[PC] Deltarune - "THE HOLY" by Yug Guy

Started by Zeta, April 30, 2019, 05:55:12 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Zeta

Submission Information:

Series: Undertale
Game: Deltarune
Console: PC
Title: THE HOLY
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Yug Guy

[attachment deleted by admin]

Yug_Guy


Tried a couple things for this song that I haven't done for a submitted arrangement before. Hopefully they turned out okay.

(and no more Deltarune songs after these get accepted, I promise)

Latios212

Ooh, 4/2! I think it works here.

Re: images, we avoid those for a few reasons including print quality, copyright concerns, and file conversion issues:
Spoiler
You cannot view this attachment.
[close]

Quick glance at other stuff:
- Duplicate measure numbers on the middle staff
- Not sure is the bracket in m. 3 mean that the lower two staves should be played by the left hand? That seems contrary to the middle staff being reachable by the right hand rather than the left when the left hand plays the octaves.
- For m. 8 and 10 you should either make the whole note a half or show a half rest underneath the whole note, because otherwise it looks like you're overfilling the measure with one layer.
My arrangements and YouTube channel!

Quote from: Dudeman on February 22, 2016, 10:16:37 AM
who needs education when you can have WAIFUS!!!!!

Spoiler
[close]
turtle

Latios212

Just checked the notes - looks fantastic. In addition to the above, I'd recommend moving the music down away from the header a bit on page 2.

But yeah, this is great!
My arrangements and YouTube channel!

Quote from: Dudeman on February 22, 2016, 10:16:37 AM
who needs education when you can have WAIFUS!!!!!

Spoiler
[close]
turtle

Yug_Guy

Just going to make comments as I'm editing this:

Quote from: Latios212 on April 30, 2019, 06:03:03 PMOoh, 4/2! I think it works here.
Yeah. It didn't seem right to have the C/E-D/F ostinato be in sixteenth notes; plus, 4/2 gives the piece a sort of "religous/orchestral" vibe, which suits it.

Quote from: Latios212 on April 30, 2019, 06:03:03 PM- Duplicate measure numbers on the middle staff
- For m. 8 and 10 you should either make the whole note a half or show a half rest underneath the whole note, because otherwise it looks like you're overfilling the measure with one layer.
Quote from: Latios212 on May 04, 2019, 04:45:12 PMI'd recommend moving the music down away from the header a bit on page 2.
Fixed.

Quote from: Latios212 on April 30, 2019, 06:03:03 PM- Not sure is the bracket in m. 3 mean that the lower two staves should be played by the left hand? That seems contrary to the middle staff being reachable by the right hand rather than the left when the left hand plays the octaves.
I suppose this better suits the majority of the piece, but I'm not sure the R.H. can play the top two staffs in m.7-10. Maybe I can change which hands play which staves halfway through the piece? (I was told to the bracket in by Libera, perhaps he can weigh in on this?)

Quote from: Latios212 on April 30, 2019, 06:03:03 PMRe: images, we avoid those for a few reasons including print quality, copyright concerns, and file conversion issues:
Spoiler
You cannot view this attachment.
[close]
Although, there are sheets with images on-site already. tbh, I spent way too long trying to get that fountain image to be black and white, so I'd like to keep it in there if at all possible. (Also, I'm willing to jump through whatever hoops necessary)

Libera

I see that you haven't updated the files, so I'll just assume that you've made the fixes you said have.  (Also for the record I agree with all of Latios' suggestions.)

Quote from: Yug_Guy on May 04, 2019, 06:36:34 PMI suppose this better suits the majority of the piece, but I'm not sure the R.H. can play the top two staffs in m.7-10. Maybe I can change which hands play which staves halfway through the piece? (I was told to the bracket in by Libera, perhaps he can weigh in on this?)

What I said before (iirc) was to make it clear which hands are playing which staves.  Currently the way it is written is literally impossible to play (unless you have hands that can strech more than 3 octaves :P).  Just from looking at the sheet I think the way I would split the middle staff between the hands is:
Bars 3-6: RH
Bars 7-10: First two quavers RH, rest of each bar LH.
Bars 11-14: RH.
So my suggestion would be to move the bracket in bar 3 so that it goes over the top and middle staves and then put another bracket in bar 7 to change it middle and bottom.  Then you can put another bracket in at bar 11 to show it moving back to top and middle.  The question then is how do you show the first two quavers of each bar in 7-10 need to be taken by the right hand, and I think that there are two ways to do that: 1. Cross-staffing the first two quavers into the top stave (the issue with this is that it messes up the slur, but you could get around that by hiding the slurs bar 3 onwards and writing simile) or 2. Using small 'buckets' to show that those two quavers should be taken by the RH (though this might get a little cluttered with all the lines).

If you've got another idea of how the middle stave should be split between the staves then do say, but that's the only way I can see of doing it presently.

Quote from: Yug_Guy on May 04, 2019, 06:36:34 PMAlthough, there are sheets with images on-site already. tbh, I spent way too long trying to get that fountain image to be black and white, so I'd like to keep it in there if at all possible. (Also, I'm willing to jump through whatever hoops necessary)

Although I don't actually know what sheets you're referring to, there are lots of things that are in sheets on-site that wouldn't be accepted now (for one: terrible arrangements).  I'm personally with Latios here that we shouldn't really have images on our sheets, for the reasons that he's already stated and also I just think that the sheets look cleaner without.



Onto my own feedback, I just have one thing to say which is that (as per usual) I don't really see the value in an mp marking for the right hand and an mf marking for the left hand.  I would just stick with mp through for simplicity (the bass octaves will naturally be louder in performances).

All the notes look great!

Yug_Guy

#6
Quote from: Libera on May 05, 2019, 03:03:26 AMIf you've got another idea of how the middle stave should be split between the staves then do say, but that's the only way I can see of doing it presently.
I've got something along those lines, lmk what you think.

Quote from: Libera on May 05, 2019, 03:03:26 AMI don't really see the value in an mp marking for the right hand and an mf marking for the left hand.  I would just stick with mp through for simplicity (the bass octaves will naturally be louder in performances).
Fair enough. Fixed.

Quote from: Libera on May 05, 2019, 03:03:26 AMAlthough I don't actually know what sheets you're referring to, there are lots of things that are in sheets on-site that wouldn't be accepted now (for one: terrible arrangements).  I'm personally with Latios here that we shouldn't really have images on our sheets, for the reasons that he's already stated and also I just think that the sheets look cleaner without.
I'm referring mainly to sheets like this. Yes, I know that it's not the way we usually do things around here, but it just seems apt for this particular arrangement.

And just saying, but if you want to enforce a "no images" policy for our sheets, then there are a non-zero number of arrangements (from some of our respected arrangers, mind you) that you'll have to edit on-site in order to comply.   

Latios212

Looks good, but the mp being below the left hand part implies it's for the left hand only. If you're going to use one dynamic here, put it between the staves.

Additionally, the bracket in measure 3 extends to only the E in the dyad, so it looks like the dyad is getting split up. The dotted line in m. 7 and the like points to the wrong part of the measure (the left hand would need to take over the middle staff earlier) and I think the extra clutter with intersecting other markings, as well as shortening the bass notes, make it worse off than before. My personal suggestion would be to leave it ambiguous without either brackets or markings so the performer can do as they choose. It's a simple enough piece to figure out what to do with.

About images, I apologize if this wasn't announced more publicly, but this has been the case for a while:
Quote from: Maelstrom on December 22, 2017, 11:34:47 AMSorry to ruin this, but the staff has come to the consensus to disallow images in sheets. There's the whole question of copyright stuff, not to mention how past sheets with images got really screwed up.
I really don't want to be the "no fun allowed" guy but please understand my reasons have nothing to do with how fitting it is with the sheet. Aside from uniformity across sheets on site, as I mentioned my concern is twofold:
- Copyright concerns. Whether or not the image jives well with the sheet doesn't change the fact that it's using uncredited copyrighted content, and I would rather not make our legal gray state of an area even more risky. Just because we haven't been called out on it yet doesn't mean that it can't or won't happen, particularly with different series or franchises.
- Technical concerns. As far as I'm aware Finale has a tendency to misplace images; this has happened with sheets on the site before, and I've already shown you above that the image doesn't even load up in Finale when I open your notation file. Aside from that, the images pasted in Finale are not scalable like the music is. Looking at the PDF you provided the image is noticeably blurry.
I'm well aware that we still have sheets on site with images on them, but as Libera mentioned that is a separate concern from what we should do moving forward.

Once again, I'm really not trying to argue with you or shoot your idea of a good sheet down, but rather do what's best for the site. Let me know if that makes sense.
My arrangements and YouTube channel!

Quote from: Dudeman on February 22, 2016, 10:16:37 AM
who needs education when you can have WAIFUS!!!!!

Spoiler
[close]
turtle

Yug_Guy

Quote from: Latios212 on May 05, 2019, 10:32:10 AMLooks good, but the mp being below the left hand part implies it's for the left hand only. If you're going to use one dynamic here, put it between the staves.
Yeah, I was a little hesitant about putting it in between since I didn't want to imply that the mp is at all related with the crescendos. Hopefully, the way I have it now makes that clear.

Quote from: Latios212 on May 05, 2019, 10:32:10 AMAbout images, I apologize if this wasn't announced more publicly, but this has been the case for a while
~snip~
Alright, that's fine. Just, perhaps maybe make that rule a little bit more public if it isn't already?

Spoiler
R.I.P. B&W Fountain of Darkness
2019-2019



"It was never meant to be."
[close]

Libera

Quote from: Latios212 on May 05, 2019, 10:32:10 AMI think the extra clutter with intersecting other markings, as well as shortening the bass notes, make it worse off than before. My personal suggestion would be to leave it ambiguous without either brackets or markings so the performer can do as they choose. It's a simple enough piece to figure out what to do with.

It's not cluttering if you hide the markings that are literally the same for the entire sheet (the slurs, crescs and dims) after the first two bars and I really do think being explicit here is helpful.  I myself found it confusing looking at it the first time, and even if the performer can work it out for themselves after a while I don't think that's the standard of quality we should aim for on the site.  Just my thoughts anyway.

Latios212

Quote from: Yug_Guy on May 05, 2019, 10:55:56 AMAlright, that's fine. Just, perhaps maybe make that rule a little bit more public if it isn't already?
Thanks for understanding. I can add a note to the formatting guidelines.

Quote from: Libera on May 05, 2019, 11:15:09 AMIt's not cluttering if you hide the markings that are literally the same for the entire sheet (the slurs, crescs and dims) after the first two bars and I really do think being explicit here is helpful.  I myself found it confusing looking at it the first time, and even if the performer can work it out for themselves after a while I don't think that's the standard of quality we should aim for on the site.  Just my thoughts anyway.
As I mentioned, personal preference. Conversely I've played sheets before that were a bit over-marked with explicit performance directions that I disagreed with.

If you want to keep the brackets and cross-staff lines that's fine; we'd just need to draw the dotted line to the third eighth note of each measure (instead of the ninth) and restore the double whole note to clarify that the sound is sustained. (And as Libera mentioned replacing the markings after the first couple of measures with a "simile" or something would clean things up too.)
My arrangements and YouTube channel!

Quote from: Dudeman on February 22, 2016, 10:16:37 AM
who needs education when you can have WAIFUS!!!!!

Spoiler
[close]
turtle

Libera

Yug gave me permission to edit these files, and I have done so.  I just hid the repeated markings after the second measure and made the dotted lines go to the third quaver rather than the ninth as Lat mentioned.  I also adjusted the bracket in bar 3 to make it a bit neater.

It's a go from me!

Latios212

My arrangements and YouTube channel!

Quote from: Dudeman on February 22, 2016, 10:16:37 AM
who needs education when you can have WAIFUS!!!!!

Spoiler
[close]
turtle

Zeta

This submission has been accepted by Latios212.

~Zeta, your friendly NSM-Bot