NinSheetMusic Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Up-to-date news?! Preposterous!

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 ... 475
2
This is the instrumental version of this vocal song from the game. I think this version carries over to piano a little easier than the vocal version.


3
Sorry, you're right.  I got confused.  I think what's throwing me off here is that in bars 32/34/35 etc. you're presenting beats 2.75 and 3.25 very similarly when one has a bass note and the other doesn't.  The lower note on beat 2.75 doesn't match the bass note.  This happens in a few other places but I feel like it sounds particularly odd here.  Is there any reason you couldn't just make it match?
Ah yeah I thought about this a bit. So (going off of 32, but all the other measures should be equivalent) on beat 2.75 the bass jumps up a fifth to the D which is higher than the other bass notes on beats 3.5/4.5 (lower D). I wrote in the A's in the chord since the strumming guitar part seems to have an ascending sound similar to how m. 33 moves up on beat 2.75 and wanted to match that in feel instead of having it drop on beat 2.75. Does that make sense? I've played this a bunch on piano and I like how it sounds currently.

Edit: briefly discussed over Discord and I did add the bass note (A) on beat 2.75 of measures 35/39/40 and the same places on the last page, to include the bass and make it a triad like the other measures.

4
Alrighty, looks good! ;D

5
Great, let's get this one in!

6
only the sharpest D#

looks good, accepting!

7
Awesome, just one tiny thing - the cross-staffed D# on beat 4 of m. 38 shouldn't display the sharp since the sharp is there on beat 3.

8
wow this piece is really something

m2/6 beat 1 missing Cb/Bn in the chord (idk if this was intentional or not)
hm I kinda think this might be better without since it forms an awkward minor second distracting from the Bb melody

m7 beat 2: At first glance the En should be Fb... but I think since this is functioning as a sort of +6 chord, En actually makes sense here. At least I think so.
I think this makes more sense to me as an Fb... you have a Gb7 chord here right? Beat 4 should be Fb as well in the right hand. I think this goes for m. 15 too...

- Missing "The" in the game title again :P
- Maybe a courtesy flat on the upper Db in m. 10 beat 3 RH? Since there's a Dn below
- The top note of m. 21 sounds to me like it should be an Ab (string and vocal line leading to the Db)
- Think the lowest RH note in the second chord of m. 24 might sound better as a Cn instead of Dn? I hear the tritone between C and Gb more prominently than I hear a minor second between Dn and Eb

Also... there are a few places where the vocal line gets visually lost a bit.
- I'd recommend splitting out the lower voice in m. 4/36 (m. 12/15 can probably stay as is). In m. 36 it jumps between staves from beat 3 (D#) to beat 4 (B) so I'd suggest either a cross-staff line like in m. 6 or writing in the B on the upper staff.
- The voice moves from B to D# in beats 3-4 of measure 38 but that is completely hidden by playing the same chords. If you want to keep the chord tones as they are you could write the voice in a separate layer to clarify.

9
Hey! Taking a look...

-Overall, my goal is to keep the octave'd accompaniment last throughout the arrangement, so generally if possible I want to avoid a single hand accompaniment + single hand melody even if it helps bring the melody out more. It makes it a little more difficult to play and a bit more complex, but I want to go for it.
I strongly disagree with this. I understand you want to preserve the somewhat ethereal feel of the original, but here are a few reasons I'd recommend against writing in the octaves verbatim:
- It becomes much more difficult to enunciate the melody properly because it shifts between hands and weaves in and out of the accompaniment. You also end up with some awkward intervals (major or minor seconds in places like m. 25-28) and repeated notes (like in 9-12) which distract from the melody. Unlike the original everything is one instrument in a piano arrangement, so it's more difficult to make one voice stand out if it hangs around the same register as another. That's not to say it can't be done, but it is something to consider.
- It makes writing the voicings a lot messier on the sheet making it harder to tell what's the melody and what's part of what voice. Upper and lower notes in the ostinato are freely thrown between the right hand and the left hand. While this is fine to keep everything within reach, it does make the voices harder to follow. Again, there's nothing outright wrong with this, but it is tricky to read as written.
- Out of all the possible things to cut out of a full transcription, octaves are some of the least essential. If you cut them out, you don't lose any of the harmony or the rhythm. The ostinato is still effective as a single line.

Compare this to what the sheet looks like if you remove the upper octave in m. 9+, and remove the lower octave in m. 25+. Try playing it, too, side by side with what's in the existing sheet. (These screenshots have a simplified version in the first system and the current version in the second system.)
Spoiler


[close]

I don't want you to feel like I'm imposing this on you, but I did want to remind you about the tradeoff between sound and difficulty. Thoughts?

10
Cool, looks good. Approved!

11
Ah yeah that probably happened after I edited the pitches per MSF's comment. I've made a couple of tweaks, thanks!

12
This is... really quite good. I'm not finding anything off.
- Cross-staff beam in m. 17 should be horizontal

A few thoughts about some of the accidentals/intervals here... overall I think it makes sense to look at the LH and RH largely independently. But there are a couple of things that catch my eye:
- I notice you didn't change the RH Ab in m. 10 and similar per Bloop's post, was that intentional? I do think the G# might look a bit nicer.
- The Fb at the end of m. 42/46 looks really awkward bridging the gap between F# before it and En after it. I'm wondering if it'd be less confusing to write that as a E-G# dyad (we already have G# from earlier in the measure) with a courtesy natural on the G in the following measure.

13
Awesome, everything looks good! I don't see the tie in the last measure at all, so that works haha.

Don't think I have anything else to add, so will accept. Great work! :)

14
This looks great! Not the kind of submission you see every day, it's nice to have something like this :)

Thanks so much for all the feedback on this, FireArrow!

The distinctions between the traditional baroque and more modern notation are definitely good things to consider! I'm willing to make any changes in that regard if necessary, although I would defer to NSM's standards of notation if there are any for these cases! The dotted lines, fermata, and extended trill marking should be easy and quick changes to make, but I may need some guidance on the fingerings if those need to be added in, haha.

I think I'll leave it as-is for now just for clarity's sake, since I think more people might be familiar with the modern notation style, but I'd love a second opinion to see if any of these changes should be made, and I'll make them ASAP! I'll keep an eye on this page, let me know!
I will say as someone not super familiar with this style of writing that the way you wrote it makes sense :) I don't have any concerns about the dotted lines, fermata, and trill marking in particular. Though the trill (and turn in m. 7) are displaced slightly to the right, and you might want to put a fermata in the left hand at the end to match the right hand.

Fingerings, will leave that up to you if you want to add them, and I can help comment if they make sense if you need. They're not necessary but a nice touch, but either way is fine :)

Just a few other very minor comments from me:
- Dynamic in m. 1 could be lowered a bit to be centered between the staves
- Top voice in m. 10 beat 4 sounds like a quarter note rather than dotted quarter
- The tie into measure 14 RH points down while the outgoing tie from m. 13 points up (use the Tie Tool to flip the one in m. 14)
- The stem for the low C# on beat 2 of m. 17 seems oddly short for some reason?
- There's a couple of tiny visual quirks in the last system - the left and right ends of the first ending bracket don't line up vertically, and there's somehow a rogue tie visible inside the last whole note...?

15
Always glad to see more Xenogears
- m. 9 beat 2 RH is misaligned, and I'm hearing C instead of D
- rit. in m. 13 is a bit far to the right. Also should probably be a fermata in the LH on beat 4 to match the RH?
- I'm finding the voicing in some of the measures in the second page to be a bit confusing. I see in m. 14 the high voice combines with the lower layer for the second half which is alright I guess. But for m. 16 it's a bit unclear at the top voice does this:

I'd suggest keeping the high woodwind voice on top, stemmed up there. Also for m. 20, the beat 4 octaves should be flipped downwards.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 475

Page created in 0.255 seconds with 22 queries.