Count Batula — Hallowe’en Project Submission

[Khunjund]

Files: [MIDI] [MUS] [MUSX] [PDF]


A significant portion of the violin shredding has been altered for playability reasons.

[Khunjund]

Considering changing the character indication to just sinistro—not sure if the vivace part is necessary considering I have the metronome indication.

[Maelstrom]

I feel like tenutos are bad for getting across what you're trying to in m12. Maybe octaves with dotted tenutos? m17 has a similar shortness for the first one, but the 2nd 2 feel an appropriate fit for the tenuto.
-Something really funky is going on with m22's 2nd layer. Check out beat 3 again. Also in m30.
-I still hear 16ths in m53-76 instead of triplets.
-This one's up to you, but think this piece could look even better with more articulations. For example, m25 LH could have a slur-staccato on beat 3. Granted, it's not exactly playable in the RH, so it's still up to you if you want to move forward with it or not.
-The crec in m37 fees redundant when there already is one in m34
-I think the b1 LH of m41 isn't staccato. Same with b1 of m44.
-I don't like the swap of baselines in m46-49. This section is exceedingly difficult to play, as repeated 16ths at this spead are ... not easy. I bring this up in particular because you wrote 38-39 RH such as to avoid repeated 16ths.
-I think b3 of m50 is just 18ths, no 16ths. So, G->F
-Speaking of violin shredding, the simplification you have in m38-39 isn't much like the original:

I would recommend writing it like this, and replacing the repeated 16ths, and m50's triply repeated Cs, with 8th notes. Yeah, it might lose a bit of motion, but it's much more playable and way closer to the original.
-The beginning to the 2nd ending isn't really clear and I had trouble finding it at first. It's a big jump between them so notating it would make it easier for the performer. The page turn between the end of the 1st ending and the beginning of the 2nd also adds to the confusion.

edit: the DS also repeats forever

[Khunjund]

I feel like tenutos are bad for getting across what you're trying to in m12. Maybe octaves with dotted tenutos? m17 has a similar shortness for the first one, but the 2nd 2 feel an appropriate fit for the tenuto.

This one's up to you, but think this piece could look even better with more articulations. For example, m25 LH could have a slur-staccato on beat 3. Granted, it's not exactly playable in the RH, so it's still up to you if you want to move forward with it or not.

I think the b1 LH of m41 isn't staccato. Same with b1 of m44.

Yea, maybe dotted tenutos would be better. I'll go through it a second time to check for articulations.

Something really funky is going on with m22's 2nd layer. Check out beat 3 again. Also in m30.

Fixed.

I still hear 16ths in m53-76 instead of triplets.

I feel like the ones in the C minor pass are triplets, and it goes back to sixteenths when it shifts to D minor, but I kept them all as triplets to give it a slightly different feel compared to the first page. If someone else confirms it's all sixteenths, I might change it.

The crec in m37 fees redundant when there already is one in m34

Maybe so, but I generally feel like it's better to over-notate than under-notate.

I don't like the swap of baselines in m46-49. This section is exceedingly difficult to play, as repeated 16ths at this spead are ... not easy. I bring this up in particular because you wrote 38-39 RH such as to avoid repeated 16ths.

At first I had the bass and G alternating every time (so beat one of measure 45 was C>G>C>G instead of C>G>G>G, etc.), but I actually found it more playable and prettier like this. (Maybe I was a tad under the tempo, but I really have no problem if people take slight liberties with metronome indications in general.) The right hand repeated notes are difficult because the line jumps all over the place—it's much more manageable when the pedal tone is always at the same height and the non-pedal notes always fall on the same part of the beat, like they do here.

I think b3 of m50 is just 18ths, no 16ths. So, G->F

I had written it like that to keep the sixteenth note texture consistent, but I think keeping them as eighths is better—I should probably include every respite that's given to me in this piece, no matter how short lol. (What's an 18th note btw? )

Speaking of violin shredding, the simplification you have in m38-39 isn't much like the original:

I would recommend writing it like this, and replacing the repeated 16ths, and m50's triply repeated Cs, with 8th notes. Yeah, it might lose a bit of motion, but it's much more playable and way closer to the original.

Maybe I can make measure 38 more like measure 42 (at least beats 2 and 3), but I'd like to avoid breaking up the sixteenths wherever possible, and I think measure 39 is fine the way I have it—I just octaviated 4 Gs, after all. I also disagree about the repeated C in measure 50.

The beginning to the 2nd ending isn't really clear and I had trouble finding it at first. It's a big jump between them so notating it would make it easier for the performer. The page turn between the end of the 1st ending and the beginning of the 2nd also adds to the confusion.

That wasn't intentional; I just forgot to put it in.

edit: the DS also repeats forever

Fixed. I still don't know how to make the repeats and endings play correctly after the D.S. though.

Thanks for the feedback; I'll be updating the files shortly.

[Maelstrom]

I listened again and I still hear 16ths, loud and clear. They pretty clearly line up with the RH notes, imo. I'll leave it up to the next updater to check.

Maybe you could move beat 1.5 in m50 up an octave? Idk what else I can suggest there. I still strongly feel that your version of m38-39 does not capture the original. What sets the original apart there is how it swaps between high-low-high-low and high-low-low-high and writing it as you have completely removes that feeling. I don't think it's much harder to play than than m50 as you have it now, personally.

My biggest issue with the bassline in m46-69 is that the harpsichord is not prominent enough to warrant the sudden change. When I listen to the piece, I didn't even notice that the harpsichord was doing something in the background until you wrote it in. Upon closer inspection, it's not even correct. It's far more complicated than you wrote it. As far as I can tell, there's no repeated notes in it. At all. And one final case against it - the transition back to the chords in m50 doesn't really make sense because the harpsichord doesn't actually go away in the original. It's still there, doing it's own crazy thing. I just feel like it makes more sense to follow the same voice through instead of leaving an island of difficulty right in the middle.

[Khunjund]

Files have been updated.

[Maelstrom]

I can't argue with what you have in m38-39.

What do you think about what else I said about the harpsichord bassline? Again, it cannot possibly be left as is because it doesn't accurately follow the harpsichord anyway.

[Khunjund]

Again, it cannot possibly be left as is because it doesn't accurately follow the harpsichord anyway.

Oh really? Well, best I can tell, the harpsichord does this over these four measures:

So what could I doto persuade you to let me keep it? Drop it down an octave and use it as-is for the left hand part? That's close enough to what I did, so should I just add a little flourish in measure 47 like the original?
Perhaps I should instead do something like this?

But I have to say, I quite like my version with the repeated Gs. And anyway, with very few exceptions all the harpsichord is doing is alternating doubling the bass line (except the final beat of measure 49) and playing filler notes, of which literally all except two (the Cs in measure 47) are Gs, so I really don't see the problem with what I did—it just makes the bassline cleaner. Moreover, you yourself said you couldn't even make out the harpsichord at first, so what could it possibly matter if I match all the notes perfectly; my intention first and foremost was to keep the frantic energy uninterrupted while the right hand takes a few measures to be more melodic. Also, you say this makes it an island of difficulty in the piece, but I simply disagree: much of the piece is already technically demanding, so even if those measures end up being the most difficult, it won't be by any large margin.

[Maelstrom]

I don't mean to misrepresent your argument, but are you arguing that since a voice isn't well heard, that's an excuse to ignore the original in favor for what you want to do when the original is actually easier to play? Because that argument makes little sense to me. I don't feel comfortable approving this as it stands now. I welcome a second updater to weigh in on this.

[Libera]

I welcome a second updater to weigh in on this.

I think I agree with Maelstrom here.  I think it'd be more consistent and would be far easier for the performer keeping the left hand the same through those four bars.

my intention first and foremost was to keep the frantic energy uninterrupted while the right hand takes a few measures to be more melodic.

I don't think this is a problem since the original backs off a bit for those four bars anyway with the melody.  Yes the harpsichord is still playing semiquavers but it really is very quiet, so it doesn't stop those four bars from sounding like the energy backs off a little.  To me it sounds like a momentary respite before the melody begins it's craziness again and so I don't think it's a problem if the sheet reflects that.

[Khunjund]

I don't mean to misrepresent your argument, but are you arguing that since a voice isn't well heard, that's an excuse to ignore the original in favor for what you want to do when the original is actually easier to play? Because that argument makes little sense to me. I don't feel comfortable approving this as it stands now. I welcome a second updater to weigh in on this.

My argument was simply that regarding the harpsichord, the rhythm and the G pedal are both more important elements than the actual curve of the line. As is stands now, I've done away with the curve of the harpsichord line and incorporated these two elements into the bass line.

At any rate, I've heard it said before that ultimately this is my sheet, and so if no one has any other ideas on how to add a nod to the harpsichord part, I do believe I will be keeping it as is. You might have a slight disagreement regarding my arranging choices, but I think the quality of this sheet is more than acceptable to be uploaded to the site.

[Static]

In my opinion, I think that LH accompaniment in 46-49 is actually fine, and I prefer it to just the regular octaves. The most important part in that whole page is keeping the constant 16th note feel to drive the music forward, and the listener has already heard that LH melody in the previous measures (and will hear it more prominently again after 49). I don't think varying up the accompaniment is a bad idea for a dramatic piece like this. My main point though is just having the 16ths be there at all, and I would rather there be 16th notes in the LH than none at all. However, I think it might be good to mark the LH there as p or mp.

[mastersuperfan]

I think both ways are fine, but I'm siding a little more with Khunjund and Static here. Keeping the same bassline and not having any rhythms faster than quarter notes leads to a very abrupt halt in the momentum of the sheet. Unlike Libera, I hear m46-53 as a climactic phrase of greater intensity, rather than a lull or a break.

That said, I do think it's a bit strange that the LH changes rhythm for 4 bars and then reverts back to the same bassline it had earlier. I think that adding something like this to m50-53 would preserve the rhythmic momentum/consistency of the LH a little more:

Image

[close]

I would like to echo Mael's thoughts that this current bassline seems really hard to play, but I'm also by no means an experienced pianist myself, so I'm not sure. If you think that it's easier to play than the alternatives (either moving the 3rd sixteenth note down to the bass, or moving the 3rd sixteenth note down an octave), then I think this is the best solution as is.

[Khunjund]

Sorry, I don't believe I will be making either of those changes. I considered adding a p or mp marking, either as-is or in brackets, or writing espressivo or cantando next to the right-hand, but ultimately I don't think it's necessary considering the writing of these measures. (I might change my mind later, but for now that's how it is.) Next, I'm not a fan of MSF's suggestion, because I think it makes things too inconsistent: I'm fine with interrupting one bass pattern with a second to spice things up a bit, but then reverting to a third hybrid pattern I believe is too much.

[Static]

• You should consider writing in explicit articulations in m9-16 RH. Most notes are staccato, but some (m12 beat 2, m16 beats 2-3) aren't. Also applies to m62-76 RH.
• Beat 3 of m18 RH sounds like it should be staccato 8th notes.
• Beat 3 of m48 RH sounds like it should be staccato as well, you might want to put that in to differentiate those notes from the 8th notes in m49.
• m54, 56, etc. LH should have 16th notes instead of 8th note triplets. I'm not sure if you put triplets to make that part easier to play with the 16ths in the RH, but I'd argue that a fast 3:4 pattern like that is harder to play. I'd just use normal 8th notes instead for that purpose (or just leave it as 16ths).
• Typically, pickup measures are not included in D.C. directions anyway, so you can just use that instead of D.S. Up to you though, since the D.S. makes it very clear where to go.
• Your page numbers/titles and copyright info are outside the margins.

Edit: I forgot to add this to the post, but I'm fine with how you've written that m46 section.