Messages

Done.

Pretty much everything here checks out apart from I think you're missing quite a lot of notes in the left hand.  Pretty much everywhere you have rests sounds like it should be a note to me (apart from 17-18).  The only place I'm not super sure about is in bar 21, which I can't really tell if it's meant to be like it is in 22 or not.  I agree that in places it's not super easy to hear (thought not as bad as 22), but a lot of the missing ones seem pretty clear to me when the piece is raised by an octave, and also I think currently this arrangement sounds a lot more disconnected than the original does with the stop and start going on in the left hand.  If anything, I think that the sheet makes a bit more sense/is more consistent to look at this way.

Other than that:

-You need the instrument name at the start.
-The D.C. could be a little higher.

Clean sheet.

I listened to it again at higher pitch (one octave, then one fifth), and filled out several of the rests with notes. In measure 9, I still don't hear them very well, but I agree that it would make sense for them to be there when taking the surrounding measures into account. However, there are a few measures in which I still do hear rests, and so I have left them in, namely mm. 12 and 14, (17,) 19 (I could make this a half note instead of a quarter plus quarter rest), and 29–32. For measure 28, I'm not 100% sure the bass note is missing, but if it's actually there and not just reverb, it's played so softly compared to every other bass note that the effect to me is basically equivalent to it being missing, which is why I've kept that measure as-is.

I think you can include more of the strings in a separate layer, it seems a little scarce currently.

OK.

Using cross-staffing you can avoid having rolls in the LH.

I don't have a problem with the rolls.

In m3-4 the F#s should be Gbs.

While I don't think it's impossible to have a Cmaj7(b5) chord structure, I would only write it that way if there was a clear reason to do so (e.g. the presence of a line going G>[Gb]>F). As-is, I believe Cmaj7(#11) is the more likely interpretation, which is why I use F#.

Same comment about system spacing as on your other submission.

I redid the spacing.

The D.C. marking can be moved up a bit.

Done.

I don't see why m2 b1 LH should be in 2 layers.

Because for the first four measures, there are two voices in the left hand: the middle arpeggio and the bass, and both of them coincide on that note.

It's hard to make out because of the pedal-induced reverb, but I'm pretty sure the LH plays consistent 8ths (except for m17-18). Basically the note on beat 1.5 is played on beats 2.5 and 3.5 as well. The LH in m19 should be the same as in m20, m21&22 are the same as well. On b1 of m28 B2 is restruck

I think you're mostly right for page 1, although there are still areas where I can't hear any notes no matter how many times I play it back. Page 2 I think I was pretty accurate the way I had it, though I've made some minor changes.

Your system spacing could use some minor adjustments; The first system could be moved down a tiny bit, and the ones on the second page can be a bit more spread out.

I don't think the first system is too high (the page looks too bottom-heavy to me if I put it any lower), but I made some tweaks to spacing.

Square and Enix merged in 2003, after FFX's release, so your copyright should reflect that.

Oh ok, good to know. I still think it's better to use just Square here to keep the sheet consistent with others on site (Libera's Battle Theme arrangement used just Square iirc)

All my other sheets use Square Enix.

The only part I'm not too sure about is the measure 4 left hand.

Nice, this looks solid. I think the lower/higher left hand arpeggios are a fine substitute for the dyads in the original.

A few small comments about the visuals before we finish up:
- Missing the "Piano" staff name at the beginning
- "espress. in m. 9 could be nudged left a bit so it's above beat 1
- Thoughts about curving the LH slurs in the second half a bit more so the right end is a little lower closer to the last note? The right ends of the slurs just kinda hover right now.

Done.

Looks pretty good. The only suggestion I have is, if you intend on the pedal being used in m1-8, I'd suggest writing it in. The staccato articulations in the LH don't make that apparent, and it would likely be performed as written.

Good point. I added a con pedale mention.

Hi there, welcome back! At first glance this looks pretty decent, but before I or another updater gives some feedback on this one, we wanted to make sure if you are going to respond to our feedback? We've noticed in the past that response has often been quite late, and giving feedback takes us updaters time as well. Just so that we know what we're up to!

Hello,

First, I'd like to say that I'm not really "coming back". This sheet here is more of a one-time exception: I made a quick arrangement of this track for myself, and I figured I might as well give it to NSM while I was at it. I'll do my best to respond to feedback in a timely manner, but I'm hoping there won't be much more than small fixes, because this is a short and simple track, so I really don't feel like spending a inordinate amount of time on it.

REEEEEEEEE

There are a couple places where I have trouble hearing through the noise: e.g. intro and outro (which I'm not sure if it's worth finding a way include them), cluster in measure 17, mm. 26–33.

I wanted to keep the LH melody from mm. 34–41 going for 42–49, but I felt that losing the eighth notes for it was too much, and any sort of hybridization I attempted left me unsatisfied.

Willing to try and include anything else you might feel is missing.

I don't think that Db is in the harp part in particular, but I do hear it there. You might also want to consider swapping the Db and Fb between hands, but what you have helps visually separate the voices. Up to you

I'd prefer keeping it like that. If someone wants to swap which hand plays which, they can, and this way the voices are much clearer.

For the chord in m9, the arpeggio marking should stretch to include that Ab.

Done.

• m9: This rolled chord also has an additional low Ab. You could include it in the LH if you want instead of holding the previous Ab all the way though those bars.

Added.

• You added an extra Db in m24 RH that isn't there. Beat 1 is Fb (doubled in the LH), beat 1.5 should be Ab, and so on up to the high C. The Db is skipped.

You're right that I added that Db, but rather than the arpeggio doubling the Fb on beat 1, I think I can hear it playing a Db just below it.

• m25 RH is missing a C under the Gb. I don't think it's that hard to play coming from m24.

I think I omitted that one intentionally, but I can't remember why, so I put it back in. ;P

I still hear the bassline as I heard it earlier - but m10 LH beat 4.5 I hear as G#-A# instead of Fx-A# now. Have you tried listening to it pitch-shifted up an octave?

The other changes look great, though the copyright should be separated with a comma instead of a slash.

Hmm I see what you mean. I kind of hear it like [see sheet here] at the moment.

For the copyright, I wouldn't mind changing it to a comma if that's what's recommended, but I'd like to point out that I copied it exactly from what I've seen on sites/title screens, and that's why it looks like that.