[PC] Doki Doki Literature Club! - "My Confession" by NPbus_

[InsigTurtle]

m. 22 RH dyad is F-C not F-D
As said before, omitting the D in m.19 causes that chord to lose its *oomph*. Normally, I'd advise against inverting those chords there (hides the 6-7-1 in the bass), but it's your choice.

[Khunjund]

I approve of his inverting the chords, because an Eb major triad starting on the third space lacks impact, one starting on the first line under the staff is too muddy, and an open voicing going from first line under to fourth space would most likely required rolling the chord, which would weaken the effect.

[InsigTurtle]

But remember that 6/4 chords have a tendency to resolve. When you invert it, you introduce more harmonic tension, so you can't simply invert a chord and call it the same as the root position chord - they have different functions. You also disrupt the bass movement when you do so. I do agree that other spellings are rather problematic here, though.

All that being said, I'm just giving some things to think about when you arrange in the future. While I'd personally go with an open voicing here, it's not my job to convince someone else to use that voicing if their voicing is also valid.

[NPbus_]

One thing I experimented with was changing the Eb to a fully voiced Ebma7 in root position from the 3rd space, which ended up losing the impact from the low end, and caused another problem of making the flute harmony go somewhere; it's normal from m 19-20, but then 20-21 did become a problem spot for adding in the rest of the flute harmony.

I understand that sometimes you have to cut back on one thing in order to bring something else out, in this case being a matter of retaining the original sound vs. adding the harmony. I'd prefer going towards the accessible option for this one.

Also fixed the dyad, thanks for pointing it out.

[Latios212]

Back!

About the chords:
Omitting the seventh (D) aside, the first chord does a fine job at emulating the original. However, the following three lose a lot of the punch that the first one has (and that the original has) because they suddenly jump up in pitch. To alleviate this, I would suggest inverting downwards to make the chords sound heavier.

Other small things:
- Missing piano staff name.
- Dotted half in m. 20.
- m. 22 beat 1 (RH) should have an E under the A.
- m. 23: to better delimit the right hand's change between section and the intent for the beat 1 note to be held longer, you could put a tenuto marking around the melody note, and perhaps bump over the dynamic to the right a bit to demonstrate that it's for the following right hand section.
- You could space out the systems a bit more on page 2 to allow more room for the ottava lines.

[NPbus_]

Edits were made (hope I caught what you meant about inverting downwards...)!

[Latios212]

Awesome, chords look better.

(Sorry if I wasn't clear - just have the staff brace say "Piano" for the first staff, and nothing for the rest. Lastly, the header on page 2 could use a bit more space both above and below, and keep "composition/arrangement" or "composed by/arranged by" consistent.)

Great job!

[NPbus_]

Alright, those small fixes were made. Thanks for all the help!

[Sebastian]

Nice work!
I only have two comments on this one:
- The composer/arranger are slightly misaligned. You can highlight those with the text tool and right align them.
- The 15ma markings are a little high. They should at least be closer to the staff they're affecting than the one above it.

[NPbus_]

Okay, that's all fixed. Thanks!

[Latios212]

Sweet!

[Zeta]

This submission has been accepted by Latios212.

~Zeta, your friendly NSM-Bot