[Wii] Xenoblade Chronicles - "Once We Part Ways" by Cashwarrior1

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Xeno
Game: Xenoblade Chronicles
Console: Wii
Title: Once We Part Ways
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Cashwarrior1

[cashwarrior1]

There's a lot going on in this piece, but I tried to simplify it in some spots for piano

[goldenscruff]

More Xeno stuff!

I haven't properly looked at the LH, especially m46 onwards.


This should have a con pedal at the start.

m10 Ab should be G#. Even though it's descending chromatic motion, everything around here is naturals or sharps.

m21 is missing courtesy accidental in LH

m28 should have courtesy accidentals on Gn

m34 Melody is A G G F# | E not A G F# E | E

m42 LH the melody line starts at b3.0 not 3.5, and goes D E F# G | Fn

m50 and 58, C# major chords are hard to read. I suggest use E# and sacrifice the diminished chords with a D and E# to get proper C# major chords. Also add a courtesy En in the following bar.

m59 There's a quaver length G preceding F# chord in RH. (Though is arguably a bow retake/soft bow direction change)

m62 I hear this bar as a Gmaj7. Maybe change b2.0 and  maybe 4.0 to F# in LH.

m63 RH rhythm is D - - E - E F#G|

m66 I would suggest putting subito p

m67 I hear F# in the cello/viola not E

[cashwarrior1]

m10 Ab should be G#. Even though it's descending chromatic motion, everything around here is naturals or sharps.

It seems that I forgot to update the PDF, as this was fixed in the musx file, oop.

m21 is missing courtesy accidental in LH

m28 should have courtesy accidentals on Gn

So I'm a little unsure how many courtesy accidentals I should put in sections like this. Like should I be putting one on the F# and C# or is just the first beat fine? I've had a streamer sight read it and he didn't have much confusion about it so I'm assuming just having one thing is fine.

m62 I hear this bar as a Gmaj7. Maybe change b2.0 and  maybe 4.0 to F# in LH.

I change the LH arpeggio so that only the first and last note plays G, the rest of the Gs I moved down to F#

m67 I hear F# in the cello/viola not E

I'm hearing a middle voice go D (m66) - E. I added the F# and kept the E

Updated.

[Latios212]

m21 is missing courtesy accidental in LH
m28 should have courtesy accidentals on Gn

So I'm a little unsure how many courtesy accidentals I should put in sections like this. Like should I be putting one on the F# and C# or is just the first beat fine? I've had a streamer sight read it and he didn't have much confusion about it so I'm assuming just having one thing is fine.

Courtesy accidentals are a very preferential thing and I'd be wary of implying that they are required anywhere in general. That said, I agree that goldenscruff's comments would make their usage more consistent in this sheet. I can probably write up a whole post of things to consider when using courtesy accidentals another time, but so as to not derail this submission I'll just leave my thoughts on their use in this submission in particular.

It looks like overall in this sheet there are two usages:
- Cancelling out a natural/accidental on the same note in the previous measure (only for the first beat in the measure that this occurs)
- Clarifying a natural/accidental when the other hand has played something different

I generally agree with both, and this sheet pretty consistently adheres to both. However, sticking to the first does result in quite a few courtesy accidentals in some places. Some are a bit more redundant, like measure 28 where the G naturals immediately follow the key signature at the beginning of the system. Putting them only on beat 1 could also have the potential to confuse performers a little bit if ones after beat 1 aren't present (like the F#/C# you referred to above).

Anyway, that was a bit of rambling just to make sure I understood what you were going for above. I think what you have overall is fine (with the caveat that I haven't actually checked the sheet yet, just skimmed it). If I were writing this myself I might experiment with fewer courtesy accidentals but I think it's pretty readable as is without too much clutter to generate confusion.

One thing though, it looks like you've missed the Gn in m. 5 beat 1.

[cashwarrior1]

Okay okay, that makes sense. I removed the courtesies on m28 since the key signature being right next to it makes sense to me lol.

One thing though, it looks like you've missed the Gn in m. 5 beat 1.

oop

[Bloop]

-For the pickup measure, it might look a bit nicer to have a pickup of 2 beats length (so with an 8 rest before), so it doesn't start halfway through a beat.
-m16: I hear Dn instead of D# on beat 3.5 in the R.H.
-m34 and 35: I hear an E in the cello (and piano in m35) which could go in the L.H.
-m68-69: The harp (annoyingly) already goes to the B in beat 3 of m68, but it kinda sounds like the other strings also rebow at m69, so maybe that helps finishing off the piece like this:
You cannot view this attachment.

[cashwarrior1]

-m16: I hear Dn instead of D# on beat 3.5 in the R.H.

Those strings are playing a pretty sharp Dn then 😭 (though I hear it now)

-m34 and 35: I hear an E in the cello (and piano in m35) which could go in the L.H.

I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by this. The C in m34 is quite strong and so I'm having trouble making picking out a distinct E, however, I do have an E played in the RH already so would another one be necessary? (And m35 has two different Es)

-m68-69: The harp (annoyingly) already goes to the B in beat 3 of m68, but it kinda sounds like the other strings also rebow at m69, so maybe that helps finishing off the piece like this:
You cannot view this attachment.

So that harp resolution I had chose to ignore (and thought I had mentioned it here but I checked and I didn't, oops) because I feel that in the original, the different instruments make that early resolution more palatable, but on piano it just feels like a distraction from the string melody. I didn't include that change here, but if people insist then I'll make the change. (I did remove the tied notes, though)

Updated.

[Bloop]

I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by this. The C in m34 is quite strong and so I'm having trouble making picking out a distinct E, however, I do have an E played in the RH already so would another one be necessary? (And m35 has two different Es)

Maybe it's easier to try and hear the L.H. C# in m33 jump up a minor third to the E in m34? I mostly mentioned it because it was the bass note, which changes the inversion and thus slightly changes the feel of the chord. The Em for example sounds a bit less grounded without the E below.

So that harp resolution I had chose to ignore (and thought I had mentioned it here but I checked and I didn't, oops) because I feel that in the original, the different instruments make that early resolution more palatable, but on piano it just feels like a distraction from the string melody. I didn't include that change here, but if people insist then I'll make the change. (I did remove the tied notes, though)

I figured that was what you were going for yeah, but I figured that if the L.H. restrikes on the last bar, it gives the same effect of an actual resolution. So in other words, a softer 1-note resolution in m68 beat 3 (which is the harp), and a stronger full chord resolution in m69 (which is the rebowed strings + string melody). If you still prefer keeping it as is though, that's fine too, because I do agree it distracts a bit from the main melody ^^

[cashwarrior1]

Maybe it's easier to try and hear the L.H. C# in m33 jump up a minor third to the E in m34? I mostly mentioned it because it was the bass note, which changes the inversion and thus slightly changes the feel of the chord. The Em for example sounds a bit less grounded without the E below.

Ohhhh okay yeah that helps lmao

I figured that was what you were going for yeah, but I figured that if the L.H. restrikes on the last bar, it gives the same effect of an actual resolution. So in other words, a softer 1-note resolution in m68 beat 3 (which is the harp), and a stronger full chord resolution in m69 (which is the rebowed strings + string melody). If you still prefer keeping it as is though, that's fine too, because I do agree it distracts a bit from the main melody ^^

Ah, the restriking does help make the resolution stronger. I think what I'll do is put the harp B as a separate voice so it shows that you need to keep holding the C# and the performer can play that note softer.

Updated.

[Bloop]

Looking good, I'll approve!

[Latios212]

Final check incoming! I don't remember this track at all... but it's a really cool piece. Some of these chord changes oh page 2 are strikingly similar to Land of Morytha from 2. It's cool how the melody from the beginning is reharmonized on page 3...

- m. 5 LH beat 2 sounds like F# instead of G
- The LH slurs in m. 10-11 are a bit exaggerated
- You could just use whole notes for the E's in the right hand of m. 38-40 like the following measures if you want
- The last LH note of m. 42 sounds like that voice is going to a C# instead of G

m50 and 58, C# major chords are hard to read. I suggest use E# and sacrifice the diminished chords with a D and E# to get proper C# major chords. Also add a courtesy En in the following bar.

I think this is actually easiest to read the way it originally was, with Fn and Ab instead of E# and G#. You would lose the proper spelling of the C# major chord in the middle but it's just passing here. Having the Dn-E# interval in the other chords that do represent the harmony of the measure seems much more awkward to me than the C#-Fn-Ab-C# stack.

[cashwarrior1]

Final check incoming! I don't remember this track at all... but it's a really cool piece. Some of these chord changes oh page 2 are strikingly similar to Land of Morytha from 2. It's cool how the melody from the beginning is reharmonized on page 3...

It's probably my favorite "cutscene" track, along with Majesty (which should've been used more imo).

- The LH slurs in m. 10-11 are a bit exaggerated

They sure are o.O

I think this is actually easiest to read the way it originally was, with Fn and Ab instead of E# and G#. You would lose the proper spelling of the C# major chord in the middle but it's just passing here. Having the Dn-E# interval in the other chords that do represent the harmony of the measure seems much more awkward to me than the C#-Fn-Ab-C# stack.

I have no preference for either, they're both chord spellings I'd have to stare at for a while 🙃

Updated.

[Latios212]

For safekeeping, DM'ed real quick and some additional notes in the RH lower layer were written in m. 42 instead, which includes the C#.

Great work! Time to accept!

[Zeta]

This submission has been accepted by Latios212.

~Zeta, your friendly NSM-Bot