Submission Information:
Series: Fire Emblem
Game: Fire Emblem Fates
Console: Nintendo 3DS
Title: Lost in Thoughts All Alone
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Renaud Bergeron (https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=3400)
[attachment deleted by admin]
[attachment deleted by admin]
Hey there, D3ath. Sorry for the wait on this. From what I understand there is another arrangement of this track floating around the forums and the updaters/arrangers involved with that version were debating which one to upload (yours or theirs). I'm not totally sure of the status of that to be honest, but if you would like to submit something else in the mean time, feel free to.
Hopefully someone who knows more about this than I do can post and clear things up.
While this is by no means a bad arrangement, I do spot a number of things in this sheet I take issue with...
- Unnecessarily large bars. They make it harder to find strong beats when reading, and the percussion that comes in at about 2:20 is indicative of phrases consisting of three beats.
- Single note arpeggios. I do not feel like they capture the essence of the accompaniment during the chorus for several reasons - you lose of key rhythms and contours from the original, not to mention the original's accompaniment consists of different notes.
- Harmonies. They move around between registers and pop in and out too much; particularly during the chorus in measure 30 where they drop out entirely. The first chord strike of measure 23 sounds relatively empty with an octave in the left hand and sixth in the right, while the following chord strike sounds much heavier with a seventh chord played by the left hand.
- Low notes. Related to the above, the bottom notes of the piece seem to let up occasionally like at the beginning of measure 24 where the lowest note in the chord is just the F# below middle C. The chords before and after it strike A# and D# that are far below that note, sort of leaving the listener wondering where the accompaniment went there.
With regards to the above points I feel that a piano condensing (not posted yet) of the vocal+piano sheet Maelstrom and I have arranged does a better job of maintaining the essence of the original, as well as looks nicer.
I originally chose to go with 6/4 time because the melody was so long, and this divided it into two sections of 4 measures, which is pretty standard, as opposed to two sections of 8 measures. A friend who was studying music with me in college, and helped me out a lot with this arrangement, also said it sounded like 6/4 to him, though he didn't like the temporary change to 9/4 (which I don't like much either), and suggested I could make the whole thing 3/4, which I held off on doing until now, but definitely agree with. Moreover, I am considering changing the intro to 2/4 time, as my friend also suggested.
The reason I went with arpeggios in measures 30-36 is that the actual piano part is constantly in the same register as the voice (in retrospect, I might switch to a hybrid texture for this stretch), and later in the piece, it's because arpeggios on a piano sound more full than repeated block chords, which I found preferable for the instrumental passage from measures 64-71 and the denser texture of subsequent choruses.
Regarding the harmonies moving register, I have played this arrangement on multiple different straight and grand pianos, and have never noticed any problems, especially the impression of missing bass notes. I feel this might be a problem with the MIDI simulation and not the arrangement itself. I even asked my professor for advice, particularly with inconsistent texture, and he did not find anything problematic.
Concerning the chord structures of measure 23 specifically, I also found the A major chord sounded somewhat empty, so I added a C# in the middle register, and moved the E# of the following A#m7 chord up an octave, which makes the texture more even (I haven't updated the files yet).
Concerning measure 24, I do not, in all honesty, find the lack of a lower F# jarring in any way. On the contrary, I find a more mobile bass adds variety and creates interest, and is much more idiomatic to the piano, as opposed to the "licks" performed by the bass in the original, or trying to play all the notes of a piece for ensemble in their original registers.
I realize this arrangement is much more of an actual arrangement, rather than a transcription for piano, but I don't see why this would be problematic.
Quote from: D3ath3657 on February 16, 2018, 07:32:08 PMI realize this arrangement is much more of an actual arrangement, rather than a transcription for piano, but I don't see why this would be problematic.
There's nothing wrong with that. The things I listed above were my concerns about how well your interpretation "works" for piano, not how "accurate" it is.
I'll have more to say at some point later; I will have quite a busy week coming up (and am eagerly awaiting your new edits!)
Files have been updated.
The biggest change is the time signature. I also made a few tweaks to notes here and there.
Most notably, I held off on switching my arpeggio patterns, for the following reasons:
- The piano chords are constantly in the same register as the voice, and lowering them muddies the sound. Moreover, completing the voice notes with chord notes in earlier choruses makes the build-up from one chorus to the next less meaningful.
- The single piano notes and bass notes rely on other instruments sustaining the harmony. Playing only these two lines makes the harmony unsatisfying, if not unclear. Additionally, the independent rhythms aren't complementary.
- For later choruses, arpeggios are simply the best way to emulate the full orchestral sound of the original.
In the end, I believe arpeggios are the best way to obtain a harmonic accompaniment which sounds full and even, while retaining the flow of the original.
I'm very pleased with how you've continued to improve and evolve this arrangement towards your own vision. The most I can offer at this point is some pedantry regarding page layout. If we use 6.5mm staff size (as per Elaine Gould's recommendations), symmetrical margins (with sides slightly larger to offset the ungainly width of the aspect ratio of 8.5 x 11 paper), and a general allotment of 5 measures per system (with some judicious give-and-take to account for page turns), we get a much more functional print-ready layout:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ar98o8lrif1hqzr/Lost%20in%20Thoughts%20All%20Alone%20%28edit%29.musx?dl=0
I butchered your slurs in the process unfortunately, but shouldn't take too long I hope to redraw them :)
Files have been updated.
Correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but it seems all that was done (at least as far as what I was concerned with) was that you changed the page size to 85% (formally 91%) and changed the left margin to 0.75" (formally 1"). While this does improve the aesthetic of the layout somewhat, it doesn't fix any of the major issues that my recommendations were aimed at -- namely, whitespace optimization and page turns. While I understand that preparing a layout around page turns is a non-issue for a lot of people (as I know many NSM'ers either use tablets or print single-sided), there's still tons of unused whitespace in your current edition at the bottom of each page, which is just not good graphic design. Aim for a predictable layout with ample whitespace that allows your music to breath:
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/401094846107877377/430865324422856705/Screen_Shot_2018-04-03_at_5.03.29_PM.png?width=700&height=455
Just saw your newest edit; that's much better now! I'll accept this if there are no objections otherwise... Latios?
Quote from: Latios212 on February 16, 2018, 08:06:26 PMI'll have more to say at some point later; I will have quite a busy week coming up (and am eagerly awaiting your new edits!)
Don't accept until this is resolved.
Quote from: Bespinben on April 03, 2018, 06:50:18 PMJust saw your newest edit; that's much better now! I'll accept this now if you're satisfied.
If you're content with the layout, then so am I. I'd also like to thank you; your standards have resulted in me learning a valuable lesson in terms of editing.
Quote from: Maelstrom on April 03, 2018, 06:55:26 PMDon't accept until this is resolved.
I have the feeling it's going to take a while...
F
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.
- 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.
Dum spiro, spero.
I haven't forgotten, I'm just feeling kind of sick at the moment... rest assured I will return to have another look!
Quote from: D3ath3657 on July 02, 2018, 02:14:04 PMDoubling 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.
Quote from: D3ath3657 on July 02, 2018, 02:14:04 PMIsn'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.
Quote from: D3ath3657 on July 02, 2018, 02:14:04 PMAre 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.
Quote from: Latios212 on July 01, 2018, 12:07:20 PM- First chord in m. 101 should be inverted down - the strings ascend from G# to the A#-B-C#-D# following.
Quote from: D3ath3657 on July 02, 2018, 02:14:04 PMI'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.
Quote from: D3ath3657 on July 02, 2018, 02:14:04 PMI 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.
D3ath3657 needs to update this so I can have a crack at this.
Bump for arranger. Just to let you know, this is getting close to deletion at this point.
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.
Quote from: Brassman388 on September 03, 2018, 11:56:04 AMD3ath3657 needs to update this so I can have a crack at this.
By all means, please do so.
I will!
Tomorrow!
...
I thought I could do it tonight but I'm just way too tired to think straight.
Till next time.
Quote from: D3ath3657 on September 30, 2018, 03:53:55 PMFor 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.
Quote from: Brassman388 on October 01, 2018, 11:19:52 PMI will!
Tomorrow!
...
Tomorrow Never Dies. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDe1xi4tGUA)
Bump. This submittions has been the single longest-sitting submission in existence so far, beating Waluigi's MKW Rainbow Road by 15 days.
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.
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.
Till tonight.
You.
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.
For the left hand in measure 38, maybe some other voice goes C#>A#, but I'm pretty sure the bass does what I've written. I've changed everything else.
Quote from: D3ath3657 on November 16, 2018, 01:43:33 PMFor the left hand in measure 38, maybe some other voice goes C#>A#, but I'm pretty sure the bass does what I've written. I've changed everything else.
That's fine. Iirc, I was attempting to follow the piano there, which was what I thought you wanted.
Bump for updater.
Thanks for looking out for me.
Maybe I could get Libera's opinion? (If you want, that is.) Sometimes, I feel like you're the only one who still comes here.
So, um, why is this sheet still sitting here? I'm starting to understand more and more your frustration. I'd think this sheet would've been accepted long ago.
I can't promise time now, but when Christmas break (Dec 19) hits for me, I will definitely get this one reviewed and accepted (if it's still here by then).
This sheet looks fine to me. If no one else has anything to add, then we're done here.
Then accepted it shall be.
This submission has been accepted by Latios212 (https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=4344).
~Zeta, your friendly NSM-Bot