Print

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

[LeviR.star]

I meant to say something when you first submitted it, but incredible work on this you two

Thank you very much! Zeila and I are very happy with the results

My only comment is about the phrasing of the melody, in m8 + m10 + m12 I'm not hearing any of the downbeats as staccato, and this applies to all other repeats of this phrase later in the sheet as well (excluding m39-46 and m92-97)

I can kinda hear them being a bit longer, but they're still not fuly legato. At this speed, I think there's a very small, even neglible difference between playing them staccato and portato, so I think keeping the staccatos is fine too.

After discussing this for a bit, we decided that the best course of action would be to leave it as-is. Thanks anyway!

In m44 and 46, the A#'s in the R.H. should go back to being Bb's (C#dim chord): the Bn to Bb movement is mirroring the G# to Gn movement in m40 and 42, both are the (raised) 6 in the scale going back to the b6.

Ahh, okay, got it.

Something you could do is shortening the tie so it stops before the natural, like this:

Good idea! Done.

I wasn't necessarily thinking of a performance note, but rather putting the lower two notes in a separate layer as an 8th for example. Anyway, keeping it as is is fine too!

Okay then, Zeila and I decided to keep it that way, thank you for clarifying though.


We'd like to thank everyone that helped prepare our sheet for acceptance onto the site, as we understand that it's a very ambitious arrangement in terms of the source material's complexity, as well as sheer length. We're very grateful that we got this far, and couldn't have done it without your tireless efforts. Our most sincere gratitude goes out to you!

[Zeila]

Thanks for all the feedback everyone :3



Just a last minute thought, but I was wondering if it would be worth changing the order of Arranger names so that it's in alphabetical order and matches our sheet credits. Looking at various on-site sheets as examples, many of them aren't consistent with the order on-site vs. in-sheet anyways, so it's not a big deal if that's too much of a hassle!

[Latios212]

Just a last minute thought, but I was wondering if it would be worth changing the order of Arranger names so that it's in alphabetical order and matches our sheet credits. Looking at various on-site sheets as examples, many of them aren't consistent with the order on-site vs. in-sheet anyways, so it's not a big deal if that's too much of a hassle!

If I recall correctly, the site's infrastructure automatically lists arrangers in order by ID (i.e. forum account join date). Consider it an improvement we can make in the future, but for the purposes of the sheet please feel free to list the arrangers however you choose (I would recommend in order of importance/contributions, but not a big deal).

(Also I unfortunately haven't gotten the chance to go through this one closely but super nice work getting this done you two!! And thanks for those who checked it as well of course haha)

[Zeila]

If I recall correctly, the site's infrastructure automatically lists arrangers in order by ID (i.e. forum account join date). Consider it an improvement we can make in the future, but for the purposes of the sheet please feel free to list the arrangers however you choose (I would recommend in order of importance/contributions, but not a big deal).

Oh, I thought it was ordered based off of whoever originally submits the sheet, but that makes sense. Thanks for the insight

(and thanks for the sentiment btw c:)

[Bloop]

Awesome, great work everyone! Glad to get this one up, I'll accept!

[Zeta]

This submission has been accepted by Bloop.

~Zeta, your friendly NSM-Bot