News:

Debate topic for next Tuesday: Are cannons truly valid instruments for an orchestra? Or should they be replaced with something safer, like Tesla coils?

Main Menu
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 - Fernman

#1
Quote from: Kricketune54 on March 19, 2024, 09:03:32 PMthough I personally think the order should go "short" to "long" and not long to short. Any thoughts on that?

I swapped it as you suggested my guess is because you wanted the short ones to fill the first page?
I would appreciate if you would give a reason instead of what is essentially "because you feel like it"

I added the box as I know how to do in Musescore but the format didn't work at all upon converting to Finale so... yeah. That's what I can do.
#2
I think the difference between the stage introduction and demo is that during the demo tune the characters are talking, introductions have no talking.
The stage openings are not on vgmdb.net,

So I'm open to renaming these as NSM sees fit. Youtube namings are inconsistent.

Stage Introduction - Long

Stage Introduction - Medium

Stage Introduction - Short

Start Demo 2

Start Demo 2 I picked the melody and the bass notes over the flute since I thought that would be preferred by NSM. If NSM prefers the flute or both bass and flute I can do that. just tell me how you want that setup since you can only play one or the other at a time.
#4
Quote from: Kricketune54 on March 12, 2024, 07:24:44 PMThis seems atypical to our standards, to take exact heard phrase from one measure and to then take over to another whole measure as a matter of preference. Personally, I've never seen it and don't really like the idea of it -

On paper as written above the idea does make one scratch their heads.

In context though the song effectively repeats the first 8 measures beginning at m17, so using a part of the song that was originally written to accompany the melody isn't as far-fetched as it sounds. Though my creative side digresses...
Anyway, I switched it back to the strings part which I liked from the beginning.
#5
Regarding the dotted eigth & sixteenth, I would rather keep it as written as I too interpret it as "play it short" instead of divide by 2.

Quote from: Kricketune54 on March 10, 2024, 07:12:36 PMNot quite, I was saying that m4 should be consistent with however you decide m2, etc. are. m4 beat 1 is same beat length.
Fixed

Quote from: Kricketune54 on March 10, 2024, 07:12:36 PMStill going to disagree here, I pitched up the song an octave in Audacity and it sounds like a consistent held pitch. Would relisten and also try what I've suggested, or slowing the track down. To me I could hear how it sounds like two pitches (but isn't) just on how the percussion and LH notes strike on beat 3. To me it also would make sense to sound like this given how m11 2.5 and 3.0 are tied as well, sort of mirroring rhythms.

Regarding m13, I wouldn't compare it to m11 because technically both voices currently arranged overlap in the OST, so it would be separate articulations.
Not sure how to go about resolving this. I uploaded the file to Bandlab and recorded what I heard as separate articulations in the original, ptiched up, and slowed down pitched up.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1VUtDaaRPLdwv9n4NVF-JryUjPz8XrKWv?usp=sharing

Musically it makes more sense to have a rearticulated note to keep the song going than a held note that keeps it less interesting.

Or we agree to disagree.

Quote from: Kricketune54 on March 10, 2024, 07:12:36 PMI would again recommend pitching up the original audio in Audacity to get a clearer audio picture

Ok I hear what you are pointing out on m19. I'm not trying to blend the horn and the low notes you pointed out. I don't like the low notes themselves because they are boring half notes, and the horn is mostly present in the RH, and if I include the horn in the LH it will force me to add the triplets in the LH, which makes it lots more complicated to play against those 16th notes.

Instead I want to take descending tuba heard in m3. It fits well.

If this is not acceptable I can switch back the strings which would require me switching measures 20 to be like measure 4.

Quote from: Kricketune54 on March 10, 2024, 07:12:36 PMso now that the forte was gone, I wanted to suggest perhaps adding an mp at the end of m24, and then you could cres. up to an mf leading up to the repeat symbol. Thoughts?

No, since it is a grand march I'm thinking it can't go less than mf. Only moving between mf and f. and move deliberately in m28 than a gradual increase over many measures.  I'm good with no dynamic markings.

Quote from: Kricketune54 on March 10, 2024, 07:12:36 PM• m3 RH, you could make layer 2 last three beats, I hear on beat 2 an F# quarter note, and then a Gn quarter on beat 3 before the current one on beat 4.
Added

You may do whatever formatting to the staccato you'd like. the staccatos don't seemed well placed in finale and if I have to drag around that dot, I'll pass.

#6
Quote from: Kricketune54 on March 06, 2024, 07:23:43 AM• Pickup measure I don't think there's a real rule on this but typically the dynamic aligns with the first notes, not necessarily the first beats (rests in this case)
now that I think about this, would it have been better that I made the pickup measure only a 1/8 instead of a 1/4. I can't make the change now in finale. That would have also avoided that placement of the mf.

Quote from: Kricketune54 on March 06, 2024, 07:23:43 AM• m2 and m18 RH beat 1.0 might've said this before but staccato dotted 8th notes are not typically used, as they are a bit ambiguous as far as length goes. Usually, these are written as staccato 8th, followed by a 16th rest or an 8th note without a staccato and a 16th rest
I don't have a musical reason to disagree with this, however I like the fact that it makes the music cleaner by having less stuff on the page. a dotted 8th and 16th are very recognizable compared to having a space in between.
When I tried changing this in notepad in finale, that music value/space where the rest would go disappear or I would lose space for the beat itself by using the eraser... I would effectively have to restart the measure from scratch and keep all the beats intact. is this how finale works or is there something else I should be doing? This is nothing like Musescore.
Any way you could fix this with all the formatting?

Quote from: Kricketune54 on March 06, 2024, 07:23:43 AM• m4 and m20 RH beat 1.0 hearing this as same length as m2's beat 1, so whatever you want to do there you could for this measure too

I think this is the same as the above comment the dotted eight?

Quote from: Kricketune54 on March 06, 2024, 07:23:43 AM• m8 LH 2.75 hearing Dn not En
No, I hear the En

Quote from: Kricketune54 on March 06, 2024, 07:23:43 AM• m13 RH 2.5 hearing this En tied to the En on 3.0
No, I hear it rearticulated as it is written

Quote from: Kricketune54 on March 06, 2024, 07:23:43 AM• m19 LH 1.0 sounds like a Bn, and 3.0 is Gn. Technically the low notes are only on 1.0 and 3.0 are half notes, but I think based off the line you're blending in, 4.0 should be an En as a result. I think you could also remove the staccatos here as well

The LH Tuba line should be the same as the start of the song, but it is much clearer sounding at the start. I hear it as it is written and it sounds Staccato'd. This gives it a march-y feel. The notes being only detached doesn't have the same feel.

Quote from: Kricketune54 on March 06, 2024, 07:23:43 AM• m24 LH 1.0 think the Dn could also go here like on 2.5.
Added
Quote from: Kricketune54 on March 06, 2024, 07:23:43 AM• m27 RH in spots where two instruments play the same notes in the original, I sometimes like to reflect this by adding a lower octave. You could do this for beat 4, as well as at m31 beat 4 and m32 on beat 1 (dotted half note)

I hear you, but in this case it brings the tone of the song down more than my liking.

Quote from: Kricketune54 on March 06, 2024, 07:23:43 AM• m28 the cresc. could come down a little, and also doesn't have to extend all the way to the bar line. Maybe you could replaces the cresc. symbol with the cresc. text marking? it's kind of ambiguous as far as how long it's supposed to last. Is the forte in m32 intended to make the 2nd time through the arrangement after the repeat forte instead of mf?

I removed the forte since that was an old thought. I wanted the crescendo since it is natural to increase in dynamics climbing those notes and to the end of the song for a grand finish.
However, given the feedback from my Versus select arrangement that the crescendo has to go to the next level, in this case forte, then I'll pass. Not that I'm entirely opposed to it, but I rather remove the markings and leave it up to interpretation for NSM purposes. And the original I think is fairly even in dynamics in those measures.

Quote from: Kricketune54 on March 06, 2024, 07:23:43 AMThen, for the ending tail of the ottava, you could align that a bit closer to the last note it applies to as opposed to right up to where the ottava technically ends. Just a general formatting guidance, but please see the reference image for a visualization

I'm not sure if I can edit the 8va in notepad (if so let me know how), and this is interesting to know for the rest of my arranging. However since this is formatting could you handle this and the other stuff you pointed out please.

#7
Quote from: Latios212 on March 04, 2024, 04:43:26 PMone question is intended at the end of the crescendos? Each of them should have a dynamic at the beginning of the next measure to indicate if it ends up on a louder dynamic level or resets to mf.

my original thought was to make it more interesting to play/listen for it to gradually increase in dynamics. By the end of the song it would be forte at most. Starting at mf seemed like a better choice than mp.

If I read your comment correctly since I have 2 crescendos that would mean it would go to forte and fortissimo. which is higher than I would expect. and I wanted the 2nd part to be slightly louder than the 1st and etc. If there is no clear way to notate a slightly increase in dynamic, then it might be easier to omit the crescendos all together. Relistening to the song I don't hear a change in dynamics.

I'm not attached to the dynamics at all so you can make whatever change you prefer and adjust the formatting please.
#8
Woops! sorry about that. the correct file is uploaded now.

FYI though, since I'm using the latest Musescore 4.2.x the XML cleaner is now giving me an error.
"XML error in file [file name] at line 66 Attribute "type" with value "grace-cue" must have a value from the list "cue grace large"
Everything still imports well, but the file name didn't carry over prompting me to make this file name mistake since I have to do it manually. I'll pay more attention though.
#9
All Fixed
#10
Quote from: Bloop on February 27, 2024, 03:17:27 AM-In the R.H. in m9-10, the A#'s should be Bb's, and in m11-13, the Db's and Gb's should be C#'s and F#'s. These are all sus2-chord voicings, but currently look like normal triads. The L.H. Db's in m11 should be C#'s too
Fixed

Quote from: Bloop on February 27, 2024, 03:17:27 AM-While I know you mentioned you didn't want the notes to go too high above the bar, you don't necessarily need the 8va in m1-8 at least, because the highest note is still just 2 ledger lines above the bar (Eb in m5), which isn't much higher than the lowest note that you currently have (the low C in m2). You could keep m9-10 in F clef too if you're okay with the F and F# one step above the second ledger line, but you could also put these 4 measures in the G clef

My thinking was the notes don't go high enough off the F staff to warrant switching to a G clef, I'm not sure about having so many notes near/above the staff for a prolonged period of time (even though once you figure out the first notes you know the rest of them), and I thought simplifying note position movement by keeping it all 8va would make the song easier to read at first glance. Though maybe getting rid of the 8va is the better decision? That's what I uploaded anyway. What are your thoughts/how would you recommend this be arranged?

Quote from: Bloop on February 27, 2024, 03:17:27 AM-For repeating from m12 back to m1, it's probably easier for the L.H. to take the lower D in the R.H., similarly to how you did in m13-14, but I don't know if there's a straightforward way to notate that :p You could also just leave that up to the player to decide for themself.

I thought about making the F clef have a second voice for the bottom note of the top staff chord, but not sure if that is common practice, that would for sure require me getting rid of the 8va (otherwise it looks weird) and I could either pick up the 8va in the next measure or later on as you suggested.

Otherwise as you said the player would have to figure it out once they get there how they are going to play it.
#11
Yes, I updated the sheet per your suggestion shortly after your January reply.

Since you said the magic word "approve"

Quote from: Bloop on January 27, 2024, 09:47:55 AMI'm alright with approving!

I assumed it was moving to the next stage anyway so I didn't feel it necessary to post another reply that I made the change. Now I know to keep responding till I sill the blue approve.


I'll make sure it is fixed in the next update.
#12

This one should be straightforward.

I chose the title "Versus Select" instead of "V.S. Select" as noted on VGMD https://vgmdb.net/album/133 as I prefer to write out the word Versus.


Finale formatting can wait until the end.

I chose the 8va on the top staff since I didn't want the notes going over the staff for better readability.
#13
Quote from: Bloop on January 24, 2024, 11:10:59 AMThat works too! In that case, I think it looks a bit better to at least remove the colon in the composer box, or add it to both arranger sections too, again for consistency
Fixed

Quote from: Bloop on January 24, 2024, 11:10:59 AMIt's not a bad thing if something requires a bit of practice ^^ We usually try to find a good balance between playability and accuracy, and the player always has the freedom of leaving out a note or two if they so desire. In this case, I personally don't have any problem playing the 16th notes for example, so I'm assuming that with most players will be able to get there with too. You can also even play it with the 2nd to 4th finger even, if that feels a bit easier.

Given my octave hand span I got a cramp/pain in the back of my hand when I first tried using fingers 2-4 on the 16ths. I guess I just need to work on my finger strength. I'm sure others can play it as you mentioned.

Quote from: Bloop on January 24, 2024, 11:10:59 AMI actually wasn't referring to the bass pattern at all: you're able to see the screenshot I posted, right? The climbing strings play a bit more in beats 3.5-4.75, and your current beaming for beat 2.5-3 is incorrect. Arranging the bass the second time through is a nice touch though, I don't mind that! I do think I prefer it over the faster rising strings haha, but either or both is possible ^^

Oh now I follow, I glanced at it, I prefer to have it simplified the way I had it for easier playability. but since the difficulty is increased already I'll add it.

Quote from: Bloop on January 24, 2024, 11:10:59 AMYeah leaving out that An is alright, the harp run works similarly as a pickup to that B. You could even use cross-staffing to move the last B and C# in the m8 to the R.H., so it's easier for the L.H. to jump back down to the D-G and for the R.H. to get in there.

Adjusted. I added a B at the bottom of the LH chord, even though the RH plays it.

Quote from: Bloop on January 24, 2024, 11:10:59 AMIn m12, I'm not sure how I feel about the B and F# in the L.H.: together with the A on beat 2 in the R.H., it sounds like this is a Bm7 chord, but it should be something more like an Asus chord (i guess technically A6sus2? or Gmaj7 over A? anyway anything that sounds like a V in D major). The F# also clashes a bit with the G in the R.H. on beat 1. The alternatives don't sound as amazing to me either, but it's best to at least add an A on beat 1, and put the B and F# (or only one of them) in a separate layer that resolves to the C# and E (or only one of them, again).

Theory wise I get what you are saying that before m13 starts a new phrase, m12 has to come to a close

Quote from: Bloop on January 24, 2024, 11:10:59 AMMy main thinking was that harmonically, the A major chord in this bar is missing the A, which makes it sound less like A major. Maybe you could put E's an octave higher and put the A as a dotted half note in a separate layer?

I added the A in another layer in LH. I rather keep the E where it is since it sounds ungrounded an octave higher.
#14
Quote from: Bloop on January 20, 2024, 08:13:33 AMHere's a .mus with fixes of the things you mentioned that were off, as well as some other fixes:
Thanks for the file, but it will only helpful up until there is something I can't do in notepad, which did happen, (the voicings at the end) So maybe all formatting can be left till the end. I went back to using my Musescore file.

Quote from: Bloop on January 20, 2024, 08:13:33 AM-Maybe instead of "Composition by:" you could do "Composed by", so it's consistent with the arranger credits?
I did the opposite and said "Arrangement for piano by", so it sounds more formal.

Quote from: Bloop on January 20, 2024, 08:13:33 AM-m1-6: I think you can add some of the harmony back in the R.H., without making it too hard to play: some examples would be m1 beat 1 and beat 4 (only the first note of beat 4), and m2 beat 1. These are places where the R.H. thumb has enough space and time to play a note.

I added it back into beat 1, and you got me thinking and actually pushing myself that I add more harmonics. It is playable/reachable for my handspan, it will just take some more practice to get it to tempo.

Edit: Thinking about this, while I was putting in some harmonics, the "issue" I found was that it sounds more harmonic/fuller at first, then it sounds empty and then back to fuller. So that is why I included more harmonics since it seemed "unbalanced" so to speak. I'm sure a pro can play it as written at tempo so maybe I'll just arrange it as such for purposes of NSM. Otherwise using the RH fingers 3-5 to on those 16th notes at tempo is quite a developed skill then jumping down at tempo requires practice to say the least.

Quote from: Bloop on January 20, 2024, 08:13:33 AM-m3 and 19: There's some more stuff happening in the L.H. here:
Yes I'm aware of the descending bass, but I don't see a way to play it with what I have written. However, if you prefer it be included how about on the repeat (m19) I change the measures to be that bass pattern, and the subsequent measure would be changed to the bass pattern Latios initially suggested as it fits well. I rather keep the first instance of this the climbing notes since it makes it sound like you are entering a stadium.

Quote from: Bloop on January 20, 2024, 08:13:33 AMFor easier playability, you could leave out the bottom note of any dyad.
True, but I learned to play it that way so I'm fine with how it's written.

Quote from: Bloop on January 20, 2024, 08:13:33 AM-m9-12: I've been thinking about this section for a bit, but I'm still not sure what I'd do myself exactly haha. The thing I noticed is that some parts of the horn melody (currently in the L.H.) seem to be end up sounding secondary: some notes are missing in m11, the pickup at m8 beat 4 is missing too, and there seems to be some harmonic ambiguity in m10. Maybe instead of arranging the high strings in the R.H. and the horn melody in the L.H., you could arrange the horn in the R.H. and the lower strings (the accents) in the L.H.?

I arranged it as you suggested. It sounds good, but I wouldn't personally emphasize the bass pattern string accents. I would rather have it be more melodic, but there are different ways of skinning the cat.
I omitted the An pickup on beat 4 in m8 since it overlaps with the climbing notes. This makes it more difficult to play and it will get lost anyway. or at least sound blurry with the rest of those notes.

In how it was arranged prior I'm not sure what you meant by harmonic ambiguity in this context and what that really presents (for lack of a better word) musically... unless you mean there is no clear chord present in the measure.

Quote from: Bloop on January 20, 2024, 08:13:33 AM-m12: There's not Bb in the L.H. on beat 4, but there should be an An in the R.H. as pickup for the melody in m13. -m24: The L.H. on beat 2.5 and 3 goes from Asus4 to A major, maybe you could write these chords as A-D-E going to A-C#-E? -m28: The A on beat 4 in the R.H. should be an octave higher -m25 and 27: You could write these dotted half notes as whole notes too, to fill up the bar. In m25 in the L.H., maybe using D instead of B will make the L.H. sound a bit more grounded.

These are fixed
I did however add another A in the base on beat 4 of m12 just so it doesn't sound empty with only the RH playing

Quote from: Bloop on January 20, 2024, 08:13:33 AM-m26: Maybe you could use an A instead of an E for the snare drum hits, as that's the note that the low strings are playing?
I hear what you are pointing out, but I like the E because the snare sounds different from the rest of the pitched instruments. The E gives it a different texture I guess.

Quote from: Bloop on January 20, 2024, 08:13:33 AM-m28-32: I think you can add some bass notes here to fill up the empty space: --m28: An A in a separate layer below the L.H. --m29: a G an octave below the half note --m30: an A a 5th below the L.H. in a separate layer as a half note --m31: a G in a separate layer as a whole note --m32: The bass note here should be A again, but you could also put the E of these chords in a separate layer as a whole note to fill up the bar

m29 I also hear a low d after the G on beat 2.5, so I brought that up an octave. Though I must say to play that low G I have to pick finger 5 part way through to get to the D.
Fixed

Oddly a stacatto on m21 beat 1 RH is appearing below the notes.... Let's fix that at the end of the second review.
#15
Quote from: Kricketune54 on January 17, 2024, 07:10:04 PMThe lower notes for m1 LH don't fit the original's chord tone - I think En makes more sense.

Adjusted to an En on beat 1 and Cn in the rest of the measure.


Quote from: Kricketune54 on January 17, 2024, 07:10:04 PMm4-6 the Gb would be written as an F#, as this chord is D major. I see Xiao brought this up a lot earlier; I would say that given the amount of time that has been put into this sheet from our side... we're happy to help you get this up to the site, but we don't want to put things up that we know are wrong.

It has been a long time since I've seen Xiao's feedback. And I appreciate all of your team's feedback. The reason for the recent change was I received some feedback elsewhere on the accidentals in m34, m35 and others like it that it should be a Db and Gb and not a Db and F# like I had before. Then I thought about note consistency and changed all F#'s to be Db's. not remembering the earlier feedback.  No disrespect implied.

Quote from: Kricketune54 on January 17, 2024, 07:10:04 PMAfter looking at this for a while, I do think that this arrangement might be better written as A minor/keyless. The main melody tone that starts at m4 is definitely D# major, but this song starts and shifts to a minor tone for a good chunk of it. That would remove a lot of accidentals, though will need to make some edits to ensure if you do a key switch with a button press that parts with Db's or Eb's stay that way and are not C#'s or D#'s where it makes sense.

I'm not sure what a "key switch with a button press" is, but I see what you mean on being keyless, at least at the start. m2, I switched the Bb to a A# since it is an augmented D chord.
As for the entire arrangement being keyless... while I uploaded it as you suggested, you'll have to educate me on why that is. If the goal is to eliminate accidentals, the song adds a lot of flats throughout the song that are not just passing tones.
If I were to have key signature changes, m4 would be G maj (since there are Cn's) m10 would be Bb major, m26 would be Ab, m38 would Gmaj and m42 would be Bb maj.

Maybe what I had before the whole song being Bb is incorrect, though now that you've pointed this out, what are your thoughts about it having key signature changes in each section.