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 - Libera

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 59

115 - Battle! (Azelf/Mesprit/Uxie) - Zeila [Approved by Libera]

Did a bunch of edits on the sheet.  Generally they were geared towards layering and general layout, including bar distribution.  I also removed some octaves/shifted them around in places to avoid lots of collisions with the bass line.  Finally I reworked the right hand of the last section to make it more clearly follow the upper line.  Plus there were some voicing and accidental changes in a few places, but nothing major.  All of the notes looked great!

So yeah I was working on some FF stuff, but I basically spent most of today watching my brother play Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice.  This music, and the part which it plays in, I thought was really cool so I just kind of threw this together.  It's probably my strangest piano arrangement so far haha.

I'll put the links in spoilers since the game only came out on Friday:

Great Serpent: [Musx] [Pdf] [Midi] [Mus]


Submission Archive / Re: [GCN] Pokémon Channel - "Home" by Th3Gavst3r
« on: March 24, 2019, 12:55:18 AM »
Looks great!

Yeah that's fine I suppose since both the rhythm and layering are ambiguous here; I do still suggest cutting down on the three layers for cleanness though. Layer 2 doesn't do particularly much since you can't sustain it for the length it's written anyway. If you want to keep it though I guess that's okay. Definitely though flip the lower tie downwards, and put a fermata on the left hand note as well. (Probably move the rit. away from the note a bit too.)

Haha yeah layer 2 serves zero purpose I have no idea why I wrote it in originally.  Should be better now.

I mentioned 14 :P (Though yeah 16 is fine without it too.)

Yeah I guess 14 was more visually strange; I've got rid of it too.  (16 I still think didn't really need to be there so it's still gone.)

(Just a bit higher so it doesn't touch the D notehead!)

Bracket no longer touches D notehead.

What I've gathered after a lot of messing around with sheets is that it's a lot more important to maintain consistent spacing between the musical symbols, rather than consistent spacing between the staves. The staves can be the same distance apart as everywhere else in the sheet, but it's the stuff that goes in the middle that determines how cramped it is. Compare this system to the one with m. 25; they both have a gap of one inch but there's so much extra room in m. 25 and as a result the sheet looks more inconsistent. As a result, I still very strongly suggest opening up the staves here. (Also there's enough space to kick it to page 2 and give all the systems a bit more space.)

It's a reasonable point.  I've opened them up a little bit, so hopefully it should be fine now.

Nice. To save a bit more space I don't think the short cross-staff line or the lower tuplet bar are strictly necessary (maybe we could raise the dim. a bit to be higher above the Gb in the next measure).

I got rid of the tuplet bar but I've kept the cross staff line for consistency.  Even though I guess it isn't strictly necessary, I don't feel we need the extra space with the tuplet bar gone.  Also I adjusted the diminuendo.

I dunno, I feel like those couple of places stood out to me as having a suddenly open sound in a section with such dense harmony. To your first point about visuals: it can be difficult but you shouldn't make arrangement decisions based on how engraving it would look. For the sound, I had been experimenting with the sound on my piano keyboard (not Finale) next to me and I think it would sound (and look) fine if the harmonies were included within the right hand octaves. It's up to you, though.

The visual thing was more of an 'in addition to' rather than a deciding factor.  I tried it out both ways and I think I prefer it with the consistent melodic line rather than with the harmonies worked in.  Also I found it pretty hard to play some of the resulting chords with my right hand, but once again that's an 'in addition to' thing.  Also some clever pedalling can alleviate some of the openness if you're smart about it I think.

Thanks again; this sheet is much harder to get right than you might think at first. :P

woah page 3 is really something after the rest of them

Indeed it is.

- Not sure if this goes for other sheets as well, but the subtitle is really close to the title on the sheet.

I moved it down one pip.  Hopefully that's enough.

- Are you sure about the E-F dissonance in m. 7? Could that be written with a C instead of E or should it be different from before (m. 3) here?

I had another check and yes I'm pretty confident that the voice in m.3 goes E -> C -> E but the voice in bar 7 goes E -> E -> E -> C (the last two being quavers rather than crotchets).  It probably doesn't sound quite as clashy in the original due to the voicings (the E is actually being sang an octave lower in both cases, but I couldn't think of a consistent voicing that kept every voice at the correct pitch).

Looks terrific ;D


Thanks for the feedback, I've updated the files.  If I haven't mentioned something, I should have fixed it.

- I'm not hearing the high D at all in measure 4.

It's definitely there, but yeah it's quiet.

- First chord of m. 6, 7, and 28 should be rolled.
- Last chord needs to be rolled.

Yeah good calls.  Fixed.

- For measure 8 I'm getting something pretty different in terms of layer differentiation (and also a rhythm) - how about something like this:

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree on the layering (but to be honest it's piano so it's pretty subjective so I'm not sure it really matters that much).  And yeah you're right my rhythm isn't right; I've changed it to this:
If you go off of the same tempo from the previous bar the Eb comes in pretty much exactly on beat 2, but the C and Bb are too fast to be quavers (especially because of the rit.)

- I'd highly recommend a double barline between m. 8-9 and 24-25.


- Right parenthesis in m. 9 interferes with the other notes. Try moving the parentheses up a bit

Probably fixed?  I hate dealing with parentheses...

- I would remove the tied F in m. 14 since this is just a piano sheet. It'd neaten things up a bit without losing any clarity of execution.

Yeah I considered doing so myself when I was writing this up, and I agree it's not really necessary to hang around for that long.  Fixed.

- Personal preference but I would suggest keeping the chords on the lower staff for m. 15-16 for a couple reasons - avoiding the cross staff lines, interfering with the melody notes, and most importantly you lose the visual continuity of the chords staying at the same position on the staff.

I personally think it's much easier to read this way since you can see the exact notes your hands are playing by looking at the staves, rather than having to work out yourself how you're passing the chords between the hands.  Also I don't think it interferes with the melody really at all since there's plenty of space between them, and different note lengths.

- First couple chords in m. 15 are missing a Bb underneath.

Fixed, good call.

- Spacing - need more between LH/RH in m. 16-18

I think I've created enough space there now after fiddling with stems and such like.  I really don't like opening up the staves (although I was forced to later on in the piece for the final system) so hopefully that's good enough.

- m. 22 beats 3-4 LH: I think I'm hearing first a Bb-Db-F triad and then Db-F and Bb as eighth notes on beat 4.

Sounds good to me.  Fixed.

- Flip the lower tie in m. 23-24 upwards to stay away from the lower layer.

Sure, fixed.

- The second chord in m. 25 sounds off. Try Ab-Gb in the LH and Bb-Eb in the RH.

Hmm I'm still hearing the Db, but yeah I missed the Bb originally so I've added that in.

- Measures 28 and 29 are quite cramped right now. I'd recommend manually adjusting the measure widths for this system since the last couple measures don't need much space, or altering the distribution a bit.

Should be better now, hopefully.

- I'd suggest trying to keep the lower layer under the quadruplet in m. 29 at its original octave (lower) rather than as thirds under the melody. That way it'd maintain continuity with the parts right before and after it, as well as prevent the RH from suddenly sounding a whole lot lighter. There's also definitely another note or two of harmony in m. 29 beat 3 that isn't currently there. (Put an F in the left hand?)

Also should be better now.  It required opening up the staves but ah well.

- Similar comment about the Gb at the beginning of the last measure, it obscures the lower layer a bit so how would you feel about moving it back down an octave? It's within a tenth reach of either hand and with this song you can easily roll if you can't reach.

Yeah it's an easy reach, fixed.

- It'd be easier to let the left hand take the C in m. 3, and the lower Dbs of m. 5.

Yeah it's more consistently written that way as well, fixed.

- I'd highly recommend adding in the missing harmonies in either the right hand of measures 17 and 19, because the double octaves sound very empty otherwise.

Hmm I'm not really convinced about doing that.  It's only missing the harmonies for a single beat in both cases and I don't really like how it'd look visually on the page or how it would sound transposing the harmonies up or down the octave.  To me it feels like you get a much more consistent sound the way I've currently written it.

- How would you feel bringing the quarter Eb in m. 23 beat 1 back up to its original octave? That would be an easy chord for the LH to roll because the thumb can take the Db and Eb.

I'm not a huge fan of implicit rolls and there's no way I could reach that myself without rolling it.

In retrospect I probably didn't need to respond to every comment separately haha.

Submissions / Re: [NES] Mega Man 4 - "Dr. Wily Stage 1" by
« on: March 23, 2019, 06:54:02 PM »
Looks pretty good in general, just a couple of things:

-I'd suggest putting a courtesy G# in the right hand of bar 17 because of the Gn in the left hand that are played concurrently.
-For the arpeggios standing in for the drums on beats 2-4 of bar 24, I'd recommend changing the Bns to B#s as I think the implied harmony here is a dominant which tends to be a major chord.  (It sounds better like that to many, anyway.)
-I'm not a huge fan of the optional tap feet line, mostly because I can't really see it being performed effectively ever; but also it visually clutters those three bars.

All of the notes look great, and I think I agree with changing a lot of the repeated semiquavers to quavers.

Forum Games / Re: The NSM Guess-That-Melody Quiz!
« on: March 23, 2019, 01:50:12 AM »
Ah I recognised that one as Lavender Town but it sounded nothing like the original nor any of the other remixes so I just assumed it was something else using the tune.  I completely forgot about Let's Go.

Another Final Fantasy replacement woo.

Force Your Way: [Musx] [Pdf] [Midi] [Mus]

This looks pretty great!  I think the only thing I have to say is maybe move those staccatos back on the notehead side in bar 2 as they wouldn't really interfere with the upper layer (given that it's just a semibreve) and they look a little odd in between those two sets of quavers at the moment.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 59

Page created in 0.053 seconds with 21 queries.