Messages

Thank you Maelstrom for everything you've done over the years!! Definitely Now, sit back, relax, and enjoy Trails into Reverie when it comes out tomorrow! ☕

Thanks as well to Static! I know you've been a massive help for my arranging over the years, and for that, I am grateful! Enjoy your time in the shadows!

And congrats to Atcero and Jake on becoming moderators! Just don't let it go to your heads, alright?

The main thing I would mention is that in m. 30, you strongly imply that the left hand should play the middle layer after the first note, whereas I think beat 2.5 (and maybe 3) would be easier for the right hand to take to avoid a large jump in the left hand from beat 2. Beat 4.5 might be better off with the right hand too to lead into the next measure. It's easy enough for the performer to decide what they want to do, but you could cross-staff similar to the other surrounding measures.

Definitely a good point and definitely flows better, plus, it gets rid of the LH lines!
Alright, I've modified m.30. I think everywhere else is good now. Thanks Latios!

Just one correction to point out: Last two LH notes of m. 11 should be A and E (same as m. 15, different from m. 9).

Huh. Good catch! How did I miss that? Alright, that should be fixed!

Everything else looks good! Though I would like to raise some food for thought. The final section is fine as you have it, but could be simplified a lot by lowering the middle layer arpeggios an octave and playing them with the left hand past beat 2 (or even past beat 1) -
You cannot view this attachment.
It'd help the melody stand out more and make the whole sheet rather easy to play. Don't need to go and overhaul everything, but just something to think about!

Hmmm, a very interesting idea! While I definitely agree it would greatly simplify things, I think it would lose too much in other key areas. Main things being (a) I don't consider the organ's melody as all that "stand-out-ish"; it's there and it's different, but, in my opinion, it's not center stage and the main focus is how it complements the guitars, so dropping the arpeggiating guitar an octave makes it stand out too much. In other words, I feel that the interweaving, interplay, and complementing nature between the organ and the arpeggiating guitar is the central focus of this section, not just the organ's melody. And (b) it's clear that m26-33 are just m18-25 with an organ on top, so dropping the arpeggiating guitar an octave breaks that link between the two sections, whereas now, whilst it's kinda messy, still shows that parallelism in the music, which I think does the original more justice. So, in summary, I think it's a great idea! I just think that it's not as applicable for this part.

However, I have changed a couple of the cross-staff beamings in m.29-33 to try to make it more clear what hand does what and trying to minimize RH movement as much as possible, so definitely give that a once over before accepting! Thanks Latios for the great input!

I think brackets would work better here than cross-staff beams, but to be honest you can leave it as is (since it's playable) and let the performer decide what to do on their own, to avoid adding unnecessary clutter.

Yeah, that's pretty much my mentality at this point. I had a whole bunch of brackets at one point, but it was definitely kinda cluttery, so I just made it so the worst offending notes were hit, so I'll leave it like this for now.

The point with m1 I agree with, but the last measure does look a bit lonely.. Personally I would go with 3 measures on every system on page 2, but it's up to you really

Not a bad idea, however, the problem with I have with that is that it blends the two phrases together (m.18-25 and m.26-34), with no discernable break between them. Here, when the organ comes in on m.26 and the phrase is added upon, it happens naturally at the start of a system, signaling the transition and there's a nice visual separation between the two parts. So, I'll just roll with what I've got.

Thanks for the input, Xiao! As always, it's greatly appreciated!

• m15: I think there's a G tucked beneath the B in the RH

Yup! Missed that one.

• m23: I don't think the A at beat 2.5 is restruck by the LH

Yeah, I was going for a shared-hand kinda thing, but I can rework that.

• m26+: I hear chords of some kind sustained throughout the measure, do you think its worth including those in, say, beat 1 of the LH? You could use more open voicings like octaves or fifths, so it doesn't sound too dense..

Sorta? It sounds like to me it's mostly the organ's countermelody, but I do hear a pretty strong beat 1, so maybe just do octaves? That's what I've done, at least. Let me know what you think!

• For this section, do you think it's worth moving more of the RH lower layer to the LH? Since the pedal is sustained there and the LH doesn't have that much else to do, it might help take some weight off the RH.

Yeah, I've been wanting to do that, but this is surprisingly hard for this piece to notate, as the pitches are too high for cross-staff beamings, and the lower voice does go above the upper voice in m27. Still, do you think the best way is just with more LH brackets like I did in m.30? I'm just very unsure of how to best notate this.

• You might want to consider omitting the F# at m26 beat 3; the minor 2nd causes (presumably) unwanted harmonic tension.

I will admit the dissonance is a bit more forward here than in the original, but it's not for very long and it is exactly what the melody and countermelody are playing, so I think it's just fine.

• The last system has space for 4 measures, using that would mean your systems can be less cramped

Did you have something in mind with this? Because I don't think any of my systems are cramped. Besides, the final system contains a measure that is basically the same as m.1, and both start their respective systems, so it's a nice parallelism, I feel.

---
Files are updated! Thanks for the feedback, Xiao!

Just wanted to put something down, but I'm working on your feedback, Xiao! I've been very busy this past week and I'll be at VGM Con all weekend, so I will get things updated early next week!

Stay tuned!

The only main concern I have with this one is the allocation of hands for measures 29-31.

• Whether a one-off cross-stave note is appropriate in m.29 & 31, b.4
• Whether the LH bracket in m.30 is appropriate, how big the brackets should be, where they're positioned, should I use an ending bracket or a RH bracket to signal the return, etc.

For what it's worth, I also prefer Latios' picture to the double dotted notes in 23.

Fair enough. Two concurring opinions is good enough for me, so I'll make the swap.

Files updated!

One option to consider as a "middle ground" of sorts is tying the half to a dotted quarter:
You cannot view this attachment.

Interesting... I also hadn't considered that, but that definitely works here! Yeesh, all the options that all work.... However, I think the double-dotted note works well to keep the lack of ties from cluttering the sheet, so I think I'll stick to the double-dotted note. Thanks for the suggestion, Latios!

Fair point! One solution I thought of is using a double-dotted note instead of a dotted one here to hide the rest without ties, but I'm not a particular fan of double dotted notes so you can decide what you think is best

Huh. I hadn't thought about using double-dotted notes, mostly because I, too, am not a fan of them. However, in this situation, with it smoothing over the rest, I think it's actually acceptable, especially since the length of the note is obvious or, probably more accurately, not super important to get exact. Besides, it's not like a double-dotted quarter or eighth where you have to start doing some serious math, here, it's just an eighth note left over, which isn't syncopated, so it's easy to follow, play, and sight-read. So, I've gone ahead and replaced it with that double-dotted half. Thanks for the suggestion!

• In m20, 23 & 28 you have rests in the RH, is there a thought behind that? I'd suggest extending the note lengths to cover them, or it might imply non continuity concerning pedaling/phrasing.

• For m20, it was because of the Bb, which the left hand would hit. Had it been a dotted half, the RH would still be holding it whilst the LH restrikes it, which makes no sense. However, I'm okay changing it to a dotted half for the reasons you said.
• For m23, it was because of how having it fill in made it the sheet more complex for very little. In order to have the RH fill the rest, I would have to tie four notes across beat 4. To me, this looks super and unnecessarily complex for only adding an eighth note of duration, which is going to be covered by the pedal anyway. This, and then you end up with the tetrad beamed with a single note, which is fine, but it looks off to me yet again (and splitting the beam is not appropriate here). In short, it just looks nicer, especially compared to the surrounding systems and measures, and I don't think an extra eighth note of duration is worth it. I still stand by this, so I didn't change this one.
• For m28, I'm not entirely sure of my reasons, but I believe it was for the reason that the LH is coming up in-between the two Bb's of the RH. This would be very uncomfortable to play as holding the two Bb's while your LH sneaks in behind it to play notes between your RH's fingers. It may have also additionally been to allow your RH to move up an octave, and an eighth rest wouldn't have cut it because of the tying issue à la m23, so a quarter rest was the shortest rest without introducing complexity. However, if you say that it makes sense for continuity, that's cool by me.

• It's a bit odd to have a slur in m8 and nowhere else, so that would probably best be removed.

Good call -- removed!

• To make the cross-staff sections less visually interfering, you could flip the stems to get something like this:
  
  Spoiler

  You cannot view this attachment.

  [close]
  Entirely optional, I just thought it looked a little neater

Ooh! It certainly looks nicer in quite a few respects. However, I think I'll stick with this; I checked Behind Bars, and she said that the stems should "point towards the centre of the system". So, given its optionality, I'll stick with what I've got.

Alright, files are updated! Thanks yet again, Xiao!

Thank you for all your hard work and effort Maestro, Braix, and MSF! While it's sad to see you guys retire, it's been awesome to see your work and to be a part of your interactions with this community! Enjoy your well-earned retirement and your honorary titles -- you absolutely deserve it! ❤️❤️❤️

And Xiao and Kricketune as updaters?! I remember when they both joined the Discord server... seeing them all grown up as updaters brings a tear to my eye. :') (okay that makes me sound super old I'mma stop that)
I look forward to working with the both of you even more! You're going to be great updaters!

This looks great.  The only thing I noticed is in bar 20.  I'm not sure I hear the low G rearticulated on beat 4.  It just sounds like the B-D there and the G held over with the pedal.  I think it sounds a bit too heavy with the G as well compared to the original.

Agreed. The triad definitely feels very heavy, so I think you're right with the B-D dyad.

Thanks, Libera! Files have been updated!

About the key signatures, m13-16 is definitely a bit weird. The chords all seem to function like a piece in C major, but it never really fully gets there. If it was a part taken out of another piece it'd probably have been C major, but in this case I think G major works fine too. However, for m21-24, this is a lot more clearly in A minor, so you could change the key signature here. It won't affect the readability much to have another key signature change (especially to one that has no accidentals).

Fair enough. I've changed m.21-24 to A minor.  I could change m.13-16 to C major, but I'd prefer minimizing the number of key changes as much as possible.

-m17 and 19: Maybe mp might work better as a dynamic marking instead of mf in these two bars? Especially the accompaniment sounds a bit quieter than mf compared to the f in m18 and 20.

Yeeeaaaah, I'm not very good with dynamics yet and I think you've got a good point here. Changed!

-m18 and 20: I think you can change these pedal markings to two lines of two beats (instead of one line for the whole measure). A player might interpret as having to press the pedal for the whole bar, since it's currently specifically notated that way.

Good point. I had always thought of it that way, but I guess I didn't think about writing it that way too.

-m22 and 24: I hear a C above the L.H. A in beat 1 here too, like in m21.

Oops -- this one slipped by me when I did Xiao's fixes. Fixed! However, did you also mean to include m.24? I don't hear anything extra and a C would certainly not work for beat 1.

-m28: The pedal mark here should be extended for one more beat. You can change the C in the L.H. beat 2 to a half note too then, so it's a bit more clear where the pedal line stops.
-m32: I think you can change the L.H. C in beat 2 to a dotted half note: leaving a rest after notes might suggest the note needs to be dampened, even though there's a pedal mark that says it shouldn't.

Yeah! This looks a lot cleaner and flows a lot better. Me likey!

---
Alright, that should be everything addressed and the files have been updated. Thanks, Bloop!

To adress your notes:

• I think it's clear enough with the double barlines alone. Besides, anyone playing this will probably be aware of how it fits together in the game.
• The key signature as you have it is fine, even though the track does dance it around a little. It dips into some C-centric stuff in the first half, but the second half is made up of 2 I-IV-V-I patterns, so all in all the cadence is definitely centered around a tonic of G major.
• m37-39 looks great like that! If you want you could add slurs to each fourth-eighth pattern but I think it's clear what the arranger's intent here is.

Sounds good. Thanks!

• Slurring: I think the slurs you have are great, and help show the performer how to structure their playing. That said, I think the first page in particular is a little sparse, so looking over it would be appreciated.

Fair enough. I've added some more slurs. I haven't added any to m.5-12 mostly because, according to what Libera said to me once (which I may be misusing here), slurs are best when they show contrast. Since the phrasing for m.5-12 is the natural phrasing and there aren't any additional articulations, I feel that adding slurs here wouldn't do anything to contrast. But, I reserve the right to be wrong here.

• m4 & m40: I think one continuous roll on beat 3 would more accurately reflect the original

Nuuuuuu don't make me do it...
Unfortunately, I agree and I've added it, I just wish it wasn't such a hassle to do in Finale/MuseScore sometimes...

• m5-12: The LH pattern sounds like it does in m37-39, with beats 2 and 4 not sustained as long as 1 and 3. Changing note lengths and/or adding slurs would help make this distinction.

Yeah, this was related to my 3rd point and I originally had it as such, but I wasn't sure, so I just changed it back because it's cleaner. Given that m.37-39 looks good to you, then m.5-12 are fine too.

• m18 b4: The D in the LH chord is an octave lower
• Same thing with m20, I think the B might also be lowered here

Good catch! In fact, I think the m.20 b.4 G major chord was an entire octave lower, not just the B & D.

• m21-24: I feel like the LH could use some more slurs. In the RH, I would recommend writing the staccato dotted eighth notes as just regular eighth notes (no staccato). Additionally, I think beaming over the resulting and already existing 16th rests would look neat.

I forget about beaming over rests. I agree, this looks nice!

• Beat 1 in the LH of m21-23 is missing a C just above the A.
• Beat 1 in the RH of m25, 27 & 29 is missing an F just below the A.

Yep, you're right! I've added those.

• I think the C on beat 2 of m28 is an octave lower.

I disagree. When I slow it down and raise the pitch an octave, I can clearly hear an ascending C major chord: E-G-C.

• m32: It might be worth either moving the C in beat 2 to the LH, or copying it over and adding parentheses.

Yeah, I felt that was awkward, especially contrasting the parallel structure of measure 28, so this is a good fix!

• m39 beat 3: I don't hear the G in the RH.

I do and I remember spending quite a while on this. It's really subtle, but even now when I slow it down, I can clearly hear a F-G resolution across beats 2.5-3 and that G doesn't come from anywhere else, so I'm pretty sure it's not a harmonic or from a sustain. It may be too subtle to care, but I'm pretty sure it's there.

• the rit. markings and similar are best written above the staves.

Yep. Something I've learned through this that I didn't know prior!

Does the copyright have 2 years in it because this track was released in a later update? I'm not that familiar with New Horizons lore :p

Correct. Animal Crossing: New Horizons was released in March 2020, just a couple weeks after the pandemic quarantines started (which I couldn't have been more happy to have during that rough time ). However, the game received several major patches to add lots of additional content throughout 2020 and 2021. This song (and the corresponding activity) was added in the last major patch, v2.0, in November 2021. [SOURCE]

---
Alright, that was quite a bit, but I really, really appreciate all the feedback, Xiao! Files have been updated accordingly.