha, let me know if anything changes.
Hey Slow - about the key signature. We generally like to leave a lot of stuff up to arranger discretion, and I understand you want to keep it as you have it. But this is a rare occasion where the entire updating staff agrees that this would be better written in Bbm, and I don't really have much to add to what others have said above. I don't think any of us are really comfortable accepting this sheet as is.
Then don't accept it. I just don't really think it's appropriate that you won't despite the fact that someone approved it and I'm not breaking any rules (and like I said, I think adding a rule about using simpler key signatures, which you're basically enforcing here, would be a disgrace). I won't be changing it and I don't give my permission to change my existing arrangement.
As a user of this site long ago, seeing this arrangement would have really intrigued me and gotten me excited, and I know there are others like me out there. Sorry that you want me to bend on this, but I won't.
Just want to make sure you all see my edited post and think further about this.
Quote from: Static on October 12, 2020, 12:45:03 PMWith that said, if you really think that having this piece in A# minor makes the musical ideas in this piece more clear for the reader, then you can leave it, and I'll approve.
As far as I can tell, this sounds like a somewhat conditional approval. We tend to do these on projects where our goal is to move faster, with the intention that another updater can come in while the arranger responds to this, and maybe weigh in as well. That said, I don't belive you satisfied the first part of this conditional. By your own admission,
Quote from: SlowPokemon on October 12, 2020, 02:38:47 PM... it's just that I'm just always going to advocate for everyone who plays the piano to challenge themselves outside of their comfort zones occasionally.
This is certainly an argument for your case, but one antithetical to static's approval condition. Again, I fully believe there is a time and place for A#m, but every single accidental in this pieces screams that this is not the time and makes the musical ideas more obscured to the performer, rather than clearer.
You know...for musicians you guys are awfully conservative
I'm not trying to throw a wrench in the works, but I do have a suggestion and a few thoughts.
@updaters:
I understand where you guys are coming from, especially as a performer myself; however, I believe Slow is right concerning his argument of arranger discretion, especially when it comes to something as trivial as a key signature. Additionally, Slow is right when he says that Bb minor is not generally accepted in the musical community. Forcing someone to write their song in a key that is not generally accepted is ridiculous in my opinion. As an arranger, he should have the choice to choose the key signature for something as ambiguous and/or preferential as this.
What about a compromise? Slow, would you be willing to add a second page to the sheet? Surely we could tack on a second page and label something along the lines of "easier rendition," or "alternate key." Honestly, I know people that find flats easier, and people that find sharps easier, so I would be hesitant to say something like "easier version" as it pertains to the flats version.
Thoughts, updaters?
Honestly, that's at least a step in the right direction. My point isn't that one is more valid than the other, it's the exact opposite: both are equally valid.
Quote from: SlowPokemon on October 26, 2020, 05:48:24 AMThen don't accept it. I just don't really think it's appropriate that you won't despite the fact that someone approved it and I'm not breaking any rules (and like I said, I think adding a rule about using simpler key signatures, which you're basically enforcing here, would be a disgrace).
To be clear, I did not say that I would refuse to accept this without a keysig change - I haven't decided that for myself personally, although I know for a fact that others would object to it. I am not advocating for a rule about key signatures here.
I was more trying to point out the fact that instead of continuing the dialogue, you've deliberately ignored much of the feedback on this topic including everything after this post (https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/index.php?topic=11455.msg420660#msg420660). That is the deal breaker to me; when someone refuses to respond to concerns others have raised. I am sorry if you feel like there are too many posts disagreeing with you, but something like this isn't resolved by dismissing what others have said.
Getting back to the initial point here, I agree that A#m is not incorrect here and can provide instructive benefit by exposing performers to a number of sharps they're not used to. But, as others have mentioned, the goal of NinSheetMusic is not to be instructive; it's to provide people sheets so they can play the video game music that they love...
Quote from: SlowPokemon on October 26, 2020, 05:48:24 AMAs a user of this site long ago, seeing this arrangement would have really intrigued me and gotten me excited, and I know there are others like me out there.
...and a key signature like this can be an unnecessary roadblock.
(just saw Seb's post; I'm at work now and will check back here later)
I'm not ignoring the feedback, it's more like I've said everything I possibly have to say about it and people just keep posting variations and complications and obfuscations on the idea "this is easier and better" which is genuinely what it all comes back to.
To be clear, I said Seb's idea was a step in the right direction, but I'm not going to do that either, because it's absurd to ask people to submit two arrangements (I think we can all agree there). At this point I'm genuinely going to either have it accepted or not, because this week I'm in Michigan dealing with my grandmother's funeral and post-death arrangements (thanks 2020) so I don't really have time to do much in the way of big changes anyway.
Just for clarity's sake on my part, I was suggesting adding a page to the current arrangement, not submitting two sheets. Basically this: copy/paste the arrangement to a second page in the existing finale file, change the key, label that second page as an alternate version with the key being the only difference, and submit it as one arrangement (both pages being included in a singular arrangement/file).
If it's okay that I interject, I missed something along the way here: what exactly is the issue with B-flat minor in the "musical community" being referenced here? Is its scale, across different instruments, just more difficult to play than that of the other minor scales?
This will be my last post on the subject since I don't really have much more to say, but something here kind of bothered me.
Quote from: SlowPokemon on October 26, 2020, 05:48:24 AMThen don't accept it. I just don't really think it's appropriate that you won't despite the fact that someone approved it and I'm not breaking any rules (and like I said, I think adding a rule about using simpler key signatures, which you're basically enforcing here, would be a disgrace). I won't be changing it and I don't give my permission to change my existing arrangement.
As a user of this site long ago, seeing this arrangement would have really intrigued me and gotten me excited, and I know there are others like me out there. Sorry that you want me to bend on this, but I won't.
The thing is, changing the key here has nothing to do with your arrangement itself - we aren't asking you to change notes or chord voicings or any actual arrangement techniques that you used when writing this out. We're merely asking that you make it easier to read.
You might have gotten really intrigued by seeing something like this, but as I've said like 2-3 times already,
most users of this site are not trained musicians or in training or music theorists. Our sheets are not meant to challenge our reader's ability to interpret music theory concepts, they're meant to convey the music clearly so that anyone can just find a sheet and play it without thinking too hard about reading it. Working on the music itself - the phrases and notes and dynamics - those are the most important to work on. It's a noble goal to try and educate a bunch of random people on this stuff, and I really see where you're coming from, but it really isn't within our scope here and I don't think it should be.
Music notation are just that - notation. What matters is the audio that's produced from said notation. If you go ahead and add a 2nd page with the same song in Bb minor, I guarantee you most people would just read that one - why go through the headache to play the A#m one?
You're free to still refuse of course, but I just don't understand why this
needs to be written like this.
Just wanted to mention, I made a reading mistake. I made the wrong assumption that the updaters were asking Slow to write in a key that was not included in the normal, common set of key signatures.
With that said, I do agree that Bb minor would be significantly easier to read. This is a great sheet, Slow, and I'm looking forward to its acceptance.
Quote from: Static on October 26, 2020, 07:31:01 AMIf you go ahead and add a 2nd page with the same song in Bb minor
To add on to what Static's saying here -- because it sounds like you're busy dealing with personal life obligations at the moment, a simple second page doesn't sound like something the updaters would be opposed to adding themselves, especially since the arrangement's in such a great state. I'm not one to say which key the performers would rather read it in, but having both is a good idea in my book, and if it's essential to the sheet, the staff responsible for accepting it should be able to help you in your time of need.
Though I don't appreciate your personal attacks on the updaters, I understand your intentions, Slow, and agree with Static that it's a noble gesture. Having both A# and B-flat minor variations isn't a change to your arrangement, it's just an alternative for those who aren't skilled enough to play in the former.
Oops I accidentally edited your post instead of replying... but now for a reply:
Quote from: LeviR.star on October 26, 2020, 09:14:53 AMThough I don't appreciate your personal attacks on the updaters, I understand your intentions, Slow, and agree with Static that it's a noble gesture. Having both A# and B-flat minor variations isn't a change to your arrangement, it's just an alternative for those who aren't skilled enough to play in the former.
Just to be crystal clear here - I'm not arguing that A#m is
harder to read; I'm arguing that it takes more time to read.
Quote from: Static on October 26, 2020, 09:21:56 AMJust to be crystal clear here - I'm not arguing that A#m is harder to read; I'm arguing that it takes more time to read.
Whoops, you're right. In either case, having both would be beneficial.
As I said, I do not give permission for my existing arrangement to be transposed. This is ridiculous. The thing is, the reasons you're giving are the same as outright banning arrangements beginning in seven accidental keys—none will ever be accepted if you guys continue upholding these musically conservative opinions. Maybe you're okay with that, but as I said with all due respect, I think it's a disgrace. You guys have really surprised and depressed me here. Sorry to Levi, who said I've been posting "attacks" on the moderators, but if you go back and read all my posts I'm literally just respectfully disagreeing.
Honestly, I'm fine if you don't accept it, this is giving me a lot of anxiety and headache. I made the arrangement, it's done, maybe I can find a spot for it at some point. I can officially withdraw my submission if that would be easier for everyone.
Quote from: SlowPokemon on October 26, 2020, 12:36:19 PMAs I said, I do not give permission for my existing arrangement to be transposed. This is ridiculous. The thing is, the reasons you're giving are the same as outright banning arrangements beginning in seven accidental keys—none will ever be accepted if you guys continue upholding these musically conservative opinions. Maybe you're okay with that, but as I said with all due respect, I think it's a disgrace. You guys have really surprised and depressed me here. Sorry to Levi, who said I've been posting "attacks" on the moderators, but if you go back and read all my posts I'm literally just respectfully disagreeing.
Nowhere in this thread did anyone say that you can't use 7-accidental key signatures. We have examples of them already on site like this (https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/download/pdf/3885) and this (https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/download/pdf/831) and this (https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/download/pdf/4200).
Look at what all these arrangements have in common - a lack of copious amounts of double accidentals. The key signatures were selected in order to reduce the amount of unnecessary visual clutter in the sheets, which makes them significantly more approachable and enjoyable to read through. It's the same reason why Eb minor might be picked over D# minor in certain cases.
I don't really have anything else to add...
Quote from: SlowPokemon on October 26, 2020, 12:36:19 PMThe thing is, the reasons you're giving are the same as outright banning arrangements beginning in seven accidental keys—none will ever be accepted if you guys continue upholding these musically conservative opinions. Maybe you're okay with that, but as I said with all due respect, I think it's a disgrace.
I don't have anything to add about this other than what Static just posted. I still think you're misinterpreting our collective stance somehow.
Quote from: SlowPokemon on October 26, 2020, 12:36:19 PMYou guys have really surprised and depressed me here. Sorry to Levi, who said I've been posting "attacks" on the moderators,
I'm sorry you feel that way. Despite what Levi said, I think this conversation has been civil from both sides...
Quote from: SlowPokemon on October 26, 2020, 12:36:19 PMbut if you go back and read all my posts I'm literally just respectfully disagreeing.
...on the flip side of the coin, so is everyone else. Your opinions are valid, but there's something to be said when everyone else who's commented here disagrees with them.
Quote from: SlowPokemon on October 26, 2020, 12:52:22 PMHonestly, I'm fine if you don't accept it, this is giving me a lot of anxiety and headache. I made the arrangement, it's done, maybe I can find a spot for it at some point. I can officially withdraw my submission if that would be easier for everyone.
I think we have reached am impasse, so that would probably be best for everyone.
That's fine. Sorry we couldn't reach an understanding.
I want to clear this up before I leave this thread for good:Quote from: SlowPokemon on October 26, 2020, 12:36:19 PMSorry to Levi, who said I've been posting "attacks" on the moderators, but if you go back and read all my posts I'm literally just respectfully disagreeing.
I've been following. By "attacks", I was referring this comment of yours from earlier:
Quote from: SlowPokemon on October 26, 2020, 06:15:01 AMYou know...for musicians you guys are awfully conservative
The way I see it, this was unwarranted, and not as respectful as you may think; attacking the staff's credibility as musicians in such a blunt way like this makes me feel disgusted. They ended up offering to compromise with you, so the least you could have done was not say something so condescending.
Frankly, I'm disappointed to see this sheet won't be accepted after all. All the opposing side wanted was to make the sheet more inviting to less experienced performers to represent the community we are, and you, a college-trained musician, wanted to test your theory knowledge and "challenge yourself", which (in this case) is entirely inconsiderate of the general audience you're providing these sheets for. If there was a primary reason for notating the sheet this way, why didn't you just say so at the beginning? Rather than have us debate key signatures for four pages?
I respect and even envy your skills as a musician, Slow, but I don't understand your motives. Are you arranging for yourself, or for site's visitors hoping someday to play like you?
Quote from: SlowPokemon on October 26, 2020, 01:57:25 PMThat's fine. Sorry we couldn't reach an understanding.
That's okay. Thanks for the discussion today and closing this one out peacefully. Hopefully we can see eye to eye on other submissions in the future.
Quote from: LeviR.star on October 26, 2020, 02:17:53 PM<snip>
Sorry Levi - not to discount your comments, but unfortunately, I'm going to have to put on my moderator hat and archive this thread now at the wishes of Slow and the staff. I don't think anyone will benefit from further discussion in this topic today.