NinSheetMusic Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  


All Hail President Bowser!

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 ... 85
Nattertorium (n.)- a place for chatting; especially: a place for chatting for the elderly

Submissions / Re: [Wii] Xenoblade Chronicles - "Gaur Plain" by Libera
« on: September 18, 2019, 12:04:30 AM »
Makes sense for 24. For 25 and similar I still think it could benefit from including the Ab in the chord, but your choice.

I think it's more consistent to keep to three notes in each chord here.  The harmony is still all there because the Ab is in the bass.

71-73 look good and 69 better but I'd still suggest separating out the layers in 69. Not a huge deal though.

Ok I've changed 69.

Sorry - I meant the last note in each phrase not just the last note in the measure.

Strangely enough I hear an F on beat 2.75 in bar 97 but a G on beat 2.75 in bar 98.

New files are up.

Ok, I'm glad we've cleared this up now.  I look forward to any other arrangements you submit in future; please do!  I'll archive this submission now.

It isn't yet, but it will be.  It was submitted for the DPPt community project a long time ago and is still in the process of being checked (along with all of the other sheets in that project).  It will likely go up in the next project update.  We only host one version of each sheet on the site and since his was submitted far in advance of yours (and is further along through the feedback process) we'll be using his.

No I understand that this is not the same version as the one currently on-site.  If you read my quote you will see that I'm not talking about that sheet, I'm talking about the one submitted by Th3Gavst3r for the DPPt arrangement project that I included a link to in my above post.

Submissions / Re: [Wii] Xenoblade Chronicles - "Gaur Plain" by Libera
« on: September 17, 2019, 08:56:10 PM »
- For the second chord in m. 24 and first in 25 (and subsequent places) I think it would sound better and a bit fuller if you inverted downwards a bit to avoid the major second below the melody.

I sort of understand, but changing the voicings here would mean that the harmonies can't be easily sustained without pedal and also it sounds a lot flatter having the second layer stay constant.  I'd prefer to keep it as it is, basically.

- Would suggest clef changes for beat 4 of m. 39 and 43 (RH) to lead into the subsequent phrases better

Sure for 39, but I think 43 is preferable as it is.

- LH of m. 69 sounds like the G on beat 2 should be an octave lower

On listening again I'm not 100% sure, but the low bass sound definitely comes in on beat 2.5 rather than beat 2 and so no matter what is exactly going on, I think it'd be better to keep it as is.

- I think you should continue splitting layers in m. 69 beats 1-2. It's odd for it to suddenly combine with the top layer even though it matches that part's contour
- Similarly I think m. 71-73 could use a bit more consistency in the layering. You have half rests under beats 1-2 unlike previous places and a hidden rest in m. 73 but layer 1 still flipped upwards

I think everything should be consistent now and notes should be flipped correctly.  Let me know if I've missed something though.

- Any particular reason the LH arpeggios in m. 95+ are an octave lower than in the original? It's fine if you want it that way, but I think it adds a significant weight into the arrangement whereas in the original I view this section as a much lighter-sounding interlude in contrast to the rest of the song being particularly "heavy".

I think I was just worried about it crossing over too much with the right hand, but it's actually not really that bad so I've moved it up.

- I feel like you could make m. 109-111/113-115 a bit more interesting by varying the octave of the left hand. Perhaps something like low-low-high-low-low-high to try and preserve a bit of what the original percussion insinuates?

I kind of see why you might write something like that, but I think I'd prefer to stick to the more prominent bass-line here.

Everything else should have been fixed.  Thanks for checking!

Grouping all of this together because I basically overhauled the whole intro. Before, I was trying to capture all the main voices, but now I think it has a more accurate feel compared to the original. The LH is all in octaves instead of accents to give a lower, fuller sound; there are actually multiple low piano voices, which is why some of the chromatic runs don't line up rhythmically with the original (if you think I should include that other voice I wouldn't mind though). I transcribed the lowest voice only so the sound is a little more clear. The Dn is there in bar 3, but only in the strings; for the RH chords I used the rhythm of the strings but the exact notes of the piano part.

Yes the start definitely has more weight to it now and sounds more consistent.

I can't hear them very clearly in the original, but just 3rds sounds more accurate to me. I also removed the 2nd layer for this part because that's a lot more annoying to play than I thought it would be.
I definitely hear the bassline as I have it. It sounds weird, but I think it works with this song at least.

I agree that the second layer is really annoying to play with 3rds so I understand removing it.  I think the bass still sounds a bit odd to me, but maybe it's just me not being used to the song that well.  I'm happy for you to keep it as is.

You're right, the lowest notes are in the same octave, but I think moving the 2nd one up (and the notes that follow) give the section more of an expansive feel, which I think matches the original more and helps to contrast the previous section, where everything is all within the same range throughout. I like the sound better this way, but if you think it's better all in the same octave I can change it.

Edit: Forgot to address the pedal markings. I had them because I forgot to hide them; I'm leaving the pedaling up the player in this one.

Since it's kind of a random place to have them I'd remove them rather than hiding them because it could be potentially confusing when listening to the midi playback against the pdf.

Everything else looks good (although the segno in 33 could still be cleaned up a little.)

Piano Arrangements / Re: Unofficial Deltarune Arrangement Thread
« on: September 17, 2019, 02:26:06 PM »
Oh, I wasn't planning on submitting this until we saw a release date. I will admit that the copyright year at the bottom of the sheet is tentative, but I saw no reason it couldn't be posted here; to be fair, we do occasionally arrange or even submit sheets ahead of their release. I'd rather just have work done on this in here, along with "Welcome to the CITY" and the alternate version of this track if I ever get around to arranging them.

Sorry, I was a bit unclear, absolutely it's fine to post them in here.  I just think we shouldn't put up things on site for stuff that hasn't been released.  I wasn't around for that Octopath sheet, and if I had been I would have argued similarly against it being put up.  If the music does change on release then it's much harder to get a sheet edited if the sheet is already on-site and it probably ends up with the updaters having to check something twice.

But yeah please don't feel like I'm telling you not to post them here, you 100% can and should post them here; I'm just not going to update the OP until I get an official tracklist, which is hopefully alright with you guys.

Piano Arrangements / Re: Unofficial Deltarune Arrangement Thread
« on: September 17, 2019, 10:12:08 AM »
Oh jesus, I forgot this thread was even a thing.

I forgot until recently as well ... but it should be up to date.

I had to move some of the harmonies around, but do you guys think the rolled triads worked out well? Are they wrong? I did this using my best judgement, guys, so if you want, now it's your turn to be the judge.

They work pretty well as far as I can see.  Funny to see things done so fast haha.

Regarding teased tracks that Toby Fox has released or may release in the future, I think that it would be best to hold them from submissions until we see the finished product.  For one, hosting sheets on site for a game that doesn't exist seems a bit weird, but more importantly these tracks have a good chance of changing when they actually end up in the game.  Another thing to remember is that he said that he would release the rest of Deltarune all at once rather than in chapters (like he did the first one).  I'll update this thread with the new stuff when the final product comes out, or if he changes his mind and does release more chapter(s) separately.

Hey Pokemaster, when you posted this before in the formatting thread I responded to let you know that there was already a version of this sheet in the process of going up onto the site.  That is still true so unfortunately this version will not be able to go up onto the site.

Since I assume you only want to put it into finale for the purposes of submitting it, I should probably let you know that there already is a version of this track that was submitted by Th3Gavst3r for our ongoing DPPt arrangement project here.  Bear in mind that it's listed there as Valor Lakefront (Day) which is the official title for the track in question.  That doesn't mean that you shouldn't make an arrangement for it, but just know that it won't be ending up on site as we already have a version that is in the process of going up.

I hope that's ok with you.  I won't archive this submission for a few days to give you a chance to respond.

I've just been told in the past to make bar numbers invisible. How do you reset them? ???

In case Yug also wants to know:
Go onto Edit Measure Number Regions... (highlighted) and it will say Region 1, measure 1 to 9999 -- Display As: '1 - 9999.  That means that the first 9999 measures are designated as region 1 and they will display with numbers 1-9999.  You can add more regions and have them display as whatever you want to.  This means you could choose the first 7 measures to display as 1-7, then choose the next 5 to display as 1-5, then choose measures 13-24 (BGM) to display as 1-12 etc etc.  That will make all of your bar numbers look correct!  Hope that helps.

You did it! Woooo.  Just remember to reset bar numbers for every new piece. :)

- I had discussed part of this sheet with Latios before, when it had two bars of 4/4, and he advised an 8/4 bar. I mean, any way could go, really, but the systems look pretty evenly distributed right now as-is, so thank you anyway
- I'm not sure what you're hearing, but I defin

I think Zeila is just saying that bar 11 erroneously claims to be a 4/4 bar when it in fact is an 8/4 bar.

Sorry I hadn't listened to how it looped.  If that's the case though then the use of Fine isn't correct.  Fine means that the piece finishes there the second time around which isn't what is happening.  The structure should probably be written in a different way, perhaps by just writing everything out in full.  You've definitely got the space to do that on the second page.

Regarding the time signature, it's definitely not 3/4 for the first two bars of the piece.  Compare the first two bars to the first one and half bars of the second page: the left hand is practically identical.  Since the piece does actually loop unlike how I previously thought, using a pickup doesn't work but there is an alternative.  I originally thought of just writing the first bar as a 2/4 bar, but that doesn't quite work either as then you have different barring for the exact same figure at the start of the second page.  Which made me realise that actually I think this piece would probably be better written in a mix of 2/4 and 3/4, rather than 3/4 and 4/4.  Here's a rough idea of how that might look:


This piece feels really nostalgic for me because I distinctly remember trying to play it around nine years ago.  Good times haha.

-The dynamics in general could be better lined up vertically between the staves I think.  The last two are alright, as well as the mf in bar 17.
-The overlapping G in the left hand at the end of bar 25, 27 etc looks like it'd be really awkward to play.  You could drop that final G down the octave maybe?
-I think probably the biggest issue with this arrangement at the moment is a lack of variety, which naturally comes about due to the nature of the piece but I think there are a few ways to change it up more.  Firstly, you could swap the left hand to follow the minims that come in at bar 29 (the B -> C -> A -> B line) which might help to change things up a bit and also would give your left hand a bit of time to rest.
Secondly, why no zunpets in bar 71 onwards? :(  That part is easily the thing that sticks out most in the mix from that point onwards.  Personally I'd put the zunpet line in octaves and then put the piano line in as harmony in between.  That would definitely help to not just make the ending sound like another restatement of the theme but in a different key.
-In some places, your accompaniment pattern doesn't seem to follow the piano left hand pattern in the original.  Is there a reason for that?
-Just a small suggestion, but I think I'd drop the doubled octaves in the left hand of bar 24, at the moment it seems like just a little bit too much at that point.
-If it were me, I'd include cues for the percussion in bars 37 and 70, but it's not really important.
-The 8va in bar 87 could come a little more to the left.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 85

Page created in 0.151 seconds with 21 queries.