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: Fire Emblem
Game: Fire Emblem Awakening
Console: Nintendo 3DS
Title: "And what if I can't? What if I'm not worthy of her ideals?"
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Libera

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Libera]

Hey it's me Libe with a new Fire Emblem sheet.

[Latios212]

Yayy, I always loved the chords in this one.

- I'm not hearing the high D at all in measure 4.
- First chord of m. 6, 7, and 28 should be rolled.
- For measure 8 I'm getting something pretty different in terms of layer differentiation (and also a rhythm) - how about something like this:

Spoiler

[close]

- I'd highly recommend a double barline between m. 8-9 and 24-25.
- Right parenthesis in m. 9 interferes with the other notes. Try moving the parentheses up a bit
- I would remove the tied F in m. 14 since this is just a piano sheet. It'd neaten things up a bit without losing any clarity of execution.
- Personal preference but I would suggest keeping the chords on the lower staff for m. 15-16 for a couple reasons - avoiding the cross staff lines, interfering with the melody notes, and most importantly you lose the visual continuity of the chords staying at the same position on the staff.
- First couple chords in m. 15 are missing a Bb underneath.
- Spacing - need more between LH/RH in m. 16-18
- m. 22 beats 3-4 LH: I think I'm hearing first a Bb-Db-F triad and then Db-F and Bb as eighth notes on beat 4.
- Flip the lower tie in m. 23-24 upwards to stay away from the lower layer.
- The second chord in m. 25 sounds off. Try Ab-Gb in the LH and Bb-Eb in the RH.
- Measures 28 and 29 are quite cramped right now. I'd recommend manually adjusting the measure widths for this system since the last couple measures don't need much space, or altering the distribution a bit.
- I'd suggest trying to keep the lower layer under the quadruplet in m. 29 at its original octave (lower) rather than as thirds under the melody. That way it'd maintain continuity with the parts right before and after it, as well as prevent the RH from suddenly sounding a whole lot lighter. There's also definitely another note or two of harmony in m. 29 beat 3 that isn't currently there. (Put an F in the left hand?)
- Similar comment about the Gb at the beginning of the last measure, it obscures the lower layer a bit so how would you feel about moving it back down an octave? It's within a tenth reach of either hand and with this song you can easily roll if you can't reach.
- Last chord needs to be rolled.

Oh, and a couple more comments after playing through it a couple times:
- It'd be easier to let the left hand take the C in m. 3, and the lower Dbs of m. 5.
- I'd highly recommend adding in the missing harmonies in either the right hand of measures 17 and 19, because the double octaves sound very empty otherwise.
- How would you feel bringing the quarter Eb in m. 23 beat 1 back up to its original octave? That would be an easy chord for the LH to roll because the thumb can take the Db and Eb.

[Libera]

Thanks for the feedback, I've updated the files.  If I haven't mentioned something, I should have fixed it.

- I'm not hearing the high D at all in measure 4.

It's definitely there, but yeah it's quiet.

- First chord of m. 6, 7, and 28 should be rolled.
- Last chord needs to be rolled.

Yeah good calls.  Fixed.

- For measure 8 I'm getting something pretty different in terms of layer differentiation (and also a rhythm) - how about something like this:

Spoiler

[close]

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree on the layering (but to be honest it's piano so it's pretty subjective so I'm not sure it really matters that much).  And yeah you're right my rhythm isn't right; I've changed it to this:

Spoiler

[close]

If you go off of the same tempo from the previous bar the Eb comes in pretty much exactly on beat 2, but the C and Bb are too fast to be quavers (especially because of the rit.)

- I'd highly recommend a double barline between m. 8-9 and 24-25.

Agreed.

- Right parenthesis in m. 9 interferes with the other notes. Try moving the parentheses up a bit

Probably fixed?  I hate dealing with parentheses...

- I would remove the tied F in m. 14 since this is just a piano sheet. It'd neaten things up a bit without losing any clarity of execution.

Yeah I considered doing so myself when I was writing this up, and I agree it's not really necessary to hang around for that long.  Fixed.

- Personal preference but I would suggest keeping the chords on the lower staff for m. 15-16 for a couple reasons - avoiding the cross staff lines, interfering with the melody notes, and most importantly you lose the visual continuity of the chords staying at the same position on the staff.

I personally think it's much easier to read this way since you can see the exact notes your hands are playing by looking at the staves, rather than having to work out yourself how you're passing the chords between the hands.  Also I don't think it interferes with the melody really at all since there's plenty of space between them, and different note lengths.

- First couple chords in m. 15 are missing a Bb underneath.

Fixed, good call.

- Spacing - need more between LH/RH in m. 16-18

I think I've created enough space there now after fiddling with stems and such like.  I really don't like opening up the staves (although I was forced to later on in the piece for the final system) so hopefully that's good enough.

- m. 22 beats 3-4 LH: I think I'm hearing first a Bb-Db-F triad and then Db-F and Bb as eighth notes on beat 4.

Sounds good to me.  Fixed.

- Flip the lower tie in m. 23-24 upwards to stay away from the lower layer.

Sure, fixed.

- The second chord in m. 25 sounds off. Try Ab-Gb in the LH and Bb-Eb in the RH.

Hmm I'm still hearing the Db, but yeah I missed the Bb originally so I've added that in.

- Measures 28 and 29 are quite cramped right now. I'd recommend manually adjusting the measure widths for this system since the last couple measures don't need much space, or altering the distribution a bit.

Should be better now, hopefully.

- I'd suggest trying to keep the lower layer under the quadruplet in m. 29 at its original octave (lower) rather than as thirds under the melody. That way it'd maintain continuity with the parts right before and after it, as well as prevent the RH from suddenly sounding a whole lot lighter. There's also definitely another note or two of harmony in m. 29 beat 3 that isn't currently there. (Put an F in the left hand?)

Also should be better now.  It required opening up the staves but ah well.

- Similar comment about the Gb at the beginning of the last measure, it obscures the lower layer a bit so how would you feel about moving it back down an octave? It's within a tenth reach of either hand and with this song you can easily roll if you can't reach.

Yeah it's an easy reach, fixed.

- It'd be easier to let the left hand take the C in m. 3, and the lower Dbs of m. 5.

Yeah it's more consistently written that way as well, fixed.

- I'd highly recommend adding in the missing harmonies in either the right hand of measures 17 and 19, because the double octaves sound very empty otherwise.

Hmm I'm not really convinced about doing that.  It's only missing the harmonies for a single beat in both cases and I don't really like how it'd look visually on the page or how it would sound transposing the harmonies up or down the octave.  To me it feels like you get a much more consistent sound the way I've currently written it.

- How would you feel bringing the quarter Eb in m. 23 beat 1 back up to its original octave? That would be an easy chord for the LH to roll because the thumb can take the Db and Eb.

I'm not a huge fan of implicit rolls and there's no way I could reach that myself without rolling it.


In retrospect I probably didn't need to respond to every comment separately haha.

[Latios212]

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree on the layering (but to be honest it's piano so it's pretty subjective so I'm not sure it really matters that much).  And yeah you're right my rhythm isn't right; I've changed it to this:

Spoiler

[close]

If you go off of the same tempo from the previous bar the Eb comes in pretty much exactly on beat 2, but the C and Bb are too fast to be quavers (especially because of the rit.)

Yeah that's fine I suppose since both the rhythm and layering are ambiguous here; I do still suggest cutting down on the three layers for cleanness though. Layer 2 doesn't do particularly much since you can't sustain it for the length it's written anyway. If you want to keep it though I guess that's okay. Definitely though flip the lower tie downwards, and put a fermata on the left hand note as well. (Probably move the rit. away from the note a bit too.)

- I'm not hearing the high D at all in measure 4.

It's definitely there, but yeah it's quiet.

Oh yeah oops.

Probably fixed?  I hate dealing with parentheses...

(Just a bit higher so it doesn't touch the D notehead!)

- I would remove the tied F in m. 14 since this is just a piano sheet. It'd neaten things up a bit without losing any clarity of execution.

Yeah I considered doing so myself when I was writing this up, and I agree it's not really necessary to hang around for that long.  Fixed.

I mentioned 14 (Though yeah 16 is fine without it too.)

- Spacing - need more between LH/RH in m. 16-18

I think I've created enough space there now after fiddling with stems and such like.  I really don't like opening up the staves (although I was forced to later on in the piece for the final system) so hopefully that's good enough.

What I've gathered after a lot of messing around with sheets is that it's a lot more important to maintain consistent spacing between the musical symbols, rather than consistent spacing between the staves. The staves can be the same distance apart as everywhere else in the sheet, but it's the stuff that goes in the middle that determines how cramped it is. Compare this system to the one with m. 25; they both have a gap of one inch but there's so much extra room in m. 25 and as a result the sheet looks more inconsistent. As a result, I still very strongly suggest opening up the staves here. (Also there's enough space to kick it to page 2 and give all the systems a bit more space.)

- I'd suggest trying to keep the lower layer under the quadruplet in m. 29 at its original octave (lower) rather than as thirds under the melody. That way it'd maintain continuity with the parts right before and after it, as well as prevent the RH from suddenly sounding a whole lot lighter. There's also definitely another note or two of harmony in m. 29 beat 3 that isn't currently there. (Put an F in the left hand?)

Also should be better now.  It required opening up the staves but ah well.

Nice. To save a bit more space I don't think the short cross-staff line or the lower tuplet bar are strictly necessary (maybe we could raise the dim. a bit to be higher above the Gb in the next measure).

Hmm I'm not really convinced about doing that.  It's only missing the harmonies for a single beat in both cases and I don't really like how it'd look visually on the page or how it would sound transposing the harmonies up or down the octave.  To me it feels like you get a much more consistent sound the way I've currently written it.

I dunno, I feel like those couple of places stood out to me as having a suddenly open sound in a section with such dense harmony. To your first point about visuals: it can be difficult but you shouldn't make arrangement decisions based on how engraving it would look. For the sound, I had been experimenting with the sound on my piano keyboard (not Finale) next to me and I think it would sound (and look) fine if the harmonies were included within the right hand octaves. It's up to you, though.

Everything else I didn't quote above sounds/looks good!

[Libera]

Yeah that's fine I suppose since both the rhythm and layering are ambiguous here; I do still suggest cutting down on the three layers for cleanness though. Layer 2 doesn't do particularly much since you can't sustain it for the length it's written anyway. If you want to keep it though I guess that's okay. Definitely though flip the lower tie downwards, and put a fermata on the left hand note as well. (Probably move the rit. away from the note a bit too.)

Haha yeah layer 2 serves zero purpose I have no idea why I wrote it in originally.  Should be better now.

I mentioned 14 :P (Though yeah 16 is fine without it too.)

Yeah I guess 14 was more visually strange; I've got rid of it too.  (16 I still think didn't really need to be there so it's still gone.)

(Just a bit higher so it doesn't touch the D notehead!)

Bracket no longer touches D notehead.

What I've gathered after a lot of messing around with sheets is that it's a lot more important to maintain consistent spacing between the musical symbols, rather than consistent spacing between the staves. The staves can be the same distance apart as everywhere else in the sheet, but it's the stuff that goes in the middle that determines how cramped it is. Compare this system to the one with m. 25; they both have a gap of one inch but there's so much extra room in m. 25 and as a result the sheet looks more inconsistent. As a result, I still very strongly suggest opening up the staves here. (Also there's enough space to kick it to page 2 and give all the systems a bit more space.)

It's a reasonable point.  I've opened them up a little bit, so hopefully it should be fine now.

Nice. To save a bit more space I don't think the short cross-staff line or the lower tuplet bar are strictly necessary (maybe we could raise the dim. a bit to be higher above the Gb in the next measure).

I got rid of the tuplet bar but I've kept the cross staff line for consistency.  Even though I guess it isn't strictly necessary, I don't feel we need the extra space with the tuplet bar gone.  Also I adjusted the diminuendo.

I dunno, I feel like those couple of places stood out to me as having a suddenly open sound in a section with such dense harmony. To your first point about visuals: it can be difficult but you shouldn't make arrangement decisions based on how engraving it would look. For the sound, I had been experimenting with the sound on my piano keyboard (not Finale) next to me and I think it would sound (and look) fine if the harmonies were included within the right hand octaves. It's up to you, though.

The visual thing was more of an 'in addition to' rather than a deciding factor.  I tried it out both ways and I think I prefer it with the consistent melodic line rather than with the harmonies worked in.  Also I found it pretty hard to play some of the resulting chords with my right hand, but once again that's an 'in addition to' thing.  Also some clever pedalling can alleviate some of the openness if you're smart about it I think.


Thanks again; this sheet is much harder to get right than you might think at first. :P

[Latios212]

Alright, everything looks great signing off on this one!

Thanks again; this sheet is much harder to get right than you might think at first.

No problem. Thanks for doing it!

[Maelstrom]

I don't like the m4 upper D being there. It's not so much as a note played as someone blowing on the string. The casual listener without good headphones would miss it completely, and adding it completely changes the shape of that phrase. It just doesn't feel right to have it in, if you get what I'm saying.

Aside from that, it's fantastic and I approve

[Libera]

I've updated the files with that particularly sectioned reworked to make it more unmeasured and also to stop the quiet note from visually dominating that bar.

With regards to what you're saying, I get where you're coming from but the pianist in the recording does literally play the note in question, quiet or not, so I don't think it should be excluded.  The direction I've given suggests that the last note should be very quiet.  I guess I'm thinking: if I was going to perform this piece, would I play the upper D or not?  And the answer is I would 100% every time play the upper D, so I feel like the sheet should reflect that.  It was almost certainly on the sheet that the performer read off of, after all.

[InsigTurtle]

Tiny thing: m.13's chords should be Eb F Gb Db, not Eb Gb Ab Db. Once that's fixed, will accept

edit: meant that to be green, not pink. whoops

[Libera]

Nice catch, I've updated the files.  Thanks for checking!

[InsigTurtle]

C'est bon

[Zeta]

This submission has been accepted by InsigTurtle.

~Zeta, your friendly NSM-Bot