NinSheetMusic Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  


Interested in contributing to the site? Give The Arrangement Formatting Guidelines and The Arranging Checklist a good read!

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 - XiaoMigros

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 23
Hi! Happy holidays to you too :)

Notes are looking pretty solid, there's just two things I found:
  • m5 b1.5 LH I hear Ab instead of C
  • m6 b1 RH I hear an F just below the G

Next is dynamics: Those are looking pretty good already, but I think the last system could do with another look at. The end doesn't sound that faint, but I'm not sure if a crescendo is warranted. It would also be nice to have a specific marking to end on? (I'm thinking p would be fine, but that's up to you)

The rest is formatting, I assume you're using Notepad so feel free to ignore the things you can't do:
  • Vertical spacing (not Notepad friendly): Title/subtitle and composer/arranger text markings are a little close together. You can also move the first system down a little, since there's a lot of free space to use. On the contrary, there's a bit too much blank space above the title and below the copyright, possibly due to conflicting page sizes when exporting the PDF.
  • Tempo marking: The text expression would look better in front of the BPM indication, and should be entirely bold. If you want, you can shorten it to just 'Rubato' as well, up to you.
  • The rit. marking should look the same as the tempo marking at the beginning (bold, 12pt), and can be moved further down.
  • The rolls seem a little misplaced at the moment, they look a little too long and collide with the barlines. I doubt this can be fixed in Notepad though
  • If you end up keeping the last hairpin, its end should also be adjusted so it doesn't collide with the barline.

- Something else I noticed: In most measures, the rhythm of the bassline has b4 as a 16 tied to a dotted 8, not a quarter note.
I assume this is omitted for playability reasons, hitting consecutive 16ths at this BPM would be kinda tough

- would it work if I changed the A's in the LH hand to F-sharps to match. m8?
That looks fine to me!

- I never know what to do here, because while it would seem to be more efficient, I've always been told to break dotted eighth rests in common time
I've heard both ways too, but

- so it's my understanding that you approve? I got lost when you started talking about the melody, but I think I got the gist of it
Yeah, I think I was just talking about what all the instruments were doing but that doesn't really matter now, what you have here works fine

- size 14 seems like it would be too big for my liking, but maybe it's that my page size (set to 95%) is scaling everything down with it
That might be it then

- yes, but I prefer to have the harmony moving along with the melody, so that's why I let it come in on beat 4
That's what I wanted to check :)

Help Guides / Re: Formatting in MuseScore 4: How to get 97% accurate
« on: December 23, 2022, 05:52:05 PM »
why did it reply and not modify aaa

placeholder i suppose

Request / Re: [SWITCH] Xenoblade Chronicles 3 - Remnants of Memories
« on: December 21, 2022, 01:11:06 PM »
I arranged the piano solo version, if you're still interested.

Request / Re: [SWITCH] Xenoblade Chronicles 2 - Counterattack
« on: December 21, 2022, 01:08:07 PM »
Libera has this on his Personal Arrangements Thread

This one was done by just Nagamatsu.

In measures 45, 47, 49, 51, I still hear an E on beat 4 (in the harpsichord).
I hear E(4) here too, FWIW

Submission Center / Re: Replacement Initiative
« on: December 19, 2022, 02:28:53 AM »
Decided to do Arkangelsk Dam; the two titles I found were either 'Dam' (what I went with) or something something long title USSR.


Help Guides / Formatting in MuseScore 4: How to get 97% accurate
« on: December 19, 2022, 02:25:11 AM »
So, since the last time I talked about MU4, it's been rolled out to millions of people (They're calling it a stable release, but that's debatable). I've also had more time to explore the limitations of this new program, which I'll talk about below! I've also provided some template files for you to use and/or play around with :)

In case you missed it, here's the link to my previous findings on MU4. In it, I mostly discussed the different features of MU4 and Finale, comparing them side by side and explaining what's possible, what's not, and what can be worked around. However, it's not super in depth and only really talks about hypotheticals.

This time around, I've gone and actually done all of the things I talked about, and much more:

1) The staff space
Finale displays sizes in your preferred units system™, whereas MuseScore uses a mix of both units systems and 'staff spaces', i.e. the distance between two staff lines. The latter system is often more helpful in context, but makes converting sizes and standardising them quite tedious. The first step was to define MU4's staff space, and thus its staff size, which turned out to be more difficult than expected. I don't remember exactly how I calculated it, but it seems to hold up when compared to Finale, so yeah. Based on the NSM 2019 Template file, a staff space in MuseScore is equal to 0.067 inches (There are exceptions).

2) Transferring engraving settings
The next step was to copy as many settings as possible from Finale's Document Options to MuseScore's Style window, again based on of the NSM Finale template. Most of this worked without any issues, but there were a few relevant points that weren't directly convertable:
  • There is currently no way to precisely change the distance between a beam's primary and secondary/tertiary components. MU4 offers a 'regular' and 'wide' setting, but both are marginally off from the desired size. This may be resolved in a future update.
  • There is no way to automatically place a courtesy clef on the left side of a repeat barline, MuseScore's engraving system places it to the right. Thankfully, MU4's spacing system allows for a workaround, which isn't too complicated but does take a fair amount of messing with.
  • Aside from choosing between the traditional and straight options, flags in MuseScore are currently not customisable. That said, I can't make out a visual difference between the flags of either notation program, so Finale's settings seem to partain to spacing, which I will touch on later.
  • MuseScore doesn't allow for customisable automatic placement of grace notes, so this isn't set to the Finale Standard, and would need to be manually tweaked each time.
  • Rests in multi-layered measures appear one staff space higher/lower in MuseScore than in Finale, with no customisable default for the former. Again, an easy manual fix and something that often has to be done manually in Finale as well.
  • Finale's lyrics system offers more advanced automisation, but MuseScore's holds up just fine on its own and can be manually adjusted as needed. The placement system has been improved since v3 and takes up less space.
  • Tuplets are less automatically customisable in than in MuseScore than in Finale, but MU4's system is good enough and allows for easy manual adjusting.
  • Finale allows you to shape and customise the piano brace, whereas MuseScore only lets you reposition it. This is probably the most noticeable visual inconsistency between the two programs, and one that I'm not expecting a fix for.
  • MuseScore places the brace within the margins, while Finale places it outside. Worth keeping in mind for the margin settings, which I'll touch on later.
  • MuseScore doesn't automatically break voltas, and the relatively clean workaround from MU3 is not yet integrated in MU4, meaning you have to workaround the workaround which is far less clean. I'm expecting the old workaround to work again in a future release. They also aren't right aligned the way Finale defaults to, so that would have to be done manually each time (though I don't really like the Finale way of doing this, the MuseScore way is more legible).

3) Page Margins
Using milimeters allows for more precise input, so the values are as follows: Top 12.7, Bottom 12.7, Right 12.7, Left 8.46 12.7.
Due to having to accomodate for the brace, the left margin is set a little lower than the others (my calculations never added up because the notation systems use different levels of padding, so this number is purely experimental). Consequently, text aligned to the center or to the left will need to be manually adjusted (Left +6sp, Center +3sp).
Alternatively you could ignore all of that and set the left margin to 12.7 as well, and just deal with the brace being placed on the wrong side of the margin.
Opening MuseScore again a day later, and it works.. differently? The brace is currently outside of the margins (v1.2) so no need for weird adjustments now...
The setting I recommend for the first system indent is 10sp (changeable under Style/Score).

4) Slurs, ties and other things
  • MU4 has a completely redone system for automatically placing slurs and ties, now it places them in regard to accidentals, other ties, and barlines. However, they are still less curved than in Finale and than is usually desired, so they will frequently need manually adjusting (quite buggy atm tho). Additionally, I couldn't find the value in Finale for the slur's thickness, so the current thickness in the MuseScore templates may be a little off.
  • I already talked about ottavas in my previous analysis, but there's still some things to keep in mind:
    • Text and line don't align nicely, and there is no way to change this default. You will have to fix this every time under Properties/Ottava/Text and mess with the vertical height values.
    • The hook for Ottava Bassas is flipped the wrong way (the style settings don't allow negative input) so you will have to go to Properties/Ottava/Style and add a minus to hook height.
    • Parentheses don't hug the ottava as nicely as in Finale (same with BPM text), and there isn't really a fix for that at the moment.
  • Things like tempo and repeat markings are aligned to the barline and not to the first note in the measure, and will need to be adjusted each time (setting default values misplaced a bunch of other stuff). If you add an expression to your BPM marking, that should be size 12 and bold (the rest should stay 10pt/regular). Recommended values for first BPM: horizontal 3.5, vertical -3.
  • Page numbers currently need a workaround to have their font size change (one of the more questionable points of the Formatting Guidelines, that I suspect often goes unenforced), but this is due to a bug that will probably be resolved at some point. Update (v1.3): I found another workaround, which is automatic and more reliable.
  • MuseScore also currently displays the repeat dots a little too low, which just means needing to adjust that each time you add a repeat (this issue is already fixed, just hasn't been rolled out yet)
  • Staff spacers' staff space is double that of the regular one, so halve all the values.

5) Downloads n templates n stuff

Here's an example of the template compared to the real thing: Finale v MU4 (template v1.1)

The template file is best kept under "*/MuseScore 4/Templates", where it will then show up under "Create from Template/My Templates". The Style file is best kept under "*/MuseScore 4/Styles", where it can be loaded by right clicking on a sheet's page, or from "Format/Load Style".
The style file is more lightweight and contains engraving rules and some page settings. It has the advantage that it can be applied to an existing sheet at any time. The template file on the other hand contains more detailed elements and is easier to make new sheets from. It doesn't include formatted composer/arranger text or a pre-positioned BPM marking, so if you want those you should create your sheet from within (a copy of) the template file itself.

Template itself:

     [v1.4 (template)]     [v1.4 (style)]

Older versions:

     [v1.3 (template)]     [v1.3 (style)]
     [v1.2 (template)]     [v1.2 (style)]
     [v1.1 (template)]     [v1.1 (style)]

  • v1.4 (12/23/22): Overhauled text positioning system, various other engraving adjustments
  • v1.3 (12/22/22): Page numbers are now automatically the correct size
  • v1.2 (12/20/22): Improved page margins + accompanying text positions, cleaned up the sheet's metadata to allow for a smoother import
  • v1.1 (12/19/22): Incorporation of staff size, page settings & engraving settings
  • v1.0 (10/25/22): Basic formatting adjustments and use of Finale Maestro music font

It seems (in the PDF at least) that the system placement has been messed up, just a heads up

  • Might I suggest leaving out the upper voice in the LH for the first system? Not only does this make it slightly easier to play but more importantly it provides a contrast to the next system where the lower pitch of that ostinato is more in the foreground. The marcatos in the RH are best placed above the staff (they follow similar rules to trills).
  • The RH figure in the second system and similar is missing articulation, could you add that?
  • To show a difference between the second and 4th systems, what do you think of having the RH play octaves the second time around (like the new strings do)?
  • In the 5th system, the performer can't really sustain the upper layer very easily at the moment. The first half looks manageable, but the second could use some work. Moving all the Es up an octave (or leaving them out) would do it?
  • The last system sounds a little empty compared to what's going on in the original. You could e.g. include the moving string line lowered by an octave, that would fit quite smoothly in the hand :)

I have decided not to nuke the site by submitting Ed Sheeran... for now

I can't find where the uploader sources the composer info from, but from what I can tell it's (somehow) quite accurate, so I went with what they put. I can change it to the entire team if needed, since there isn't yet a confirmed source.

The chords were surprisingly annoying to figure out but I think I got there in the end, though there may be a few places that need looking at. I've made lots of playability adjustments already, though more may follow...

  • For m8 personally I think having the tritone in there is fine, it's part of D7 after all, and it doesn't sound too muddy in that range imo (C3 and F#2). You could also move it up an octave like Whoppy suggested, and/or include the F# from the bass rather than the D from the guitar (the other guitar plays C). That's my two cents, it's up to you how you want to do this part!
  • In m9-m10 I can't hear any 7ths either, just the 9 like you have written.
  • For m11, guitars play D and C again, so one option would be writing this measure like the one preceding it, just as a 7th rather than an octave. This measure sounds different to m8, so however you arrange it I think that should be reflected. 2 other options I can think of are 1. write this measure the same as the ones surrounding it, just based from D or 2. to incorporate the bass. It's quite playable and would flow nicely from the previous measure (F to F#). I also would recommend changing the D in the RH on beat 1 to a C, just to get that extra flavor in :)
  • I don't hear a G in m12/16, only power chords + maj7th. Using Eb instead also gives the chord a more spread out sound. There's also a lower voice in m13/17 that plays G-F on beat 4.5-4.75, you could include that G if you want?
  • You can also change the rests in the RH of m15/19 to dotted eighths, though that's been recommended to me in the past I think it's somewhat optional
  • I think your LH figure in m21 works fine. One guitar plays Ds, raised by an octave on the beats you accented, and the other does the same but with Bbs instead (so that's probably too messy to include). The melody drops down and plays G on the first two beats you accented, and I think it's safe to include on the last beat too.
  • Not sure, but I think your page number is size 12 instead of the recommended size 14 (though I don't know how thouroughly this point of the formatting guidelines is actually enforced..)
  • Have you considered having the RH harmony of m4 kick in on beat 3? If you have considered it and decided against it, that's cool, just thought I'd bring it up anyway

Nice sheet! I like your take on this, but there's some stuff to work through before it's ready for the site..
  • The 'con pedale' marking is missing
  • I think it's worth differentiating between when piano and flute play in the RH, and when only the piano plays. The latter sounds softer, so maybe you could put it in a separate layer?
  • Although the strings sound smooth overall, I would accentuate the melody a little more, places such as m29-30, the first ties in m36, m51, and maybe some more that I overlooked. On the contrary, b3 in the RH of m35/m57 doesn't sound like a new note on b4.
  • In m26, what do you think of including the piano's 16th note figure at the end of the measure?
  • m42 b3 RH sounds like the top note is still E not F#
  • From m27 onwards, I feel like a lot of what you have written doesn't accurately represent the original:
    • Up to m34, I feel like the RH sounds a little too heavy, maybe removing some of the harmony would help with that. From m49 onwards I think having a heavy RH would be good, to reflect the brass that comes in around then.
    • There's also no incorporation yet of the difference in movement from m35 onwards, when the drums kick in. I would recommend at least reflecting this in the dynamics, though you could also have the LH change its intensity too.
    • I don't hear what you have written for m42 in the original, I would stick with showing the strings there. After that, up to m48, maybe you can include the piano as well as the strings?
    • Same comment about the piano from m65 onwards, I would also recommend sticking to the piano/strings formula for the second half of m68.
    • For m71-end, I think writing this part closer to the original octaves it's in would be good.
    • While I like the LH pattern you're using, I'm not sure how well it will go down with the updating team since it's not really that well reflected in the original, but I'll leave that to their discretion.
    [li]In general I think using more layers would help give this sheet a more insightful structure. You're including many different parts and that should be shown!
More to come from me once this has been worked through!

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 23

Page created in 0.114 seconds with 22 queries.