Messages

I'm not ignoring the feedback, it's more like I've said everything I possibly have to say about it and people just keep posting variations and complications and obfuscations on the idea "this is easier and better" which is genuinely what it all comes back to.

To be clear, I said Seb's idea was a step in the right direction, but I'm not going to do that either, because it's absurd to ask people to submit two arrangements (I think we can all agree there). At this point I'm genuinely going to either have it accepted or not, because this week I'm in Michigan dealing with my grandmother's funeral and post-death arrangements (thanks 2020) so I don't really have time to do much in the way of big changes anyway.

Honestly, that's at least a step in the right direction. My point isn't that one is more valid than the other, it's the exact opposite: both are equally valid.

You know...for musicians you guys are awfully conservative

Just want to make sure you all see my edited post and think further about this.

Then don't accept it. I just don't really think it's appropriate that you won't despite the fact that someone approved it and I'm not breaking any rules (and like I said, I think adding a rule about using simpler key signatures, which you're basically enforcing here, would be a disgrace). I won't be changing it and I don't give my permission to change my existing arrangement.

As a user of this site long ago, seeing this arrangement would have really intrigued me and gotten me excited, and I know there are others like me out there. Sorry that you want me to bend on this, but I won't.

Gotcha, let me know if anything changes.

The in-game sound test doesn't label any of the tracks, so it's just "track 4" of the Mezzanine album. It's a weird lazy point of the game that's otherwise really polished. I used the floor number so that if the other floor themes are arranged by people, they could be in the correct order on site if the arrangers used the same system. Going by this method, Rubikium's would be "B2F - Boilerworks." Let me know if you still want to change it, I don't mind at all and I agree that they should be uniform.

Respectfully disagree—I think it's valuable

I actually agree that you have fantastic points (I meant what I said, I get where you're coming from), it's just that I'm just always going to advocate for everyone who plays the piano to challenge themselves outside of their comfort zones occasionally. This is something that's important to me personally. When it comes down to it, regardless of arguments about B-flat minor being a simpler key to read in or needing fewer double accidentals, the reason everyone wants it changed comes down to wanting an easier experience. Which I get, but in this case I'm not going to agree. I do apologize for being so stubborn.

Seconded.

No, that's different, because G# major is not a key on the circle of fifths and therefore not traditionally acceptable. A# minor is perfectly acceptable (as I said, even Bach used seven sharp keys).

All right, fixed that stuff. Thanks for your help.

And even more simply, a key signature with 5 accidentals is just plain easier to read than a key signature with 7; it's just less to think about. I know it's fun to think in weird keys, I really know, but it's not a good reader experience. I think it's really helpful to think about how an amateur would sight read a piece like this since that ultimately is the audience here at NSM - not music theorists.

I get where you're coming from, but I respectfully disagree on a fundamental level. It's only harder to read in 7 sharps because the trajectory of music has led people to practice reading in 7 sharps much less (or not at all). Key signatures like E major, with 4 sharps, can easily be read without any additional "things to think about" through practice; the same goes for keys in these extreme signatures. The only way to get these keys to be a "good reader experience" is to use them. Amateurs can handle a lot more than you'd think, and since my arrangement itself is fairly easy to play, I'm in favor of giving the performer the reading experience of 7 sharps that they probably wouldn't encounter otherwise. When I taught music theory last year, there were students who had a hell of a time trying to catch up in these concepts, and most of the issue was that they had never been assigned music in a key more extreme than B-flat or maybe E-flat. If you guys want to add a rule that we can't go beyond six accidentals as a starting key for an arrangement here (which I think would be a mistake), I'll change my arrangement, but otherwise I really don't want to.

Finished editing the sheet. I did not rewrite it in B-flat minor. The links in this post are updated to contain the new files.

Right now in m. 6, the trill looks like it would be played G-flat to A-flat. Make it a trill on G-natural, with a little F-sharp grace note beforehand and another one right after in parentheses to make it clear which notes are on the trill.

I always wondered if anyone would be brave enough to arrange this track.

Yeah, it's a lot. 😂