NSM Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

NinSheetMusic is the LARGEST video game sheet music archive on the entire internet worldwide!

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Author Topic: [DELETED] [WiiU] The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild - "Lost Woods" by Olimar12345  (Read 1219 times)

Olimar12345

  • The Captain
  • Moderator
  • Nintendo Nocturne
  • *
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 8601
    • View Profile

Thanks for the reply. I know you're pretty tired of this discussion, but if you really do have "other arguments," I'd love to hear them. (I thought I was pretty on-point with my reply, especially in the bit about the interval of a second)
Logged

Pianoth

  • Sanctuary Serenade
  • ****
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 79
  • Italian pianist and composer
    • View Profile
    • Email

Thanks for the reply. I know you're pretty tired of this discussion, but if you really do have "other arguments," I'd love to hear them. (I thought I was pretty on-point with my reply, especially in the bit about the interval of a second)
I currently don't have time to do a full answer, but if you really want to know at least what I think about the interval of a second, it's something I even wrote in my other post:
[...] 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, unless there are two adjacent notes (and that's literally the only case in which a note should be put on the other side of the stem).
Do you know why it's the only case? It's simply because we're forced to write those that way. If you write two adjacent notes at the same part of stem, you couldn't read clearly what the notes are. Especially if there are 3 adjacent notes: if you try to put the middle note on the same side of the other two, you will see that the middle note almost disappears, because it will be covered by the other notes. I don't have time to put images to show, but I think you got the idea.
So, if you're using the interval of a second as an example, it's not a convincing argument for me, since you're not forced at all to use that notation. In your case, you may not like them, but there are at least 5 alternatives without writing notes at the wrong part of the stem. But as I said, you're free to do whatever you want, I just don't agree with your decision since I don't find it necessary.

Olimar12345

  • The Captain
  • Moderator
  • Nintendo Nocturne
  • *
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 8601
    • View Profile

I completely disagree, because we could write the interval of a second with two stems going outwards, in each direction. Or do you finally concede that having a second stem just to avoid a backwards note head is frivolous?
Logged

Pianoth

  • Sanctuary Serenade
  • ****
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 79
  • Italian pianist and composer
    • View Profile
    • Email

It's a completely different scenario, since there are already notes on the standard part of the stem, so, adding a second stem isn't necessary. Moreover, we're forced to write those like that, and we have established a pretty precise rule for it. In your scenario, instead, all the notes of the chord are on the other side of the stem, it's a completely different thing and for a completely different reason.

I'll also make you notice, anyway, that even if you add a second stem in a chord with adjacent notes, the notes of the chord still wouldn't be aligned. That's also why that case is completely different from yours.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2017, 07:50:32 AM by Pianoth »
Logged

Altissimo

  • Nintendo Nocturne
  • ********************************
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 2020
  • im in a song of ice and fire HELL
    • View Profile

tbh musical clarity should take precedence over musical notation convention

look at this piece for an example of what i mean, the beaming is very consistently nonsensical compared to tradition but it's done to emphasize the importance of phrasing and the like

if olimar wants his piece to be more musically clear than notationally standard i don't see the problem
Logged
ALTISSIMO FOR NSM UPDATER TOMORROW

Pianoth

  • Sanctuary Serenade
  • ****
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 79
  • Italian pianist and composer
    • View Profile
    • Email

look at this piece for an example of what i mean, the beaming is very consistently nonsensical compared to tradition but it's done to emphasize the importance of phrasing and the like
Actually, I don't see anything strange in that score. I've seen scores with notations a lot more unconventional. The problem in this case, as I already said, is that I don't think that olimar's notation makes the piece musically or graphically more clear, compared to several other standard ways he could have used. But that's my opinion, you may as well disagree, I don't really care. I already accepted the fact the he isn't going to change the notation, he has the choice to do so.

Olimar12345

  • The Captain
  • Moderator
  • Nintendo Nocturne
  • *
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 8601
    • View Profile

(Just for the record, you never posted these "other arguments" (plural, as in more than one) that were in your favor here.) Anyway:
I don't think that olimar's notation makes the piece musically or graphically more clear, compared to several other standard ways he could have used.

Well now you're contradicting yourself:

No one would look at your score and question how it is supposed to be played (assuming he knows the note names and the note values)

If no one would question how it is supposed to be played, isn't clarity achieved? Written communication between composer and performer is literally the only purpose for written notation. We don't write novels because we like the font they're written in, or the type of paper or binding; it's the story we read them for, and as long as we CAN read and interpret them, it shouldn't matter how they're written.



To expand upon what Altissimo brought up, lets take a quick look through an old music history textbook and see if we can't "break the rules" as you say.

We've got situations with what would normally be considered too-few beams used on eighth notes in 4/4,
Spoiler

Rachmaninoff, Prelude in G Minor, Op. 23 No. 5
[close]

and we've got instances where there are too many beams.
Spoiler

Ligeti, Etude No 9, Vertige
[close]

Both of these instances could have followed the common practices, but didn't.

We've got situations with what would normally be considered too many time changes and barlines,
Spoiler

Stravinsky, The Rite of Spring
[close]

and we've got instances where there are too few time signatures and barlines.
Spoiler

Satie, Embryons desséchés: No. 3, de Podophthalma
[close]

Both of these instances could have followed the common practices, but didn't.

Then you've got my man, Charles Ives, who does all sorts of lovely things that probably make you uncomfortable. Here's one:
Spoiler
Notice those two half notes beamed together to signify their simultaneous sounding, under "Lamb."

Ives, General William Booth Enters into Heaven
[close]



Regarding the analogy of the second:

It's a completely different scenario, since there are already notes on the standard part of the stem, so, adding a second stem isn't necessary. Moreover, we're forced to write those like that, and we have established a pretty precise rule for it. In your scenario, instead, all the notes of the chord are on the other side of the stem, it's a completely different thing and for a completely different reason.

The point we're arguing here is that with the second part of your second suggestion, there was simply an added stem that you claimed justified it (so long as it wasn't manuscript  ::) ). The second interval analogy I used was in this way:



Similar to how my excerpt has a backwards note head, so does A when written as such. Ignore the fact that this is already common practice for the sake of the analogy. If we implement your idea seen in the second picture of your second suggestion, we get B. Now both note heads have a stem that can justify it's existence in both directions. Now, as you already know, we don't write B all the time, we write A. We don't need the stem in B because we know what A wants to sound like. The second stem in B is unnecessary.



I'll close in saying this: Music is constantly contradicting itself, and we have to learn how to escape the imaginary box of "rules" that we grow up learning once we understand their purpose and importance. Why you continue to argue in the favor of making this more difficult to read in order to adhere to a "norm," while simultaneously agreeing with me that the method I have used would cause no confusion for the reader, shows that the purpose of music notation is still completely unknown to you.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2017, 05:11:21 PM by Olimar12345 »
Logged

SlowPokemon

  • Nintendo Nocturne
  • ********************************
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 16361
  • GRAAAAAHH
    • View Profile
    • Email

this is such a petty argument

and that's coming from me
Logged
Fuck logic, that shit is boring, lame and does not always support my opinions.

Bespinben

  • Updater
  • Nintendo Nocturne
  • *
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 3308
  • I... I sHalL cOnsUmE. CoNsuMe.. cOnSuMe eVerYtHing
    • View Profile
    • Bespinben's Piano Performances and Sheet Music
    • Email

Ya know, just maybe, some people care about notation. It's this dismissiveness towards discussion of notation that gives modern composers a bad rap. But hey, on the bright side, it's also why professional copyists and engravers can still exist in the era of digital music, so thanks for keeping me employed. I for one have quite enjoyed following this discussion, but it seems those intent on prioritizing PR over our craft do not. Thank you Olimar for defending your choices; thank you Pianoth for questioning them; screw off social justice bystanders.

Logged
Someone beat Bespinben to making PMD music?! GASP!

MLF for Chatroom Mod next Tuesday

Altissimo

  • Nintendo Nocturne
  • ********************************
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 2020
  • im in a song of ice and fire HELL
    • View Profile

I for one have quite enjoyed following this discussion, but it seems those intent on prioritizing PR over our craft do not.
[...]
screw off social justice bystanders.

who are these lmao
Logged
ALTISSIMO FOR NSM UPDATER TOMORROW

Dudeman

  • NSM's Least Active Mod
  • Global Moderator
  • Nintendo Nocturne
  • *
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 4046
  • Resident Rip Fanatic
    • View Profile
    • Email

who are these lmao
...I was wondering the same thing, honestly.
Logged
All Hail Zeila
[close]

Olimar12345

  • The Captain
  • Moderator
  • Nintendo Nocturne
  • *
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 8601
    • View Profile

and that's coming from me

Lol, what's this supposed to mean?
Logged

Pianoth

  • Sanctuary Serenade
  • ****
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 79
  • Italian pianist and composer
    • View Profile
    • Email

I just don't have time to do long answers at the moment, that's why I haven't explained much yet. I'm really busy, at least until Thursday, because of a masterclass on composing music for TV and cinema. Also consider this fact in this answer. I'll try to be as synthetic as I can:
  • I'm not contradicting myself, I just said that, even though your version is clear, it's not more clear than the ones offered by the standard notation.
  • You are saying that as long as you can read a score, the objective is reached. Well then, since the standard ways are not less clear than yours, at least in my opinion, I would use them. I don't care what you do, I just suggested to use them. You're free to disagree, since you're the editor in this case.
  • Now, since you're putting musical examples, I'm basically forced to do a longer answer. Oh well. I'll type faster then. Sooooo... Every example you showed couldn't simply have used standard notation. Generally speaking, when there is something against standard rules, it's because the composer wants to communicate better the musical intentions.
    • In the first example it's probably because Rachmaninov didn't want that the performer thinks that the eights are musically connected in some way. In fact, no one would play this piece using a lot of pedal in this bars (beginners and strange interpretations don't count), it would sound as if it was against what is written. So, I don't see any correlation with your argument.
    • In the second example, notice that there isn't any time signature. The bar lines, in this case, are there probably just to follow the score more easily: I doubt that Ligeti wanted any rhythmic accent every 8 notes. The long beaming in this case is justified, not only because of musical reasons, but also to show better the canon the Ligeti wrote in the first bars. In fact, he probably could have used that notation even after the fifth bar, and it's possible that he did it in the manuscript (I don't really know), but I think it's written this way because it would be a useless mess with all those beams, after all the first bars already explain how the piece is composed. But, again, I don't see any correlation with your argument.
    • Regarding the third example, I'm surprised you're even showing this. All those time signatures are there to help in the conduction of the piece. I would say they're not only "standard" in this kind of scores, but highly suggested. But even if it was for solo piano, all those time signatures would help, since it's not like that's a kind of piece you can easily write in 4/4, that would make it much harder to read, and it would also communicate wrong intentions, since Stravinsky definitely doesn't simply want a rhytmic accent every 4 quarters (any other time signature wouldn't work for the same reason). So, again, I still don't see any correlation with your argument.
    • In the fourth example, the absence of bar lines suggests that the performer shouldn't think of any rhythmic accent, just like the second example. That 6/8 in parenthesis is probably just to help the performer in organizing the notes mentally, but it doesn't refer to any rhythmic accent for sure. Since you apparently like this kind of examples, also check out Musica Callada by Mompou. The first piece doesn't have time signature, and doesn't have any bar lines, not even the final one, even though the piece is evidently written in 4/4. But that's totally justified by musical intentions. So, I'll tell you this one more time, I don't see any correlation with your argument. By the way, if you had wrote this arrangement without using time signatures and/or bar lines, it would have been still fine to me.
    • The fifth example, instead, makes me mad!!!! Nope, I'm just kidding. ;D I don't see anything strange about that example, really.
    So, really, I don't know what you're trying to demonstrate. I could show you even crazier examples, even in my own scores. For example, I composed a piece in which 9/8 is often divided as 5/8 + 4/8, and I often compose pieces that go against the rhythmic conventions really. But I can show you something even crazier, like this one (I don't put the image in spoilers because it's huge). This definitely goes against standard notation, and I've seen things that are even crazier, but I think it's pretty obvious, at this point, that there's a meaning, or a reason in all these cases. And yes, you also gave a reason, but, as I said numerous times, I don't find it valid enough, since the standard notation offers several equivalent ways. That doesn't stop you to write it that way, since you're the editor, even though it would be more tollerated in a manuscript (and I don't really understand why you apparently find this strange).
  • My second suggestion actually, was to write the chord as separated from the main beam. After doing that, you could have even connected it to the main beam, if you wanted to (but it wasn't necessary anyway). It's completely different from your version simply because the notes are written at right part of the stem. Now, even if I "ignore the fact that this is already a common practice for the sake of the analogy", the example B is conceptually different to what I'm suggesting, because there's always at least a note on the right part of the stem. Moreover, we're forced to write the other notes on the wrong part of the stem, simply because the notes wouldn't be clear otherwise. So, a second stem isn't necessary, because we're moving the note heads only because we're forced to do that. Conceptually, an interval of a second is written with both notes on the right part of the stem, but one note is moved to the other side because it would be covered otherwise.
    On the other hand, in your case you're even free to put every note on the right part of the stem. The only reason you didn't do that, is because you thought it would be nicer if all the note heads were aligned. Ironically, you're trying to support your argument with an example in which the note heads are not aligned. I really don't understand what you're trying to prove.
  • And finally,
    Quote
    Why you continue to argue in the favor of making this more difficult to read in order to adhere to a "norm," while simultaneously agreeing with me that the method I have used would cause no confusion for the reader, shows that the purpose of music notation is still completely unknown to you.
    Simply because I don't think it's more difficult to read. Your method is not more clear, and it's not less clear. Even though there are several users supporting your argument here, if you write all those bars with your way of writing, anyone like me could find it strange, or at least unusual, especially considering that there isn't any musical related reason, you're just writing that way for a subjective reason. Which is fine, I guess, since you're the editor, and it's not like you're going completely against the few formatting guidelines, but that doesn't make it less unusual.
Now, because of this answer, I'll be forced to sleep less, basically. Now that's frivolous. I won't even bother answering to this discussion anymore, you're free to do and think whatever you want.

SlowPokemon

  • Nintendo Nocturne
  • ********************************
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 16361
  • GRAAAAAHH
    • View Profile
    • Email

Lol, what's this supposed to mean?

I'm a petty bitch

Ya know, just maybe, some people care about notation. It's this dismissiveness towards discussion of notation that gives modern composers a bad rap. But hey, on the bright side, it's also why professional copyists and engravers can still exist in the era of digital music, so thanks for keeping me employed. I for one have quite enjoyed following this discussion, but it seems those intent on prioritizing PR over our craft do not. Thank you Olimar for defending your choices; thank you Pianoth for questioning them; screw off social justice bystanders.

Calling each other stupid over notation preferences is really petty
Logged
Fuck logic, that shit is boring, lame and does not always support my opinions.

Dudeman

  • NSM's Least Active Mod
  • Global Moderator
  • Nintendo Nocturne
  • *
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 4046
  • Resident Rip Fanatic
    • View Profile
    • Email

...could we, like, get back to accepting the sheet, maybe? It's really great.
Logged
All Hail Zeila
[close]
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
 

Page created in 0.102 seconds with 24 queries.