Submission Information:
Series: Super Mario
Game: Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga
Console: Game Boy Advance
Title: Cackletta Battle (Final)
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Supahstar Saga (http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?action=profile;u=5198)
Replacement Information:
Links to Existing Sheet: MUS (http://www.ninsheetmusic.org/download/mus/1697) | MIDI (http://www.ninsheetmusic.org/download/mid/1697) | PDF (http://www.ninsheetmusic.org/download/pdf/1697)
Replacement Type: Challenge (new arranger)
A small tip for the future: include YouTube links to the original song for others to easily check with.
Anyway, good work here overall. Just a few formatting and accidental issues:
- The keychange to Bbm should be at m6, not m18.
- There should be a beam connecting the 16ths on beats 1.25 and 1.75 of m7 and m9.
- When you have the same line played on different notes but with the same intervals, you should generally keep those same intervals. If you look at m10, 12, 14, and 16, you'll notice this is not the case. You should change all the A naturals to a Bbbs in m12, all the D naturals to Ebbs in m14, and all the C naturals to Dbbs in m16.
- m18 & 24 E naturals should be Fbs.
- Watch your accidentals - most of those B naturals, especially on page 2 should be Cbs.
Nice work!
Thinking about what you said about accidentals, I think it may be best to leave the piece without a key signature. There's a vague tonal centre at Bb in the beginning, but it's very chromatic, and the same motifs get transposed around a lot. I think it would actually be more readable without a key signature.
I was thinking the same thing, though starting at m6, the tonality is definitely Bb minor.
It might be best to put the whole piece in Bb minor, or just put the first 6 measures as keyless.
The thing is, going by the logic that the key signature is meant to make sheet music easier to read, I think that having both a lot of flats in the key signature and a lot of accidentals on the staves would be too confusing.
Oh god I forgot that I submitted the one that's on-site right now
This is leagues better already, please fight for its acceptance
I think I'll just make the whole piece atonal. In my experience playing piano, I think a five-flat key signature + chromatic melody would be a headache.
Very true, I see your point.
If make the whole thing keyless it would help that there's no keysig underneath the accidentals to worry about, however, it would add more accidentals to the page than what are already there.
On the other side of the same coin, there are plenty of songs (including other vgm sheetsand non-vgm sheets) that are written with one keysig all the way through and use accidentals to show any modulations.
Either way is fine in theory, so whichever you feel is more beneficent to the performer. Personally, I think either way has its own benefits.
Now THIS is a sheet that needs replacing. (Sorry, Dudeman :-\)
You may not like to hear this, but your PDF needs to be created from your finale file. Yes, this does mean your finale file must look a heck of a lot better than it does now. If you can't do what you need to with your version of finale, ask here (http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?topic=685.0).
edit: and yes, this does apply to your other arrangement as well.
I was told that the mus was a formality. Also, I really hate the way Finale sheets look. Can't I link a Musescore folder in my signature?
Quote from: Supahstar Saga on April 17, 2017, 07:46:00 PMI was told that the mus was a formality.
whoever told you this needs to burn
While I also personally think MuseScore is vastly superior to Finale, Finale is the software of choice for the site and the .mus is the most important file among the three required for submission. Nothin's stopping you from plugging your MuseScore stuff in your sig, but you're gonna need a decent-at-best .mus if you want to go on site. We have plenty of people willing to help if you need help with it, and a topic (http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?topic=685.0) to boot.
Quote from: Supahstar Saga on April 17, 2017, 07:46:00 PMI was told that the mus was a formality. Also, I really hate the way Finale sheets look. Can't I link a Musescore folder in my signature?
You can link a Musescore folder in your signature, but you should either adjust the .mus until it matches the PDF or post in the topic that Dudeman mentioned so someone else can help you do so. You can adjust the .mus manually (this is a lot easier in Finale than Finale Notepad) or keep re-importing updated versions of the MusicXML file into Finale. There's tricky stuff like inserting "<measure-numbering>system</measure-numbering>" within "<print>" tags that you can do more easily with a text editor displaying your intermediate MusicXML file. ("<measure-numbering>system</measure-numbering>" adds a measure number to the first measure of each system, by the way.)
I've had to construct MIDIs from the .mus before, so that's part of why the .mus is the most important file of the 3.
(I'm speaking as a Musescore user who exports MusicXML files and sticks them in Finale Notepad. I'm unable to edit a lot of things in Finale Notepad, such as supporting multiple key signatures and smartly changing the number of measures in a system (i.e. without creating one-measure systems).)
Quote from: Dekkadeci on April 17, 2017, 08:41:10 PMI'm unable to edit a lot of things in Finale Notepad, such as supporting multiple key signatures and smartly changing the number of measures in a system (i.e. without creating one-measure systems).
are you sure
Quote from: WaluigiTime64 on April 17, 2017, 09:24:33 PMare you sure
Tried changing key signatures in the middle of a blank sample piece in Finale Notepad just now; all I ended up doing was changing the key signature of the entire piece.
Tried deleting measures individually in a blank sample piece in Finale Notepad just now; the last system shrinks from 3 to 2 measures to 1 measure instead of Musescore's better redistribution of measures per system.
Keep in mind that I've got Finale Notepad 2012, and it insists it's already the latest version.
Quote from: Dekkadeci on April 17, 2017, 08:41:10 PMI'm unable to edit a lot of things in Finale Notepad, such as supporting multiple key signatures and smartly changing the number of measures in a system (i.e. without creating one-measure systems).)
I failed to notice a crucial two-letter word. My bad.
I got a bit confused because you mentioned:
Quote from: Dekkadeci on April 17, 2017, 08:41:10 PMI'm speaking as a Musescore user who exports MusicXML files and sticks them in Finale Notepad.
Which made me question why you even talked about:
Quote from: Dekkadeci on April 17, 2017, 08:41:10 PMsupporting multiple key signatures and smartly changing the number of measures in a system
Because you can do that by exporting MusicXML files and sticking them into Finale NotePad without fail.
Sorry for pointless chatter lol.
Regarding the actual submission, although you
can format without the full version of Finale (complex XML editing), it's just easier to either have Finale, or get a person who does to format the sheet for you. If it's just in your Personal Arrangement Thread, then it doesn't matter. Only when you need to submit a sheet to the site do you need to go through this simple process, so it's really not that bad.
tbh the easiest solution is probably to create in musescore, export to finale, fix what you can there, and give the rest to someone else to fix. i'm more than happy to help personally if u want
Thanks, Altissimo! Can I still use my own pdf if the mus is mostly for MIDI?
The MUS and the PDF need to match exactly. So if someone else helps to edit your sheet, then they can probably make a PDF of the edited version as well.
If I get the mus changed to be exactly like the pdf, can I still keep the pdf?
Quote from: Supahstar Saga on April 18, 2017, 05:44:56 AMIf I get the mus changed to be exactly like the pdf, can I still keep the pdf?
Quote from: Altissimo on April 18, 2017, 05:17:27 AMThe MUS and the PDF need to match exactly. So if someone else helps to edit your sheet, then they can probably make a PDF of the edited version as well.
No.
That strikes me as terrible website management. Why would you force most of your new users to learn an entirely new software, one that's not free to boot? One which has a free version, but requires many users jumping through many hoops to use? I'm aware that Finale was the standard many years ago, but we shouldn't need to use it in 2017.
you're wasting your breath, i've argued this exact point a shitton of times. It gets nowhere. Trust me. I'm not trying to discourage you but it's just not going to change anything and I know this.
Quote from: Supahstar Saga on April 18, 2017, 06:16:46 AMThat strikes me as terrible website management. Why would you force most of your new users to learn an entirely new software, one that's not free to boot? One which has a free version, but requires many users jumping through many hoops to use? I'm aware that Finale was the standard many years ago, but we shouldn't need to use it in 2017.
Why? Consistency. It helps that all the sheets are based off the same standard, which gives the site a visual consistency not seen elsewhere on the internet. Why don't we switch? ~3340 sheets with 3-4 files each. It's too much. We've had these discussions in the past at great length. Here's a sample from one of those discussions that says it better than I just did:
Quote from: Latios212 on December 24, 2016, 10:41:15 PMIn addition to the above, here's a practical reason without saying "because it's always been this way": Using a Finale file as a master file allows us to keep everything in sync - that is, generate a .mid and a .pdf file off of the .mus so we know they're all up to date by checking against one file. Trying to incorporate files from other notation software would make our retention of multiple file types asynchronous, meaning that any small change in one would have to be made in the exact same change in the other, which is really bad because it's easily prone to error and causes more work for the arrangers and updaters, who would (and should) rather be checking an arrangement for its content and not having to deal with using multiple notation softwares. It's good practice to consistently offer the same file type for every arrangement, and also simplifies site maintenance for the staff (should anything need to be changed, a quick change to the .mus and a couple of exports is all that is needed).
All that said, there are people around here more than willing to help you iron out the kinks with file conversion. MuseScore arrangers still have potential to be successful here - just read some of the above posts. So don't worry too much.
Quote from: Altissimo on April 18, 2017, 06:24:13 AMyou're wasting your breath, i've argued this exact point a shitton of times. It gets nowhere. Trust me. I'm not trying to discourage you but it's just not going to change anything and I know this.
^ this. Some people may agree, but a lot of people don't (particularly people who, y'know, have Finale), so it's probably not in your best interest to argue this.
Also ninja'd by Maelstrom.
The consistent mus and pdf are up. Thanks, Static, for formatting them!
Hey, just for future reference, you can download a 3rd-party program to create PDF's in Finale Notepad. For example, this is the one I use (http://www.primopdf.com/). Hopefully this helps!
I have one already (PDF24). Static was just making the adjustments that I could not.
The purpose of a key signature is not to help the reader with accidentals, but to show the tonic/tonal center yes? I'm personally against no key signature songs that are obviously not centered around C or A, technically allowable or not.
Quote from: FireArrow on April 19, 2017, 02:11:12 PMThe purpose of a key signature is not to help the reader with accidentals, but to show the tonic/tonal center yes? I'm personally against no key signature songs that are obviously not centered around C or A, technically allowable or not.
Yeah, I agree, although no key signature is also fine if the piece is atonal. The beginning of this is piece is kinda atonal... But the rest isn't. This should definitely be written using Bb minor key signature, even if you find it less readable (I don't even agree on this point since you would just need to use the alterations more carefully). You need an example in which this is done? Chopin Sonata N. 2, fourth movement (http://petrucci.mus.auth.gr/imglnks/usimg/1/15/IMSLP142735-PMLP02363-FChopin_Piano_Sonata_No.2__Op.35_KullakEd.pdf) (pages 17~19). There are a lot of alterations in the piece, and it doesn't even seem much "tonal" sometimes, but it's written with Bb minor key signature, since it ends pretty clearly in Bb minor.
This piece, on the other hand, doesn't have an ending, but it's clearly moving around Bb flat minor. So, at least in my opinion, it should be written with that key signature.
Edit: Wrong thread for this
Quote from: Pianoth on April 19, 2017, 02:30:07 PMThis piece, on the other hand, doesn't have an ending, but it's clearly moving around Bb flat minor. So, at least in my opinion, it should be written with that key signature.
Not sure if this was clearly communicated, but this is feedback.
Archiving this