Messages

Yeah, send me an xml file with the current changes and I'll work it into the necessary files.

Are you working from a midi or a mus?

I looked and listened to it this time round.

I didn't really like the way the B-double-flats worked out, but they work. Fight themes are so finicky sometimes cause of the 20th century style harmonies and movements to make them sound they way they do.

Keep this version.

I don't see any real problems and I saw how in earlier posts the texture in the left hand was a creative choice, which I'm fine of too.

I'll have Lib give one more look and then I'll do one more check then it should be ready, I feel.

Levi,

I appreciate you being as patient as you are with all these changes, but let me tell you why m. 12 and m. 16 is important to keep the way Lib said.

At this point, you want to keep note movements intervallically. that is, to move from one perfect fifth to another. and to keep those movements visually. There's no better way than the way that Libera has mentioned, and I agree with him. Of course there's the extra accidentals from a natural to a flat in both dyads, but that's a misnomer compared to the clarity that you be getting by heeding her advice.

I don't see anything before the natural'ed C, so best get rid of the courtesy natural in measure 6 isn't really warranted. Just my thought on the whole thing. I'm not sure where the stigma started, but the best route in my mind is to leave it out unless an altered note at least 2 measures before it is different.

I see nothing wrong with m. 10 thru 14. Everything looks in place with the correct accidentals. As with m. 16 and the fortissimo; if that's how the recording has it sounded in dynamic, I'm for it. As far as how the notes themselves are leading into that section, I'll leave that work to Libera.

Overall, how you have it now is completely acceptable from my stance. Those grace notes are fine how they are; those b-double-flats in the grace notes are fine; and the intervallic thing you got going on is fine also. Just change the things that Lib has specified and we'll be in business.

I have no other complaints, yet. Once you get the changes done and Lib gives it the green I'll accept it. Savvy?

Cool, and good work.

[Right on right on!]

Right on right on!

Lib, I didn't know you composed you waskly wabbit.

I like it. Even if I don't have anything to talk about compositionally yet.

Four things then I'm done with you.

You don't have to cater to anyone. What you do have to do is maintain a rapport with the people you're working with especially if you're expecting feedback from either us or other arrangers. From what I and other staff had experienced this is definitely not the case as per Latio's comment. That's the last I have to discuss about your attitude.

By all means, discuss with Libera and see what he/she thinks about your decisions. You're definitely free to do that.

I absolutely hate it when someone has to justify what they're talking about with the lines of, "Oh, I have a degree, I know exactly what I'm talking about." Yes, that's apparent, whether you do or not. I gauge anyone's competence in music with being able to refer to multiple work, multiple styles. If there's a reputable, published sources that would say otherwise, I'm all game. That's also why there were multiple publishing companies in the first place. Because not one company does everything the same. Let me put it bluntly; if you don't like how we regulate our standards go somewhere else. Publish on your own. This site has an enormous history behind it and I stand behind Latios and the site.

Go through some of the older submissions and you'll see that is exactly not the case. Yes, we have disagreements, but the ultimate goal is to publish work.

And that's the main point. I've been working with Libera as to a solution to make that beat visually agreeable. Yes, tertian theory states cadential figures and yada yada yada. As long as the notes are there I could care less about how they're visually represented just as long as it makes sense for the most part. Music theory is fluid at times, so it doesn't have to necessarily follow older rules if there's no abuse in stretching said rules and if that particular choice is a successful solution.

My point was to change the one interval from an augmented 2nd to a minor 3rd. It's the only spot that has that interval at that specific moment because of the way extended harmonies function. It's not the same as altering a flatted 7th or whatever theory you were trying to flex.

Lastly, it's Libera's choice in the end. Not ours.

I'm proud of you, but we've talked about it with the other staff and came to a decision already. If any of the other staff question what we talked about then we'll consider the former but for now it stays.

I mean, if you actually read what I said that maybe it wouldn't be that confusing.

Trust me, I know what I'm doing.

Two major things come out right away.

The E-flat maybe measure 8 could possibly maybe be a D-sharp. It may not need to function as the flat-9th since the other harmonies aren't present, but you could tinker with that and find what fits.

Second is the doubled-D in measure 28 in the parenthesis. I get what you're going for when it comes to the individual voices and how you're layering them, but maybe this could be a bit of an overstatement? Like, while there are three, maybe four voices sounding there, does the piano part need to do reflect that just because? I would say no, but again that's just me.

[Lets do this!]

No big problems other than the visual meter itself, but that's just me.

Lets do this!

The parenthesis thing is alright, I guess.

But the notes getting smaller from m. 10 thru 13 is something you could do with dynamics and a couple of hairpins.

Fix that section and we'll be done here.

[Goods to go!]

They don't seem too much of a problem since it's just the beginning. May want to experiment with four part writing since the chords are spread out like they are. I can see where it could be effective in the beginning of each bar, but that'll be for next time.

Other than that, no real problems.

Goods to go!

Two things you have to keep in mind when doing copyist stuff.

One, is don't make it overly complicated that it has to be. Visually it's meant to be clear and concise. All we can do is offer those kinds of solutions. Saying things like, it sticks out or whatever, isn't accounting for the fact that it could very well be the only way to simply put what is happening sonically.

Two, it's a small section that we shouldn't be wasting this much time over. I would be much more aggressive about layering if it was warranted throughout the work, but since it's in half a measure, utilizing layers in this fashion is not unorthodox in the least bit.