Messages

I disagree, as those kinds of effects aren't really articulations, and one of my goals here was to make this more of a concise thing. But that topic does have merit and should definitely be done possibly in a guide on specialized effects.

Makes sense to me. Perhaps I'll throw that together in the near future as its own thing.

What's this/who's saying this?

I could've sworn you did. Unless I'm totally wrong in that in which case never mind (though it was mostly a joke anyways). Specifically, the case being made was that all grace notes should be slurred to the note they relate to because of their nature (if I recall correctly). I disagree, but again, I was mostly joking. It's more of a debate topic rather than something for a guide.

Thanks! You know, I considered adding a section about that (as well as some other scales) but I thought for one it was getting too scale-heavy, and two that it would over-saturate this guide. I could tack something about that in there, but I think it would be more beneficial to give emphasis on the characteristics of these scales (as I tried to do) rather than just listing out all of the possibilities. This way someone could look at something and go "oh, that's a raised 7 in minor" without necessarily needing to know the name for that scale (not that knowing the particular scale is a bad thing; it's just better to observe things then label them, rather than the other way around, imo).

Totally get what you mean. The only reason I brought it up in the first place is because of how frequently it comes up. In my opinion, that would be ample justification to address it specifically (even in contrast to all the other possibilities we both know exist). If you're concerned about keeping your information fairly cohesive without too much unnecessary detail, maybe a spoiler would work good for this function? It's not in the way that way unless the reader chooses to read it. Just a thought.

Love it! Only thing is that I was hoping you'd explicitly mention the harmonic-raised 7th in minor keys; just because it comes up a lot and I've seen people trip on it over and over and over. I think it would be helpful to stick in there somewhere (maybe even melodic minor as well but that's getting closer to your mixed modes section there).

This looks like a good place to discuss articulations of other instruments as well (encountered in arranging and transcribing to piano) such as guitar slides and how to understand/transcribe them (adapting of course to the piano as a different instrument). Also, maybe this is where we finally argue the heck out of the "always slur on grace notes" thing XD

Powerful lyrics on this thing too^

It looks better.. but still not without further problems. I finished it off for you though so now the all rhythms are correctly written:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/v7rpk8d24oec7tg/V2%20sheet%20Wardrobe%20%28Idol%29%20rhythm_polish.mus?dl=0
I also fixed your rest hiding. It could be that Notepad can't handle that kind of thing; in which case I like your approach. I didn't even notice them till I read your thing on them. That being said, I would only hide them as a temporary solution; it's still much better for them to be eventually hidden.

A couple other things I fixed while I was at it:

• I gave you a bit of clef changing action near the end to make things more legible. Not sure if this is how it should stay in the end but it'll help for now.
• In measure 4 I moved the dingalings up to A based on the original. They're on an A.
• In a couple spots (such as measure 34 RH), fixing the rhythm would've resulted in a staccato on top of a tied note. Since these things work against each other when used on the same note at the same time, I used a rest in order to kill the tie. Another example of where I did this is measure 20 RH.

I have 3 general comments to make on what you have here before I continue with a suggested procedure:

• Measures 10, 18; LH: In these measures you have your last chord (F# and D) tying over to an F# and C# chord. But D cannot tie to C#. Is this a typo? If not, you'll definitely have to remove the tie between the D and the C#.
• Between measure 34 and 35 the left hand has a tie but only over the high A. This is deliberate, correct? It looks a little funny but if that's how you planned it then that is indeed the way to write it.
• Great use of courtesy accidentals in measures 15 and 23 in the left hand.

A next step I would suggest for a song this dense is a bit of harmonic analysis to better understand the form and direction. Listen to the original and see if you can figure out what the chords are. No suffixes, no extensions, no passing tones; just simple chords. More often than not (especially with a song like this), the bass line will follow these chords in some way (often the root but perhaps another inversion from time to time). I did the first measure as an example. (With a bit of jazz theory, we can speculate that the Em chord is an Em7 chord (which you have), and that the first 3 chords are a ii-v-I targeting D (meaning that the A chord could be an A7 or A9 with a pile of possible alternate extensions).) Using the chords, you can then start picking out the notes in that middle piano voice easier. Once you've got those, you could probably implement them into a second voice in the right hand without too much trouble (for the most part; or so I'm thinking). But either way, it will go a long way towards helping you get all your notes. I put a text blurb in the left shoulder of the sheet I sent back with basically this direction.

Hey bud; looks very nice!

Just a few things:
- Measures 45, 49; LH: Just for clarity, I'd like to suggest some kind of explicit indication for the RH to cover the top part of these big chords. I know it's already fairly obvious but clarity is always key- make it foolproof. Also pedal indications could be powerful here; just consider it. It's necessary to hold these chords down anyways though so I would actually say you should probably add them in. Again, make it foolproof.
- Measure 72, RH: I would break the beam between these two triplet groupings. It just looks kind of ambiguous... also unusual.
- Measure 18, RH: Slight clash between stem of last quarter note and the slur above. Very small detail.
- Measure 7, RH: I notice you've been taking very meticulous and particular care towards your slur placements and voicings, which makes me wonder about the first two beats in this measure. Since they belong to the melody (which you have notated in the first voice both before and after), why are these two notes in the second voice? Just seems kinda broken up to me.

Ooh, formatting for this one is gonna be difficult. I played around with it significantly though and did some things that I think may work better. Here's the file:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3664zpde9etwz0l/Dragon%20Quest%20III%20-%20Ramia%20s%20Flight%20SECHI%20rebeam.mus?dl=0
Here's what I changed:
- Resized everything to 100% and used 2 pages. Everything looked too crammed on one page at 90% and I dare not make it smaller.
- Slanted some of the cross-beams for aesthetic purpose. In my opinion it looks a bit less square.
- For the most part, since there is so much cross-beaming into the RH going on, I would have no trouble leaving most of the stems in the RH melody going upwards. This is determined on a case-by-case basis, but for most it worked better this way.
- Broke one of the beams in the midpoint of each 16th grouping. Eight 16th notes beamed together identically looks like a lot of notes, but breaking the beam to make 2 groups of 4 is a lot cleaner and easier to read.
- I lifted the repeat markings up a bit just to create a bit of breathing space for the text and other things up there.

I don't think I actually have much to say regarding the arrangement itself.. I'd suggest thinking of any spots you'd like to use slurs either for smooth articulation or for denoting phrases; but that's up to you. I haven't done a super-deep pitch accuracy check, but nothing stands out so far as I'm hearing. If another updater ran a pitch accuracy check (and otherwise scanned once more for anything else), I think I could sign off on it now.

EDIT: Looking at it once again, I'm wondering about the size of the side margins.. they're looking a tad small. I'd love the input of another updater on this; I'm not of the mind that it's a huge problem necessarily worth fixing, but personally I would fix it if it were my own sheet.

*mini-flame-war-back-and-forth*

I don't think anyone has a problem with the language discrepancy itself nor the use of translation; it's just that that one comment against Libera came off as pretty demeaning. I don't know if that's how you meant it but I personally am choosing to assume it was a translation issue. Just be careful of such things in the future.

Welcome, friend! Arranging is like anything; you improve with practice. That being said, it looks like you're already off to a solid start!

Firstly, for PDFs, I use PDFCreator. When installed, it becomes an internal printer on your computer. From Finale, print your score as if you actually want to print it, choose PDFCreator as the printer instead of the default, and it should boot up and offer you a PDF of whatever you chose to "print". To be honest, it's so handy I've used it for far more things than just Finale, but definitely for Finale. Many of us use different programs (all similar in function) but it's always a separate program so far as I know.

Frankly, this is not an easy piece to translate to solo piano, but I think what you've done is a solid approach. Textually, if you could get those quick mid-range chords in somehow, that would go a long way to matching the feel of the original. I think they would ideally go with the RH under the melody (could be impossible in some spots) even if they have to change inversions, but be aware that this would make the piece significantly harder to play, which is especially relevant if this is a gift. Just bear that in mind.

I'm sending you the file of the score with a few optimizations, including fulfillment of your request for grace notes.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/u64lyksc2nu4b6z/sheet%20Wardrobe%20%28Idol%29%20finale_revamp.mus?dl=0

Before getting into fixing rhythms and notes, I think it would serve you well to clean up what you have a bit rhythmically/visually. What I mean by that is revise your writing so it conforms to traditional music theory protocol for writing rhythms, namely pulse groupings (as you can find in any intermediate music theory book or online). Fixing these up will make everything a thousand times easier to keep track of within your score and therefore easier to figure out/isolate/revise. I did this for the first 4 measures as a model; notice how each beat is clearly defined and isolated using slurs instead of beaming between them.

I also split the voices between the melody and the high dingalings for clarity. I think multiple voices can be done in Notepad using the numbered buttons on the bottom-left corner of the screen, but it's been a while since I worked with Notepad so don't quote me on that.

Lastly, I gave you improved spacing between systems as well as measure numbers. I also removed the "Pno." from every system besides the first, and also added the game title at the top of the first page for aesthetics. If you finish this sheet, I certainly don't see why you couldn't submit it if you felt so inclined. Like I said, every person here started with one arrangement and we'd certainly value you joining our team (but of course, no pressure). Your attention to detail and care for rhythmic and pitch accuracy is very commendable, especially in this kind of work.

I would love to offer some suggestions concerning more accurate pitches and rhythms, but I lack the time at the moment. That being said, I think if you take the time to revise your rhythm writing as I suggested earlier, it wouldn't surprise me if you could even go a decent way into finding these fixes yourself. Of course, we're here to help; but I think those aesthetic revisions would be a great and very helpful place to start.

EDIT: I also noticed you requested this song in the Request board. To be honest, given the start you've already got into it, I don't see why you couldn't take care of it yourself (even with some assistance). As a gift as well, I think this would also be phenomenal.

Wow, a beautiful sheet. Well done! I've read through everything concerning this sheet so as to understand what has been looked at and considered thus far.

I feel like if I had arranged this, I would've opted to include the ascending 16th runs in the beginning rather than the eighth note voicing you have here (though they are both in the piece, aye). Not saying what you have here is wrong, but I have to ask if there's a reason you chose this instead. I hear the 16th voice much more prominently personally and therefore for me it would be a stronger identifying factor in your arrangement.

Visually, I think the size of everything is manageable here; and, most importantly, everything is clear. I've got a couple aesthetic things to point out (and I think it's likely Latios will have a few more cuz he's just crazy at spotting things):
- Measure 6, LH: The treble clef is clashing with the roll indication. Could you space it out enough just to crisp it up? This also happens to a slightly smaller degree in measure 5 and otherwise throughout the piece; and I think cleaning these would serve well to clean up such an otherwise aesthetically-satisfying score.
- A bit of vertical spacing in the last system on the first page? That pianissimo looks smooshed.
- Measure 6, LH, Beat 4: Quarter rest here can be centered to the middle of the staff as it is by default.

m.13-14 I actually use my RH 4-5 for the tremolo, which left my thumb free for that. Since the pedal is being used there, it's also possible to sound the F and E without holding it. The bass notation, I don't quite remember either, though.

I was gonna say some things about this until I heard the original. The tremolo in this spot actually isn't that fast in the original (which also means I think you could potentially get away with a 16th-note version of the tremolo instead of the 32nd/unmeasured but that's your call; I don't think what you have is wrong) and therefore I think doing two fingers for a tremolo- yes even 4 and 5- will work here. Well played.

Seeing your commitment to notating everything with so many layers, I assume you really value each melodic line, but sometimes this isn't the best solution for piano writing. By following the original lines, you kept in a number of consecutive seconds and seconds moving to unison (e.g. beats three and four of measure; beat three of measure 19), which are fine when you have different instruments playing each note, but really obscur the different lines on a piano. In these instances, I'd recommend choosing one of the lines to keep and discarding the rest (or moving them to a differet register so they can fill in the harmony, but your harmony doesn't really need any filling in as is).

I rationalized keeping a ton of voices in since even though having 5 voices at the same time isn't quite idiomatic for piano, I shun tradition anyway, and it's still possible to keep the voices clear if you're precise enough with your hands.

That being said, I do realize that most people who play this will probably muddle the voices

I'm going to offer my two cents here: you both make valid points. While you may be correct here Insig, I would love to suggest taking each context into account for each instance. As a composer and arranger, personally I am a big fan of small optimizations that immensely help the difficulty of any particular piece or passage. If you can make a pianist's life significantly easier with a small note disappearing, consider it. One frustration I also run into when others are playing my work is that they put plenty of work into learning it, but often not enough to catch all the inflections I had intended in some places. Sometimes optimizing stuff like this can also be worth it if it guarantees that the result will sound the way you want; or that the piece will sound proper right away (rather than after X number of hours drilling the voices to make it sound right). This kind of edit to the score is bitter work, but is another sparkle in making this score the best that it can be. Now, if that actually results in no changes in the end, that's fine. But I wanted to offer this for your consideration.

Updated; also updated as many changed usernames as I was able to figure out.

Also, in an effort to purge an otherwise-forever-expanding list, I removed all users who have been inactive on the forums since before January 1, 2017. Seemed convenient to do right at the turn into 2019. If I have removed you in this process and you want back, just post again with your location and I'll slap you back on.

Also also, @Sebastian: I was trying to update your username but in the process somehow lost you on the map. Hate to make you jump through an extra hoop but if you give me your location again I'll put you back in. I recall you were in ND somewhere but now your profile says SC so idkmehyoutellme.

late but...

^same. Forgive me this, but I do have a thought to add, since the topic came up. I don't mean to invoke response to this; I simply offer it for your consideration.

I know I'm hardly one to talk here (being as inactive as I have been, which I will not deny was almost definitely a relevant factor to this problem- for which I apologize), but even during my most active times as an updater, I found that the number of arrangements of my own that I worked on plummeted nearly to zero. Whenever I had time to consider arranging, I always felt that I should be prioritizing the reviewing of the already-completed sheets of others, and therefore I have submitted very very few arrangements since I became an updater. From the updater's perspective, I can tell you that it is daunting to see the list of submitted sheets at any given moment: as soon as the list is significantly cleared with an update, new submissions flood in to replace them, and it is easy to feel overwhelmed in the never-ending job that it is.

A last afterthought concerns special "arranging projects". They are cool, but they do take a lot of effort on the part of the updaters, which inevitably then detracts from attention to the regular submissions. I mean not to suggest that the projects need stop, but I think the ratio should always be carefully kept in check between projects and standard submission. I have had moments in the past where I felt that regular submissions were being neglected over the hype of a new project, and I'll be honest, that kind of temptation is hard to resist. But my thought is simply that this relationship ought to always be kept in check. If loyalty need be chosen between projects and regular submissions, I think it should be a clear vote for the regular subs; thus let it never be that they are neglected for cause of a more impromptu and specialized initiative like these projects.

[41 - Battle! (Team Galactic) - JDMEK5]

41 - Battle! (Team Galactic) - JDMEK5

Great work! I do have some relatively minor comments, though.

• Things seem a bit pushed towards the top of page 2. I'd recommend lowering everything a bit since you've got ample space at the bottom. Also think about perhaps decreasing space between LH/RH staves here since it's not being used.
• Could we resolve the melody to a high A flat in measure 35 instead of including the lower E flat in the right hand? That voice really wants to finish ascending from the G natural. Similarly, I think it would be best to include the lead-in to the next section at the end of m. 41 (repeated C flats leading into the D flat).
• How about just extending the 8va over m. 43-44?

I see only reason with all your suggestions. I have updated the file in the dropbox folder with the edits.

Just a stylistic point here, but what would you think about filling in the chords a bit more in the climax at m. 47 and 49 for a more powerful effect?

I think I left them out because what I had was exactly what was in the original, but I do like your idea way better so it is done.


Just adding this in since I was the last to post here anyways:

Pokémon D/P: Battle! (Team Galactic Commander) - [MUS] [MIDI] [PDF]

Here's one way to resolve your spacing problem (though I know I pushed my luck a little bit with the size of everything)

I made some slight tweaks to your copyright to make it consistent with the other X/Y sheets on the site (and accurate for that matter).
Might I suggest looking into the possibility of adding some midrange chords on the off-beats to provide some motion (see the infamous "Athletic" theme from Super Mario World for an example of what I'm talking about). I think it would be difficult to play at this speed, yet possible, and really make the piece come alive. As it stands now, it is accurate (so far as this particular bass consideration is concerned), but is a bit lackluster in my opinion. Kageyama set you up for success and personally I would love to see you capitalize on it.