Once I was looking at Jordan Kanpp's (http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?topic=7146.0) arrangement, there was a discussion about whether to include all voices in the fugue, or to omit some for the sake of playability.
And then I wondered if it would be nice to have an option to submit a simplified version of the arrangement. I, and I think other people as well, have come across certain times when you want to keep a voice, arrange it in a certain way, or try to make it sound as much as the original, but when doing so increases the difficulty of the arrangement. And you start wondering whether to keep the voices and make it harder, or omit it for the sake of accessibility.
I'm particularly thinking on popular themes which people recognize well and just want to able to play without too much difficulty. In that case it might frighten people if the arrangement looks too hard, since I think most people visiting the site aren't piano experts. You might say that it's just to omit certain voices, simplify here and there if you like, if you think it's too hard to play. But I think it's more appealing if people open the file and look and then see that it's a doable song to play.
I don't think it's that difficult for arrangers to do either, once you got your "full version", it's just to simplify certain parts for the sake of playability/accessibility. It might not be that much for updaters either, since I'm thinking that the main focus will be on the "full version".
In this way people you'll be able to have one "original version", where you can strive on achieving the best possible arrangement to the song even if that means that there can be fast runs, leaps, multiple voices and other difficult techniques included.
And a "easy version" which is meant to be more accessible, so that people can enjoy playing their favorite video game songs on piano.
Thereby people visiting the site will have options to chose from, so the moderately good pianist can chose the easy version, and the advanced pianist can chose the original version.
Easy Versions Survey (http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?topic=7526.0)
More specific information
I'll write down here more specifically some of the ideas of this new system. Note that these aren't final and can be changed but it is only to give people a grasp about what this could mean if implemented.The general idea:
- The site will offer two versions of the same song. One with accuracy as primary aim, whether that result in a difficult arrangement which demands advanced piano technique in order to preform. And a second version with the accessibility as it's primary aim.
- The difficulty of an easy version will vary from song to song as with regular arrangements, some songs are harder than others.
- Creating simplified arrangements should be optional, not required.
Other options, which hasn't been discussed:
- Being able to make an simplified arrangement of a duet (one or two pianos)
Submission form is to be discussed. But some ideas discussed are:
- Being able to submit a simplified arrangement along side your regular arrangement.
- Being able to submit 2 regular submissions and 1 simplified.
The credit for a simplified arrangement is being discussed but here are some of the options:
- Credit for a simplified version will go to the arranger of the full version.
- Credit for a simplified version will go to the arranger of the full version, but the arranger who simplified can write "simplified by ...".
- Credit for a simplified version will go the arranger who simplified the arrangement.
Replacing an easy version:
- Being able to replace a simplified arrangement, like regular arrangements.
- Credit? Who get's credit for a replaced version?
Discussion and ArgumentsSince the discussion has been running for a while I'd like to list some argument pro and against, some of which has been discussed but also some of great concern for the issue.Pro:- Creates more options for the piano enthusiasts visiting the site as they now can chose from two difficulties. If they find the full version too difficult they can choose the easy version and still enjoy playing their favorite tunes. And if you're an experienced pianist you can still enjoy playing your favorite songs as accurate as possible for the piano.
- Can give the site more popularity. With implementing this the site might receive greater popularity, since people after enjoying playing their favorite tunes in a simplified version might become members or recommend the site to friends.
- Target the average visitors, people who enjoy gaming and piano playing. I'm not really sure what the average visitor is, in terms of piano experience, but if this is true then this argument can be heavy.
- Easy to implement. Since simplifying an arrangement doesn't require the work as arranging, it won't be too difficult for arrangers to do, and neither for updaters to review.
Against:- Can risk the quality standards. As the site have grown to having high quality and accurate arrangements, this new arrangement form can risk the quality and accuracy standards the site has.
- It's unnecessary since people can simplify for themselves. It's only more work for arrangers and updaters, and simplifying isn't a too difficult task for even a moderately good pianist.
- Delays updates/submission process and requires more work for updaters. The updates are at times very slow already, and implementing this will only make them even slower plus having more work for updaters, which cannot be a good thing for the site.
- Takes time to implement. Lots of things needs to be considered for this to work properly, which makes it hard to implement, and therefore a less attractive idea.
- Infringement on arrangements. Some arrangers might be picky with their arrangements, and might not be pleased with the simplified version of their arrangement.
You just opened a can of worms buddy :P
We have had this idea in the past but I guess the song's accuracy is more important then the song's difficulty.
*cough* bespinben *cough*
Is no one aware two versions of Dr. Wily exist on-site?
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1111.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fh475%2FBespinben%2F36086a3b6f6bfb31741fd4778741f51d_zpsozs0enlv.jpg&hash=1c77014f6273bb392caea2a5d0e17d17d8b8a239)
I'm 100% for this idea. I see no reason why it shouldn't be so.
Also, the updater staff is not a stagnant nebulous body. We're evolving, and so can these word-of-mouth "rules" about NSM Standard.
And for the record, I don't like the phrase "lacks playability". This seems to connote an arranger didn't account for how the song would actually be performed (something that is ALWAYS on the forefront if my mind). "Lack of accessibility" is the phrase I would use to describe especially challenging material. An unplayable "full" version of a song will NOT be accepted as a submission, but one a difficult one lacking accessibility will. It is not the Updater's place to force an arranger to force changes that would compromise the arranger's intended ratio of fullness/accessibility. It should be noted however that there with the right arranging approach, a song can both have a high level of fullness AND accessibilty. A situation where a small increase in difficulty would result in a large increase of fulness is where I would suggest to give "arranging advice" to an arranger.
Idk if I like this. What if there is only a simplified version of a song and not a normal version? We should make a rule that you can only submit a simplified version if there is already a normal version on site or you can submit a simplified and normal version at the same time. If we don't make this a rule then people will be doing just simplified versions which is plain lazy (because obviously making a simplified version would be easier and take less time).
Another idea is that there could be a section of the site dedicated to simplified works.
There are lots of possibilities :P
Quote from: mariolegofan on June 14, 2015, 11:29:59 AMWhat if there is only a simplified version of a song and not a normal version? We should make a rule that you can only submit a simplified version if there is already a normal version on site or you can submit a simplified and normal version at the same time.
Don't overthink it. I would see this in much the same vein as Duet submissions. It is recommended to produce a solo in tandem with a duet, but not required.
At the heart of the matter, this suggestion isn't about full vs. Simplified. It's about allowing two arrangements of the same song. Since we already allow two versions of the same song (I.e. Duets), this New Suggestion is only a natural extension of that.
Quote from: Bespinben on June 14, 2015, 11:38:05 AMDon't overthink it. I would see this in much the same vein as Duet submissions. It is recommended to produce a solo in tandem with a duet, but not required.
At the heart of the matter, this suggestion isn't about full vs. Simplified. It's about allowing two arrangements of the same song. Since we already allow two versions of the same song (I.e. Duets), this New Suggestion is only a natural extension of that.
Ok.
Excellent idea! I agree and I was also thinking of duets.
Yeah, if a simplified version maintains the essence of the original piece, I see no reason it shouldn't be acceptable regardless of whether there's a more difficult version on the site. A lot of these arrangements are already simplifications; there are only so many voices you can fit into two hands, after all.
Quote from: FierceDeity on June 14, 2015, 04:36:34 PMI see no reason it shouldn't be acceptable regardless of whether there's a more difficult [full] version on the site.
This, so much. If this approach was taken, I could accept Slow's "Prologue" right now (after a few aesthetic touch-ups). Then, if someone else or Slow himself wants to make the "full" version, they may freely do so, and both can coexist.
Imo, this ties in with two of our previous and infamous discussions, difficulty ratings and orchestral arrangements (as in, submitting another version of a previously hosted arrangement).
First, as all of our discussions of difficulty have ended, the degree of difficulty is too ambiguous to be regulated at the quality we have at this time. What one user finds difficult another might find easy, and I don't think over complicating things with a system for measuring difficulty would be worth the effort. People can just do what they've been doing, either simplifying it themselves or picking something easier to play. That or use the more difficult arrangements as a sort of goal to aim for when practicing (lord knows I wouldn't have become nearly as proficient on the keyboard as I am today if it weren't for arrangements I wanted to play being slightly too difficult for where I usually was). I also wouldn't want this to become a crutch for arrangers to get around doing a bit of hard work.
"But Olimar!" you say whilst you load your text-wall retort guns with words like "hypocrisy" and "Dissimulation". "What about Duet arrangements? Those are different versions of songs that we already have, too!" Well that is a great point you bring up, me. Unfortunately, duet arrangements were more of an experiment for arrangements of a different ensemble, NOT a different version of the same instrumentation that differs in complexity (even though more hands paves the way for more opportunities). Two hosted arrangements of the same tune that differ in instrumentation should not have an outstanding focus on the difficulty, but rather the duet (one or two pianos) should be an expansion upon what the solo arrangement could not do. In other words, a duet arrangement isn't solely created to make things easier/harder, it should stand on it's own, as it's own arrangement. Thus, bring it up here has little validity.
As for that old Commander6 arrangement, that is another relic from an older time before our current set of standards and quality control were implemented. There have been other oddities that have been slowly discovered and corrected over time, and this is just one of those.
Submitting multiple solo arrangements of the same tune would, ironically, complicate things more than simplify them. In our current state, I believe we aren't ready for this kind of thing.
Edit: As for Slowpokemon's arrangement, I would say that it is fine for him to submit it how it is. But if someone else were to arrange their own version of it in a more completed state, their new arrangement would be welcomed as a replacement arrangement.
I think that this is being overthunked. Could we not (as previously stated) just submit "Simplified" versions? Regardless of whether a 'normal' version is already on the site or not? And I see no reason we can't just send "simplified" versions through at our own leisure. Like, here and there. No pressure.
On the flip side, what's saying we can't submit virtuoso arrangements, or other odd custom arrangements? Uniformity.
Quote from: Olimar12345 on June 14, 2015, 10:44:03 PMOn the flip side, what's saying we can't submit virtuoso arrangements, or other odd custom arrangements? Uniformity.
I just had like, 3 different thoughts for various sides so I'm gonna just spill them and see what ppl think.
-Olimar has a point in the sense that if we accept simplifications then it's only fair to take in virtuoso. Only thing regarding that is that with simplifications, nothing's being added to the original. Whereas with virtuoso there's extra fills, parts, etc. It kinda kills our rules for arranging around here regarding accuracy.
-To argue against Olimar's point, simplifications would be far more practical and useful to the general populous compared to custom arrangements or virtuoso.
-All that being said, I definitely see what Olimar said by "we're not ready yet". There's too much to think about still and unless everyone comes to a simple, unanimous agreement on how this would go, I don't think it should change.
Quote from: Olimar12345 on June 14, 2015, 09:18:14 PM"But Olimar!" you say whilst you load your text-wall retort guns with words like "hypocrisy" and "Dissimulation"
I feel like this was directed at somebody, but I'm not quite sure who
Oh well
Not that I'm particularly eager to get into a discussion on a topic on which your mind seems to be made up, but I do have a few questions/comments:
1. Does this mean that "fuller" arrangements would be favored over simpler ones, and if so, wouldn't that approach be sort of skewed toward higher level pianists that we have no reason to believe make up the majority of our users?
2. If we're leaving it up to the users to create more simplified versions for themselves, essentially making the transcription our sole contribution to their experience, wouldn't it make more sense to just do a full transcription involving every voice and call it a day? I mean, yeah, that's an exaggeration, of course, but what the "leave it to them" approach seems to do is put the burden of actually
arranging onto the player, and I think that's a bit much to expect of people that are, by definition, less musically experienced. You, yourself, have had me take out technically playable passages (consecutive sixteenth notes in Vegetable Valley, for example) for being too difficult, and I agree with those decisions, because we can't expect every person who comes to our site to be a prodigy. If they were, they'd probably be doing this themselves. (And yes, I understand that we could adhere to, and have generally been adhering to, a standard of a "reasonable level of difficulty", but to me this seems just as ambiguous as what we're proposing.)
3. I don't really think that this compares to the two other discussions you mentioned; difficulty ratings would be extremely difficult to implement, and ultimately wouldn't help anybody wanting to play a specific piece. And orchestral arrangements, aside from the practical concerns (exact imitation = more dangerous in terms of copyright, much more difficult to evaluate, etc.), would really warrant a whole other site of their own, and benefit far fewer people (how many people would happen to have the exact instrumentation we'd specified at their disposal?). Simplified arrangements, however, would A: be a welcome addition for many visitors of our site, and B: be much easier to implement than either.
4.
Quote from: Olimar12345 on June 14, 2015, 09:18:14 PMPeople can just do what they've been doing, either simplifying it themselves or picking something easier to play. That or use the more difficult arrangements as a sort of goal to aim for when practicing (lord knows I wouldn't have become nearly as proficient on the keyboard as I am today if it weren't for arrangements I wanted to play being slightly too difficult for where I usually was).
As a musician, I can appreciate this approach, as some of my proudest experiences have been working with pieces that were initially way beyond my reach (Arban's variations on a carnival of venice comes to mind). My first piece I ever played on piano (just a few years ago actually) was Deku's arrangement of Song of Healing, and I felt very rewarded after struggling for days with the second half. However, again, I think it's a bit much to expect everyone coming to the site to have this mindset. However, as a gamer, as a listener, as someone who's still taken aback by the magic that occurs when a piece really touches me, I have to ask:
what do you think the goal of our site should be? It's not a rhetorical question, and I personally don't have a single, definite answer for it. But I think that at least part of it should be to keep that magic alive, to let people of all backgrounds enjoy the extremely personal connection that comes with playing a piece of music that one has come to love. And "all backgrounds" includes more than just adults planning on entering music-related professions such as us. Younger people, people who've yet to have any dreams of musical greatness, people who simply heard a piece that they liked and wanted to play it, I truly hope will not feel alienated on this site, and I believe that these simplified arrangements could be a great way to achieve that.
When I was learning Deku's "Song of Healing" arrangement, as I mentioned, I was about 16. I'd been playing brass for six years, been in various honor bands, [insert various anecdotal evidence for reasonable level of musical discipline], etc. So I knew how to practice, and I knew how to sit down and struggle with a piece. And luckily, it was summer, and this was before I spent all summer working, so I had quite a bit of free time to work on it. But even still, that "magic" I was talking about earlier was never achieved until I was actually able to play the piece in tempo, which took more time than I like to admit.
Now, put yourself in the shoes of a 10-year-old who's been studying piano for two or three years. They've just played super mario galaxy, and fell in love with the Gusty Garden Galaxy theme (honest to god I'd never looked at our arrangement of that before, so it was pure luck that I picked one of yours). They're a novice, they've no experience arranging, transcribing, or even understanding at a basic level what's going on in a piece. Perhaps some octave transpositions will be apparent to them, perhaps not, but with each hour they spend struggling with a piece they haven't nearly enough experience to play, their motivation will wane, and with each change they blindly make themselves, they face the potential of losing the essence of the piece, be it an important line, an important harmony, or anything else; they face the potential of losing the "magic" that should be there by the end. The goal of these simplified arrangements should be to maintain that essence for these players, and the goal of evaluating these submissions should be to make sure that this essence is there. Is that not what we already do for all submissions?
I understand that this was a really extensive, "philosophical" way to treat this, but hey, we're discussing music, here. Sometimes considering music from a technocratic perspective isn't the best way to deal with it.
Oh wait ninjad:
Quote from: Olimar12345 on June 14, 2015, 10:44:03 PMOn the flip side, what's saying we can't submit virtuoso arrangements, or other odd custom arrangements? Uniformity.
Not to immediately dismiss your argument, or to sully this topic with another controversial (yet decreasingly so) one, but by similar (though admittedly more extreme) logic, gay marriage should remain illegal because it would open the door to bestial and polygamous marriage.
We are not such a large operation that we are above considering these things on a case by case basis.
If I wasn't so busy building this damn music box rn I'd type up another text wall to continue this pointless "debate."
I'm glad to know you gave this so much thought and consideration <3
You know me.
About the thing of making people lazy by making simplified versions. It was not my idea, my idea was: when making a submission you have the option of including a simplified version of you arrangement, or if your submitting a simplified version only it has to have be a simplified version of an arrangement already existing on site, so you can't just make a simplified version without a full version. It's should also be an option not a requirement, since some people might find it unnecessary, too much work, and some songs might be too easy so it makes no sense of making a simplified version, or the song might be too difficult to simplify.
Easy Piano is a thing and it should be implemented on this site considering the average skill level of the NSM user -- not active arrangers, mind, the people who actually come here to play our sheets.
Well seeing as its such a popular idea, perhaps we could move along to the next subject on this topic: What would it take to get this to happen and how would it work if it did?
It would work great under the additional options where the multiple arrangers box roams
It's not rocket science. If you'd like to submit an easy piano version of an arrangement, I would think that could be available in the same manner as two pianos or replacement. I think we should require that an intermediate-advanced arrangement already exist on the site, though.
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on June 15, 2015, 05:58:58 AMmy idea was: when making a submission you have the option of including a simplified version of you arrangement, or if your submitting a simplified version only it has to have be a simplified version of an arrangement already existing on site, so you can't just make a simplified version without a full version.
My two cents:
- I don't think this discussion relates to duets, virtuoso sheets, or orchestrations at all. Simplified sheets are all about increasing accessibility and satisfying a broader audience while all of those LIMIT accessibility and DECREASE scope. The whole point of this is to make more people happy with the work we do here.
Quote from: Olimar12345 on June 14, 2015, 09:18:14 PMI also wouldn't want this to become a crutch for arrangers to get around doing a bit of hard work.
- I really don't think that's an issue for people here. Take arrangers who've posted on this thread for example. You have all shown they know their stuff by arranging awesome, complete sheets. No one could accuse any of you for avoiding work, as you've all clearly worked hard on the ones you have. The source of simplified sheets would be people who would be able to make a good reduction, not people who want to avoid doing work or don't know what they're doing.
- I'm going to introduce a relevant example for tangibility. Take a sheet by Fingerz (http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?topic=6585.msg264771#msg264771) that is about to replace a sheet by Slow (http://www.ninsheetmusic.org/download/pdf/1872). Now this isn't your traditional "replacing garbage on site" replacement. Slow's sheet is a version of the song that has been toned down enough to play comfortably after sitting with it for a reasonable amount of time, but still sounds like the original. I've played through it a bunch of times in the past and it sounds good. Fingerz's sheet, on the other hand, is more in the vein of what we've been aiming for recently - accuracy and ALL the right notes, and with it, a steeper difficulty. I'm not saying Fingerz's arrangement is too complicated to belong on site, or Slow's is too simple to belong on site. What I am saying is that they are both good sheets, and deserve their place on site because they serve different needs. Coexistence. If a talented pianist (and also video game fan) visits NSM wanting to play this song, they'd print Fingerz's sheet and have a fun time with it. On the flip side, if some kid who loves Pokémon and has a tiny bit of piano experience finds NSM wanting to play this song, they'd print Slow's sheet and have a fun time with it.
I see no reason why we can't cater to more people, especially if people are already willing to make the effort to do so.
Quote from: SlowPokemon on June 16, 2015, 07:16:54 AMIt's not rocket science. If you'd like to submit an easy piano version of an arrangement, I would think that could be available in the same manner as two pianos or replacement. I think we should require that an intermediate-advanced arrangement already exist on the site, though.
I totally agree. I think this is the best way it could work.
I personally believe that two pianos should never have been allowed, it just encourages lazy transcribing rather than an attempt at a solo piano arrangement. There should neve
I wouldn't be totally opposed to easy piano, even with its subjectiveness, but I would see it as something that should ONLY come after a more proper arrangement was done. It would definitely have to be "easy" in all sense of things, keeping the main melody but skimping on complicated chords or quick movements. What I see being the main issue is "easy" getting overly simplistic, or being barely different from the original arrangement. This is of course something that makes it a difficult task, and one that arrangers and updaters would have to work together on to achieve.
Actually, having "easy" would make some of the more complex songs much easier to deal with. The "easy piano" version could be the simple melody and backing voices with the original still being recognizable, while the "standard" would be where the arranger does the real work trying to meld the various extra voices together keeping it as a reasonable solo piano piece while keeping as much of the full feel of the original song as possible.
It would have to take Jamaha, Olimar and the rest of the updaters to talk about and agree on something like this though. It would be nice if you could have a mature discussion about this Olimar because it's not at all an unreasonable concept, and the community has definitely matured to have a strong baseline far beyond the "arrangements-r-us" cheapo assembly line of old.
Let's suppose this is implemented. Who's to say one arrangement needs a simplified version and another one doesn't? If the player doesn't have the necessary skill to play a certain arrangement, then it's up to the player to simplify it to match their personal skills, and maybe progressively adding what has been removed.
I'm totally with Olimar on this one, a song could be simplified almost to infinity, it would be complicate things way too much. As for the duets argument, that's another story that has nothing to do with this. Duets stand as something independent, not as an extension of solos. Not to mention that I suppose what you guys are saying is that duets should also have easy versions? What really matters in the end is actual playability of what's written, nothing else.
Why shouldn't be this allowed? Well aside from what's above, why shouldn't remixes be allowed? Why shouldn't orchestral arrangements be allowed? Why shouldn't clarinet-only arrangements be allowed? Consistency.
Edit: Ok, you could say, "But virtuoso arrangements are technically playable, so they should be allowed following your reasoning!". A virtuoso arrangement is an expansion of a song, almost a remix, where the arranger uses the original song as a model to create something impressive, and, well, virtuoso. It would be the same as simplifying a song, but inverted, making it more difficult instead.
That way the other arguments apply too, who's to say this arrangement is too difficult or not difficult enough? Both extremes are too vague and differ a lot depending on the person so as to mark a "Standard-easy" and "Standard-difficult". "Standard-difficulty", on the other hand, is determined by the original song, therefore making it plausible.
Latios introduced one example, I'll introduce another.
Athletic - Super Mario World is an incredibly difficult and popular song. It's one of the main songs that brought me to NSM, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's the same story for many others.
This (https://www.dropbox.com/s/kands9dy09hnj08/Super%20Mario%20World%20-%20Athletic.mus?dl=0) is the sheet currently on the site. I fixed the copyright and url, but other than that, I made no changes to the song itself.
This (https://www.dropbox.com/s/8qtrzw9tm622tyg/Super%20Mario%20World%20-%20Athletic%20Simplified.mus?dl=0) is the same sheet, simplified.
All I did was remove most of the red notes, raise most of the single quarter notes up an octave, change the last measure to more non-intuitively use both hands, and reduce each chord down to two notes (deleting the bottom or bottom two notes, depending on the chord). It wasn't that difficult to make the changes. Took me about an hour.
To defend Don and Olimar's point, at what point is a sheet too difficult to simplify for the average user? At what point can an average NSM user not make the same changes that I just made? To put it simply, it's a judgement call. It's a matter of opinion. Although, for the record, I'm all for allowing simplified sheets, within the boundaries of reason. Not every song needs to be simplified. But I believe that some do.
I agree with Kefkatic; let the staff discuss it. They've been at this much longer than most of us, and I'm totally fine with whatever decision that they make.
Quote from: DonValentino on June 17, 2015, 06:07:20 AMWhy shouldn't be this allowed? Well aside from what's above, why shouldn't remixes be allowed? Why shouldn't orchestral arrangements be allowed? Why shouldn't clarinet-only arrangements be allowed? Consistency.
I'm not trying to attack anyone in any way whatsoever but I'm going to say that I hate this argument because it falls apart on itself for two big reasons:
1) If you really want consistency to the degree you're describing, then duets and two pianos should be eliminated as well really.
2) The big difference is exactly as Latios said. Every single thing you mentioned limits the number of people who could benefit from it, where easy piano would vastly expand it. Hugely. That's why I think it's such a good idea to do this.
Now, addressing Kefka's point of the lazy transcribing thing (which I do fully agree can/prob will be a problem): This would be another reason I'd say we have mods. We can't put strict laws on every specific thing (like how much simpler a "simplified" should be) but fortunately, we don't have to. We have mods who can add that human reason and logic to these specific and individual situations.
That being said, I'd also like to remind the mods (and other ppl against the idea) that if this does get implemented, in no way are the mods giving up any of their power whatsoever. They're still rulers of NSM and exempt to the rules within reason and with good reason. If we try and this falls on its face, we can forget it. No decision is permanent until we have loads of sheets already up. We could do a trial period for the skeptics. :P
Quote from: Brawler4Ever on June 17, 2015, 08:47:30 AMI agree with Kefkatic; let the staff discuss it. They've been at this much longer than most of us, and I'm totally fine with whatever decision that they make.
Haha while I agree, truth is we don't really have much of a choice anyways. The mods' word is law.
As I said in my previous post I think that, if it's going to be possible adding easy versions, it should be an option not a requirement. So that people who want to submit an easy version along side with their "full arrangement" can do that, but people who don't want to aren't required to do so, so it's up to the arranger to decide whether an arrangement is to difficult or not, or if it needs a simplified version along side it or not. I also wanted to make it an option to add only a simplified version, but it should be to an arrangement already existing on site. So for example if someone made an arrangement, and thought something like: "this isn't too difficult" or "I don't feel like making an easy version, people can simplify by themselves", that happen to accepted and uploaded to the main site. Then later comes another arranger who looked at it and thought something like: "this is my favorite tune, ...but it is too difficult to play" or "this is a great theme but somewhat difficult, might by nice to an easy version along side it"; then that person should have the option of creating a simplified version of the arrangement the first person created. And in the end the second arrangement(the simplified one) happens to be accepted and uploaded to the main site, so in the end we're left with two arrangements of the same song, one arrangement(the "full version") by the first arranger, and another arrangement(a "simplified version") by the second arranger.
Quote from: FierceDeity on June 14, 2015, 11:28:52 PM1. Does this mean that "fuller" arrangements would be favored over simpler ones, and if so, wouldn't that approach be sort of skewed toward higher level pianists that we have no reason to believe make up the majority of our users?
No. As you already know, our focus lies in accuracy and playability. We aren't typically focusing on any specific degree of difficulty in the current submissions; we try to keep things reasonable. As you stated later in that post, though, we keep an eye open for the extremes. If things are unrealistic or not pianistic (as in, ignoring the way the piano works (possibly being too transcription-y and often not arranged for the
piano very well)) I will usually address it and suggest a change in the work. On the other side of that spectrum, if an arrangement is overly simplistic, then the inclusion of absent voices (if applicable) should at least be attempted to be worked in, in some fashion.
Quote from: FierceDeity on June 14, 2015, 11:28:52 PM2. If we're leaving it up to the users to create more simplified versions for themselves, essentially making the transcription our sole contribution to their experience, wouldn't it make more sense to just do a full transcription involving every voice and call it a day? I mean, yeah, that's an exaggeration, of course, but what the "leave it to them" approach seems to do is put the burden of actually arranging onto the player, and I think that's a bit much to expect of people that are, by definition, less musically experienced.
You are giving this one too much thought. Any idiot can make adjustments to a piece to make it more accessible for themselves, (adjust octaves, simplify LH, etc.) and if they can't do that yet, than they shouldn't have internet access at their age. One of the greatest qualities about our site is that we offer arrangements that are faithful to the originals actually sound like the original tunes. Most other sites in our field can't offer the quality we do.
Quote from: FierceDeity on June 14, 2015, 11:28:52 PMYou, yourself, have had me take out technically playable passages (consecutive sixteenth notes in Vegetable Valley, for example) for being too difficult, and I agree with those decisions, because we can't expect every person who comes to our site to be a prodigy.
If I'm thinking of the correct arrangement, and irc, that was an instance where you were asking from the piano something it doesn't normally do. That instance was more of an issue of writing against the instrument, and less of an issue of difficulty (
similar topics, but very different topics d: ).
Quote from: FierceDeity on June 14, 2015, 11:28:52 PM3. I don't really think that this compares to the two other discussions you mentioned; difficulty ratings
It kind of does, as a matter of fact lol. Determining the level of difficulty for the rating system would go hand in hand with determining the level simplicity of an adjusted arrangement, and if both systems were ever simultaneously implemented, I would imagine that they would be regulated similarly. Of course, the technical side of these two (actually getting the tech in place to work)
is an unrelated issue. I didn't say these two topic were the same; I said that they "tied in" with one another.
Quote from: FierceDeity on June 14, 2015, 11:28:52 PMAnd orchestral arrangements, aside from the practical concerns (exact imitation = more dangerous in terms of copyright, much more difficult to evaluate, etc.), would really warrant a whole other site of their own, and benefit far fewer people (how many people would happen to have the exact instrumentation we'd specified at their disposal?).
My touch on that topic was about the possibly ambiguity in having multiple arrangements of the same tune:
Quote from: Olimar12345 on June 14, 2015, 09:18:14 PMorchestral arrangements (as in, submitting another version of a previously hosted arrangement).
Quote from: FierceDeity on June 14, 2015, 11:28:52 PMSimplified arrangements, however, would A: be a welcome addition for many visitors of our site, and B: be much easier to implement than either.
A: Just about any major change we make will draw attention from a different audience. This one just happens to focus on the beginner.
B: Sure, I guess pressing that "Accept Arrangement" button is pretty easy to do, when you ignore everything else.
I think I addressed all of the questions/points in that post.
Another topic regarding the submission of simplified arrangements would be to watch for lazy plagiarism. This is something that I have been extremely cautious of when reviewing challenge-based replacement arrangements, and, imo, would be even more problematic for simplified versions. Let me give you a quick scenario:
-Little Joe-schmo visits the site regularly and likes hearing all the new arrangements posted on the site.
-Eventually, he creates an account on the forums, and sees how things work behind the scenes. "liljoshmo02" then sees that simplified arrangements are a thing, and decides that he wants to become internet-famous (as he and his friends call it).
-liljoshmo02 then proceeds to downloads all the popular arrangements, replaces the LH with sloppy block triads, then submits them one-by-one under his name, as "simplified arrangements".
In that specific case of simply changing the left hand (or other, minor changes), I believe that the arrangement would remain in the credit of the original arranger. In my example above, It is my opinion that the simplified Athletic arrangement should be submitted under Brassman388's name. It's no different than the current replacement project; if all we do is change the style of the sheet, without changing its substance, then we don't deserve to take credit for the original arranger's work. If we make that the precedent from the beginning, then I personally don't see plagiarism being a concern.
But I might be mistaken. Worst case scenario: if someone does try to upload a sheet with some sloppy work copying off of the original arranger and claiming credit as his/her own, then it will simply get rejected by the updaters. It's a fine balance there, but I believe that all of the updaters have done a fine job so far. As long as we set the example of giving due credit, I believe that future arrangers will follow suit.
Another idea would be to have simplified versions start completely from scratch, not taking any portion of the original into account. This would remove any potential allusion of plagiarism, while still giving the site simplified arrangements. However, it would force arrangers to basically reinvent the wheel. I'm against this idea, but it is another possibility of handling the situation. Personally, I prefer that we just trust one another.
The thing is, my idea was that: if you only going to make a "simplified arrangement", it has to from an already existing arrangement, and also must be somewhat similar. For example let's say I want to make a simplified arrangement of Legend of Zelda "Overworld". Then my simplified arrangement must be similar to the already existing arrangement, so I'll have to look up the arrangement and simplify it, maybe remove some low 16th in those fast runs etc. I also think that the credit should still go to the arranger of the "original arrangement", but maybe put something like "simplified/simplification by .." under "arranged by.."; so in this example case, if it was accepted, it would say "Arranged by JDMEK5" "Simplified by Tobbeh99". I think it's reasonable since the one who simplified didn't "arrange" much, but more so edited the the arrangement to make it easier. So in this way, I think it should be emphasized that the simplification must be similar to the original arrangement, and that most of the credit goes to the original arranger, you only get credit for the simplification.
Quote from: Brawler4Ever on June 17, 2015, 11:45:52 AMAnother idea would be to have simplified versions start completely from scratch, not taking any portion of the original into account. This would remove any potential allusion of plagiarism, while still giving the site simplified arrangements. However, it would force arrangers to basically reinvent the wheel. I'm against this idea, but it is another possibility of handling the situation. Personally, I prefer that we just trust one another.
I think it might be difficult to tell if you did start it all from scratch, or if you just edited the original arrangement. So like you, I'm also against this idea.
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on June 17, 2015, 09:19:54 AMAs I said in my previous post I think that, if it's going to be possible adding easy versions, it should be an option not a requirement. So that people who want to submit an easy version along side with their "full arrangement" can do that, but people who don't want to aren't required to do so, so it's up to the arranger to decide whether an arrangement is to difficult or not, or if it needs a simplified version along side it or not. I also wanted to make it an option to add only a simplified version, but it should be to an arrangement already existing on site. So for example if someone made an arrangement, and thought something like: "this isn't too difficult" or "I don't feel like making an easy version, people can simplify by themselves", that happen to accepted and uploaded to the main site. Then later comes another arranger who looked at it and thought something like: "this is my favorite tune, ...but it is too difficult to play" or "this is a great theme but somewhat difficult, might by nice to an easy version along side it"; then that person should have the option of creating a simplified version of the arrangement the first person created. And in the end the second arrangement(the simplified one) happens to be accepted and uploaded to the main site, so in the end we're left with two arrangements of the same song, one arrangement(the "full version") by the first arranger, and another arrangement(a "simplified version") by the second arranger.
^This. Exactly. Nobody will ever be forced to do this and it should only be possible for tunes that already have a normal arrangement on site as well.
I agree with JDMEK's last point. As for orchestral arrangements, we tried it out and it didn't work so well. Not only does it take a completely different arrangement style which very few arrangers can manage, having the community believe that we can start accepting requests for ANY song with ANY set of instruments is too big of a dream. Think of the thousands of combinations of instruments that can be used for each given track.
We are a websites of standards, anything that can be standardized should be. We have a ton of content already with the restrictions of one or two pianos, and simplified arrangements aren't too far off the radar in my opinion. Although it's true that anyone can simplify a song simply by studying it for a few minutes. Perhaps we should post a poll on the facebook page and let the community decide what they want.
This could be interesting, but priority should ALWAYS be put towards full arrangements. If you can create a beginner sheet during the process of arranging the regular one, I suppose it makes sense, in fact rather than creating an entry with a separate difficulty level making our sheet pages way long, we should have a beginner button that replaces the links to each file with a beginners file.
That's just my two cents, but the idea that any and all VG arrangements should be welcome at NSM is absurd, and you can't ask that of our skeleton staff.
Getting far ahead of things, I could see it being easily implemented as an extra button or identifier on existing tracks (since there would be easy versions ONLY on existing tracks) that would indicate there was an easy version available, with the link to download right there or what.
Quote from: Winter on June 17, 2015, 05:10:15 PMI agree with JDMEK's last point. As for orchestral arrangements, we tried it out and it didn't work so well. Not only does it take a completely different arrangement style which very few arrangers can manage, having the community believe that we can start accepting requests for ANY song with ANY set of instruments is too big of a dream. Think of the thousands of combinations of instruments that can be used for each given track.
We are a websites of standards, anything that can be standardized should be. We have a ton of content already with the restrictions of one or two pianos, and simplified arrangements aren't too far off the radar in my opinion. Although it's true that anyone can simplify a song simply by studying it for a few minutes. Perhaps we should post a poll on the facebook page and let the community decide what they want.
This could be interesting, but priority should ALWAYS be put towards full arrangements. If you can create a beginner sheet during the process of arranging the regular one, I suppose it makes sense, in fact rather than creating an entry with a separate difficulty level making our sheet pages way long, we should have a beginner button that replaces the links to each file with a beginners file.
Quote from: KefkaticFanatic on June 17, 2015, 05:16:34 PMGetting far ahead of things, I could see it being easily implemented as an extra button or identifier on existing tracks (since there would be easy versions ONLY on existing tracks) that would indicate there was an easy version available, with the link to download right there or what.
Yes and yes. This has tons of potential and if a Facebook poll is what it takes to get everyone on board, I'm all for it. Sounds like a great idea actually.
Quote from: Winter on June 17, 2015, 05:10:15 PMwe should have a beginner button that replaces the links to each file with a beginners file.
Concerning the design of the main site, I'm thinking of a little "arrow" or tab, which you can press to show all the arrangements of a song. So let's say you got an original arrangement, a duet and an easy version. Then that tab-arrow will show that there exist more than one arrangement of a song, and when you click on it it'll show all the arrangements of the song. But if a song only have one arrangement then it'll look just like it is now. It is kind of like the "spoiler" feature in the reply options.
Oh, hi, it's one of those sprees again. You're not going to get rid of me for long, you know. Or, well, you might, but I'll be back occasionally, chiming in on subjects then vanishing into the night again. I'm easier to find on Smogon these days.
Small talk aside, on to the subject:
In my opinion, simplified versions would be a great little boon to NSM. As FierceDeity said, and Olimar touched upon, "lil' Joe Schmo"s comprises a pretty major part of our target audience. People who like gaming, have some piano skills, and would like to play video game music. Heck, even that part about "have some piano skills" is optional; when I first started downloading sheets from this site, I knew exactly one piece I had learned off YouTube, and I learned to read notes mainly to get something out of the huge database of sheets NSM had (and continues to have). Simple appreciation of some video game music can get people into piano or music in general, and NSM would seem to be a natural place to start for those people. As such, the effective removal of the "Finale Wall" by adding PDF versions of sheets was possibly the greatest thing to yet happen to NSM, as it made our content a lot more accessible.
However, lil' Joe Schmo will soon hit a pretty major hurdle: Many songs on site are
pretty damn hard for people with little experience. The iconic ones such as the Mario Athletic themes, or the Legend of Zelda theme, or most things from Pokémon will be far beyond the skill of beginners. Many sheets on site feel like they shout "learn piano first, come back here later" to the poor novices, and motivation drops like a brick in vacuum. Simplified versions (sometimes
grossly simplified, even) of popular themes would be a good motivator for inexperienced players. It gives them something to build their skills upon.
Quote from: Olimar12345 on June 17, 2015, 11:19:15 AMAnother topic regarding the submission of simplified arrangements would be to watch for lazy plagiarism. This is something that I have been extremely cautious of when reviewing challenge-based replacement arrangements, and, imo, would be even more problematic for simplified versions. Let me give you a quick scenario:
-Little Joe-schmo visits the site regularly and likes hearing all the new arrangements posted on the site.
-Eventually, he creates an account on the forums, and sees how things work behind the scenes. "liljoshmo02" then sees that simplified arrangements are a thing, and decides that he wants to become internet-famous (as he and his friends call it).
-liljoshmo02 then proceeds to downloads all the popular arrangements, replaces the LH with sloppy block triads, then submits them one-by-one under his name, as "simplified arrangements".
I daresay that even if this happens, the sheet approval procedure should be good enough to filter out the laziest conversions. If the mods/peers do such a bad job that they let sloppily edited plagiarism through just like so, we kind of deserve the quality we get. Nothing is put on site without prior revision, so any failure to meet standards should not be blamed on the submittors only. I have faith that this community would stop lazy hacks like that.
And even if Olimar's scenario unfolded, as per my point above, liljoshmo02 would still contribute to the site by making more sheets accessible to more people. Heck, we do have quite a few pretty botched arrangements on site already, but they still get downloaded from time to time.
Conversely, the idea of "virtouso arrangements" are less important to NSM the way I see it. If you're a skilled enough pianist to even be able to play some of MaestroUGC's stuff, you're skilled enough to elaborate on the sheets we already have on site yourself. You wouldn't need a dedicated sheet to do that job for you, if you already are on that level.
As someone who sucks at piano but wants to learn to play a 'working' version of some Nintendo songs, I think the idea of easy arrangements is a great one.
But I also understand the point that the NSM page should be dedicated to accuracy over any difficulty levels, and like Olimar said earlier every piece is very different so finding an appropriate difficulty level for each piece is a big ask.
Here's my thought: What if we had a new forum category for 'easy' arrangements? I'm imagining that it would work like the Personal Arrangement Threads - each person could make a thread for their own work and post the simplified arrangements to that thread. Maybe it's reinventing the wheel here but I know that I personally am going through my arrangements and simplifying them so I can actually play them for fun instead of waiting for a virtuoso to come along and play the super overcaffeinated MarioKart titles I've been working. To me, that would be a way to offer simpler arrangements to users without deprecating the accuracy of the sheets on the NSM site. What do you guys think? Is it hard to add a new forum? On some of the other forums I've moderated, our framework just has a giant "Create Forum" button that we can click to make a new one.
^About the new forum idea:
I think it's much easier if you just have it all in your arrangement thread, both the original version and the simplified, instead of creating a new forum category for that. It's pretty easy to do just have a like with the simplified version under the regular one. The advantage of this is also that people can view all your arrangements you have and also see which ones you have done simplified version to, instead of having to go to different forums to search, better with all in one thread.
Fair enough. Although, are we worried about users not knowing to look in the Personal Arrangement Threads? If I were a new user/beginning piano player and wanted to find a collection of easy titles, I'd have to learn about individual forum members in order to know that their threads could have simplified arrangements. I don't know if that's a big deal or not - I'm obviously not fully acquainted yet with NSM, its forum, members or history.
I'm not sure about this, but I think that most people who visit the site only look on the main site. That's what I used to do before I became a member. So it might not add much.
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on September 10, 2015, 09:35:05 AMI'm not sure about this, but I think that most people who visit the site only look on the main site. That's what I used to do before I became a member. So it might not add much.
This is a huge point. I knew about the main site for about five years before I stumbled across the forum side. So people like me in my past would have no way to find easier versions...
I have no idea if we'd already discussed this, but why not a new page on the main site?
Quote from: braixen1264 on September 11, 2015, 07:02:00 AMI have no idea if we'd already discussed this, but why not a new page on the main site?
Although this could lead to people attempting to reach 2500 easy sheets rather than focusing on transcribing new ones to completion. I want the easy versions idea to succeed, and I do like your idea, but I think we need to increase our number of easy arrangements on the site before we consider a separate page. For now, listing them in their appropriate games would probably be fine.
Now, my own thoughts completely unrelated to the quoted post. In a utopian NSM society, we'd have maybe 3 difficulty levels of each song (I think that would accompany all pianists better), but that would be too crazy. But in order to jumpstart this idea, we have to reach a consensus of what difficulty we are arranging for in the simplified versions.
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on September 11, 2015, 10:52:39 AMwe have to reach a consensus of what difficulty we are arranging for in the simplified versions.
This is the entire argument against an easy versions idea. What does easy mean to the pianist? For everybody, it means something different, hence the confusion. Even if we put the label "easy" on a sheet, not everybody will be able to play. Earlier in this thread, I posted an easy version of Athletic from Super Mario World. Many pianists, myself included, would not be able to play this sheet. So calling it "easy" would be an oxymoron, which would be unprofessional of the site.
However, this is all moot anyway.
Quote from: Brawler4Ever on June 17, 2015, 08:47:30 AMlet the staff discuss it. They've been at this much longer than most of us, and I'm totally fine with whatever decision that they make.
Either the staff never discussed the idea, or they discussed the idea and rejected it. If they rejected it, bringing it back up won't help. If they never discussed it, then maybe we can bring it back up and hopefully convince them. But I'm thinking that it's more likely that this isn't being implemented intentionally.
For the record, I'm still on board this idea, entirely. :)
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on September 11, 2015, 10:52:39 AMBut in order to jumpstart this idea, we have to reach a consensus of what difficulty we are arranging for in the simplified versions.
emm no, that was not my idea. My idea was that you make an
easier version of the arrangement. That doesn't mean that it is easy it only means that it is easier. So if you make a hard song easier it might still be hard but just easier than the original, and some songs might not be possible to simplify without removing to much of the essence of the song.
Why are we calling it 'Easy Arrangements'? 'Simplified Arrangements' would be better in my opinion
Nah simplified has a different connotation. Easy Piano is actually an official term believe it or not.
There is no reason not to have this.
The argument that it would be "inconsistent" is, quite frankly, bullshit. We have bespinben nearly-impossible-because-you're-playing-an-entire-orchestra arrangements right next to Slow Pokemon anyone-can-play-it-because-I-left-out-half-the-voices arrangements. How is that any less consistent than allowing simplified arrangements?
We have to either:
a) Updators need to enforce an "include everything you possibly can" standard and expect less advanced enthusiasts to simplify themselves.
or
b) Allow simplified and full versions.
because any arguments against simplified arrangements also applies to our current system that allows arrangements of nearly every level of "fullness" (so long as you're a well respected arranger I suppose.)
Quote from: FireArrow on September 12, 2015, 12:17:56 AMThe argument that it would be "inconsistent" is, quite frankly, bullshit.
Quote from: FireArrow on September 12, 2015, 12:17:56 AMThe argument that it would be "inconsistent" is, quite frankly, bullshit.
This.
Everybody here (except Olimar it seems; forgive me if I'm missing anyone else) is all for this idea and Cobraroll (once again) hit the nail on the head in every single regard. (http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?topic=7151.msg294926#msg294926)
Quote from: Brawler4Ever on September 11, 2015, 11:34:53 AMWhat does easy mean to the pianist? For everybody, it means something different, hence the confusion. Even if we put the label "easy" on a sheet, not everybody will be able to play. Earlier in this thread, I posted an easy version of Athletic from Super Mario World. Many pianists, myself included, would not be able to play this sheet. So calling it "easy" would be an oxymoron, which would be unprofessional of the site.
If it's so hard to define, why do so many hundreds of publishers have "Easy Piano" arrangements of literally everything under the sun? There's absolutely no reason why we can't have this that doesn't flop when we investigate further. Obviously some "Easy" sheets will be harder than others but the idea is a new class that can take beginners to almost intermediate level or something like that.
Quote from: TheMarioPianist on September 11, 2015, 10:52:39 AMNow, my own thoughts completely unrelated to the quoted post. In a utopian NSM society, we'd have maybe 3 difficulty levels of each song (I think that would accompany all pianists better), but that would be too crazy. But in order to jumpstart this idea, we have to reach a consensus of what difficulty we are arranging for in the simplified versions.
I think 3 levels is too many. The arrangements we have already range from intermediate to advanced to why-the-hell-even-try difficulties. I think the sheets we have now (with little concern for 'easiness') can be one class, and then "Easy" be another. That's plenty imo. Having 3 versions of each sheet would be too much and let's face it, nobody really needs that many.
Quote from: braixen1264 on September 11, 2015, 07:02:00 AMI have no idea if we'd already discussed this, but why not a new page on the main site?
Exactly. A new tab at the top or something. Obviously this can't go in the forums.
Quote from: JDMEK5 on September 12, 2015, 11:12:42 AMI think 3 levels is too many. The arrangements we have already range from intermediate to advanced to why-the-hell-even-try difficulties. I think the sheets we have now (with little concern for 'easiness') can be one class, and then "Easy" be another. That's plenty imo. Having 3 versions of each sheet would be too much and let's face it, nobody really needs that many.
Yea, I'm completely aware of 3 being too many. I was just saying that because that would be the closest we could get to covering all bases. Of course, 2 would encompass 90-95% of all pianists, but I was kind of thinking based upon an easy, medium, hard type progression. Like my idea for easy would be like to take it all the way down to a level of like Level 2-3 of an Alfred's piano lesson book. Of course, I doubt anyone would ever need anything that simplified. I was just kind of thinking in terms of people who maybe only have played piano for a year (or even less) but still wanted to play these types of songs. But hey, I agree that one easy version should suffice.
Oh yea, and everything else you said I totally agree with.
Not gonna lie, as much as I love all the detail put into the Mystery Dungeon sheets (which are the only ones I ever want to play) they're kind of impossible for me without much more time dedicated to practice than I have to spare. Easy versions would be the best thing ever.
This topic just keeps coming back to life. Rather than type up a new post wall, here's a link to my last one:
http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?topic=7151.msg294354#msg294354
Edit: I will address this though:
Quote from: FireArrow on September 12, 2015, 12:17:56 AMThe argument that it would be "inconsistent" is, quite frankly, bullshit.
If you're referring to my first post (http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?topic=7151.msg294037#msg294037) in this topic, I was referring to the over complication of the entire process, not just the site display.
Quote from: Olimar12345 on September 13, 2015, 07:37:12 AMEdit: I will address this though:
If you're referring to my first post (http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?topic=7151.msg294037#msg294037) in this topic, I was referring to the over complication of the entire process, not just the site display.
I was mostly referring Don on the second page. No matter if you're talking about the site or the process, it wouldn't be any different than duets. If you don't want to add another complicated thing (sorry, but I don't really see how it's all that complicated in the first place), then replace duet arrangements with simplified arrangements. Duets aren't exactly a high demand thing NSM visitors want unlike the extremely popular simplified arrangements. I mean seriously, just look at all the testimonies in this thread alone. Remember when that mom posted in the forum to find an easy song for her son? It's something that could really benefit NSM.
Since you want a reply to the post you linked (or is it the final words of the staff?):
QuoteNo. As you already know, our focus lies in accuracy and playability. We aren't typically focusing on any specific degree of difficulty in the current submissions; we try to keep things reasonable. As you stated later in that post, though, we keep an eye open for the extremes. If things are unrealistic or not pianistic (as in, ignoring the way the piano works (possibly being too transcription-y and often not arranged for the piano very well)) I will usually address it and suggest a change in the work. On the other side of that spectrum, if an arrangement is overly simplistic, then the inclusion of absent voices (if applicable) should at least be attempted to be worked in, in some fashion.
Reasonable is a relative term. What NSM, a community consisting of skilled musicians and music majors, considers a reasonable difficulty, a lot of casual piano players don't. Why some songs are pushed to be as accurate and difficult as possible while others are left simplified I suppose could be a counter argument to this, but that's a rather sloppy solution. If I want a full version of Slow Pokemon's arrangement, why should I as a visitor be denied that because NSM only allows one version of a song to be hosted? Likewise, if I want a version of Temporal Tower that doesn't involve me studying in a conservatory for 3 decades, why should I be denied that because NSM doesn't allow simplified versions.
QuoteYou are giving this one too much thought. Any idiot can make adjustments to a piece to make it more accessible for themselves, (adjust octaves, simplify LH, etc.) and if they can't do that yet, than they shouldn't have internet access at their age. One of the greatest qualities about our site is that we offer arrangements that are faithful to the originals actually sound like the original tunes. Most other sites in our field can't offer the quality we do.
If the solution to the issue is "arrange everything as faithfully as possible and have the audience simplify it themselves" then why do we accept overly simplified submissions? All that does is deny more advanced players, who may or may not be able to arrange the missing voices themselves.
I wouldn't mind if it worked that way, as I did say:
Quote from: FireArrow on September 12, 2015, 12:17:56 AMWe have to either:
a) Updators need to enforce an "include everything you possibly can" standard and expect less advanced enthusiasts to simplify themselves.
or
b) Allow simplified and full versions.
though I do feel that option grants arrangers much less freedom than the latter.
QuoteIt kind of does, as a matter of fact lol. Determining the level of difficulty for the rating system would go hand in hand with determining the level simplicity of an adjusted arrangement, and if both systems were ever simultaneously implemented, I would imagine that they would be regulated similarly. Of course, the technical side of these two (actually getting the tech in place to work) is an unrelated issue. I didn't say these two topic were the same; I said that they "tied in" with one another.
The only difficulty that needs to be defined is "substantially easier than the full arrangement", which can be defined at the updator's discretion on a piece to piece basis. This is not difficult at all and I don't see why it would be an issue.
QuoteMy touch on that topic was about the possibly ambiguity in having multiple arrangements of the same tune:
Super cool mario song
Super cool mario song [simplified]
How is that ambiguous?
QuoteA: Just about any major change we make will draw attention from a different audience. This one just happens to focus on the beginner.
B: Sure, I guess pressing that "Accept Arrangement" button is pretty easy to do, when you ignore everything else.
I think I addressed all of the questions/points in that post.
A: Beginners happen to be one of our largest audiences.
B: It'd be significantly easier then going over a full version arrangement, though yes, it would be more work.
[idiocy]
The only thing I'm really wondering about is to what degree should they be simplified to?
Quote from: InsigTurtle on September 13, 2015, 06:30:58 PMThe only thing I'm really wondering about is to what degree should they be simplified to?
Me personally, I'm thinking melody, bass, countermelody if it has a rhythm that can easily be performed alongside the other line in whatever staff it ends up in, and (if extant - I do mostly 8-bit arrangements so this doesn't often apply) harmonies that are either just an octave or full triads where the span is less than an octave. But it would be different sheet to sheet.
Quote from: Tobbeh99 on September 11, 2015, 11:51:53 AMMy idea was that you make an easier version of the arrangement. That doesn't mean that it is easy it only means that it is easier. So if you make a hard song easier it might still be hard but just easier than the original, and some songs might not be possible to simplify without removing to much of the essence of the song.
Don't have time to fully respond atm, but altissimo you meet to simmer tf down rn.
So glad my input is appreciated. Sorry this is an issue I'm a bit passionate about. :///////
Quote from: InsigTurtle on September 13, 2015, 06:30:58 PMThe only thing I'm really wondering about is to what degree should they be simplified to?
That would be determined by the song in question. Most likely we would be working with more of the popular songs, not the obscure ones. Not every song needs to be simplified. One example is the Super Mario Brothers Theme (http://www.ninsheetmusic.org/download/mus/1941). In my opinion, it doesn't need to be simplified, due to it being relatively easy. Others might disagree, and that's fine. The Overworld (http://www.ninsheetmusic.org/download/mus/1183) from the Legend of Zelda, however, might be more complicated to new piano players, and would probably be a good choice for simplification/easification(?). It all depends on the need of the song. :)
Just looks at the Mega Man 2 Dr. Wily stage (which already has a simplified version). The only major difference between them is the replacement of 16th notes for 8th notes. The tempo, melody, and structure of the song remain entirely intact.
Quote from: Latios212 on September 13, 2015, 06:38:44 PM(Quote)
^^^^^my goal is not to make an "easy" arrangement, as I stated earlier, but to make an arrangement people will be able to play.
@Olimar -- I understand you're afraid of a quality drop on our site because of laziness, but as I stated earlier in the thread, it is way easier to add to and embellish a simple arrangement than simplify a difficult or complex one. This is ESPECIALLY true of beginning students. Don't be so pretentious about this. You don't have a legitimate reason to be against this besides "I don't want the quality of the sheets to drop," and that is a legitimate reason, but don't get off that subject. Your personal feelings about being a musician are not the same as anyone else's, so accept that everyone has different ways of being musical and don't say things like "any idiot can simplify an arrangement." I really want to know how the other mods feel about this issue, too.
@everyone -- to understand my thoughts on this issue, read my post here (http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?topic=7146.msg293858#msg293858) and you should understand my argument.
Quote from: InsigTurtle on September 13, 2015, 06:30:58 PMThe only thing I'm really wondering about is to what degree should they be simplified to?
The practice is really just as much of an
art as full-scale arranging. You all have seen me give "arranging advice" plenty times in the submissions -- there are many ways to simplify a piece of music, but some methods might be more effective for a particular situation.
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein
I'm in on this boat because I feel that by
regularly creating and critiquing simple arrangements, I can lend the skill set I use in that to my full-scale arrangements. I'd really like to dispel the Bespin-Impossible stereotype, and this might help me learn to dissect the essence of a piece more effectively.
Quote from: Altissimo on September 13, 2015, 06:41:13 PMSo glad my input is appreciated. Sorry this is an issue I'm a bit passionate about. :///////
There's no reason you should feel ashamed. The majority is on your side according to my survey. We're all veterans of inane political debates and belligerent religion bashing as of the last couple months anyway, so I think we can handle a little bit of passion.
If one of the main concerns about this plan is the mass of simplified arrangements that may come, why don't we set up a rule where an arranger can only submit one simplified sheet per update?
And I stick with what I said earlier: unless the simplification is given a massive work-over, the original arranger receives credit, not the simplifier. I don't even see why a "Simplified by [Arranger]" would be necessary in most cases, to be honest. Simplifying a sheet is way easier than arranging one.
If we make the intent behind this plan clear from the beginning, I don't see why it wouldn't work, from a moral standpoint.
*staff post*
I'm hearing a lot of good stuff. However, the issue right now is a lack of staff-staff and staff-community communication. I propose scheduling a live meeting/chat online with all the updaters (time and format tbd) so we can have some thoughtful back-and-forth exchanges oh topics where opinions differ instead of *quote**reason**quote**reason**quote**reason* posts.
As much good intent there is here from everyone, there's just a little too much textwalling, and that doesn't help facilitate communication. If we can sit down with staff and community together and have a real conversation, then things might happen.
I'm not really for or against the simplifying sheets thing. I'm on the fence about it.
I do think that simplifying arrangements would be nice especially for younger/less experienced pianists and it would also draw more people to NSM.
I also think that simplifying arrangements could cause problems. Knowing what voice to put in or leave out, laziness of the arranger, etc.
If we do have this, it would nice to have a separate section of the main site to put them so we do have a bunch of "song title (simplified version)"
Idk.....I'm on the fence about this whole thing.
Quote from: Brawler4Ever on September 13, 2015, 07:12:24 PMIf one of the main concerns about this plan is the mass of simplified arrangements that may come, why don't we set up a rule where an arranger can only submit one simplified sheet per update?
And I stick with what I said earlier: unless the simplification is given a massive work-over, the original arranger receives credit, not the simplifier. I don't even see why a "Simplified by [Arranger]" would be necessary in most cases, to be honest. Simplifying a sheet is way easier than arranging one.
If we make the intent behind this plan clear from the beginning, I don't see why it wouldn't work, from a moral standpoint.
Excellent point^
Quote from: Latios212 on September 13, 2015, 07:13:23 PM*staff post*
I'm hearing a lot of good stuff. However, the issue right now is a lack of staff-staff and staff-community communication. I propose scheduling a live meeting/chat online with all the updaters (time and format tbd) so we can have some thoughtful back-and-forth exchanges oh topics where opinions differ instead of *quote**reason**quote**reason**quote**reason* posts.
As much good intent there is here from everyone, there's just a little too much textwalling, and that doesn't help facilitate communication. If we can sit down with staff and community together and have a real conversation, then things might happen.
Excellent idea^
Things have been heated here lately, and for good reason it shows that you all care, and it's clear to me that this is something mostly the entire community wants; which is very rare for NSM. I'd be willing to weigh in on whatever debates and help facilitate the discussion.
Quote from: SlowPokemon on September 13, 2015, 06:52:13 PM@Olimar -- I understand you're afraid of a quality drop on our site because of laziness, but as I stated earlier in the thread, it is way easier to add to and embellish a simple arrangement than simplify a difficult or complex one. This is ESPECIALLY true of beginning students. Don't be so pretentious about this. You don't have a legitimate reason to be against this besides "I don't want the quality of the sheets to drop," and that is a legitimate reason, but don't get off that subject. Your personal feelings about being a musician are not the same as anyone else's, so accept that everyone has different ways of being musical and don't say things like "any idiot can simplify an arrangement." I really want to know how the other mods feel about this issue, too.
If that's the only valid reason:
"You cannot submit simplified arrangements unless you have at least 3 full arrangements on site."
There ya go, now you can't have random joes who don't know how to arrange come and try to glory hound with simplified arrangements.
Quote@everyone -- to understand my thoughts on this issue, read my post here (http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?topic=7146.msg293858#msg293858) and you should understand my argument.
I think your arrangement is a perfect example of why we need this. I'm a huge baroque fanatic, so when I hear a 3 voice fugue, you sure as all hell better bet your ass I'm gonna want to play it, and with all 3 voices too. If someone who isn't into music too much really enjoyed that game and wants to play that peice, s/he's not gonna want to play something that advanced, and your two voiced adaption of it would be perfect for him.
Quote from: Latios212 on September 13, 2015, 07:13:23 PMIf we can sit down with staff and community together and have a real conversation, then things might happen.
We can use the TWG chat, since it's not being used right now. xD
https://client00.chat.mibbit.com/?channel=%23TWG&server=irc.nfnet.org
Quote from: Brawler4Ever on September 13, 2015, 07:12:24 PMAnd I stick with what I said earlier: unless the simplification is given a massive work-over, the original arranger receives credit, not the simplifier. I don't even see why a "Simplified by [Arranger]" would be necessary in most cases, to be honest. Simplifying a sheet is way easier than arranging one.
You need to credit whoever simplified it. The original arranger may or may not want to be accredited with the simplified version of their arrangement.
Judging by our current standard of replacing sheets, I would disagree. But, It wouldn't bother me at all if giving the simplifier credit turned out to be the case; my comment was more to answer olimar's earlier concern about "average joe's" making cheap edits to get their name on the site. I do believe that that is a valid concern, and not giving the simplifier credit would be one way to counteract that.
Quote from: FireArrow on September 13, 2015, 07:19:16 PM"You cannot submit simplified arrangements unless you have at least 3 full arrangements on site."
This idea works as well, imo. :)
Quote from: Brawler4Ever on September 13, 2015, 07:29:20 PMJudging by our current standard of replacing sheets, I would disagree. But, It wouldn't bother me at all if giving the simplifier credit turned out to be the case; my comment was more to answer olimar's earlier concern about "average joe's" making cheap edits to get their name on the site. I do believe that that is a valid concern, and not giving the simplifier credit would be one way to counteract that.
There already are average joes getting their shit on site though! They're just called ThatGamer. :p
Fair point (http://www.ninsheetmusic.org/browse/arranger/4327).
Quote from: Brawler4Ever on September 13, 2015, 07:12:24 PMSimplifying a sheet is way easier than arranging one.
I disagree. As I stated earlier:
Quote from: Bespinben on September 13, 2015, 06:59:47 PMThe practice is really just as much of an art as full-scale arranging.
The issue with that paradigm of simplification vs. mine is that if you treat them as being a simple task, then you get all sorts of problems:
Quote from: FireArrow on September 13, 2015, 07:19:16 PMIf that's the only valid reason:
"random joes who don't know how to arrange"
Quote from: FireArrow on September 13, 2015, 07:23:04 PMYou need to credit whoever simplified it.
These issues are non-existent if you treat Easy Versions as completely new arrangements with just as much effort rather than derivative works.
...and I think we're all at the point where it seems clear we all want this -- we just need to agree on HOW it should come to pass.
To expand on Bespinben's point: Almost all of the Hamtaro: Ham-Hams Unite tracks I've arranged are 2-voice, so they're both as simple as possible and faithful to the original because there's nothing more to implement. But I didn't take any shortcuts when it came to putting those together, and I think it's wrong to say that simpler = easier and lazier by definition.
I'd like to quick raise a finger and say I'm not exactly a proponent of easy versions. With that said, it won't physically hurt me if we start doing it, just know that I doubt I'm good enough to be able to do an arrangement+simplified version. Plus it'd be too much work.
I don't think the easy version is mandatory, is it?
From what I've read, not in the slightest.
Quote from: Olimar12345 on September 13, 2015, 06:40:00 PMDon't have time to fully respond atm, but altissimo you meet to simmer tf down rn.
What sounded so hostile in her post that she needed to "simmer down"??
???
Also i'm all for the easy piano sheets idea
^Mostly the bold text and assertive tone of her post. d: didn't want shit-flinging to start.
Remember people, no one is entitled to shit just because you cry for it. I have a serious post coming, so hang tight.
Quote from: Olimar12345 on September 13, 2015, 08:11:14 PM^Mostly the bold text and assertive tone of her post. d: didn't want shit-flinging to start.
i don't shit-fling i just get passionate about stuff d:
For the record, there was nothing remotely assertive about Alti's post in question. Impassioned, yes, but hardly anything worth telling her to "simmer down" over.
Love,
Maestro the Unresolved
Quote from: Olimar12345 on September 13, 2015, 08:11:14 PM^Mostly the bold text and assertive tone of her post. d: didn't want shit-flinging to start.
but aren't you the only one who is against the easy piano arrangements idea?? who else would fling shit at her??
Me.
I don't know if that's a reason for ME to tone down MY posts tho
if anything, everyone should 'simmer down'
what if i doN'T WAnT TO SIMMER DOWNNNNN
(Seriously guys, I am trying to type my shit up, in a not-so-text-wall-y, tl;dr kind of way)
Quote from: Dude on September 13, 2015, 08:18:46 PMbut aren't you the only one who is against the easy piano arrangements idea?? who else would fling shit at her??
Quote from: Olimar12345 on September 13, 2015, 08:21:24 PMMe.
Classy.
Quote from: Bespinben on September 13, 2015, 07:42:24 PMThese issues are non-existent if you treat Easy Versions as completely new arrangements with just as much effort rather than derivative works.
True. If I want to create a simplified version of "One Winged Angel" from Final Fantasy VII completely from scratch, I have that liberty (if this is accepted). It
would be a difficult task, and I don't see any argument against me receiving full credit for my work, in that case.
However, my thought process is that very few (if any) of these are going to be completely new arrangements. They would be more likely to be, as you said, derivatives. Why should we reinvent the wheel? It would save several hours for each arrangement to edit the previous version. But, that creates the issue of ownership as Olimar (previously), FireArrow, and I were discussing. Both ideas have their pros and cons, and should be discussed if the idea is accepted. If it would be preferred that each simplified arrangement be made from scratch, then I'm fine with that. I would prefer for that not to be the case, but I wouldn't argue against it.
I just want to say this now: I am not opposed to site changes. Big bad Olimar just has to play mom duty here, and address all of the potential issues that could arise from this idea. Below I have listed my concerns and if possible, I have also provided a possible suggestion to combat these issues. I ended up cutting a lot from here in order to keep things short and to-the -point, so do ask for elaboration of you need me to.
1) arrangers (specifically newer ones) substituting these for lack of experience and using this as a crutch. This point has been beaten to a pulp, so I don't think I need to say anymore about it.
How to combat this: restrictions on submissions, or a possible grace period placed.
2) Arrangers getting lazy with their edits, and switching their submission over to a simplified version rather than making normal updater suggested edits.
HTCT: Not allowing arrangers to switch their submissions from normal to easy I guess.
3) easy versions becoming the only option for an arrangement.
HTCT: restrict easy versions submissions to hosted arrangements only.
4) Crediting easy version editions. Replacements are already tricky, and take a careful eye to not screw up, and this would just expand on this.
HTCT: make it the same as revised/edited arrangements and keep the arranger info as is. (Not the best idea, imo)
5) Arrangers simplifying arrangements by other members, who DON'T want their arrangements edited. I'll be honest right now, I am extremely picky about my own arrangements and don't want anyone other than me editing them (unless I say or something). I imagine that I am not alone in this boat, ether.
HTCT: get consent? Idk this one is tricky.
6) Allowing more variations of arrangements could lead to more kinds of arrangements being requested to be hosted on the site. This isn't necessarily an issue, but our original mission here has been to provide quality and accurate piano solos to the public, and we are kind of straying from that. I mean, we finally finished cleaning all of the virtuoso arrangements off the site. d:
7) More work from our staff and updaters, and a slower submission process. Not only in normal updating, critiquing, and uploading, but in moderating the simplicity levels, crediting issues and other issues that arise from this idea, essentially just adding to our already slow process (at the slowest time of the year too, I might add!).
I will admit though that I am not a fan of this idea, mostly because I am predicting failure of execution. I would also like to point out all of the restrictions that might have to be implemented to make this work. If we can find a way to make this work, then I don't mind giving it a test run, or trial period, but I hope this post has helped you guys see things a bit from a different perspective.
Couple things (less passionately):
Quote from: Olimar12345 on September 13, 2015, 08:55:46 PM5) Arrangers simplifying arrangements by other members, who DON'T want their arrangements edited. I'll be honest right now, I am extremely picky about my own arrangements and don't want anyone other than me editing them (unless I say or something). I imagine that I am not alone in this boat, ether.
HTCT: get consent? Idk this one is tricky.
The problem with this one is that easy arrangements are probably gonna look similar or the same whether the arranger borrows from a previously existing arrangement or re-arranges by themselves. So, like, someone who is making an easy arrangement of a song that you happen to be the original arranger for, isn't necessarily going to be editing
your arrangement. You know? Like I guess if they submit it with all the exact same formatting and junk it'll be a bit of a clue, but the music itself isn't changing whether it's an easy version borrowed from an existing rearrangement or an entirely new ... easy version. There's no real way to tell unless we force everyone to say outright if the arrangement is edited or a completely new transcription, and this could lead to lies. Besides, a lot of the original arrangers are gone off the site and can't offer consent... I'd say just let people arrange easy versions as they choose. It's gonna be (roughly) the same music no matter how it's done, because music is music. But I know I can't force everyone to think that, just pointing it out.
Quote7) More work from our staff and updaters, and a slower submission process. Not only in normal updating, critiquing, and uploading, but in moderating the simplicity levels, crediting issues and other issues that arise from this idea, essentially just adding to our already slow process (at the slowest time of the year too, I might add!).
I'm thinking it doesn't have to be this complicated. I mean, you suggested earlier that easy arrangements be given only to sheets already on site, right? Well, if that's the case, it's real easy to compare an easy sheet with its harder brother. Any member would be able to look at a hard sheet and see if the easy sheet matches it (or roughly matches it) in terms of rhythm, pitch, articulation, etc. It's not like the current submission process where you have to closely compare with the original track to see if there are any changes that could be made, because this is (for the most part) simplifying pre-approved arrangements. Thus I feel like even normal members, non-updaters, could approve easy sheets. Not everyone obviously (or else newbies could approve their own badly-done formatting sheets), but people with a reasonable length of membership and a track record for knowing the formatting rules and being able to accurately compare sheets. I know this solution is probably going to be shot down by some, but I at least wanted to point it out.
5) it's more of a matter of keeping up with who did what. The more different versions of the same song we have on the site, the harder it is to tell who actually arranged which version and who copied from what (even if they didn't copy from an existing arrangement).
The actual point I was trying to make in that bullet though, was that if someone doesn't want a different arrangement of one of their existing arrangements made? How are we going to honor that?
7) I was more referring to the issues similar to the one above. Not so much the actual critique of the arrangement, but more of keeping track of who did what, checking for a lazy plagiarism, stuff like that.
I think it would be best if we came up with some rules (in contrast to guidelines) about the requirements of submitting a simplification of a sheet, to make everything as simple as possible. Some ideas:
1) Protect the integrity of the current arrangements. Every simplified sheet requires a full sheet, but not every full sheet requires a simplified sheet. This leaves our current arrangements as is. If I want to submit Kefka, I can submit Kefka without necessarily creating a simplified sheet alongside it. However, I cannot call my Kefka sheet "simplified" because a current Kefka sheet currently does not exist on the site. The full version of Kefka must come first, with all of our current standards in place. If a full version of Kefka is already on the site, then an arranger (including the original arranger) has the liberty of arranging a simplified version of it.
2) Protect the integrity of the sheet. All simplified sheets must meet the requirements and approval of the updaters upon submission. Self-explanatory, but necessary all the same. We don't want lazy arrangements. This isn't an excuse to flood the site with one's sheets. Quality > Quantity, every time. This also includes the idea of "should this specific sheet be simplified?". For example, it is my opinion that the Super Mario Bros Theme should be not simplified. However, somebody else might disagree, and decide to arrange it. If the sheet is not simplified enough, or is of not good enough quality, it would be rejected by the updaters. Or, if it's a good sheet, it might be accepted. Again, it all depends on the updaters' discretion.
3) Protect the integrity of the new arranger (FireArrow's idea). To submit any simplified sheet to the site, an arranger must first arrange three original arrangements. I'm liking this idea more as I think about it; by the time that a new arranger submits three original arrangements, they will have ample experience with NSM's policies and standards. There should be no problem after that point of a new arranger messing up (beyond the usual hiccups).
4) Protect the integrity of the original arranger. Credit will be determined by the updaters. This is already done with replacements anyway. In replacing a sheet, I may say that I've done enough to a current sheet to call it mine, but an updater might disagree. Who wins that argument? The updater. If the updater feels that "Edited by [New Arranger]" or "Arranged by [New Arranger]" is correct, then it is. They may change their mind as they see fit, but the decision belongs exclusively to the body of the updaters, not the arranger. Same thing with a simplification. If I can prove that it is entirely my work, then I deserve full credit for my sheet. If I based my simplification off of an existing sheet, then the extent to which I would receive credit is determined by the body of the updaters, not by me.
5) Protect the integrity of the site. Only one simplified arrangement will be allowed per arranger, per update. This stops the site from being flooded with new simplified arrangements, without actually adding anything new to the site's current sheets. It keeps the arrangements fresh, while still allowing for accessibility.
The first sentence in each rule explains the purpose. The second sentence would be the actual rule. The idea is that, if accepted, these would be final; there would be no exceptions for any simplified sheet. Each requirement must be met before any simplified sheet is submitted to the site. Obviously, we still need to discuss this, but I figured that we were eventually going to come up with some rules anyway. This just gives us something concrete to discuss, to satisfy everybody's concerns.
brawler x KefkaticFanatic
Quote from: Olimar12345 on September 13, 2015, 08:55:46 PM5) Arrangers simplifying arrangements by other members, who DON'T want their arrangements edited. I'll be honest right now, I am extremely picky about my own arrangements and don't want anyone other than me editing them (unless I say or something). I imagine that I am not alone in this boat, ether.
HTCT: get consent? Idk this one is tricky.
I'd say if you don't have consent you need to arrange it from the ground up (there really isn't any way to enforce this, but so long as they claimed to have not touched yours (and the sheet isn't blatantly copy-pasted) this should solve any pride issues.) If you're so touchy about it that you don't want someone sharing the spotlight of arranging that song, well, that's kinda what you agree to let happen by hosting your arrangement on NSM.
Quote6) Allowing more variations of arrangements could lead to more kinds of arrangements being requested to be hosted on the site. This isn't necessarily an issue, but our original mission here has been to provide quality and accurate piano solos to the public, and we are kind of straying from that. I mean, we finally finished cleaning all of the virtuoso arrangements off the site. d:
This slope is very slippery.
Quote7) More work from our staff and updaters, and a slower submission process. Not only in normal updating, critiquing, and uploading, but in moderating the simplicity levels, crediting issues and other issues that arise from this idea, essentially just adding to our already slow process (at the slowest time of the year too, I might add!).
That's an entirely different issue that also needs addressing (why we didn't continue trying solutions after the failure of veteran arrangers I'm not sure, but I digress.) I don't think simplified arrangements would be that much of a burden considering there will be an already accepted (or going to be accepted) sheet to use for reference.
QuoteI will admit though that I am not a fan of this idea, mostly because I am predicting failure of execution. I would also like to point out all of the restrictions that might have to be implemented to make this work. If we can find a way to make this work, then I don't mind giving it a test run, or trial period, but I hope this post has helped you guys see things a bit from a different perspective.
That's pretty reasonable, given NSMs track record. However, given the popular demand and ease of implementation (relative to other ideas *cough* difficulty ratings *cough*) I feel it would be criminal to not try out.
Quote from: FireArrow on September 13, 2015, 10:39:33 PMIf you're so touchy about it that you don't want someone sharing the spotlight of arranging that song, well, that's kinda what you agree to let happen by hosting your arrangement on NSM.
Incorrect, no one has agreed to let any of their hosted arrangements be rearranged AND RE-CREDITED. This is completely different from anything we've ever done, and it treads thin ice.
Edit: And just to clarify, this should not be compared to replacement arrangements in which we add an "edited by" section. In those instances, we are fixing an arrangement that doesn't meet our current standards. In this scenario, we are creating something new from an already up-to-par arrangement, an addition, not an edition.
And don't worry too much about the details of implementation, the updater staff has been discussing this privately.
Quote from: Olimar12345 on September 13, 2015, 10:47:53 PMIncorrect, no one has agreed to let any of their hosted arrangements be rearranged AND RE-CREDITED. This is completely different from anything we've ever done, and it treads thin ice.
Erm, everyone that takes our midis would disagree with you.
We would have rules in place to prevent people taking credit when they don't arrange from the ground up. If you're really worried about it you can always just simplify your own arrangements
Quote from: FireArrow on September 13, 2015, 10:56:49 PMErm, everyone that takes our midis would disagree with you.
Idc about what happens outside NSM, but I'll be damned if we let that happen here. d:
Quote from: Olimar12345 on September 13, 2015, 10:59:27 PMIdc about what happens outside NSM, but I'll be damned if we let that happen here. d:
:3 Fair enough
How does "the "simplifier" is always credited as "simplified by xxx."" sound to you? Namely because now that I think about it, you'd be an idiot to arrange an easier version from the ground up, because you have an accurate well arranged sheet right in front of you. You sacrifice fringe cases where people really wanna do it all by themselves to ensure the integrity of the original arranger is always protected.
In regards to the bit in point six regarding the virtuoso stuff: Those were supposed to be removed years ago. In fact I was one of the first to say take them down years ago, as they don't in any way match the aims of the site, at least back when quality control started to become a thing. The fact that they weren't removed after my initial request was on the staff at the time. I wasn't even aware I still had stuff on the site at this point until you arranged the Tetris A-Theme a few months back.
Anyway, I'd like to chime in on these by point:
1) If this is an argument against having newer arrangers making simpler stuff, then sure, they'd do better learning the ropes and good arranging practices first. But this is a non-issue for older arrangers who should know what they're doing to a reasonable degree.
2) You already argued against this point, and the solution you proposed is probably the best idea.
3) Same as 2.
4 and 5) These two seem to revolve around the idea of credit and "what actually constitutes a new arrangement". First of all any simplification, especially if it's competently done, is going to bear some, if not complete, similarities to the fuller version. I'm not sure why you brought this point up as some sort of issue. Of course they're going to share some similarities, if they didn't I'm fairly certain the arrangement in question is flat out wrong.
In fact, considering you'd likely need a full version before a simplified version is approved, odds are pretty good that the arranger in question would likely just edit the primary file in question. Why wouldn't they? Why shouldn't they? Why would you force the arrangers to do more work to produce the same product? Even if they did do it from scratch, outside of some formatting choices you shouldn't be able to see any differences between the two version outside of simpler technique. Beyond that, how could you disprove someone simply didn't pull a copy/paste into a new sheet and make the necessary edits? An argument against plagiarism? It's a derivative of a derivative. No one in their right mind would opt to arrange and already arranged song with the aim of making it easier. Just simplify the original arrangement.
In regards to the whole "credit" idea, his treads a similar case with the whole "sheet edits" issue. A skillfully produced simplification should be indistinguishable from the fuller counterpart, so I argue credit should be "Simplified Arrangement by X" and leave it at that, rather than a proper "Arranged by X". If they want the fuller version they can find it, with it's properly credited glory.
6) If the sheet isn't accurate, why would you even approve it in the first place? "Simpler" doesn't mean "wrong", hell you guys take liberties all the time just by trying to adapt various piece in the first place. Omitting stuff is far less criminal than adding stuff in terms of accuracy. Any piece, regardless of the fluff, can be distilled to its core and still be recognized as a proper arrangement.
7) Not really, as they'd still need to go through the same process as the other submissions. They'd just filter into the system with the rest of the sheets, and they'd be easier to check if you compare it to the fuller version that'd already be on site.
Ok I updated the OP, to give people a more clear view on the idea and also for new people willing to take part of the discussion.
Please tell me if there is something I've missed.
Quote from: Olimar12345 on September 13, 2015, 08:55:46 PMOlimar's long post
I agree with this, guys. I only see more problems coming from simplified arrangements and more work for the Updaters :/
There is just to many variables.
Since like 90% of the members here are for it.....it would be foolish not to consider it further even though Olimar and I are against it. Here are some ideas if we do decide to host simplified sheets.
1. There should be a separate part of the main site for simplified arrangements so we don't have a ton of "song title (simplified)" strewn all over the place.
2. You are only allowed to submit a simplified version of a sheet that is already on site. Then this would encourage the arranger to make a normal version as well and we wouldn't have a ton of simplified versions without normal versions.
3. We could make a new site: NinSheetMusicSimplified.org ;)
Honestly, I don't see how simplified versions is gonna work :/
Quote from: mariolegofan on September 14, 2015, 06:47:03 AMso we don't have a ton of "song title (simplified)" strewn all over the place.
I don't get it. Why is this a bad thing? Does it look ugly? Does it look unprofessional? What makes a ton of "Song (Simplified)" sheets bad?
From what I can see: worst case scenario, we get tons of new arrangers all creating simplifications for the sake of glory without actually creating quality sheets. That seems to be the main concern, from what I can see.
But we've already addressed this. The sheets would still need to be approved. Does that mean more work for the updaters? Of course it does. Hence my suggestion of one simplification per use, per update. This directly counteracts that concern. But in the event that we disagree with this idea, what would really change? The submissions are slow now because of the numerous sheet projects going on. They'll be slow when/if the new wave of arrangers come. I would believe that the glory-hounders would leave when they realize how careful and methodical the submission process is, leaving only those that truly want to help. I see a win/win no matter how we do it.
And don't we want more arrangers? Isn't that the whole point of the site, is to get new arrangers to help us arrange new sheet music? I still believe in the concept of Quality > Quantity, but I wouldn't reject new help if they're willing to work for it.
So yeah. I just don't get why having several "Song (Simplified)" sheets is bad. If anybody could explain this reasoning to me, I would appreciate it. :)
what's this? mlf is siding with olimar?!? shocking!!
Settle down, dood. You guys need to chill out, too. I'm not a sentient being liek masetro that has absolute God-power over the entire site. On the other side, I get to voice my concerns just as much as you guys get to voice your opinions. I don't mind going forward with this idea if everyone else has a decent interest in helping it succeed.
Also, sorry if I scared you back there, Altissimo. I was skimming the thread when I saw and commented on your post, which is why I said to simmer down. I'm sorry that I misinterpreted it. I have no real quarrel with you.
but it was sarcasm.
and seriously, stop telling people to settle or simmer down when nothing is heating up.
^I just said that I misinterpreted her post and it looked to me like things were heating up. I'm sorry.
when you say you just said that, do you mean before or after the edit?
see this is why edit history is a good thing to have.
I just reworded it to sound clearer, don't worry.
Quote from: Olimar12345 on September 14, 2015, 11:45:48 AMI have no real quarrel with you.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/fd/43/99/fd4399e55b91b1aa2dab95b35cd57fc1.jpg)
Cool. So where does this stand, now? Are there any more concerns that need to be addressed?
The Fantastic Four Updaters are developing prototypes of the concept currently. We hope this will help address and any and all possible "what if" scenarios.
Quote from: Bespinben on September 14, 2015, 06:11:52 PMThe Fantastic Four Updaters are developing prototypes of the concept currently. We hope this will help address and any and all possible "what if" scenarios.
I'm scared
Quote from: Bespinben on September 14, 2015, 06:11:52 PMThe Fantastic Four Updaters are developing prototypes of the concept currently. We hope this will help address and any and all possible "what if" scenarios.
I love you <3
Quote from: Bespinben on September 14, 2015, 06:11:52 PMThe Fantastic Four Updaters
I marvel at this nickname. ;D
Oh yes, we must still honor deku trombonist, may he rest in peace.
He can be doctor doom
Olimar is the Human Torch
Latios is Mr. Fantastic
Don is Invisible Woman (sorry man, leftover)
Bespinben is the Thing
I already expressed my thoughts on this matter, but I'll gladly reintroduce them.
The main problem I see is how can you mark this as "easy" and that "difficult". It all depends on the ability of the performer, a Rachmaninoff concerto would be a stroll for Lang Lang but hell for a beginner. Who's to say this sheet is too difficult so as to need an easy version? it can be also though the other way, who's to say this sheet is too easy so as to need a hard one?
On top of that, a sheet could be simplified almost to infinity, for example, from a very complex bass to only the root notes, and everything in between, resulting in endless easy versions of one song. Do you really want a competition on who can make the easiest sheet out of a single song? And which one of those should we consider right to be on site? All of them, a random one?
Olimar gets it. Everything is so inconsistent I can't even understand why someone could want this to be implemented.
That said, it seems a lot of people want to give it a try. I'd say we give it a trial period to see if it works well.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on September 14, 2015, 08:05:32 PMDon is Invisible Woman (sorry man, leftover)
Well I deserve that for not being here in time I guess, didn't notice this was a thing again until recently. d:
Quote from: DonValentino on September 15, 2015, 04:59:17 AMOlimar gets it. Everything is so inconsistent I can't even understand why someone could want this to be implemented.
^^^^^
Any way we could do a trial with a new page on the main site, then on the side of the page it would have some kind of survey to see if the site users think they like it. Excluding forum members of course. If the majority of the users don't like it, then that's that. GG. They don't want it. But if they do want it, we should try to figure out a way to make it work
We're working on something, but nothing to that magnitude just yet.
I think that the main point of miscommunication here is that we're not talking about "easy" arrangements, but "easier" (or simplified) arrangements. Any sheet, to every person on earth, will either be incredibly easy (professional pianists) or impossibly difficult (somebody who's never touched a piano before).
The current simplified sheet (Dr. Wily from Mega Man 2) does this very well. Instead of strings of 16th and 8th notes, it's
simplified to only include 8th notes for the majority of the piece. It might still be too difficult for some pianists, sure. But we would also be reaching out to those who aren't quite adept at playing 16th notes in tempo, yet.
Can a sheet be simplified to almost nothing? Of course. But that's not what the NSM community wants. We want good quality sheets. We want sheets that are awesome, that remain true to the spirit of the original piece. That doesn't happen if we gut the song and make it boring to play.
Quote from: Brawler4Ever on June 17, 2015, 08:47:30 AMAthletic - Super Mario World is an incredibly difficult and popular song. It's one of the main songs that brought me to NSM, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's the same story for many others.
This (https://www.dropbox.com/s/kands9dy09hnj08/Super%20Mario%20World%20-%20Athletic.mus?dl=0) is the sheet currently on the site. I fixed the copyright and url, but other than that, I made no changes to the song itself.
This (https://www.dropbox.com/s/8qtrzw9tm622tyg/Super%20Mario%20World%20-%20Athletic%20Simplified.mus?dl=0) is the same sheet, simplified.
I'm going to be honest, I am not able to play even my own simplified version of this. But that doesn't bother me in the slightest. Yet, there are others who have always wanted to play this, who may be better pianists than me, who would greatly appreciate the reduction in difficulty. It won't reach every pianist out there; we're not here to baby the NSM community. But we can give some of them the chance to play this piece, while still giving others the chance to master it.
[EDIT] This (https://www.dropbox.com/s/81c40tyjntw11dt/Athletic%20Super%20Simplified.mus?dl=0) is another,
even more simple, version. I removed every dotted note and tied note (with the exception of measure ends). The left hand has been changed to only be between C3 and D4. I deleted several extra notes in the right hand that didn't directly affect the melody. And only a single note is played during each beat. This is what a song looks like when it's gutted, and somebody could probably remove even more if they wanted to.
In my opinion, this is too simple. Besides the quick tempo, there's not much challenge to it. It feels very empty, when compared to the original. So I don't believe that "make this sheet as simple as possible" is the correct approach. Finding a middle ground would best, imo.
My battle plan as far as finding a good difficulty goes, would be to just track down some official books of 'whatever' songs "Easy Piano" and follow their lead. Obviously these people have had much more discussion and experience on these things and know where the golden middle is. I know that not all songs will be able to be arranged to this difficulty, but that's part of the individuality of each piece. This caliber of difficulty that I mentioned is just the guideline/goal.
I think you make up a good point Brawler with that it is about making easier arrangements, but not necessarily easy arrangements. But I do think that we need to have some sort of guidelines of how to simplify a song. What to keep and what to leave out. I'm thinking of some examples arrangements and other tips to keep people on the right track, not making to little simplification and not too much.
As mentioned earlier by other people I also want to highlight that it sometimes can be tricky to simplify, and that there in some scenarios might be many different alternatives all which have different pros and cons.
For example the Mega Man song "Dr. Wily's Stages 1" could have been simplified by removing the lower harmony notes in the melody (thirds, fourths), making the melody play only single notes but with the same rhythm. This would make it way easier since you'd now be able to use common tremolo technique to play it, rather than the original, which forces you to have fast fingers/wrist to be able to play it.
Quote from: JDMEK5 on September 15, 2015, 02:56:06 PMMy battle plan as far as finding a good difficulty goes, would be to just track down some official books of 'whatever' songs "Easy Piano" and follow their lead. Obviously these people have had much more discussion and experience on these things and know where the golden middle is. I know that not all songs will be able to be arranged to this difficulty, but that's part of the individuality of each piece. This caliber of difficulty that I mentioned is just the guideline/goal.
I think the goal should be to make it simple, maybe not as simple as possible, but also keeping the important content of the song. When phrasing this it becomes clear that we need to define what content usually are important.
Some examples:
One important content of a song is the melody, very obvious.
And One less important aspect could be homophonic harmonies, such as thirds. These can in many cases increase the difficulty of song but without adding necessary content to the song. Compare playing a scale with playing a scale in thirds.
One thing to note is also the tempo. In a faster tempo playing a scale with thirds becomes challenging, but in a slower tempo it can be quite feasible.
I think this could be a good starting point to discuss. It's a topic of musical value vs difficulty I think. And the questioning should be how important certain content are for the arrangement when making a simplification, what to keep and what to leave out.
Original (https://www.dropbox.com/s/kands9dy09hnj08/Super%20Mario%20World%20-%20Athletic.mus?dl=0)
Simplified (https://www.dropbox.com/s/8qtrzw9tm622tyg/Super%20Mario%20World%20-%20Athletic%20Simplified.mus?dl=0)
Super Simplified (https://www.dropbox.com/s/81c40tyjntw11dt/Athletic%20Super%20Simplified.mus?dl=0)
So of the three Athletic themes above, which would you suggest? Or, maybe choose a difficulty in between two of them?
I know that Athletic is an extreme case because of its tempo, but it would be helpful to set a clear standard, like you said.
Spoiler
I believe that the second one is fine. Athletic is going to be a difficult song for any beginner, and removing most of it really won't help, imo.
In a "easy" arrangement, wouldn't it be OK to cut down on the tempo?
The simplified is enough. It makes the song way easier with the bass notes in an octave higher. This means that you don't need to jump with the left hand an thereby makes it way easier, but still preserving the core material: the melody and the accompaniment. The Super Simplified is too much simplified, I feel that you can only hear the contours of the song, which is too much simplified IMO.
Quote from: InsigTurtle on September 15, 2015, 04:13:31 PMIn a "easy" arrangement, wouldn't it be OK to cut down on the tempo?
I'd say rather not. It affects the song too much I think. Maybe you could put a span like Q=120-140.
Good! Then we're on the same page! ;D
Quote from: InsigTurtle on September 15, 2015, 04:13:31 PMIn a "easy" arrangement, wouldn't it be OK to cut down on the tempo?
That would definitely make it easier, but I think that in most cases, the tempo won't be the problem.
But in this case, the tempo is what contributes to most of the difficulty. The original is pretty much trivial when played at maybe 1/2-1/4 the tempo, but at the given tempo it requires quite a lot of dexterity.
Looking at your arrangement, I agree that the simplified one would be better, since the super simplified one sacrifices quite a lot...
Quote from: DonValentino on September 15, 2015, 04:59:17 AMWell I deserve that for not being here in time I guess, didn't notice this was a thing again until recently. d:
Hey, she's the responsible one!
Quote from: DonValentino on September 15, 2015, 04:59:17 AMI already expressed my thoughts on this matter, but I'll gladly reintroduce them.
The main problem I see is how can you mark this as "easy" and that "difficult". It all depends on the ability of the performer, a Rachmaninoff concerto would be a stroll for Lang Lang but hell for a beginner. Who's to say this sheet is too difficult so as to need an easy version? it can be also though the other way, who's to say this sheet is too easy so as to need a hard one?
If an arranger finds a sheet s/he thinks needs an easier version, then they arrange an easier version and submit it. What's the issue here?
QuoteOn top of that, a sheet could be simplified almost to infinity, for example, from a very complex bass to only the root notes, and everything in between, resulting in endless easy versions of one song. Do you really want a competition on who can make the easiest sheet out of a single song? And which one of those should we consider right to be on site? All of them, a random one?
...what competition? In the rare case that two people decide to simplify the same song I think they'll be capable of working it out. That's like saying "we shouldn't arrange music at all because what if two different people arrange the same song, and they arrange it differently!"
Thanks Brawler for providing an example.
See, in my opinion the whole goal here is not to cater to a certain level of difficulty, as Don pointed out. The goal is to make an
easier version that
best encapsulates the essence of the original, at the arranger's discretion. Don said:
Quote from: DonValentino on September 15, 2015, 04:59:17 AMDo you really want a competition on who can make the easiest sheet out of a single song? And which one of those should we consider right to be on site? All of them, a random one?
No. This is where the simplifier comes in to think: how can I find a balance between playability and including as much as possible? Simplifying an arrangement is in a way analogous to arranging itself - choosing what to keep and what to leave out and finding said balance. Brawler's simplified sheet is a good good example of this - making it vastly more playable, but it still sounds extremely similar to the existing sheet. Brawler's super simplified sheet is a good bad example of this - simplifying a sheet too much obviously won't work. The simplified sheet looks great and sounds great, but trying to cut out more isn't reasonable.
Yes, it is possible to have multiple versions of the same sheet, just as it occasionally happens that we have multiple arrangements of the same song (on the forums). Has that been a problem? No, people help critique other people's sheets rather than make their own.
Doubles should be handled the same way the regular submissions are done, on a case-by-case basis with only one actually hosted on the site.
Quote from: DonValentino on September 15, 2015, 04:59:17 AMDo you really want a competition on who can make the easiest sheet out of a single song? And which one of those should we consider right to be on site? All of them, a random one?
Quote from: Olimar12345 on September 15, 2015, 06:33:09 PMDoubles should be handled the same way the regular submissions are done, on a case-by-case basis with only one actually hosted on the site.
Since that's been taken care of, I had another thought which may or may not be necessary but I'm going to speak my mind:
Should we define what "failure" would be with regards to this (obviously after it starts)? Because I can totally see people, after the first little complication or lump in the system, trying to shut it down right away because "it failed". Like, FireArrow might have a totally different definition of "failure" (with regards to this topic) than say Don would. My point is I think it might be worth an idea to all together attempt to agree (if possible) to unanimously define what "failure" would be. At what point is this plainly just 'not gonna work'? I'm also going to add that the idea of a test run is not only to see if it would work, but also to troubleshoot any more issues we haven't yet thought of. Personally I think that a quirky system that still remains functional is worth keeping and fixing. Not to say I expect this to be quirky (because it seems fairly straightforward to me) but I know also that there's no way I currently know all the things that could happen.
Quote from: DonValentino on September 15, 2015, 04:59:17 AMDo you really want a competition on who can make the easiest sheet out of a single song? And which one of those should we consider right to be on site? All of them, a random one?
(I'm not trying to bash your opinion at all Don; this is simply just another perfect example for the observation I'm going to make with my next sentence)
I feel like comments like this (and the concerns about lazy copy/pasting) undermine us arrangers who know what we're doing and when put generically like that, is, quite frankly, insulting.
[
Disclaimer: I'm not trying to open a can of shit here. I'm calmly and respectfully stating my opinion for the sole purpose of passing understanding. No more fights.
Though in a way it's kinda sad I have to put this disclaimer here in the first place...]
We're all- Almost all of us here are mature enough to take this seriously and put real effort into it. IMO the people we should really be concerned about, as Olimar said in the past, are folks like "Joe Schmoe": the new guy who's only in it for glory/spam/troublemaking. I should point out that those people are no more risk to this than they are to our regular current submissions. But back to my point, literally everyone who isn't only trying to arrange for their own sick-personal-ego-trips (or whatever they are) is willing to learn how to do it properly. Trollers exist and they may want to ride this new system but
"Easy Arrangements" is no more at risk than basically anything else on the internet that the general public can manipulate in whatever way.As a final note I'm going to say as well that not only do I agree that this should be a thing, but I will support this new system in any way I can. If that means helping brainstorm ways to fix problems that arise, very well. If that means helping check for lazy transcriptions, so be it. No good thing ever comes without work and I'm willing to work with this. NSM has my full support in this endeavor.