Print

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

[mikey]

Well I deserve that for not being here in time I guess, didn't notice this was a thing again until recently. d:

Hey, she's the responsible one!

[FireArrow]

I already expressed my thoughts on this matter, but I'll gladly reintroduce them.

The main problem I see is how can you mark this as "easy" and that "difficult". It all depends on the ability of the performer, a Rachmaninoff concerto would be a stroll for Lang Lang but hell for a beginner. Who's to say this sheet is too difficult so as to need an easy version? it can be also though the other way, who's to say this sheet is too easy so as to need a hard one?

If an arranger finds a sheet s/he thinks needs an easier version, then they arrange an easier version and submit it. What's the issue here?

On top of that, a sheet could be simplified almost to infinity, for example, from a very complex bass to only the root notes, and everything in between, resulting in endless easy versions of one song. Do you really want a competition on who can make the easiest sheet out of a single song? And which one of those should we consider right to be on site? All of them, a random one?

...what competition? In the rare case that two people decide to simplify the same song I think they'll be capable of working it out. That's like saying "we shouldn't arrange music at all because what if two different people arrange the same song, and they arrange it differently!"

[Latios212]

Thanks Brawler for providing an example.

See, in my opinion the whole goal here is not to cater to a certain level of difficulty, as Don pointed out. The goal is to make an easier version that best encapsulates the essence of the original, at the arranger's discretion. Don said:

Do you really want a competition on who can make the easiest sheet out of a single song? And which one of those should we consider right to be on site? All of them, a random one?

No. This is where the simplifier comes in to think: how can I find a balance between playability and including as much as possible? Simplifying an arrangement is in a way analogous to arranging itself - choosing what to keep and what to leave out and finding said balance. Brawler's simplified sheet is a good good example of this - making it vastly more playable, but it still sounds extremely similar to the existing sheet. Brawler's super simplified sheet is a good bad example of this - simplifying a sheet too much obviously won't work. The simplified sheet looks great and sounds great, but trying to cut out more isn't reasonable.

Yes, it is possible to have multiple versions of the same sheet, just as it occasionally happens that we have multiple arrangements of the same song (on the forums). Has that been a problem? No, people help critique other people's sheets rather than make their own.

[Olimar12345]

Doubles should be handled the same way the regular submissions are done, on a case-by-case basis with only one actually hosted on the site.

[JDMEK5]

Do you really want a competition on who can make the easiest sheet out of a single song? And which one of those should we consider right to be on site? All of them, a random one?

Doubles should be handled the same way the regular submissions are done, on a case-by-case basis with only one actually hosted on the site.

Since that's been taken care of, I had another thought which may or may not be necessary but I'm going to speak my mind:

Should we define what "failure" would be with regards to this (obviously after it starts)? Because I can totally see people, after the first little complication or lump in the system, trying to shut it down right away because "it failed". Like, FireArrow might have a totally different definition of "failure" (with regards to this topic) than say Don would. My point is I think it might be worth an idea to all together attempt to agree (if possible) to unanimously define what "failure" would be. At what point is this plainly just 'not gonna work'? I'm also going to add that the idea of a test run is not only to see if it would work, but also to troubleshoot any more issues we haven't yet thought of. Personally I think that a quirky system that still remains functional is worth keeping and fixing. Not to say I expect this to be quirky (because it seems fairly straightforward to me) but I know also that there's no way I currently know all the things that could happen.

Do you really want a competition on who can make the easiest sheet out of a single song? And which one of those should we consider right to be on site? All of them, a random one?

(I'm not trying to bash your opinion at all Don; this is simply just another perfect example for the observation I'm going to make with my next sentence)
I feel like comments like this (and the concerns about lazy copy/pasting) undermine us arrangers who know what we're doing and when put generically like that, is, quite frankly, insulting.
[Disclaimer: I'm not trying to open a can of shit here. I'm calmly and respectfully stating my opinion for the sole purpose of passing understanding. No more fights. Though in a way it's kinda sad I have to put this disclaimer here in the first place...]
We're all- Almost all of us here are mature enough to take this seriously and put real effort into it. IMO the people we should really be concerned about, as Olimar said in the past, are folks like "Joe Schmoe": the new guy who's only in it for glory/spam/troublemaking. I should point out that those people are no more risk to this than they are to our regular current submissions. But back to my point, literally everyone who isn't only trying to arrange for their own sick-personal-ego-trips (or whatever they are) is willing to learn how to do it properly. Trollers exist and they may want to ride this new system but "Easy Arrangements" is no more at risk than basically anything else on the internet that the general public can manipulate in whatever way.

As a final note I'm going to say as well that not only do I agree that this should be a thing, but I will support this new system in any way I can. If that means helping brainstorm ways to fix problems that arise, very well. If that means helping check for lazy transcriptions, so be it. No good thing ever comes without work and I'm willing to work with this. NSM has my full support in this endeavor.