News:

Local man invests life savings into turnips. When asked whether it was a wise decision he responded, "Eh. I'm sure someone will buy them."

Main Menu

Zeila's Replacements

Started by Zeila, June 06, 2020, 04:31:23 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Latios212

Quote from: Latios212 on July 11, 2020, 05:44:38 PMIcicle Mountain
- I think the chords in m. 39- would be nice octave doubled as well
oops yeah I meant up to 44, which you figured out

Looks good, approving! Although a couple of really tiny things you might still want to change are moving the right end of the cresc. in m. 38 left a bit and indicating how loud to get in m. 60 (perhaps ff on beat 3?).
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

Zeila

Quote from: Latios212 on July 13, 2020, 04:46:11 PMAlthough a couple of really tiny things you might still want to change are moving the right end of the cresc. in m. 38 left a bit and indicating how loud to get in m. 60 (perhaps ff on beat 3?).
Sure thing! Done

Maelstrom

Icicle Mountain
m,27 RH - pretty sure both of these chords have grace notes leading up to them. Also in m33. For m27, I can see no reason not to add them, as it doesn't make it significantly difficult to play, unlike some other places where you left it out.

Big fan of what you did with this, nice work.

Zeila

Quote from: Maelstrom on August 08, 2020, 01:37:31 PMIcicle Mountain
m,27 RH - pretty sure both of these chords have grace notes leading up to them. Also in m33. For m27, I can see no reason not to add them, as it doesn't make it significantly difficult to play, unlike some other places where you left it out.

Big fan of what you did with this, nice work.
Thanks! I added some in m27 and m29 too but I don't hear any in m33

Maelstrom

sounds fine.
I'll accept it

Latios212

Flat Zone

Thanks for finishing this one! It's... weird, but your sheet makes a bunch of things more sensible for the piano.

Some feedback:
- m. 3/7, hearing more like this:
- m. 11 beat 3 RH A# is an octave up
Spoiler
You cannot view this attachment.
[close]
- I think the beeps in m. 12 also sound like A#s rather than C#s?
- m. 7-8 and m. 11-12 aren't actually the same the second time through. Maybe worth writing this section our explicitly? (Also these couple of systems are rather crushed... don't have an easy solution for that besides re-distributing)
- Not too sure about the spelling in m. 14... that Cn in the triplet is pretty awkward given the notes that come before and after it but not sure what the best solution here is
- In m. 20 I think the LH notes would be better on the lower staff the whole time. Also I think the last Gb might be better as F# (resolving to the E in the next measure).
- I would recommend lowering the RH an octave in 25+ to match the original melody octave, but your choice
- Second to last note in m. 33-36 sounds like a Db instead of Cn.
- I'm a bit skeptical of the way the arpeggios beginning in m. 33 are spelled (with the key changes) since they use the whole tone scale, but it's consistent so I'm fine with it
- Hide the rests in m. 33+
- D.S. is a bit high at the end.
- Is there a "fine" missing in the last measure or something, as the "Only on D.S." implies?
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 peeking at Brinstar for a moment, I think the quardruplets are better written as 16ths instead of 8ths
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

Static

Quote from: Latios212 on August 20, 2020, 04:14:10 PMJust peeking at Brinstar for a moment, I think the quardruplets are better written as 16ths instead of 8ths
I'm pretty sure you're only supposed to go to the next subdivision of notes (16ths) when you get to that division normally (in this case 6 notes per beat). So 4- or 5-tuplets would be 8ths, while 7-, 8-, 9-, 10-, and 11-tuplets would be 16ths, etc.

Latios212

http://www2.siba.fi/muste1/index.php?id=100&la=en (first diagram, though I haven't read the whole page)

I thought about it a bit, and while you could write it both ways I think 16ths makes more sense because four 16ths typically constitutes one beat in normal time. Our current Brinstar sheet from Metroid on site is also written like that and I think looks better.
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

Static

https://www.johnbuccheriteachingmusictheory.com/9-beams-and-tuplet-notation
This is how I learned it, personally, but it looks like everyone has different thoughts on it...

I think your explanation for this particular case makes sense though, so I'm fine either way.


Zeila

Quote from: Latios212 on August 18, 2020, 04:25:12 PMFlat Zone

Thanks for finishing this one! It's... weird, but your sheet makes a bunch of things more sensible for the piano.

Some feedback:
- I think the beeps in m. 12 also sound like A#s rather than C#s?
Np, and thanks again for letting me use your unfinished version! That one was actually purposeful since I thought C#s would translate better for that part just like how I changed the F#s in m4 and 8 to E, but I'll change it back then so that it's at least consistent with the other A#s

Quote from: Latios212 on August 18, 2020, 04:25:12 PM- m. 7-8 and m. 11-12 aren't actually the same the second time through. Maybe worth writing this section our explicitly? (Also these couple of systems are rather crushed... don't have an easy solution for that besides re-distributing)
I did that to conserve space since they just seem like assorted beeps (which is why I wrote RH improvise), but since it is crowded then I'll write everything out and use 5 pages. Also as a heads up, in the new m20 I wrote the Dn beeps as C# instead but if it's preferable to be Dn instead then I can change it

Quote from: Latios212 on August 18, 2020, 04:25:12 PM- Not too sure about the spelling in m. 14... that Cn in the triplet is pretty awkward given the notes that come before and after it but not sure what the best solution here is
I'll change it to B# for now

Quote from: Latios212 on August 18, 2020, 04:25:12 PM- Second to last note in m. 33-36 sounds like a Db instead of Cn.
I think I wrote those as C#'s initially and removed the accidental, so while it sounded the same it was written incorrectly since I overlooked changing those back too

Quote from: Latios212 on August 18, 2020, 04:25:12 PM- I'm a bit skeptical of the way the arpeggios beginning in m. 33 are spelled (with the key changes) since they use the whole tone scale, but it's consistent so I'm fine with it
I thought they used a whole tone scale but then the top note was always outside of it so I wasn't sure anymore. If you're fine with it then I guess that's okay, but I'm open to taking suggestions on notating it differently

Quote from: Latios212 on August 18, 2020, 04:25:12 PM- Is there a "fine" missing in the last measure or something, as the "Only on D.S." implies?
I thought writing that would be sufficient enough since it was the last measure. I put a fine there now

Quote from: Latios212 on August 18, 2020, 04:25:12 PM- m. 3/7, hearing more like this:
- m. 11 beat 3 RH A# is an octave up
Spoiler
You cannot view this attachment.
[close]
- In m. 20 I think the LH notes would be better on the lower staff the whole time. Also I think the last Gb might be better as F# (resolving to the E in the next measure).
- I would recommend lowering the RH an octave in 25+ to match the original melody octave, but your choice
- Hide the rests in m. 33+
- D.S. is a bit high at the end.
Done, thanks!



Brinstar
Personally I've usually looked at triplets and the like the same as Static, but I am okay with changing it to 16th's so consider it done

Latios212

Flat Zone
Okay great, thanks for the fast turnaround! I think it makes more sense expanded 5 pages now, since you've written out the beeps pretty much as they are everywhere else it makes sense to do so in that section too. I don't think I have anything else to add other than some of the pedal markings seem a little off in m. 22-24 but that might just be Finale.

Approved :)
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

#27
Undyne

-Have you considered making the slide down to the Eb on bar 12 slower, like it is in in the original?  Obviously it's a bit difficult with only two notes but you could make them take up the whole of bar 11 rather than just right at the end.
-I'm not 100% sure what to do about the Dns.  On the one hand, they're part of Cbm chords and so should be Ebbs, but it does look a little ugly with the Ebbs next to the Ebs, especially in bar 12.  Still, having all of the Cbm chords misspelled is also not great, hence me not being sure what to do.  I don't know if you've thought about it at all, but let me know what you think.  I might ask about to find some other opinions as well. 

Dr. Mario

-I'm hearing something completely different for the quaver lines in 21-28.  If this change was to keep the same rhythms but to use them to flesh out the harmony instead, you could always just put the harmony underneath the melody notes and keep the guitar part as verbatim.  It sounds quite different the way you currently have it...
-It's kind of hard to hear but I'm hearing the second quaver triple in bar 45 as F G F, rather than F D F.
-I'd write in a diminuendo in the final bar for those repeating octave Bbs (also, I think there should probably be one on beat 4.5, it's just that it's faded out so much it's barely audible).

Zeila

Undyne

Quote from: Libera on August 28, 2020, 07:09:57 AM-Have you considered making the slide down to the Eb on bar 12 slower, like it is in in the original?  Obviously it's a bit difficult with only two notes but you could make them take up the whole of bar 11 rather than just right at the end.
Sure, I tried

Quote from: Libera on August 28, 2020, 07:09:57 AM-I'm not 100% sure what to do about the Dns.  On the one hand, they're part of Cbm chords and so should be Ebbs, but it does look a little ugly with the Ebbs next to the Ebs, especially in bar 12.  Still, having all of the Cbm chords misspelled is also not great, hence me not being sure what to do.  I don't know if you've thought about it at all, but let me know what you think.  I might ask about to find some other opinions as well.
I wanted to avoid using more accidentals and I do think measure 12 would look especially ugly compared to 4, 8, and 16. I would rather keep it the way it is


Dr. Mario

Quote from: Libera on August 28, 2020, 07:09:57 AM-I'm hearing something completely different for the quaver lines in 21-28.  If this change was to keep the same rhythms but to use them to flesh out the harmony instead, you could always just put the harmony underneath the melody notes and keep the guitar part as verbatim.  It sounds quite different the way you currently have it...
It was purposeful, but since it does change the overall sound then I will use put the harmony underneath the melody like you mentioned. Also, I went with the harpsichord part which sounds clearer than the guitar since most of it stays consistent

Quote from: Libera on August 28, 2020, 07:09:57 AM-It's kind of hard to hear but I'm hearing the second quaver triple in bar 45 as F G F, rather than F D F.
The only G I'm hearing is from another layer/voice that plays G-D-G-D. Listening to it again I hear the middle note as F but in a higher octave. I ended up adding D's to the chords in the RH of measure 45 and G's in measure 46

Quote from: Libera on August 28, 2020, 07:09:57 AM-I'd write in a diminuendo in the final bar for those repeating octave Bbs (also, I think there should probably be one on beat 4.5, it's just that it's faded out so much it's barely audible).
Done

Thanks for checking both sheets!

Libera

Quote from: Zeila on August 30, 2020, 11:01:10 PMUndyne
Sure, I tried
I wanted to avoid using more accidentals and I do think measure 12 would look especially ugly compared to 4, 8, and 16. I would rather keep it the way it is

That's fine, I'll accept.

Quote from: Zeila on August 30, 2020, 11:01:10 PMThe only G I'm hearing is from another layer/voice that plays G-D-G-D. Listening to it again I hear the middle note as F but in a higher octave. I ended up adding D's to the chords in the RH of measure 45 and G's in measure 46

I admit I'm finding it pretty hard to work out exactly what's going on in bar 45, but what you've written in there just sounds out of place to me compared to in 46-47 where it's fairly consistent.  The general pattern (low high low) with not too large an interval sounds like it should still be going on in 45, if you understand what I mean.  Particularly the F-F-F octave jump in the second half of the bar sounds especially off to me.  Maybe we could get another opinion if necessary.

The edits to 21-28 look great!