Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Undertale
Game: Deltarune
Console: PC
Title: Field of Hopes and Dreams
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: WaluigiTime64

[WaluigiTime64]

Sounds much better with pedal. This is probably the first case where I playtested the sheet fully before finalising it.

[Libera]

Did you get duped, or are you trying to dupe us?

Still unable to check thoroughly, but a few things:

-I think in bars 45-52 the right hand would be better just in bass clef rather than 8vb treble (which is pretty non-standard.)
-The simplified LH is fine in most places, but there are a some moments that I feel would benefit from including the bass movement from the original.  The bit that caught my attention was bars 33-38 but there may be others.
-The difference in the original between bars 1-8 and is quite striking and I feel like it might be better to have p -> mf instead of mp -> mf just to make that difference a little bit more noticeable.
-Is the optional LH at the end a creation of your own?  I'm not hearing it anywhere in the original.  I'm interested to know your reasoning for including it, but that doesn't mean I think it's an issue (just curious ).

Nice work.  I'll probably have more to say later when I'm able to.

(Oh and could you post some links in the arrangement thread for completeness? )

[WaluigiTime64]

Did you get duped, or are you trying to dupe us?

No idea what you're talking about, but yes.
ha! goteem... i think..?

-I think in bars 45-52 the right hand would be better just in bass clef rather than 8vb treble (which is pretty non-standard.)

The problem is how the sax ranges from D near Low-C to Bb near High-C. With either just a bass clef or treble clef, you're getting 4 leger lines. I don't like using an 8vb on a treble clef either, but it looks much better than other options (that aren't literally using an alto clef lol).

-The simplified LH is fine in most places, but there are a some moments that I feel would benefit from including the bass movement from the original.  The bit that caught my attention was bars 33-38 but there may be others.

Around that phrase the LH I put is rhythmically the same (nearly), though I guess I could play around with the pitches a bit. It'd add more learning time, but the effect might be worth it.

-The difference in the original between bars 1-8 and is quite striking and I feel like it might be better to have p -> mf instead of mp -> mf just to make that difference a little bit more noticeable.

At the start it's just an EQ filter over the piano (I think), but I was debating this and really, I agree. Changed.

-Is the optional LH at the end a creation of your own?  I'm not hearing it anywhere in the original.  I'm interested to know your reasoning for including it, but that doesn't mean I think it's an issue (just curious ).

I made it up purely because the actual LH part is so difficult (but I didn't want to butcher it in a simplification). I could toss around different ideas if people want me to.

(Oh and could you post some links in the arrangement thread for completeness? )

Yeah I probably should've done that earlier (thanks for reminding me actually!).

[LifeMushroom]

Can't wait for this sheet, it's one of my favorites

[PlayfulPiano]

Quick listen:
-Doesn't m11 go upwards in its melody in some form?
-m13's 3rd beat has an upward scale besides the trill, not sure if it's possible to incorporate this though.
-I'm pretty sure m43 has some whole note in the left hand upon playback. Not exactly sure which note though.
-m44's mesopiano should arguably be a crescendo into a forte? for the sax solo based on what I've heard.
-Following in Libera's example, I'd argue that the left hand for the sax solo section (m45-m52) should have a different rhythm instead of the one you've written. Something similar to the original right hand rhythm of the first few measures of the right hand might work out really well here, but positioned at the current octave that you currently wrote in.
-It might be a better call to split the repeat for m52 so you could possibly play the piano and sax solo together for repeat #2.
-Adding in a single note for the sax melody combined with the piano melody for m53+ might be possible too.
-Midi repeats break upon D.C.

Overall though, really nice work! Sounds amazing when synced up with the original.

[Latios212]

Just checking you're still alive.

For your optional left hand part, try this instead:

Spoiler

[close]

The last measure of it is missing the end barlines as well.

[Libera]

Bump for Wah.

[Brassman388]

Superbump for Wah

[LeviR.star]

I talked to him; he says he needs to reinstall Finale or something and can't do it right now, but he forgot to mention it here.

[Static]

I edited some things, like the measure distribution, adding slurs to some of the grace notes, general spacing/formatting stuff, and notes are all good as well. I've updated the files accordingly. I just have a few general arrangement comments, but not much that wasn't already stated:

• m9-16: Already mentioned by Libera, but I would strongly consider adding in the upper voice here. If you're concerned about keeping the voicing, maybe get rid of the repeat to have the upper layer on the 2nd time through only to give the piece some more contrast and variety.
  
• m45-52 LH: You might want to consider thinning out the LH here since both hands are in the low register. Maybe get rid of the upper octave notes on beats 2 and 3.5.

If you still don't have access to Finale, just give me the word on what changes you want to see implemented and I'll go ahead and edit the files further.

[WaluigiTime64]

I'm great at this "responding" thing, aren't I?

I edited some things, like the measure distribution, adding slurs to some of the grace notes, general spacing/formatting stuff, and notes are all good as well. I've updated the files accordingly.

Oh my. Thank you!

m9-16: Already mentioned by Libera, but I would strongly consider adding in the upper voice here. If you're concerned about keeping the voicing, maybe get rid of the repeat to have the upper layer on the 2nd time through only to give the piece some more contrast and variety.

I'll be honest, it's all so confusing because the track has like, 4 piano channels which vary in volume independently.

I really only hear particular issues with the lack of the upper voice in M.11+12, so I put a few notes down in NotePad (did not update the files though, as the beams come back if you do this in NotePad.

m45-52 LH: You might want to consider thinning out the LH here since both hands are in the low register. Maybe get rid of the upper octave notes on beats 2 and 3.5.

I can see it going both ways (because I happen to like the bassy-ness of that section) but if other Updaters also want to change it then I'll happily let that happen.

If you still don't have access to Finale, just give me the word on what changes you want to see implemented and I'll go ahead and edit the files further.

It's been a while so I'm not sure if you're still bothered, but any Updater can feel free to update the files, because I'm bogged down with work right now. Apologies. Run things by me and I'll hopefully be able to give a "yes" or "maybe this instead".

(also maybe give a little attention to what Playful said a while ago)

[Latios212]

It's been a while so I'm not sure if you're still bothered, but any Updater can feel free to update the files, because I'm bogged down with work right now. Apologies. Run things by me and I'll hopefully be able to give a "yes" or "maybe this instead".

ahoy, 'tis me, I'm making some edits as listed below:

m45-52 LH: You might want to consider thinning out the LH here since both hands are in the low register. Maybe get rid of the upper octave notes on beats 2 and 3.5.[/li][/list]

I can see it going both ways (because I happen to like the bassy-ness of that section) but if other Updaters also want to change it then I'll happily let that happen.

Yeah, I think we could do without the fourths in the left hand - that sounds muddy, and the low single notes gets the point across well enough.

-I'm pretty sure m43 has some whole note in the left hand upon playback. Not exactly sure which note though.

Good catch. It's an Eb. The following measure is also missing the quick jab of an F to parallel the right hand.

For your optional left hand part, try this instead:

Spoiler

[close]

The last measure of it is missing the end barlines as well.

I fixed this too.

-It might be a better call to split the repeat for m52 so you could possibly play the piano and sax solo together for repeat #2.

I think this is a good idea to keep the piano lead-in to the following section.

-I think in bars 45-52 the right hand would be better just in bass clef rather than 8vb treble (which is pretty non-standard.)

The problem is how the sax ranges from D near Low-C to Bb near High-C. With either just a bass clef or treble clef, you're getting 4 leger lines. I don't like using an 8vb on a treble clef either, but it looks much better than other options (that aren't literally using an alto clef lol).

How about just treble clef? The first chord in m. 45 is pretty palatable since it's anchored by the B flat on top. The only other place that's pushing it is m. 51 beat 4, but it's still not so bad since you can read the fourth from the G below the staff. We could also change just that part to the end of the phrase to bass clef.

Other misc things:
- Made some margin adjustments to be consistent across all pages, and pushed a system off of page 2 (there's more space on the last page).
- m. 42 LH beat 4 should be C, not D


Looking over the rest of the sheet/comments, I think we're in pretty good shape, although I do have one final concern. The beat 1 and beat 3 chord on the first page - I don't feel like the contour is right with the top line descending from C to Bb; rather when I listen to the original I hear the C leading up to a D. As such I would recommend including the top D in m. 8 to create a Gm triad for the downbeats in m. 1-12. (There's also an F up top I think but we can do without that if you want.) I haven't made this change yet, but I feel we should.

[WaluigiTime64]

ahoy, 'tis me, I'm making some edits as listed below:

Ah, thank you!

Good catch. It's an Eb. The following measure is also missing the quick jab of an F to parallel the right hand.

Oops.

How about just treble clef? The first chord in m. 45 is pretty palatable since it's anchored by the B flat on top. The only other place that's pushing it is m. 51 beat 4, but it's still not so bad since you can read the fourth from the G below the staff.

Yeah actually that works quite nicely.

- m. 42 LH beat 4 should be C, not D

Oops.

Looking over the rest of the sheet/comments, I think we're in pretty good shape, although I do have one final concern. The beat 1 and beat 3 chord on the first page - I don't feel like the contour is right with the top line descending from C to Bb; rather when I listen to the original I hear the C leading up to a D. As such I would recommend including the top D in m. 8 to create a Gm triad for the downbeats in m. 1-12. (There's also an F up top I think but we can do without that if you want.) I haven't made this change yet, but I feel we should.

The transcribing gods using their powers to reveal what would otherwise not be heard.

I apologise, but I only hear it as a descending contour. I can barely hear the D at all (not even at M.8, though I'm probably misunderstanding something about that one). The only times I hear it as an ascending contour are between M.2-3, M.4-5, and similar, but when I do it's an ascension right up to that F. I believe the downward contour is actually supported by this F being present (and more prominent than the D, imo).



When you factor in both piano layers (with me making assumptions about this D), it's a descending pattern, and to me it wouldn't make sense to pick specific parts of each layer just to produce a different contour. One part about this piece which really adds to how mystical it feels is the ambiguity of the layers and of course that's going to be lost in a solo piano arrangement, so I'm just following what seems to make sense between all layers.

Sorry if it sounds like I'm fussing but I just don't hear it.


All the other edits are real good though, so thank you. I apologise for not being able to deal with this myself.

[Latios212]

No problem. I agree it's pretty ambiguous so I'm fine with what you chose; it's clear you've put enough thought into it. Thanks!

I approve.