[PS2] Final Fantasy X - "Via Purifico" by Renaud Bergeron

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Final Fantasy
Game: Final Fantasy X
Console: PlayStation 2
Title: Via Purifico
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Renaud Bergeron

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Khunjund]

The only part I'm not too sure about is the measure 4 left hand.

[XiaoMigros]

I arranged this a few weeks back, so I think I'm qualified to give you some feedback:

• It's hard to make out because of the pedal-induced reverb, but I'm pretty sure the LH plays consistent 8ths (except for m17-18). Basically the note on beat 1.5 is played on beats 2.5 and 3.5 as well. The LH in m19 should be the same as in m20, m21&22 are the same as well. On b1 of m28 B2 is restruck
• Your enharmonic spelling looks good for the most part, the only parts I'm not sure are correct are when chromatics come into play (m18, m21-22). Though I did it a bit differently here, what you have looks good as well.
• Your system spacing could use some minor adjustments; The first system could be moved down a tiny bit, and the ones on the second page can be a bit more spread out.
• Square and Enix merged in 2003, after FFX's release, so your copyright should reflect that.

[Static]

Square and Enix merged in 2003, after FFX's release, so your copyright should reflect that.

Regarding this point, it's actually fine either way. This game is currently copyrighted by Square Enix.

Personally I also prefer to use whatever the original copyright holder was, but for our purposes either way is OK. We give the same leniency to situations with different publishers as well, since some games are published by different companies in different regions. Any of them would be acceptable in a submission.

[XiaoMigros]

Oh ok, good to know. I still think it's better to use just Square here to keep the sheet consistent with others on site (Libera's Battle Theme arrangement used just Square iirc)

[Khunjund]

It's hard to make out because of the pedal-induced reverb, but I'm pretty sure the LH plays consistent 8ths (except for m17-18). Basically the note on beat 1.5 is played on beats 2.5 and 3.5 as well. The LH in m19 should be the same as in m20, m21&22 are the same as well. On b1 of m28 B2 is restruck

I think you're mostly right for page 1, although there are still areas where I can't hear any notes no matter how many times I play it back. Page 2 I think I was pretty accurate the way I had it, though I've made some minor changes.

Your system spacing could use some minor adjustments; The first system could be moved down a tiny bit, and the ones on the second page can be a bit more spread out.

I don't think the first system is too high (the page looks too bottom-heavy to me if I put it any lower), but I made some tweaks to spacing.

Square and Enix merged in 2003, after FFX's release, so your copyright should reflect that.

Oh ok, good to know. I still think it's better to use just Square here to keep the sheet consistent with others on site (Libera's Battle Theme arrangement used just Square iirc)

All my other sheets use Square Enix.

[XiaoMigros]

All my other sheets use Square Enix.

Then I guess you can leave it, as that's still some form of consistency

[Libera]

Pretty much everything here checks out apart from I think you're missing quite a lot of notes in the left hand.  Pretty much everywhere you have rests sounds like it should be a note to me (apart from 17-18).  The only place I'm not super sure about is in bar 21, which I can't really tell if it's meant to be like it is in 22 or not.  I agree that in places it's not super easy to hear (thought not as bad as 22), but a lot of the missing ones seem pretty clear to me when the piece is raised by an octave, and also I think currently this arrangement sounds a lot more disconnected than the original does with the stop and start going on in the left hand.  If anything, I think that the sheet makes a bit more sense/is more consistent to look at this way.

Other than that:

-You need the instrument name at the start.
-The D.C. could be a little higher.

Clean sheet.

[Khunjund]

Pretty much everything here checks out apart from I think you're missing quite a lot of notes in the left hand.  Pretty much everywhere you have rests sounds like it should be a note to me (apart from 17-18).  The only place I'm not super sure about is in bar 21, which I can't really tell if it's meant to be like it is in 22 or not.  I agree that in places it's not super easy to hear (thought not as bad as 22), but a lot of the missing ones seem pretty clear to me when the piece is raised by an octave, and also I think currently this arrangement sounds a lot more disconnected than the original does with the stop and start going on in the left hand.  If anything, I think that the sheet makes a bit more sense/is more consistent to look at this way.

Other than that:

-You need the instrument name at the start.
-The D.C. could be a little higher.

Clean sheet.

I listened to it again at higher pitch (one octave, then one fifth), and filled out several of the rests with notes. In measure 9, I still don't hear them very well, but I agree that it would make sense for them to be there when taking the surrounding measures into account. However, there are a few measures in which I still do hear rests, and so I have left them in, namely mm. 12 and 14, (17,) 19 (I could make this a half note instead of a quarter plus quarter rest), and 29–32. For measure 28, I'm not 100% sure the bass note is missing, but if it's actually there and not just reverb, it's played so softly compared to every other bass note that the effect to me is basically equivalent to it being missing, which is why I've kept that measure as-is.

[Libera]

I still hear a lot of these, but since that's the only thing I'll leave a conditional approval and the next updater can have a look at those missing notes, for another opinion.

[XiaoMigros]

I may not be an updater but I agree with Libera, it still sounds like there should be consistent 8ths in the LH (except in m17-18).

[Bloop]

Thirding this about filling in the 8ths. Some of them are a bit drowned out when trying to listen to it slowly, but at full speed I can hear the attacks and notes a bit more clearly
-m12 and 14: I can hear B's that are almost overpowered by the D's in the R.H.
-m19: Here I hear B-Cn-B in beat 2.5-3.5, like m20
-m21: I'm hearing Gn-F# in beat 3-3.5, like m22.
-m25: Non-note suggestion here, maybe you could add a p dynamic marking to beat 2 hear too? It seems to be quieter than before.
-m28: I hear a low B on beat 1 and an F# in beat 2.5 (though I'll admit, this one took the most effort to hear :p)
-m29-32: In all rests here I hear C#'s.

Most of these are really quiet, but from a pianist's perspective, it would make sense to have them there for a more flowing piece, and the slightest hint of them being there is enough for me to have them included. The fact that they're quieter is an interpretative consequence of the piano player, and most likely not a decision made by the composer of the piece.

[Khunjund]

OK so here's the thing: I like super-accurate transcriptions as much as the next guy, which is why I've added back in so many of these notes, but now I feel like I've reached a deadlock, for two reasons.

First, when I listen to the piece, measure pairs such as 12 & 14, 19 & 20, and 21 & 22 sound different to me. In measure 14 for instance, the very last B at the end of the measure jumps out to me, whereas in measure 12, it's barely audible (if it's even there); how might I capture this difference in an arrangement? by including both notes, but putting an accent over the one in measure 13? I'd rather just omit the first as I've already done.

Second, removing these differences I think makes the arrangement as a whole less interesting. From an artistic standpoint, I find measures 19–22 much more engaging if they present a motif, then expand on it slightly in the following measure, instead of just repeating the same thing twice verbatim, and measure 28 (as I hear it) would lose a lot of expressive power if it were like every other measure in the piece. However, I suppose it would be an option to use accents here too.

Most of these are really quiet, but from a pianist's perspective, it would make sense to have them there for a more flowing piece, and the slightest hint of them being there is enough for me to have them included. The fact that they're quieter is an interpretative consequence of the piano player, and most likely not a decision made by the composer of the piece.

I disagree: I think the continuous eighths in the right hand plus the pedal are more than sufficient in maintaining the flowing nature of the piece. And by the way, the Piano Collections: Final Fantasy X version looks like this:

[XiaoMigros]

And by the way, the Piano Collections: Final Fantasy X version looks like this:

The Piano Collections editions often drastically simplify and/or leave out certain parts, so I don't think an argument based off those is worth much. For the record, I checked the game's sequence data and it implies the existence of LH notes on every 8th (except m17-18).

[Bloop]

First, when I listen to the piece, measure pairs such as 12 & 14, 19 & 20, and 21 & 22 sound different to me. In measure 14 for instance, the very last B at the end of the measure jumps out to me, whereas in measure 12, it's barely audible (if it's even there); how might I capture this difference in an arrangement? by including both notes, but putting an accent over the one in measure 13? I'd rather just omit the first as I've already done.

Second, removing these differences I think makes the arrangement as a whole less interesting. From an artistic standpoint, I find measures 19–22 much more engaging if they present a motif, then expand on it slightly in the following measure, instead of just repeating the same thing twice verbatim, and measure 28 (as I hear it) would lose a lot of expressive power if it were like every other measure in the piece. However, I suppose it would be an option to use accents here too.

This is where there is a difference between the performance of a piece and the sheet music of a piece: both are equally important for the engagement in listening. Creating the nuances in dynamics in a whole piece, section, system or bar is mostly up to the performer, especially in classical(-like) pieces like this. If you compare 0:24 and 0:56 in the piano collections version you mentioned, you'll notice the second time is played a little bit more intense, even though both are just scored mp. If you compare the performance to the sheet music, you'll probably find a lot if inconsistent differences that you won't find in the sheet music.

I'll admit it's interesting that the arrangement for the piano collections has a different L.H. rhythm, though it's clear there's a lot of liberty taken as well by the arranger. Then again, it's also interesting to see what the game's sequence data that Xiao mentioned has to say.