A bit late but mine is SW-5389-2886-1098. I'm gonna go ahead and add y'all.
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 MenuQuote from: Latios212 on February 02, 2019, 01:35:24 PM- Any reason why the main part isn't written in F minor (like the vs. Commander sheet)?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.
- 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
Quote from: Dekkadeci on February 08, 2019, 09:29:48 PM41 - Battle! (Team Galactic) - JDMEK5Very 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.
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.)
Quote from: Latios212 on March 24, 2019, 03:48:28 PMContinuing down the list: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.
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.
Quote from: Latios212 on March 23, 2019, 11:30:59 AM- 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.Fixed up in discord discussion.
- 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?
Quote from: AmpharosAndy on April 04, 2019, 09:25:47 AMOut 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.
Quote from: cashwarrior1 on April 05, 2019, 03:18:52 PMThe 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!
Page created in 0.164 seconds with 17 queries.