Messages

[accepted]

Ah, I missed the intro being used for both versions. As for the other stuff, fine by me given your word is law

accepted

Nice job! I don't have a lot to say on this one:
-I've been looking at the bass a bit considering different options for yes/no 8va, but I haven't come to a great conclusion yet haha. My initial thought for checking it was m23-30, which is (mostly) pretty high to really need an 8va marking. Personally I can read the whole thing without 8va pretty well too, but granted it's a lot in ledger line territory too. Another line of thought I had was making the 8va optional, as the song works pretty well too without 8va. Anyway just spitballing here a bit, feel free to do with it what you want :p

I decided to leave the 8va in, as the performer can always ignore it if that's more to their taste.

-Maybe you could put m19 to m34 in Eb major? The chords are a leaning towards Eb/Cm in the first half already, but in m19-34 it definitely strayed further away from C major.

I decided against this too as this section never really settles on Eb major, easiest to leave no key sig accidentals instead.

-m11-12: I think the chord here is just an Ab (so no maj7), I can't really hear a G anywhere except for the bass at the very end. You could then change the G to an Ab in m11 beat 4.5 R.H.

We relistened and both hear the G in the guitar part, so that has been left in too

The rest is updated   Thanks for reviewing!

Nice work, just one thing before I accept:

Each individual track must have its own time signature, [...] tempo marking, and dynamic indication preceding the track, regardless of length. [...] Measure numbers should reset as a new track begins.

-m91 beat 1.5: Personally I think the layer 2 G here distracts from the melody and it's pretty quiet in the original, thoughts on taking it out? In our Discord sessions I recall removing a lot of other similar background notes that repeat melody notes.

I moved this down an octave instead

I proposed these 3 options in Discord but I'll reshare them here:

We're still awaiting others' thoughts...

[looks good]

Perfect, that's my preferred option too! The rest looks good to me

[Accepted]

Thanks for making the changes! Accepted!

That's a tricky spot to hear. I wasn't sure either - neither of them were sounding quite right to me, so I sought a third opinion from a friend and he heard it as Gn/Cn to A/C#. That sounds the most right to me so far... thoughts?

I'm hearing G# and B# to A and C#, but if you prefer you could write it as G#/D# to A/E to sound less muddy on the piano. Whichever option you prefer, but it's definitely G# for the low note!

- Thoughts about using an Ab in the chord of m. 20, similar to the measure prior?

I hear the string synth play Eb-Ab-C6 in m19 and C-Eb-G6 in m20, so I think it makes more sense as is. The rest has been changed though!

(It's cool how far this piece deviates from its home key of C)

Yes! I love how it takes you through so many chords, back to back to back

• In similar vein at m72 and 80, maybe you could hide the tie in RH 2nd layer between 2.5 and 3.0 (can have both layers' ties overlap visually).

I don't think I agree with this, I think it should be clear the notes are tied in each layer

The other changes have been made, thanks for reviewing

Just need to finalize my thoughts on some spots where it's a bit more arranged, but I don't want to be too driven by personal preferences.

If you have any thoughts by all means share them!

- The cross-staff beams in m. 44-47 could use a bit of adjusting, in particular having m. 46 first half angle up and maybe adding a bit more space between staves so the latter ones in m. 45/47 don't overlap the top staff?

I don't think there's enough vertical space available to move them outside the staff, but you're right about the angles being off so I adjusted those

- (I do think crediting the dads in the special thanks section is a bit excessive ahaha)

This was a joke and has been removed (forgot)

[approve]

If you're copying/importing them from somewhere, it might have reset? At least, adding them fresh hasn't caused any issues for me personally yet.

I will approve but just realised that the second intro will need its own time signature and opening dynamic. Everything else looks great!

Welcome back!

• m11 beat 1 LH: I hear this in octaves like m9
• m16: The clef change in the RH should be placed after the repeat barline
• m17: is the idea here that each hand plays a different dynamic? If so, they should be placed around the first notes, outside the staff
• We've recently updated our formatting guidelines, could you update your tempo marking to match them? (Notehead: MaestroTimes, 16pt, symbol Œ; Numbers and equals: Times New Roman regular, 12pt; Text: Times New Roman bold, 14pt)

I'll get to m33+ once the above has been looked at!

Sorry about the wait!

• 'Go To Measure 2' is good, but I think 'To Measure 2' would be better, to match common directions such as 'To Coda'
• The stem of RH m7 beat 3.5 should face downwards
• Your tempo markings should be updated to match our new formatting guidelines (noteheads: MaestroTimes, 16pt, symbol Œ; numbers and equals: Times New Roman regular, 12pt, Text and parentheses: Times New Roman bold, 14pt)

Nice work on this! I have three small comments:

• The instrument label is off-centered (in the PDF at least)
• The last slur in the lower RH voice is a little too curved, I think Finale will readjust it to something more sensible if you move the rightmost handle down a little
• Like the others I implore you to think about keeping the cello in its original octave. It's quite odd to do it only for those select three measures and it gets in the way of the otherwise clear melodic lines.

x

It's been a year, so I'm going to archive this one for now. Please resubmit once you're available to respond to feedback!