NinSheetMusic Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  


Interested in contributing to the site? Give The Arrangement Formatting Guidelines and The Arranging Checklist a good read!

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Latios212

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 425
If you happen to know how to flip the part of the tie which crosses over into the next measure, please tell me (e.g. measure 17).
Under the Special Tools menu, there's a Tie Tool. Using that, you can click on the measure and right click the specific tie, click Edit, and change the tie direction.

Cool, all sounds and looks good. Will accept now!

Sure that works. Accepting!

Cool, looks good. I think the mf and più mosso in m. 18 could be spaced out just a tad, but that's about it. Also confirming you don't want any pedal indication at the beginning?

1:05, measure 19

it's not mother music until it makes me think either my computer or my ears are broken

Nice sheet, and awesome that it's a replacement :) not much to add here.

  • "SoulCalibur" (no space) for the game title on the sheet
  • Dynamics - at least an opening one, more at section changes as well could add some color.
  • I'd suggest tying over the LH into the second half of m. 22; there aren't any large rest gaps anywhere else and this as written seems to suggest a LH pause or pedal lift (speaking of which do you want to indicate pedal anywhere, perhaps just a "con pedale" at the beginning?
  • Fermata in LH of m. 25?
  • The first chord in m. 32 sounds like it's rolled too.
  • The roll marking on the third chord in m. 32 is ever so slightly slanted.
  • Page margins here as well; text is noticeably closer to the edge of the page  in the footer and subsequent headers.

- RH notes in m8 should occur earlier in the measure.
oops lol

- Roll the octave at the end of m16/42/66 RH?
- For m26 and m76 LH, it might look cleaner to have all the rests at the same height instead of having two rests at each height.
- Dynamic in m27 is a bit low.
- Also include the cello notes in the LH at the end of m29, like in m27?
Yep, got these

- For m12 and all similar measures, I don't think I hear a chord change during the measure (i.e. I would keep the F instead of moving it down to Eb).
I had that written originally and then second-guessed myself a few times when playing through it since I thought the sound of the Csus chord below the Eb melody sounded a bit off. There's an Eb in the bass that begins the figure continued on beats 3.5-4.5, so my justification for resolving the F>Eb in the chord is that Eb in the bass raised up an octave.

- I'm not sure if the second half of m26/76 really sounds like a seventh chord to me. If I listen super carefully I can maybe hear an F, but I dunno. You might consider changing the F on beat 3.5 to a G, which sounds better IMO.
Sounds good to me!

- I feel like there could be some way to optimize this so that you didn't have to write out the same section three times... Maybe something like a repeated section with three endings could get this to fit on three pages, but that might be a bit more confusing to follow. I guess it's also probably fine as is.
Yeah, m. 9-24, 35-50, and 59-74 are almost the same - their ending measures are different, and the last iteration has a rit. in it towards the end. But the things that really throw a wrench in it are:
- m. 16 is different from m. 42 and 66
- m. 64 is different from m. 14 and 40
Both of these occur in different iterations the middle of the 16-bar phrase, so it'd be a bit nasty to try and pick those apart. Aside from that, the 1st/2nd/3rd endings would be 9 measures each, so it might get a but confusing to jump around. Lastly (I know you didn't ask for this much detail sorry lol) this is a track with a definitive end so I'm a bit more inclined to just write it all out. By the way, this "almost repeating but not exactly" seems to be a common occurrence across the OST, from what I've worked on so far :P

Files updated, thanks for checking! :D

In addition - Blue can always make the lower notes small if it's decided to leave it up to the player.
I would prefer if we didn't do this, since that would make the lower notes harder to read. Just playing the top notes is as easy (to read) a simplification there can be, and we can clarify in a performance note if we don't think it's clear enough :)

Also changed the C in m29b1 to a Bb because I now hear the transition of the Ab from the previous measure to that,
You can keep the C too there if you want (I think I would), it's there in the original and the chord sounds pretty empty otherwise (just root + fifth).

I hear the F for m32 b3, are you sure that's the right measure?
Yeah, pretty sure. Maybe the F is there too, it fits harmonically, but the Dn sticks out to me in the original. (To be clear it's the Dn just above middle C)

Changed m34. I still hear an 8th on b2.5, but i moved it to the F which is where I now hear it. Also added an F on top of the Eb on b1.
Ah yeah, that's good.

Other stuff:
- m. 3 needs more space at the beginning for the rolled chord + naturals (measure tool > extra space at the beginning)
- Think you missed this?
- Last note of m. 4 should be a Bb.

Neato! I updated your file with a few minor formatting touchups including:
- increasing the size of the footer text to 10
- spacing out the composer/arranger info out a but
- giving the header/composer text a bit more space

If this all looks good to you I approve ^^

Feedback! This looks solid, I don't have too much more to add.

- If I were MSF, I'd probably suggest moving the beginning of the 8va in m. 1 left a bit
- Overall comment - I think the rests in the LH part would look better lower (i.e. not hanging from the bottom staff line) as they'd be on the same horizontal level as the low C notes. Your choice on how you want to handle it, though, since it does jump up sometimes, but I think it'd look neater.
- You use an 8va over m. 52-55, 63-66, and 97-100 but not 83-86. Probably best to keep it consistent?
- Do you want any variation in dynamics for the piece? It's all mf for most of the piece through the 16th note and melody parts, though it's fine if you want to keep if that way.

Also is it just me or is the RH part from m. 33 not really there in m. 40?

That’s fine. Sorry we couldn’t reach an understanding.
That's okay. Thanks for the discussion today and closing this one out peacefully. Hopefully we can see eye to eye on other submissions in the future.

Sorry Levi - not to discount your comments, but unfortunately, I'm going to have to put on my moderator hat and archive this thread now at the wishes of Slow and the staff. I don't think anyone will benefit from further discussion in this topic today.

The thing is, the reasons you’re giving are the same as outright banning arrangements beginning in seven accidental keys—none will ever be accepted if you guys continue upholding these musically conservative opinions. Maybe you’re okay with that, but as I said with all due respect, I think it’s a disgrace.
I don't have anything to add about this other than what Static just posted. I still think you're misinterpreting our collective stance somehow.

You guys have really surprised and depressed me here. Sorry to Levi, who said I’ve been posting “attacks” on the moderators,
I'm sorry you feel that way. Despite what Levi said, I think this conversation has been civil from both sides...
but if you go back and read all my posts I’m literally just respectfully disagreeing.
...on the flip side of the coin, so is everyone else. Your opinions are valid, but there's something to be said when everyone else who's commented here disagrees with them.

Honestly, I’m fine if you don’t accept it, this is giving me a lot of anxiety and headache. I made the arrangement, it’s done, maybe I can find a spot for it at some point. I can officially withdraw my submission if that would be easier for everyone.
I think we have reached am impasse, so that would probably be best for everyone.

(just saw Seb's post; I'm at work now and will check back here later)

Then don’t accept it. I just don’t really think it’s appropriate that you won’t despite the fact that someone approved it and I’m not breaking any rules (and like I said, I think adding a rule about using simpler key signatures, which you’re basically enforcing here, would be a disgrace).
To be clear, I did not say that I would refuse to accept this without a keysig change - I haven't decided that for myself personally, although I know for a fact that others would object to it. I am not advocating for a rule about key signatures here.

I was more trying to point out the fact that instead of continuing the dialogue, you've deliberately ignored much of the feedback on this topic including everything after this post. That is the deal breaker to me; when someone refuses to respond to concerns others have raised. I am sorry if you feel like there are too many posts disagreeing with you, but something like this isn't resolved by dismissing what others have said.

Getting back to the initial point here, I agree that A#m is not incorrect here and can provide instructive benefit by exposing performers to a number of sharps they're not used to. But, as others have mentioned, the goal of NinSheetMusic is not to be instructive; it's to provide people sheets so they can play the video game music that they love...
As a user of this site long ago, seeing this arrangement would have really intrigued me and gotten me excited, and I know there are others like me out there.
...and a key signature like this can be an unnecessary roadblock.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 425

Page created in 0.159 seconds with 35 queries.