[3DS] Fire Emblem Fates - "Lost in Thoughts All Alone" by Renaud Bergeron

[Latios212]

Sorry for the delay. Going through it now.

- The C# in m. 20 doesn't really sound like it fits there. I'm hearing more of a G# in the chord instead.
- The bass strikes more than once in m. 34; I'd recommend filling in the pause with that.
- No harmonies in the RH of m. 39-40? It seems like an odd place to suddenly thin the texture from that of the previous few measures.
- Measures 46 and particularly 48 are missing notes in another layer that would contribute more to the song than just holding the chord for the duration of the measure.
- Could we clean up m. 56 a bit by moving the dyads to the top staff instead?
- Is there a reason you have dyads written in m. 63-64? Those are just single notes in the original.
- Chord in m. 65 is missing a G#.
- Check the chords in the instrumental break starting at m. 67. I believe they should have D# on top.
- Chord in m. 87 would be better filled out with a C# in the right hand.
- Similar to some above points, m. 97-98 sounds a bit empty without some of the motion happening in notes you haven't written.
- First chord in m. 101 should be inverted down - the strings ascend from G# to the A#-B-C#-D# following.
- Is there a reason you switch from writing in two layers in m. 142 to combining them in one in m. 143+?
- Page 5 is much too cramped compared to the other pages, as you're shoving 6 systems on it as opposed to the usual 5 - the music creeps into the bottom and top margins. If you must put 6 systems on a page, try reducing the staff space between LH/RH and choosing a different page to put 6 systems on, as that section of the song also has quite a bit going on and is already dense.

Haven't finished going through it yet, but I'm taking a break.

[Khunjund]

• Doubling the G# in the bass sounds hollow. I believe the most orthodox note to have there is a D#, but that gives the chord a very direct quality that I didn't perceive in the original, whereas adding the 11th gives it a more mellow sound.
• The bass does strike twice, but it doesn't draw attention or suggest movement in the way that, say, playing both notes forming the seventh in the left hand separately would (simply repeating the bass note here sounds rather lame). I also think it works better to keep a greater contrast between these measures, which have a more dreamy sound, and the previous section, which had more drive.
• The way I see it, measures 33–38 focus more on colour impression, hence the decision to strike full chords at once, whereas measure 39 marks a return to a more driven melody and accompaniment. The synth even fades away after the first beat of 39 (which is where I would consider adding a chord), leaving only the voice, piano, and bass, which is basically the same texture as the beginning.
• Done.
• I liked it better that way, actually, but I had to fix the chords, so I changed it anyway.
• I'm actually rather torn on this section, because I rather quite like the sound of the third opening into a fifth, which I also find gives the notes a more resonant, bell-like tone. I'll give it some thought.
• Isn't that G# just the previous note being sustained? In any case, I find adding it to the D#-A# fifth diminishes its resonant quality.
• Are you talking about the right or left hand chords? Though in either case, I don't hear it. There's a synth line hovering around middle D#, but I considered it superfluous. I could use it to fill out the right-hand chords even more, in which case I would add a D# to measures 67–68, E# to measures 69–70, and D# to measures 71–74; I'd just have to find a fourth note to add to measures 75–84.
• Indeed. I've added it there, as well as in measure 88.
• Added.
• I'd like to get someone else's opinion on this. The cymbal muddies the tones a bit, but I find the upper B too impactful to ignore.
• Stopping the two-layer writing in measure 143 was a mistake; for measures 144–148, it's because the texture switches from melody-countermelody to simple melody with accompaniment.
• I know page 5 is cramped, but it's the only page on which spacing systems so closely doesn't cause any collision issues, despite the apparent density of the music. I've tried to tighten up the systems a bit.

Aside from that, I've fixed a couple of chords here and there.

[Khunjund]

Dum spiro, spero.

[Latios212]

I haven't forgotten, I'm just feeling kind of sick at the moment... rest assured I will return to have another look!

[Latios212]

Doubling the G# in the bass sounds hollow. I believe the most orthodox note to have there is a D#, but that gives the chord a very direct quality that I didn't perceive in the original, whereas adding the 11th gives it a more mellow sound.

If that's your choice, then I respect that. Though I will say the clash of the minor second between the B and C# sticks out quite a bit due to the sparseness of the beginning section and resultantly detracts from the main melody, which is why I think it would be better off more "hollow" here.

Isn't that G# just the previous note being sustained? In any case, I find adding it to the D#-A# fifth diminishes its resonant quality.

I'm think it is re-struck. In any case, the reason I think this would be best added in is specifically to give it the sus4 sound which I detect from the original, as opposed to the open fifth.

Are you talking about the right or left hand chords? Though in either case, I don't hear it. There's a synth line hovering around middle D#, but I considered it superfluous. I could use it to fill out the right-hand chords even more, in which case I would add a D# to measures 67–68, E# to measures 69–70, and D# to measures 71–74; I'd just have to find a fourth note to add to measures 75–84.

Sorry, I mean the right hand chords. I pretty distinctly hear the D# on top of those, up until around m. 76.

- First chord in m. 101 should be inverted down - the strings ascend from G# to the A#-B-C#-D# following.

I'd like to get someone else's opinion on this. The cymbal muddies the tones a bit, but I find the upper B too impactful to ignore.[/li][/list]

Sure thing. I've double checked what I wrote last time and I still think this, though. The clearest line I can hear ascends, and I think it would be fine to include the B on the bottom of the chord instead of the top.

I know page 5 is cramped, but it's the only page on which spacing systems so closely doesn't cause any collision issues, despite the apparent density of the music. I've tried to tighten up the systems a bit.

Looking better. I know it's a bit tricky with the phrase markings taking up a lot of space over notes that stem up, but there's a but more we can squeeze here - you can lower the one above m. 133-135 a bit, as well as 140-141 if you flatten that one out a bit. That and possibly moving the staves closer together in the system starting at m. 145 should allow you a bit more room at the top of the page to keep the music away from the header. (Also fix the phrase marking at m. 127, it overlaps the stem.)

The rest of the points you addressed that I haven't said anything about look good!

...And now for the rest.

This is all about the secondary RH voice:
- m. 126 sounds like it drops down to a B for beat 3 instead of going back up to the E.
- m. 139 sounds like it should be an E instead of F#.
- m. 142 sounds like F# G# B for the last three eighth notes beats as opposed to one quarter F#.
- This is debatable given the original, but I think the C# tied between 152-153 should re-strike. Same with m. 169 D#.
- m. 151, 154, 155, 170, 171 all sound like the second note falls on beat 2.5 instead of 3.
- m. 173-174 sounds like it ascends G-A-B-D-G instead of E-F#-G-G.

The rest:
- Similar comment as I made last time - is there a reason 157-160 is in one layer as opposed to two? The melody gets a little lost on the bottom as opposed to 144-148 where it's fine and readable on top.
- Hmm... m. 156 is making me do a double take given the Cn, Cx, and Bn all in the same place, might be worth taking another look.
- m. 175 - consider either moving the eighth rest to the top staff or flipping the dotted half B downwards? Right now the G looks oddly displaced.
- m. 180, G in the triplet needs a sharp.
- m. 180, left hand sounds like it should go C# (hold), B D# E

That's all for now, I think. Thanks once again for being patient and sorry it's taking so long, this is one heck of a song.

[Brassman388]

D3ath3657 needs to update this so I can have a crack at this.

[Libera]

Bump for arranger.  Just to let you know, this is getting close to deletion at this point.

[Khunjund]

For measure 20, the interval between B and C# is a major second, and it's a rather mild dissonace. I also don't think it stands out too much because, while the preceding chords were arpeggiated, the pedal still gives them a full sound, and both the C#min(add9) and A(add9) have a level of density comparable to this voicing of G#min11.

I really don't hear any high D#s in measures 67–84. All I hear (which I haven't written) is a synth line that goes D# fourth line in measures 67–68, E# in measures 69–70, etc., as well as a high G# (fourth ledger line above the staff) in measures 83 and 84. I guess I could add those, but I'm not convinced.

I can't make out the strings on the first beat of measure 101 because of the cymbal, and their line definitely ascends from A# to D#, but I clearly hear a B third line in the initial chord.

For page 7, I don't see how having systems that are unevenly spaced and even more cramped is somehow preferable to coming a bit close to the header.

Fixed measures 126 and 139.

What do you mean by "one quarter F#" in measure 142? I'm pretty confident in the A# instead of B, though.

I'm keeping measures 155 and 171 as to preserve the main melody, but I changed the rest.

Measures 173 and 174 definitely have G-A-B, but I don't hear a D.

For measures 157–160, I wrote them like that because that's what I had done in measures 57–59, but you're right: it doesn't work here.

In measure 156 (like in measure 56), the chords are A#13, which is A#-Cx-(E#)-G#-B#-Fx, followed by A#7(b13/b9), which is A#-Cx-(E#)-G#-B-F#. The Cx is the leading tone, so I wanted to write it down as is, but I notated the B#>Bn and Fx>F# movements as C>B and Gn>F# to better show the lines (both lines end up on A# and E# respectively in the following D#min9 chord). I might change this.

For measure 175, I'll see if I can find a similar situation in one of my professionally edited sheets to see what they do.

Measure 180, I think it's actually B-E-F. I'm not sure, but I think it gives a more satistying sound in combination with the right hand, and it makes for a better line leading up to the Cmaj7 chord in the next measure. I fixed the G# also.

D3ath3657 needs to update this so I can have a crack at this.

By all means, please do so.

[Brassman388]

I will!

Tomorrow!

...

I thought I could do it tonight but I'm just way too tired to think straight.

Till next time.

[Khunjund]

For measure 175, I'll see if I can find a similar situation in one of my professionally edited sheets to see what they do.

You were right, the eighth rest should go in the upper staff. I've fixed it.

I will!

Tomorrow!

...

Tomorrow Never Dies.

[Olimar12345]

Bump. This submittions has been the single longest-sitting submission in existence so far, beating Waluigi's MKW Rainbow Road by 15 days.

[Latios212]

I'm for the most part done looking through this - leaving it up to Brassman or (whoever else) to take a crack at it before finishing up with this one.

[Khunjund]

Could someone perhaps set a deadline for anyone wanting to review this submission, please? Maybe one week from now, if no one comments or otherwise brings up any issues, it could get accepted? Two weeks? I'd just like some sort of guarantee that it won't hit its second anniversary. That would be greatly appreciated.

[Brassman388]

Till tonight.

You.

[Olimar12345]

Regarding the first page and a half:


-I would recommend a courtesy sharp on the G in the LH of measure 8.

-You have the same G# in both the alto and tenor voices in measure 9. If there is a particular way you wish for the player to perform that, I'd make it more clear (say by surrounding one of them parenthesis, etc.).

-If you listen closely, in measure 24 the E rearticulates on the last eighth note of the bar in the LH . There's also a C in the LH that is doubled in the RH, but no chord like you notated. Personally I'd remove that since it doesn't resemble the original in that state.

-You're missing an E# above the staff in measure 35 (LH, Beat three)

-I'm hearing something different for the end of measure 38 (LH). Last three eighth notes sound more like a first space A#, C# above the staff, then fifth line A#.

-The LH for measures 39-40 seem nothing like they sound in the recording. Seems odd that you'd have the arpeggios there and then suddenly switch back to the sounding line at 41.