Messages

Sorry for the wait

I agree with everything you suggested and changed all accordingly, except for the stem directions in measures 33 and 37. Those are a bit weird, yes, but I've done it deliberately to show the continuity of the upper voice in its melody in contrast to the lower voice just tossing in that second eighth note as a background voice. Also, it's allowed to do so therefore I have for this^ reason.

Let me know if there's anything else and I'll try to get to it quicker than I did so far! haha

Hey welcome back Winter! Hope things have been well with you these years!

^I have an issue like this that happens quite often; I don't know why but it's super annoying. That being said, all it takes for me is to highlight one of the notes, and then use the arrow keys to move the pitch up and back down again (or down and back up) by even just a single note. Moving it around makes finale respace everything in the measure, so I only really have to do this once per measure, regardless of how many problem notes are involved. Again, though, I have no idea if that's a possible fix on Notepad...

I think everyone has their own ideas on this topic. Part of the discussion is of the nature of NSM's quote-on-quote "ownership" of the arrangements hosted.

Keep in mind the intent of the site is not to own anyone's work, but rather to gather the world's best collection of quality video game piano sheet music.

Based on this, NSM is more of a collection of the work of others' which is quality-tested. The arrangers voluntarily offer their work to be hosted under NSM through the submission process (and sealed with the NSM url at the bottom of the sheet). The fact that the work is not owned by NSM is clear through the possibility of having one's sheets taken down from the site, which is also addressed in the aforementioned quote source.

But then the question remains: if NSM does not own the work, who does? I'm inclined to say that the arrangers themselves retain ownership of their work at the bottom line, again, because they can technically have their work removed from the site if they so choose; if the work changed ownership to NSM, this would not be possible. An example of changing ownership is in the video game music industry itself: most of the time, the composer(s) write the music but it is then sold per contract to the developers. Once that happens, the developers have complete control of the music, and the composer has virtually none. E.g., if a soundtrack CD is going to be released, that's generally the developers' call and ordeal- completely independent of the composer unless they deem otherwise. This also then has concerns for self-plagiarism as well with future compositions for different developers, but I digress.

Ultimately, since the ownership then stays with the arrangers, each individual arranger is the one that carries the weight, final say, and opinion on this kind of thing. Since nobody makes money here though, it removes the legal liabilities that might otherwise be present; which turns it into prime flame-war material at best. That all being said, I'll now share my thoughts on this whole thing:

My Thoughts on this Whole Thing

Unsurprisingly, I like to see a bit of credit come back by those who take my material and post it on YouTube (or similar mediums for that matter). Even a slap in the description or beginning/end of a video is often way more than most people, and I really do appreciate that kind of gesture. In fact, done right, I actually would probably enjoy folks using my stuff in this way. Trouble is, most don't and those that might put something in the description will still just milk any praise in the comments as though they were the creators; leaving us actual creators by the wayside. It's kind of a case of 'just take it from our perspective': how would you feel if you were the content creator; honestly?

However, regardless of what I'd like to see happen, I specifically will not go after anyone who takes my stuff like this without credit; and no, I'm not afraid to say so publicly. This is for two main reasons: 1) I'm a bit of a philosophical purist who believes in music first and foremost for people- if my work can do good for others and their musical development/aptitude whether it gets traced back to me or not, I'd rather have that than just withholding my work entirely. Bad business practice, yes. But I'm not making money here anyways so I might as well be charitable as it were. 2) Those who actually own the work that I arrange and work with could, likely and at any point, march themselves in here and shut us all down because we don't have any particularly special clearances either aside from the aforementioned "trying to credit the right people in all things". We like to think that if anything, we're boosting the popularity of the games and the music through our work and make it very clear to people that we claim no ownership of any of the original compositions; but when push comes to shove we're really not any different than the YouTubers who take our stuff. Needless to say, we do our best to treat the official sources the way we'd want to be treated by those who use our work, but in the face of huge corporations not-suing-us-for-everything-we're-worth, I think the least I can do is not make a fuss when people take my already-backpacked-not-original material. That all being said, plagiarism is bad; don't do it.

[close]

Honestly if you haven't seen any of ScottFalco's main videos you're missing out, but especially

Also TerminalMontage for that matter

Also enjoy this candid clip

Lol alright then nevermind I'm pleasantly outnumbered. Go with the D natural then; by all means.

Maybe someone can verify, as I made, the Hertz and check if it is closer to natural or sharp.

I do trust your call on this one; it makes sense to me. I'm just saying that to my ear it candidly sounds like D#, which harmonically makes works alright with the melody. D natural also makes sense, but to me it's definitely a D#. If you want to go with whichever is acoustically closer (measuring the exact frequency), you can; but to me it would be enough even just to go with what feels more similar. My vote is for D# but that's all. I'd like to get some other ears on this as well though and see what folks think.

But all in all, you are the arranger and I do think that counts for something. If you really dig your heels in and want it to be a D natural because reasons, I'm inclined to accept that. You've already made a great argument supporting the D natural as well.

I personally hear the whole thing in 3/4. The "6/8"-y rhythms just seem like syncopation to me, rather than defining the time signature at any one point. Consider the first half of m8 and the first half of m12, where the melody adheres to 3/4 even when the accompaniment is playing a 6/8-like pattern. That's just how I hear it, though.

I'd be more on board with this than 6/4 to be honest. 6/4 just seems really specialty. 3/4 makes tons of sense as a dance too, which is where I'm recalling the rhythm from.

I'm honestly nervous for review on this. It was really challenging to do and i feel like i messed up on a few parts with the ostinatos

Haha well let me start then by pointing out a typo: "Coposition by..."

Honestly though, despite having that retro sound to it this one is a toughie for sure.

Before I forget, as correct as you are with that ostinato pattern in the RH starting at measure 9, I wonder if it might still be an idea to just make them straight ol' eighths rather than sticking that 16th in there just for the amount of difficulty you'll lose in exchange for not much from the texture. A good trade-off basically.

- I'm not sure how sold I am on the last two notes in the LH beat 4 of measure 8. Sounds like it stays on a D to me... Unless you're aiming for the pickup to the upcoming bass bit but check my next comment for more on that. Aside from this spot, the LH seems good to that point.
- I'd definitely move the bass starting in measure 9 down an octave. More accurate and will go a long way for the texture. Just highlight all those measures and hit "8".
- Measures 5-8 RH have another voice that's kind of in your sheet right now. I'd use two voices to write it though. Here's how the entire section would look like if I were to revamp it (I didn't change the voices- just made it functional):

- This^ continues through measures 9 and onwards as well. In my example, I put it in the LH without necessarily answering the possibility question. From here, there are a couple of options. You can tie over the downbeats like I did in measure 8-9 or just omit the bass notes when you need to. Either way, I think that'll give you all four voices then. I'd recommend writing them all in and then taking things away to make it possible. Easier than trying to add after the fact or even during.
- In my example, you can see in measure 6 RH I shortened the quarter notes to make them shorter to match the original. This kind of thing also happens in measures 25 onward so I'd take a listen for any notes that are shorter than full length (detached).
- Measures 25-26 RH the G in the lower harmony repeats for the C's as well.
- Measure 19 RH ostinato stays on C instead of going down to G but I'm assuming you did this so the melody isn't compromised. Good call! That being said, if the top is staying on G, you could probably make the lower note of the ostinato a C. It's easier to play that way and your harmony will still be intact as well.
- Your decision to ditch the harmony at measure 25 may be wise, but if you haven't already, I'd suggest trying it out first just to be sure you can't/shouldn't include it. If it's not going to go in here, make it deliberately omitted. As it stands it kinda looks incomplete. Cleaning up those measures will go a long way. Make it clear why you didn't put it in.

This piece has a handful of characteristics that you can capitalize on (and in some places, have already capitalized on) to make your life easier. The biggest is that of layering. The melody just repeats and usually you'll only have one new voice being added. For example, measures 5-8 in my example the melody as written in the first layer is good for m. 13-16 as well.

Also, much like retro music, it will do you good to listen for each voice as its own track- its own melody. This will keep you oriented and minimize getting lost in the pitches. Once I gathered my orientation, I found it much easier to track which voices were doing what, where, and when. A great tactic for this kind of arranging (for accuracy) is to just write everything out regardless of playability. Then go in after and move stuff around to make it possible. That way you can use the whole picture to notate things cleaner as well (note the differences between your original measures and mine).


I think I'll leave you with that much for now. Including those will really allow for a greater depth of nitpicking which will be much closer to a final acceptance.

The piece is challenging, but if you can keep your head and wits about you, I think you might find it's easier to work with than you think. That's the experience I had anyways.

EDIT: My posted example has a typo: Measure 7 RH layer 2 should still be an F tied over from the previous measure, not an E. My bad.

Hey great work bringing this back for a second bout! I'm happy to say it looks fairly promising, at least from my perspective anyways.

I have some formatting things for you and some textural ideas:

- Maybe it's something I don't know about the sostenuto markings but shouldn't the sostenuto releases be below the LH staff where the actual sostenuto markings are? Seems confusing otherwise.
- I'd be inclined to just put the RH of measure 5 in the bass clef. Keep it in the upper staff, but use a clef change to get rid of some of those ledger lines.
- Fermatas in measure 1 are too tight and not centered.
- Tip: If you angle the beam in the pickup beat at the very beginning I find it makes it look more dynamic- more pizzaz.
- Based on the sound of the original, I'd look for a way to hold the high Bb under the fermata in measure 1 longer than the other notes. There are different ways to accomplish this; but I'd consider this to be under the arranger's creative jurisdiction. You decide how to do it.
- Staccatos are often clashing with noteheads or other things. Measure 5 (which I already mentioned altering and will probably not be a problem afterwards), 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 20, etc. Just a lot of articulation clashes to clear up.
- You've got accidental double-flats (pardon the pun) in measures 49-50 LH. Resize the layer 1 flats to 1% and slide them over the notehead so they're hidden within. That's my latest solution anyways.



- I feel like there's a bunch of places where your sheet would benefit from slur usage. Runs especially (e.g. short runs measures 35-37).
- Measures 19-23 you could probably actually raise the notes into their proper octave and have the RH cross over into bass/contrabass land to punch out your low timpani spots instead of trying to cram them into the ostenato hand. Just efficiency of movement for maximum result. Generally it's not so many notes constantly repeating as it is just shots from the trombones. If you were able to have the extra notes only for the shots, that would likely be more effective than relying on accents alone for the punch.
- Actually if there was a great place to use accents I feel like measure 1 would be good. Not all of these chords sound equal in the original. Accents would be a great way to call the most prominent ones on the downbeats forward.
- I feel like writing the C# in measure 16 RH as a Db would be better. It's a 5th with the Ab and all C's in the LH in that measure are natural.
- I could be wrong about this because I haven't analyzed it super carefully yet but the run in measure 26 seems fishy... As though the woodwinds never actually go that low for one thing. Again, unless I slow it down and find I'm wrong, it almost doesn't even seem like they're in triple rhythm at all- just straight 16ths. But that's something I won't swear by until I take a closer listen.

All D seem to me closer to natural than sharp.

I'm inclined to disagree. While you could go either way because of the nature of the problem, my vote is for D#: if I were to just go to the piano after the fact to plunk out what I heard, both standalone and intervallically with the other notes I would be calling it as a D#. It sounds very E minor harmonic to me. Even after trying to listen to it as a D natural I can't shake it.

If Zimag and Bit Corporation are different entities (or at least even different names), be sure to separate them with something like:
"Zimag / Bit Corporation © 1983". Right now it looks like the one company's name is "ZimagBit Corporation".

I'm just spitballing here: maybe I could include the trumpet just on measure 12? I certainly can't include the octave jump, and having it played on both m.8&12 wouldn't have the same energy as the original.

I'll toss in my two cents and say I don't think I'd mind doing the trumpet bit in the same octave for both. Sure, it's not exactly correct, but what can you do? Right now it's sparse enough that I think it might do some good.

I do not hear a C there.

While I don't hear a super clear C, the bass part does have the kick of a power chord. Again, for my opinion, I think you could go either way with this. Add a C for a bit more punch if you like. Me? I probably would, but it's not necessary I don't think.

Honestly my biggest "it's too bad..." area is in the impossibility of getting that percussive feel in this. The percussion makes so much of this song- to the point where I'd almost dream of adding higher notes to the bass to get that moving groove but that's maybe getting too creative. Potentially controversial. So in light of that, I'm going to say it's certainly not bad as is; at the very least it's not brutally difficult like so many sheets are and it's always nice to have some more beginner-friendly ones when possible. Arranging hard is easier than arranging easy in my experience.


On a different note (pun intended), I'm wondering about the beaming in measures 17-18 RH. In measure 17 I'd be inclined to beam between groups of two only; groups of four beaming despite a clear three pairs of notes gives me pause. In measure 18 I'd recommend even stronger to break this beam. It comes out this way because Finale wants to beam in four but as it sits right now it's just plain wrong. I can't even recommend my almost-patented beam-over-rests thing that everyone hates because even that would look bizarre. I'd strongly suggest just breaking this beam. Also the corresponding spot in measures 33-34.

Little late, but eh. This year I finally put away my Bachelor of Music degree (what a year to graduate). On now to Bachelor of Education..

[Good from me.]

Good from me.