[DELETED] [WiiU] The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild - "Lost Woods" by Olimar12345

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: The Legend of Zelda
Game: The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild
Console: Wii U
Title: Lost Woods
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Olimar12345

[Olimar12345]

I'm sorry for this one:

[Latios212]

oh gosh

do I need to check all these notes

[Pianoth]

Believe it or not, I checked the notes.

• m1 ~ m17 everything correct, although there was probably some way to put the long G that starts in m10 (and analogous situation with the long D later). Anyway, in m3, m11 and so on, you really should put those notes of the other side of the stem. I wouldn't accept it in this state. I don't remember how to do it, but I don't think it's that hard to do, unless you use notepad.
• m18 Check the left hand. The rhythm should be like m11, with different notes in the left hand.
• m31 Check the right hand.

There may be some other errors but I'm not fully sure of those so I just mentioned these ones.

[Olimar12345]

I'll check the specific things next time I can, but as for the note head placement in those weird spots, if I place them on the other side of the stem they become misaligned with other notes happening at the same time. Of the two options, I think this one is easier to read.

[Pianoth]

The problem with that this kind of notation is that it isn't used in music. If the misalignment is the main problem for you, just make those bars more spaced, or use a different way to write it (you don't need to write it this way after all).

[Olimar12345]

I want everything to be beamed together in this piece. To me, it serves as a visual representation of the unity of the sound. In addition, since the two parts are echo-like, it makes it easier to read as opposed to having the player align the two parts without physical note stems keeping everything together. Is it non-traditional? Yes. However, I have not done this lightly, or without thought.

As mentioned in my previous post, there are three options for how to display this with the right hand and left hand beamed together. These are displayed below, numbered 1-3.



Numbers 2 and 3 keep the standard notation placement tendencies for the stems and note heads, but have visual ambiguity. Number 2 aligns the note heads, which are intended to sound at the same time, but unless one is reading carefully, the stems create the illusion that the uppermost note is supposed to sound before the lower one. Number 3 solves this issue by keeping the stem in alignment through out both registers, but now the note heads are not aligned, resulting in a similar problem.

Number 1 combats both of the issues caused by the other two options. Though not a standard practice for music notation, it demands no second guessing as to when to play both notes.

At the end of the day, it is just "notation." Whether or not something is or isn't typically used in music notation is in itself not a law that music writers must abide by (graphic notation, anybody?). I doubt anyone would look at what I have now and question how the passage is supposed to be played.

[Pianoth]

At the end of the day, it is just "notation." Whether or not something is or isn't typically used in music notation is in itself not a law that music writers must abide by (graphic notation, anybody?). I doubt anyone would look at what I have now and question how the passage is supposed to be played.

With this logic, you could even write a score using note names and writing what the rhythm is. Like a Lilypond file. No one would look at your score and question how it is supposed to be played (assuming he knows the note names and the note values), but that's not how a score is written. Your notation, even though it is clear, it's not used. If this score was handwritten, I could understand your point, but it's not, so you really should follow the standard notation rules. I would go with the 3rd version you show, which is clear enough in my opinion, since the fact that there's only a beam shouldn't really create doubts in anyone reading. But if the fact that the note heads is not aligned is really bothering you, you could also write in any of these 3 ways:

Spoiler

• – the best way with the standard notation, the only thing you lose is the main beam between the 2 staffs, but that's only a graphic issue, and honestly I much prefer this graphic issue over the one in your score;
• – you gain alignment of the note heads, you have the alignments in the beams, the only thing you don't have is a single beam between rh and lh, but you can have it if you make the beam longer, like this:
  , so that's a pretty good compromise I'd say, even though this is probably not standard notation either;
• – I know you said that you want everything beamed together as a visual representation of the unity and whatever, but I don't agree with this concept anyway. Everything here is played staccato, and I feel like every chord here is like a single unity. In fact, there's no real harmony in this piece. Moreover, this notation is used even when it's not needed, for example in Alkan's concerto you can find this:
  
  Notice how the edition writes the first pauses, then it hides them. It's still pretty clear how this bar is supposed to be played, even hiding the pauses, since it's pretty clear that the bar is 3/4, and not 7/16. There was no need of using a single main beam between the staffs, even though the hands are clearly harmonically and melodically connected in this case.

[close]

Anyway, be sure to also check those bars I mentioned earlier.

[Olimar12345]

With this logic, you could even write a score using note names and writing what the rhythm is. Like a Lilypond file.

At its core though, that is a form of music notation. Just like guitar tablature or (like I mentioned) graphic notation. It's just a visual representation of sound. These are all fine, but if we're getting back to piano notation for this website, my tiny backwards note head is hardly comparable to "a Lilypond file."

But enough of that (lol).
About your suggestions:
1. I don't like number one because one must retrace the stems all the way down (or up) to make sense of the rhythm. This was a nonissue in my method because stems did not go farther than the middle of the two staves.
2. This option looks disjunct and breaks the consistency that the connected stems offers. The second version of the option that you have is literally synonymous with how I have it now, with a second stem frivolously added. How is this more necessary again? Lol
3. This one probably makes the next most sense, but I still think it's more of a hassle to read compared to what I have right now. With the rests, the player is charged with lining up the notes and holes on their own. My version is literally this but simplified in that there are physical lines drawn to connect notes that sound at the same time. Why is this so bad?

Honestly,

No one would look at your score and question how it is supposed to be played...

This statement alone should dismiss the disagreement. The conversation at hand is one of opinions and preferences based on our own, different and separate personal experiences.

Anyway, be sure to also check those bars I mentioned earlier.

Will do.

[Pianoth]

2. This option looks disjunct and breaks the consistency that the connected stems offers. The second version of the option that you have is literally synonymous with how I have it now, with a second stem frivolously added. How is this more necessary again? Lol

The second version has the notes written at the right part of the stem. That "second stem frivolously added" makes that version a lot more correct than yours, in my opinion, since, as I said, this is not a manuscript, so we should follow the standard conventions of writing the notes at the left or the right of the stem depending on the direction of it, unless there are two adjacent notes (and that's literally the only case in which a note should be put on the other side of the stem). Your version is basically questioning the standard convention of writing the notes, even if you wrote it that way on some basis (which weren't convincing enough in my opinion). I mean, if you find the lilypond example so extreme, I could also tell you that I could make a score written this way, and it really wouldn't be so different with what you did with your submission:

Spoiler

(yeah that's a canon in augmentation if you're wondering)

[close]

After all, the notes are clear, the rhythm is clear, I just decided to change the standard conventions. I could as well do this change on some basis, for example I could justify this change by saying that I saw this way of writing the notes in some manuscript (in which, by the way, you could actually find this kind of notation), and I think it's more clear when it's written this way. Of course that's just an example, I wouldn't really do that.
And that's basically what you're doing: you're changing the standard conventions, and you're justifying this change because you think it's more clear that way. But that still counts as a change. Your reasoning is too subjective in my opinion. You may as well be right on the clarity, even though I don't agree, but there are several alternatives without changing the rules. That's why I really think you should just use any of the ways the standard notation offers. The second one is the one that is more similar graphically, but it has the notes written at the right part of the stem, as I said, and it's really not that hard to write.

[Dudeman]

If I may weigh in: the way Olimar has these notated is odd, yes, but I agree with him that the way the notes are situated allows for easier reading of the note placement within the measure. Opening up the file for the first time now, I had no trouble at all recognizing that these dyads needed to be played together. In fact, I find the "backwards" notation of the right hand more of a help than a hindrance, as it serves as a visual reminder to the performer that there is an irregularity in the echo-like rhythm in that spot. At the end of the day, you are arguing over an ambiguous piece of visual formatting, and since Olimar is the arranger and deliberately notated those portions the way he did for emphasis, he should have the final say.

[Olimar12345]

Before I proceed with this unnecessarily long post, I would like to thank you for your interest here. Even though we disagree, it is a means to grow both of our understandings of the topic at hand.

Regarding the second version again:

The second version has the notes written at the right part of the stem.

The first one does, yes. That is not in question.

That "second stem frivolously added" makes that version a lot more correct than yours,

Stopping right here, the term "correct" is subjective, but I understand that the point you are trying to make is in regards to traditional notation practices. When I said a second stem was frivolous, I was referring to how you imply that downward stem is needed to "justify" this note's existence, while the one I prefer serves a useful purpose. I call the stem you added "frivolous" because you argue that it is needed in addition to what I have in order to legitimize it, rather than to serve an actual function.

...in my opinion, since, as I said, this is not a manuscript, so we should follow the standard conventions of writing the notes at the left or the right of the stem depending on the direction of it...

Whoa whoa whoa, so if this were manuscript, the rules would be different? That seems not only inconsistent, but conflicting with "the rules." Your fixation on it needing to be manuscript in order to have "justification" seems narrow-minded, especially since I have legitimate reasons for the way I display these few instances that don't simply dependent on the medium that hosts it.

Your version is basically questioning the standard convention of writing the notes, even if you wrote it that way on some basis (which weren't convincing enough in my opinion).

Hang on there: this is only a special technique used in very specific and unique situations. I have made over 250 arrangements and this is the only one with a need for such a maneuver, so if anyone were going to be the harbinger of this new notation technique, it would not be me. I am in no way trying to dismantle the way music notations is supposed to look. Whether or not you find this one thing I did convincing is your opinion, but I usually function on the side of logic.

I mean, if you find the lilypond example so extreme, I could also tell you that I could make a score written this way, and it really wouldn't be so different with what you did with your submission:

Spoiler

(yeah that's a canon in augmentation if you're wondering)

[close]

After all, the notes are clear, the rhythm is clear, I just decided to change the standard conventions.

Again, you are blowing this way out of proportion. The only time I have a backwards note head is when both notes are stemmed together, placed in opposing staves, have their beam between said staves, are preceded and followed by notes that are included in the beam, and sound simultaneously. If this was not the case, (i.e. 99.9999% of the time) I would be arguing on your side.

I could as well do this change on some basis, for example I could justify this change by saying that I saw this way of writing the notes in some manuscript (in which, by the way, you could actually find this kind of notation), and I think it's more clear when it's written this way. Of course that's just an example, I wouldn't really do that.

Still confused as to why it being in manuscript suddenly justifies this in your eyes.

And that's basically what you're doing: you're changing the standard conventions, and you're justifying this change because you think it's more clear that way. But that still counts as a change. Your reasoning is too subjective in my opinion. You may as well be right on the clarity, even though I don't agree, but there are several alternatives without changing the rules.

This is just rambling about things I've already addressed. Read my above comments. Since I have a free area here, I propose to you to think about how we notate the interval of a second. No matter which direction the stem goes, one of the pitches in the chord gets their note head flipped around the wrong way. With your argument here, is it considered incorrect for composers to write this interval without separate stems going in each direction, disregarding the individual circumstances?

That's why I really think you should just use any of the ways the standard notation offers. The second one is the one that is more similar graphically, but it has the notes written at the right part of the stem, as I said

I've already addressed my opinion regarding the second option you offered, and why I feel it doesn't have as much to offer as the way I currently have.

and it's really not that hard to write.

This has not been an argument on the difficulty of notating the passage. I always opt towards the way I feel is the clearest means of communication between the writer and performer, always at the expense of the writer's time. If there were another option that I felt did a better job at notation this passage, I would do that.

If I may weigh in: the way Olimar has these notated is odd, yes, but I agree with him that the way the notes are situated allows for easier reading of the note placement within the measure. Opening up the file for the first time now, I had no trouble at all recognizing that these dyads needed to be played together. In fact, I find the "backwards" notation of the right hand more of a help than a hindrance, as it serves as a visual reminder to the performer that there is an irregularity in the echo-like rhythm in that spot. At the end of the day, you are arguing over an ambiguous piece of visual formatting, and since Olimar is the arranger and deliberately notated those portions the way he did for emphasis, he should have the final say.

Well said. Thank you, and thanks for taking a look at my arrangement.

Anyway, be sure to also check those bars I mentioned earlier.

As promised:

• m18 Check the left hand. The rhythm should be like m11, with different notes in the left hand.
• m31 Check the right hand.

-Measure 18: check again. You're hearing the louder sustain of the lower octave (hit harder in that measure) combined with the upper octave re-articulating on the up beat. The lower octave does not re-articulate it's chord in that spot. Slowing the recording down makes this apparent. If further convincing is needed, check out the spot where it returns down an octave in measure 52.
-Measure 31: Sorry, I'm not catching what is wrong in this measure.

[WaluigiTime64]

There aren't many real boundaries in music notation, and almost anything can be sacrificed for clarity, within reason.

Is this the message behind that wall of text?

[Olimar12345]

In a sense.

[Pianoth]

I could answer and continue the discussion, since I still totally disagree, and I have other arguments, but I don't care so much. I respect your opinion even if I don't agree, and you're the editor of the score anyway (and this site isn't as serious as a professional music edition, and it shouldn't be anyway).
I was pretty sure of those corrections of the notes though: I suggest listening to 50% speed, lowering the octaves. I'm pretty sure I heard some pretty clear re-articulation, that couldn't just be caused by reverb or something (I even had doubts in other bars I didn't mention, these were just the ones in which I was sure that I would have written different notes). If, after re-listening again, you're still pretty sure of what you wrote, it's ok, there isn't too much difference anyway.