[MUL] Celeste - "Summit (No More Running Mix)" by PlayfulPiano

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Other
Game: Celeste
Console: Multiplatform
Title: Summit (No More Running Mix)
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: PlayfulPiano

[PlayfulPiano]

So basically after I replied last night about ending this submission to kricketune, today it actually sparked new motivation to finish. To the point where I did actually implement all the feedback that was provided to the best of my ability. This will still be my final submission (as with Memories of Memories) for the reasons I mentioned before, but now that I did this feedback I might as well finish it.



With that in mind, I'll just post replies to that point of feedback below.

• m19 actually think these decresc. and cresc. should be inverted but keep the piano in m21 as is. Maybe indicate only second time as well for m19-20.
• m71 and m73 upper LH layer fix beat 1.5 by flipping up? To be consistent with other instances of the rhythm
• m79-94 move the upper LH rests up a bit to avoid note head collisions

Notes
• not hearing m11-14 as is? Sound like what exists for 3-10 rhythm wise notes B-E-B. Beat 1.0 is should be empty as far as the ascending synth part goes, and the LH could continue the same as it is in previous measures
• m13-14 should be like m17-18 but C instead of B on beat 1.25 and similar
• m15 and similar I'm hearing the B-E rhythm in the LH continuous except for beat 2.75 and on last 8th rest (4.5-4.75)
   • m16 LH not hearing a B on 4.75 and m20 LH beat 4.75 not hearing an A
• m17-20 both hands the ascending figure is A-E-F#-B
• m27-30 RH beat 1.25 and similar this is C not B
• m47-50 G-B should be the 1.0-1.25 and similar rhythm, tho the G is also after the B again in this figure on beat 1.5 and similar
• m51-54 LH the rhythm is A-C not F#-A, and similarly to the above feedback the A repeats on beat 1.5 and similar
• m55-57 LH B on beat 1.5 and similar
• m59-62 the ascending figure between hands is A-E-F#-B, and 1.5 in left hand and similar is A
• So from m21-30, I'm not hearing the upper LH layer as you have it. It sounds like this part is eight notes
• m75-78 LH the B on beat 1.25 and similar should be C
• m95-124 what's the LH upper layer supposed to be? I'm not hearing these exact notes as one part
• m97 RH upper beat 2.5 is a B
• m97 also if you listen on beat 4 RH this is another 16th figure, unless this was an intentional simplification.
• m98 RH beat 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 hearing F#'s, same at m102, m112 and m114
• m101 RH 1.5 and 2.0 F#, 2.5 B, same at m113
• m116 16th part sounds more like m96. In fact m115-118 both hands are in wrong key, so revisit this section.

- I'm not really hearing the inverse of this, mainly as I'm trying to mimic the pass filter that gets applied to the track (which in my ears makes it sound quieter then louder)
- Instead, after replaying this section on piano personally, I decided to just have the final note in the rh, as the gaps in the lh should be fine for the first three throughout this phrase.
- Done

- Fixed
- Fixed
- Fixed I believe
  - Fixed I believe
- Fixed
- Fixed
- Fixed, plus edited the patterning so it's 3 notes in the rh and 1 in the lh like the rest of the sheet
- Fixed
- Fixed
- Fixed
- I don't really hear the 8th notes you're hearing. You might need to write it out and c/p an image for me to understand better.
- Fixed
- It's meant to be a lh pattern that's playable but modulated slightly for piano. It's the arpeggio synth that's a bit lower during this section. If you have alternative ideas that might fit better lmk
- Fixed
- Intentional simplification (unless you believe it could be structured in a way where it can exist but still be playable)
- Fixed
- Fixed
- For this (and beyond) I'll likely need more in depth help with corrected notes, and for m127-m142's overlapping notes.


I also did a bunch of other changes, mainly for the reason of playability and legibility. Examples include:
- m10 having tremolos to mimic the static/cymbal buildup
- m31+, m79+ having the rh octaves removed and instead making the lh use a 16th-8th-16th pattern to keep those notes in the lh throughout, but easier to play fast.
- m47+ changing the lh and rh structure to match the rest of the arrangement, i.e. lh one note rh 3 note repeating arpeggio/ostinato
- m175+ correcting all the issues I could spot on playback, & some dynamic changes to better match its fadeout.


Edit 2023/09/20: Just did a major look over m95-m174, fixed a lot of issues, tried to prevent any note gaps that were too difficult to reach (most difficult is an E2 sixteenth B2 eighth B3 sixteenth pattern) but kept the pattern consistent for each phrase. Also redid an earlier section so the lh focuses on the emphasized notes in the ostinato instead of just the upwards flow direction, since I think that's more accurate to the intention of the arrangement.

[Kricketune54]

Just saw your edit note - I hadn't made it that far into review recently, was still comparing back and forth some of the changes between now and last version I looked at in earlier measures but will take note

[PlayfulPiano]

Just saw your edit note - I hadn't made it that far into review recently, was still comparing back and forth some of the changes between now and last version I looked at in earlier measures but will take note

dw that's fine, but also ty for giving me an update

[Kricketune54]

dw that's fine, but also ty for giving me an update

For sure. Trying to be thorough but also don't want you to just feel like your responding to yourself and waiting weeks on end.

- I'm not really hearing the inverse of this, mainly as I'm trying to mimic the pass filter that gets applied to the track (which in my ears makes it sound quieter then louder)

Relistening I can see how this works for the arrangement.

- m10 having tremolos to mimic the static/cymbal buildup

Seems like a good variety change - couldn't the tremolo extend through all beats of the measure though? Are you intending performer to lift up briefly between each one?

More feedback though...

• I would move the 16th rests up from about 63-78 up a little, that way they're not touching the top of the 2nd LH layer noteheads ever. Didn't catch this with my earlier m79-94 feedback.
• Wanted to call out that the con pedale I think could potentially be a bit more targeted, or left as is - the tricky thing with this arrangement is I am not sure where that more targeted measure would be considering so many rhythms are staccatoed in the LH. Maybe m31 is a good first instance where pedal would be used, but then again, con pedale is just a generic instruction to use pedal throughout. Thoughts?

• Speaking more to general playability, and I'm assuming you've practiced parts of this: how are you finding RH m31-46? Is a 16th rest enough to play three 16th's, jump up a decent stretch, and then go back down to start the next 16th phrase? Especially at m43 I was finding this a bit messy in practice. I would suggest at minimum putting some parantheses around either beat 1.75 or beat 2.25 on the relevant measures where the jump is to higher than the top octave of the 16th pattern (ex. m43 as mentioned).


• m11-12 thoughts on making the LH part G's instead of B's and for m13-14, A's? I think this captures chord tone of these measures better, plus these are the starting notes of the harmony part not included.
• m97 beat 2.5 RH hearing this B down an octave

• m98 RH beat 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 hearing F#'s, same at m102, m112 and m114

Sorry gonna retract this feedback. Thinking I may have been listening in the wrong place because they are definitely G's no F#'s in 98
• However, m100 RH, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 are F#'s 
• m107-110 LH thinking last note of each 16th works a little better as a Cn, not a Bn
• m113 beat 2.5 RH hearing this B down an octave
• m116 and m118 RH, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 are Gn's as opposed to An's
• m120,121,122 RH 1.25, 1.75, 3.0, and 3.5 are all An's, not Bn's
• m124 and m126 RH, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, and 3.75 are Gn's as opposed to An's
• m125 RH, 1.5, 2.0, 3.75 are Gn's as opposed to An's, 2.5, 3.0, and 3.5 are a Bn (octave lower than 1.75 Bn)
• m128-130 RH 2.25, 2.75, 3.25 are Cn's not En's (all C5)

Just for my own note, finishing at bottom of page 10 with this feedback

[PlayfulPiano]

Seems like a good variety change - couldn't the tremolo extend through all beats of the measure though? Are you intending performer to lift up briefly between each one?

More feedback though...

• I would move the 16th rests up from about 63-78 up a little, that way they're not touching the top of the 2nd LH layer noteheads ever. Didn't catch this with my earlier m79-94 feedback.
• Wanted to call out that the con pedale I think could potentially be a bit more targeted, or left as is - the tricky thing with this arrangement is I am not sure where that more targeted measure would be considering so many rhythms are staccatoed in the LH. Maybe m31 is a good first instance where pedal would be used, but then again, con pedale is just a generic instruction to use pedal throughout. Thoughts?

• Speaking more to general playability, and I'm assuming you've practiced parts of this: how are you finding RH m31-46? Is a 16th rest enough to play three 16th's, jump up a decent stretch, and then go back down to start the next 16th phrase? Especially at m43 I was finding this a bit messy in practice. I would suggest at minimum putting some parantheses around either beat 1.75 or beat 2.25 on the relevant measures where the jump is to higher than the top octave of the 16th pattern (ex. m43 as mentioned).


• m11-12 thoughts on making the LH part G's instead of B's and for m13-14, A's? I think this captures chord tone of these measures better, plus these are the starting notes of the harmony part not included.
• m97 beat 2.5 RH hearing this B down an octave Sorry gonna retract this feedback. Thinking I may have been listening in the wrong place because they are definitely G's no F#'s in 98
• However, m100 RH, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 are F#'s 
• m107-110 LH thinking last note of each 16th works a little better as a Cn, not a Bn
• m113 beat 2.5 RH hearing this B down an octave
• m116 and m118 RH, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 are Gn's as opposed to An's
• m120,121,122 RH 1.25, 1.75, 3.0, and 3.5 are all An's, not Bn's
• m124 and m126 RH, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, and 3.75 are Gn's as opposed to An's
• m125 RH, 1.5, 2.0, 3.75 are Gn's as opposed to An's, 2.5, 3.0, and 3.5 are a Bn (octave lower than 1.75 Bn)
• m128-130 RH 2.25, 2.75, 3.25 are Cn's not En's (all C5)

Just for my own note, finishing at bottom of page 10 with this feedback

- I'm unsure what you're referring to by lift up, but the intention of the tremolo is to have the lh build up/play at a faster pace as the measure goes on. That's why the tremolos are different for the first two beats, the third beat, and the forth beat (basing this on finale playback). Because the rate for the 3rd beat should be faster than beats 1-2, and the same for the 4th beat vs the 3rd beat.

- Fixed
- I think targeting could maybe be possible, but in terms of implementation & for the sanity of the performer, I don't think targeting is necessary and would just pose a headache (as they already have to go through 19 pages of repeated ostinatos). Also generally the original track's effects give enough of a reverb to argue for a sustain pedal throughout, anyways.

- Definitely harder than an earlier version I had where I skipped the second note of the RH ostinato (e.g. m31 1 E2, 1.25 B2, 1.75 F#3), but I think emphasizing the last two notes is right. What I'll do is bring up the E2 to be E3 instead. Probably is more accurate anyways. Same ish goes for m63-m94, considering the back and forth E2 / octave dyad E2 E3 is probably a bit much.

- Oh I think that's just what's actually used in the original. Sometimes it's just like, extremely hard to get those lower note pitches tbh. Fixed.
- Fixed

- I reverted this for m98, but kept m102/112/114 unchanged.
- Fixed
- Fixed
- Fixed
- Fixed
- Fixed
- Fixed
- Fixed
- Fixed

One other thing I want to mention because it just came to mind, but in the original for m47+ there happens to be a low drawn synth note that plays. For m47-62 it's just the lh note but like octave 1 (I made it octave 2 for the arrangement), but the immediate section after (m63+) has it following this new pattern (E → D → C → D  ?). Implementing it there might pose a larger issue, plus that continues throughout after that point.
I tried implementing this pretty straight forwardly for m47-m62 and for m175+, but m63-m94 I put it on the 3rd beat so it fits better with the hi hat (?) rhythm.

I also changed the LH in m175+ to keep it to two voices and not three voices for better legibility. I figured before this point having quarter beats as a separate layer for the LH is fine, but starting at m175+ because of the new low note synth addition, it became too cluttered (esp with the rests involved). I don't know if for m175-m190 the B3 should be kept as a cross staffed note or not, tell me which you think is better.

Updated.

[Kricketune54]

- I'm unsure what you're referring to by lift up, but the intention of the tremolo is to have the lh build up/play at a faster pace as the measure goes on. That's why the tremolos are different for the first two beats, the third beat, and the forth beat (basing this on finale playback). Because the rate for the 3rd beat should be faster than beats 1-2, and the same for the 4th beat vs the 3rd beat.

Oh I see now - did not notice there were different line lengths between each!

- I think targeting could maybe be possible, but in terms of implementation & for the sanity of the performer, I don't think targeting is necessary and would just pose a headache (as they already have to go through 19 pages of repeated ostinatos). Also generally the original track's effects give enough of a reverb to argue for a sustain pedal throughout, anyways.

This makes sense to me as a way of going about it (sticking with con pedale)

I also changed the LH in m175+ to keep it to two voices and not three voices for better legibility. I figured before this point having quarter beats as a separate layer for the LH is fine, but starting at m175+ because of the new low note synth addition, it became too cluttered (esp with the rests involved). I don't know if for m175-m190 the B3 should be kept as a cross staffed note or not, tell me which you think is better.

This two to three voices change definitely improves legibility. As for m175-190, I think the cross staff you have currently is best to keep, it's already being done earlier in the track so it's consistent to do this.

One other thing I want to mention because it just came to mind, but in the original for m47+ there happens to be a low drawn synth note that plays. For m47-62 it's just the lh note but like octave 1 (I made it octave 2 for the arrangement), but the immediate section after (m63+) has it following this new pattern (E → D → C → D  ?). Implementing it there might pose a larger issue, plus that continues throughout after that point.
I tried implementing this pretty straight forwardly for m47-m62 and for m175+, but m63-m94 I put it on the 3rd beat so it fits better with the hi hat (?) rhythm.

m47-62 seems good, though maybe accenting the start of the low note is a bit much? It is quite subtle anyway. While the pattern looks much better for m63+, I honestly don't think it sounds great, having an accented staccato standing in for a long, droning pitch, and for the non-familiar player looking at this sheet, I don't think it adds much. m175+, when this long note is actually able to be held to the proper length, I think it is good, but for m63-99 (last time E → D → C → D is done) it seems a little forced. I guess if you like it, go with it for now, and the next updater can say their piece (fyi you will need to pitch this up to hear)


Looking again, noticed ties that need to be flipped; I would do a general check throughout just in case I missed any
• m98, m102, m106, m114, m118, m122, m130, m134, m138 RH if beat 4 3rd layer has a hidden rest, than the 1st layer's note can be flipped down to its default positioning
• Also in RH m95, m103, m111, m119, m127, m135 whole measure should be flipped down given there are no other layers
• At very beginning of track, you could center the starting dynamic over the first quarter in the LH as opposed to the first 16th rest of the RH

I'm just going to make a request: please try and keep the ongoing revisions of sections, especially of those I've already gone through, to a minimum. I haven't had a problem with your choices or what you've decided on, but for these earlier measures I've already reviewed extensively, I'd like to not have to keep revisiting them and relistening to the earlier parts of the song; there's plenty enough I still need to review and out of fairness to everyone else on this site and how I spend my own time doing reviews, I'd like to minimize having to refamiliarize with this track's earlier sections. I would've liked to focus on more note checks today, but I wanted to be thorough on reviewing everything to hopefully wrap 1-10

Next post I will be reviewing pages 11-19 for note checks.

[PlayfulPiano]

Oh I see now - did not notice there were different line lengths between each!
 This makes sense to me as a way of going about it (sticking with con pedale)
 This two to three voices change definitely improves legibility. As for m175-190, I think the cross staff you have currently is best to keep, it's already being done earlier in the track so it's consistent to do this.
 m47-62 seems good, though maybe accenting the start of the low note is a bit much? It is quite subtle anyway. While the pattern looks much better for m63+, I honestly don't think it sounds great, having an accented staccato standing in for a long, droning pitch, and for the non-familiar player looking at this sheet, I don't think it adds much. m175+, when this long note is actually able to be held to the proper length, I think it is good, but for m63-99 (last time E → D → C → D is done) it seems a little forced. I guess if you like it, go with it for now, and the next updater can say their piece (fyi you will need to pitch this up to hear)


Looking again, noticed ties that need to be flipped; I would do a general check throughout just in case I missed any
• m98, m102, m106, m114, m118, m122, m130, m134, m138 RH if beat 4 3rd layer has a hidden rest, than the 1st layer's note can be flipped down to its default positioning
• Also in RH m95, m103, m111, m119, m127, m135 whole measure should be flipped down given there are no other layers
• At very beginning of track, you could center the starting dynamic over the first quarter in the LH as opposed to the first 16th rest of the RH

I'm just going to make a request: please try and keep the ongoing revisions of sections, especially of those I've already gone through, to a minimum. I haven't had a problem with your choices or what you've decided on, but for these earlier measures I've already reviewed extensively, I'd like to not have to keep revisiting them and relistening to the earlier parts of the song; there's plenty enough I still need to review and out of fairness to everyone else on this site and how I spend my own time doing reviews, I'd like to minimize having to refamiliarize with this track's earlier sections. I would've liked to focus on more note checks today, but I wanted to be thorough on reviewing everything to hopefully wrap 1-10

Next post I will be reviewing pages 11-19 for note checks.

Looked through and corrected every flipped accent / stem / tie that I could find. Updated.

Also sorry about the mid-review editing, I'll refrain from doing that from now on.

[Kricketune54]

Sorry took me a bit to get back to this - I've been a bit busier recently and had been prioritizing finishing up the project.

Also sorry about the mid-review editing, I'll refrain from doing that from now on.

I know it's now been like 7 months since your initial submission, so I get it given how big this arrangement and new ideas come up, but the time for new ideas was preferably before the resubmission, not during the feedback of it.

RH 16th layer note fixes
• m101 RH 2.5 lower this B's octave
• m109 RH 2.25 C, same octave as 3.0 C.
• m112-114 3.75 RH hearing F#
• m116 and 118 3.75 G
• m117 1.5 G, 2.0 G, 2.5 B (same octave as 3.0), 3.75 G
• m124 3.0 and 3.5, Bn
• m132 2.25 and 2.75 C (same octave, C5), 3.25 C
• m133-134 1.25,1.75 C, 2.25, 2.75, and 3.25 C (down an octave from prev), 3.0 and 3.5 An
• m140-142 1.5,2.0 and 2.5, 3.0 F#, 3.5 An, 3.75 F#
• m143, 145 2.25, 2.75, 3.25 C
• m147 1.25, 1.75,2.25, 2.75 C
• m149 1.25, 1.75,2.25, 2.75, 3.25 C, 3.0 and 3.5 A
• m155 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 F#, 3.5 An, 3.75 F#
• m157 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 F#, 3.5 An, 3.75 F#
• m159 and m161 2.25,2.75 3.25 C
• m163 and m165 1.25,1.75,2.25,2.75,3.25 Cn, 3.0, 3.5 An.


 

m98, m102, m106, m114, m118, m122, m130, m134, m138 RH if beat 4 3rd layer has a hidden rest, than the 1st layer's note can be flipped down to its default positioning

Coming back to this - I think in hindsight, the better recommendation from me would have been to have that 3rd layer rest visible, and to have the notes of the first layer flipped as they were previously. That will distinguish the two layers/parts best of all. Sorry about that.
• m151 and any other spot of this section where the first 16th rest in 3rd layer is hidden - it makes more sense to keep the rest visible

Left off at end of page 14 5:55 time

Made some edits to my original post on 11/7 for clarity and also mistake for m163 and m165 should've said 3.25 Cn, not 3.5 (formerly)

[PlayfulPiano]

Sorry took me a bit to get back to this - I've been a bit busier recently and had been prioritizing finishing up the project.

I know it's now been like 7 months since your initial submission, so I get it given how big this arrangement and new ideas come up, but the time for new ideas was preferably before the resubmission, not during the feedback of it.

RH 16th layer note fixes
• m101 RH 2.5 lower this B's octave
• m109 RH 2.25 C, same octave as 3.0 C.
• m112-114 3.75 RH hearing F#
• m116 and 118 3.75 G
• m117 1.5 G, 2.0 G, 2.5 B (same octave as 3.0), 3.75 G
• m124 3.0 and 3.5, Bn
• m132 2.25 and 2.75 C (same octave, C5), 3.25 C
• m133-134 1.25,1.75 C, 2.25, 2.75, and 3.25 C (down an octave from prev), 3.0 and 3.5 An
• m140-142 1.5,2.0 and 2.5, 3.0 F#, 3.5 An, 3.75 F#
• m143, 145 2.25, 2.75, 3.25 C
• m147 1.25, 1.75,2.25, 2.75 C
• m149 1.25, 1.75,2.25, 2.75, 3.25 C, 3.0 and 3.5 A
• m155 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 F#, 3.5 An, 3.75 F#
• m157 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 F#, 3.5 An, 3.75 F#
• m159 and m161 2.25,2.75 3.25 C
• m163 and m165 1.25,1.75,2.25,2.75,3.25 Cn, 3.0, 3.5 An.


  Coming back to this - I think in hindsight, the better recommendation from me would have been to have that 3rd layer rest visible, and to have the notes of the first layer flipped as they were previously. That will distinguish the two layers/parts best of all. Sorry about that.
• m151 and any other spot of this section where the first 16th rest in 3rd layer is hidden - it makes more sense to keep the rest visible

Left off at end of page 14 5:55 time

Made some edits to my original post on 11/7 for clarity and also mistake for m163 and m165 should've said 3.25 Cn, not 3.5 (formerly)

All fixed and updated, as well as tried improving some rest spacing so there's less potential overlap.

[Kricketune54]

Circling back on this, sub, did you ever get a chance to check the RH 16th notes like we discussed on Discord? For page 15 to the end.

[PlayfulPiano]

Circling back on this, sub, did you ever get a chance to check the RH 16th notes like we discussed on Discord? For page 15 to the end.

I tried looking through them but I really couldn't figure out the pitches beyond what I already had on there. Due to how fast the pitches are with it overlapping with the other instruments it's just really difficult, even if slowed down.

Wish there was a way to filter out just the 16th notes but afaik that's not possible.

[Kricketune54]

• Some recent feedback that was provided on another sheet, generally staccato dotted 8th notes are not recommended, such as at the repeated pattern beginning LH m2. Would you be okay with changing those to an 8th note, followed by a normal sixteenth (as to retain the staccato)? I know that is fairly widespread for first two pages
• m173 RH 3rd layer 1.5 is F#, 2.0 F#, 2.5 F#, 3.0 F#, 3.25 and 3.5 are hard to make out but sound like An then Bn
• m157, m163-173 that first 16th rest of RH 3rd layer could go to same height as m159

[PlayfulPiano]

• Some recent feedback that was provided on another sheet, generally staccato dotted 8th notes are not recommended, such as at the repeated pattern beginning LH m2. Would you be okay with changing those to an 8th note, followed by a normal sixteenth (as to retain the staccato)? I know that is fairly widespread for first two pages
• m173 RH 3rd layer 1.5 is F#, 2.0 F#, 2.5 F#, 3.0 F#, 3.25 and 3.5 are hard to make out but sound like An then Bn
• m157, m163-173 that first 16th rest of RH 3rd layer could go to same height as m159

Done and updated.

[Kricketune54]

• m21 piano could be a little more centered/aligned over beat 1.0
• m93 widen this system a little so the cresc. doesn't touch the note stems
• m219-222 RH lower layer 1.5,2.5,3.5,4.5 this is An

Have one more thing I have to circle back on related to the rest heights in a few places, but that might cover everything afterwards