[PC] Five Nights at Freddy's 2 - "Lullaby Waltz (The Monastery Bells)" by Olimar12345

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Other
Game: Five Nights at Freddy's 2
Console: PC
Title: Lullaby Waltz (The Monastery Bells)
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Olimar12345

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Olimar12345]

Also, the half note on the up-beat of one in measures 9 & 10 isn't an oversight. That is how Lefébure Wély writes it in the original version.

[skiaak]

SO AMAZING!!! The best part was those arpeggios, they sounded so on the spot!

[holland_oates89]

I've never played FNAF so I'm not the expert on how accurate it is to the original, but to my ears it sounds really good!

Since you have the pedal being held throughout the first passage, it isn't necessary to include the second layer in measures 1 through 8, although many french engravers around Ravel's time wrote this way so it isn't wrong by any means, just uncommon.

A snootier variety of piano players might dislike the idea of switching between clefs so often, but I think it makes the score clearer to read.

I like the use of articulations as well - however your marcato markings are placed above the notehead, when I prefer that they be placed above the stem. Many engravers disagree with me on this so don't feel like it's incorrect - However, it's important for the articulation to still be in vertical alignment with the stem, so I recommend moving all marcato markings ~5 EVPUs to the right, no matter what. You can do this quickly using these steps:

• Open your Document.
• Click Edit > Select All
• Click Utilities > Change > Articulations
• In the window that appears, click Position Selected Articulations and choose Articulation #5 (marcato accent) and NOT #6 (marcato accent with embedded staccato).
• Change the "Add to" window to Add to Current Position, and enter an H value of 5.
• Click OK to close this window.

It's a pretty small change but it's one of the key difference between a score that looks like it was "made in Finale" and a score from a professional/publisher (many of them use Finale even if it isn't obvious!) Note that you'll need to go back and re-adjust those articulations which are attached to downstem notes, but I only saw that occurring in measure 11.

There are a few slurs that collide with triplet numbers, and the slurs in mm. 20 - 21 should be on the beam side due to both the  cross-staff usage and the multiple layers in the right hand. Personally I'd also recommend increasing the slur's tip width but I assume that is an unnecessary level of detail...

When writing in two layers, stem-side staccatos should always align horizontally with the stem. I only saw a few staccato markings on the stem side in this piece so you could just drag them. You may also want to try moving your roll articulations further away from the notes, particularly in places like mm. 17 where the rhythm becomes more complicated.

Finally, it's also a good idea to reflow your systems so that the player can more easily see the rhythms written. It looked like your systems were locked at 4 bars per system, which is always a good start, but because of how complex these rhythms are, I think using 3 or 2 bars per system may suit the piece better. This also helps Finale to space the measures more accurately so it looks more 'polished' and is easier to read. When doing this, you'll find that you have to make choices about which measures should go where. Generally, when the part gets more rhythmically complex, you'll want to use less measures per system. Additionally, if you run into situations where the rhythm is similar, but you have "leftover" measures in a new system, you may need to reflow your measures again. In these cases, a best practice is to use less measures per system in the first few bars of the piece - in a way, this helps to "feature" the rhythm for the player when they are introduced to it, and then you can afford to put more measures in the later systems.

Anyway tl;dr - when I tried to reflow this piece I ended up with the following measures per each system, starting in measure 1: 2, 3, 3, 2, 2 (double-bar, page turn) 1, 2, 2, 2, 3. If that isn't clear I can attach a copy of your piece with these changes.

Overall, it sounds great and looks really good as is! I hope I didn't get too far into the details but I believe they make a big difference in polishing the score.

[Olimar12345]

Wow! Thanks! Great stuff! I wish I hadn't already shut down my computer for the night, I'll have to mess with it in the morning. Thank you again!

[holland_oates89]

Haha no problem, if any of it doesn't make sense or isn't obvious in Finale go ahead and reply here and I'll give you some exact steps to do what I mentioned.

[Olimar12345]

Believe it or not, this is the first time I've been on my computer since you commented! Here's a more in-depth response:

Since you have the pedal being held throughout the first passage, it isn't necessary to include the second layer in measures 1 through 8, although many french engravers around Ravel's time wrote this way so it isn't wrong by any means, just uncommon.

Noted. I kept it that way because that's how the original one looks.

I like the use of articulations as well - however your marcato markings are placed above the notehead, when I prefer that they be placed above the stem. Many engravers disagree with me on this so don't feel like it's incorrect - However, it's important for the articulation to still be in vertical alignment with the stem, so I recommend moving all marcato markings ~5 EVPUs to the right, no matter what.

I've never seen them centered above the stem, nor have I heard about doing anything like that. Why do you do it that way?

There are a few slurs that collide with triplet numbers, and the slurs in mm. 20 - 21 should be on the beam side due to both the  cross-staff usage and the multiple layers in the right hand. Personally I'd also recommend increasing the slur's tip width but I assume that is an unnecessary level of detail...

Messed with it a bit, I think it works now.

Finally, it's also a good idea to reflow your systems so that the player can more easily see the rhythms written. It looked like your systems were locked at 4 bars per system, which is always a good start, but because of how complex these rhythms are, I think using 3 or 2 bars per system may suit the piece better. This also helps Finale to space the measures more accurately so it looks more 'polished' and is easier to read. When doing this, you'll find that you have to make choices about which measures should go where. Generally, when the part gets more rhythmically complex, you'll want to use less measures per system. Additionally, if you run into situations where the rhythm is similar, but you have "leftover" measures in a new system, you may need to reflow your measures again. In these cases, a best practice is to use less measures per system in the first few bars of the piece - in a way, this helps to "feature" the rhythm for the player when they are introduced to it, and then you can afford to put more measures in the later systems.

Spot-on. I agree, and since I still have half a page left, I went ahead and tried it the way you mentioned in your tl;dr and rather like it.

Files in the OP have been adjusted accordingly. Thanks again for your help!

[holland_oates89]

Hey this new version looks great!

It looks much easier to read now and I think the phrasing (measures per system) will be much easier to read now.

As for the argument of "where should stem-side articulations appear in multi-layer parts," it's actually been hotly debated for a long time. Believe it or not, most of my experience comes from jazz engraving with a giant fancy pen, and then eventually trying to recreate that effect in Finale. Because of this, I often end up preferring many nuances specific to jazz charts, and this is one of them.

To me, it is a lot more obvious to see which note should have the articulation when it is directly over the stem. I think most people see the articulation directly above the stem and can understand that the articulation should be attached to that stem. Some engravers (most notably Sam Adler who wrote a giant book called The Study of Orchestration) feel that having the articulation close to the stem is confusing, because the player sees the articulation "after" (further to the right) the notehead and might think that the next note is supposed to be articulated.

In practice, however, most musicians are going to see the articulation second to the notehead no matter what. Musicians also aren't Finale cursors and don't literally interpret every marking based on how far to the right it is. Supporting my position are people like Clinton Roemer (wrote The Art of Music Copying which is a bible on handwritten/jazz engraving) and Gardner Read (wrote Music Notation: A Manual of Modern Practice which is a classical bible on engraving).

Probably the most widely-accepted recent text on engraving is Behind Bars, written by Elaine Gould in London. Most of the criticism of this book is that it very conveniently doesn't take a stance on issues like this

If you're REALLY curious, here's a quote from the Behind Bars book:

"Articulation goes where it is most conspicuous... [In double-stemmed writing,] Articulation is centred in line with the notehead, whether positioned next to a notehead or a stem... Staccato dots and wedges by themselves look best centered on a stem and therefor are an exception to the above rule, although many editions do centre them on the notehead."

Not exactly what I'd call a confident answer, but I think it is the best one. Do whatever looks the most obvious.

Honestly, music engraving is probably 60% rigid rules that any musician could learn in a week and 40% gray areas that people have been fighting about for decades. I wrote an article recently about chord suffixes for Finale's blog and in all the research I found, no one had a solid answer to how suffixes are best written. Most people end up using whatever they learned in college (in America anyway) and there are probably about 4 or 5 well-known jazz schools that try to establish a standard system. They all disagree with each other. I usually end up using a system devised by Clinton Roemer which uses two-letter suffixes that can't be misunderstood. Anyway, the point is that engraving is an "art" because there isn't really a right and wrong but you know it when you see it.

Man, that was off-topic. I think I'm just spouting opinions now. More importantly, you've written a great score and because of that I like this song now. Great work!

[DonValentino]

If there's no further discussion between the gentlemen, I shall consider this accepted.

[Zeta]

This submission has been accepted by DonValentino.

~Zeta, your friendly NSM-Bot