News:

oh god how did this get here I am not good with computer

Main Menu
Menu

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.

Show posts Menu

Messages - Altissimo

#16
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/aqnvise03aeytdu/AADiNM5nkS9SZQAGFZdL9Qi1a?dl=0&preview=Ham-Swap+Ch2.wav - so it looks like those notes in m. 1 and 3 are quarter notes lol

also bc of the separating out of the melodic lines, I retranscribed the m. 13 gliss and uh



yeah uh so I just reverted it back to standard gliss for performer interpretation. Files updated!
#17
Thanks for being willing to listen to my rant, it actually does mean a lot you took it to heart. No harm done on my end - I can't speak for whether or not everything is fine for Death but far as my complaints are concerned you addressed the issue and made it clear it wasn't one of the things I bitched about, which was important.
#18
Quote from: Libera on December 11, 2018, 11:10:32 AMOk.

It's fine.

Fair.

I'm good.

Yeah I'm pretty sure that's not right.  On further inspection though I don't think the G is in there and I'm just hearing it from the previous bar, so I removed that.

Thanks for looking it over.
Non-updater, and someone who recently raised concerns about staff, posts comments/suggestions. You give extremely terse one- or two-word replies and don't even attempt to start discussions, instead just shutting down any attempt at a discussion with replies like "It's good." (with no explanation of why you feel that way?) and "Yeah I'm pretty sure that's not right." which comes across as assholishly condescending and rude, and then you end it with "Thanks for looking it over." despite being extremely noncommittal and dismissive of almost every suggestion offered.

Quote from: Libera on December 12, 2018, 01:11:57 AMNew files!  As always, thanks for looking through it!

Thanks!  Me too. <3

I'd prefer to have them listed alphabetically by last name like I do on all my other sheets for consistency, but I understand the sentiment.

I really dislike articulations under pedal because they make no sense whatsoever to me.  If I was writing for guitar, I'd include them, but there's no way to realise any difference on the piano so I just don't see the point of putting them in.

Yeah I remember noticing this myself and then I forgot to take it out, thanks for spotting it!

I only really like to use courtesy accidentals in particular cases and I don't feel like this is one of those.

For consistency this makes more sense to me to include.  Thanks!

Whoops.

Yeah this makes sense as a solution.  I'm not sure it's really necessary in bar 4 though.

I don't think anyone is going to be printing this on one page double sided so I wasn't going to do this, but I found it relatively easy to redistribute everything to accommodate for it so I added it in anyway.

Responses to two updaters. A very excited "As always, thanks for looking through it!" An attempt to engage in actual discussion by providing rationale for why you do some things the way you do and sometimes pointing out your own little ways of doing things and how they affect the way you write the sheet. Multi sentence feedback.

Death is one of the few, if not just plain only, non updaters on this forum who makes a concerted effort to post feedback on other people's sheets. He is extremely community minded and does so even though he is under no obligation to, not being an updater, and likely has little or no personal investment in the sheets of some others (like I doubt he cares personally about my Hamtaro submissions). To see him treated like this by a staff member, someone who is supposed to be a pillar of the community and a role model for others, is quite frankly infuriating. If you're angry with him for the whole preferential treatment thing - well, it sure as shit isn't helping your case that he's being mistreated by going on to dismiss his comments and generally be kind of condescending and rude. That's very childish of you.

And if you're not acting like this because of the preferential treatment thing - then what for? Is it because he's not an updater and therefore actually taking his suggestions is not necessary to get a sheet on site? In that case, the implication is that advice from community members is all but worthless and no one but an updater should ever bother to give feedback on anything. Is that the kind of community you want to foster here? One where the updaters are the be-all end-all of musical feedback because they have been selected by each other as keepers of the keys to the NSM website, and the advice of others is discouraged simply because they can't approve a sheet?

I suggest you (all!) rethink the way you interact with both Death and the community as a whole.
#19
I'm going to see if I can get Dudeman to run it through Audio Overload to hear the rhythms for the beginning of it lol just to be sure even though I think you're right. I'll take the other file though and like I said I'm still open to suggestions on the gliss.
#20
Will fix the other stuff tomorrow. As for your comment on the gliss approximation -really I'm looking for a way to get it as close as possible so if you have a suggestion on how to improve it that may also be easier to play please tell
#21
Quote from: Latios212 on December 08, 2018, 09:52:33 AMThe bend and slurs look fine to me. Just a few remaining comments:
- Regarding the pickup measure, the tempo marking and dynamic are shifted too much to the right. Also, it'd probably be better to beam the last two notes together instead of the first two given the quarter note beat.

Fixed.

Quote- Is the staccato in m. 13 intentional?
Yes. The note clearly terminates with a short break before the following note. I know staccato on a tied note is not standard but a) because it crosses the barline there is not an alternative note value usable and b) if I were to approximate this by tying to a 16th instead of an 8th, then it becomes the only place in the piece where a 16th is utilized, and when possible I try to be consistent on how I mark note values throughout the entirety of a piece (i.e. they should all be either sixteenths or staccato in a piece like this). I have also noticed, in this soundfont/soundtrack in particular, there is a slight difference between, say, a sixteenth and a staccato eighth (the staccato eighth is usually very slightly longer) and because of that I would prefer to keep the more "accurate" of the two.
#22
Well, I went ahead and put slurs from all the grace notes to the following notes, and added Libera's change. It sounds all right. I don't know if there's really a perfect option for it lmao. I just want a close approximation
#23
Feedback / Re: Sheet Music Errors Thread
November 30, 2018, 07:50:42 PM
Hi.

This sheet (Hamtaro: Ham-Hams Unite! - I'm Your Ham) is very, very inaccurate.

explanation/background
This was one of the very first arrangements I did. In the early days, I was very bad at hearing harmonies and anything that wasn't either the bass or the highest melody. I was also unfamiliar with the way in which the GBC treated tracks and therefore didn't have either the ear-power or knowledge of the GBC track system that would allow me to understand how this piece was composed on a more technical level. I also didn't yet use slowdown tech to be able to lengthen pitches and hear them better; instead I was transcribing from... Well, I'm not sure what I was transcribing from, because I hadn't yet uploaded the soundtrack OSTs. I think it was just a video of the game credits that I was working from.

The result was a transcription of this piece that only included the main melody and (what must have been) a ~90% accurate bass line. Seeing that my transcription was incomplete due to missing harmonies, someone - I think it was an updater - but I don't remember for sure, and I don't want to go back and check because there's no need to drag them through the mud - fixed it by adding harmonies.

This fixed version was the sheet that was submitted and must have eventually ended up on site.

Even if changes were made during the submission process - which I highly doubt since I didn't have Finale 2014 at the time - regardless, what I linked above is what ended up on site.

It's wrong. See below for a complete list.

Things
Pickup
-The RH chromatic line should be C-C#-D-E.
-It should also be an octave higher.
-The bass should be an octave lower.

M. 1/3/31/33
-The bass should be an octave lower.
-There should be a D on the last eighth of the measure in the bass.
-The RH F should be harmonized with an A rather than a D. As is it implies Dm/F in FM. That's very wrong.
-The following C and D should be harmonized with B.
-RH should be an octave higher.

M. 2/32
-The bottom line of the bass should be as follows: C(3)-Db-Dn-Eb-En-Eb-D-C#. The top line is correct, although it should probably be written with enharmonics to create a series of consistent 3rds with the bottom line. In practice all this requires is Ab->G#.
-This is a GBC soundtrack. As a result, 4 pitches cannot be played simultaneously, as this transcription suggests is the case in this measure. Even if one were to take a little arranger's liberty to create some nice harmonies, RH C would probably be harmonized with E rather than A.
-RH should be an octave higher.

M. 4
-First three pitches of bass should be C3.
-RH should be an octave higher.
-RH C should be harmonized with E and not A, analogous to the implied harmony of m. 2.

M. 5-8 / 21-24
Fine.

M. 9/25
-The penultimate G should be harmonized with C a la the first G.
-The ultimate A should be harmonized with F a la the other Fs.

M. 10/26
-The top line is correct. The harmonization should read as follows: D D D F Bb D C Bb.

M. 11/27
Fine.

M. 12
-The whole first half of the measure as transcribed in the bass doesn't exist. I listened very, very carefully. It should just be a rest.
-Rather than a half note, the harmonized A proceeds as 4 eighth notes: A A Bb C

M. 13
Starting at this part, we decided to take out the sixteenth figures back during the arrangement process because they were difficult to play and obfuscated the true melody (c.f. how much more obvious it is in the song's remake; c.f. the lack of sixteenth figures in Gavst3r's arrangement of said remix). That was probably smart and I agree with it.
-That said, though, obviously if the sixteenth figures exist, the octave doubling can't. The correct octave is the high one.
-The first eighth rest should be replaced with a D eighth note that follows from the A-A-Bb-C figure that should be present in the preceding measure (described above).

M. 14
-The low bass line is correct. Its doubling an octave higher, indicated to be played with RH, is not. Instead, the RH should be playing A(4)-Bb-Bn-C.

M. 15
Apart from aforementioned octave doubling this is fine.

M. 16
Again, the RH doubling of the bass should not exist. RH should instead play A(4)-Bb-A-C-Bn-Bb-A.
-The bass is also wrong. Should be, from the beginning, F-F-Gb-F-Ab-Gn-Gb-F.

M. 17-18
Apart from aforementioned octave doubling these are fine.

M. 19
-The top line of the melody is correct. However, it should not be doubled at the octave. It should be harmonized with Bn-Bn-Bn-D-Bn-Bn-Bn-D.

M. 20
-The top line is correct. Should be harmonized with Bn-A-G-F-E.

M. 28-29
Again, a 16th figure exists that has been removed from this arrangement, fine. Obviously this means the original track doesn't have the harmonies at the 6th below the melody. They work fine for the purposes of this arrangement, but honestly the E-F movement sounds a bit strange to my ears, so this might be better as a doubling at the octave or something.

M. 30
-RH should be an octave higher.
-Strictly speaking every pitch of the RH is harmonized with an E5. Obviously, though, that is too much of a stretch for the RH alone to play. Just pointing it out for completion's sake.

M. 34
-First three pitches of the bass should be C3.
-RH should be an octave higher.
-The harmonization of the RH melody proceeds as follows: E(5) for the first 3 pitches, then C5-Bn5[jump of M7 upp]-Bb5.

M. 35
-RH should be an octave higher.
[close]
[close]

Below are mus, mid, pdf that contain all these corrections. The only exception is that I left in octave doublings in 13-18 and 28-29 to make up for the lack of the 16th figures. M. 30 contains an E6 harmonization, one octave higher than it should be.

Reason I'm posting this here is because I feel like it should be all right to just go ahead and replace the on-site files with these. I know I'm not going through the submission process proper, but I have changed literally nothing about the formatting (aside from measure distribution in the first 4 systems, to make up for the newly introduced many accidentals in m. 2) in this - just some notes. And I know they're correct because I literally just retranscribed the entire piece, because I've been posting them on YouTube, because I've been going over literally every one with a fine-toothed comb.

I hope this is enough to let you trust my ear and fix it based on my word.


https://www.dropbox.com/s/rpvwazkat7sa83v/I%27m%20Your%20Ham.mus?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8o7knaw95gfagir/I%27m%20Your%20Ham.mid?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9y6acyoh7bkncpb/I%27m%20Your%20Ham.pdf?dl=0
#24
Probably right about the first glissandos, though I did alter them to start later to more closely approximate the original. As for the m. 13 one, your suggested rhythm wouldn't work because it has to be two beats long. But because of what you suggested I ended up playing around with it a bit and got a new way of notating that that I think is a little more accurate. As with my other arrangement, though, I'd love feedback because I want to notate that as best and most accurately as I can given that it's written for piano.
#25
Quote from: D3ath3657 on November 29, 2018, 08:32:06 PMYou can't do a bend on piano, but maybe you could do a double chromatic acciaccatura, like so:
Spoiler

[close]

Right, you can't do a bend, that's why I'm looking for the closest analog to it in piano notation. Mostly I guess I'm concerned about whether or not I should be using a single neighbor (as in the version in the OP) or a double neighbor (as you posted) since neither of them sounds quite right to me for some reason. I don't mind doing what you suggested - it sounds passable, when I tried it out - but I'd like a second opinion. I want this to transcribe the sound as accurately as possible even if the bend can't be done, lol.

QuoteI think you should flip all your slurs that cover more than three notes to be above the staff, since these are to indicate legato or phrasing, as opposed to the slurring articulation. This would also let you slur all your grace notes to the following main notes with no collision issues. (Also, the slur in measure 11 should start from the main note, not the grace note.)

This I did fix. (Or at least tried to, Finale is weird about slurs sometimes, so if it doesn't look right let me know.) Thanks for the suggestion!
#26
That's what I thought but figured I'd get some opinions. And I guess hard facts from tech lmao. Thanks!
#27
Yes, it does! I presume though that it's the same for the second beat of the last measure of the 1st ending (13 I think)?
#28
Help! / literally I need help with hearing one (1) note
November 15, 2018, 06:55:50 AM
as an aside I think it'd be real nifty if y'all had like a basic music help topic, there's the key/time sig topic but that just covers, well, that, and sometimes ppl (like me) might have questions on arrangements without necessarily wanting to wait til the submission process to put it up there, but whatever that's my suggestion

anyhow ok so
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpu6dUJbfjg, this is key of Bb, the very second note in that first measure (and by extension, like measures). is it just an F in the bass, F doubled at the octave (aka an F in the upepr voice as well as lower), or bass F with upper voice high A (Olimar said he heard this but I just do not)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5dp6luze0uh5pck/Sunflower%20Park.mus?dl=0 here is my transcription if it helps

the reason for this is bc I've known this track for like 15 years and so my like "expected" hearing of it might be clouding my actual ability to hear that note

bonus points if you can use tech to state this conclusively like Ben does sometimes

thx
#29

mostly looking for a decent way to notate/playback the bend in the last measure

also the tied note in the bass of m 2-3, when i first transcribed this like 3 years ago i heard a rearticulation but today when checking it sounded held, not sure if maybe there's something to past-me's hearing of it
#30

c.f. remix for some rhythmic idiosyncrasies (esp. in like mm 1 and 3)

mostly i'm just here for how to notate the glissandos (especially the one in m. 12) in a way that captures the sound of the original in notation & playback, i went over the sheet with a fine-toothed comb and i don't think anything else is much of an issue