Th3Gavst3r's Aquatic Update Project Sheets

[Th3Gavst3r]

Okami - Dragon Palace
[musx]

[Bloop]

i should probably play this game lol
-m1-5: I hear an E instead of a D# on the bottom of the R.H. chord
-m3: I hear an E in the L.H. (instead of C#)
-m5: There's a G# on beat 3 in the R.H.
-m8: Maybe you could put this 8th rest in beat 3.5 in the R.H. too? It sounds like all instruments stop playing and only some reverb continues on.
-m10: The R.H. and L.H. play the same A# on beat 3 here, maybe you could add parentheses the the one in the R.H.?
-m18, 22 and 26: I hear an A instead of a B in the L.H. on beat 2
-m31: I hear an E in the L.H. in beat 3.75 (below the chord on beat 1 in the next bar). Also, maybe it's easier for the L.H. to take the dyads in beat 2 (and maybe 2.5)? The run on beat 1 walks up to it nicely.
-For m17-30, usually you wouldn't use 8vas in the L.H., as they get a bit counterintuitive to interpret, and in this case, some parts still go up pretty high above the L.H. It's better to switch between bass and treble clef if needed. Maybe you could also check if the R.H. can take over some runs at the end of a measure, so the L.H. has time to jump back down to the bass note on beat 1 of each measure.

[Th3Gavst3r]

-m1-5: I hear an E instead of a D# on the bottom of the R.H. chord

Oh yeah I think you're right about that

-m3: I hear an E in the L.H. (instead of C#)

I definitely hear downward movement to the C# there. There might be some low E from the mid chords, but adding it to the LH sounds muddy and there's an E in the RH already

-m5: There's a G# on beat 3 in the R.H.

Ah yeah I totally missed that one

-m8: Maybe you could put this 8th rest in beat 3.5 in the R.H. too? It sounds like all instruments stop playing and only some reverb continues on.

Yeah that's a good call

-m10: The R.H. and L.H. play the same A# on beat 3 here, maybe you could add parentheses the the one in the R.H.?

Good call, I didn't notice that doubling

-m18, 22 and 26: I hear an A instead of a B in the L.H. on beat 2

I'm still not completely sure that the harp even plays a note there. I was extrapolating from the B's in beat 1, but I like A better because it doubles with the RH and sounds more open like the feeling I get from the original harp

-m31: I hear an E in the L.H. in beat 3.75 (below the chord on beat 1 in the next bar). Also, maybe it's easier for the L.H. to take the dyads in beat 2 (and maybe 2.5)? The run on beat 1 walks up to it nicely.

I think the same E plays on beat 3 also, which would make for a lot of jumping around with the LH if you gave it the dyads too. I moved the dyads into the RH on m32 beat 1 also to fit with this thought.

-For m17-30, usually you wouldn't use 8vas in the L.H., as they get a bit counterintuitive to interpret, and in this case, some parts still go up pretty high above the L.H. It's better to switch between bass and treble clef if needed. Maybe you could also check if the R.H. can take over some runs at the end of a measure, so the L.H. has time to jump back down to the bass note on beat 1 of each measure.

The spread of these arpeggios is so wide that I can't find a really good way to write them. With clefs you end up with clef switches every beat and much more cramped bars. And if you add the cross-staff handing it ends up with a wacky amount of context switching. Maybe pianists can just do that? A smooth line of ottava'ed arpeggios makes a lot more sense to me, but with that approach you do lose some clarity with hand prescription. I've uploaded both options to the "Older files" Dropbox folder for comparison, but used your clef suggestion as the main folder's version. I'd be happy to hear others' thoughts about these and other possible approaches.

[Bloop]

I definitely hear downward movement to the C# there. There might be some low E from the mid chords, but adding it to the LH sounds muddy and there's an E in the RH already

Ah yeah I can hear it in the harp now. The E is probably there in the synth strings choir pad thingy, which kinda overshadows it after beat 1, but yeah no need to put it in the L.H. ^^

The spread of these arpeggios is so wide that I can't find a really good way to write them. With clefs you end up with clef switches every beat and much more cramped bars. And if you add the cross-staff handing it ends up with a wacky amount of context switching. Maybe pianists can just do that? A smooth line of ottava'ed arpeggios makes a lot more sense to me, but with that approach you do lose some clarity with hand prescription. I've uploaded both options to the "Older files" Dropbox folder for comparison, but used your clef suggestion as the main folder's version. I'd be happy to hear others' thoughts about these and other possible approaches.

I think what you have right now is good: the clef switching isn't really a problem to read (for me at least), I believe it happens more often for wide arpeggios like these. The cross-staffing looks good too cuz it's always after one of the dyads in the R.H., so the player can see from those in which octave they need to play too. Only thing I noticed was that in m20 and 28, the D in beat 2 is played in both hands. Maybe you can add parentheses to the L.H. one, and cross-staff the one in beat 2.75 too since it's in the R.H. anyway?

A third option btw might be to remove the 8vas and use crosstaffing instead of clef switching:

The melody being this high isn't ideal though, especially the high A's and B's, but the readability for the arpeggios is a lot clearer now. I used slurs so it's clear the line continues on from the L.H. The player can then decide for themself if they wanna play them with the R.H. or the L.H. in some places.