News:

NinSheetMusic is the LARGEST video game sheet music archive on the entire internet worldwide!

Main Menu

[PC] OMORI - "Remember To Be Patient" by PlayfulPiano

Started by Zeta, July 04, 2021, 07:17:46 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Zeta

Submission Information:

Series: Other
Game: OMORI
Console: PC
Title: Remember To Be Patient
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: PlayfulPiano

[attachment deleted by admin]

PlayfulPiano

#1
So this is a replacement of the previous "Spaces In-between" arrangement submission because this one is a bit more complex of an arrangement and I'm generally really proud of what I did so far.

Few things to note in advance though:
-Sections like m8 are written as such since it is easier for the performer to have each hand play a fairly simple octave rather than having to bring both their hands up across a 10th note gap.
-I try to do sections like m10 as much as the arrangement allows me to (i.e. splitting the octave across both hands equally), but when the melody really comes in heavy it usually has to be written as I did.
-If there's a situation that has the accompaniment play the same note as the melody right afterwards, I try to bring it down a whole step as a rule of thumb.
-Overall, my goal is to keep the octave'd accompaniment last throughout the arrangement, so generally if possible I want to avoid a single hand accompaniment + single hand melody even if it helps bring the melody out more. It makes it a little more difficult to play and a bit more complex, but I want to go for it.

Edit: just changed the time signature to (3+3+2)/8 because that actually fits way better for this track.

Edit 2 (2021/07/06): I went over and made manual stem adjustments so the melodies are kept to one layer, and fixed some of the weird note spacing issues as well.

Static

Generally, the way this is voiced and arranged I think is pretty good. There's just a few details that can make this that much better.
  • You can just put 8/8 as the time signature. The beaming tells the reader that it's 3+3+2. Either way is OK though.
  • For the melody layer, I would recommend hiding all of the accents (click on the Articulation Tool, Ctrl+A, Ctrl+Alt+Shift+H). Even though Finale will often make these melodies quieter, you have to keep in mind you're writing these arrangements for pianists. It's their job to bring important voices to the fore when performing.
  • When both layers share a rest (as in the start of m9/17 RH), the rest should be in the middle of the staff, like you have in m15/23 RH.
  • m9/13/17/21 RH Layer 1: The Gs should be As.
  • m9/13/17/21 RH Layer 2: The first melody note should be F instead of A.
  • m11/19 RH: Shouldn't the RH just be written like this? It's fine to have the repeated A here since the piece is fairly slow.
    Spoiler
    [close]
  • m15/23 RH Layer 1: Last 8th note should be A instead of G.
  • m15/23 RH Layer 2: First melody note should be G instead of A.
  • m15/23 LH: 2nd 8th note should be A.
  • There's lots of spots on Page 2 where ties or augmentation dots are clashing with accidentals or other notes/rests. You can adjust the positioning of these with the Tie Tool and Dot Tool, under Special Tools.
  • On the repeat, the bass plays a low Bb in m1, but I don't think it's necessary to include here unless you want to.

PlayfulPiano

Quote from: Static on July 16, 2021, 08:14:51 AMGenerally, the way this is voiced and arranged I think is pretty good. There's just a few details that can make this that much better.
  • You can just put 8/8 as the time signature. The beaming tells the reader that it's 3+3+2. Either way is OK though.
  • For the melody layer, I would recommend hiding all of the accents (click on the Articulation Tool, Ctrl+A, Ctrl+Alt+Shift+H). Even though Finale will often make these melodies quieter, you have to keep in mind you're writing these arrangements for pianists. It's their job to bring important voices to the fore when performing.
  • When both layers share a rest (as in the start of m9/17 RH), the rest should be in the middle of the staff, like you have in m15/23 RH.
  • m9/13/17/21 RH Layer 1: The Gs should be As.
  • m9/13/17/21 RH Layer 2: The first melody note should be F instead of A.
  • m11/19 RH: Shouldn't the RH just be written like this? It's fine to have the repeated A here since the piece is fairly slow.
    Spoiler
    [close]
  • m15/23 RH Layer 1: Last 8th note should be A instead of G.
  • m15/23 RH Layer 2: First melody note should be G instead of A.
  • m15/23 LH: 2nd 8th note should be A.
  • There's lots of spots on Page 2 where ties or augmentation dots are clashing with accidentals or other notes/rests. You can adjust the positioning of these with the Tie Tool and Dot Tool, under Special Tools.
  • On the repeat, the bass plays a low Bb in m1, but I don't think it's necessary to include here unless you want to.
Updated with all the changes listed here.

Static


Latios212

Hey! Taking a look...

Quote from: PlayfulPiano on July 04, 2021, 07:21:33 AM-Overall, my goal is to keep the octave'd accompaniment last throughout the arrangement, so generally if possible I want to avoid a single hand accompaniment + single hand melody even if it helps bring the melody out more. It makes it a little more difficult to play and a bit more complex, but I want to go for it.
I strongly disagree with this. I understand you want to preserve the somewhat ethereal feel of the original, but here are a few reasons I'd recommend against writing in the octaves verbatim:
- It becomes much more difficult to enunciate the melody properly because it shifts between hands and weaves in and out of the accompaniment. You also end up with some awkward intervals (major or minor seconds in places like m. 25-28) and repeated notes (like in 9-12) which distract from the melody. Unlike the original everything is one instrument in a piano arrangement, so it's more difficult to make one voice stand out if it hangs around the same register as another. That's not to say it can't be done, but it is something to consider.
- It makes writing the voicings a lot messier on the sheet making it harder to tell what's the melody and what's part of what voice. Upper and lower notes in the ostinato are freely thrown between the right hand and the left hand. While this is fine to keep everything within reach, it does make the voices harder to follow. Again, there's nothing outright wrong with this, but it is tricky to read as written.
- Out of all the possible things to cut out of a full transcription, octaves are some of the least essential. If you cut them out, you don't lose any of the harmony or the rhythm. The ostinato is still effective as a single line.

Compare this to what the sheet looks like if you remove the upper octave in m. 9+, and remove the lower octave in m. 25+. Try playing it, too, side by side with what's in the existing sheet. (These screenshots have a simplified version in the first system and the current version in the second system.)
Spoiler
You cannot view this attachment.

You cannot view this attachment.
[close]

I don't want you to feel like I'm imposing this on you, but I did want to remind you about the tradeoff between sound and difficulty. Thoughts?
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

PlayfulPiano

#6
Quote from: Latios212 on July 28, 2021, 07:28:28 PMHey! Taking a look...
I strongly disagree with this. I understand you want to preserve the somewhat ethereal feel of the original, but here are a few reasons I'd recommend against writing in the octaves verbatim:
- It becomes much more difficult to enunciate the melody properly because it shifts between hands and weaves in and out of the accompaniment. You also end up with some awkward intervals (major or minor seconds in places like m. 25-28) and repeated notes (like in 9-12) which distract from the melody. Unlike the original everything is one instrument in a piano arrangement, so it's more difficult to make one voice stand out if it hangs around the same register as another. That's not to say it can't be done, but it is something to consider.
- It makes writing the voicings a lot messier on the sheet making it harder to tell what's the melody and what's part of what voice. Upper and lower notes in the ostinato are freely thrown between the right hand and the left hand. While this is fine to keep everything within reach, it does make the voices harder to follow. Again, there's nothing outright wrong with this, but it is tricky to read as written.
- Out of all the possible things to cut out of a full transcription, octaves are some of the least essential. If you cut them out, you don't lose any of the harmony or the rhythm. The ostinato is still effective as a single line.

Compare this to what the sheet looks like if you remove the upper octave in m. 9+, and remove the lower octave in m. 25+. Try playing it, too, side by side with what's in the existing sheet. (These screenshots have a simplified version in the first system and the current version in the second system.)
Spoiler
You cannot view this attachment.

You cannot view this attachment.
[close]

I don't want you to feel like I'm imposing this on you, but I did want to remind you about the tradeoff between sound and difficulty. Thoughts?
Yeah I did consider the tradeoff between keeping the octave and removing it, but the main thing that I felt led me to keep the octave overall was that while it did cause some complexities and odd intervals, I felt that the lack of the octave in full while matching the pitches to the original was very empty compared to the original, something that I personally did not enjoy nor agree with when playing it.

I also considered keeping the octave only for sections that lacked the melody otherwise (so measures with no melody, measures with only a whole note, or measures with two dotted quarter notes in the measure), but then it felt like the flow was inconsistent and volume/density on the other extreme (instead of ostinato+melody with some empty ostinato sections, it's ostinato+melody with some dense ostinato+melody sections).

Therefore my take was to just keep the octave consistent throughout. Plus Static mentioned that duplicate pitches are fine due to the low tempo of the track (originally I had duplicate notes shifted a whole step but Static said I didn't have to do that). So yeah I generally do want to keep the full octave in place for this arrangement.

I could add a text note stating to "bring out the melody" if that might be useful. The arrangement itself has hidden accidentals so that should work out.

mastersuperfan

- I would probably write this in 4/4... but I guess the way you have it is okay too. But at the least, I would also include the tempo marking in terms of quarter-note BPM, e.g. eighth = 193 (quarter = 96), so that people can practice with a quarter-note metronome pulse.
- Also, very minor but character indications make more sense to be as adverbs (how to play it) rather than as adjectives. So, you might consider changing "Hollow" to "Hollowly."
- You have a bit of empty space at the bottom of page 1—you could move the systems down a bit, and along with it, the composer/arranger info (which should be lower than the subtitle, not in-line with it).
- The "con pedale" in m1 should be moved a bit more to the left, such that the left edge of the "c" is aligned with the left side of the noteheads on beat 1.
- Usually I see "LH" in capitals and unitalicized, or "l.h." in lowercase and italicized, but not capitalized and italicized. So it might preferable to unitalicize these markings, although your experience may be different.
- Not very fond of the chromatic scale in the low register in m26 while there's pedal... it doesn't sound great IMO. I would suggest just making it a held F, or an F followed by a G, but throwing the F# in there doesn't work that well to my ears.
- m28 LH beat 1 is very close to clashing with the following eighth rest—could you space that out a bit? The best way to do that would be to add some extra space at the beginning of the measure (Edit Measure Attributes --> under "Width," check "Add:" and enter a number, say 0.1 or something, then use the manual note mover tool in special tools to move beat 1 to the left).
- I would also suggest using the note mover tool to separate the Layer 1 and Layer 2 notes visually a bit more in m32 LH (right now, in the last two chords in the LH, it's difficult to tell what belongs to what layer), spaced like this:
Image

[close]
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on February 11, 2016, 03:00:36 PMthere's also a huge difference in quality between 2000 songs and 2010 songs
Quote from: Latios212 on February 11, 2016, 03:29:24 PMThe difference between 2000 songs and 2010 songs is 10 songs.

PlayfulPiano

Quote from: mastersuperfan on July 29, 2021, 12:26:15 AM- I would probably write this in 4/4... but I guess the way you have it is okay too. But at the least, I would also include the tempo marking in terms of quarter-note BPM, e.g. eighth = 193 (quarter = 96), so that people can practice with a quarter-note metronome pulse.
- Also, very minor but character indications make more sense to be as adverbs (how to play it) rather than as adjectives. So, you might consider changing "Hollow" to "Hollowly."
- You have a bit of empty space at the bottom of page 1—you could move the systems down a bit, and along with it, the composer/arranger info (which should be lower than the subtitle, not in-line with it).
- The "con pedale" in m1 should be moved a bit more to the left, such that the left edge of the "c" is aligned with the left side of the noteheads on beat 1.
- Usually I see "LH" in capitals and unitalicized, or "l.h." in lowercase and italicized, but not capitalized and italicized. So it might preferable to unitalicize these markings, although your experience may be different.
- Not very fond of the chromatic scale in the low register in m26 while there's pedal... it doesn't sound great IMO. I would suggest just making it a held F, or an F followed by a G, but throwing the F# in there doesn't work that well to my ears.
- m28 LH beat 1 is very close to clashing with the following eighth rest—could you space that out a bit? The best way to do that would be to add some extra space at the beginning of the measure (Edit Measure Attributes --> under "Width," check "Add:" and enter a number, say 0.1 or something, then use the manual note mover tool in special tools to move beat 1 to the left).
- I would also suggest using the note mover tool to separate the Layer 1 and Layer 2 notes visually a bit more in m32 LH (right now, in the last two chords in the LH, it's difficult to tell what belongs to what layer), spaced like this:
Image

[close]
done and updated

mastersuperfan

#9
Looking good, last few visual things to wrap up:
- For the tempo marking—I would suggest including both the eighth and quarter note marking, one of them being in parentheses. For example, e = 193 (q = 96), or q = 96 (e = 192), so that players can readily practice with either an eighth-note or quarter-note pulse depending on how they hear the piece.
- Hollowed: "formed by making a hole." Either "Hollow" or "Hollowly" is fine, but I think "Hollowed" means something very different from what you think it means.
- On page 2, your page number and header are beyond the top margin. You can easily fix this if you double-click on each one and go to Text > Alignment > Top (Header). Afterward, you should move the systems on page 2 down so that they're not so close to the page number/header.
- The dynamic in m1 should be moved a bit more to the right, such that it's centered with the center of the notehead. You can make Finale reposition it automatically if you double-click it, edit the dynamic, go to Positioning, uncheck "Use Dynamics Category Positioning," and select "Center of All Noteheads" for Horizontal Alignment.
- In m12 RH, you could make the tie rounder (drag the middle up a bit) so that it's not overlapping so closely with the A in the other layer.
- It's still readable as is, but I would suggest showing the eighth rest at the end of m24 LH (and then moving it up a bit) so that it's clear that the last eighth note belongs to a different layer.
- In m26 LH, it might be helpful to move the edges of the tie up slightly so that it's clearer which notes the tie is attached to.
- In m28, since you moved beat 1 LH to the left, you also need to move beat 1 RH correspondingly. Move the C in the RH to the left until the Layer 1 stems in the RH and LH are aligned (tool palette being used as a straightedge):
Image

[close]
- On the last beat of m31 LH, the quarter note E should be to the left side of the eighth note D, not to the right side. Since Finale always places Layer 1 on the left and Layer 2 on the right by default, you can fix this easily by right-clicking the LH measure, selecting Move/Copy Layers, and swap the contents of Layers 1 and 2. Then, if you click on the quarter note at the end of the measure, and it should automatically move the quarter note to the left of the eighth note. However, after I tried this, the LH notes were misaligned (too far right) with the RH notes, so I had to manually move the LH notes (both layers) to the left. The end product should look like this, where all the stems are aligned:
Image

[close]
- Something that's just good to do in general when you finalize your sheet—highlight all measures and go to Utilities > Music Spacing > Apply Note Spacing Current Part/Score. If there are any aberrations in spacing, this will automatically fix them. Make sure it doesn't ruin your manual adjustments though.

The alignments can be tricky—feel free to let me know if you need help with any of these changes.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on February 11, 2016, 03:00:36 PMthere's also a huge difference in quality between 2000 songs and 2010 songs
Quote from: Latios212 on February 11, 2016, 03:29:24 PMThe difference between 2000 songs and 2010 songs is 10 songs.

PlayfulPiano


mastersuperfan

Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on February 11, 2016, 03:00:36 PMthere's also a huge difference in quality between 2000 songs and 2010 songs
Quote from: Latios212 on February 11, 2016, 03:29:24 PMThe difference between 2000 songs and 2010 songs is 10 songs.

Zeta

This submission has been accepted by mastersuperfan.

~Zeta, your friendly NSM-Bot