[MUL] The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess - "Zant Battle" by Bloop

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: The Legend of Zelda
Game: The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
Console: Multiplatform
Title: Zant Battle
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Bloop

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Bloop]

sorry updaters

[Zeila]

This is impressive work! :>

Formatting

• Some of the systems are a little too close to the headers, so you could just readjust some of the spaces in between in order to move things down
• m11/15/etc. I think it might look better if you lowered the eighth rests to their default position
• m141+ with how some eighth note groups are grouped together through slurs, I think breaking up the beams over rests would fit better here so that the separation is more distinct. I'd recommend breaking up the rests in measures 147 and 155 at least
• m165 This is just nitpicking, but I think it would be nicer if the Transition and Phase 6 texts were horizontally aligned too

Notes

• m1/3 RH it sounds like there's an additional 4th on top (which would be Db and C)
• m26+ RH there might be a low B in that chord too
• m45+ RH it sounds like the inner notes are closer to Fn and Gn instead of Gb and Ab
• m135+ (phase 5) it almost sounds like most of what you wrote is a half step below what's in the original. The tuning isn't the same, but I think this sounds closer:
  You cannot view this attachment.
  (beat 3.5 is a rest in measure 141, not in 145 or 149). Also regardless of what the right note is, all the slurs sound like they start on a lower note and have an upwards progression anyways instead of something like F-E-F where it goes down initially
  
• m167+ I think adding some separation in between these chords would be more fitting

[Bloop]

Thanks for the feedback! About everything that isn't phase 5: should be fixed!

About phase 5: I think I'll have to disagree on both the tuning and the upwards motion. I clearly hear the third on the D minor starting points, especially if you slow down the song. As for the tuning, I haven't checked exactly what the tuning is, but I feel like starting m 137 on E minor is too high and starting on Eb minor is a bit too low, so I went for a bit too low. Also, I clearly hear the choir part at 3:57 (m. 157) playing a Ddim chord and landing on an F, although the tonality hasn't changed from the part before. Raising this part to Eb minor too doesn't really work either. I'm curious what others think though! My boyfriend preferred my version, but if there's a majority on raising up a half step, I'll concede :p
I did break the beams, and fixed the R.H. in m. 147-148 because I noticed some mistakes.

[Zeila]

Thanks for the feedback! About everything that isn't phase 5: should be fixed!

About phase 5: I think I'll have to disagree on both the tuning and the upwards motion. I clearly hear the third on the D minor starting points, especially if you slow down the song. As for the tuning, I haven't checked exactly what the tuning is, but I feel like starting m 137 on E minor is too high and starting on Eb minor is a bit too low, so I went for a bit too low. Also, I clearly hear the choir part at 3:57 (m. 157) playing a Ddim chord and landing on an F, although the tonality hasn't changed from the part before. Raising this part to Eb minor too doesn't really work either. I'm curious what others think though! My boyfriend preferred my version, but if there's a majority on raising up a half step, I'll concede :p
I did break the beams, and fixed the R.H. in m. 147-148 because I noticed some mistakes.

My mistake about the upwards motion part, the low note overshadowed the thirds for me. Also, admittedly I heard phases 3 and 4 differently too, but those seemed less clear cut to me for some reason even though the tuning sounds the same (except for measures 81 and 82...). That being said, I think it's better to just be consistent and stick to a lower semitone the whole way through (which you already have) or higher. I messed around with it in Audacity and it seems to be roughly split in the middle. To be specific, Audacity estimates the starting pitch of phase 5 at 322.148Hz, and at phase 3 it's estimated to be 169.611Hz. The corresponding quarter tones for those two are 320.244Hz and 169.643Hz

At that point I think personal preference would work best because it doesn't consistently lean heavily towards one side. Although I'm curious to know what other people hear too. You're welcome btw!

[Latios212]

I... wow this is a cool piece

sorry updaters

;-; why. But you did do a cool job at writing things in for the weird parts, nice job!

Intro:
- I'd say make sure to display the accidentals on the cross-staffed dyads in m. 2 to eliminate any ambiguity

Transition:
- The transition (all of them I guess) sounds like it's missing a note on beat 3 of the second measure, an An below.

Phase 1:
- You may want to remove the topmost tied note in the dyad (Gb in m. 11) in m. 11 and the ones like it, to prevent the awkward collision with the chord on beat 3. That tied note doesn't serve much of a function since the pedal is responsible for sustaining that chord and you have to reposition the RH to hit the top layer chords on beat 3.
- It'd make more sense to end the crescendo and put the f on the last chord in m. 12 and similar instead of kinda hovering over the rest

Phase 2:
- Conversely might want to move the f right a bit in m. 46 and similar phrases

Other stuff as I skim:
- Any chance we could redistribute some measures to later systems for a few systems that include the 2-measure transition at the start? The music is particularly crushed in places like m. 11, 45, and a bit in m. 77-78 (though that half note in m. 79 is taking up a suspicious amount of space)
- For some reason Finale's default exporter doesn't draw pp's in the right place, would suggest using another printer to prevent that horizontal offset (e.g. m. 11)
- D.C./D.S. at the end? Does this medley play as a loop in game / does each section repeat?

Check for phases 3-6 coming later!

[Bloop]

- You may want to remove the topmost tied note in the dyad (Gb in m. 11) in m. 11 and the ones like it, to prevent the awkward collision with the chord on beat 3. That tied note doesn't serve much of a function since the pedal is responsible for sustaining that chord and you have to reposition the RH to hit the top layer chords on beat 3.

Fixed and changed some other stuff around with the second layer, so it's clear the note doesn't extend until the end of the bar (as it can't)

- Any chance we could redistribute some measures to later systems for a few systems that include the 2-measure transition at the start? The music is particularly crushed in places like m. 11, 45, and a bit in m. 77-78 (though that half note in m. 79 is taking up a suspicious amount of space)

It was really satisfying to have the system breaks every fourth bar of every phase, but fixed either way!

- D.C./D.S. at the end? Does this medley play as a loop in game / does each section repeat?

In-game, each phase (everything in-between transitions) loops until you move on to the next phase (with a transition). When you defeat Zant in phase 6, the music just stops at whatever spot it was in. The youtube video I posted loops back to the start of phase 1, but that doesn't happen in the game. I could put a repeat mark at the end back to the start of phase 6, but it felt a bit weird to only include the repeat at phase 6 and not the other phases. Then again, I could put repeats in every phase, but that would make for a long midi, haha. I figured it was clear enough that, if you wanted to repeat a phase, you would just go back to the start of the phase, as there isn't a logical way to do a repeat otherwise.

Fixed everything else too!

[Latios212]

In-game, each phase (everything in-between transitions) loops until you move on to the next phase (with a transition). When you defeat Zant in phase 6, the music just stops at whatever spot it was in. The youtube video I posted loops back to the start of phase 1, but that doesn't happen in the game. I could put a repeat mark at the end back to the start of phase 6, but it felt a bit weird to only include the repeat at phase 6 and not the other phases. Then again, I could put repeats in every phase, but that would make for a long midi, haha. I figured it was clear enough that, if you wanted to repeat a phase, you would just go back to the start of the phase, as there isn't a logical way to do a repeat otherwise.

Ah, got it, I figured it was something like that but wasn't sure. In that case, I would personally write each section as its own independent loop, with the intro and transition as separate sections on the first page and some performance notes on how to structure the piece when playing.

Something like this perhaps:

Spoiler

You cannot view this attachment.

[close]

Or perhaps this, if you're cool with displacing text notes somewhere else:

Spoiler

You cannot view this attachment.

[close]

Your choice, though! I just think doing something like what I mentioned above would clarify to the performer the structure of the piece... as well as help preserve the hypermeter in each part as an added bonus

(Addendum as I finish looking over the sheet... is the last transition the only one that's different from the others?)


Other feedback for the rest of the piece (phases 3-6) -

Phase 3:
- It might help to have an end dynamic (like pp) at the end of the dim. in m. 77-78 and similar before going back to mf
- Not anything to change, I just like how you kept m. 93+ playable in the left hand alone the eighth notes with octaves work nicely, and writing the last couple of beats in the lower layer keeps everything comfortably within reach

Phase 4:
- Oh man the tuning is starting to mess with me... I think interval wise everything sounds good though
- For m. 114/118/122, would it not be easier for the right hand to take the upper part instead of doing hand crossings?

Phase 5:
- I think m. 147/155 would be easier to interpret in one layer, as you can't hold the bass octave for that whole quarter beat anyway
- I'll have to offer my opinion that some parts here, namely the ostinato starting in 137 and bass octaves starting in 141, seem a bit closer to a half step up (Em ostinato in RH and Eb octaves in LH)... though I hear the minor seconds the way you have them. Honestly though this isn't something I feel super strongly about so whatever you feel is consistent is probably best.

Phase 6:
- For the RH chords in m. 167 and similar, I think I'm hearing them a bit... differently? I hear them a half step lower and inverted downward once (so Gb > F motion in 167, E > Eb in m. 169, etc.)
- I'm hearing this for the transition (and in m. 167-169, 171-173 as well) -
You cannot view this attachment.
- Similarly, for 175 and the like:
You cannot view this attachment.
- That first slur in m. 168 needs some adjusting
- Not sure why this isn't being accounted for automatically, but the flat at the end of m. 171 is squished up against the previous note
- The low bass notes in m. 182 (beats 3.5, 4.25) sound like G and Gb rather than both F. Similar in 174 they sound like E/Eb. (While I'm here, these passages are spelled differently interval-wise... though given the strange accidentals it's probably just fine and readable as is)

[Bloop]

Ah, got it, I figured it was something like that but wasn't sure. In that case, I would personally write each section as its own independent loop, with the intro and transition as separate sections on the first page and some performance notes on how to structure the piece when playing.

I used your first example! Is this note clear enough?

as well as help preserve the hypermeter in each part as an added bonus

i'm enjoying this

(Addendum as I finish looking over the sheet... is the last transition the only one that's different from the others?)

Yeah the last one is the only different one note-wise. The one before phase 5 has its percussion fading out, so that one sounds different too, but that isn't really translatable to the sheet,

- For m. 114/118/122, would it not be easier for the right hand to take the upper part instead of doing hand crossings?

ohno the measure numbers got mixed up now because of the deleted transitions
The one in m108 is possible to switch up, but in 112 the R.H. has a big jump to make which causes the Fx to not be connected enough to the rest of the phrase, and in 116 the L.H. has very little time to catch up to the melody part. If the hand crossings will stay for those two measures, I think I'd prefer to keep it in the first one too, for consistency as well as having the R.H. keep playing the melody while the L.H. plays a softer part (it's easier to keep the R.H. forte, than to suddenly drop to mp and have the L.H. play the melody)

- I'll have to offer my opinion that some parts here, namely the ostinato starting in 137 and bass octaves starting in 141, seem a bit closer to a half step up (Em ostinato in RH and Eb octaves in LH)... though I hear the minor seconds the way you have them. Honestly though this isn't something I feel super strongly about so whatever you feel is consistent is probably best.

i don't really know what i'd prefer now lol
I hear the top part closer to what I have, but I hear the bass notes closer to Eb (where everyone seems to hear it). I also still hear the voice at 3:57 sing a Ddim chord, which keeps me leaning towards Dm.
I think the minor seconds aren't quarter tones, so those would stay nonetheless.

- For the RH chords in m. 167 and similar, I think I'm hearing them a bit... differently? I hear them a half step lower and inverted downward once (so Gb > F motion in 167, E > Eb in m. 169, etc.)

Not sure what I was thinking lol, fixed!

- I'm hearing this for the transition (and in m. 167-169, 171-173 as well)

Fixed! I changed the high Ab to G# too to keep it as an octave jump.

- The low bass notes in m. 182 (beats 3.5, 4.25) sound like G and Gb rather than both F. Similar in 174 they sound like E/Eb. (While I'm here, these passages are spelled differently interval-wise... though given the strange accidentals it's probably just fine and readable as is)

Nice catch, fixed these as well as in m162 and 170!

Every else is fixed too!

[Latios212]

I used your first example! Is this note clear enough?

Cool! Yeah I think this works. I would still suggest putting beginning and ending repeat bars around each section to be a little more explicit about the looping, and you can make them do nothing in the playback to avoid making the playback run for too long.

The one in m108 is possible to switch up, but in 112 the R.H. has a big jump to make which causes the Fx to not be connected enough to the rest of the phrase, and in 116 the L.H. has very little time to catch up to the melody part. If the hand crossings will stay for those two measures, I think I'd prefer to keep it in the first one too, for consistency as well as having the R.H. keep playing the melody while the L.H. plays a softer part (it's easier to keep the R.H. forte, than to suddenly drop to mp and have the L.H. play the melody)

Ah okay makes sense!

i don't really know what i'd prefer now lol
I hear the top part closer to what I have, but I hear the bass notes closer to Eb (where everyone seems to hear it). I also still hear the voice at 3:57 sing a Ddim chord, which keeps me leaning towards Dm.
I think the minor seconds aren't quarter tones, so those would stay nonetheless.

Yeah I think it's fine if you want to keep it haha

The rest of these comments are purely aesthetic before I finish up with this sheet, sorry if some things needed to be adjusted multiple times due to reworking the structure
- Move the mf right just a tad in m. 7 to avoid touching the stem?
- A bit more space between the first couple systems on page 2 to account for the pedal markings/dynamics would be nice
- The systems on page 4 need to be evened out to 4 measures/system (couple measures need to be bumped down)
- You could lower the first system (i.e. all the systems) on page 8 a bit so allow more room for the page header and Phase 5 marking
- Similar spacing comment about the third system on page 9 - needs more space above it, the two system below don't need as much space around them
- The first slur in m. 160 still seems a bit over-eager

I think that's it from me

[Bloop]

I added the repeat bars! At first I felt it was a bit redundant, as the start and end of a phase a clearly marked out, but I didn't realize that specifically in phase 5 the first four bars aren't repeated.
I fixed everything else too. I also thought about exporting a midi file with the transitions in between phases, as it currently doesn't do so in the .mus file. I believe it's possible to add hidden repeat signs that go back to the transition and jump to the next phase afterwards, but I don't really wanna put in the effort if it isn't necessary lol.

[Latios212]

All sounds good! Yeah I don't think putting in all the hidden repeats is necessary, and the sheet looks good as is.

Just skimming I think I forgot to suggest poking the mf over in the last transition just like in the first transition. But I don't think I have anything else to add at the moment so I'll approve ^^

[Bloop]

woo
I fixed the mf in my .musx file, so it will be fixed on a later update ^^

[Static]

Hey, sorry for the wait on this! Let's take a look...

Intro:
- For those chords in m1/3, I think I hear an additional voice in the middle, D to C#. I think Zeila mentioned something similar, but it looks like it wasn't implemented.
- The B in m6 RH sounds closer to Bb to my ear.
- The An in m8 RH sounds more like an F

Phase 1:
- For m9-24, what you have as the middle LH voice (E-Eb-D-Db-etc.) should actually be the bass voice. There is no 5th underneath that.
- m11/15 etc: You could tie the Gb if you want, since it's not doubled in the upper RH voice. It would just require some note spacing and placing adjustments.
- m26-40: Marcato symbols should always appear on the stem side. In addition, you don't need marcato+staccato in this case, at least imo. Marcato alone indicates a more separated note, so the additional staccato marking is redundant. Finale of course plays marcato notes long anyway, but for the performer there isn't that much of a difference.

Phase 2:
- Same thing as Phase 1 about the LH middle voice being the bass (m41-56 LH).
- m43-44: There's an additional chromatic bassline here that matches the rhythm of the RH chords.

Phase 3:
- Same thing about the bass and stuff for m75-76, etc.
- The entire voice is out of tune, but that melody in m81-82/85-86 sounds about a half-step higher (maybe a bit less) compared to m73-74/77-78.
- m89-104 LH top voice: The 8th note on beat 3 of m89 (and similar) should be tenuto/slurred, while the quarter note following it on beat 3.5 should be a staccato 8th (or just a staccato quarter). In addition, the 8th note on beat 4.5 of m89 and similar should also be staccato. You have the articulations reversed in those measures.
- m104 RH: The last three 8th note clusters sound like they rise chromatically from the G before (top voice goes Ab-An-Bb).

Phase 4:
- m105 LH: There are a bunch of notes you're missing here, and some of the ones you had before are different (the C# on beat 4.5 should be Cn for example):

It should be the same for each measure that has this particular figure, but transposed to different keys starting in m113.
- m106 RH and similar: The 16th note triplet should be beamed to the 8th note after it.
- m108 RH beat 4: The last two 8th notes should be F#-E#; it is not parallel to the upper marimba part even though it sounds like it should be.
- m108 LH: All these notes should be a half-step higher.
- m111 RH beat 4.5 - m112: This entire figure should be one half-step higher. It descends chromatically into the G# in m113. It's all out of tune so it's hard to tell at first, but beat 4.5 of m112 and beat 1 of m113 are a half-step apart, and beat 3 of m112 and beat 1 of m113 are the same pitch.
- m116 LH: All these notes should also be one half-step higher.
- m121-128 RH: Some of these notes sound like they're a half step higher, but not all of them. This is what I'm hearing:

Spoiler

(ignore the LH)

[close]

- m121-128 LH: Since that recurring bass figure in m121 doesn't have any additional layer like before, you can include the extra 16th notes if you want. It's not that much more difficult to play since multiple fingers can be used.

Phase 5:
- I don't actually anything to say for this one, looks good.

Transition 2:
- Like with m8 beat 3, I hear beat 3 of m158 as Fn instead of An.

Phase 6:
- Instead of having dotted 8th notes everywhere in the LH, just use an 8th note and a 16th rest like you did in m160 RH.
- m159-161 RH: I think I hear the Db-C-B-Bb voice on top here, an octave above where you have it currently. Then all of that transposed in m167 (I hear the top voice here as E-Eb-D-Db, i.e. transposed up a minor third along with the bass).
- m159-161 RH: In addition, I think all of these chords are voiced the same way. It mainly sounds like 3 notes: a tritone with a perfect 4th above. There's probably other notes in there too but it's hard to make them out.
- m162/166 LH beat 1: Dn should be Db
- m164 RH: I hear this quite a bit differently:

It's voiced the same way as the similar chords in m11-12 in Phase 1.
- m170/174 LH beat 1: Fn should be En
- m175-182: Similar to what I said about Phase 4, you can go ahead and add those repeating 16th notes here. There's nothing else going on, so it won't be too difficult to play (and I'd argue the rest of the sheet is harder anyway). Up to you though.
- m175-182 RH: It sounds like a perfect 4th (plus several octaves) above the bass voice, although I guess it's fine to keep it.

General stuff:
- Several dynamics/articulations/etc. are rather close to the top margins/text, and you have enough space to move those top systems down a bit.

This is really impressive stuff, but I guess I should've expected that. Great arrangement!

[Bloop]

- For those chords in m1/3, I think I hear an additional voice in the middle, D to C#. I think Zeila mentioned something similar, but it looks like it wasn't implemented.

I thought I had commented on Zeila's suggestion but apparently I didn't: I felt like adding it on top would distract too much from what's most audible (the A-G# part), but changing the E-D# in the middle to D-C# does work pretty well! I think you meant something like that too right?

- For m9-24, what you have as the middle LH voice (E-Eb-D-Db-etc.) should actually be the bass voice. There is no 5th underneath that.

Aren't the piano notes in the original in the lower octave though? I don't hear them in the F#2-A2 range but in the F#1-A1 range, not that far above what it plays in m25. I may still prefer doubling it in octaves anyways, since it's the most audible bass note.

- m11/15 etc: You could tie the Gb if you want, since it's not doubled in the upper RH voice. It would just require some note spacing and placing adjustments.

I think I'll keep it as is, having it tied just makes it look messier than it currently is.

- m26-40: Marcato symbols should always appear on the stem side. In addition, you don't need marcato+staccato in this case, at least imo. Marcato alone indicates a more separated note, so the additional staccato marking is redundant. Finale of course plays marcato notes long anyway, but for the performer there isn't that much of a difference.

I thought marcato just referred to a stronger attack than a normal accent, and it doesn't have much impact on the length of the note (as I am also using it in the L.H. here). I don't see Gould mention anything else about it either. I also read that marcato symbols usually go above the stave, regardless of stem direction, because of the space, but I guess that doesn't really matter that much in this case. Anyway, I think I'll leave the staccato part in (better safe than sorry, to be extra clear these notes aren't meant to be not-staccato), but I did move them up. I also moved the staccato markings up, so the articulations won't jump up and down.

- m43-44: There's an additional chromatic bassline here that matches the rhythm of the RH chords.

Ah yeah you're right, though it's a bit hard to make out the exact notes, but I think it should be this considering the track it's sampled from (this one). I hope this formatting is right too?

- The entire voice is out of tune, but that melody in m81-82/85-86 sounds about a half-step higher (maybe a bit less) compared to m73-74/77-78.

Ah yeah, I think 73-74 and 77-78 start closer to the equal tempered E, and 81-82 and 85-86 are a quarter tone higher. Though in isolation I still hear them more as E, I'll move it up a semitone so they're still different. I moved the L.H. up too so it's still in the same key.

- m89-104 LH top voice: The 8th note on beat 3 of m89 (and similar) should be tenuto/slurred, while the quarter note following it on beat 3.5 should be a staccato 8th (or just a staccato quarter). In addition, the 8th note on beat 4.5 of m89 and similar should also be staccato. You have the articulations reversed in those measures.

Instead of a tenuto or slur, I think I'll go with both that 8th and the quarter note as un-staccato'd 8ths. It's not really possible/very uncomfortable to actually connect the Eb and the F here, so I'd rather not slur or tenuto it, and the F has the length of an exact 8th. This part is solely played with the L.H. thumb, so it's very possible the Eb on beat 3 will be just as long as the others before it, but maybe there will be a little difference now.

- m105 LH: There are a bunch of notes you're missing here, and some of the ones you had before are different (the C# on beat 4.5 should be Cn for example):

It should be the same for each measure that has this particular figure, but transposed to different keys starting in m113.

Oh yeah, I didn't even notice there was a marimba bass part too, I solely focused on the electric bass. It should all be fixed now though!

- m111 RH beat 4.5 - m112: This entire figure should be one half-step higher. It descends chromatically into the G# in m113. It's all out of tune so it's hard to tell at first, but beat 4.5 of m112 and beat 1 of m113 are a half-step apart, and beat 3 of m112 and beat 1 of m113 are the same pitch.

I hear this too now, but I still hear the note on m111 beat 4.5 as a Gn (I wrote it as Fx before but now as Gn, as that makes more sense with the rest of m112)

- m121-128 RH: Some of these notes sound like they're a half step higher, but not all of them. This is what I'm hearing:

Spoiler

(ignore the LH)

[close]

Fixed, but I rewrote most of it enharmonically with more flats and un-accidentaled notes instead of sharps and double sharps.

- m121-128 LH: Since that recurring bass figure in m121 doesn't have any additional layer like before, you can include the extra 16th notes if you want. It's not that much more difficult to play since multiple fingers can be used.

I guess yeah, I'm just particularly bad at it myself haha. I decreased the size of the noteheads of every second sixteenth, to indicate they could be left out, but lmk if it's preferred to just have them all full sized!

- m159-161 RH: I think I hear the Db-C-B-Bb voice on top here, an octave above where you have it currently. Then all of that transposed in m167 (I hear the top voice here as E-Eb-D-Db, i.e. transposed up a minor third along with the bass).
- m159-161 RH: In addition, I think all of these chords are voiced the same way. It mainly sounds like 3 notes: a tritone with a perfect 4th above. There's probably other notes in there too but it's hard to make them out.

i don't remember anymore but this may be like what i had before i changed it by latios' suggestion? It's really weird how my ear keeps hearing stuff differently. After re-re-relistening to it again, I have something else, but it has a tritone, a perfec fourth, and the Db on top, so I guess this works.

- m175-182: Similar to what I said about Phase 4, you can go ahead and add those repeating 16th notes here. There's nothing else going on, so it won't be too difficult to play (and I'd argue the rest of the sheet is harder anyway). Up to you though.

I added the sixteenths with smaller noteheads again. I feel like the repeated notes would be a bit more difficult here though because of the tempo (20 bpm more than before)

- m175-182 RH: It sounds like a perfect 4th (plus several octaves) above the bass voice, although I guess it's fine to keep it.

yeah that may be true but I think I'll just keep it as the same notes, the fourth sounds really off to me

- Several dynamics/articulations/etc. are rather close to the top margins/text, and you have enough space to move those top systems down a bit.

I lowered the top systems on some pages a bit, but I didn't really feel like there was a place where it was that bad tbh. If there's still some spots, could you tell me which pages are the problem?


Everything un-commented on is fixed! Thanks for looking through this one! There's so much going on, it's strange how my ear just keeps deciding to hear things differently. I'm glad you still have your sanity after going through it!