Before I proceed with this unnecessarily long post, I would like to thank you for your interest here. Even though we disagree, it is a means to grow both of our understandings of the topic at hand.
Regarding the second version again:
The second version has the notes written at the right part of the stem.
The first one does, yes. That is not in question.
That "second stem frivolously added" makes that version a lot more correct than yours,
Stopping right here, the term "correct" is subjective, but I understand that the point you are trying to make is in regards to traditional notation practices. When I said a second stem was frivolous, I was referring to how you imply that downward stem is needed to "justify" this note's existence, while the one I prefer serves a useful purpose. I call the stem you added "frivolous" because you argue that it is needed in addition to what I have in order to legitimize it, rather than to serve an actual function.
...in my opinion, since, as I said, this is not a manuscript, so we should follow the standard conventions of writing the notes at the left or the right of the stem depending on the direction of it...
Whoa whoa whoa, so if this were manuscript, the rules would be different? That seems not only inconsistent, but conflicting with "the rules." Your fixation on it needing to be manuscript in order to have "justification" seems narrow-minded, especially since I have legitimate reasons for the way I display these few instances that don't simply dependent on the medium that hosts it.
Your version is basically questioning the standard convention of writing the notes, even if you wrote it that way on some basis (which weren't convincing enough in my opinion).
Hang on there: this is only a special technique used in very specific and unique situations. I have made over 250 arrangements and this is the only one with a need for such a maneuver, so if anyone were going to be the harbinger of this new notation technique, it would not be me. I am in no way trying to dismantle the way music notations is supposed to look. Whether or not you find this one thing I did convincing is your opinion, but I usually function on the side of logic.
I mean, if you find the lilypond example so extreme, I could also tell you that I could make a score written this way, and it really wouldn't be so different with what you did with your submission:
After all, the notes are clear, the rhythm is clear, I just decided to change the standard conventions.
(yeah that's a canon in augmentation if you're wondering)
Again, you are blowing this way out of proportion. The only time I have a backwards note head is when both notes are stemmed together, placed in opposing staves, have their beam between said staves, are preceded and followed by notes that are included in the beam, and sound simultaneously. If this was not the case, (i.e. 99.9999% of the time) I would be arguing on your side.
I could as well do this change on some basis, for example I could justify this change by saying that I saw this way of writing the notes in some manuscript (in which, by the way, you could actually find this kind of notation), and I think it's more clear when it's written this way. Of course that's just an example, I wouldn't really do that.
Still confused as to why it being in manuscript suddenly justifies this in your eyes.
And that's basically what you're doing: you're changing the standard conventions, and you're justifying this change because you think it's more clear that way. But that still counts as a change. Your reasoning is too subjective in my opinion. You may as well be right on the clarity, even though I don't agree, but there are several alternatives without changing the rules.
This is just rambling about things I've already addressed. Read my above comments. Since I have a free area here, I propose to you to think about how we notate the interval of a second. No matter which direction the stem goes, one of the pitches in the chord gets their note head flipped around the wrong way. With your argument here, is it considered incorrect for composers to write this interval without separate stems going in each direction, disregarding the individual circumstances?
That's why I really think you should just use any of the ways the standard notation offers. The second one is the one that is more similar graphically, but it has the notes written at the right part of the stem, as I said
I've already addressed my opinion regarding the second option you offered, and why I feel it doesn't have as much to offer as the way I currently have.
and it's really not that hard to write.
This has not been an argument on the difficulty of notating the passage. I always opt towards the way I feel is the clearest means of communication between the writer and performer, always at the expense of the writer's time. If there were another option that I felt did a better job at notation this passage, I would do that.
If I may weigh in: the way Olimar has these notated is odd, yes, but I agree with him that the way the notes are situated allows for easier reading of the note placement within the measure. Opening up the file for the first time now, I had no trouble at all recognizing that these dyads needed to be played together. In fact, I find the "backwards" notation of the right hand more of a help than a hindrance, as it serves as a visual reminder to the performer that there is an irregularity in the echo-like rhythm in that spot. At the end of the day, you are arguing over an ambiguous piece of visual formatting, and since Olimar is the arranger and deliberately notated those portions the way he did for emphasis, he should have the final say.
Well said. Thank you, and thanks for taking a look at my arrangement.
Anyway, be sure to also check those bars I mentioned earlier.
- m18 Check the left hand. The rhythm should be like m11, with different notes in the left hand.
- m31 Check the right hand.
-Measure 18: check again. You're hearing the louder sustain of the lower octave (hit harder in that measure) combined with the upper octave re-articulating on the up beat. The lower octave does not re-articulate it's chord in that spot. Slowing the recording down makes this apparent. If further convincing is needed, check out the spot where it returns down an octave in measure 52.
-Measure 31: Sorry, I'm not catching what is wrong in this measure.