[PC] Minecraft - "Rubedo" by Whoppybones

Started by Zeta, August 30, 2021, 03:42:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Zeta

Submission Information:

Series: Other
Game: Minecraft
Console: PC
Title: Rubedo
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Whoppybones

[attachment deleted by admin]

Whoppybones


PlayfulPiano

#2
..........dammit I should've stopped putting off my arrangement lmao

-Don't use the extended lines for pedal markings. Instead replace it with a simple "con pedale" expression box beneath the bass clef.
-You can arguably rewrite the track at half the written time, i.e. making every 2 measure phrase condensed into one measure by halving the duration of every note (8th notes --> 16th notes, quarter notes --> 8th notes, etc.).
-You should probably cross the ostinato between both staves throughout the track, especially since once you get to m41 it's pretty clear that the ostinato should be played only by the left hand more or less.
-Octaves that start at m9 vary from being at the level you have written there & a level an octave lower outright. Just grabbing out of my unfinished rubedo arrangement, here's what I basically did for reference:

-m53+ in regards to the left hand high note accompinament melody, you should realistically rethink how you want to do this. Rule of thumb is to avoid any intervals for one hand over a 10th, and even that should be avoidable whenever possible. My suggestion would be to make the left hand's octave based on the melody with the middle note being the E. So like for example in m53 instead of a E2/E3/G3 chord, you have a G2/E3/G3 chord. And for walk downs like m54 b3, you can do F2/E3/F3.
-m73 should start with a very notable crescendo up until the climax. Maybe also accent the left hand chords. And this section as a whole I think should be a lot more heavy with the octaves involved in both the left and right hand.

Static

#3
    This looks pretty fantastic overall - that custom 8va shape is pretty classy

Quote from: PlayfulPiano on August 30, 2021, 05:17:39 PMYou can arguably rewrite the track at half the written time, i.e. making every 2 measure phrase condensed into one measure by halving the duration of every note (8th notes --> 16th notes, quarter notes --> 8th notes, etc.).
Personally, I think counting this at 84bpm (as opposed to 42...) makes a lot more sense. It's more easy to feel the pulse that way, and 82 is still a pretty slow-moderate tempo. It's a slow piece, but not that slow.

Quote from: PlayfulPiano on August 30, 2021, 05:17:39 PMYou should probably cross the ostinato between both staves throughout the track, especially since once you get to m41 it's pretty clear that the ostinato should be played only by the left hand more or less.
It's perfectly acceptable to have cross-hand parts without necessarily writing them in the corresponding staff. When you get to m53-64, putting that part in the LH staff results in 4 separate overlapping layers - it looks a bit confusing. So, I'd recommend simply putting in a little "LH" marking at the start of m41 next to the arpeggio voice, where the LH is actually needed.

Quote from: PlayfulPiano on August 30, 2021, 05:17:39 PM-m53+ in regards to the left hand high note accompinament melody, you should realistically rethink how you want to do this. Rule of thumb is to avoid any intervals for one hand over a 10th, and even that should be avoidable whenever possible. My suggestion would be to make the left hand's octave based on the melody with the middle note being the E. So like for example in m53 instead of a E2/E3/G3 chord, you have a G2/E3/G3 chord. And for walk downs like m54 b3, you can do F2/E3/F3.
Depends on hand size, but E-F (9th) and E-G (10th) are acceptable intervals to write out on occasion, particularly in a slow, lyrical piece. I'd be more concerned if it went from a black key to a white key or vice versa (like Bb-D - that's a stretch for almost anyone). Large intervals on white keys are easier to play due to the physicality of the keyboard itself. I think the most important thing in this context is keeping the E in the bass, so I'd rather just remove the middle E (just make it E-F and E-G). Middle notes make large intervals much more challenging to play. I think it's still easy enough to just play all 3 notes, but my hands might be slightly above average size.

Some more things:
- Whoppybones should be capitalized so it matches your other sheets on-site
- As someone not that familiar with Minecraft, this track appears to be from a different version of the game. Are we just going to keep the on-site title the same, à la Celeste? If so, maybe change the title in the sheet itself. Or just go with whatever makes sense to you Minecraft people. I'll just assume this is fine as-is for now.
- Unless they cross into the next measure, (de)crescendos should not touch barlines.
- The notes on beat 2.5/4.5 tend to be accented compared to the surrounding accompaniment notes, starting at m9. You could notate this with accents in m9-10 (hide the rest of them), and then put simile in m11. You can leave the articulation up the performer as well, but I think it's noticeable enough to notate.
- When the melody cuts out (like m11-12, 19-22 up beat 3, m40 up to beat 3, etc.), you can hide the rests and flip the arpeggio voice back up.
- m25 RH: I think it would make more sense to write this as you do m27-40, without the top layer. The A is part of the accented note idea I mentioned previously, not part of the melody.
- m40 RH: The 8th+16th rest can be simplified to a dotted 8th rest if you so desire.
- m46 RH: The A in the top voice should be tied to m47 (there is no B on the downbeat of m47). This also applies to m62-63 RH.
- m58 RH: The dot of the dotted half note is touching the tie. Adjust either/both using the Tie Tool and/or Dot Position Tool (under Special Tools).
- m62 LH: The extra F in Layer 2 beat 4 isn't present here, only in m46.[/li][/list]
- m77 LH: I'd personally add in some more octaves like PlayfulPiano suggested. But, if you had to pick only one place to add octaves, make it here. Just temporarily cut out the upper E:
Spoiler

[close]
This is a major point of arrival, so I think the added power of the low register is appropriate. You can even make it fortissimo if you want. In addition (as you've probably noticed from the screenshot), the bass note here is C for m77-78, then it goes back to E in m79.
- Does this repeat in-game? If so, I'd write that instead of just ending the piece on a fadeout. If it does actually just fadeout in-game, then maybe add an extra ending bar (like a low octave E or something, the video you linked sounds like it does that right at the end). Up to you.

PlayfulPiano

Quote from: Static on September 08, 2021, 03:47:23 PMPersonally, I think counting this at 84bpm (as opposed to 42...) makes a lot more sense. It's more easy to feel the pulse that way, and 82 is still a pretty slow-moderate tempo. It's a slow piece, but not that slow.
Would it not be unreasonable for the tempo to be eighth = 84, keeping the same 84 beat pulse but done with a less lengthy measure extension? Would decrease the page # too, no?

Quote from: Static on September 08, 2021, 03:47:23 PM- As someone not that familiar with Minecraft, this track appears to be from a different version of the game. Are we just going to keep the on-site title the same, à la Celeste? If so, maybe change the title in the sheet itself. Or just go with whatever makes sense to you Minecraft people. I'll just assume this is fine as-is for now.
Track is part of the base game and is not a unique version. Rather it's an OST specific to an update of the game from a different composer vs. the original, but is nonetheless still the base game. Unless we should be naming tracks based on OST titles instead of game titles, in which therefore probably the "Wet Hands" and "Sweden" tracks should have the subtitle renamed to "Minecraft: Volume Alpha". But I'm pretty sure that's not the case.

Quote from: Static on September 08, 2021, 03:47:23 PM- Does this repeat in-game? If so, I'd write that instead of just ending the piece on a fadeout. If it does actually just fadeout in-game, then maybe add an extra ending bar (like a low octave E or something, the video you linked sounds like it does that right at the end). Up to you.
No repeats. Minecraft songs are just like that with fadeouts.

Static

Quote from: PlayfulPiano on September 08, 2021, 04:04:55 PMWould it not be unreasonable for the tempo to be eighth = 84, keeping the same 84 beat pulse but done with a less lengthy measure extension? Would decrease the page # too, no?
Do you mean still having 4 measures per system? With 16th notes, it looks very cramped. You could achieve the same results in the current sheet by having 8 measures per system.
Spoiler
[close]

The OST stuff makes much more sense now, thanks. Let's just keep it as "Minecraft".

PlayfulPiano

Quote from: Static on September 08, 2021, 04:18:59 PMDo you mean still having 4 measures per system? With 16th notes, it looks very cramped. You could achieve the same results in the current sheet by having 8 measures per system.
Spoiler
[close]

The OST stuff makes much more sense now, thanks. Let's just keep it as "Minecraft".
oh yeah actually yeah you're right, I double checked my incomplete arrangement and I had it at two measures per system, not four.

still kinda feel like 2 per with sixteenths looks cleaner but that might just be me.

Whoppybones

Quote from: PlayfulPiano on August 30, 2021, 05:17:39 PM-m73 should start with a very notable crescendo up until the climax. Maybe also accent the left hand chords. And this section as a whole I think should be a lot more heavy with the octaves involved in both the left and right hand.
Was already there, but skipped m73-74. Has been changed to be continuous.

To Static:
Left the tempo/durations as is. They seem good enough to me, and that's just how I feel the beat. Yeah, the page count will be a little longer, but it's fine.
LH has been added
Whoppy has been capitalized
Title shall stay
Decrescendos fixed
Accents/simile added
As far as the arpeggio voice went, I decided to leave them as is for consistency. As far as I can tell, it looks fine, but if there's a problematic spot, let me know because I can change it if needed. I guess it's more of a personal preference there.
m25: removed the first layer A and flipped beaming
m40: rest changed
m46 and 62: notes adjusted as suggested
m58: dot moved
m62: copy/paste error has been corrected
m77: I added the one octave you suggested, but I didn't really hear other octaves. The way I see it, they're faint enough that only a skilled listener can hear them (AKA not me), so I'm not gonna add any others unless there's a major issue.
At the end, it IS a fadeout, not a repeat. Near as I and Kricketune can tell, it's just ambient Nether sounds for the last few seconds without the extra note you suggested.

Extras:
Unhid some eighth notes in m53 and surrounding areas
Spacings adjusted

Whoppybones

#8
Musx has been fixed. Sorry about that.

Static

Quote from: Whoppybones on September 23, 2021, 03:17:36 PMAs far as the arpeggio voice went, I decided to leave them as is for consistency. As far as I can tell, it looks fine, but if there's a problematic spot, let me know because I can change it if needed. I guess it's more of a personal preference there.
What you have already is inconsistent. m11-12, 19-21 are flipped down, while m25-39 are flipped up (as they should be) - the notes are in the same range between these passages. It would make more sense just to use the default direction for most things in this piece, so m11-12, 19-21 would be flipped up.

The rest of the changes look good, but now you have some dynamic misalignment, as well as the LH marking in m61. I thought it might just be an issue with your PDF exporter, but the mus and musx look the same. Go have a look at those and re-center them.

Also, when you have a crescendo that goes over 2 or more systems, the left side of it should actually touch the barline (take a look at m73, where it isn't touching).

And that's all I have, nice work.

Whoppybones


Static


PlayfulPiano

#12
ok so I actually was making some notes on this track for an arrangement I'm probably gonna make anyways even though I won't be able to submit it, but I might as well mention some of the things I have that are different to this arrangement. The first few points are more generalized while the rest are specific to measures as a reference.


-I don't know why you have an extra hidden staff in the .musx file, but if you can, I'd recommend removing it.

-I would personally recommend making the left hand 3 notes (E3 --> B3 --> D4) and the right hand 1 note (A4/G#4/G4/G#4) for this section. This will also help with some of the later notation suggestions for the right hand below.

-I'm not quite sure I would agree on the simile accent for the final note throughout the track. There's plenty of points where the last note *is* accented, and plenty of places where the last note *isn't* accented. I think you should instead take a listen through throughout the track and notate accents where the note does indeed get brought out more.


-m9 b1: left hand is an octave E3/E4, with right hand crossing over to play E1 (would be notated with a "R.H." or "RH" for that lower note, and you would use an 8vb underneath an E2 to notate this as well using a second layer)

-m9/m10: I wouldn't personally include a second layer for the A4 like you notated here, you can just leave it with the same note pattern as prior. I don't hear or view it as an extension of the main melody.

-m13 b1: similarly to m9 b1, left hand is an octave E3/G4 (this can be chord rolled) with right hand crossing over to play an F1 (same low note "R.H." notation)

-m14 b4: I would personally write the upper layer as two eighth notes rather than a quarter, since the melody sort of follows that pattern of F --> G --> E even though the G is part of the ostinato. Also I actually don't think the D4 is played here, listening back to the track.

-m17 b1: you know the drill, E3/E4 left hand, E1 right hand cross over

-m17/18: as before, would recommend not having the second layer for the A4

-m21 b1: maybe have other low layer whole notes (starting from m9) accented while this measure's whole note is left unaccented, because this is definitely a much quieter note comparatively.

-m22 b4: as before like with m14, would recommend making the upper layer two eighths of F4 --> G4 instead of a single quarter F4 like it's written right now. And also remove the D4, since I'm again pretty sure it isn't played.

-m33: there's a notable drop in dynamic volume or intensity here, probably in part due to the last few measures having a slight buildup. Might recommend an earlier crescendo into an immediate decrescendo for m31/32 that leads to an mp for m33.

-m39 through m64: I would recommend writing the ostinato as a cross staff for specifically this section, as there is a notable melody above and a notable bass below. This way it will be clearer for the performer that there are 3 levels for this track.

-m39/m40: I would *heavily* recommend notating the new crossstaff ostinato to be played by just the left hand, as a transition period for the coming high melody to be played exclusively by the right hand (whereas the continuing ostinato is only played by the left).

-m41: with the m33 feedback earlier, you can remove the mp here in this measure.

-m45: from what I can tell this is a positioning error for the "LH" if it's meant to apply to the ostinato and not the above right hand melody. If this is the case, I would probably move this closer to the middle of the system and not above it. Also as a reference, I've practiced playing this entire track on a physical piano, and yes you can play it without much trouble by doing b1 with the octave E2/E3 in the left hand followed by the ostinato, and doing the main melody with the right hand.

-m46 b4: remove the D4

-m49: would recommend adding an mf dynamic.

-m53 through m76: I would recommend adding a lower octave to the notes you've currently written in terms of the lower tied whole note melody.
So for m53 b1, I would write this as a G2/E3/G3 and m54 b3 I would write this as a F2/E3/F3 (as well as restring the E2 on m55).
Then for m57-m64 I wouldn't keep the E2; I would personally replace it with a doubled octave of the higher pitch (so F2/E2/G2/A2 for measures 57, 59, 61, and 63 respectively).
For m65-m72 I would add the lower note to the left hand in the 3rd octave range (so B2-G3).
Lastly for m73-76, similarly to m57-m64, I would remove the lower E2 and replace it with a duplicate pitch of the higher pitch (so F2 for m73 and G2 for m75).

-m58/59: I don't think that the right hand melody here uses a triplet. Rather I think it's just a sixteenth followed by an eighth across the measure (so two sixteenths tied together) followed by another sixteenth.

-m61: like with m45, move the LH closer to the center of the system for better clarity.

-m61-m64: you should include a crescendo, as the track heavily builds up in this phrase of 4 measures.

-m65: following the crescendo, this should have the f dynamic.

-m65+: for the single tied whole note in the right hand that plays throughout this part, I would recommend accenting or adding tenutos to the whole notes, and maybe add some form of text reference to state that the ostinato should be played quieter / decreasing the size of the ostinato notes to reference them being more of an accompaniment (might want to have an updater double check with the note size suggestion to see if it's kosher).

-m76 b3: Pretty sure the E2 is restrung here.

-m77: change the f dynamic to ff.

-m77 b1: add an A3 octave to the A4 tied note. Also technically the chord plays on b1.5 not b1, so you could write this out as A3/C4/A4 in the right hand.

-m81: change the mf dynamic to f.

-m81 b1: add a B3 octave to the B4 tied note.

-m83 b1: the left hand E2 is restrung, so you should untie the E2 from m82.

-m85: change the mp dynamic to mf.

-m85 b1: add a C4 octave to the C3 tied note.

-m87 b1: the left hand E2 is restrung, so untie the E2 from m86.

-m89: change the p dynamic to mp.

-m89 b1: add a B3 octave to the B4 tied note.

-m91 b1: the left hand E2 is restrung, so untie the E2 from m90.

-m97-m100: pretty sure this should be rewritten as this (in terms of notes, will require some tie adjustments / possibly include making the ostinato for this section crossstaffed, since there's a noteworthy melody above & the bass below):


-m101-m104: Instead of a decrescendo to ppp in m103, I would recommend extending the decrescendo to the last note of m104, and adding a "niente" dynamic (you will have to customly create the dynamic, but it basically represents a fade out to nothingness / 0 volume) right at the end.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Latios212

Quote from: PlayfulPiano on October 04, 2021, 08:26:12 PM-as a whole I would probably recommend making the entire ostinato a crossstaff pattern rather than the first note being a half note in the left hand and 3 eighth notes in the right hand, mainly because I find there to be later points where this "left one right three" pattern doesn't fit as well, and a crossstaff would make these types of adjustments easier.
Was browsing and wanted to comment here - just because the ostinato is written the way it is, split between the staves, doesn't mean that it has to be played with that LH/RH split. Also, it's not until page 3 that I'd really reconsider it, in which case you can simply put a LH marking on the lower layer in the top staff if you like. Having that layer constantly moving between the bottom and top staves would get pretty messy.
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

#14
Quote from: PlayfulPiano on August 30, 2021, 05:17:39 PM-You should probably cross the ostinato between both staves throughout the track, especially since once you get to m41 it's pretty clear that the ostinato should be played only by the left hand more or less.
Quote from: Static on September 08, 2021, 03:47:23 PMIt's perfectly acceptable to have cross-hand parts without necessarily writing them in the corresponding staff. When you get to m53-64, putting that part in the LH staff results in 4 separate overlapping layers - it looks a bit confusing. So, I'd recommend simply putting in a little "LH" marking at the start of m41 next to the arpeggio voice, where the LH is actually needed.
Quote from: PlayfulPiano on October 04, 2021, 08:26:12 PM-as a whole I would probably recommend making the entire ostinato a crossstaff pattern rather than the first note being a half note in the left hand and 3 eighth notes in the right hand, mainly because I find there to be later points where this "left one right three" pattern doesn't fit as well, and a crossstaff would make these types of adjustments easier.
Try to remember to reread the topic history if you forgot what had been said earlier... I had already addressed this, and Whoppy's new LH marking clears up any confusion that might've occurred before. It's fine as it written currently.

I want to point out a few other things first before Whoppybones integrates this feedback; there's several points I don't think need to be changed.
Will get to that tomorrow, I'm about to fall asleep at my desk