Need help with Finale? Have a question about arranging? NSM Resources is the place to go!
Quote from: Toby on July 22, 2024, 04:22:08 AMCongrats !! Big achievement !!
LLF and NSM players have had a lot of cross over so I can't remember who represented who but I was a wild card for semis and got pulled in on a later phase but I'm sure Mashi made it straight through to semi finals. Not sure if that was NSM or LLF though.
Goodluck Oricorio, bring us a win !!
Quote from: Yug_Guy on July 22, 2024, 07:35:27 PMI think those are already on the notehead side (unless I'm looking in the wrong spot)(addressed on Discord, I now see it's a Finale version thing)
Quote from: Yug_Guy on July 22, 2024, 07:35:27 PMDouble-checked and it is an F#.Still hearing Gn but I wouldn't be surprised to be wrong, so I'm okay with keeping F#
Quote from: Yug_Guy on July 22, 2024, 07:35:27 PMI like the idea of these Ravel Ties, not sure how to implement them in Finale. Would appreciate some assistance with that.So from my own experimentation to replicate this at m42, you could use the note mover tool to move the notes to current positions, and also extend the ties to visually connect to the notes they are tying to. Unfortunately there are some restrikes on playback with this method, I thought maybe you could hide individual pitches and ties on beats but that is not possible.
Quote• m3 I would remove RH An's in the 2nd layer, it doesn't sound like they are restruck and that would be restriking the held An in the LHThis was referring to beat 4 of layer 2
QuoteFor m16 this run is a bit jumpy to expect a singular hand to pull off, and I don't think it's currently possible to play that first note on beat 2. I think you could play it swapping back and forth between LH and RH though (starting with LH), and removing the current LH part. You could get some cross stave action goin lol if you go that route. Open to seeing what you had in mind as wellDid you happen to have any thoughts here? I don't think this is a playable figure for the RH to do all those notes, let me know if you need a visual of what I initially described, because otherwise a gliss might be a workable alternative
Quote from: Static on July 20, 2024, 04:00:43 PMI hear that part the same as m17, 19, and 20. There is a descending voice in all of those measures, but I hear the ascending arpeggiated part more prominently and would prefer to keep it as written.Okay, I'm fine with keeping that arpeggiation
Quote from: Radiak488417 on July 21, 2024, 08:39:44 PM-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
Quote from: Radiak488417 on July 21, 2024, 08:39:44 PMI proposed these 3 options in Discord but I'll reshare them here:We're still awaiting others' thoughts...
Quote from: Bloop on July 23, 2024, 09:21:26 AMYou could do something like this together with a pedal mark, and have it continue into the current first 4 measures too:
Quote from: Bloop on July 23, 2024, 09:21:26 AMWe usually do use parentheses for optional notes yeah, but it's not something that is defined in formatting guidelines. It was an alternative I thought of myself, so I'd accept both ways ^^ It depends on what you prefer.
Quote from: Bloop on July 23, 2024, 09:21:26 AMEither way: the mordents you currently have are inverted mordents, we actually need the standard ones (so without the vertical line in the middle)Interestingly Musescore calls the mordent you were looking for a "short trill" and the inverted mordent I picked a "mordent"
Page created in 0.090 seconds with 17 queries.