NinSheetMusic Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  


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 - JDMEK5

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 249
Nintendo / Re: Nintendo Switch Friend Codes
« on: June 29, 2019, 10:33:19 PM »
A bit late but mine is SW-5389-2886-1098. I'm gonna go ahead and add y'all.

For sure; sounds good! Everything looks ready to go on my end as well now except for one question: did you want to list it as Arranged by Elrich & Onionleaf or keep it as you have it on the score right now as Edited by Onionleaf? Bespinben edited my An Unswerving Heart from Pokemon B/W but didn't have himself listed on the site (despite my saying it would've been totally cool with me). How exactly do you want it listed both on sheet and on site? We could still list you both as arrangers on site yet have the sheet read "edited by" if that's what you want. Of course I don't mean to speak for everyone by this so if any other updaters have any thoughts on this by all means bump in- this is the way I'd go about it. But yeah, how exactly would you like it worked up?

Don't ask how I found this but it seems the PDF for "Undersea Base" from Double Dragon II isn't working.

EDIT: Tried loading the MUS into finale but it wouldn't take it; as if the file was corrupted or something. Not sure what the deal here is exactly.

Nintendo / Re: Pokémon Sword and Shield
« on: June 27, 2019, 12:02:54 AM »
For me, just about everything I love about the Pokémon games exists in the post-story, and all stems from the complete pokédex. The core story of the game is a bonus adventure to enjoy with pokémon but doesn't comprise the meat of what I really love about it. The stories are memorable- don't get me wrong- and I love them, but to shut down the post story basically forfeits my real incentive to participate.

Wow, nice job! The sheet currently on site seems like one of those cases where it's not so bad but still could be so much better. I find myself agreeing with Libera here^; this seems like your take on the piece rather than so much as correction of the one on site- therefore I also don't think I'd see any problem with you slapping your name on it. You know the way it was put together but so long as I'm correct in that it's your own take on the piece, I'd say that justifies it.

I too am pretty close to ready to sign off on this one (it looks so nice as well), but have two small things to offer forth first:
1) Maybe consider explicitly indicating some kind of sustain pedal usage somewhere? All the bells and percussive resonance in the original sounds like the job of the sustain pedal; I don't think you can really go wrong including it and I also can't imagine playing it without the pedal. I can't tell you the best way of notating it, but I think it's pretty important in a piece like this and if it's going to be present, it should be explicitly written.
2) I can't help but feel like the LH could help play the counterpoint melody in the first half of the piece (doubling the melody an octave lower for the first phrase, jumping away to some bigger intervals later on, etc). The LH right now isn't too busy, so I think if you're clever about it I think there may be a nice way to include that in here. This is more of a comment in the process of making this sheet the best that it can be- it's not bad now by any means, but this may be a way to potentially improve it further. Of course, I could be wrong about there being a clever nice way of including that doesn't clunk up and mess with the LH; but I think the possibility ought to be explored.

Aside from those things, I have nothing more to say for myself about it besides well done.

Hey, nice song!

A general comment for just about the entire piece from measure 5 onwards, could you include the harp/horn parts at all? This piece just seems to be begging for that kind of texture, and the piano does that kind of thing phenomenally well. It looks like a great chance to play on the instrument's natural strengths (a nice change; so often we're fighting the piano's limitations). It's true that in measure 11 and so you may have to try moving octaves around a bit or creating a bit of opportunity, but I would encourage you try it- this is a piano arrangement and I feel like this piece would work so incredibly well on the piano if the arranger isn't afraid to apply a bit of creative freedom to pull the right effect out of the instrument. Others may disagree with me on this but one of my big points is trying to preserve texture as much as realistically possible. There are things in this piece that the piano cannot do, thereby actually forcing your hand to using such "creative freedom" as to successfully adapt it to the piano in the first place:

An example is 21- the piano cannot crescendo through a held note. You'll have to think of something else. Either add the harp bits to build the intensity instead (not the effect from the original but I would strongly encourage including these harp notes anyways), or use a tremolo or something (imo tremolo builds are often clunkier though; I'd fear that such a move here might break in contrast with the feel of the rest of the piece).

Side note, in measure 20, I wouldn't necessarily shy away from using the high string notes in the background for these half notes. A sustain pedal presumably could hold down the C#, allowing free range with the RH. Again, pedal usage is more or less up to you but I don't see why not so long as it's used in discretion. Your call I suppose.

At the end there's this rich trumpet line that I just love, but the way you've notated it- while not incorrect- has it end abruptly at the repeat to the start. The original still has a last note to end the phrase with. Please include this note; please, please. Either have it written perhaps in the first measure in a smaller sized notehead with a performance note explaining it; or add a new measure to the end to accommodate it before repeating back to measure 2 or 3 or something. Personally I'd probably be inclined to go with the first of those two options because the form of the piece is better reflected that way, but either way that note I see as critical.

I'd lastly like to consider the use of phrase markings (slurs). I feel like this is a sheet that could really use and benefit a lot from them. For example the last trumpet line at the end; some notes sound distinctly slurred- you could notate those. Again this would be a case of "creative freedom". A thought to think about.

That's all from me for now; good work!

The only significant thought I have is the necessity of any provided dynamic at all. To which I say "meh" indifferently. Looks like a simple, straightforward, and solid arrangement. I'll sign off on this as well.

Nintendo / Re: Pokémon Sword and Shield
« on: June 25, 2019, 10:18:44 PM »
I honestly thoroughly enjoyed Let's Go, but I went into it expecting a different kind of experience. I accepted it as it was as much as I objectively assessed it (not a good procedure for a review) but overall I had a great time with it. It also probably helped that Shota Kageyama did virtually all the music which made me incredibly happy (Slow may remember that of all the composers Pokémon has ever had, he was my favorite until he went indie).

Back to Pokémon Sword and Shield though, I'll have to leave my full rant here later but in short I think it's gonna be the first game that I flat out don't buy. While there are a bunch of big reasons, not surprisingly the biggest is probably the lack of the national dex. Solid discussion about the topic exists on YouTube if you want to dig into that further but in short, I'm frankly not really buying the reasons that Jun'ichi Masuda gave us. On top of that, the box legends look like burning garbage (how many dog/cat-inspired legends do we have already anyways?), mega evolutions and Z moves are gone completely (I could care less about the Z moves tbh but I was just really getting used to megas), we get this dumbass dynamax crap which is literally just "omg giant pokemon are obviously stronger so lets just make them big". The new pokemon designs from what I've seen look solid, but the more we got overall the more and more uneasy I got until I was almost on the fence considering actually not getting either- till the announcement about the national dex pushed me over the line. Pokémon Home my ass.

Finished up this one:

26. Battle! (Rival) - [MUS] [MIDI] [PDF]

Thanks for the comments Mael; in fact, in my own further review of this sheet, I was struck with a realization of just how much better I could still make this one. So once I covered your comments, I went ahead and did a grand overhaul of this one- like a remastering. Not only have places been re-notated to be clearer and easier to read, parts slightly altered to enhance efficiency and teamwork between parts, articulations redone, and extra fat removed; but I have also tested all the parts for play-ability and optimized everything for greatest ease, including the additions of fingerings and other technical assistance notes. In that aspect, this piece has gone from a "oof it's really really tough but likely techincally doable" to "very much doable with fairly experienced players, but even then the tough spots are fewer and farther between". Needless to say, this has become an arrangement I feel very good about standing behind now. Between the sheet prior and this one, very little has actually changed aside from small things that serve to make the biggest difference. Please let me know if there's anything I missed or still lack!

Site News / Re: Staff changes! (And happy solstice)
« on: June 25, 2019, 07:28:41 PM »
Eyyy congrats fellas! Also thanks muchissimo to dudeman, seb, kefka, and brassman!

- Any reason why the main part isn't written in F minor (like the vs. Commander sheet)?
- Header info on pages 2-3 is outside the margin (as well as the footer on page 1)
- https in URL
- m. 37: typo? Fbb --> Fb
- I think we should spell m. 52/54/56/58 the same way with either En or Fb in the RH of all of them.
- I'd suggest extending the slur from m. 24 to the note it's tied to in m. 25.
Not really finding anything else, looks great :P
Concerning the F minor thing, good point. Didn't give the bass line enough credit I think; I am convinced. Though that then puts it in a weird spot with Dekka's comment below about the opening being in Ab minor. In summary, the piece is modal, so it's a matter of F minor (LH) vs Ab minor (RH). For the intro, I just stuck 6 flats on there with the not-intent of Eb minor but rather a hybrid that will hopefully keep it as simple as possible to read. I feel bad about just throwing all 7 flats on there completely but also going from sharps to flats suddenly; I don't think that's necessary. For the main part of the piece, I do like the consistency argument so I switched that into F minor just to make it clear- the LH wins.

41 - Battle! (Team Galactic) - JDMEK5
Actually, I'm wondering why you opted for a 6-flat key signature (for E flat minor) instead of A flat minor's 7-flat key signature. I hear this theme as being in A flat minor/G sharp minor, regardless of the bassline's tendency to play F minor-like stuff. If anything, this piece has Phrygian tendencies (so it has a better excuse to have a 4-sharp key signature).

(The only bars that initially stuck out to me wrong, it turns out, are actually probably correct according to the original theme.)
Very good points. My rationale for final decision is above, but ultimately I remember that notes are notes and sometimes what it sounds like isn't always totally reflected by the score (as much as we try to make it so as much as possible). The pitches are there and accurate and ultimately that's what counts and there are absolutely different ways to write it out and reason through it from a analysis perspective but I'm going to go with what I described there and that's why. Of course, if there's a better way to do it, by all means let me know.

The file should be updated in the dropbox, but here are the new links anyways:

46 - Battle! (Team Galactic)

Continuing down the list:

46 - Battle! (Team Galactic Commander) - JDMEK5 [Approved by Latios]

Hope you don't mind, I did a bit of rebalancing of the layout - margins etc. to space everything a bit more evenly. I also removed the overlapping D# in m. 50 (so it now looks like 48) and verified and removed the text about the potentially confusing note (unless that was intended for the performer and not the person checking it?). I personally prefer the descending chromatic line at the beginning over the repetitive one you wrote. It's fine though, up to you what you wanna keep.
Chromatic descending line works for me. I don't think I was able to find your new file but I made the same changes you described in this file here. I also added a few small things like extra articulations and such. Call it the glossy wax finish.

41 - Battle! (Team Galactic Commander)

- The text at the beginning is overlapping the barline. You can either have the enclosure break the barline, or move it somewhere else like above or below the staff, or omit it entirely since the music implies that anyway.
- The footer is too low.
- The slurs can be adjusted to avoid the accents in m. 19+.
- That flat in measure 24 is placed really strangely; I'm not really sure what the intention here is?
Fixed up in discord discussion.

Out of curiosity, why the change from 2/2 in the 2/x section to 2/4 in this particular version?
I'm pretty sure originally it was because of an offset somewhere that there was going to be one 2/4 measure in order to get things to line up and from there I just decided to make that call. I'm not necessarily super stuck to it but it would be more work to swap it back and I'm not convinced it's a real big problem right now is all.

The left hand in the first part in measures 84-87 sounds wrong. I listened to the music and I don't exactly hear what part you're trying to cover here? I'm thinking it might be better to make the chords match what the right hand is doing, or maybe it can be the same as the second part's left hand just an octave higher/lower.
Oooh yeah.... no you're right I honestly don't remember what happened there. I went back through and you're right on the money- the bass line is in octaves so that's how it is now. Thanks!

TL;DR- Everything updated.

Off-Topic / Re: The Birthday Topic
« on: June 09, 2019, 01:05:18 AM »
Happy birthday Cashwarrior!

My kick into VGM came actually from just downloading midis and watching the computer play wicked-hard stuff, rather than myself actually playing anything. But for the first while of playing this stuff I mostly just fumbled my way around parts of tunes from SMB that I got not-here. But nothing was complete or anything; I wasn't good enough at the time to actually play those things fully.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 249

Page created in 0.091 seconds with 21 queries.