Quote from: Bloop on May 02, 2024, 02:30:16 AMIf it was purely for visual highlighting, you could also do something like this:Yeah I think I'd still prefer to keep it as is, it makes the most sense to me separated on the other staff
In which the player can still decide to play with the R.H. if they want. Keeping it as is is fine too though, in which the player can still decide to play it with the L.H., haha
Quote from: Bloop on May 02, 2024, 02:30:16 AMI can kinda hear the pitches in the original, but much less the actual attack of the notes, which makes me think they're overtone shenanigans. The difference isn't particularly big though, so I don't mind if you leave them in. Upon listening this part again I do think I hear a Bn above the L.H. Ab in beat 3.5, it sounded like there's more than two unique notes there.It's a bit hard to tell for sure, but what I have written in right now makes the most sense to me - not cluttering with too many notes, but including a countermelodic line that fits in.
Quote from: Bloop on May 02, 2024, 02:30:16 AMEverything else looks good though! Maybe you could add some dynamics in the m30-32 and m38-40 sections? The rest of the piece seems to stay in that p range, but in those sections there's a bit of a crescendo and decrescendo. An actual dynamic marking might be a bit overkill, but a crescendo and decrescendo probably gets the point across that there's something happening here.I wasn't sure at first since a lot of the ebb and flow of this piece (both in terms of timing and volume) is pretty loose and up to the performer to draw out, but yeah these couple of places make sense! I haven't specified a dynamic level, just added hairpins to show that it swells a bit.
Files updated! ^^