Submission Information:
Series: Tales
Game: Tales of Symphonia
Console: Nintendo GameCube
Title: Kratos
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Francesca Minasi (https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=8245)
Replacement Information:
Links to Existing Sheet: MUS (https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/download/mus/213) | MIDI (https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/download/mid/213) | PDF (https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/download/pdf/213)
Replacement Type: Challenge (new arranger)
(It seems the original video was taken down in some countries)
A few clarifications I wanted to make about the arrangement~
- From m1 up to m9, in the second upper layer I'm notating the strings, while from m9 onwards I'm notating the bass since it becomes more prevalent (It's still quite subtle though, which is why I recommend using Audio Stretch to hear it)
- There are a few notes in said layer that on a piano aren't playable by the right hand because of the other notes, however they can be played by the left hand. Let me know if I should use some cross-staff beaming to make that clearer or something similar!
Just glancing at the sheet, a couple of things:
- Something odd seems to have happened to the RH part in the first half of measure 1, where the lower layer triplet isn't aligned properly like it is in the rest of the measures
Quote from: Francesca on September 14, 2023, 06:43:54 AMThere are a few notes in said layer that on a piano aren't playable by the right hand because of the other notes, however they can be played by the left hand. Let me know if I should use some cross-staff beaming to make that clearer or something similar!
Yep, I think cross-staffing would be good here. It doesn't look like you'll need to split any notes in the same group between staves, so you can just move the entire middle layer to the left hand where it makes sense to. Make sure to flip the left hand part accordingly. The right hand part could be flipped down, but I think it's fine to leave it as-is too.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/401094846107877377/1152412534591193209/image.png
Also, when there are multiple tuplets all under the same beam, it's best to break the secondary beams to clarify where the tuplets begin and end. Using the Beam Break Tool under Special Tools, click on the first note of the second tuplet and check the "16th" box (all the others will automatically be checked) -
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/401094846107877377/1152412729710215208/image.png?width=562&height=256
QuoteYep, I think cross-staffing would be good here. It doesn't look like you'll need to split any notes in the same group between staves, so you can just move the entire middle layer to the left hand where it makes sense to. Make sure to flip the left hand part accordingly. The right hand part could be flipped down, but I think it's fine to leave it as-is too
Are you referring to just the parts where the left hand would play the notes, or throughout the entire sheet?
QuoteYep, I think cross-staffing would be good here. It doesn't look like you'll need to split any notes in the same group between staves, so you can just move the entire middle layer to the left hand where it makes sense to. Make sure to flip the left hand part accordingly. The right hand part could be flipped down, but I think it's fine to leave it as-is too
Ah yes, that is much clearer, thank you for pointing it out.
Quote- Something odd seems to have happened to the RH part in the first half of measure 1, where the lower layer triplet isn't aligned properly like it is in the rest of the measures
I actually did that on purpose to make space for the dynamic. Do you know any other way I could make space for it?
Seems you uploaded the wrong files... I don't know the exact context but it's possible to move the dynamic further left, so the notes can be moved closer together
Quote from: Latios212 on September 15, 2023, 06:19:57 PM- Something odd seems to have happened to the RH part in the first half of measure 1, where the lower layer triplet isn't aligned properly like it is in the rest of the measures
This needs to be reset to normal because the triplets in the lower layer need to be aligned with the eighth note in the upper layer for this to make sense rhythmically.
QuoteThis needs to be reset to normal because the triplets in the lower layer need to be aligned with the eighth note in the upper layer for this to make sense rhythmically
Okay, I updated it.
I will eventually be providing some more substantive feedback, but looks like the video got taken down. Here's a new link:
Something is also off bottom-page copyright info, missing NinSheetMusic link
Updated. Thank you
I apologize for taking so long to reply, but I was not sure if I agreed with the way you had gone about this arrangement, and I hadn't had a chance to sit down and figure out something that I wanted to pass by you.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this arrangement and submission predates some of the stuff I had said to you regarding your Mother 3 sheet for the project - I tend to think it's better to not push the melody down octaves, and in this sheet's case, I think that applies as well. Additionally, I don't personally think the high flute is a necessary part to include for this, as far as capturing the melody, and having an accompaniment part that makes sense.
So, I've attached a screenshot of an idea I had for potentially going about a rearrangement of this submission; didn't quite check notes throughout the rest of the sheet but for the first four bars, let me know your thoughts on the attached. This would maintain the melody in its original's octave, while utilizing the currently unrepresented low notes that are syncopated with current RH lower layer (pulling down this layer an octave).
Do let me know if this also doesn't work as an idea, because I didn't check the rest of the song too thoroughly for potential note conflicts, etc., if that is the case, certainly will give this a check as is but wanted to pick your brain
QuoteI apologize for taking so long to reply, but I was not sure if I agreed with the way you had gone about this arrangement, and I hadn't had a chance to sit down and figure out something that I wanted to pass by you.
Yes, most of the discussion about the Mother 3 sheet happened after I wrote this one. With that said, I agree that it is better to leave out the flute part, and I switched out the layers and added the low notes as you suggested, but it does get a little different around halfway through the track (which corresponds to m9).
Since the notes in the melody go very low, I transported them to the bass clef, so you can let me know what you think about that. I could also alternate with the treble clef when the notes go a bit higher, if it's preferable.
Understood as far as the RH clef choice. However, I do think starting at m9 you could go to treble, and add an additional melody octave above the current notes (as heard). Alternatively (or additionally), I think a forte dynamic would be appropriate at m9.
• You could move the dynamic down a bit so it's more centered between the staffs.
• from m9-16 LH I do hear 5ths or 3rd's of the LH chord root note currently present. For example G's above the C's in m9, and C's above the A's in m10 and A's above the D's in m10.
• m13 to m16 this is not really a viable in the current octave if you choose to do two melody octaves from m9 to the end, but I do hear some held notes like the following (screenshots of m13 and m16)
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/wz8sTFX.png) (https://i.imgur.com/0B8Bp2a.png)
Bumping for arranger, are you still around to work on this one?
QuoteBumping for arranger, are you still around to work on this one?
Yes! I have updated the files.
Quote• You could move the dynamic down a bit so it's more centered between the staffs.
• from m9-16 LH I do hear 5ths or 3rd's of the LH chord root note currently present. For example G's above the C's in m9, and C's above the A's in m10 and A's above the D's in m10.
• m13 to m16 this is not really a viable in the current octave if you choose to do two melody octaves from m9 to the end, but I do hear some held notes like the following (screenshots of m13 and m16)
I moved the dynamic and added the notes. I kept the melody octaves up until m13, where the held notes start. Does that work?
Quote from: Francesca on March 29, 2024, 11:03:02 AMI moved the dynamic and added the notes. I kept the melody octaves up until m13, where the held notes start. Does that work?
One final thing from this feedback for m11 - would consider putting parentheses on RH beat 1 as that is going to be a bit difficult to play considering the LH's notes.
Couple other final points:
• I think moving m10 up to the 3rd measure system looks a bit cleaner for the sheet's measure distribution. So 4-3-4-3-3 overall
• m15 RH would look a little clearer on beat 1 with the layers moved like the attached image:
QuoteOne final thing from this feedback for m11 - would consider putting parentheses on RH beat 1 as that is going to be a bit difficult to play considering the LH's notes.
Updated! Also, I put parentheses on the low G in m9 upper staff, because it coincides with the one on the lower staff.
QuoteCouple other final points:
• I think moving m10 up to the 3rd measure system looks a bit cleaner for the sheet's measure distribution. So 4-3-4-3-3 overall
• m15 RH would look a little clearer on beat 1 with the layers moved like the attached image:
Updated. Though, the systems are now actually 3-3-4-3-3, as they're 16 in total.
Also, I wanted to mention that the E pedal in m16 is a bit complicated to keep, as the hand would have to stretch up to a 10th. Should I change that? And should I also implement some phrasing throughout the whole arrangement?
Thanks for your feedback!
Sorry for bit of a wait, I'm sort of just getting back into routine...
Quote from: Francesca on April 08, 2024, 10:18:46 AMUpdated! Also, I put parentheses on the low G in m9 upper staff, because it coincides with the one on the lower staff.
Good catch
QuoteUpdated. Though, the systems are now actually 3-3-4-3-3, as they're 16 in total.
Good count, this looks good.
QuoteAlso, I wanted to mention that the E pedal in m16 is a bit complicated to keep, as the hand would have to stretch up to a 10th. Should I change that?
Yes... for this I would assume the player is just going lift after playing both E's (and from my own attempt). This is a case where I think I'd be okay leaving the phrasing as is for consistency with the original track, but if you would rather not, you could remove the lower E from that 2nd layer and make it an 8th note length the first layer
QuoteAnd should I also implement some phrasing throughout the whole arrangement?
By all means if you want to add them feel free to, I think it would go well for the RH
QuoteYes... for this I would assume the player is just going lift after playing both E's (and from my own attempt). This is a case where I think I'd be okay leaving the phrasing as is for consistency with the original track, but if you would rather not, you could remove the lower E from that 2nd layer and make it an 8th note length the first layer
The pedal works, I've left it as is.
QuoteBy all means if you want to add them feel free to, I think it would go well for the RH
I've added phrasing in the upper clef, though it's all just legato.
Thanks for the feedback!
Sorry for a bit of a change - looking at m15 again at the PDF, it is a little confusing looking from what I recommended. My new suggestion would be to orient it as follows (will need to manually move that second layer dot for the dotted quarter)
Spoiler
m15.png
Given that's on me though, I will give you the
approval.
One additional recommendation I will make is to add the treble clef into m8 halfway through. This will allow the slur to go a bit lower.
Spoiler
m8.png
QuoteSorry for a bit of a change - looking at m15 again at the PDF, it is a little confusing looking from what I recommended.
All good, updated.
QuoteOne additional recommendation I will make is to add the treble clef into m8 halfway through. This will allow the slur to go a bit lower.
Yes, that works. Updated.
Thank you for the feedback!
Notes all seem good to me! There's just some arranging decisions I would've done differently.
-While writing this in 6/8 isn't necessarily wrong, you could also write it in 3/4 with all note values doubled (so the l.h. in the first measure would be quarter, quarter, triplet 8ths). If you feel strongly about feeling it in one beat, you could even keep the tempo marking as dotted half note = 38. Whatever you prefer though! I'll use the original measure numbers for now.
-Usually legato slurs don't end and start on the same note, like they do in m5 and other places. It'd be best to either move the end of the slur one note back, or the start of the slur one note forward, or even alternatively, leave out the slurs all together and write "legato" or "legatissimo" at the start of the melody.
-m10-11, as well as m12 beat 6: All these notes should have their stem direction flipped.
-m11: I don't think you necessarily need the parentheses around the low E in the R.H., as the R.H. can easily take that note.
-m13: Personally I think the melody loses a bit of power when leaving out the bottom octave here. You could still add it, with these little changes:
-m15: The dotted quarter note G would have to be removed, because moving it down an octave brings it in the same octave as the L.H.
-m16: There will be an overlap between the melody and the dotted quarter notes E and F#. These dotted quarter notes could be changed to A and B. I hear these notes softly in the strings in the background too ^^
Quote-While writing this in 6/8 isn't necessarily wrong, you could also write it in 3/4 with all note values doubled (so the l.h. in the first measure would be quarter, quarter, triplet 8ths). If you feel strongly about feeling it in one beat, you could even keep the tempo marking as dotted half note = 38. Whatever you prefer though! I'll use the original measure numbers for now.
Unless there is a specific reason to write this arrangement in 3/4, I find 6/8 to work well and the notation to be clear either way; as to why I decided to go for the latter, it seems to me that a slower ternary tempo is more adapt for the track, compared to a rapid binary one, but I'm open to other considerations.
Quote-Usually legato slurs don't end and start on the same note, like they do in m5 and other places. It'd be best to either move the end of the slur one note back, or the start of the slur one note forward, or even alternatively, leave out the slurs all together and write "legato" or "legatissimo" at the start of the melody.
That makes sense! I thought of that too, but decided to phrase the melody that way because I had seen it done in many books of classical arrangements (though, some stuff was notated quite strangely on those too). I ultimately decided to push the start of said slurs one note forward, because placing a
legato or
legatissimo expression mark might weirdly contrast with the periodic lower staccato.
Quote-m10-11, as well as m12 beat 6: All these notes should have their stem direction flipped.
-m11: I don't think you necessarily need the parentheses around the low E in the R.H., as the R.H. can easily take that note.
-m13: Personally I think the melody loses a bit of power when leaving out the bottom octave here. You could still add it, with these little changes:
-m15: The dotted quarter note G would have to be removed, because moving it down an octave brings it in the same octave as the L.H.
-m16: There will be an overlap between the melody and the dotted quarter notes E and F#. These dotted quarter notes could be changed to A and B. I hear these notes softly in the strings in the background too ^^
Yes, updated!
Thanks for the feedback.
Quote from: Francesca on July 09, 2024, 07:56:10 AMUnless there is a specific reason to write this arrangement in 3/4, I find 6/8 to work well and the notation to be clear either way; as to why I decided to go for the latter, it seems to me that a slower ternary tempo is more adapt for the track, compared to a rapid binary one, but I'm open to other considerations.
My original thinking was having the ternary beat shown in quarter notes rather than 8ths helps with the song looking slower, but I think either way works. Probably easier to just keep it as is ^^
Everything else looks good, so I will
accept!
This submission has been accepted by Bloop (https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1023).
~Zeta, your friendly NSM-Bot