[PC] World of Warcraft: Warlords of Draenor - "A Siege of Worlds" by Tobbeh99

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Other
Game: World of Warcraft: Warlords of Draenor
Console: PC
Title: A Siege of Worlds
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Tobbeh99

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Tobbeh99]

Ta-da I present to you my masterpiece, A world of Sheets, World of warcraft: Sheets of the Warlords, the submission of ages.. etc.

Take your time this one will take a while, lol. I'll wait patiently, even if it take a year or so. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ab4B0_xw4o

Some comments about the arrangement:

general:
Dynamics: I think the dynamics are fine, but if anyone have a good idea that maybe captures the song better, I'll consider it.
Time signatures: Yet again, I think those are fine but there are certain parts that are tricky. Some parts I wrote rubato and have a strict time signature rather than making it more complicated. Also the 3/2 is a question mark, but I like how it makes you think that the phrases are longer, a bigger time signature.
Enharmonics: I think these are OK, but there might be some part where I've notated it wrong.
Formatting: I tried to space the different parts so that it would be 1 song per page, or that a new song starts at a new page.
Song Names: This song is kind of like a medley, having a lot of the song from the game in one song. I'm deffientely happy that I manage to find all the song titles. However some are a bit tricky, because some song are very similar and goes into each other kind of, and some are themes that originates from an early game but the theme has been reused in the other songs.

A: This part is fine as it is, I think.

B: I don't know how to notate the choir/warcries, but I tried to keep it to octaves, fifths and fourths. I think they are pitchless but I'm not sure.

C: I didn't notate the LH with staccatos since I thought it would be to thin, in the end it's an orchestral piece. M.31 I'm pretty sure that it goes C-Cm, but not in measure 27.

D: I don't know if I can notate the high violin hits, so I ignored it and wrote down the drums+choir and brass.

E: I think it's better to have the melody in the LH, for variety, and to capture the high strings. The rest of this part is pretty fine I think.

F: Tried to capture the harp texture with the arpeggios. hmm, this part maybe shouldn't be "molto" rubato, maybe only rubato.

G: This part is one I'm unsure of. I'm not sure if the chords are correct. I notated the LH to pick up some of the choir/strings at beat 3. I also think this part is better notated as 4/4 rather than 2/2, especially in the very beginning.

H: Yet again, not sure of the chords, and the arpeggios as well.

I: As part F, but this time with trumpet hits. I think I got them down correctly however.

J: I don't know if there is a bass line I've missed in the first 4 measures. I also don't know if the one in measure 120 is correct. I've tried to make it very still the 4 measures, and with a bit more movement the later 4, using arpeggios. Not completely sure  of chords also.

K: This part is fine I think.

L: This part was very tricky to notate. First of the rubato; I think I got the rhythm down accurately. The first 4 measure I think I got down well. the later with the arpeggios is a question mark. I don't know if I got it down well and accurately, I tried to imitate the harp moving up and down with the arpeggios.

M: The first 4 measures: I think I got the different voices down. I tried to broaden it later with bigger chords, and in the final 4 measures, with the trumpet line as well.

N: One big question remains for this part: the rhythm of the scale. I'm not sure if it's correct, it sounds like there are more notes which I have missed, but I'm not sure. I'm also not sure if the rhythm is correct. Also this song also exist outside of this "medley", and I've listened to that and there it only plays those notes (with a different rhythm since it's a different song, but that doesn't matter). Also think of using the sost ped. to sustain the first chord.

O: This one probably only has one question, if the notation in m.183 is acceptable. I tried to show the accel. and rit a bit with that notation, but I might be able to do it in a better way. Also the time signature is questionable, but I used it to show the broadness of the section, and the long phrases. I don't know the beaming in 3/2 if I should beam together quarter notes in tremolo or not (as you can see I have different notations in m.183 in the LH and RH.

P: Not much to say about this section, I think it's fine. The 2/2 I think is better than 4/4. I don't know if all chords are correct. I also tried incorporating a lot of voices to make this section bigger as in the original.

Q: Pretty much same as P.

R: I think there are 2 beats on beat 3 and 4, rather than a half note on beat 3, even though it's hard to hear and decide with seems more like the original. Also there are some chords I'm not certain about, m.226-227 is the one that I'm least sure of. tried to build up this section over time with bigger chords and stronger dynamics.

S: I don't know but I feel like this part has an 8/8 feel that's why I notated it so. Otherwise I think it's fine, the only question are the chords in the later measures of the section, m. 244-247.

T: Yet again I don't think it's good to use staccato here, makes the bass less powerful. Notated it as senza ped. to keep it more dry and to add variety between this section and the latter.

U: Not much to say about this one, I think the chords are right but I could be mistaken. The later 4 measures is also a question mark concerning notations of it, since they seem very similar to m.276-277 and 285-287.

V: Not much to say about this except that I am very certain the LH is correct actually, it was quite easy to hear. I think I did a good job arranging m.276-277 also.

W: Same as V, but I think I did a good decision putting it one octave higher, even though it doesn't add much dynamic being in such high register of the piano. Added some notes in the LH accompaniment to make this section seem bigger and stronger. I don't know if there is anything to make this section better, I've looked at different options as octaves and having secttion V's melody in the LH even, but I think this ones the best for sections V and W.

[Th3Gavst3r]

Very, very impressive sir. Right off the bat, your pedal comment is outside the printable margins of most printers (0.5 in. is a pretty safe bet), so I'd recommend improving the line breaks:

[Mus]
Other than that it looks like you've spent a ton of time on this and it looks pretty great! Hopefully it'll be up before too long.....

[Latios212]

Oh dear. I think this will break some kind of record for longest submission. At least you didn't run out of letters.

Quick things on my first pass (I'm sure there will be many more things to come):
- Try to keep the rests in each layer vertically aligned with the notes - I'd suggest lowering the LH layer 1 rests in A down to the middle of the staff.
- m. 110 - two naturals on the same note. Perhaps hide the layer 2 rests in this and 112?
- Put a little horizontal space between the overlapping layers in m.127 beat 1, 169, other places as well.
- Move layer 2 to the left of layer 1 notes in 133
- Overlapping natural in 176
- Combine/hide extra half rests in section R
- Double bar lines at the end of each section?
- ....dear god this song is long

[Tobbeh99]

Wow thanks a lot for the feedback! Not used to having so many giving feedback on my submissions, usually I wait patiently and after a month or so someone replies or the arrangement get's accepted. But this awesome, thanks a lot! 

Very, very impressive sir. Right off the bat, your pedal comment is outside the printable margins of most printers (0.5 in. is a pretty safe bet), so I'd recommend improving the line breaks:

[Mus]
Other than that it looks like you've spent a ton of time on this and it looks pretty great! Hopefully it'll be up before too long.....

Oh I didn't know that, anyways I fixed it.

Oh dear. I think this will break some kind of record for longest submission. At least you didn't run out of letters.

Quick things on my first pass (I'm sure there will be many more things to come):
- Try to keep the rests in each layer vertically aligned with the notes - I'd suggest lowering the LH layer 1 rests in A down to the middle of the staff.
- m. 110 - two naturals on the same note. Perhaps hide the layer 2 rests in this and 112?
- Put a little horizontal space between the overlapping layers in m.127 beat 1, 169, other places as well.
- Move layer 2 to the left of layer 1 notes in 133
- Overlapping natural in 176
- Combine/hide extra half rests in section R
- Double bar lines at the end of each section?
- ....dear god this song is long

I think the double accidentals is a Musx-mus conversion problem thing, since it doesn't exist on the pdf. I'll fix that at the very end.
I added some double barlines at certain sections, the form of the song is basically first a strong/loud part and then a soft/light part etc. So I put double barlines at those places, where it changes from a loud part to a soft part.
I fixed the rests in section A.
I fixed the layer 2 things, so they are at the right side, however the second chord at beat 3 m.127 is an exception since it creates a 2nd interval so it can't be on the left side of the note.
Section R: I used different layers to show the different voices, which are to be played at different dynamics, layer 2 acts sort of like an echo. Therefore I need the rests to show when each layer is to enter. hmm, now when I think about it, some rests might be a bit useless in this part, hmm maybe I'll hide them.

[Tobbeh99]

bump

[Tobbeh99]

bump

[Tobbeh99]

bump again.

It might be better if we could maybe check this song in parts, like A-E. That way check this song piece by piece until it's complete.

[Tobbeh99]

bump.

[Bespinben]

Would you like NSM-standard or BespinTobbehFan-standard?

If the former, I'll accept it right away, but if the latter, be prepared for several months of delay caused by my laziness.

[Tobbeh99]

Well... I'd like to hear what ideas you have in mind and see if I agree with them rather than just answer with a yes or no, since I'm not sure if I would agree on the changes. But I don't want to make you work a lot on it, but then not agreeing with the changes, making you work a lot for nothing.

So I'd like you to list what changes, or the most important ones, you'd make and consider them after I've heard them. 

[Tobbeh99]

bump. Ben?

[Zeta]

This submission has been accepted by Maelstrom.

~Zeta, your friendly NSM-Bot