Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Other
Game: Celeste
Console: Multiplatform
Title: Quiet and Falling
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: PlayfulPiano

[PlayfulPiano]

oh wow so this is a doozie ain't it

so this was an arrangement I initially did to completion back when I was using musescore in like... 2018.

finally was able to redo the entire arrangement from scratch in finale, using some of the newer tools I didn't have easy access to before (crossstaff, hidden dynamics, etc.), as well as making some corrections I discovered while listening to it again (had to rewrite some measures due to some missing notes, haha).

The main issue of the arrangement as is would probably be it being 2 measures per system after measure m68, but as it stands right now the arrangement DOES perfectly fill out the last page (page 11). So it might be fine to keep the 2 measure system as is, even if it's gonna be 11 pages (and to be honest, if it was changed to like 3 measures per system it might only reduce it by a page or two).

Oh and I'm a slight bit unsure with what the pitch is for the held note in the left hand of m123 and m139 (it's I think one of An, G, or Bb?).

so yeah, hope you enjoy.

Edit: oh yeah and there's a weird thing with the repeat section. if I try expanding the line it changes color & I don't think it aligns correctly, not sure why.

[Static]

This looks really clean and readable, so I'm gonna get right into the finer details here:

- With regards to the page count and spacing, obviously it'd be nice to have less pages, but I think it's a bit more important to have your music look readable and clear - even if that means adding some pages. With that said, if you use a mixture of 3- and 2-measure systems, you can perfectly fit this on 9 pages without it looking too cramped. Up to you though.
- m13/45/81/113: All the other parts you included for the other measures happen to have all the notes of each respective chord. But m13/etc. is Fm9, the most important note of which is Ab (the minor 3rd). As it is now, the chord sounds tonally ambiguous, it could be major or minor. I would suggest moving the lower RH voice from C to Ab to remedy this.
- That natural sign in m32/36 LH is pretty close to the barline, but it should fix itself if you just click on the note.
- You can move the mp in m33 down, it's a bit close to the tie.
- "Grace Notes Second Time Only" doesn't need to have every word capitalized, only "Grace" needs to be (or just leave it all lowercase).
- The F in the melody in m53 sounds like it's restruck quickly. You can indicate this with an unslurred grace note:

- m63-64 RH: To better show the resolution from Bbsus4 to Bb, I would make the whole note in Layer 2 of m63 Eb instead of F
- m117-124, 133-140: Those RH whole notes sound more like G's all the way through
- m129: This RH whole note sounds like F instead of Eb
- For the 32nd note section, when you have those big ties, I would generally try to avoid having them go through the beams if you can. They kinda get lost in there and it looks a bit messy. Ideally they should just cut through the stems of the 32nd notes.
- Generally, there's a fair amount more space at the bottom of each page compared to the top. That 3rd Layer half note in m60 for example is really close to the text above it. I would increase the top margin of each of the top systems to around 0.35.
- Instead of pppp or ppp, n (niente, literally "nothing" dynamic) might be more appropriate. Niente isn't a default dynamic, so you have to go to the Expression Selection menu > Dynamics > Create Dynamic... > Set font as Maestro > go to Text (at the very top of the box) > Inserts > Symbol... > scroll to #150 (n) > click OK. Playback doesn't automatically work for these, so just hide the pppp dynamics.

[PlayfulPiano]

This looks really clean and readable, so I'm gonna get right into the finer details here:

- With regards to the page count and spacing, obviously it'd be nice to have less pages, but I think it's a bit more important to have your music look readable and clear - even if that means adding some pages. With that said, if you use a mixture of 3- and 2-measure systems, you can perfectly fit this on 9 pages without it looking too cramped. Up to you though.
- m13/45/81/113: All the other parts you included for the other measures happen to have all the notes of each respective chord. But m13/etc. is Fm9, the most important note of which is Ab (the minor 3rd). As it is now, the chord sounds tonally ambiguous, it could be major or minor. I would suggest moving the lower RH voice from C to Ab to remedy this.
- That natural sign in m32/36 LH is pretty close to the barline, but it should fix itself if you just click on the note.
- You can move the mp in m33 down, it's a bit close to the tie.
- "Grace Notes Second Time Only" doesn't need to have every word capitalized, only "Grace" needs to be (or just leave it all lowercase).
- The F in the melody in m53 sounds like it's restruck quickly. You can indicate this with an unslurred grace note:

- m63-64 RH: To better show the resolution from Bbsus4 to Bb, I would make the whole note in Layer 2 of m63 Eb instead of F
- m117-124, 133-140: Those RH whole notes sound more like G's all the way through
- m129: This RH whole note sounds like F instead of Eb
- For the 32nd note section, when you have those big ties, I would generally try to avoid having them go through the beams if you can. They kinda get lost in there and it looks a bit messy. Ideally they should just cut through the stems of the 32nd notes.
- Generally, there's a fair amount more space at the bottom of each page compared to the top. That 3rd Layer half note in m60 for example is really close to the text above it. I would increase the top margin of each of the top systems to around 0.35.
- Instead of pppp or ppp, n (niente, literally "nothing" dynamic) might be more appropriate. Niente isn't a default dynamic, so you have to go to the Expression Selection menu > Dynamics > Create Dynamic... > Set font as Maestro > go to Text (at the very top of the box) > Inserts > Symbol... > scroll to #150 (n) > click OK. Playback doesn't automatically work for these, so just hide the pppp dynamics.

I might do page spacing after the other changes just to make sure it doesn't look crowded in post.

Instead of replacing it, I decided to add the Ab as a third (nice catching that btw I didn't even notice it was two notes). Also I added a G to the B in the following measures because I'm pretty sure that not only sounds better but is also more accurate. Same with a Bb to the Bbmaj chord variant.

Fixed the naturals.

Fixed the mp.

Fixed the grace note mention.

Interesting, but I can't really seem to hear this personally at the measure you specified. Instead I think I hear what you're talking about in b3 of m58 instead.

The F is accurate as I'm trying to base the notes on the strings rather than the chord itself, + that's where the piano ostinato comes into play anyways for the Eb.

My god you're right about that G. Great catch. Actually, I think the lower G/Eb pattern plays throughout the track anyways, but the upper part of this middle section stops in the final few measures.

You're hearing the high F5 in m130. Basically these strings technically fade in a measure earlier but I have it written so they're played at the point when they have a more notable volume. I'm fairly sure the lower note is an Eb4.

I was told that ties through beams are fine as long as they go through and not into like noteheads / stems.

I tried doing that but it led to some systems being moved around which I wanna try and avoid. Maybe i'll get into that if I do partial 3 measure systems idk.

Is using niente fine as an audio cue which isn't related to a track fadeout? If so I'll definitely change it if you confirm.


Submission is otherwise updated with the changes mentioned.

[Static]

Changes look great! I'm not sure what I was hearing at m130, but I suppose it's easy to get lost in that section. Regardless, I'm hearing what you've got.
Still not too keen on the 11 pages, but we'll see if someone else also prefers 9. It's a small difference though, to be fair.

I just have a last few points:
- Move the 1. and 2. numbers a bit more to the left, they should fit more snugly in that corner - Finale's default positioning is a bit far out.
- For the grace note, I meant m54 (though I do hear the one in m58 too on the first time only). The m54 grace note I actually hear as Bb now, but since that's already playing in the lower layer, it can be omitted (same for the one in m58 since it's so quiet).
- The quarter rests on beat 3 of pages 9-11 RH should all be in their default position.
- Yes, n can be used for fade-ins/outs, so I think it's appropriate here.

We talked about the above on Discord, so this sheet is good to go. Approved

[Bloop]

Nice work! Here's some of my comments:

-m.49-67 R.H.: The voice in the second layer here should actually play the melody in the first layer but an octave lower, right? You don't really need it as harmonic filling, as most of the pitches would be doubled in the melody or in the arpeggio's anyway, so you could just double the melody an octave below.
-m.69-84 and 101-end: Maybe having the last note of these arpeggios as a staccato 8th note (instead of a 32nd note with those rests following) makes a bit more sense here. It removes the 32nd and 16th rests, as those may cause some confusion with counting rests. Also, maybe it's worth nudging some of the ties and beams up or down so they don't collide with each other. It's not really a readability problem, but it justs look a bit nicer. Compare:

Spoiler

[close]

instead of

Spoiler

[close]

-I'm not familiar with the game, but does the song fade out in the original as well or does it just repeat sections? I'm mainly asking because of the end of the arrangement: currently, you have arranged the fade out with a diminuendo marking, but that doesn't really work well as an ending, as you can't really play a fade out on piano reliably. I usually prefer either just putting a repeat mark back to where the song repeats to, or creating your own alternatine ending. This would be something like an alternate ending at m.133:

Spoiler

[close]

You don't have to use this specific ending of course, it's just to give you an idea of how to end the piece without a fade out.

[PlayfulPiano]

Nice work! Here's some of my comments:

-m.49-67 R.H.: The voice in the second layer here should actually play the melody in the first layer but an octave lower, right? You don't really need it as harmonic filling, as most of the pitches would be doubled in the melody or in the arpeggio's anyway, so you could just double the melody an octave below.
-m.69-84 and 101-end: Maybe having the last note of these arpeggios as a staccato 8th note (instead of a 32nd note with those rests following) makes a bit more sense here. It removes the 32nd and 16th rests, as those may cause some confusion with counting rests. Also, maybe it's worth nudging some of the ties and beams up or down so they don't collide with each other. It's not really a readability problem, but it justs look a bit nicer. Compare:

Spoiler

[close]

instead of

Spoiler

[close]

-I'm not familiar with the game, but does the song fade out in the original as well or does it just repeat sections? I'm mainly asking because of the end of the arrangement: currently, you have arranged the fade out with a diminuendo marking, but that doesn't really work well as an ending, as you can't really play a fade out on piano reliably. I usually prefer either just putting a repeat mark back to where the song repeats to, or creating your own alternatine ending. This would be something like an alternate ending at m.133:

Spoiler

[close]

You don't have to use this specific ending of course, it's just to give you an idea of how to end the piece without a fade out.

-Not exactly. The right hand is basically structured into 3 different layers: the melody, the ostinato, and the accompaniment (vocals? strings?). *Technically* the vocals written as they are right now are not 100% accurate to the original (e.g. m53 should have Eb4/Eb5 and not a tied D4 with an Eb5), as I felt that the right hand flow didn't fit as well with the notes in question / the octaves were too up front when the original had the lower notes quieter due to the instrument choice. Therefore I instead repeated the (vocals? strings?) pattern from previous phrases (D --> D --> D --> C --> C --> Bb --> Ab/C --> Bb/D or G/B), but replacing the last two with an octave Ab4 and F4 to match the vocals due to them being louder in the playback & fitting with the hand positioning.

-This is a smart change for the measure ranges you specified. I was mainly worried b/c there is the middle section you didn't include which has that small 32nd rest shift in beats for the arpeggio.
I'll try to adjust ties the best I can.

-On an in game context, the track here is of a repeated phrase that has two versions depending on what section of the level you're in. Note how the first half and second half completely overlap in this phrasing, since in game once you go from section one to section two, the music will morph into the other section. Now this does repeat in game yes, but in the OST it *is* a fadeout written as such (ending at the same length of time, 7:27). So it's hard to setup a good loop for this.
I personally prefer keeping the fadeout over making a custom ending, both to keep its accuracy to the original OST track, and to allow performers to be able to sync their performances over the original track if they so choose.

Updated.

[Bloop]

-Not exactly. The right hand is basically structured into 3 different layers: the melody, the ostinato, and the accompaniment (vocals? strings?). *Technically* the vocals written as they are right now are not 100% accurate to the original (e.g. m53 should have Eb4/Eb5 and not a tied D4 with an Eb5), as I felt that the right hand flow didn't fit as well with the notes in question / the octaves were too up front when the original had the lower notes quieter due to the instrument choice. Therefore I instead repeated the (vocals? strings?) pattern from previous phrases (D --> D --> D --> C --> C --> Bb --> Ab/C --> Bb/D or G/B), but replacing the last two with an octave Ab4 and F4 to match the vocals due to them being louder in the playback & fitting with the hand positioning.

I guess it's true that it may be a bit overpowering to have the melody in octaves, after playing it myself for a bit. As long as you're consciously choosing to do this as an arrangement technique rather than forgetting it was there, I think it's fine!

-This is a smart change for the measure ranges you specified. I was mainly worried b/c there is the middle section you didn't include which has that small 32nd rest shift in beats for the arpeggio.
I'll try to adjust ties the best I can.

The shift is actually just a sixteenth note, which is a bit more manageable, so no worries about that. The ties look pretty good mostly! Only in 81, 83, 113 and 115 they look a bit too horizontal. I'd suggest moving down the beams from the cross-staved arpeggio's, so the tie's can in turn be moved down a bit too. Also, in m.101 and 102, the staccato is missing on the eighth note.

-On an in game context, the track here is of a repeated phrase that has two versions depending on what section of the level you're in. Note how the first half and second half completely overlap in this phrasing, since in game once you go from section one to section two, the music will morph into the other section. Now this does repeat in game yes, but in the OST it *is* a fadeout written as such (ending at the same length of time, 7:27). So it's hard to setup a good loop for this.
I personally prefer keeping the fadeout over making a custom ending, both to keep its accuracy to the original OST track, and to allow performers to be able to sync their performances over the original track if they so choose.

I mean nearly every track in nearly every OST has a fadeout at the end, because nearly every track repeats in-game. I doubt there are many arrangements with fadeouts though. I also wonder if people are that adamant to play the track until the very end of the fadeout, no earlier or later.
If you put repeat signs between m.117 and 132, and put "Fine" or something descriptive like "end of OST" at 126, you can have the clarity of where the repeat is as well as knowing where the piece stops (and it saves a page of ink :p). I could also settle with something like a double barline after m.132 and "Fadeout" at 133 (or 137). It's mostly just to make it clear how the different sections of the piece interact.

[PlayfulPiano]

The shift is actually just a sixteenth note, which is a bit more manageable, so no worries about that. The ties look pretty good mostly! Only in 81, 83, 113 and 115 they look a bit too horizontal. I'd suggest moving down the beams from the cross-staved arpeggio's, so the tie's can in turn be moved down a bit too. Also, in m.101 and 102, the staccato is missing on the eighth note.
I mean nearly every track in nearly every OST has a fadeout at the end, because nearly every track repeats in-game. I doubt there are many arrangements with fadeouts though. I also wonder if people are that adamant to play the track until the very end of the fadeout, no earlier or later.
If you put repeat signs between m.117 and 132, and put "Fine" or something descriptive like "end of OST" at 126, you can have the clarity of where the repeat is as well as knowing where the piece stops (and it saves a page of ink :p). I could also settle with something like a double barline after m.132 and "Fadeout" at 133 (or 137). It's mostly just to make it clear how the different sections of the piece interact.

-yeah mb i meant 16th not 32nd.
Fixed the ties and staccatos
-I added "OST ends here on second repeat." at the end of m126 (it acts as a second pass Fine), and I removed the 11th page by adding in a repeat like you said. Hope this looks fine.

Updated.

[Bloop]

Nice! The sheet is all good now! There's something strange with the midi, however. In the second part with the arpeggio's (from 3:51 on), the dynamics don't seem to restart after two bars, so everything is very quiet very quickly (at least, that's how it sounds in windows media player). After some studying, it's probably because of the hidden dynamics: the end-dynamics are placed at the very end of the bar and all hidden descrendos start at the very start and end at the very end. I believe those override the dynamic marking at the start at the bar, which means the piece only gets quieter and quieter. I took the liberty to move all of those in by a bit, and it seems to have worked. There may still be some variance in if the decresendo works properly or not, but at least everything is hearable. I can update the file for you, but I just wanted to be sure if you're okay with it too:
[MID]

[PlayfulPiano]

Nice! The sheet is all good now! There's something strange with the midi, however. In the second part with the arpeggio's (from 3:51 on), the dynamics don't seem to restart after two bars, so everything is very quiet very quickly (at least, that's how it sounds in windows media player). After some studying, it's probably because of the hidden dynamics: the end-dynamics are placed at the very end of the bar and all hidden descrendos start at the very start and end at the very end. I believe those override the dynamic marking at the start at the bar, which means the piece only gets quieter and quieter. I took the liberty to move all of those in by a bit, and it seems to have worked. There may still be some variance in if the decresendo works properly or not, but at least everything is hearable. I can update the file for you, but I just wanted to be sure if you're okay with it too:
[MID]

Yeah that's fine Bloop.

[Bloop]

Great! Edited the midi file and accepting this submission!

[Zeta]

This submission has been accepted by Bloop.

~Zeta, your friendly NSM-Bot