NinSheetMusic Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  


Spotted an error on the main site? Let us know!

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 - Bespinben

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 235
Changed m.5 text to "Play 1st-time only".

(I agreed with the idea, but since "pass" is Finale-specific lingo, I opted to use the more widely understood term used in relation to repeats. A similar example would be the term "layers", which those working outside of Finale usually would refer to as "voices").

Files updated: removed "con ped.", edited the m.5 text, removed courtesy clef at m.4 via graphical workaround, and added courtesy clef change at end m.28.

Gr is pretty Gr, I agree  8)

- I hear the grace notes in m. 4 as actual melody notes in the original instead of an ornament. Thoughts about writing them as 16ths instead?
Writing as 16ths would be too slow, and writing out as 32nds would be less easy to sight-read (as well as take up the limited horizontal space in an already fairly compressed system). I would prefer to keep the current notation, though I do understand your reasoning; I see it as trading-off a small amount of phrasal accuracy for a more streamlined user experience. One benefit of the current notation is that it allows for the notes to be played at the speed able to be executed by the performer, either around 16ths, 32nds (as I prefer), or somewhere in between.

- I think it might be nice in the to clarify where and how the crescendo climaxes at the end through the addition of another dynamic placement in the last measure.
The endpoint of the "cresc." in m.27 is the "mf" at in m.5. If the player overshoots a little from not reading ahead, I feel that would be fine (I actually do that a little myself in the performance demo, crescendoing to forte and backing off slightly at the loop).

A little oddity I noticed - I find it weird that m. 4 has an outgoing bass clef when... there is no clef change between m. 4-5 because of the ossia. Maybe it would be best just to remove it?
But it's just an ossia, right? The clef change makes sense to me since the primary way to play the phrase in this transcription has a bass clef.
One of the problems is that I'm not using ossia in the technically correct way (i.e. as a clarifier of ornamental markings), but rather as a way to write an alternate start to a repeat passage in a register outside the main clef. So, while the ossia notation would seem to imply that it is optional, my intention is for that to be primary execution. I could avoid this ambiguity by not using repeats, but that would increase the page count. I think I'll opt to keep the cautionary clef, if only because eliminating it can only be achieved by disabling cautionary clefs globally in Finale's document options.

- The Layer 2 notes in m24 look very squished vertically. Is there a reason for that?
Finale's default stem lengths and beam angles are very long compared to most publication-quality works. I use the Patterson Beams plug-in to correct this. The flag of the 16th note intersecting with the notehead is actually very common in many fonts outside of Maestro.

- You have nested slurs (i.e. a slur within a slur) on your grace notes in m16, m20, and m24, but not in m12. Intentional or unintentional omission?
Mostly, I couldn't find a good place to put it at m.12. Below, and it would disrupt the readability of the ledger lines; above, and it would be uncomfortably close to the phrase marking. Gould does permit omitting individual grace slurs if they're combined within a standard slur (pg. 130), so that's what I ended up doing:

- Why not have the "con Ped." from the beginning instead of starting at m4?
I assume pedaling by default, and only explicitly write "con ped." if I feel the notation might lead the player to believe otherwise. The way m.1-4 is written, the only way to play it would be with pedal. On second thought, I think I'll omit the "con ped." at m.5-12. I had worried the accompaniment looked "staccato-y" since it was derived from the marimba line. On the plus side, this would help clear up any implication that m.1-4 is "senza pedale" when it's not.


Live performance demo:

Arrangement notes:
  • The left hand's accompaniment pattern in m.5-29 is derived from the omitted marimba ostinato (m.5-12), and the rhythm of the drum kit (m.13-28).
  • The organ countermelody needed to be omitted for playability at m.14, 18, 22, & 26, so I replicated the motion of these lines with the creation of moving bass lines (highlighted with tenuto markings).

I would recommend condensing this into 2 staves, and to apply 8va on a case-by-case basis. This will help to significantly reduce the total page count.

+2 Bump

I would recommend re-working the layout to avoid a partially-filled last page. Try the following casting-off:
  • Page 1, 4 systems, measures distributed 2-3-3-3
  • Page 2, 5 systems, 3 measures per system
  • Page 3, 5 systems, measures distributed 3-3-3-2-3

^Everything Lat said, plus:
  • Remove the key change at m.33. The whole piece is in Eb minor, including this section.
  • The sheet is missing measure numbers.
  • I would either commit to 1 page, or spreading everything out evenly across 2 pages (something like 4 systems on page 1, and 5 systems on page 2, with rough 5-6 measures per system).


Just wanted to give this a quick face-lift, with edits to the slurs, beam angles, dynamic positioning, casting-off, kerning, white-space allocation, etc.

Site News / Re: Call for potential new site art!
« on: May 15, 2020, 11:24:38 PM »
I remade my logo:

I like the color palette, you've chosen here. The bright red on the oval-outlined "NinSheetMusic" is very Nintendo-esque, and the slightly darker red and blue background behind the keyboard helps to contrast with that. I also appreciate the clever application of the rule of thirds to make space for the keyboard and the text.

Oops -- yes, m.15 & 30 is what I meant, good catch. I've updated the files to have a 1-page layout, and also added a repeat marker to the end of the loop.

Nice job~

M.16 and m.23 are still transcribed incorrectly. You'll also want to fix the bass in m. 13.

Some new things:
The bass in m.1-2, 5-6, 16-17, & 20-21 is actually a C natural, and there is an E for the middle voice in m.1-2 & m.15-16.
The ostinato is actually not straight quarters. Should look like this:

M.16 beat 4 is a G7b9 chord, so the G# would actually be spelled as Ab.


Looks and sounds great! Just a couple tiny things:
- I think the composer info would look better broken up into two lines, instead of being one long line.
I would do this if the text length were exceptionally long, and/or if I needed to fill vertical space. For this sheet, if I did that, I would need to push down the first system so that there's sufficient white space between the header and the first system. If I push down the first system, I would need to add space to the following systems to balance with the prior adjustment. If I add space between the systems, I would need to decrease the space between the staves with each system to compensate. If I decrease the space between the staves within each system, it would result in a lack of sufficient white-space between stemmed-up notes in the left-hand, and the downwards arcing slurs in the right hand.

- Would it be preferable to add a courtesy bass clef in the LH before the repeat?
Good question! Had to research this a bit. Seems Gould p.234 would agree with ya. I'll add that in 8)

- I'm getting a tempo of q=122. I know some arrangers like to round tempo markings to the nearest standard metronome marking, but I much prefer having the exact tempo since most metronomes I see nowadays are digital ones that can do every whole number BPM (and anyone who doesn't have one can just round to 120). Your choice.
I like to round to traditional metronome markings (except if I know the user will be using a click track, as in the case of studio/recording session parts). The closest ones are 116, 120, and 126, so I rounded 122 to 120.

EDIT: Courtesy clef for repeat added now added in.

M. 1-8, m. 16-23 — Find a way to make this more playable. If you prioritize the ostinato, you may need to transpose the sustained notes; if you prioritize the original pitches, you may need to include rests in the ostinato to be able to play the sustained notes.

M. 11-12, 15, 26-27, 30 — Re-transcribe the melody here.

M. 9, 11, 13, 15, 24, 26, 28, 30 — Rhythm notation correction: Half notes, dotted half notes, and whole notes are allowed to cross the middle of the bar. You don’t need to show beat 3 in these instances (see “Two-Level Rhythmic Parsing Rule”).

Page layout — Try to avoid partially filled additional pages where possible. You could fit this onto 1 page easily.

Thanks for the inspection :) I will correct that spelling error.

- I'm hearing an extra D in m2 LH right before the C:

One of the intentional omissions I made to simplify the texture. I wanted highlight the lilting feel, and I felt added D distracts from that (you'll also notice that in my performance link I use that part to drag the tempo between phrases, which is more intuitive to do with the omission).

- Rather than there being a slur from m4 to m5, it sounds more to me like there's a break/pause there instead.
Doing a break/pause here wouldn't fit with the texture I've been building. That said, I do heavily drag the tempo here, particularly on the tenuto, to create a similar effect to the original source.

- There are some different/additional notes in the melody in m19-21 compared to what you have written (these are consistent in both the original and the remake:

These are correct, but don't fit with my arranging paradigm for this piece. I'm looking to achieve an optimal "effort-to-reward" ratio, by cutting elements of the piece that would require more rehearsal time than the relative value they might provide to the arrangement. So, for here, I wanted to create simplified version of the run that can be easily fingered without looking, so that way one's attention can be focused on the left hand jumps. Regarding your screenshots, the omissions here mostly are reflective of m.1-4: the circled C's in m. 19 & 21 and the circled G's in m.20 would be omitted to keep the lilting feel, the circled F & D in m. 19 would add complexity to the pattern of the run, and the circled Bb in m.20 would require a 5-4-5 fingering, which tends to be weak.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 235

Page created in 0.287 seconds with 21 queries.