NinSheetMusic Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  


Don't forget to submit your daily replacement!

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 [4] 5 6 ... 118
- Fixed (made it a B# though)
- Fixed
- Done
- Added. There is actually a B there but it's an octave down (not played by the piano part).
- Added
- It does move between the two notes there, but it's more of a slide rather than a rearticulation. I just have the first Gn bc it was rearticulated there.
- Fixed
- Fixed; I also did this in m21-22.

Thanks for taking a look!

Looks good!

Since there are inconsistencies with their names on rereleases, personally I don't really mind about the naming provided that in future we're consistent.  Going by the original is probably the most reasonable option since it doesn't imply that we have to change the names of sheets once a new official renaming comes out.  Of course, there are exceptions when tracks that never got official names are given official names much later, but that's not what's going on here.

Sorry for the wait on this one, I should have got to it sooner.  That being said, I think there's going to be quite a bit of high-level arrangement and structural criticism before I can give it the detailed (final) check that I usually do.  Obviously there will be some formatting to do afterwards but it's better to leave that for later as well.

The first major point I'd make is about the texture of this arrangement and how it's not really capturing the feel of the original in many places / is too empty.  Let me take bars 3-6 as an example.  You have written some held notes in the right hand followed by an arpeggio-like figure at the end, and in the left hand we have power chords that follow the rhythm of the piano/keyboard part.  What's wrong with this?  Well, partially we have left out the bass part from the original entirely: the bass in a piece of music is often very important as it informs a lot of the harmony and the rhythm, so excluding it is something that, while not always the wrong decision, should be considered carefully.  Here, I think it is the wrong decision as it leaves the arrangement lacking the rhythm and drive of the original.  Another problem is that the right hand is not really doing anything until the arpeggio in bar 6; all it does is reinforce harmony that's already been given by the left hand.  This also contributes to the arrangement lacking drive, rhythm and sounding hollow.

How could we improve this?  My approach to these four bars would be to write the bass part into the left hand and to put the piano chords into the right hand.  Those are the elements that stand out to me most when listening to the original.  Here's how these four bars could look if we followed this approach:
Hopefully you can see that this captures more of what is going on in the original (more of the rhythms and harmonies) but also the texture matches much more closely.

This is not just a point about these four bars (3-6) but applies to the whole arrangement.  Many places have the left hand doubling what the right hand is doing and the bass part is excluded throughout the entire arrangement.  Furthermore, there are no harmonies anywhere (apart from powerchords/quasi powerchords in the left hand) and often bars are just a single line from the original being doubled, tripled or even quadrupled in octaves through both hands.  This sort of texture sounds very weak rhythmically and harmonically compared to the original.  I highly recommend going through the arrangement again and listening to the original whilst following the same sort of strategy that I showed you for bars 3-6.  If you have any issues/questions when doing this, please feel free to ask for help/assistance either here in the thread, in the #help channel on discord or if you prefer you can message me privately.

That major point aside, here are some other things that I've noticed that are unlikely to change during the rework.

-Komni is a great developer but I personally prefer Konami.
-Be careful with your beaming: quaver tied into crotchet on beat 1.5 should be a dotted quaver in most situations (bars 4, 8, 12 etc...) and make sure to show beat 3 in bar 34.
-The structure of the repeat is not written out in a very conventional or readable way.  Ideally, you shouldn't have to skip over music that you are going to play on a later repeat and you can always rearrange the music so that this doesn't happen.  You have two options here, one with a coda and one without.  Option 1: Add the current coda to the end of the 1st time ending section.  Option 2: Remove the first and second time bars; the content of the second time bar is moved into a coda and a coda symbol is added where the content of the current first time bar starts.  Option 1 is simpler and uses no coda, but some people don't like to use a standard repeat symbol that sends the performer back multiple pages.  Option 2 avoids repeat bars (you can use a D.S. and replace the forward repeat bar in bar 3 with a segno.
-You're missing the pickup to the first bar.

Hopefully this helps and sorry again for the long wait.

Not checking at the moment, but I just wanted to say something about a few things.

I also feel bad for anyone trying to read all those ledgers lines and the fact that 80% of the treble clef is taken up by the left hand but that's just how it be y'know?

No, there are absolutely much better ways of writing this out.  The way you currently are doing it basically puts everything onto one staff 95% of the time and as such everything looks extremely cramped and messy.  Using clef changes in the left hand would allow you to spread the music out over the two staves much more evenly and makes it much clearer to read.  Here's an example of how the first two bars would look using this method:


Anyways, this one is pretty but making the sheet look nice sounds like a pain in the butt so I didn't put all the slur markings on those arpeggios

Firstly, I should say that it is literally your job to make the sheet look nice and it's not fair to expect the updaters to do it for you because you can't be bothered.  That being said, I don't think putting slurs on all of the arpeggios is that important anyway and even if you wanted to do it, you'd only have to put them on the first few and then write 'simile', so it wouldn't even be that much work.

I may be submitting another Triforce Heroes one soon but I just remembered you can only have 3 submissions at a time so I gotta pick the one I want the most

You can only have two submissions at a time.  You can find information about submissions here.

Submission Archive / Re: [NES] Duck Hunt - "Round Clear" by Th3Gavst3r
« on: September 20, 2020, 06:36:10 PM »
I don't have anything else to add.  It looks good other than the Gb -> F#.

Submission Archive / Re: [NES] Duck Hunt - "Round Start" by Th3Gavst3r
« on: September 19, 2020, 11:22:34 AM »
It sounds to me like there's another G on beat 1.5 in the left hand in bar 4.  Other than that, looks great!

Gaming / Re: What are you playing right now?
« on: September 15, 2020, 08:53:45 PM »
Risk of Rain 2 - This thing is probably one of my favorite roguelikes I've played. The beginning of each run tends to be very skill focused as you pick up items and slowly become stronger. There's a ton of them, but the fun starts when you begin stacking ones you already have. Say one item gives a 10% chance to bleed on every attack. Get 8 of them, and you can stack 80 bleed debuffs on a boss, if it lives long enough to let you do that. So yeah, as every run progresses, it slowly goes from pure skill to pure chaos with game-lagging numbers of enemies and you with items that can set off massive chain reactions by killing a single enemy. It's very fun and rather challenging too. When I die, I don't really feel like it's the game's fault for giving me bad items; it was my fault for getting hit.

I played a fair amount of the first game but just couldn't get into #2.  Something about the change to 3-d really didn't work for me and I found it much more annoying to work out what was going on in my surroundings than I did in the first one.

Xenogears - Going into this one blind and it's pretty fun so far. My biggest complains are the camera, the slow loading screens (opening and closing the menu can take a few seconds if you don't speed up the emulation speed), and the translation. It's not bad, but it feels stiff and lacking character or personality. I'm hoping that doesn't get in the way of my enjoyment too much.

I actually liked the camera, especially the hide and seek game where you have to mess around with a lot, but I can see why you would find it annoying.

Feedback / Re: Problem with "Site's Most Popular Sheets" sidebar
« on: September 14, 2020, 09:40:59 PM »
Hi there!  This is an issue that we're currently aware of and hopefully it should be fixed soon (tm).

Ok I've sorted out the articulations (which required a little more manual editing than normal since the pedal articulations didn't want to reset properly).  Also, I had to edit some of the slurs since they were weird in the pdf also, but hopefully that looks all fine now.


Awesome, the changes look great!  Nice work.


I added the A there to thicken the texture (consistent beat 1 triads throughout this section).

This was also not verbatim from the original, but an attempt to fill in the sound a bit because otherwise it'd be a little empty to have a single note in the LH and RH. My question is, do you think the notes I wrote in don't fit? I could see that maybe the C#s should be B, and maybe the G#s should be A instead?

The thing about this piece that sticks out to me is the sort of hollow harmony (fifths) in the strings that sit over the top of the guitar, so I don't really see the need to 'thicken it up' since to me the sound in the original isn't thick.  I also think that introducing a G# earlier lessens the effect of it coming in for beat 3 in bar 12 (on the first pass anyway).  Personally my suggestion would be to only include F# and C# in the first bar, Es and Bs in the second and third and introduce the G# on beat 3 of the fourth bar.  If you really want more notes, then Bs are definitely better than C#s, an A is also better than a G# in the third bar but for the fourth bar I don't think either an A or a G# is a good idea.  If you really really want three RH notes in bar 12 I'd double the C# rather than an A or a G# but I don't think it's necessary.

Oh yeah. I like that! I do hear that when I listen to the original, but I don't think I hear it in m. 14/38. Let me know if it's okay just in 10 and 34 or if you still think it should be in the others as well.

Yeah that's probably fine, it's really quite hard to hear it in 14 and 38 and I'm not 100% sure it's there either.  I mostly just suggested it because it would make sense with how 11 and 31 are, but I don't really mind.

First point sounds good. For the second point - I would like to avoid consecutive changing dyads here for ease of playing and since the texture is pretty light except for the accented beats. I listened again and wrote in what I think sounds good which isn't exactly what you suggested - does that look okay? For the third point, I'm not really hearing F# there, it sounds a bit too full when I add the fifth above the bass.

Yes this section looks better now, although I definitely still hear the F# on beat 2.75 of bar 19.  It's more or less the same 'fullness' as the last chord of 17, although maybe slightly stronger due to F# being a fifth above B rather than a fourth above C# but it doesn't sound that much stronger to me.  It's not a super big deal if you still really don't want to add it though.

What are you hearing? I'm not really hearing anything prominent there, or at least what I hear for the xylophone sounds to me best represented as single notes on the piano.
I'd prefer not to... it's much less audible than the 16th line and would interfere with it

Lower F#s between each note in 17-18 and lower Es between each note in (20-21) 31-32.  Admittedly they're pretty quiet so I don't mind if you don't want to include them really.

I'd prefer not to... it's much less audible than the 16th line and would interfere with it

Fair enough.  I guess I just thought that bar sounded a bit empty with just the slow run compared to the original.

Ah dangit. You think a "first pass only" performance note would suffice here for the chord on beat 3?

Sounds good to me.  Maybe make the noteheads small as well so that it's clear what the direction is applying to.

Anything I didn't respond to looks good.

Projects / Re: Libera's Replacements
« on: September 10, 2020, 08:22:10 PM »
Oops, fixed.

Projects / Re: Libera's Replacements
« on: September 10, 2020, 06:53:47 PM »
Fithos Lusec Wecos Vinosec

- There's more rhythm on beat 4 of m. 28-43 that you could use to fill out the LH accompaniment better. Any reason why you didn't include it? (Something like eighth notes everywhere except quarter notes in m. 31 and 39.)

I didn't include it because it's just percussion rather than actual notes.  It feels unnecessary to me to include it here.

- I'm a bit confused by your right hand part in m. 40-43. I'm hearing the voice ascend A-B-C-D (as everywhere else) and a harmony line on top of that ascend E-F#-G-A. The top moving voice written in the sheet now (while it fits the chords) is neither of those voices and sounds a bit different from the original when you write it that way I think.

I still hear what I wrote in but yes the other harmony you mentioned is there.  I rewrote it anyway to keep the vocal part on top.

I should have got all the other stuff.  Thanks for checking.

Don't Be Afraid

- I know this is kinda nitpicky, but if you're going to beam this piece in 3+3+2+2, the time signature should be 10/8. With that said, you could keep it as 5/4 and change the beaming since this is a really common 5/4 groove anyway.
- Maybe it's just me, but the beaming across m14-15 barline is more confusing to read than if it was just written normally.
- The beaming in m15 (and 13) itself kind of bothers me too because you wrote it in 5/4, when the rest is in 10/8. But, unlike the above, I think this actually makes it easier to read, so I think it's fine.
- The left side of the tempo marking should be aligned with the left side of the time signature.

I went with this beaming because it's what Latios suggested but I've changed it back to normal beaming since it actually looks fine.  (Let me know if any of the beaming is still messed up).  I fixed the tempo marking positioning as well. 

Thanks for looking it over.

Submission Archive / Re: [PS1] Xenogears - "October Mermaid" by Libera
« on: September 10, 2020, 05:47:05 PM »
I hear 3rd harmonies below in m12 b3 and 4.5 also.

I don't hear a C on beat 4.5 of bar 12.  I think the Bb might dip back down to an A there instead (which I've now added).

Aside from that, it's perfect. Excellent work, and a beautiful arrangement.

Thanks!  And thanks for checking it over!

Yep, those both sound correct to me.  Thanks for checking!

Projects / Re: Zeila's Replacements
« on: September 07, 2020, 03:57:34 PM »
I guess our ears are just different then since (I thought) I transcribed m45-48 from the same voice, and again I only really hear any G in the second half of m45 from the voice that goes G-D two octaves higher. Since two people think it's off though I'll change it, and it makes sense. I wrote your suggestion for the first two beats of m45, but I kept the F's in the second half instead of D's since that will start the descending pattern that Libera mentioned

Thanks for your input!

That works for me so I'll accept!

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 118

Page created in 0.095 seconds with 35 queries.