[PC] Minecraft - "Rubedo" by Whoppybones

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

Previous topic - Next topic

PlayfulPiano

#15
Quote from: Static on October 04, 2021, 08:56:33 PMTry 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
Oh wait were those LH meant to be placed for the ostinato? If that's the case then never mind about the cross staffing, although I think some of the LH positions seem unclear (at least to me) in terms of what line of music it was meant to represent. (also yeah I totally forgot about the crossstaff being talked about earlier myb)

Should the LH be placed where it is originally or where I have it placed (in red)?



(will modify crossstaff feedback mainly so it applies to when there's 3 distinct levels)

PlayfulPiano

....might've spent the last 3 hours finally finishing my own arrangement of rubedo after posting that earlier feedback, haha.

but yeah static I did a few edits to my feedback post besides the crossstaff part based on what I was doing with my own arrangement, so that should hopefully help out.

Whoppybones

Good thing I forgot to get around to it today, then... :D  Guess I'll take my popcorn and watch you two go back and forth for a few days. ;)

Static

#18
Quote from: Whoppybones on October 05, 2021, 06:11:05 PMGood thing I forgot to get around to it today, then... :D  Guess I'll take my popcorn and watch you two go back and forth for a few days. ;)
I don't mean to come across as overbearing, but comments like these really aren't helpful in sub threads. Whenever you're not busy, I encourage you to discuss with us.

Anyways, here we go:

Quote from: PlayfulPiano on October 04, 2021, 08:26:12 PM-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.
-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).
-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.
-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.
-m61: like with m45, move the LH closer to the center of the system for better clarity.
So this is all stuff related to cross-staffing, which Latios and I discussed previously. Yes, there are several instances where using the RH or LH to play certain notes would make things easier, but that's not necessarily the function of the two staves. Cross-staffing is a very frequent notation tool, and often these decisions are left up to the performer except in cases were clarification may be needed (hence the few L.H. markings throughout). The notation in this sheet looks much cleaner when that voice is kept to the upper staff.

I don't think any of these changes are really necessary except for moving the L.H. markings - these should definitely go next to the RH lower layer when applicable.

Quote from: PlayfulPiano on October 04, 2021, 08:26:12 PM-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.
-m41: with the m33 feedback earlier, you can remove the mp here in this measure.
-m49: would recommend adding an mf dynamic.
-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.
-m77: change the f dynamic to ff.
-m81: change the mf dynamic to f.
-m85: change the mp dynamic to mf.
-m89: change the p dynamic to mp.
-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.
The subtle dynamic changes here are something that might be better left up to the performer, most of these aren't what I'd consider necessary - but feel free to add these if you want. I second the neinte suggestion though.

Quote from: PlayfulPiano on October 04, 2021, 08:26:12 PM-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.
Yeah, after listening again you're right. This might actually be a situation where it could be better to leave out the accents entirely and leave these minutiae up to the performer. Notating in the accents all the way though would be fine too though.

Quote from: PlayfulPiano on October 04, 2021, 08:26:12 PM-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)
-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)
-m17 b1: you know the drill, E3/E4 left hand, E1 right hand cross over
The bass is lower in those spots, but I don't think it's necessary to write it in since it would require some extra leaps. It's easier to play as it is now, but well it's up to you.
Also, the bass in m13 is definitely F there, not E. Nice catch.

Quote from: PlayfulPiano on October 04, 2021, 08:26:12 PM-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.
Kinda goes along with what I said earlier. Up to you, Whoppybones.

Quote from: PlayfulPiano on October 04, 2021, 08:26:12 PM-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.
-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.
It sounds like that, but that's only because both voices are in such a similar range. I think it would be better to keep that ostinato voice consistent throughout the entire piece than try to make it part of the melody, which is why I agree with this next comment:
(also I still hear a D4 there, but it's a bit quieter than before)

Quote from: PlayfulPiano on October 04, 2021, 08:26:12 PM-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.
m17/18: as before, would recommend not having the second layer for the A4
I think you mean it's the first (top) layer that should be cut. I think this makes sense.

Quote from: PlayfulPiano on October 04, 2021, 08:26:12 PM-m46 b4: remove the D4
I still hear the D there.

Quote from: PlayfulPiano on October 04, 2021, 08:26:12 PM-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).
Assuming you're talking about Layer 3, I would definitely would not do this - the pedal E in the bass is important to the harmony and texture of this piece.
In addition, this melody is not doubled in the original piece, it's pretty firmly just in the middle/tenor range.

Quote from: PlayfulPiano on October 04, 2021, 08:26:12 PMFor 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).
Same as above; these notes don't play in the lower register, they're in the upper register. Having it so low with the sustain pedal makes it sound really muddy for no good reason.

Quote from: PlayfulPiano on October 04, 2021, 08:26:12 PM-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.
It's hard to really determine this because the melody is played freely (hence the rubato marking). It sounds like a triplet feel to my ear and it's played very similarly to the same rhythm in m46-47. I think it's fine to leave it as is.

Quote from: PlayfulPiano on October 04, 2021, 08:26:12 PM-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).
If you want different layers to have different dynamics, just use different dynamics for the different layers. This is a fine suggestion, but again, I don't think it's really necessary considering the constant fluctuations of dynamics of the piece as a whole. It could be left up to the performer.

Quote from: PlayfulPiano on October 04, 2021, 08:26:12 PM-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.
It slides into the A on beat 1, which produces a sort of smear effect - you're right that it settles into A on beat 1.5, but the note change is right on the downbeat. The crazy reverb in this makes it hard to tell at first. Anyways, the octave I would say is optional, the voice sample only plays the upper octave but including the lower one would help beef up the section too. Up to you.

Quote from: PlayfulPiano on October 04, 2021, 08:26:12 PM-m81 b1: add a B3 octave to the B4 tied note.
-m85 b1: add a C4 octave to the C3 tied note.
-m89 b1: add a B3 octave to the B4 tied note.
Same as above, I don't hear the lower octaves, and I don't think they're necessary to add. But you could add them if you want to.

Quote from: PlayfulPiano on October 04, 2021, 08:26:12 PM-m76 b3: Pretty sure the E2 is restrung here.
-m83 b1: the left hand E2 is restrung, so you should untie the E2 from m82.
-m87 b1: the left hand E2 is restrung, so untie the E2 from m86.
-m91 b1: the left hand E2 is restrung, so untie the E2 from m90.
Yup, good catches.

Quote from: PlayfulPiano on October 04, 2021, 08:26:12 PM-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):
I don't hear this. It sounds like what's written. The fadeout + reverb makes it hard to tell, but I'm pretty sure it's just the same ostinato pattern as the rest of the piece. I also don't hear the melody part doubled an octave below.

It's hard to critique arrangements of tracks that you already have arranged yourself, since most of the time you're just thinking that the way you did it is how it should be - and that's a completely natural response. But many of the things you pointed out I think are more subtle arranging decisions that would work either way. What Whoppybones currently has already works well imo, but I would make the changes that I pointed out should be changed.

Hopefully you can make sense of all this, Whoppybones, I know we're all talking a lot here.

Edit: Responded to a few new things that I overlooked earlier.

Whoppybones

#19
Here are my thoughts on the things Static mentioned:

-Those L.H. markings are definitely supposed to NOT be where they're at, so I'm gonna fix those.
-I don't plan on changing the dynamics, tho I'm going to add in the niente marking since you both agree that should be placed.
-I'll leave the accents up to the performer since they're super inconsistent.
-Change the lower voice of m13's LH to an F
-Since there's disagreement on whether or not to remove the Ds, I'm going to leave them in because I hear them.
-m76 b3, m83 b1, m87 b1, m91 b1: The E's need to be notated so they're played again, so I'll take care of that.

I haven't implemented these changes yet, but it sounds like this is everything that needs to be done. If there's anything else critical that I haven't addressed, let me know so I can discuss them with you. Thanks guys!

Whoppybones

I have now implemented the changes that I said I would in the previous post. (Note that I edited the previous post slightly to remove things I changed my mind on)

Bloop

such calming vibes, nice work!

-Maybe, instead m45, you can put the 'LH' marking at m41? Maybe it's still technically playable by the R.H., but it's easier to let the L.H. take over. Also, maybe you could ad
-m47: There's an E in on beat 1 here, like in m23. You can just add it as an 8th note like you did with the F in m46.
-m47 and 63: I feel like there should be a G# in the top melody here on beat 1, but I only hear it very faintly in the reverb of the piano, instead of the actual piano note. I can hear it a little bit clearer in m63, but it's still pretty soft.
-m48: I hear a (softer) bass note E on beat 3 here too.
-m49: Usually, you should write single grace notes as 8th notes instead of 16ths (also in m57)
-I feel like from this point on, the low held E in the L.H. plays every two bars instead of every four bars. It's a bit subtle here but it gets more and more clearer the longer it goes on for.
-m57: The 8va mark should start a little bit earlier, so the 8 is more to the left of the first note. Also, maybe you could add a text box saying "8va only for top layer" or something, so it's clear the bottom layer shouldn't be transposed up an octave.
-m61: Why is the LH mark here too? There's not much of a difference since m41 (or m45)
-About the dynamics: there's a very long crescendo in this part, (noticeably) starting at m65 until m77. I feel like starting it at 72 is a bit late, as the held E in the R.H. is already way louder than the B in m65. I wouldn't write the crescendo as a 12-bar long hairpin though, but rather as just 'cresc.' at m65, and maybe in brackets at m69 and m73 too. This way it doesn't get too cluttered with a lot of hairpin action, but the player still gets pushed to play louder and louder.
(btw: if you go with the cresc. marking instead of the hairpin, this won't really matter, but just for future cases: in m73, the hairpin should continue under the first note of the bar (or just a bit before), not right at the first barline)
Then, arriving at m77, maybe you could even make this ff instead of just f: this bar is really loud compared to everything that came before, and writing it as ff just envokes that climax even more.
-m87: The hairpin here doesn't really touch the L.H. notes, but I feel it could go up just a few ticks more for comfort.
-Throwing the volume way up, I can hear one last low E after the last bar. You could add this in as the end of the piece with a fermate, as well as continue the decrescendo until here. As for the niente at the end, I'm personally more a fan of ppp, as playing al niente is nearly impossible on a piano. If you wanna keep it as niente though, I can work with that!
-The pdf you currently have seems like an outdated version, but in there the LH text boxes are in the wrong place. Do you use Finales built-in pdf exporter? If so, I'd recommend changing to something else, as it has issues like this that appear sometimes.



Whoppybones

All changes suggested by Bloop have been added with 2 exceptions:
   1. I didn't hear the G# in m47 and m63, so it didn't get added
   2. The niente has been left as is.
So excited for this to be finished (and it sounds like we're nearing the end!  ;D)

Bloop

Great! After notifying in discord, I flipped the fermata at the end so it's above the staff instead of enter, and with that I'll approve!

You cannot view this attachment.

Zeta

This submission has been accepted by Bloop.

~Zeta, your friendly NSM-Bot