Submission Information:
Series: Ace Attorney
Game: Ace Attorney Investigations: Miles Edgeworth 2
Console: Nintendo DS
Title: Hakari Mikagami ~ Goddess of Law
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Trasdegi (https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=5177)
[attachment deleted by admin]
[attachment deleted by admin]
*sniffs* is that Ace Attorney I smell
the first thing I do when I open the sheet
(https://i.imgur.com/IUrZkyY.png)
Some things I noticed:
- In m3-8, I think it would be better to drop the dots from the notes with staccato (I think this topic come up in discussions before). Not only would that keep the note lengths consistent between all the different staccato'd notes in the same measure (since some of them are just eighth notes), the dots just make the first few measures look unnecessarily cluttered, IMO.
- Of course, still keep the dots in m9-10 since there aren't staccatos there. But I think those ones could use some accents, or at the least tenutos, because I think they are emphasized more than the notes in the previous measures with staccatos.
- I think m16-17 could use a crescendo.
- The left hand looks unplayable in m19; I'd suggest a tremolo instead of the really fast octaves.
- It sounds like the melody is being doubled in octaves in m20-21; I would suggest adding that extra lower octave on top of what you already have, to have it preserve the mood of the original track and feel less empty.
- The original track has a constant triplet rhythm going on that's sorely missing in m23. I think this measure probably needs to be re-transcribed.
- The way m24 is set up makes sense, but... I still wonder if there's a way to notate it so you don't have to change the time signature. Maybe you could only put the first fermata (the one on the chord) on the last beat on a 4/4 measure and then start a new 4/4 measure that's mostly empty except for the pickups at the end. I'm not sure if that would be better.
- I think (am not sure) that you should split the LH half note in m24 into two tied quarters and put a fermata on the second one to line up with the RH?
- I would tie the LH whole notes in m25 and m30 over to the next measure.
- Maybe try putting a caesura at the end of the piece before the repeat, since the original track pauses before it loops as well?
- I wonder if there's a way to incorporate the use of pedal in this arrangement, to simulate the heavy feel of the organ that the piano is missing. I'm not sure how well it'll work, though, especially with all the runs. At the least, you could definitely use it in m18-19. Also m1-2, the middle of m24, and m31, but considering those are just held notes already I'm not sure how much of a difference it even makes.
Nice job with this sheet! I really like this theme, and, especially with your incorporation of the percussion into the left hand, I really think you've done it
justice. heh heh heh heh
Quote from: mastersuperfan on August 07, 2018, 08:04:23 AMSome things I noticed:
- In m3-8, I think it would be better to drop the dots from the notes with staccato (I think this topic come up in discussions before). Not only would that keep the note lengths consistent between all the different staccato'd notes in the same measure (since some of them are just eighth notes), the dots just make the first few measures look unnecessarily cluttered, IMO.
- Of course, still keep the dots in m9-10 since there aren't staccatos there. But I think those ones could use some accents, or at the least tenutos, because I think they are emphasized more than the notes in the previous measures with staccatos.
- I think m16-17 could use a crescendo.
- The left hand looks unplayable in m19; I'd suggest a tremolo instead of the really fast octaves.
- It sounds like the melody is being doubled in octaves in m20-21; I would suggest adding that extra lower octave on top of what you already have, to have it preserve the mood of the original track and feel less empty.
- The original track has a constant triplet rhythm going on that's sorely missing in m23. I think this measure probably needs to be re-transcribed.
- The way m24 is set up makes sense, but... I still wonder if there's a way to notate it so you don't have to change the time signature. Maybe you could only put the first fermata (the one on the chord) on the last beat on a 4/4 measure and then start a new 4/4 measure that's mostly empty except for the pickups at the end. I'm not sure if that would be better.
- I think (am not sure) that you should split the LH half note in m24 into two tied quarters and put a fermata on the second one to line up with the RH?
- I would tie the LH whole notes in m25 and m30 over to the next measure.
- Maybe try putting a caesura at the end of the piece before the repeat, since the original track pauses before it loops as well?
- I wonder if there's a way to incorporate the use of pedal in this arrangement, to simulate the heavy feel of the organ that the piano is missing. I'm not sure how well it'll work, though, especially with all the runs. At the least, you could definitely use it in m18-19. Also m1-2, the middle of m24, and m31, but considering those are just held notes already I'm not sure how much of a difference it even makes.
Nice job with this sheet! I really like this theme, and, especially with your incorporation of the percussion into the left hand, I really think you've done it justice. heh heh heh heh
- Tried it, and the 16th rests that appear make it even more cluttered imo.
- Done.
- Done.
- Tried it, but I found no way to have a tremolo with a fortepiano and a crescendo. I'll ask someone with a fuller version of Finale to do it.
- Done.
- Redone m.23.
- Redone m.24.
- Done.
- Done.
- Done.
- I think having pedal markings, but only on 2 measures would be a bit strange (as in that would imply not to use the pedal anywhere else). I usually prefer to leave pedal usage up to the performer.
Updated again...
Changes made:
- Replaced the Ds naturals with Es double-flats in m.14
- Removed the upper octave in m. 19's 2nd half. That should do the trick for playability.
- After thinking about it, I removed the upper octave in m. 20-21. Even if it help it fell less empty, that nreaks the progression IMO.
Spelling and stuff is all good now but the pdf looks rather off. Wonky n squished
bar 10 shove the f and c chord together as a chord in the left hand bc you can't even reach that with the rh boiiiiii and why would you do that anywayyyyyyy boioiiii
with bar 19 I wouldn't bother with writing out the 6s because nobody is going to play that. Save a lot of time and space by just putting a tremolo innit bc the length of the bar will still be the same and people know what it sounds like yeh. Plus bars 18 and 19 being 2/4 and 5/4 after a 3/4 passage = just leave it as two 3/4 bars with the chord held over m8. Don't overpoop it yeh.
get
Quote from: AmpharosAndy on August 29, 2018, 01:10:13 PMSpelling and stuff is all good now but the pdf looks rather off. Wonky n squished
Edited margins & spacing. Is this better?
Quote from: AmpharosAndy on August 29, 2018, 01:10:13 PMbar 10 shove the f and c chord together as a chord in the left hand bc you can't even reach that with the rh boiiiiii and why would you do that anywayyyyyyy boioiiii
Done booiiiii And i did that because it's a very old arrangement and i didnt know what to do back then boioioioiiioioi
Quote from: AmpharosAndy on August 29, 2018, 01:10:13 PMwith bar 19 I wouldn't bother with writing out the 6s because nobody is going to play that. Save a lot of time and space by just putting a tremolo innit bc the length of the bar will still be the same and people know what it sounds like yeh.
Well, I already tried that, and I never got it to be as good as what I currently have...
Quote from: AmpharosAndy on August 29, 2018, 01:10:13 PMPlus bars 18 and 19 being 2/4 and 5/4 after a 3/4 passage = just leave it as two 3/4 bars with the chord held over m8.
2 + 5 = 7 != 6 = 2 * 3 m8
Files Updated.
Quote from: Trasdegi on September 06, 2018, 12:49:52 PMEdited margins & spacing. Is this better?
Not quite, the measure distribution and layout leave a lot to be desired... let us know if you need help with that
Thinkered with layout again.
Very Bach.
Seems like whenever you have a piece of music that slightly even resembles organ it's almost mandatory to do that fugue figure thing towards the end.
Anyways. The only gripes that I have is the lack of rests in the second layer from measure 5 thru 9, and the placement of the caesura in the last measure. I'm used to seeing it on the top, or second to top line towards the end of the bar.
That's all I got. Other opinions regarding the caesura would be great.
Quote from: Brassman388 on September 07, 2018, 01:45:06 PMAnyways. The only gripes that I have is the lack of rests in the second layer from measure 5 thru 9, and the placement of the caesura in the last measure. I'm used to seeing it on the top, or second to top line towards the end of the bar.
Fixed both things. The missing rests are from that time when I didn't understand how to properly use layers, and the caesura was just the default placement. I also always saw it at the end of the bar.
Caesura looks alright, I think.
Other comments:
- Flip the tie between m. 1-2.
- Though it's chromatically descending here, m. 14 should use D naturals since it's a Bb major chord. Resultantly add courtesy D flats in the following measure.
- Disconnect the beams around the sextuplets in m. 19.
- Space the staves further apart at m. 22.
- Move the top fermata in in m. 24.
- Fix the page 2 number to be in the corner of the page and remove the page 2 URL.
Quote from: mastersuperfan on August 07, 2018, 08:04:23 AM- In m3-8, I think it would be better to drop the dots from the notes with staccato (I think this topic come up in discussions before). Not only would that keep the note lengths consistent between all the different staccato'd notes in the same measure (since some of them are just eighth notes), the dots just make the first few measures look unnecessarily cluttered, IMO.
This too, to make it more accurate.
Quote from: Latios212 on September 13, 2018, 04:54:19 PMCaesura looks alright, I think.
Other comments:
- Flip the tie between m. 1-2.
- Though it's chromatically descending here, m. 14 should use D naturals since it's a Bb major chord. Resultantly add courtesy D flats in the following measure.
- Disconnect the beams around the sextuplets in m. 19.
- Space the staves further apart at m. 22.
- Move the top fermata in in m. 24.
- Fix the page 2 number to be in the corner of the page and remove the page 2 URL.
This too, to make it more accurate.
-Done.
-Done.
-Done.
-Done.
-Moved it down a bit
-Done
-Well, I think it's easier to read it as is - so I would prefer to keep it like that.
Files updated.
Quote from: mastersuperfan on August 07, 2018, 08:04:23 AMIn m3-8, I think it would be better to drop the dots from the notes with staccato (I think this topic come up in discussions before). Not only would that keep the note lengths consistent between all the different staccato'd notes in the same measure (since some of them are just eighth notes), the dots just make the first few measures look unnecessarily cluttered, IMO.
Thirded. I think I agree with you though on the cluttering aspect as both versions add on ink but the rests probably add more. My reasoning for saying you should change this is because at the moment I would say that it is confusing to the reader. The dot and the staccato are working in opposite directions and so the note length that it looks like it's trying to get the performer to play is hard to work out when in actuality you want exactly the same note length as the other staccato quavers. Slightly more ink but I feel like it conveys what the performer has to do
much more clearly.
Quote from: Libera on September 18, 2018, 09:29:09 AMit is confusing to the reader.
But having an eighth-16th rest-16th confuses the reader even more IMO. It makes it look like that's a hard rythm figure and you have to count a rest, when it's a classic dotted eighth-16th figure.
Quote from: Libera on September 18, 2018, 09:29:09 AMThe dot and the staccato are working in opposite directions
They are not, because articulation =/= note length. For me staccato marks the way you should play it, not a fixed note length. In some pieces, you'll play staccatos shorter than in other pieces, depending of what feels you want to convey.
Quote from: Trasdegi on September 23, 2018, 02:08:14 AMIt makes it look like that's a hard rythm figure and you have to count a rest, when it's a classic dotted eighth-16th figure.
What I see as the problem here is the disparity between the ways you are notating the strikes of the dyads even though they are virtually the same in the original. Each of the notes in the 3-3-2 rhythm have roughly the same duration and sustain.
Spoiler
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/401094846107877377/493429161726312489/unknown.png
While yes, we may need to conform to the 4/4 rhythm a bit it seems wrong to me that the first note is notated as a dotted eighth and the second is notated as a 16th+rest. For consistency if you're having a rest on one it would be best to have a rest on the other. And for correctness` sake, in the original there actually
is a rest between the notes as the dyad dies out completely before the next one starts.
I don't feel it's the staccato's in their present form that's causing problems, but where they're placed.
That rhythm is a standard syncopated pop rhythm.
There should be enough space between the whole note in the second layer where the staccato's will fit with no trouble.
edit: on a side note, if you plan on keeping the staccato's, then you may want to have additional articulations, i.e. tenutos, in the next section that same rhythm changes to be longer and more connected.
I went for Brassman's option & updated files accordingly.
Did you even read my post? :(
Quote from: Latios212 on September 24, 2018, 04:54:18 AMDid you even read my post? :(
Yes. The performer can (and probyably unconciously will, if he knows the track) play all diads the same length. We're dealing with a 32th note difference here, and that don't overwhelm the ease of reading here imo.
Also, updated files again. The page number went havoc (again).
I see you made changes, but instead of having those middle 16th's tenuto'd, make those tail-end 8ths tenuto'd since they're the one's previously articulated.
Edit: So I see what everyone else is saying. My deal is that while staccatos can be inherently changed depending on the performer, composer, director, etc etc. Finale itself has also understood this and allowed the change the length of the staccatos. However, if the change cannot support the rest of the doc itself then I wouldn't advise doing that.
Lat makes a hard case with the note lengths and how they should be represented. And doing a little reading isn't that difficult for musicians, especially if they know the tune in the first place. Alls I'm sayin' is that while it may look unsightly, which I agree, it's a far more accurate depiction of what's going on without the questionability of the staccato, as I mentioned before.
Carry on.
Files updated. I gave up on the dotted quarters.
Not quite what I meant with the articulations, still. I can show you if you want.
edit: Like this, bro.
(https://i.imgur.com/dVTQnC7.jpg)
Okay, I'll be able to change this tomorrow. Anything else in the meantime?
Not that I know of, unless my colleagues have other things they spot.
I'll give this the official thumbs up after your changes. For real this time.
Updated. Should be good now.
m11 needs 2nd layer LH rests
m17 cresc. is hitting the bar line, so move it back a tiny bit
m24 fermata is colliding with the note.
Quote from: Maelstrom on September 27, 2018, 06:00:18 AMm11 needs 2nd layer LH rests
m17 cresc. is hitting the bar line, so move it back a tiny bit
m24 fermata is colliding with the note.
Everything done & files updated.
We're done here, boys.
Seal of approval!
This submission has been accepted by Brassman388 (https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=521).
~Zeta, your friendly NSM-Bot