Messages

Submission updated w/visual changes.

- I would probably write this in 4/4... but I guess the way you have it is okay too. But at the least, I would also include the tempo marking in terms of quarter-note BPM, e.g. eighth = 193 (quarter = 96), so that people can practice with a quarter-note metronome pulse.
- Also, very minor but character indications make more sense to be as adverbs (how to play it) rather than as adjectives. So, you might consider changing "Hollow" to "Hollowly."
- You have a bit of empty space at the bottom of page 1—you could move the systems down a bit, and along with it, the composer/arranger info (which should be lower than the subtitle, not in-line with it).
- The "con pedale" in m1 should be moved a bit more to the left, such that the left edge of the "c" is aligned with the left side of the noteheads on beat 1.
- Usually I see "LH" in capitals and unitalicized, or "l.h." in lowercase and italicized, but not capitalized and italicized. So it might preferable to unitalicize these markings, although your experience may be different.
- Not very fond of the chromatic scale in the low register in m26 while there's pedal... it doesn't sound great IMO. I would suggest just making it a held F, or an F followed by a G, but throwing the F# in there doesn't work that well to my ears.
- m28 LH beat 1 is very close to clashing with the following eighth rest—could you space that out a bit? The best way to do that would be to add some extra space at the beginning of the measure (Edit Measure Attributes --> under "Width," check "Add:" and enter a number, say 0.1 or something, then use the manual note mover tool in special tools to move beat 1 to the left).
- I would also suggest using the note mover tool to separate the Layer 1 and Layer 2 notes visually a bit more in m32 LH (right now, in the last two chords in the LH, it's difficult to tell what belongs to what layer), spaced like this:

Image

[close]

done and updated

Hey! Taking a look...
I strongly disagree with this. I understand you want to preserve the somewhat ethereal feel of the original, but here are a few reasons I'd recommend against writing in the octaves verbatim:
- It becomes much more difficult to enunciate the melody properly because it shifts between hands and weaves in and out of the accompaniment. You also end up with some awkward intervals (major or minor seconds in places like m. 25-28) and repeated notes (like in 9-12) which distract from the melody. Unlike the original everything is one instrument in a piano arrangement, so it's more difficult to make one voice stand out if it hangs around the same register as another. That's not to say it can't be done, but it is something to consider.
- It makes writing the voicings a lot messier on the sheet making it harder to tell what's the melody and what's part of what voice. Upper and lower notes in the ostinato are freely thrown between the right hand and the left hand. While this is fine to keep everything within reach, it does make the voices harder to follow. Again, there's nothing outright wrong with this, but it is tricky to read as written.
- Out of all the possible things to cut out of a full transcription, octaves are some of the least essential. If you cut them out, you don't lose any of the harmony or the rhythm. The ostinato is still effective as a single line.

Compare this to what the sheet looks like if you remove the upper octave in m. 9+, and remove the lower octave in m. 25+. Try playing it, too, side by side with what's in the existing sheet. (These screenshots have a simplified version in the first system and the current version in the second system.)

Spoiler

You cannot view this attachment.

You cannot view this attachment.

[close]

I don't want you to feel like I'm imposing this on you, but I did want to remind you about the tradeoff between sound and difficulty. Thoughts?

Yeah I did consider the tradeoff between keeping the octave and removing it, but the main thing that I felt led me to keep the octave overall was that while it did cause some complexities and odd intervals, I felt that the lack of the octave in full while matching the pitches to the original was very empty compared to the original, something that I personally did not enjoy nor agree with when playing it.

I also considered keeping the octave only for sections that lacked the melody otherwise (so measures with no melody, measures with only a whole note, or measures with two dotted quarter notes in the measure), but then it felt like the flow was inconsistent and volume/density on the other extreme (instead of ostinato+melody with some empty ostinato sections, it's ostinato+melody with some dense ostinato+melody sections).

Therefore my take was to just keep the octave consistent throughout. Plus Static mentioned that duplicate pitches are fine due to the low tempo of the track (originally I had duplicate notes shifted a whole step but Static said I didn't have to do that). So yeah I generally do want to keep the full octave in place for this arrangement.

I could add a text note stating to "bring out the melody" if that might be useful. The arrangement itself has hidden accidentals so that should work out.

Generally, the way this is voiced and arranged I think is pretty good. There's just a few details that can make this that much better.

• You can just put 8/8 as the time signature. The beaming tells the reader that it's 3+3+2. Either way is OK though.
• For the melody layer, I would recommend hiding all of the accents (click on the Articulation Tool, Ctrl+A, Ctrl+Alt+Shift+H). Even though Finale will often make these melodies quieter, you have to keep in mind you're writing these arrangements for pianists. It's their job to bring important voices to the fore when performing.
• When both layers share a rest (as in the start of m9/17 RH), the rest should be in the middle of the staff, like you have in m15/23 RH.
• m9/13/17/21 RH Layer 1: The Gs should be As.
• m9/13/17/21 RH Layer 2: The first melody note should be F instead of A.
• m11/19 RH: Shouldn't the RH just be written like this? It's fine to have the repeated A here since the piece is fairly slow.
  
  Spoiler

  

  [close]
• m15/23 RH Layer 1: Last 8th note should be A instead of G.
• m15/23 RH Layer 2: First melody note should be G instead of A.
• m15/23 LH: 2nd 8th note should be A.
• There's lots of spots on Page 2 where ties or augmentation dots are clashing with accidentals or other notes/rests. You can adjust the positioning of these with the Tie Tool and Dot Tool, under Special Tools.
• On the repeat, the bass plays a low Bb in m1, but I don't think it's necessary to include here unless you want to.

Updated with all the changes listed here.

So this is a replacement of the previous "Spaces In-between" arrangement submission because this one is a bit more complex of an arrangement and I'm generally really proud of what I did so far.

Few things to note in advance though:
-Sections like m8 are written as such since it is easier for the performer to have each hand play a fairly simple octave rather than having to bring both their hands up across a 10th note gap.
-I try to do sections like m10 as much as the arrangement allows me to (i.e. splitting the octave across both hands equally), but when the melody really comes in heavy it usually has to be written as I did.
-If there's a situation that has the accompaniment play the same note as the melody right afterwards, I try to bring it down a whole step as a rule of thumb.
-Overall, my goal is to keep the octave'd accompaniment last throughout the arrangement, so generally if possible I want to avoid a single hand accompaniment + single hand melody even if it helps bring the melody out more. It makes it a little more difficult to play and a bit more complex, but I want to go for it.

Edit: just changed the time signature to (3+3+2)/8 because that actually fits way better for this track.

Edit 2 (2021/07/06): I went over and made manual stem adjustments so the melodies are kept to one layer, and fixed some of the weird note spacing issues as well.

i'm ngl I have just finished another more difficult arrangement that I'm really eager to see go into the site more than this one, since this here is basically a guaranteed approval due to how simple it is.

I'll resubmit this one next cycle instead.

Looks good! Real quick:
- Could you lower the tempo marking to be closer to the staff?
- Maybe consider mp instead of mf? It's true that the volume is somewhat loud in the original, but on piano, I worry that "mf" would convey the wrong idea (i.e. a more clunky banging of the notes, instead of playing it more softly in accordance with the fact that there are only two voices here—if that makes sense). It doesn't give me the impression of the sort of track that would need a mf dynamic. I'll leave this one up to you, though.

Fixed the tempo marking. I kept it at mf though because I find the original to be fairly sharp with its note use and not that, idk, music box-y? Especially with some of the other omori tracks based on this track specifically, it's not that... uhh.... soft. Or calming. Or, yeah.

Cool, looks good. Raising the RH an octave would give it a more music box-like sound, lowering the LH an octave makes it feel a bit warmer. I like how it is now.

The last thing I have is that you misspelled "Andante"

pain

(fixed)

I remember you posting this arrangement on the forum, I'd lower the music box part an octave (see screenshot example)

 

Spoiler

[close]

Alright, it's updated to match the octave drop.

Respectfully, I disagree. Let's take a look at what you have vs. what's in the original, written in Db major (which I would recommend over C# major for fewer accidentals in the key signature). Bottom two staves are the separate voices.

Spoiler

You cannot view this attachment.

[close]

First thing is the orange box where you've swapped the voices. No big deal, easy to fix.

The places I've highlighted in blue create some awkwardness in playing, potential confusion in listening, or both. The lower voice in the original is played legato, but the upper voice in the original isn't exactly staccato as you've notated it. These small intervals and the fact that the voices play the same notes and cross over one another make it awkward to play as both hands are in the same space. It can cause some confusion in listening as well because the voices aren't easily differentiable by the different instruments in the original - you can only differentiate the voices by articulating them differently on piano. In places like m. 2, 7, 8 you have one voice striking Ab after another, in m. 5 they strike the same Db, and you also have awkwardly small intervals in m. 6.

Anyway what I'm trying to say is that you don't run into any of these problems if you adjust one of the voices by an octave - it is much easier to play and aurally separate the two voices if you do so. Remember that a good piano adaptation doesn't necessarily mean writing everything out verbatim. The problem you're running into here is trying to cram two different voice into one small range which doesn't work well when you can no longer differentiate them by their timbre.

In this case, which voice should be moved up and/or down an octave that you would recommend?

Added "088 - Lost Library" and "122 - WHITE SPACE" from OMORI! Also included mentions of the next two tracks I'm working on.

Youtube upload soonish.

I personally feel that keeping the pitches matching to the original and having it act as two layers is preferred personally over moving one of the layers up/down an octave. It is all things considered a very simplistic track, and this is fairly legible to read / play. So I do personally think this is generally fine.

short simple and to the point

(technically the tune of the notes here is like +0.29 as per my VST but idk how to translate that in regards to hz)

oh yeah I thought I responded earlier, but yeah the alignment issue is fixed.

Just want to mention that I fixed the margins akin to the Lost Library arrangement & made some spacing changes with systems (just realized you can hold shift + drag under page layout to only move a system vertically).