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 ... 352
Off-Topic / Re: Official "I'm Away Topic"
« on: August 21, 2019, 01:23:04 AM »
Taking a vacation out west (California) for about a week. See you all soon!

And a violin cover from kopikostar for the above! That was fast ^^

I see, that makes a lot more sense now you put it like that.  I still thought it looked too squished though, so I decided to do my very rare thing of going to a 6cm staff size to alleviate that.  Also it makes it much easier to fit six systems onto the final page.

Honestly it looks so much better now, at least in my opinion, with the updated distribution. Everything just seems to click... together... better. :)


Ah gotcha. Cool, it's got my approval now

The sheet looks far emptier than it actually is because of how spaced out it is. I agree with the use of cut time here, but visually everything is very stretched out making it harder to make sense of where parts start and end. There's nowhere that's dense enough to warrant 3 measures per system, so you can easily use a 4-measure hypermeter in most places and cut down on a page while doing so. Here's a distribution I recommend.
Every time I took the main section to 4 bars per system it looked way too cramped for me.  It makes it hard for me to read the syncopations with everything close together like that, and that's why I went to three bars per system for those sections.  Also you can't really lose a page because as you might notice your last page is really short on space with the 8vas and the low octaves (in fact they're overlapping a lot), which is why my final page only has five systems on it rather than six like the rest.
I disagree with 4/system making the syncopation of the left hand harder to read; the ostinato is relatively sparse and going along with the original's hypermeter makes it easier to discern the phrasing and where it repeats. If you compare how the first page looks for example going along with the hypermeter allows the performer to see that the left hand pattern repeats every 4 bars whereas 3 measures/system makes it feel somewhat like there's a new rhythm to read every measure.

(Oh, and I really don't think the 16th notes in m. 25 should be written in as part of the melody)
You mean have them as grace notes?  If so, done.
I honestly don't even pick up on these notes at all when listening to the original. But seeing as the melody is clarified now I don't have any problems.

- In m. 22-23 there's a bit of a piano riff in the original similar to before; is there a reason we return to the ostinato here instead of using that?
Mostly because it's so low in the mix I can barely hear the notes and rhythms that are being played and so I didn't think it was worth it (or even possible) to include.  If you really think it's worthwhile I can have another go at transcribing it, but it seems pretty hard to understand where it even starts and ends.  Then again, maybe that's just me being terrible.
That's fine; was just wondering.

- I think m. 34 and similar ones are too empty in the right hand, and would be better off as octaves (or something) - the single notes stand out against the harmonies in the measures surrounding them. (Same for later in m. 84+)
I've talked about this before, but I still really don't think this is a wise or necessary change.  It sounds perfectly fine to me as single notes and anything more ruins the change to octaves in bar  46.
My concern was not necessarily that a single line isn't sufficient (although I probably kind of think that) but that every measure alternates thick harmony vs. no harmony for 34-39, which I don't think translates over that well to piano. In addition even if you used octaves you'd still have the buildup of energy in m. 46+ since those octaves are notably higher. All that said, up to you.

Everything else looks good!

Yes, the pitch may be audible there, but I personally don't think it should be written in as it distracts from the sharpness of the beat 3 note - especially given how you wrote out similar figures later.

Anyway, looks good. The 8va marking at the beginning of the page 2 needed to be lowered a bit, but I went ahead and fixed that for you since it's a tiny change.

Archiving as per the above. Feel free to resubmit when you're ready to make changes, and ping me if you need help with something.

Took a quick look at the accidentals, yeah this piece does some strange chromatic stuff. I too am hesitant to change Gn into Fx, and think Gn does a fine enough job of facilitating readability here, so I'll accept.

Nice. I've been hearing a lot of this lately...

- Is the first the lower dyad in m. 9 not supposed to be like the others?
- Hearing a Bb on top of the beat 4 chord in m. 21
- The bass figure at the end of m. 44 is misplaced (it should fall earlier, the Eb should play the same time as the Rb in right hand)
- Bass figure in beats 1-2 of the last measure should look like this (a wrong note, also you had the rhythm correct initially)

- Make the RH slur at the beginning not pop up so much
- Write the chord at the beginning of m. 21 like this:
- Align the pedal markings between m. 26-27
- Also make sure they're all a sufficient distance below the chords (m. 31 intersects, but I think they should all be lowered some)

*runs through doors and horses*

This song restates its main melody a lot, but has a surprising amount of modulation and different instruments and accompaniment parts to keep it feeling fresh for its long loop. Feels just like home!

Fire Emblem: Three Houses
NEW!   Life at Garreg Mach Monastery[MUS] [MIDI] [PDF] 

sound file link

There's a sustained C# in the first measure that I think would be good to write in as beat 1 in the right hand.

I'm not sure the slurred staccato'd A's work particularly well in m. 3-4. It feels pretty different than everywhere else in the song and I think it might feel more natural if you just kept it as a sustained A in m. 3. You could also try writing in the countermelody in the second half of m. 4.

Other than that, looks pretty good. I think the fifth in m. 19 might be better as a third (G on bottom), and that the LH might appreciate a whole note A in m. 12 like the ones before it.

No worries, looking good! Last few things from me:
- Page 2 is resized to 95% for some reason...
- This is a bit ambiguous because of the nature of the sounds used in the original, but to me the melody in beat 3 of m. 3 and 5 sounds like how you wrote out m. 14+ in that there seems to be a 16th note implied that isn't quite there. I would suggest replacing the 16th notes with a staccato'd eighth as such.
- Move the mf in m. 6 left a bit

Submission Archive / Re: [NES] Final Fantasy - "Main Theme" by Yug Guy
« on: August 18, 2019, 07:57:53 PM »
Eh, I figure I might as well keep it in. No one was ever harmed from too little ambiguity, right?
Actually, I do think over-clarification can be bad. Not talking about this specifically, but doing so can add unnecessary clutter to a sheet as well as the performer second-guess the music ("why is there an accidental here? It's already in the key signature, did I miss something...")

As I mentioned before, my preference would be to take it out, but it's up to you.

Looking at the rest now, so in addition to the above:
- In m. 22-23 there's a bit of a piano riff in the original similar to before; is there a reason we return to the ostinato here instead of using that?
- I actually disagree with Static and I think it would be really nice if the LH parts in m. 25-26 and 27-28 were beamed across the barline. I don't think it's really out of place because there aren't any other similar places in the sheet that would warrant it (besides the ostinato which is fine without because it uses a heavily syncopated rhythm anyway).
- Somewhere from m. 31-33, I think it may help the buildup a bit if the D flats were octave doubled before the tremolo kicks in.
- The notes in m. 34 are oddly spaced a bit.
- I think m. 34 and similar ones are too empty in the right hand, and would be better off as octaves (or something) - the single notes stand out against the harmonies in the measures surrounding them. (Same for later in m. 84+)
- Courtesy flat on the top Bb in m. 40? (88 as well)
- In m. 56 I'm hearing the positions of the first two melody notes (Eb, G) switched?
- In the chord at the end of m. 56 I'd suggest changing the G to a Bb since the chord is followed immediately by a G in the ostinato.
- The chord in m. 78 sounds pretty muddy, much more so than the ones around it. Any chance we could modify it a bit?
- Is the bass C in 99 an addition of yours? It doesn't sound like the original plays any low notes after the descent in the previous measure.
- Chord between m. 100-101 sounds like it should be inverted down once, I think. Also it's horizontally misplaced and the ties all bend downwards.
- The half note C in m. 103 should be an octave lower. Also not sure the cross-staff line really serves much of a purpose here.
- I also think the chord in m. 104-105 should be an inversion lower.

This is a tough piece, and you did a really good job making a workable solo piano arrangement out of it. Kudos!

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 352

Page created in 0.073 seconds with 21 queries.