Libera's Halloween Sheet

[Libera]

I do not have the energy necessary for my usual nightmare.  This would have also worked for the colours update, strangely enough.

The Blackmoon Forest - Xenogears

Cyberpunk post

[Bloop]

Ohh, this is pretty cool! I love the harmonies on this, nice work on your sheet!

Here are my comments:
-m1: I can see how you voiced this chord, but I feel like it is a bit too soft or empty compared to the original. I would've taken it on like this:
You cannot view this attachment.
Most of the energy comes from the percussion instead of the harp and strings, but that kinda gets lost with when transcribing it as an mezzo piano accent, so that's why I changed it to forte for this chord. Using some audiostretch magic, I can also hear a Gmmaj7 chord in the harp under the Gdim you have currently, which adds some more spice to the chord. Also, as this makes for a longer rolled chord, I made the L.H. jump over to play the high minor second in the strings in its original octave instead of an octave lower. This makes the distinction between the two voices clearer too. Anyway, take from this what you want! If you implement the higher octave minor second, you may want to think about if you want it restriked in m5 or not, though I think it's alright.
-m3: We should slur our grace notes right? :p
-m10-13: I hear the chords in m11-12 an inversion lower (so top notes A and Bb), but I think you may have put the C and D on top because of the higher string line, but an octave down, right? I'd maybe just choose for leaving that voice out, but if you really wanna keep it, I'd either add the Bb and E in m10 and m13 too, or write it in its original octave (though this will cause for some chord rolling you may not want to have)
-m15: You may want to add the E from the synth(? spooky clarinet? idk the voice that plays in the L.H. of m14) in the L.H. Also, the G in the L.H. in beat 3.5 should be an A.
-m16: I'd add brackets to either the L.H. or R.H. G in beat 2.5, as that note is being played by both hands. You could also switch the hands of the notes in beat 3.5, though keeping it as is is fine too to seperate the voices more clearly.
-m18-m25: It's pretty subtle, but in the L.H., I can hear a quick (low) F before the first beat of bar m19 and 23 and a quick (low) Gb before the first note of m21 and 25, which you could add in as grace notes. Also, you could add a courtesy accidental at the first Bb in the L.H. of m20 and 24
-m29: I'm not sure if I hear the harp going to a low Bb on the first beat hear, but I do hear two voices in the strings go A and back to Bb on beat 4. Maybe you could change this first Bb to an A, which will resolve itself to a Bb on beat 4 with the L.H. note. Talking about beat 4, you could add the top C from the harp run in between the chord in the right hand. I can see why you left it out in m27 as it would go above the melody, but that doesn't apply here. Lastly about this bar, you could let the L.H. take over the last two notes from the harp run if you want them back in their original octave, but it does make the jump to the low Db a bit sudden.
-m32-33: I'd put a pedal marking per measure here too instead of going over two measures, as the F from m32 will most likely clash with the En in m33 (especially on acoustic/grand pianos). The only thing that benefits from the pedal is the top note in the R.H., but restriking it or leaving it out doesn't sound that weird.
-m34-45: Why didn't you just write this part in triplet sixteenths instead of putting in a metric modulation? This part doesn't make sense to me at all in this kind of 6/8.
You cannot view this attachment.
The figure that plays in m35 is a kind of hemiola figure, which is the only thing that could fit your 6/8 if you feel the Bb's and Ab accentuated. I don't hear it that way though, I really hear the jumpy, triplet feel. There are two percussion ostinatos that are both 3 eighth notes long in the original tempo, but in your new tempo they're 4.5 eighth notes long. If you really don't like how the triplets look, you might wanna put it in 9/16 or even 18/16, but that causes the long notes to look pretty ugly (dotted quarter note tied to dotted eighth, or even triple dotted half note tied to dotted eighth if you're feeling funky in 18/16). I'd personally prefer the triplets like I have in my image. Btw, another small thing in this section is that the pedal markings don't really line up vertically.
Anyway, aside from that (I'll keep the measure numbers like you have them now):
-m34 and 40: I don't hear the C in this chord, though I do hear an additional F in the strings (though that may make for a lot of F's together with the L.H.)
-m35-36 and likewise: The last note of this 5 note figure is an Eb instead of an F.
-m37 and 43: I hear this chord as Eb-F-Bb (so no Db, but a very clear F)
-m46: The way you voiced this chord doesn't really make sense to me: the harp plays F-Bb-C (with the Bb sticking out more), while the strings play that top C as well as G and C above. Currently, both top notes (or melody notes) are voiced in the middle, while the filler notes are voiced an octave away from where they should be. I think it's better to just leave out the bottom F, as the bass can take care of that harmonic function, and write the chord like this:
You cannot view this attachment.
You could add an F underneath the G if you want a bit more major second dissonance. The top C from the harp isn't really playable in this chord, unfortunately, but I don't hear that note as prominently as these 3.

EDIT: Also, why do you have a metric modulation at m18 actually? There isn't really a reason why you need to relate the new tempo to the old tempo, especially after a molto rit and a fermate. The rit and fermate also make the player lose the sense of tempo they already had. Mainly though.. If the metric modulation was correct, the new tempo should be eighth = 112, not eighth = 126, so it's not even correct lol.
Rechecking the tempos now, I get quarter = 85 for m10 and eighth = 126 for m18 actually.

[Libera]

Ohh, this is pretty cool! I love the harmonies on this, nice work on your sheet!

Here are my comments:
-m1: I can see how you voiced this chord, but I feel like it is a bit too soft or empty compared to the original. I would've taken it on like this:
You cannot view this attachment.
Most of the energy comes from the percussion instead of the harp and strings, but that kinda gets lost with when transcribing it as an mezzo piano accent, so that's why I changed it to forte for this chord. Using some audiostretch magic, I can also hear a Gmmaj7 chord in the harp under the Gdim you have currently, which adds some more spice to the chord. Also, as this makes for a longer rolled chord, I made the L.H. jump over to play the high minor second in the strings in its original octave instead of an octave lower. This makes the distinction between the two voices clearer too. Anyway, take from this what you want! If you implement the higher octave minor second, you may want to think about if you want it restriked in m5 or not, though I think it's alright.

It's a kind of weird orchestration to get across on piano and forte gives off completely the wrong vibe from my point of view.  I thickened up the chord a bit but I don't want to up the dynamics and definitely no showy crosshands.

-m3: We should slur our grace notes right? :p

I don't think they're needed here, no.

-m10-13: I hear the chords in m11-12 an inversion lower (so top notes A and Bb), but I think you may have put the C and D on top because of the higher string line, but an octave down, right? I'd maybe just choose for leaving that voice out, but if you really wanna keep it, I'd either add the Bb and E in m10 and m13 too, or write it in its original octave (though this will cause for some chord rolling you may not want to have)

Yes that's why the chords in 11-12 are like that.  I don't want to make the chords in 10/13 thicker, the E plays on beat 1.5 of bar 13 anyway and the Bb is in beat 1 of bar 10.  All the harmony is there.

-m15: You may want to add the E from the synth(? spooky clarinet? idk the voice that plays in the L.H. of m14) in the L.H. Also, the G in the L.H. in beat 3.5 should be an A.

I think I'd prefer to just focus on the these lines here.  Fixed the mistake with the G.

-m16: I'd add brackets to either the L.H. or R.H. G in beat 2.5, as that note is being played by both hands. You could also switch the hands of the notes in beat 3.5, though keeping it as is is fine too to seperate the voices more clearly.

I added the brackets.

-m18-m25: It's pretty subtle, but in the L.H., I can hear a quick (low) F before the first beat of bar m19 and 23 and a quick (low) Gb before the first note of m21 and 25, which you could add in as grace notes. Also, you could add a courtesy accidental at the first Bb in the L.H. of m20 and 24

Yeah the courtesies there make sense.  I don't know how I feel about the little grace notes.  I've added them for now but I may excise them later since they kind of get in the way more on piano.

-m29: I'm not sure if I hear the harp going to a low Bb on the first beat hear, but I do hear two voices in the strings go A and back to Bb on beat 4. Maybe you could change this first Bb to an A, which will resolve itself to a Bb on beat 4 with the L.H. note. Talking about beat 4, you could add the top C from the harp run in between the chord in the right hand. I can see why you left it out in m27 as it would go above the melody, but that doesn't apply here. Lastly about this bar, you could let the L.H. take over the last two notes from the harp run if you want them back in their original octave, but it does make the jump to the low Db a bit sudden.

I was just filling in a note on beat 1 with something that matched the pattern since the RH had nothing to do otherwise.  I've taken it out.  It doesn't really matter.  Regarding the other suggestions, I just want to keep the presentation and performance simple, so I'd prefer not to.

-m32-33: I'd put a pedal marking per measure here too instead of going over two measures, as the F from m32 will most likely clash with the En in m33 (especially on acoustic/grand pianos). The only thing that benefits from the pedal is the top note in the R.H., but restriking it or leaving it out doesn't sound that weird.

It sounds fine to me.  If the performer doesn't like it, they can substitute different pedalling.  I'm sure they probably will do anyway.

-m34-45: Why didn't you just write this part in triplet sixteenths instead of putting in a metric modulation? This part doesn't make sense to me at all in this kind of 6/8.
You cannot view this attachment.
The figure that plays in m35 is a kind of hemiola figure, which is the only thing that could fit your 6/8 if you feel the Bb's and Ab accentuated. I don't hear it that way though, I really hear the jumpy, triplet feel. There are two percussion ostinatos that are both 3 eighth notes long in the original tempo, but in your new tempo they're 4.5 eighth notes long. If you really don't like how the triplets look, you might wanna put it in 9/16 or even 18/16, but that causes the long notes to look pretty ugly (dotted quarter note tied to dotted eighth, or even triple dotted half note tied to dotted eighth if you're feeling funky in 18/16). I'd personally prefer the triplets like I have in my image. Btw, another small thing in this section is that the pedal markings don't really line up vertically.

Probably because it didn't sound that way to me.  The 3/4 pulse that I wrote into the left hand really suggests a tempo change to me whenever I hear it.  Static suggested it would be better in 6/8 than 3/4 because of the 'hemiola' pattern which I agreed with and changed it.  I can hear what you're suggesting now that I think about it and the percussion staying fixed going into 46 is certainly an argument in your favour.  I'm not changing anything at the moment but I'll think about it some more.

-m34 and 40: I don't hear the C in this chord, though I do hear an additional F in the strings (though that may make for a lot of F's together with the L.H.)
-m35-36 and likewise: The last note of this 5 note figure is an Eb instead of an F.
-m37 and 43: I hear this chord as Eb-F-Bb (so no Db, but a very clear F)

I hear both the C and Db, but I added Fs into both of the chords.  And I fixed the F -> Eb in the 'hemiola'.

-m46: The way you voiced this chord doesn't really make sense to me: the harp plays F-Bb-C (with the Bb sticking out more), while the strings play that top C as well as G and C above. Currently, both top notes (or melody notes) are voiced in the middle, while the filler notes are voiced an octave away from where they should be. I think it's better to just leave out the bottom F, as the bass can take care of that harmonic function, and write the chord like this:
You cannot view this attachment.
You could add an F underneath the G if you want a bit more major second dissonance. The top C from the harp isn't really playable in this chord, unfortunately, but I don't hear that note as prominently as these 3.

I hear a high F.  I also hear all of the other notes (G Bb C) and I wanted this chord to come down from the previous ones, so that is the reasoning for this voicing.  It is also a very easy to play chord.

Also, why do you have a metric modulation at m18 actually? There isn't really a reason why you need to relate the new tempo to the old tempo, especially after a molto rit and a fermate. The rit and fermate also make the player lose the sense of tempo they already had.

The metric modulation is there because I noticed that it is a metric modulation.  The tempo values are written in anyway so you can ignore the modulation if you want to.

Mainly though.. If the metric modulation was correct, the new tempo should be eighth = 112, not eighth = 126, so it's not even correct lol.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think what you have done here is take q = 84 and multiply it by 4/3 to get q = 112.  This would suggest a 4/3 increase in tempo, whereas in the piece we have a decrease in tempo.  You have then substituted a quarter for an eighth and got to eighth = 112.

The calculation that I have followed is to take eighth = 168 (which is equivalent to q = 84) and multiply it by 3/4 ( <1 so a decrease in tempo, as we are expecting) to get eighth = 126.  Let me know if you think I have made a mistake.  I try to be very careful with these but it is possible I have gone wrong.

Metric modulations are quite complicated and it is very easy to get confused and make mistakes.  This is why I highly recommend not being patronising or dismissive when you think you've found someone has made a mistake with them because a) it is very easy to do and not something to be made fun of, and b) there's a pretty high chance that you have made a mistake yourself, in which case you will look like a complete fool.

Rechecking the tempos now, I get quarter = 85 for m10 and eighth = 126 for m18 actually.

I'm not going to argue over bpm changes of 1.  I normally round to even numbers anyway these days.


I updated the file.  Thanks for checking.

[Bloop]

It's a kind of weird orchestration to get across on piano and forte gives off completely the wrong vibe from my point of view.  I thickened up the chord a bit but I don't want to up the dynamics and definitely no showy crosshands.

That sounds alright! Crossing hands isn't just for 'showy' purposes though, as there are advantages to having the left hand take over some notes if the right hand isn't able to. I won't go to hard on it though, what you have is fine! It's just that you mentioned something like it on my Twilight sheet too, so I was wondering if you were just anti-crossing hands for some reason.

Yes that's why the chords in 11-12 are like that.  I don't want to make the chords in 10/13 thicker, the E plays on beat 1.5 of bar 13 anyway and the Bb is in beat 1 of bar 10.  All the harmony is there.

I agree with the harmony you have, that's not what I was referring too. It's more that different voicings and voice leading can evoke different feelings. Personally, I feel like chords in their root position sound a bit more bland compared to inverted positions. If you really wanna keep it, that's fine though!

I don't know how I feel about the little grace notes.  I've added them for now but I may excise them later since they kind of get in the way more on piano.

I can see that, I didn't notice them at first listen either. Just wanted to mention it!

Probably because it didn't sound that way to me.  The 3/4 pulse that I wrote into the left hand really suggests a tempo change to me whenever I hear it.  Static suggested it would be better in 6/8 than 3/4 because of the 'hemiola' pattern which I agreed with and changed it.  I can hear what you're suggesting now that I think about it and the percussion staying fixed going into 46 is certainly an argument in your favour.  I'm not changing anything at the moment but I'll think about it some more.

I guess it's possible that your ears focused on something else than mine did, I shouldn't have just assumed what I hear is what everyone else hears. I personally don't hear that 3/4 figure as much in the foreground, and the combination of the percussion and harp felt more triplet-y to me, so it seemed very strange for me to go with the 3/4 figure.

I hear both the C and Db, but I added Fs into both of the chords.  And I fixed the F -> Eb in the 'hemiola'.

That's alright too! I'm sometimes a bit dubious about whether the fifth of a chord is really there or it's just an overtone of the bass note(s): I personally couldn't hear it as clearly as the other notes, anyway.

I hear a high F.  I also hear all of the other notes (G Bb C) and I wanted this chord to come down from the previous ones, so that is the reasoning for this voicing.  It is also a very easy to play chord.

Oh yeah, the high F is definitely there too (though it has been there from m34). I'll agree that it's an easier chord to play in isolation, but it's actually harder to get to from the repeating figure in m42, than it is to go to my suggestion.
I guess this is also another example where, in my opinion, the voice leading would take a bit more priority over just conveying the harmony notes.

Metric modulations are quite complicated and it is very easy to get confused and make mistakes.  This is why I highly recommend not being patronising or dismissive when you think you've found someone has made a mistake with them because a) it is very easy to do and not something to be made fun of, and b) there's a pretty high chance that you have made a mistake yourself, in which case you will look like a complete fool.

I'll admit I've been careless with my calculations, you're right on the maths here. I think the proximity of my answer to the actual eighth note tempo made me assume I was in the right spot. I apologize for sounding patronising because of it!
Aside from the calculations though, I do stand by my other points: there isn't a direct continuation from the previous section, so it feels weird to try and figure out the relation between the two tempi. I'll concede with leaving it in though, if you really want it in.

I'm also fine with the other changes (or not-changes)! They're mostly just things we can have our own opinion on.
There's just two small things I noticed from the changes you made:
-The note in beat 5.5 of m43 should be an F too, I supposed that was just a little accident.
-The mf in m40 disappeared, probably when you copied this over from m34.

[Libera]

-The note in beat 5.5 of m43 should be an F too, I supposed that was just a little accident.
-The mf in m40 disappeared, probably when you copied this over from m34.

Fixed these.  Thanks for spotting them.

I guess it's possible that your ears focused on something else than mine did, I shouldn't have just assumed what I hear is what everyone else hears. I personally don't hear that 3/4 figure as much in the foreground, and the combination of the percussion and harp felt more triplet-y to me, so it seemed very strange for me to go with the 3/4 figure.

Another thing that I can't seem to shake is that these really feel like three bar phrases to me.  I could ditch the metric modulation and write out everything in triplets but it'd probably look messier than it does currently.  I still haven't made any firm decisions regarding this.

I'll admit I've been careless with my calculations, you're right on the maths here. I think the proximity of my answer to the actual eighth note tempo made me assume I was in the right spot. I apologize for sounding patronising because of it!

Just to be clear, it wasn't patronising because you were wrong, it was just a rude way to talk to someone, even if you had been right.  In any case, I accept your apology.  Let's move on.


Sorry about the long response time.  I've been thinking about this on and off for the past two weeks.  I'm still thinking about it, but I figured I should make a post to fix the other stuff.  That being said, everything else that was mentioned aside from the time signature/tempo in 34-45 I'm not thinking about anymore and don't want to change.  I guess I may still get rid of the little notes in 18-25.

[Bloop]

Whichever way you end up choosing, I think I'll approve either way. I can see how changing it to something else does make the sheet look messier, so if you eventually decide to keep it as is, I'll respect that!

[Static]

This looks really great. I don't have any big things to really say here, but I do have a few tiny details maybe worth considering:

• I'm almost not sure if I can pick out the D in the original chord, but when I hear your sheet it sounds correct, so I guess it's fine.
• Maybe move the half rest in m2 to the left a little bit, so it's in the center of the measure.
• This may seem very nitpicky (it kinda is), but a staccato quarter note at q=36 is probably going to performed longer than what you might intend. In the original it's a pretty short note, so I might suggest a staccato 8th note instead. It's probably fine either way though.
• Maybe add a diminuendo in m15 as well.
• In m29, I know Bloop already mentioned this, but there's a lower string voice that goes from A to Bb. You could add it in the RH Layer 1 (probably just the A on beat 1), since you added similar inner voice movement in m26-27 and 32-33.
• I'm assuming you left out the additional Bbs in Layer 2 of m30-31 for playability reasons? I don't think it's really that much harder to play than the surrounding bars.
• At the end of m34, the last two 16ths sound like they should just be one 8th note, an Ab.
• I'm not sure where you're getting that quarter note hit on beat 5 from starting in m34. The percussion mostly plays this rhythm in those spots (top line is tambourine, bottom is triangle):
  
  The bass almost sounds kind of like it has that pulse, but I think that's more due to how those low strings were looped rather than being distinct rearticulations.

[Libera]

Thanks for checking, I've updated the file.

I'm going to edit the below quote with responses because I can't be bothered removing all the list formatting haha.

• I'm almost not sure if I can pick out the D in the original chord, but when I hear your sheet it sounds correct, so I guess it's fine. I can hear the D but I guess the chord is kind of difficult to pick out exactly.
• Maybe move the half rest in m2 to the left a little bit, so it's in the center of the measure. This was just a mistake which I'm not sure how it happened, but it's fixed now.
• This may seem very nitpicky (it kinda is), but a staccato quarter note at q=36 is probably going to performed longer than what you might intend. In the original it's a pretty short note, so I might suggest a staccato 8th note instead. It's probably fine either way though. No that's a good suggestion.  Thanks!
• Maybe add a diminuendo in m15 as well. Sure.
• In m29, I know Bloop already mentioned this, but there's a lower string voice that goes from A to Bb. You could add it in the RH Layer 1 (probably just the A on beat 1), since you added similar inner voice movement in m26-27 and 32-33. Hmm, I didn't really write in any other movements besides the 4-3 resolution in bar 33.  I think I'd prefer to just keep it simple and leave it out.
• I'm assuming you left out the additional Bbs in Layer 2 of m30-31 for playability reasons? I don't think it's really that much harder to play than the surrounding bars. I don't really hear these if you're talking about beats 1.5 and 6.5.  The jump in 31 in particular would also be significantly further than any of the other jumps.
• At the end of m34, the last two 16ths sound like they should just be one 8th note, an Ab. Yeah that sounds right.  It kind of sounds like two different parts trading positions there, but I think this makes sense like this.
• I'm not sure where you're getting that quarter note hit on beat 5 from starting in m34. The percussion mostly plays this rhythm in those spots (top line is tambourine, bottom is triangle):
  [picture]
  The bass almost sounds kind of like it has that pulse, but I think that's more due to how those low strings were looped rather than being distinct rearticulations.
  I wasn't really trying to imitate the percussion.  I swear I can hear 'something' doing this pulse and it didn't sound like it was the bass.  I guess the hit on beat 3 is clearer but I still kind of hear this.  If I leave it out then there's not really much going on at the tail end of this bar and I think mimicking the percussion is going to sound far too busy here.  I'm open to suggestions if you have any, otherwise I'll remove if you really don't like it there or just leave it as is.
  

[Static]

Looks great! We just chatted a bit about that rhythm in m34 LH and agreed on moving the last note over a 16th. I'll accept now.