Messages

oh huh, I wanted to try using pictures of dynamic markings instead of italicized letters, but maybe I'm the only one who can see those and I just didn't notice (they're media.discordapp.net images). This was what I meant:(maybe this does work though: You cannot view this attachment. and You cannot view this attachment.)
I think it's fine without the echo: the delay feels a bit random, and adding it to the sheet might just make it a bit too messy to hear the difference between the two. Going with a p at m29 would work enough though, so it's clear that it should be at a lower dynamic than the part before.
Just going by 2 un-modulated measures per system it is about the same as 4 modulated measures per system. I don't think it's that hard to see the pulse, as each sextuplet is one beat long, but triplet 16ths would work too for showing the 8th pulse:
You cannot view this attachment.
Anyway, that's just how I view it. I can see the 8th triplets are a bit more recognizable, so if you really prefer that, it's alright too. I personally just feel the metric modulation would be more confusing to the player than the 16th triplets. Also, did you see this part of my comment about the tuplets?I meant just changing the G in the middle of the chord to Ab:
You cannot view this attachment.
I really don't hear that top line though. I only hear the instrument that's playing the main melody D-C (and a slidy synth doing the F-Eb), and the electric piano/pingy synth that's doing the F-G-Ab-G figure.
I actually meant it as D-G-Eb. In m70-71, the main melody instrument plays F-Eb-D, while the electronic piano/pingy sinth plays F-D (and stays on D during m71). I see you initially removed the top octave D in m71, but doing this, you could put it back in again:
You cannot view this attachment.

One thing I apparently forgot to mention: in m73, I don't hear the Ab in the R.H., I think it's only in the L.H.

-I'll add the mentioned dynamics then, sure.

-Alright. That's fair.

-I missed that about the triplet. I made the noteheads smaller, hope that looks fine.

-Oh ok, sure. Changed that to Ab.

-I swear I hear two notes during beats 2 an 4 of m62, not just the one though. It sounds too muddy to simply be one note imo, and I don't think it's reverb in this case. Maybe it's not D C C Bb specifically but I do think there is that second note layer.

-Oh actually I think I get it listening back. So because of the instrument choice used in the RH, I kinda have it where the synth represents the higher octave, but only when the piano is also playing. That's why in m71 I took out the higher octave, because the piano stops playing there. Hope that's fine.

-Removed the extra Ab in m73.

Updated.

more calming minecraft vibes, nice!

-m29: Although the melody is played in octaves in the original, it sounds emptier than the single notes before. Maybe you could remove the lower octave of the melody to make it sound a bit emptier, or you could add a here.
-m39: Instead of a metric modulation, you could just keep it at the original tempo and write the tuplet figure in sextuplet 16ths:

Spoiler

You cannot view this attachment.

[close]

(measure numbers in this post will still refer to the non-changed ones though). If you really wanna keep the metric modulation, you should change the quarter note tied to half notes every second bar (of the 4-bar phrase) to dotted half notes.
Also, about these tuplets: it's pretty hard to go to the first note after the bass note, maybe you could either just remove this one or put it between brackets/shrink the notehead to show it's optional. Going back from the last tuplet note is a bit easier, but you may wanna bracket/shrink/remove this one too for even easier playability.
-m55 and on: I see you added some extra notes to the 4th and 5th note in the melody, but every 4th note should have an Ab (at least, it's there in the original in the second voice). Maybe you could change the G on beat 4 in m55 and and m63 to Ab? I'm also doubting whether I like the parellel Ab to Eb chords in m59-60 and m67-68, but if you wanna keep it, that's alright too.
-m62: Did you add the top notes on beats 2 and 4 here? I don't hear them in the original and I feel they distract from the actual extra voice that is there. Maybe something like this would work a bit better:
You cannot view this attachment.
-m70: I hear an Eb on top of beat 3 instead of a D. In isolation the Eb sounds really off, but in context it does work. Maybe you could add a high D to m71 too, so this Eb resolves nicely to that D.
-m71: It's hard to hear what the electric piano chord in this part is under all the fade-out-stuff, but maybe it'd make sense to add the G in the L.H. too like all other chords? Also, dynamically, I think you can put this whole page in . I don't feel like m79 is that much softer than what happens before, and the contrast between and would be a bit bigger.

-honestly I would prefer making m19-m28 more complex with the echo layer (which I can't really figure out how to implement well) over changing m29-m38. Not sure what the space is meant to be between "add a" and "here", but i'm gathering it's a dynamic change. If you have a possible suggestion for the echo layer though I'm all ears.

-I wasn't exactly sure how to implement this w/o metric modulation and it not looking squished (nice job in the screenshot for reference), but also I do think it's nicer to have it modulated so a performer can better visualize the pulse of the beat during this fast pace section. I'll make the dotted half change though.

-Are you sure about that Ab? Because then it wouldn't match with the pattern the track has had in past phrases (first melody repeat being Bb, second melody repeat being Ab).

-I was having trouble figuring out the exact pitches of the quieter section while also including the continuing melody with the new chording. I was basically hearing a combination of the F --> G --> Ab --> G while also having a higher D --> C --> C --> Bb up top. At least when I was listening to this.

-For m70, I had it like how you described it I think (Eb/G/Eb chord) but then based on whoopy's feedback the actual b3 chord had a base of a D. It sounded like it staircased down very slightly, hence why I made it G --> F for the middle note of the triad. Since then I don't really hear that Eb in the right hand chord anymore.

-Looks like there's that weird empty space again between "whole page in" and ".". I'll add the G though.


Updated with the dotted half / G addition changes.

This arrangement looks really nice, and the song is beautiful! I have a few things I'd like to bring to your attention.
  - In measures 3, 5, and 7, I'm hearing a really quiet undertone that lasts for about a beat.
  - m29, there's kind of a pulsing layer. I'm assuming you're leaving that out intentionally?
  - m62 b2, I'm hearing a transition to a G from the upper F.
  - m70 b3, I hear a D in the RH.
  - m75, I hear a G in the LH.

Once again, this arrangement is gorgeous! Wonderful job!

-I can't really hear the undertone here, might it be the synth effect that you're hearing?
-When you mean a pulsing layer do you mean the first like two measures having a continued echo? If so, then I purposefully excluded it since this section I feel should just be the RH octave.
-I tried implementing that as best as I could figure out pitch wise.
-Fixed, also tbh removed the octave aspect in m71/m72 as well in the RH.
-Fixed

Thanks, updated.

Yeah so uh Lena decided to bless us with more minecraft tracks and out of all of them this is probably one of the easier ones to transcribe.

m19-m28 has an added like echo layer that I wasn't really able to figure out an easy way to arrange/transcribe into the right hand, so I decided to leave it to just the melody. If anyone has ideas on how to implement it then sure I can go add it, but otherwise it should be fine.

This is true to an extent, but sometimes it is actually more appropriate to use Cb, Fb, B#, E#, etc. Like in F# minor for example, when the major V chord is used (C# major), you're not going to write C#-F-G#, etc. This doesn't mean to be as complicated as possible (please don't write things in Fb major), but sometimes the more obscure spellings have their place. Also keep in mind this arrangement is technically very challenging, so beginners aren't probably going to try to learn this at first. You are writing for a somewhat advanced audience here, one that likely has at least a bit of theory knowledge (chords, scales, etc.) to understand what Cb is.

For this piece specifically, I would strongly advice you use Db-Fb instead of Db-En in m9 RH, etc., since augmented 2nds are (imo) actually more confusing and annoying to read than a simple Db-Fb minor 3rd.

If you insist on not using Fb, Cb, etc., the Gb in m14 RH beat 4 should be F#, and the Dbs in m16 beat 3 should be C# - this is to keep the diminished 7th interval consistent.
The reason why I suggested spelling all these with flats in the first place is because F# and C# are outside the key signature, whereas Gb and Db already are. Keeping everything as flats, even if it introduces some double flats, I think ends up being easier to parse for the average reader. Maybe that's just me speaking as a brass player, where much of the literature in any genre is in flat keys. I still think it would be a good idea here though.

Regarding the things you mentioned on Discord:
That would be called a rimshot, but I'm not hearing those in this drum pattern. It sounds like kick, snare, and hi-hat mostly. With that said, I can kinda see where that's coming from now.
There is an Ab at the end of beat 3 because it's in the bassline. You can see the bassline I transcribed in my first post. If you really want that downward motion there, just keep what you have already. However, I would still suggest adding that En/Fb on beat 3.75 of m10/12/etc., as well as a note on beat 3.75 of m9/11/etc. to match m10/etc. The bass plays a note there, and the drum pattern is the same at the end of every bar, so there's not much reason to have an 8th note there instead of two 16ths.

I'm confused as to why you would do that, since there's no part in the original that echoes the melody.

I have the arrangement here updated (up to m25) with the changes you mentioned including your bassline (with some slight alterations). I also decided to keep the En and instead implement C#s where necessary (I didn't add in the thirds for b3.75 of like m9 and so forth in the right hand because I feel it would be too difficult to play those notes in quick succession, unless I read what you were suggesting wrong).

I didn't go past m24 for right now because I'm still not quite sure on the new bassline's sound especially in later points, so I want to see what you think before going forward with making the same adjustments for the rest of the arrangement.

Hey sorry for not getting back on this since last week but basically college work is slamming me hard atm. Not sure when I'll be able to have time but it might take a few days.

Good thing is, there's a recent update so this doesn't have the same deadline to be summited at least.

Added "Rubedo" from (MUL) Minecraft!
Also decided to take out the youtube showcase, it wasn't really that beneficial there imo.

Taking your example with m16, I think I just over-complicated it or got it wrong because I still interpreted Db-G-Bb and Bbb-Eb-Gb as diminished chords, just with different roots. Anyways, thanks for the explanation! And it makes sense that spelling it as d7 vs M6 wouldn't matter either way in this case

Also yes I do agree with keeping them consistent and writing it more with flats instead of sharps/naturals, I just wasn't sure whether or not it would be better to use a bunch of double flats (there are some Abb's later too) to fit the pattern and make it more noticeable/recognizable, or just keep it as naturals whenever since Playful seemed to think that was easier to read

fwiw it's probably more of a divide among "is it easier to read for a more novice performer" vs. "is it easier to read for a more advanced / music theory aware performer".

Since generally more novice/intermediate piano performers would likely have more trouble recognizing an Fb or double flat compared to an advanced performer.

....might've spent the last 3 hours finally finishing my own arrangement of rubedo after posting that earlier feedback, haha.

but yeah static I did a few edits to my feedback post besides the crossstaff part based on what I was doing with my own arrangement, so that should hopefully help out.

Try to remember to reread the topic history if you forgot what had been said earlier... I had already addressed this, and Whoppy's new LH marking clears up any confusion that might've occurred before. It's fine as it written currently.

I want to point out a few other things first before Whoppybones integrates this feedback; there's several points I don't think need to be changed.
Will get to that tomorrow, I'm about to fall asleep at my desk

Oh wait were those LH meant to be placed for the ostinato? If that's the case then never mind about the cross staffing, although I think some of the LH positions seem unclear (at least to me) in terms of what line of music it was meant to represent. (also yeah I totally forgot about the crossstaff being talked about earlier myb)

Should the LH be placed where it is originally or where I have it placed (in red)?



(will modify crossstaff feedback mainly so it applies to when there's 3 distinct levels)

ok so I actually was making some notes on this track for an arrangement I'm probably gonna make anyways even though I won't be able to submit it, but I might as well mention some of the things I have that are different to this arrangement. The first few points are more generalized while the rest are specific to measures as a reference.


-I don't know why you have an extra hidden staff in the .musx file, but if you can, I'd recommend removing it.

-I would personally recommend making the left hand 3 notes (E3 --> B3 --> D4) and the right hand 1 note (A4/G#4/G4/G#4) for this section. This will also help with some of the later notation suggestions for the right hand below.

-I'm not quite sure I would agree on the simile accent for the final note throughout the track. There's plenty of points where the last note *is* accented, and plenty of places where the last note *isn't* accented. I think you should instead take a listen through throughout the track and notate accents where the note does indeed get brought out more.


-m9 b1: left hand is an octave E3/E4, with right hand crossing over to play E1 (would be notated with a "R.H." or "RH" for that lower note, and you would use an 8vb underneath an E2 to notate this as well using a second layer)

-m9/m10: I wouldn't personally include a second layer for the A4 like you notated here, you can just leave it with the same note pattern as prior. I don't hear or view it as an extension of the main melody.

-m13 b1: similarly to m9 b1, left hand is an octave E3/G4 (this can be chord rolled) with right hand crossing over to play an F1 (same low note "R.H." notation)

-m14 b4: I would personally write the upper layer as two eighth notes rather than a quarter, since the melody sort of follows that pattern of F --> G --> E even though the G is part of the ostinato. Also I actually don't think the D4 is played here, listening back to the track.

-m17 b1: you know the drill, E3/E4 left hand, E1 right hand cross over

-m17/18: as before, would recommend not having the second layer for the A4

-m21 b1: maybe have other low layer whole notes (starting from m9) accented while this measure's whole note is left unaccented, because this is definitely a much quieter note comparatively.

-m22 b4: as before like with m14, would recommend making the upper layer two eighths of F4 --> G4 instead of a single quarter F4 like it's written right now. And also remove the D4, since I'm again pretty sure it isn't played.

-m33: there's a notable drop in dynamic volume or intensity here, probably in part due to the last few measures having a slight buildup. Might recommend an earlier crescendo into an immediate decrescendo for m31/32 that leads to an mp for m33.

-m39 through m64: I would recommend writing the ostinato as a cross staff for specifically this section, as there is a notable melody above and a notable bass below. This way it will be clearer for the performer that there are 3 levels for this track.

-m39/m40: I would *heavily* recommend notating the new crossstaff ostinato to be played by just the left hand, as a transition period for the coming high melody to be played exclusively by the right hand (whereas the continuing ostinato is only played by the left).

-m41: with the m33 feedback earlier, you can remove the mp here in this measure.

-m45: from what I can tell this is a positioning error for the "LH" if it's meant to apply to the ostinato and not the above right hand melody. If this is the case, I would probably move this closer to the middle of the system and not above it. Also as a reference, I've practiced playing this entire track on a physical piano, and yes you can play it without much trouble by doing b1 with the octave E2/E3 in the left hand followed by the ostinato, and doing the main melody with the right hand.

-m46 b4: remove the D4

-m49: would recommend adding an mf dynamic.

-m53 through m76: I would recommend adding a lower octave to the notes you've currently written in terms of the lower tied whole note melody.
So for m53 b1, I would write this as a G2/E3/G3 and m54 b3 I would write this as a F2/E3/F3 (as well as restring the E2 on m55).
Then for m57-m64 I wouldn't keep the E2; I would personally replace it with a doubled octave of the higher pitch (so F2/E2/G2/A2 for measures 57, 59, 61, and 63 respectively).
For m65-m72 I would add the lower note to the left hand in the 3rd octave range (so B2-G3).
Lastly for m73-76, similarly to m57-m64, I would remove the lower E2 and replace it with a duplicate pitch of the higher pitch (so F2 for m73 and G2 for m75).

-m58/59: I don't think that the right hand melody here uses a triplet. Rather I think it's just a sixteenth followed by an eighth across the measure (so two sixteenths tied together) followed by another sixteenth.

-m61: like with m45, move the LH closer to the center of the system for better clarity.

-m61-m64: you should include a crescendo, as the track heavily builds up in this phrase of 4 measures.

-m65: following the crescendo, this should have the f dynamic.

-m65+: for the single tied whole note in the right hand that plays throughout this part, I would recommend accenting or adding tenutos to the whole notes, and maybe add some form of text reference to state that the ostinato should be played quieter / decreasing the size of the ostinato notes to reference them being more of an accompaniment (might want to have an updater double check with the note size suggestion to see if it's kosher).

-m76 b3: Pretty sure the E2 is restrung here.

-m77: change the f dynamic to ff.

-m77 b1: add an A3 octave to the A4 tied note. Also technically the chord plays on b1.5 not b1, so you could write this out as A3/C4/A4 in the right hand.

-m81: change the mf dynamic to f.

-m81 b1: add a B3 octave to the B4 tied note.

-m83 b1: the left hand E2 is restrung, so you should untie the E2 from m82.

-m85: change the mp dynamic to mf.

-m85 b1: add a C4 octave to the C3 tied note.

-m87 b1: the left hand E2 is restrung, so untie the E2 from m86.

-m89: change the p dynamic to mp.

-m89 b1: add a B3 octave to the B4 tied note.

-m91 b1: the left hand E2 is restrung, so untie the E2 from m90.

-m97-m100: pretty sure this should be rewritten as this (in terms of notes, will require some tie adjustments / possibly include making the ostinato for this section crossstaffed, since there's a noteworthy melody above & the bass below):


-m101-m104: Instead of a decrescendo to ppp in m103, I would recommend extending the decrescendo to the last note of m104, and adding a "niente" dynamic (you will have to customly create the dynamic, but it basically represents a fade out to nothingness / 0 volume) right at the end.

Let me know if you have any questions.

[m16 + m25-28]

Wow I spent so long on this post that additional commentary has been made (some with duplicate feedback too)... I will say though that this will require a lot of fine tuning, and depending on how quickly you respond to feedback or make your own changes, it may be better to just shelf this for now and work on it on the side like how Static and Libera are suggesting. Thankfully a lot of it is repetitive in regards to the bassline or harmonies though, so it's actually not that time consuming to change everything. It's mainly just trying to come up with ways to adapt it to piano while maintaining the feel of the original song, and when the accompaniment is mostly the same throughout the entire song then it's easy to just copy/paste. The melody is mostly there

Before I get started, one thing that stood out to me was the text "Loops from Beginning." instead of a D.C. without a repeat bar. Also for future reference, you can bind text to a specific measure instead of the page by editing the frame attributes and changing it to the appropriate measure

Here are my thoughts about the current feedback:

• m1-8 LH I agree with Static in that the bass notes are restruck every measure, and that if anything you could just put accents on every other note instead of only having the top note repeat
• Regarding sost. playback, if you already have whole notes in a different layer then that is technically how it would sound, or at least a closer estimate. Using the sustained pedal playback makes the RH lose its separation
• Like Playful, I also hear a downbeat in measure 9
• m9-16 RH I agree with Static and that the harmonies sound like consistent minor thirds throughout (plus an additional 6 semitones below the lower one, but I'm less sure about that being consistent with some parts). It generally sounds like a transposed version of NOW'S YOUR CHANCE TO BE A, and that one is much easier to hear (I also checked with this one pitched up an octave to make sure that the notes were the same, and it sounds right to me for the most part)
• With that being said, there are a few suggested harmonies that I hear differently:
      * m12/16 beat 4 you actually wrote this incorrectly presumably because of the En's earlier in the measures, but those En's should still be Eb's
      * m13-16 those Db's (or En in your sheet) sound like Dn's to me
      * m13/15 beat 4 Bb sounds like Cb
      * m14 beat 4 Ab sounds like Gb
      * m16 beat 4 this is tricky to me because while it sounds like it could be a Bb playing on the bottom, it also sometimes sounds like Bbb to me (which would correspond with the diminished harmonies Static was talking about), and that would be the only (or one of the only) notes to break the pattern if it were a Bb. I think pitching it up an octave is messing with my brain at that spot because it seems more like Bbb when in its regular register (or maybe the regular register is messing with my brain?? idk)
  

And now for stuff that Static didn't cover already:
m16 + m25-28

• m16 beats 3-4 sound like staccato eighth notes instead of sixteenth notes
• m25-28 I would go back to staccato here instead of continuing with pedal usage. Or maybe just measures 25 and 26 while 27-28 use the same pattern you have for m17-24 (alongside an updated bassline in the future)
• m26 beat 3 I think it's more important to put the bass note here instead of the 5th; other than that I will ignore LH accompaniment suggestions as of now per your request
• m25/26 RH notes: these are also inverted diminished chords with the minor thirds and flat 5ths down below similar to measures 9-16; however in measure 25 it sounds like beat 1.5 might have a Bb below while 2.25 has an Ab below, even though that also breaks the pattern. I guess it doesn't matter which one is correct if you're not going to include it, but I'm just dumping my thoughts out anyways. Here's generally what I hear, omitting the lower notes from beats 1/3 (you could keep them all as dyads like you currently have):
  You cannot view this attachment.
  Even though I'm unsure about measure 25, I kept beats 1.5 and 2.25 as Ab-Dn-F for consistency. Also it may be better to just stick with flats and double flats like with the last chord instead of using those sharps, but idk
• m28 RH beat 2.5 missing Ab

m29-44

• m29-44 is a tricky section. For starters, where did you get the LH pattern from? Is that just inferred from the chords or is that something you actually hear? From what I gathered, the three different layers are:
• Melody:
  You cannot view this attachment.
  You have this already, except measure 31 should come in an eighth note early. Also I think the harmonies only come in at m41, but I'm unsure. And either way, they should stay as thirds below throughout (e.g. in m41 you wrote the last dyad as F-Bb instead of Gb-Bb)
• Bass:
  This is the same pattern Static mentioned, so I won't resend a picture
• Power of NEO motif:
  You cannot view this attachment.
  This is the weird part because it sounds like there are different layers of this playing at the same time and it's hard to tell

Now how can we bring those together? Well this kind of ties into the feedback regarding the accompaniment in measures 9-16/17-24 because of the bassline, so I'll leave that up to you to ruminate on. So far the blend sounds fine on the RH side, but it deviates too much from the original song (particularly with m37-44) in the LH

m45-m60

• I also think this section should keep the staccatos as that's very noticeable and distinct in the original
• Yet again, this includes the general diminished chord pattern like in m9-16. I'm only going to focus on note corrections for the top notes though
• m45-47 sound just like m9-11 or 13-15, so aside from the extra harmonies you're good there
• m48/52 beat 3.5 should be two sixteenth notes that go C-En; beat 4 sounds like Gb-En 32nd notes, then an Eb sixteenth note, then Bn eighth note (I'm unsure about the little 32nd note ornament though, and you could just simplify that anyways). I think Fb makes more sense overall but I guess you could continue with sticking to En if other people think that's okay if not better. I'm still not very well versed with enharmonic spellings
• m49 beat 4.5 missing An
• m51 beat 1 sounds like it should be lowered an octave, and 1.5 is missing an F an octave below the one on beat 2; beat 3 instead of a dotted eighth note, it sounds like it goes Db -> En -> Bb in descending order, although since that is quite the jump, you could omit the En and bring the Bb up an octave
• Altogether it sounds like this to me:
  You cannot view this attachment.
• m53/55/57/59 beats 4.25 and on sound like Ab-An-Bb instead of Ab-Bb-Db
• m53-59 unlike m45-52, the harmony notes sound right here, but I think you should add the flat 5th's here too (so Abb and Bb on beats 1 and 2 respectively), and then maybe some harmony notes on beats 3.75-end of measures 54/58
• m60 I think separating the dynamics here is a little redundant when the performer would naturally try to bring the melody out

m61-68 are the same as m17-24, so moving on...
m69-end

• I know I said I would avoid commenting on the accompaniment, but I just want to note that the bassline is the same here even though the melody/harmonies changed. So whatever you do, I would recommend keeping the Bb as the center focus at least on beat 1
• m69-72 I would personally include the harmonies in that main melody here too
• m69+ beats 1-2 instead of eighth notes, they sound like repeated sixteenth notes to me (the one starting beat 2.25 is less noticeable but it still sounds like two separate attacks)
• m70/74 beats 3-4 and beats 1-2 of measure 72 sound slightly more connected due to the added instrument playing, so I would recommend omitting the staccatos and tying the sixteenth note to an eighth note (see picture below)
• m72 beat 3 sounds like two sixteenth notes; beat 4 sounds like two sixteenth F's and then a D eighth note. Also these are the harmonies I hear, but I'm unsure
  You cannot view this attachment.
• m76 you're missing out on two(?) extra harmony lines, and the one you wrote didn't go up chromatically all the way through. It is unclear to me, but I think this sounds close:
  You cannot view this attachment.
  
• m76 I think it would be nice to include a dynamic marking on beat 4.75 (as included in the picture above)
• m77/78 beat 4 sounds like an eighth rest instead of a tied Gb
• m78 beat 1 the two Bb's sound like a swung eighth + sixteenth note instead of an eighth note and grace note. Also I would omit the staccato on the first note

Whew, I think after this a lot of it is just creative decisions instead of outright errors with notes/rhythms (except for some I may be incorrect on or others I might have missed during this check)

We both went through everything but the contents of the last page (m69+) over on discord. Includes a lot of fixes in harmonies / pitches which caused a lot of the difference of opinion previously, so now it should definitely look at lot more presentable / accurate.

Wanted to post an updated version just so what's currently shown isn't accurate to the current progress of the changes.

Edit 2021/09/30 2AM: Ok *now* we went through everything, including the last page.

My point was, you shouldn't expect us to have to help you though the entire arranging process in the sub board - submissions should be as polished as you can make them on your own. I've pointed out several note-related errors already. I know it's tempting to submit things immediately for new games, but it's not always such a good idea for these big pieces. Anyways...

Honestly though even before submitting I didn't really think there were many significant changes that would've been needed before starting the process in itself. And the stuff that did change I did pretty early on before receiving feedback. Maybe instead of starting as it was initially it would've started out here, but I don't think it would've been more developed beyond this point is what I mean.

Have you tried raising this up an octave in Audacity/Audiostretch? The bass sounds restruck to me, and it's not just drums. The attack of the note is pretty firm. It's not as noticeable when hearing it in the normal octave.

Hm, I think it might be two instruments playing? One does it every measure and the other does it every two measures. Because I definitely hear something much different (including in the octave up audacity) for measures 1/3 vs. 2/4. Maybe it's something like a tied Bb2 and an untied Bb3?

The playback would be how it's written - the melody is played short and the chords are held. The senza pedale marking in m9 could be moved up, it's pretty far away from the staff.

Fixed the senza pedale placement (whoops I had it positioned forgetting that I hid an mf), but I meant in terms of like finale playback as just a personal reference.

I can understand the crescendo, but m9 still sounds like it's at a lower dynamic to me, especially compared to m17. I think it would make more sense if you started the piece with forte in m1, crescendo in m8 to a mezzoforte in m9, then go back up to forte in m17.

Actually not a bad idea. Changed (also removed the accents in reference to the forte addition).

I'm still not convinced this is really an accurate interpretation, but if you insist on using them, I would not have them in 2+ consecutive 16th notes (just try playing it). Just have them right on beat 3, not 3.25. Also, m10-12 are missing the En on beat 2.25.

When you mean consecutive 16ths do you mean in terms of the dyad or of two 16ths of the same pitch in a row? Because I don't see any case of the latter excluding m20/m24 (as to avoid crossing with the right hand). And if you mean the former, I thought that two repeated sixteenths in a 1-5-8 block chord (not sure how to call it) is a fairly common pattern in music.

At least on finale's end, there's no missing En in the right hand that I can find. Do you mean I should include a courtesy natural?

Also regarding this part, the notes on beat 1.5 (the tied notes) I hear as short in the original, quite so. Just a staccato 8th note would work here.

Just realized now confusing decimal beat nomenclature can be, haha. I'm assuming you're talking about the right hand here and not the left. Fixed.

To be honest, it might be a good idea for you to have some time to work on this at your own pace and resubmit it later. I'd be willing to help you if you want, but I don't think the submissions board is really the place for that - at least not in this current state. Maybe another updater can weigh in on this, but that's just how I'm feeling with this one.

Again here's the thing though (also referring to Libera). In my perspective of the current arrangement as is, I would've viewed it as "completed" and submitted it. I might've done a rundown through the whole thing to fix inconsistency errors with like #/b or formatting, but overall I wouldn't have come up with a lot of the feedback you gave on my own honestly (regarding the dynamics, or the sost pedal, or even some of the note pitches due to how fast paced and dissonant the track is).
I am definitely willing to get through this whole thing though, especially in part because I don't think my arrangement has had the same roadblocks some of my past arrangements have had in terms of like incorrect instruments/pitches to focus on arranging (beyond the heart)or over-reliance on a midi (quicksand pit). Like outside of the left hand (which if push comes to shove I'll just shift the dyad by a 16th beat leftwards in b1 and then it'll more or less be fine), I don't think the melodies I've been grabbing or the notes are all that inaccurate or poor for a piano performer.

Updated, and I did do another double check through the sheet trying to spot any other inconsistencies in note pitches or note overlaps. Plus fixing some more formatting issues I missed earlier.

I'm going to be a bit frank here and just say, this really will need a lot of work... parts of this arrangement feel like they were rushed. I hope you're willing to work though this one, but I have a lot to say. Let's start with m1-24:

Yeah I expected as much since I did try to upload this for the algorithm on YT expecting a good amount of fixes through here. Albeit I do think overall it's not that bad outside of some visual errors / note inconsistencies.

• Page 1: Right off the bat, I'm seeing a lot of collisions between rests and accidentals. These should go away by just clicking on each measure.
• Staccato markings should align with the center of the notehead, not the stem. See this post for details on how to fix that.
• One thing I would advise strongly against is using staccato markings on tied notes. It can be very unclear sometimes and is just more clutter than necessary. Just use a 16th note here with no staccato mark; you can also use a 16th note for beat 2.25:
  

Fixed everything here, didn't do the 16th for b2.25 though since it's not going across a beat and imo is fine to keep as an 8th then.

• m1-8 LH: The Bbs in the bass are restruck every measure, they're not tied. In addition, there are no notes in between the octave Bbs. Those additional low notes make the LH part sound kinda muddy, especially in m7-8. Those extra chord tones should just be in the RH.

I definitely hear on playback the Bbs being played every two measures, not every measure. The low notes were there mainly to put more emphasis on the chord, but if you believe they're too muddy then I'll remove them.

• All the E naturals in m1-8 RH would be better written as Fbs to stay consistent with the melody (except for m8 beats 3-4).

Fixed all cases of Fb/En inconsistencies to be standardized to En. At least I believe I did.

• The Eb in Layer 2 of m4/8 RH should be Fb.

Fixed.

• For m1-8, I would explicitly say to use the sostenuto pedal (usually indicated in the score as just sost.). This is the pedal that allows some notes to be held (i.e. the chords), while the melody can still be played separated.

Added the pedal marking, although just as a personal reference it's just con pedale renamed to that to keep playback consistent on my side of things (idk if there's a way to apply sost in finale through playback).

• I really don't like commenting on arrangement styles or techniques unless I have to, since everyone will have their own preferences on how to do things - and that's completely normal and fine. However, I don't think constant pedal usage for m9-16 really gets the same vibe across that the original track does. The original track is very percussive, light, and detached in this section - not really how I would describe your arrangement of those 8 bars. You even have a crescendo going in to m8 when it sounds the opposite to me - there's a drop in energy here compared to the more powerful intro.

In regards to the crescendo specifically, it's meant to mimic the buildup entering the m9-16 phrase from the crash cymbal. I also figured that the more animated phrase should be somewhat louder, hence making its dynamic forte.

So what would I suggest instead? Something that emulates the drum track more, while also borrowing from the original bassline that Kricketune mentioned. Let's see how this could work.[/li]

• Let's start with what the drums are doing. I wrote this in a piano staff, but the lower notes represent the kick drum, while the upper notes (dyads) represent the snare. There's some variations in the original with some added fills, etc. but this is the basic pattern:
  
  Your current LH part sort of follows this, but the snare/bass hits don't really line up with the original, giving it a different feel. This part is much simpler, but also more intimate and light feel.
• The original bassline is a little bit different than what Kricketune posted (though very close), it's this:
  
• So the next step would be to combine these parts. Here's how I would do it:
  
  It combines the rhythmic groove of the drums, some of the additional notes of the bass, and even keeps in the cool blues lick at the end of m10/etc. I think that lick adds a lot to the style of the tune. In addition, it's much easier to play since it all spans basically one octave, and it keeps the style and groove of the piece intact. The range is also less muddy than just the bassline by itself, staying within the same range as the current LH part. My point here is that there are other ways to write an accompaniment that still aren't 1:1 transcriptions, but also still help preserve the style. I would highly suggest using this LH pattern, or something similar.

We talked about this in discord earlier, and I want to save this as like the last change possibly after doing fixes to the rest of the arrangement.

• The RH part of m9-16 sounds much different to me. Even of the melody of the original isn't quite in tune, writing in all those minor 2nds sounds very strange on the piano, much more dissonant than the original.
• All Ens should be spelled as Fbs here.
• m9 actually doesn't have a note on the downbeat.
• m10 beat 4 should be C-Eb instead of Bb-Eb.
• m12 beats 3-4 should be voiced in minor thirds (Gn-Bb, Eb-Gb) instead of minor seconds.
• With all this information taken into consideration, this is how m9-12 should look:
  
  Spoiler

  

  [close]
  Note how I removed the Bbs in from that LH pattern on beat 3.5 of m9-11 since they're doubled in the RH.
• m13-16 should look exactly the same as m9-12, except there is a note on the downbeat of m13. The added vocal line makes it sound like there's additional harmonies, but there actually aren't any. However, I would agree that adding some additional RH harmonies helps distinguish this section. This is how I would do it:
  
  Spoiler

  

  [close]
  I only added harmonies to certain accented notes in the melody - this is to avoid very fast 16th note dyads and repeated 16th notes when they aren't really necessary and make the sheet way more difficult than it needs to be. Keep in mind this is a pretty fast tempo. The dissonance of beats 3-4 of m16 comes from implied diminished harmonies, rather than minor 2nd intervals.

Overall I do honestly hear it to be that dissonant with the minor 2nds, especially when listening to the original at a slower pace. Although maybe not in every case. I did a small edit after listening to it again.
I definitely hear the downbeat in m9. It's definitely quieter than in later measures but it's there, albeit hidden a bit by the bass.
Fixed m10.
Fixed m12/16's wrong intervals.
Fixed the wrong notes in m13-m16 but kept the minor 2nds in some spots.

• m17-24 RH: Pretty much just follow my feedback for m1-8 RH, same stuff here.
• m17-24 LH: This is actually where I keep continue using the LH pattern that you have - however this would mean using the pedal for this entire section. That means you can make the RH non-staccato (just tie everything as you did in your earlier drafts):
  
  The difference here is that the first snare hit lines up with the original on beat 1.5 instead of 1.75, and the 16th notes better match up with the bassline, while still being in the upper register.

Hopefully this is helpful at least a little bit. If you want any clarification or have any questions, let me know.

Did the same changes here, but kept the left hand intact for now.

Updated.

As far as the B section goes, like Playful said, I'm hearing the LH very differently. Here's what I'm getting for m9 and m10, for example:
https://imgur.com/a/E4cRQBT.jpg
I left out the 16ths because I'm not hearing them super prominently. IMO it sounds a bit too busy with them written out, but it's up to you if you want to include them.

Yeah this is definitely sort of the thing I'm hearing in the left hand. Actually here's what my take would be on how the B section should look like, more or less:



Also slight addendum: change the A part to mp, and the B part to mf. I noticed after listening back that the volume of the track definitely increases during the B part.