Using cutting-edge ray tracing technology, our sheets appear 69% more realistic than the leading bargain brand!

Main Menu

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.

Show posts Menu

Messages - thatoneguy

Responses in red
Quote from: XiaoMigros on July 18, 2023, 04:12:02 AM
  • I think the w in 'World' should be capitalised
    Noted, and currently in consideration. It's listed as a lowercase both on the official soundtrack and in-game music player.
  • m1-16: You could exchange the LH of player 1 with the RH of player 2, then you can write the current P1LH part in its original register
    Noted, and currently in consideration. My 2 main concerns with this are potential overcrowding in the treble register with both pianos, and a couple awkward hand/finger crossings for P1.
  • I think the 32nd notes at the end of m8 would be better as grace notes
    Agreed; fixed.
  • m1-4 & 9-12: I think beat 3 & 3.5 in the LH of P2 both sound like regular eighth notes
    Agreed & fixed; not sure what I was thinking at the time...
  • For m5-8 and 13-16, I also think these are better as eighth notes; eighth+rest is not the same thing as staccato quarter
    Yeah, that does make a bit more of an impact now that I've tried reading it both ways. Fixed.
  • Do you want to write the whole P2LH part under an 8vb marking (except for the end)? Especially for m1-16, where all the notes are below the staff
    Yes; Not sure why I didn't. Fixed.
  • Since m1-6 and m9-14 are identical, you could use a repeat instead of writing them out twice?
    I'm more than happy to send you the product with this change implemented, but I personally believe it disrupts the more natural flow of how systems lined up with how the sections were divided (if that makes sense).
  • On page 3, you could move all the slurs of the harp part between the staves, like you do for the first one
    Done; I kept "sim." on the bottom system for P1 due to my dynamic marking in m24. I also have P1LH stems pointed in the same direction as the top system for additional visual similarity. I am more than willing to get rid of the "sim." and just add the slurs if you think that would be better for clarity sake.
  • Also, I feel like you could be more creative with the dynamics here, especially on the second system: There's no need to have P1 match P2 and get louder towards the second measure.
    I think all the messa di voce I've been taught and done as a vocalist took over for that page. And looking at it now, P1 & P2 having parallel dynamic movement wasn't my finest musical decision. I've changed the dynamics a bit, but I still want it in that tranquil, soft, legato feel (exception of m22 P1RH with that "climatic" Cnat).
  • For this page in particular, make sure that the cresc/decresc markings don't collide with beams or dynamics, and, where there's space, dynamics and hairpins should be on the same height.
    I'm going to be honest here, I don't know how I missed all the collisions in P1 at the bottom system. That's nowhere near even a "subtle" collision. Should be fixed.
  • m25+: I'm hearing P2RH as triads, there's an extra layer of harmony playing an octave below your current part.
    Fixed. That was a user error; I did a transcription on Musescore for my speedy convenience and then pulled up Finale to write the piano arrangement based on my transcription. I clearly ignored the viola/violin III part in there. Oops.
  • For P2LH, the same point as earlier concerning note durations: These all sound like regular eighths to me
    Agreed; fixed.
  • m25: If you want, you could write P1RH under an 8va line, to show that it matches the LH
  • m33+: I feel like the flute melody loses focus too suddenly here; in the previous section it played in octaves, but now it doesn't plus it's an octave lower than the original. Do you think there's a way to let it stand out better?
    I think I have a decent solution. M33-35 P1 now has the harp in the LH while doubling the flute at original pitch in the RH, before it [probably] realistically plays those harp arpeggios and continues as I initally wrote it. So, m37-39 P2RH has the flute part in octaves (at original pitch & octave below). m39 I threw the E4 (originally P2RH) to P1LH. Thoughts?
  • I don't think the senza pedale marking is needed in the beginning of the sheet and in front of the ending; it seems pretty clear from context how it is to be played.
    While I don't disagree at all, I also believe having it clearly stated won't hurt either. As a few of my professors have told me, having more specific markings in music are more common place and preferred by some.
  • For the rest of the con/senza pedale markings, it would be great if they could start just in front of the note, moved left slightly
  • Thanks for labeling the ending! As of recently, we'd like them to be labeled as 'Optional Ending' (size 14, bold)
    No problem! And label has been edited accordingly.
  • For some reason your noteheads are loaded from the EngraverFontSet and not Maestro, could you change that?
    I think I fixed it?
  • I'm able to fit 3 systems onto each page from page 2 onwards, reducing the total number to 4.
    If you want to send me what that looks like with these changes, I'd be willing to consider it. Maybe I'm being too picky, but I like having the sections on each separate page. I'm also horrible with dealing with systems on Finale, as it takes me maybe 45 minutes on a good day. I can get by, but some of the work I had to do before my initial upload of this was a nightmare from what I remember.
  • Could you go over the dynamics again and make sure they're all centered between the staves?
    Heh heh heh...*cries* So, uh, with the changes I made for m33-36 messed with the dynamics for P1. Otherwise, I typically try to center any dynamic markings between staves as best as I can with the spacing I have.
    Additionally, the ones in your ending are a little too close to the repeat barline.
    Agreed; fixed.
Thank you for the nit-picks! All appreciated and helpful. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks again!
It's been *checks calendar* at least a year since I was last active as an arranger. Yet here I am, with a song that's not one of three different songs I've been intermittently been working on for years. Nor one of the previous submissions that I haven't felt inspired to go back and fix with suggestions given to me. Perhaps I'll get to one of them in the next couple months now that I've come back and have some time with summer break from college. At any rate, here are my notes to start:

  • There are 8 notes [from the harp] that I don't readily hear in the track that were present on the MIDI I extracted from the files of my copy of the game. I kept those notes in because without having memorized the track, you wouldn't even know; plus it keeps Piano 1 a smidge more occupied.
  • I would love some nit-picks with my chosen phrasing, dynamic contrasts, articulations, my horrid formatting, and the like. There's probably a bit more I could do that I haven't even considered, so critiques and suggestions are welcome!

Edited out my pretentious comment as I felt guilty regarding how rude I was. My apologies to anyone who read the original post.
I'm glad you found a better recording of it! (I should have tried a more generic YouTube search to find it...) I read through your suggestions a couple days ago and glanced through your suggestions again just now. I'll go through the suggestions while looking at my score and make the edits as soon as I can (hopefully this weekend).
Submission Center / Re: Replacement Initiative
January 19, 2022, 05:10:02 AM
Quote from: Latios212 on January 12, 2022, 08:17:02 PMI'd be down to work on this one :P If I feel up to it soon, I'll give it a shot. Let me know if you do though!
Go ahead and take a shot. I unfortunately had too much work to do this past weekend. I might be able to do it this weekend, but I'm not placing any bets on it as college has me working more than I'd like :'(
I should have had this on the initial post, but here's the original version that the in-game music box version is based on for possible referencing:
In some retrospect, I think some of my articulation markings are with the original in mind. It might just come down to being a personal preference/mindset if I should go with a more "music box-like approach" or take some of the articulations from the original. As I mentioned in the admittedly way too long post, I think there might be enough differences to make an arrangement that's closer to the original version; then it might be better for this music box arrangement to have less articulation that are taken from the original version if they aren't present in the music box version.
Submission Center / Re: Replacement Initiative
January 10, 2022, 04:22:04 PM
I'd like to do Presea's Theme, but not sure if I have the time currently as I'm now settling into my next semester of college.
Huzzah! I am still arranging, though college has been taking up more of my time. *cries*
One more thing: thank you Cacabish for the Musescore to MusicXML to Finale guide and tools! You saved me (and the poor person who might have helped me with the plethora of needs that comes from using notepad) more time than I care to think about.

So, here's the fun with this piece. It's a music box arrangement you can find in game. The original song (which I would like to finish my transcription of soon before I start seeing if there's enough difference to make another piano arrangement) is of a snowy town, so I've really wanted to have this done and submitted during the winter season, but never finished either version's transcription [and arrangement] until today when the season has aligned! Between the original song and the music box, besides the change in instrumentations, the key signature is only a half step apart (Music box is in B major; Original is in C major). Besides that, I'm fairly certain that there are some [pitched instrumental] parts that are excluded in the music box for better clarity. Anyway, unimportant rant over. Now to the more important points:

  • I put a performance note on the last page, which may honestly be unnecessary. Not sure. Next 4 points on this list is essentially what I put on the note.
  • It's fast. Really fast. As I only just finished the arrangement and only played through it for maybe an hour on my piano, there maybe some lines (or notes) that need to be sacrificed. My stance is that the tempo of this piece is a huge part of what makes this piece. As such, this is one piece I'm more willing to drop particular notes/phrases/lines in order to have it at the approximate tempo. It's a 3/4 time signature that's played as if it was in 1.
  • I added suggested dynamics. Since a music box doesn't have much in terms of dynamic contrast, it felt like the amount of notes being played (e.g., line doubled an octave up, multiple lines happening at once, sudden change in number of lines or octave doublings). Honestly, I'm okay with getting rid of the suggested dynamics if it'll really affect the tempo it can be played at. (It could just be a mf the whole time instead, and letting the parts create the "dynamic contrast")
  • There are some notes with smaller heads, denoting that they should be played but with a slightly softer dynamic as it would confuse the ear to where the more important line is.
  • Similarly, some notes are written in with parentheses. Those exact notes are already played by another line at the exact same time, but can help the performer see the different parts at once if they choose their dynamic voicings.
  • Concern regarding the bottom staff's ledger lines. I'm currently numb to them, but I know I'll look at it when I'm not familiar with the notes may say "thatoneguy, what were you thinking? Who can read this?" One of my main concerns with moving those [stupid high] ledger line voices onto the upper staff is the confusion of having three different voices in one place in various sections of the score.
  • Some of the articulations and most of the phrasings (slurs) were added on with some hesitation. I'm not great at deciding what should or shouldn't get a phrase (slur). The articulations felt a bit more clear, especially with the measures of 90% Fs and the bass voices with tenutos, but some were guesses. I'd love to hear some thoughts about my current articulations and phrase markings!
  • The arpeggio marks (or seeming lack thereof) in mm17-24 I'd like to keep as close to the source as possible as I think it really makes it stand out. Mm 18 bottom staff: grace notes I know looks weird, but I like the effect if makes.
  • Pedal markings. Hahahaha...ha....ha....*cries* I'm torn about it. I've left out any notes or markings for sustain pedal because there are times when it can help both the music and performer, help the performer but hurt the music, or hurt both. Maybe the performance notes should say something like "use the sustain pedal judiciously." Input on this would be great!
  • One last thing. Notes should be correct. The way music box arrangements work, you go to a specific house ("The Music Box House") to listen to them. You can choose to either have it automatically play it (which is what the recordings are of), OR you play it "manually" by turning the left stick/circle pad in a circular motion. (Which way to spin? Either! Clockwise plays forward, Counterclockwise plays backwards). The notes play at the rate you spin the stick/pad; I used it to an extreme amount to make sure I heard each part or specific notes correctly. Before I started the actual arrangement, I played both the automatically played version with my transcription and listened to where they didn't match up. Tedious, yes, but I prefer having an as-close-to-exact transcription before I arrange rather than blindly arrange based on what I do or don't hear.
I think that's all I have to really say about this. Thank you in advanced to whomever gives me feedback and edits; and another thank you to Cacabish for the guide and refined tools to make the musescore conversion better!
Audio files here:
I didn't find any on audio recordings on YouTube, but I didn't look at any gameplays that may potentially contain it. There are two files of the same music, the first is louder so that'll probably be more helpful to you (I didn't know I had already recorded it until I after I did a second recording).
Quote from: Static on March 17, 2021, 09:05:31 PMIn m44 and 54, when the middle part drops an octave, I think it would sound better if you instead put it in the normal range but removed/doubled notes as necessary. It sounds kind of weird to me when the texture suddenly shifts there. Even if you think the melody would be hard to hear, keep in mind that it's still the upper voice so the ear naturally hears it more prominently. In addition, it's up to the performer to bring out the moving lines and hold back ostinatos. Just my two cents there.
I agree with you on that, especially with m54. For whatever reason, every time I clicked on the parentheses to re-adjust them they went back into place, until I did something else. That'll need to be looked at and fixed if needed. Now with m44, I did something a bit different. I got rid of the F# in the ostinato because the clash distracts from and would overpower the melody in that instance, unless the performer makes the F# like ppp for that one moment. I kept the E in the ostinato because it didn't really affect the melody too much; especially as the D is re-struck immediately after that in the ostinato anyway, which is why I didn't put any parentheses on it.

Quote from: Static on March 17, 2021, 09:05:31 PMm57-onward: Since we are in 3/4 time (instead of 6/8), the 2nd dotted 8th note in a measure is more appropriately written as an 8th note tied to a quarter. This is to clearly show where beat 3 falls.
Yeah.....I'm a bit ashamed to say I didn't think about that. Fixed.
Okay, great. Thanks!
No worries! Also, should I put "con pedale" in? I realized I didn't put it in (despite the fact that I played it con pedale when attempting it myself).
Small update: I went back to play and make sure it was playable, and found some errors I made. So I fixed those and updated the files
Great. If you wouldn't mind fixing those two things for me (so it doesn't have to be re-fixed anyway from my terrible formatting attempts), that would be great. Thank you!
I think the D you hear is an overtone. The E-F clash kinda sounded like it made a weird, almost but not quite D overtone.
Quote from: Latios212 on March 03, 2021, 03:19:03 PMMakes sense. Updated that!
Thanks Latios!

Quote from: Static on March 03, 2021, 01:31:03 PMIt's very hard to hear in the original recording because all the notes are so close together and in such a low register, so I opened up the file in Audacity and raised it up an octave. I definitely hear a D3 in m1
Is there a way you could send me that pitched up file? For some reason I still can't hear the D3. I'm really trying to hear it, but it's not present enough to my ears to pick it out and focus on it. Is possible for it to be an overtone? I know that I hear an F4 overtone in that chord when it starts. My ear might just be constantly picking up that F4 overtone which is blocking out the D3.

Quote from: Static on March 03, 2021, 01:31:03 PMAs for m13-14, I still don't hear the F#3.
It happens on the recording either when the G# or A (natural) is played. It's hard to distinguish it because it's not made as present, and at normal speed the frequency blends it in with it's lower octave self.

Quote from: Static on March 03, 2021, 01:31:03 PMm3-4 look good, my bad on those.
You're fine.