Messages

You're welcome! :3
The mass edit is even easier yeah, I forgot that was a thing. But about m7+, if you want to include it then making it a separate layer would work best imo
I mean the third octave is there, it's just that in order to keep the bass part playing while keeping the staccatos, there would only be 2 octaves. Here's a picture:

staccato + layer example

[close]

The bass notes actually fall on what you had as the second note, so in m15-16 it's an A, then G, then F. And I would have the second sixteenth note be what the arpeggio actually plays (which is a C throughout m15-20). Also, I meant m15-20 instead of m15-21/22, the bass notes were correct there. In m27 and 28 it goes back to Bb so those two measures are inaccurate too, and in measure 30 it's an A. Also instead of octaves for the eighth notes in m21+, you could have those be the last notes that the arpeggio plays

That's fine
Here's a mus file that you can play around with, although the articulations are messed up for older versions of Finale

-Wasn't sure if I could do the whole notes second layer thing for the initial note, so thanks.
-I see, what if that whole RH was brought down an octave? Would also fit with how the top note coincides with the single a at the end of the section.
-Thanks. I'll see to correct that section. What you have in the .mus you sent should be how I change it right?
-Alright, I'll do that first beat again then.


Edit: Portal updated with new changes.

I like it, and the song is nice too. Here are some things I've noticed:

Formatting:

• The beaming is weird and for future reference you should only beam sixteenth note divisions across a single beat (and thus dotted eighth notes shouldn't start on off beats extending over the next one). Also, people generally don't use dotted rests in non-compound time signatures. Luckily it's super easy to just rebeam everything when Finale automatically does it when you switch time signatures if you choose to rebar everything, so you shouldn't waste your time fixing this sheet in that regard when someone else can while fixing the subtitle and stuff
• I find it strange that you opted to use layers for m31+ but not m62+ where I think it's more important. If you still don't want to use layers because of any potential messiness then you should slur the melody notes together to make it more obvious and distinguishable rather than just accents (and speaking of accents, they're not always on the melody notes anyways like with m67 where beat 3 shouldn't be accented). This is all under the assumption that you keep both parts in the RH

Notes:

• I'm assuming you want to go for a different feel in the beginning by adding a pedal, but I think it would be better to stick with how the original is in the beginning by keeping the notes staccato'd. Plus, you don't really need to add a third octave in measures 3-6, so you can just have the LH play the second layer. Actually looking at the rest of the piece, there are other places that could use more staccato's too like the section at m55, and you could probably add more accents too to spice things up with the ostinato
• m2 the glissando should start on beat 4.5 instead of 4.75
• m7-8 LH the D should be a B (so the chord would go F A B C from lowest to highest), and in m8 the last beat sounds like the chords just land on beats 4 and 4.75; also in general I think it's better to keep the chords consistent instead of raising them on the last sixteenth notes
• m9-10 LH I think the G should be an octave higher and it's also missing a C
• m15-21 LH the part you came up with does not coincide with the bass note like the other ones do, so you could either adjust the first two sixteenth notes accordingly or just write out the full arpeggio
• m34 I think you should add the lead in to m35 as grace notes
• m48-49 the rhythm is wrong as the first two octaves are of quarter note length, so F comes on beat 4.5 and D comes on beat 1.5
• speaking of that section, I think you can add some of the arpeggios to the RH when it's not doing anything
• m55 the LH is inaccurate and sounds something like this (although to me the first note is kind of iffy):
  
  Spoiler

  

  [close]
  I get if you wanted to simplify it, but part of it was note inaccuracy and another part is that some of it (like beat 4) is unnecessary imo
• m56 LH I think it would be better to include the piano part for beats 1 and 2 while using the cello/bass or whatever for the rest of it
• m68 I think resolving the melody should have a higher priority than the ostinato so the first note should be a B instead
• m66+ I think you can rethink this section a little in terms of what you include and how you write it out. For example, you never included any chords alongside the melody, and there are certain parts where the ostinato in the RH interferes too much imo (like m73). Being more creative with it could also lead to a more substantial buildup. Here's an example of what I mean by changing things up:
  
  Spoiler

  

  [close]
  You don't have to follow this at all, especially since it gets kind of busy, but just take it as an example. Also it might be better to bring out the layers in increments even if they all come in at m66, so leaving simple chords from m66-73 and introducing the arpeggios in m74 could work too. Disregarding arrangement choices, the ostinato isn't just straight octaves and it actually alternates between low and high

That's all I feel like doing atm, but I hope this helps! Also about the DLC question, I think it's fine to keep it separate if there's a specific name attached like with how Shovel Knight: Plague of Shadows is different. If you follow the conventions of that example, then you should list this sheet under the game "Celeste: Farewell," especially since you said there are 40 minutes worth of music. But I guess you should wait to change it in case other people feel differently

Thanks so much for all this feedback. The layering made it hard for me to get some of the notes right so I hoped that people here could catch my mistakes

-Just rebarred everything via the massedit option. Do you think it's better to have the first LH note in for example m7 to not be barred with the rest since it's the low octave intro to the measure?
-I initially tried doing layers but it became really messy on my end when some of the melody notes broke the spacing for the accompaniment layer. Could try doing something with that while hiding overlapping rests, maybe.

-Which part do you think should be staccato'd in the beginning? The pedal usage is mainly because of the strong LH notes initiating each measure, although a sos marker could work too (idk how that's written though). The third octave was what I heard when listening to it (low is strings, med is pad, high is piano).
-Will change, did that initially to keep the two sixteenths at the end.
-Thanks for catching that. The last sixteenth was based on what I was hearing in the audio, can change though.
-Will try that and see how it sounds. Initially thought it was a Gsus2 which would follow with the Asus2. Edit: Tried it, high G doesn't fit but the C works. Thing's an upward progression so the high G was out of place.
-Honestly the m15-22 section I felt was the more accurate one vs m23-m29, unless you disagree. Either way, how would you recommend changing the two sixteenths? Also, I initially did the full arpeggio but it sounded too busy and muted the RH audio a bit on playback (isn't a good thing to do I know, but I generally do judge things on audio playback).
-Will add.
-Will correct.
-I've had trouble in the past of over-including everything in my arrangements, so I wanted to take a more straight melody/accompiment approach similar to bespinben's primal dialga solo arrangement. That's why I didn't try including the arpeggios in the RH.
-I think the f being the first note is right, but otherwise thanks.
-Can't tell if the first two beats for piano are the same as the previous measure, plus I do like having the C --> F bass/cello included. Maybe only beat 1 can work?
-Will change.
-By any chance could you send an audio of that? Want to hear how it sounds before trying it out. In regards to having it all at once, I do want to keep it as close to accurate as possible to the original, so personal preference I would want to avoid modifying that progression.

Do you mind if I ask what you use to export your PDFs? They always look a little blurry to me.

Print to PDF.

Added the new Celeste DLC track, "Beyond the Heart".
It's SO COOL

This is from the new DLC of Celeste (titled Celeste: Farewell on the OST which is why the game title in the sheets were mentioned as such. The DLC is only one level but has 40 minutes of music in its own OST, but this can be changed to just Celeste if needed).

I did this entire thing in one day by ear and I feel so freaking accomplished for it. Nothing should be impossible to play, although parts can be pretty difficult with different rhythms.

THIS GAME IS SO FREAKING GOOD, BLESS LENA RAINE


edit: did a quick fix of some dynamic positions, been rushing a little all day to finish this

Hmm, I'm feeling a different rhythmic vibe than what's written. Much of what I'm hearing as well as much of what you wrote points more to 12/16 - that is, groups of three 16th notes, instead of groups of three pairs of 16th notes as 6/8 implies. That's not to say it's necessarily that all the way through, as there are some syncopated rhythms that don't fit well in 12/16, or even in 6/8.

Thoughts?

It's definitely weird (seems to be a reoccurring theme for pieces I pick lol). There can definitely be an argument for a 2 beat subdivision up to around m29ish at least with the arrangement, but the original with both loops combined has it seemingly a 3 beat subdivision up to measure 13 and then a 4 beat subdivision up to m45, in which it's both 3 beat and 4 beat overlapped on each other up to m76, then goes to a consistent 4 beat subdivision for the rest of the piece *I think*. Although when separated, their time signatures seem to also change (inner loop seems to be more similar to a 6/8 timesignature, which is why I initially arranged it to be 6/8).

12/16 would I guess be the safest time signature across the entire piece but it would probably have to receive constant subdivision changes though.

What are your thoughts on this? (12/16 constant throughout)
m1-4: 2 beat subdivision
m5-12: 3 beat subdivision
m13-m44: 4 beat subdivision
m45-m76: ? ? ? ?
m77+: 4 beat subdivision

Reference: https://viewsync.net/watch?v=k-BswU3trrY&t=0&v=5jBrLedSJ-M&t=0&mode=solo

While there have been CoT arrangements made on musescore, there haven't been any that used the full theme for solo piano, only at the OST cutoff point. So I tried taking a stab at it, which I feel has gone pretty well.

The above link is what I used as a reference, since the official OST cuts out at 3 minutes (while the theme does go beyond to ~5 minutes in game). A person on YT was able to record the individual layers for the theme, which luckily overlaps most of the time throughout the piece. I did put preference for the inner loop though, which had the piano section.

I also went through on piano to make sure that all of the arrangement can be performed, as well as avoiding any chords beyond a 9th. There is one issue towards the end though (m129 - m140) which has some overlapping for both hands, so any suggestions to make that more playable would be greatly appreciated.

Beyond that, the piano/harp post-3 minutes tends to have an extra d at times, but it varies from audible to barely noticeable. I used my own discretion in when the d should be included, although that might need to be changed.

Lastly, there's probably some formatting issues with rests / dynamic markers that need to be adjusted, so let me know what formatting mistakes I missed.

Also feel free to ping me on the discord if you have any questions/concerns regarding the piece. -PlayfulPiano

hi just wanted to stop by, but from what I remembered regarding b sides:

lena composed the base themes for the A sides, and had other VGM composers to make their own remixes of her base themes to their own discretion. I would argue that these remixes should credit Lena secondary, as some remixes differ extremely to the source material (3-B & 4-B especially).

So maybe something like "Composed by X, Based on Y" or something along those lines.

Your post literally was doing that.Missed the point. I was saying that to show that the idea of Christians, the majority in the population by a vast margin with the most representation in government, being discriminated against in the United States is fake. Not even REMOTELY close.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/224642/2017-update-americans-religion.aspx

Either that or it's a "No True Scotsman" situation.

Yeah, I thought it was pretty common knowledge that christianity and its subgroups is the largest practicing religion by a freaking massive margin in the US.

also another article regarding deportation of someone who was living here legally after their spouse in the military died (luckily it was reversed, but likely due to media attention): https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/immigration/2019/04/15/ice-deports-gonzalez-spouse-u-s-soldier-killed-afghanistan/3477332002/

Snippet:

Gonzalez Carranza said he came to the U.S. illegally from Veracruz, Mexico, in 2004, when he was a teenager. He said he and Vieyra married in 2007.

After his wife was killed in Afghanistan, Gonzalez was granted what is known as parole in place, which allows immigrants in the country illegally to remain in the U.S. without the threat of deportation, Hernandez said.

An immigration judge then terminated deportation proceedings against Gonzalez based on the parole in place, Hernandez said.

However, ICE refiled the case in 2018, Hernandez said.

A judge ordered Gonzalez deported in December 2018 after Hernandez didn't show up for his court hearing, Hernandez said.

But the reason Gonzalez didn't show up is because he never received the notice, Hernandez said. He said ICE sent it to the wrong address

Gonzalez Carranza didn't find out a judge had ordered him deported until ICE officers came to his house last Monday and took him into custody, Hernandez said.

And this as well:

Wang also said it Gonzalez Carranza should not have been deported if there was a stay of removal. She said, however, it is "not uncommon" for ICE to violate stays of removal.

On Monday, Hernandez sent out a news release to draw attention to Gonzalez Carranza's case.

Hernandez said he can't understand why ICE deported him. Gonzalez Carranza has no criminal record, he said.

MBFC: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/arizona-republic/ (Right Center, High Factual Reporting)

You can sort of see why some politicians want ICE (or at least the ERO aspect of ICE) to be dissolved, or remanaged.

[Very High Factual Reporting]

lol, using biased fact checks. Anyway why are they here in the first place? If they are illegally here they shouldn't even be here. We have been catering to them giving them so many freebies. We have been catering to so many other countries and putting them first before our country. The media has to put a twist on everything it seems like.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/npr/
-Left Center, Very High Factual Reporting

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/factcheck/
-Center, Very High Factual Reporting

They're not even extremely biased, if at all (since most biases occur within opinion pieces/editorials, NOT fact checks). They both are extremely credible sources and dismissing them is absurd. If you aren't going to even remotely be a fair player in political debate here by ignoring facts and truth when provided, then I'm going to return by completely ignoring you and your viewpoints.

And that second part of your statement was already covered in the 9+ links I shared in extensivity.

A quote from Trump. President Obama separated the children, by the way, just so you understand. President Obama separated the children. Those cages that were shown -- I think they were very inappropriate. They were built by President Obama's administration, not by Trump. President Obama had child separation. Take a look. The press knows it, you know it, we all know it. I'm the one who changed that. I'll tell you something: once you don't have family separation, that's why you see many more people coming. They are coming like it's a picnic, like 'let's go to Disney Land.' President Obama separated children, I was the one who changed it.

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/09/711446917/fact-check-trump-wrongly-states-obama-administration-had-child-separation-policy
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/04/more-family-separation-spin/
Took me under a minute to find multiple articles that fact checked that statement. You're using lies to make an argument. That's not political debate, that's literally misinformation and pushing a propagandic agenda.

[legal immigrants.]

My point exactly. Also, I believe we need to build a wall, why? Because walls work. I find it very hypocritical of these poloticians to be saying so yet there are many of them who themselves have walls around their properties. When Obama said we needed a wall the Democrats were all over it, they wanted it too. As soon as Trump said we need a wall it's terrible. Why? Because he's Trump. He can't do anything right. He's not a politician. He is an outsider. They never wanted him in, he has his own money because he is a very smart business man and actually knows how money, business, and economy work. They can't buy him out or bribe him like the other poloticians.

Obama never pushed for a border wall. Some small fencing areas while he was a senator, sure, but not a full on wall that goes across the entire southern border. https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/apr/23/mick-mulvaney/fact-check-did-top-democrats-vote-border-wall-2006/

I mean, I understand that we're a country open to everyone no matter their backgrounds, beliefs, appearance, etc. but under the law.

Yes, that is what all of those immigrants coming from the southern border are. They're not illegal, they're legal immigrants. Any immigrant coming from the southern border who requests asylum, are by definition of both US and international law, legal.
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum

What happens is that ICE (specifically the ERO) deports asylum seekers based on the reasoning of their homeland not posing "a credible threat". Or alternatively, it's due to the absolute insane backlog of immigration court orders which lead long waiting people into a difficult and vulnerable position in which they could get deported. Because the current executive branch continues to label legal asylum seekers as "illegal immigrants", which is a lie.

The only real illegal immigrants in this country are those who overstay their visa, or break the law (as in theft, fraud, and other non-specific misdemeanors or felonies) while under legal asylum protections. Undocumented immigrants, those coming from the southern border, are legal asylum seekers.

Because right now due to the rhertoric in the US to demonize and animalize immigrants cause stories like this to occur daily:
https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/bc7t37/elevenyearold_ordered_deported_without_her_family/ekoh4su/ (link is to a non-paywall c/p of the article in question, MBFC: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/houston-chronicle/)

Some snippets:

The family entered through the southern border in early October, telling U.S. government officials that they feared returning to their native El Salvador. They were released to pursue their asylum case in the backlogged civil immigration courts, and since then have complied with court orders and appearance dates.

Dora Alvarado felt something was off when she arrived at immigration court in Houston March 12 with her two daughters. A court translator told her that she and her 15-year-old, Adamaris Alvarado, were listed on the docket that day. Her 11-year-old, Laura Maradiaga, was not.

Days later, Alvarado received a letter in English — a language she cannot speak or read — bearing Laura's name. It wasn't until the trio returned to court this week that a different translator told her the letter was the 11-year-old's removal order.

even as the Trump administration has tried to curtail access to asylum to deter more from coming. The government has overturned a provision allowing those fleeing gang and domestic violence to qualify for the protection and made it more difficult for immigration judges to close cases on their own, exacerbating a backlog of more than 800,000 cases that was further jeopardized by the month-long government shutdown earlier this year.

The administration has also tried to ban those crossing illegally from seeking asylum and force others to wait in Mexico while their asylum cases proceed through the courts, though federal judges have blocked both the latter measures.

And important key note: If you enter the US without permission, that is an "illegal crossing". But if you do so seeking asylum, then it is considered legal based on, again,
US: https://www.rescue.org/article/it-legal-cross-us-border-seek-asylum

Yes, seeking asylum is legal. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or request the opportunity to apply for, asylum. "There's no way to ask for a visa or any type of authorization in advance for the purpose of seeking asylum," says the International Rescue Committee's director of immigration, Olga Byrne. "You just have to show up." 

"While the administration is saying people should come here legally and follow a legal process, it's making it impossible to do so," says Byrne. "So many individuals and families have been trying to follow a legal process, but instead they've been stranded in Tijuana or other northern Mexico towns because they have been denied access to any U.S. official."

and International: https://www.unhcr.org/asylum-seekers.html
Law.

And I haven't even mentioned the immorality and danger that comes from separating children from their families in these situations, or deporting individual children who don't necessarily have a caretaker in their original country. Or how the federal government has had a piss poor ability to track these children. Or how the camps in which these children stay at are akin to freaking camps from wwii (our own japanese camps).
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/us/politics/us-migrant-children-whereabouts-.html / https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1475-immigrant-children-missing/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_administration_family_separation_policy
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/06/20/yes-you-can-call-the-border-detention-centers-concentration-camps-but-apply-the-history-with-care/?utm_term=.218578420af6

I'm not really sure where you are getting this idea. A lot of people like to call people racist when they make decisions they don't like. I honestly thought we've come beyond that sort of petty behavior.
Overstayed visas and drugs in the U.S may be problems, but so is border security. Protecting the southern border with a wall is only a logical measure to be taken if there are illegal immigrants coming into the country illegally. The building of a wall is not a scandalous order under those circumstances. Whether they're "legitimate, legal asylum seekers," or anyone else trying to get into the United States, entering the United States illegally is uncalled for.

Also, whatever happens in Mexico comes in second to what happens in the U.S because we (U.S leaders, law enforcement, etc.) have a duty to take care of our citizens first before anyone else. It's not because we don't like Mexicans, but because we have an obligation to the citizens of the U.S first (to protect them, etc.).

Entering the country through land borders seeking asylum is legal based on US and UN law/code, without previous preparations.
https://www.rescue.org/article/it-legal-cross-us-border-seek-asylum is a good source (nonbiased as per MBFC https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/international-rescue-committee-irc/)


And it isn't like there's miles of open border in which drug cartels enter the country. It's the opposite, where most illegal activities enter the country through legal points of entry.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/16/fact-check-mike-pence-donald-trump-drugs-crossing-southern-border-wall/2591279002/

The wall is a populist idea that is inefficient and medieval. It's there only as a symbol against what one of the US's major core principles: being a place open to everyone no matter their backgrounds, beliefs, appearance, and so forth so they can have their own ability to freely live their life.

You can't call someone crossing the southern border an illegal immigrant just because they aren't a citizen. That's not how it works at all.

Or if we want strong border security and/or are worried about drug cartels, violence, etc. from Latin America, we could end the fucking drug war and get rid of the vast majority of the demand for the cartels in the US lol. The US is the main source of demand for these drugs, and the majority of immigrants crossing the southern border are fleeing drug cartel violence (BTW, the majority of illegal/undocumented immigrants come here on planes and overstay their visas).

Exactly. Shutting down the border won't stop the demand, so that path is massively inefficient. It's just a scapegoat to villinafy immigrants that happen to have a different skin pigment.
If the issue is illegal immigration, then the target should be overstayed visas.
If the issue is drug trafficking, then the target should be the demand of drugs within the US.

Neither issue will be fixed by closing down borders / building a wall. The only people affected by that is the legitimate, legal asylum seekers from countries which are unsuitable for their safety who are caught in the crossfires.