NinSheetMusic Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

NinSheetMusic is 17 years old!

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 - Libera

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 141
1
Posted for Atcero.


2
Projects / Re: Libera's Halloween Sheet
« on: October 12, 2021, 10:22:55 PM »
Ohh, this is pretty cool! I love the harmonies on this, nice work on your sheet!

Here are my comments:
-m1: I can see how you voiced this chord, but I feel like it is a bit too soft or empty compared to the original. I would've taken it on like this:

Most of the energy comes from the percussion instead of the harp and strings, but that kinda gets lost with when transcribing it as an mezzo piano accent, so that's why I changed it to forte for this chord. Using some audiostretch magic, I can also hear a Gmmaj7 chord in the harp under the Gdim you have currently, which adds some more spice to the chord. Also, as this makes for a longer rolled chord, I made the L.H. jump over to play the high minor second in the strings in its original octave instead of an octave lower. This makes the distinction between the two voices clearer too. Anyway, take from this what you want! If you implement the higher octave minor second, you may want to think about if you want it restriked in m5 or not, though I think it's alright.

It's a kind of weird orchestration to get across on piano and forte gives off completely the wrong vibe from my point of view.  I thickened up the chord a bit but I don't want to up the dynamics and definitely no showy crosshands.

-m3: We should slur our grace notes right? :p

I don't think they're needed here, no.

-m10-13: I hear the chords in m11-12 an inversion lower (so top notes A and Bb), but I think you may have put the C and D on top because of the higher string line, but an octave down, right? I'd maybe just choose for leaving that voice out, but if you really wanna keep it, I'd either add the Bb and E in m10 and m13 too, or write it in its original octave (though this will cause for some chord rolling you may not want to have)

Yes that's why the chords in 11-12 are like that.  I don't want to make the chords in 10/13 thicker, the E plays on beat 1.5 of bar 13 anyway and the Bb is in beat 1 of bar 10.  All the harmony is there.

-m15: You may want to add the E from the synth(? spooky clarinet? idk the voice that plays in the L.H. of m14) in the L.H. Also, the G in the L.H. in beat 3.5 should be an A.

I think I'd prefer to just focus on the these lines here.  Fixed the mistake with the G.

-m16: I'd add brackets to either the L.H. or R.H. G in beat 2.5, as that note is being played by both hands. You could also switch the hands of the notes in beat 3.5, though keeping it as is is fine too to seperate the voices more clearly.

I added the brackets.

-m18-m25: It's pretty subtle, but in the L.H., I can hear a quick (low) F before the first beat of bar m19 and 23 and a quick (low) Gb before the first note of m21 and 25, which you could add in as grace notes. Also, you could add a courtesy accidental at the first Bb in the L.H. of m20 and 24

Yeah the courtesies there make sense.  I don't know how I feel about the little grace notes.  I've added them for now but I may excise them later since they kind of get in the way more on piano.

-m29: I'm not sure if I hear the harp going to a low Bb on the first beat hear, but I do hear two voices in the strings go A and back to Bb on beat 4. Maybe you could change this first Bb to an A, which will resolve itself to a Bb on beat 4 with the L.H. note. Talking about beat 4, you could add the top C from the harp run in between the chord in the right hand. I can see why you left it out in m27 as it would go above the melody, but that doesn't apply here. Lastly about this bar, you could let the L.H. take over the last two notes from the harp run if you want them back in their original octave, but it does make the jump to the low Db a bit sudden.

I was just filling in a note on beat 1 with something that matched the pattern since the RH had nothing to do otherwise.  I've taken it out.  It doesn't really matter.  Regarding the other suggestions, I just want to keep the presentation and performance simple, so I'd prefer not to.

-m32-33: I'd put a pedal marking per measure here too instead of going over two measures, as the F from m32 will most likely clash with the En in m33 (especially on acoustic/grand pianos). The only thing that benefits from the pedal is the top note in the R.H., but restriking it or leaving it out doesn't sound that weird.

It sounds fine to me.  If the performer doesn't like it, they can substitute different pedalling.  I'm sure they probably will do anyway.

-m34-45: Why didn't you just write this part in triplet sixteenths instead of putting in a metric modulation? This part doesn't make sense to me at all in this kind of 6/8.

The figure that plays in m35 is a kind of hemiola figure, which is the only thing that could fit your 6/8 if you feel the Bb's and Ab accentuated. I don't hear it that way though, I really hear the jumpy, triplet feel. There are two percussion ostinatos that are both 3 eighth notes long in the original tempo, but in your new tempo they're 4.5 eighth notes long. If you really don't like how the triplets look, you might wanna put it in 9/16 or even 18/16, but that causes the long notes to look pretty ugly (dotted quarter note tied to dotted eighth, or even triple dotted half note tied to dotted eighth if you're feeling funky in 18/16). I'd personally prefer the triplets like I have in my image. Btw, another small thing in this section is that the pedal markings don't really line up vertically.

Probably because it didn't sound that way to me.  The 3/4 pulse that I wrote into the left hand really suggests a tempo change to me whenever I hear it.  Static suggested it would be better in 6/8 than 3/4 because of the 'hemiola' pattern which I agreed with and changed it.  I can hear what you're suggesting now that I think about it and the percussion staying fixed going into 46 is certainly an argument in your favour.  I'm not changing anything at the moment but I'll think about it some more.

-m34 and 40: I don't hear the C in this chord, though I do hear an additional F in the strings (though that may make for a lot of F's together with the L.H.)
-m35-36 and likewise: The last note of this 5 note figure is an Eb instead of an F.
-m37 and 43: I hear this chord as Eb-F-Bb (so no Db, but a very clear F)

I hear both the C and Db, but I added Fs into both of the chords.  And I fixed the F -> Eb in the 'hemiola'.

-m46: The way you voiced this chord doesn't really make sense to me: the harp plays F-Bb-C (with the Bb sticking out more), while the strings play that top C as well as G and C above. Currently, both top notes (or melody notes) are voiced in the middle, while the filler notes are voiced an octave away from where they should be. I think it's better to just leave out the bottom F, as the bass can take care of that harmonic function, and write the chord like this:

You could add an F underneath the G if you want a bit more major second dissonance. The top C from the harp isn't really playable in this chord, unfortunately, but I don't hear that note as prominently as these 3.

I hear a high F.  I also hear all of the other notes (G Bb C) and I wanted this chord to come down from the previous ones, so that is the reasoning for this voicing.  It is also a very easy to play chord.

Also, why do you have a metric modulation at m18 actually? There isn't really a reason why you need to relate the new tempo to the old tempo, especially after a molto rit and a fermate. The rit and fermate also make the player lose the sense of tempo they already had.

The metric modulation is there because I noticed that it is a metric modulation.  The tempo values are written in anyway so you can ignore the modulation if you want to.

Mainly though.. If the metric modulation was correct, the new tempo should be eighth = 112, not eighth = 126, so it's not even correct lol.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think what you have done here is take q = 84 and multiply it by 4/3 to get q = 112.  This would suggest a 4/3 increase in tempo, whereas in the piece we have a decrease in tempo.  You have then substituted a quarter for an eighth and got to eighth = 112.

The calculation that I have followed is to take eighth = 168 (which is equivalent to q = 84) and multiply it by 3/4 ( <1 so a decrease in tempo, as we are expecting) to get eighth = 126.  Let me know if you think I have made a mistake.  I try to be very careful with these but it is possible I have gone wrong.

Metric modulations are quite complicated and it is very easy to get confused and make mistakes.  This is why I highly recommend not being patronising or dismissive when you think you've found someone has made a mistake with them because a) it is very easy to do and not something to be made fun of, and b) there's a pretty high chance that you have made a mistake yourself, in which case you will look like a complete fool.

Rechecking the tempos now, I get quarter = 85 for m10 and eighth = 126 for m18 actually.

I'm not going to argue over bpm changes of 1.  I normally round to even numbers anyway these days.



I updated the file.  Thanks for checking.

3
Projects / Libera's Halloween Sheet
« on: October 12, 2021, 12:25:20 PM »
I do not have the energy necessary for my usual nightmare.  This would have also worked for the colours update, strangely enough.

The Blackmoon Forest - Xenogears


Cyberpunk post

4
I guess this is acceptable as is, although I still disagree on a few points.

5
That all sounds good to me.  Accepted!

6
Strange metric modulations.

The Blackmoon Forest: [Musx] [Pdf] [Midi] [Mus]


7
This looks great.  I've just got a few small things to say:

-There are zero dynamic markings from bar 25 onwards, and there a few places I think they might be useful.  i.e. 65-72 could have a lower dynamic than 73+ to help add to the build up, since texturally the arrangement actually gets less complicated there.  But more generally I think the only issue at the moment is that it could get a little repetitive so dynamics could help to make it more exciting or at least more varied.  You don't have to go crazy, but it's a thought.
-Maybe add the D to the chords in the second half of 22 and in 23-24?  It'd also be nice to get some of that parallel chromatic movement in but it's kind of awkward to play.
-The chord in bar 94 feels like it needs more, i.e. doubling the A.  It's a big moment that I feel deserves a little more power.  You could also maybe got to ff there and then drop back down to f in bar 98 to go along with the fading out of the chord.  Another idea.

9
This is a pretty simple arrangement, but there are a couple of things I noticed.

-It'd be nice to have the Dm7 chords in bars 7, 15 and 17.  Particularly in 17 where you take the 7th rather than the tonic.  Obviously the chord there is inverted but I feel it'd be more consistent with 7 and 15 to have it being D F A at least.
-The rit in 17 is a rather extreme rit to say the least, so it might better to convey that by using a molto rit.

10
What needs to be done next for this one? Are you two still discussing some details / do you want some more input on anything in particular? Happy to weigh in on something if needed.

It's just been a busy week, although you're welcome to weigh in on anything if you want to.  Probably most useful would be about the accompaniment pattern in bars 9-24 and the voicings in the chords/melody in bars 7-8.



Other than the specific points that Static outlined, my major concerns were with the accompaniment pattern, particularly in bars 9-24.

I can see that you're trying to mimic somewhat the arpeggio high synth thing that comes in for bar 17, but I think there are some issues with this.  One is that this part isn't present at all for bars 9-16, so it's weird that it's affecting the arrangement there.  Another is that now that the arpeggios change to fit the chords (and also that it's in a much lower register than in the original) it doesn't really come across much like the original arpeggios at all.  The main point is that I think this gives this section of the arrangement a completely different feel/vibe to the original; the flowing accompaniment present just doesn't really reflect the original all that well.

- My suggestion for m9-24 would be a simple drum-mimicking pattern similar to the one used in your Eneomaos Machine Tower sheet:


This is also what I would recommend, but it probably isn't the only option to give the arrangement more of the rhythmic aspect of the original which is what is missing at the moment.

With regards to the accompaniment pattern in 25-32, I think it's better than the one in 9-24, but it still sounds a little odd in places.  I know that the upper notes are coming from the strings, but when they're moved lower some of these patterns sound quite muddy on the piano.  Especially since the strings are actually pretty minimal in the mix of the original, I think it'd be a good idea to substitute some of these upper notes for ones that sound less muddy.  Particularly changing the Cs to Es in bar 28, and the Es to Gs in bar 30.  You could also go for another percussion inspired accompaniment pattern here, which is probably what I would do, but I figured that you probably wanted to mix things up more here, and this pattern is already pretty rhythmic.

Libera and I had also disgreed on the intervals in m7-8 RH; I still hear those as they're currently written.

I guess it's still pretty unclear to me which voices go which way here and what should really be on the top, but it's probably fine.

Some other things that weren't mentioned by Static:
-The note on beat 4 of bar 34 (LH) should be an octave E a fourth up from the previous octave B.  At least if you want to be consistent with what you were doing in the rest of the two bars beforehand.
-You could add in the harmonies on these arpeggios in bars 36 and 38 (they're all a minor third below the notes you currently have) and wouldn't be that hard to play.
-Maybe you want to edit the ties in the chords in bars 7-8 so they're not colliding.
-There isn't a bass G# at the end of every four bar phrase in bars 9-24; it's only in bars 16/20.  It should be an E in bars 12/24.

If you need any clarification on anything or help, let me know.



Regarding v27 and this musx being very difficult for me to work with, I should mention that your Platinum Moonlight sheet was completely fine for me to open.  Was there something that you did to that sheet to make it work, because it would be very helpful if we could work out how to make it so we can look at your finale files properly.  I've got the new fonts now installed, but it still throws up a bunch of errors with ties and time signatures.

11
Well.  I think this is one of those tracks that doesn't really translate all that well to piano, but I guess it's cool that you've written it out.

-Do you actually like the C time signature?  Personally I think 4/4 is clearer, but also looks a lot better when you're swapping between 4/4 and 2/4, rather than C and 2/4.
-I don't really understand the crosshands in bars 4-19.  I mean I guess it's cool but it seems massively more awkward compared to playing the chords in the right hand and the ostinato in the left hand.
-I think I agree with Static about the chords in bars 4-17.  Obviously you can't write every note in, but I think having the "D" is more important than doubling the "Eb" (just transpose those two notes accordingly from the first chord to every other chord and you see what I mean hopefully).  Personally I think the chords sound too consonant at the moment compared to the original, so this might spice it up a bit.  Also if you use the "D" instead of the top "Eb" then it actually becomes easier to play (at least for me it was).
-I don't think the note is necessary in bar 4.  What else would you do?
-From bar 24.5 onwards you use these left hand clusters to approximate the original, but in bars 23 and the first half of 24 you try to write it out explicitly?  I'm not sure I understand the distinction between these two sections.
-The interjections in the middle staff in bars 25/28 etc. I'm not sure I understand the reasoning either.  These sound like part of the low rumblings but occasionally you try to write them in explicitly?  There are other places where similar sounding things come up and you don't write those in.  I guess I don't really understand how you're deciding what to write in and what not to since it seems pretty arbitrary at the moment.
-The game name text is too large.  It should be size 12.

I hope that helps.

12
Submissions / Re: [MUL] Bionic Commando - "Piano Theme" by Alpacatron
« on: October 07, 2021, 06:36:46 PM »
Sorry for the wait.  Some cool reharmonisation in this.

-Use sharps or flats in bar 7, not a mixture of both.  Since you got into sharps for bars 8+ I think it'd be better to use sharps.  In other words, the Eb and Db in bar 7 should be D# and C#.
-What happens in bar 5 with the poco a poco accel?  It's completely unclear in the sheet.  To be honest, I'm not even sure I notice a deliberate accel in this section, at least not one that goes beyond just being loose with the tempo.
-You don't need an a tempo in bar 18, you have the new tempo marking for that.
-If you have two crotchets (quarters) that go across beat 3, you can just write them as a minim (half note).  It will look a lot cleaner this way.  Particularly in bar 12/23 where the overuse of ties makes the rhythm hard to discern, despite it being very simple.  I strongly recommend this.
-The last three octaves in the right hand of bar 36 should be an octave lower.
-The first two left hand notes in bar 32 are F -> A, not A -> E.  You can see how it matches the pattern in the left hand on beat 2.
-In bars 26-32, the only chords I hear rolled are the one in 31 and the first one in 32.
-The left hand chord in bar 14 should be rolled.
-The pedal marking in bar 20 feels like it comes off too early.  Normally I don't think it's really necessary to write these markings in so explicitly, but since you are writing them in they should probably be accurate.  It sounds like it comes off at the start of bar 21.  But I would say that there is loads of pedal that is used in the piece that you haven't notated in, so I don't really see the point of being so explicit for only a few bars.  I think it'd probably be better to just leave it up to the performer.
-The notes in the second half of bar 21 would probably look clearer written in two layers for the right hand rather than these mixed ties.  Something like this:
Spoiler
[close]

I hope that helps.  Let me know if you have any issues.

13
Looks great!

14
the laughably bad Haunted Castle!

Is Haunted Castle a bad game?  I never knew.

Anyway, the sheet looks pretty good.  A few things:

-I think you should show beat 3 in bars 10 and 12 (in the RH).
-The Bbbs in bars 5/7 sound like Bbs to me.
-You should probably be consistent concerning the courtesy on the Eb in bars 10 and 12.  The way it's written now is actually very confusing and could make the person think it should be an En in bar 12.

15
I talked to Atcero and we agreed to not rush Pitch Black Intrusion and move it into subs.

As stated above, I've now pulled this sheet into submissions for Atcero.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 141

Page created in 0.344 seconds with 22 queries.