NinSheetMusic Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

It's not Opposite Day.

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 - Static

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 159
1
Square and Enix merged in 2003, after FFX's release, so your copyright should reflect that.
Regarding this point, it's actually fine either way. This game is currently copyrighted by Square Enix.

Personally I also prefer to use whatever the original copyright holder was, but for our purposes either way is OK. We give the same leniency to situations with different publishers as well, since some games are published by different companies in different regions. Any of them would be acceptable in a submission.

2
I think Jacopo is asking if this is serving as a replacement to his sheet - which to be clear, it is. You have rearranged the Stage Theme in this collection.

Edit: Also, if I didn't already imply this from the above, this sheet is fine to be a replacement. We've had collections replace single sheets in the past. Not a big deal.

3
Submissions / Re: [SNES] Terranigma - "Town" (Replacement) by Static
« on: June 19, 2022, 12:01:08 AM »
In regards to how some of the chords sound ("vertically"), I think 42 sounds fine personally. The one place that does bother me is m. 24/32, the Ab/G/D/F sounds rather dissonant, and probably part of that is because the Ab on bottom is sustained as the harmony changes but is restruck at each measure here. Maybe it doesn't sound as weird when played at full speed, though.
The Ab is restruck in the original too, an octave lower though. I like the slight dissonance there so I'd rather keep it.

Unrelated, m. 31 sounds rather empty compared to the more colorful chords around it, with only the root and fifth. Might be worth making a small adjustment to fill that out even if the original just plays those notes?
I actually ended up changing m30-34 to match 22-26, since a lot of those chords don't sound as full as I'd like. In the original track, the voices do change there, but I think this works out better for my arrangement, and it also helps the upper RH layer stay out of the way (no restruck notes anymore).

New files are up

4
Submissions / Re: [MUL] killer7 - "Where Angels Play" by Static
« on: June 17, 2022, 01:31:21 AM »

5
Looks good to me, approved

6
Hmm I still hear the melody here as Gb.  I can hear what you are saying though, I just don't think it's the same part as the melody.
Makes sense to me. I'll accept

7
My bad on m2 - I meant that only the slur should be flipped, so you should flip the grace note back. Grace note step up, slur above.

Just a few more details:

- Slur in m15/17 RH should also be flipped.
- Staccato in m42 RH beat 2 should be flipped.
- m48 RH beat 3 quarter rest should be moved down.
- Ending numbers above m54-55 should be moved left, like on pages 1-2.

8
Awesome, accepted

9
I'd be up for making it more complicated if people wanted: places like 3-6, 11-14, 18, 45-48 could have more in them from the original.  I guess this simpler version is what I settled on but I don't feel particularly strongly about keeping it like that if you think it was too much (too much simplification that is).
Maybe if it was slower I'd suggest adding extra stuff, but I think it's fine as you have it currently.
  • m7 RH beat 3: I hear this as a Bbm9 chord. Maybe it'd be better to put Db-F in the lower layer, similar to m15.
  • m9 RH beat 1: Maybe change the Ab to G to get the maj7 sound here, similar to m17.
  • m29 RH beat 3: The Eb in the melody sounds like it should be tied to m31.
  • m32 RH beat 2: I hear a Cb above the Gb in the melody. I think there are two trumpet voices there.
That's all I got, looks good

10
On subsequent loops, the instrumentation m11-12 is different - a bit darker and heavier in the lower end. I guess it's fine to leave it since the notes themselves are basically identical, and you don't have room anyway.

Yeah other than that I don't have anything to say, this looks good. I'll accept.

11
General comment about articulations: I think in general it's probably best to not over-articulate, but there are some spots that could use some extra definition. m43-44 and 51-53 have all-staccato quarters in the RH, so the lack of articulation in the LH on beats 2/4 might get overlooked. It's a hard balance between writing in too many markings vs. not giving enough information for the performer, but try to look for spots like this that you think could be easily overlooked when sightreading.
Sorry if I was unclear, but I didn't mean that you should change the articulations in those spots; m51-53 RH should be staccato as you had previously. I meant that you should add tenutos to beats 2/4 in the LH there so that it's more clear to the performer that the LH is different from the RH. Likewise for 43-44.

m11-12 RH: If you want, you could just put the melody G in its own layer, since it's not gonna get obscured by the trumpets like the B was in m7-8.
The G is held here (dotted half tied to a whole), not restruck. That's why I suggested putting in the other layer in the first place.

- m2 RH: Grace note can be flipped upwards here, might look better
- m46 RH: Gn should be G# (E chord).


12
Looks great! I don't really have much to say except that you're missing a grace note in m65 RH beat 4.5.

13
the tempo at m.13 was meant to be the same as the intro tempo but i forgor to change it and by the time i realized i noticed i couldn't change it easily in notepad (unless im missing something very obvious, could easily be that), but if y'all think its okay to keep it at that slower tempo im fine with that, and the grace notes lacking slurs is just me forgetting to do that when i initially tried to make the sheet.
The tempo at m13+ is actually slightly slower than the intro in the original, so you were right (even if unintentionally).

- m24/28/32/36 LH: I still am hearing a D# in the bass here, instead of G# (left it as is for now)
You didn't address this, though to be fair it is easier to play as you have it. I'm fine keeping it, though maybe Libera has something to say here.

I'll approve in the meantime, this looks good. Added the grace note slurs as well since they weren't showing up for some reason.


14
Submissions / Re: [NDS] Nintendogs - "Chow Record" by PokéMaster
« on: June 09, 2022, 09:49:16 PM »
Looks better. The top system of each page is still a bit too close to the text above it, however. You have enough room to move the systems a bit closer together

Regarding the arranger name, the e is missing the accent in your sheet. We'll take care of the website side of things.

15
Submissions / Re: [SNES] Terranigma - "Town" (Replacement) by Static
« on: June 08, 2022, 10:01:41 PM »
m20 RH beat 1 sounds a bit longer than staccato, though I understand it also sort of mirrors m60 (and to be consistent with the LH)
Still sounds more staccato-ish to me, more specifically it sounds the same length as the other bass notes in that section, so yeah it's for consistency.

One thing I am wondering about is m21 to m36 - I feel almost like the wrong part is being emphasized given the more melodious part is put into the LH for the most part in order to accommodate those higher runs (which are pulled down an octave in this arrangement). It seems like a tough balance to make this one work at least for that section
I didn't want to have multiple 8th note lines in one hand since it can get kind of unwieldy to play, so I moved around parts to accommodate that. In the original track, the melody is not the highest voice in that section, so it still works out for the most part, at least I think so. I could remove the top voice and put the melody in the RH, but I don't think it flows as well.
I'm actually a bit more stumped on m37-44, still trying to figure out a good way to balance that out since some chords (e.g. m42) don't speak as well as I'd like. Maybe something like this:
Spoiler

[close]

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 159

Page created in 0.187 seconds with 22 queries.