[DELETED] [PS2] Tales of the Abyss - "Silver and White" by thatoneguy

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Tales
Game: Tales of the Abyss
Console: PlayStation 2
Title: Silver and White
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: thatoneguy

[thatoneguy]

Audio files here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/br3pwa3j3wzjtq2/AACPtT1inGFp6CMKvhvK2xxpa?dl=0
I didn't find any on audio recordings on YouTube, but I didn't look at any gameplays that may potentially contain it. There are two files of the same music, the first is louder so that'll probably be more helpful to you (I didn't know I had already recorded it until I after I did a second recording).

[thatoneguy]

Huzzah! I am still arranging, though college has been taking up more of my time. *cries*
One more thing: thank you Cacabish for the Musescore to MusicXML to Finale guide and tools! You saved me (and the poor person who might have helped me with the plethora of needs that comes from using notepad) more time than I care to think about.

So, here's the fun with this piece. It's a music box arrangement you can find in game. The original song (which I would like to finish my transcription of soon before I start seeing if there's enough difference to make another piano arrangement) is of a snowy town, so I've really wanted to have this done and submitted during the winter season, but never finished either version's transcription [and arrangement] until today when the season has aligned! Between the original song and the music box, besides the change in instrumentations, the key signature is only a half step apart (Music box is in B major; Original is in C major). Besides that, I'm fairly certain that there are some [pitched instrumental] parts that are excluded in the music box for better clarity. Anyway, unimportant rant over. Now to the more important points:

• I put a performance note on the last page, which may honestly be unnecessary. Not sure. Next 4 points on this list is essentially what I put on the note.
• It's fast. Really fast. As I only just finished the arrangement and only played through it for maybe an hour on my piano, there maybe some lines (or notes) that need to be sacrificed. My stance is that the tempo of this piece is a huge part of what makes this piece. As such, this is one piece I'm more willing to drop particular notes/phrases/lines in order to have it at the approximate tempo. It's a 3/4 time signature that's played as if it was in 1.
• I added suggested dynamics. Since a music box doesn't have much in terms of dynamic contrast, it felt like the amount of notes being played (e.g., line doubled an octave up, multiple lines happening at once, sudden change in number of lines or octave doublings). Honestly, I'm okay with getting rid of the suggested dynamics if it'll really affect the tempo it can be played at. (It could just be a mf the whole time instead, and letting the parts create the "dynamic contrast")
• There are some notes with smaller heads, denoting that they should be played but with a slightly softer dynamic as it would confuse the ear to where the more important line is.
• Similarly, some notes are written in with parentheses. Those exact notes are already played by another line at the exact same time, but can help the performer see the different parts at once if they choose their dynamic voicings.
• Concern regarding the bottom staff's ledger lines. I'm currently numb to them, but I know I'll look at it when I'm not familiar with the notes may say "thatoneguy, what were you thinking? Who can read this?" One of my main concerns with moving those [stupid high] ledger line voices onto the upper staff is the confusion of having three different voices in one place in various sections of the score.
• Some of the articulations and most of the phrasings (slurs) were added on with some hesitation. I'm not great at deciding what should or shouldn't get a phrase (slur). The articulations felt a bit more clear, especially with the measures of 90% Fs and the bass voices with tenutos, but some were guesses. I'd love to hear some thoughts about my current articulations and phrase markings!
• The arpeggio marks (or seeming lack thereof) in mm17-24 I'd like to keep as close to the source as possible as I think it really makes it stand out. Mm 18 bottom staff: grace notes I know looks weird, but I like the effect if makes.
• Pedal markings. Hahahaha...ha....ha....*cries* I'm torn about it. I've left out any notes or markings for sustain pedal because there are times when it can help both the music and performer, help the performer but hurt the music, or hurt both. Maybe the performance notes should say something like "use the sustain pedal judiciously." Input on this would be great!
• One last thing. Notes should be correct. The way music box arrangements work, you go to a specific house ("The Music Box House") to listen to them. You can choose to either have it automatically play it (which is what the recordings are of), OR you play it "manually" by turning the left stick/circle pad in a circular motion. (Which way to spin? Either! Clockwise plays forward, Counterclockwise plays backwards). The notes play at the rate you spin the stick/pad; I used it to an extreme amount to make sure I heard each part or specific notes correctly. Before I started the actual arrangement, I played both the automatically played version with my transcription and listened to where they didn't match up. Tedious, yes, but I prefer having an as-close-to-exact transcription before I arrange rather than blindly arrange based on what I do or don't hear.

I think that's all I have to really say about this. Thank you in advanced to whomever gives me feedback and edits; and another thank you to Cacabish for the guide and refined tools to make the musescore conversion better!

[thatoneguy]

I should have had this on the initial post, but here's the original version that the in-game music box version is based on for possible referencing:

In some retrospect, I think some of my articulation markings are with the original in mind. It might just come down to being a personal preference/mindset if I should go with a more "music box-like approach" or take some of the articulations from the original. As I mentioned in the admittedly way too long post, I think there might be enough differences to make an arrangement that's closer to the original version; then it might be better for this music box arrangement to have less articulation that are taken from the original version if they aren't present in the music box version.

[Bloop]

After some youtube searching, I found a video that has the music box version (at timestamp 3:12):

I'll be using this one for the checking, since it's of better quality (mostly the L.H. notes are hard to make out from your recording). Thanks for making the recording though! Otherwise I wouldn't have found it myself either ;p

• It's fast. Really fast. As I only just finished the arrangement and only played through it for maybe an hour on my piano, there maybe some lines (or notes) that need to be sacrificed. My stance is that the tempo of this piece is a huge part of what makes this piece. As such, this is one piece I'm more willing to drop particular notes/phrases/lines in order to have it at the approximate tempo. It's a 3/4 time signature that's played as if it was in 1.

I don't think you should ever need to consider changing the tempo for arrangements: some players are able to play at a faster speed than others after the same amount of practice. For arrangements it's best to indicate what the original tempo is, so the player can decide at which speed they can play. In this particular piece, I think only the last page could have some questionable things, but everything else seems playable or practicable.
Some other comments about this:
-Since you say this is a waltz in 1, you could've also put it in 3/8 time. 3/8 is pretty much a full on waltz-in-one time signature. You still leave it in 3/4 though if you prefer that or don't wanna go through the trouble, it doesn't matter all that much :p
-About the tempo marking itself: I personally don't like using fractions in metronome markings, since most digital (and probably all physical) metronomes can only play integer metronome markings. The difference between 178.75 and 179 is also so small, that it shouldn't matter in practicing either. Therefore, I'd prefer this being quarter note = 179.

• I added suggested dynamics. Since a music box doesn't have much in terms of dynamic contrast, it felt like the amount of notes being played (e.g., line doubled an octave up, multiple lines happening at once, sudden change in number of lines or octave doublings). Honestly, I'm okay with getting rid of the suggested dynamics if it'll really affect the tempo it can be played at. (It could just be a mf the whole time instead, and letting the parts create the "dynamic contrast")

Though I'm fine with adding some suggestions for dynamics, using mezzo-forte or forte may make the arrangement sound less music box-y and more grand dance-y. Maybe you could explore more of the pianissimo side of dynamics? Also, make sure the dynamic markings are centered under the note heads: they're a bit to the right now.

• There are some notes with smaller heads, denoting that they should be played but with a slightly softer dynamic as it would confuse the ear to where the more important line is.

I don't think this is necessarily needed for that reason, as in m44 and 48, the octave A is more prominent already (because of it being the octave as well as the lowest and highest note, which are usually the most prominent pitches), and in m52 and 56 the note stems indicate which notes are from which line.

• Similarly, some notes are written in with parentheses. Those exact notes are already played by another line at the exact same time, but can help the performer see the different parts at once if they choose their dynamic voicings.

This is pretty common in sheets here on ninsheetmusic, so I don't think you need to clarify that for the player.

• Concern regarding the bottom staff's ledger lines. I'm currently numb to them, but I know I'll look at it when I'm not familiar with the notes may say "thatoneguy, what were you thinking? Who can read this?" One of my main concerns with moving those [stupid high] ledger line voices onto the upper staff is the confusion of having three different voices in one place in various sections of the score.

I think this would only be a problem for the last page, but I feel the voice that has all those ledger lines could be omitted there, since it doesn't add as much anymore in this part. It's not impossible to play, but it does make it a bit harder. If you wanna keep it in, you could move some notes from the L.H. to the R.H., since there are now places that are impossible to play (like m86 and m88) For future arrangements though, you can place a G-clef in the middle of the bar, so you won't have to move them to the top staff.

• Some of the articulations and most of the phrasings (slurs) were added on with some hesitation. I'm not great at deciding what should or shouldn't get a phrase (slur). The articulations felt a bit more clear, especially with the measures of 90% Fs and the bass voices with tenutos, but some were guesses. I'd love to hear some thoughts about my current articulations and phrase markings!

For slurs as phrasing marks, it's best to think of the music as sentences: when it's natural to take a breath or pause between lines, you can end the slur before the breath/pause and start a new slur afterwards. An example for the first 8 measures (ignoring staccatos) would be a slur over m1-2, m3-4, and m5-8. m1-2 and 3-4 are similar lines that could be like a question and answer, and m5-8 is a longer line. As for the articulations, I'm actually wondering why you have so many staccato's in general: most of these notes don't sound staccato to me in the original. They are staccato in The Silvery Snowland, but that's not the arrangement we're looking at :p

• The arpeggio marks (or seeming lack thereof) in mm17-24 I'd like to keep as close to the source as possible as I think it really makes it stand out. Mm 18 bottom staff: grace notes I know looks weird, but I like the effect if makes.

Yeah I'm not too sure about the grace note stuff in m18, but I actually don't know if there's a generalized or better way to write an arpeggio like this one.

• Pedal markings. Hahahaha...ha....ha....*cries* I'm torn about it. I've left out any notes or markings for sustain pedal because there are times when it can help both the music and performer, help the performer but hurt the music, or hurt both. Maybe the performance notes should say something like "use the sustain pedal judiciously." Input on this would be great!

I don't think using the pedal hurts a music box piece like this at all actually, it's very common for music box arrangements to incorporate a pedal.

Pfew, that was something, hope it helps though! Onto the actual note checking:
-m1, 3 and similar: I don't hear the lower A# and B on beats 1.5 and 2 in the right hand. In The Silvery Snowland that would be the oboe part, while the bassoon plays that little flourish.
-m14: The low E in the R.H. on beat 3 is also played in the L.H., maybe you can add parentheses to the R.H. note? (It's easier for the L.H. to play it than for the R.H.). Same in m38.
-m15: It's possible for the second layer to be put back in its original octave (one octave higher), but I can imagine you prefer it in this octave like it was before. Same in m39.
-m42, 46, 50, 54, 74 and 77: I believe there's an E in the L.H. part on beat 3 (second layer R.H. in m50 and 54), which is also played by the R.H. melody. Maybe you could still add it, since you have been pretty clear about all the different voices. In m42, 46, 74 and 77 that would be in the L.H. with parentheses, in m50 and 54 it would be just a unison in two voices (no parantheses needed).
-m69: The small note D# here looks like it should be an octave lower, since everything else from that voice is an octave lower too. If you move it down, you probably don't need to have it small anymore.
-m72: The L.H. note on beat 2 should be an F#-A# dyad (like all previous iterations).
-m92: I think it's better to change the L.H. to a G-clef instead of using an 8va: 8va's in the L.H. and 8vb's in the R.H. are a bit unnatural to read. Also, just a little suggestion: maybe you could add an arpeggio line to the R.H. chord on beat 1 for some extra music box touch ^^

[thatoneguy]

I'm glad you found a better recording of it! (I should have tried a more generic YouTube search to find it...) I read through your suggestions a couple days ago and glanced through your suggestions again just now. I'll go through the suggestions while looking at my score and make the edits as soon as I can (hopefully this weekend).

[Bloop]

Archiving this by request of the arranger! Feel free to resubmit when you've got the time ^^