[PS3] Drakengard 3 - "Descendeus" by Libera

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Other
Game: Drakengard 3
Console: PlayStation 3
Title: Descendeus
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Libera

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Libera]

So I think I had the wrong titles before for this OST.  It should be right now hopefully.

And here's the acapella version if you need it.  (It's just the vocals on their own though.)

Spoiler

[close]

[joeberryosponge]

The layers in this arrangement are confusing and are visually distracting. Measures 3 and 5 especially. There should be some way to fix this. The hand crossing seems weird too.
Sometimes the cross beaming is not necessary. The A-flat in measure 23 is distracting and should be in the upper staff, as is the D in measure 26.

[Libera]

The layers in this arrangement are confusing and are visually distracting. Measures 3 and 5 especially.

I don't find them that distracting or confusing to be honest with you.

The hand crossing seems weird too.

I've played this on my piano and none of the hand crossings are uncomfortable or difficult (and if the performer wanted to they could remove them).  I decided to keep the lines intact and that's why I wrote it like this.

Sometimes the cross beaming is not necessary. The A-flat in measure 23 is distracting and should be in the upper staff, as is the D in measure 26.

The Ab looks odd to me in the treble clef and that's why I put it into the bass.  I think it looks better that way.  You have a point though with the D though;  I've changed it.

[Khunjund]

Some quick thoughts:

• When you have two layers, the least you could do is place the rests in the staff, rather than leave them floating two miles bove it. However, I do think it looks wonky at times, especially in measure 20. For measure 23 (and in general), you could put the left hand motif in the bass clef entirely; it's not like reading up to four ledger lines is a particularly arduous task.
• In measure 8, I'd have the right hand play an Eb along with the F#, and I'd raise the left hand D on beat 3 by an octave. The original chord is much more tense than a standard D7, and there's a line that goes D>C>Bb.
• There's no reason to drop the arpeggios of measures 9 and 11 by an octave. I suspect you did it because you were worried about playing the same notes as the right hand, but that should be a non-issue. Alternatively, you could drop the entire bass of measures 9–12 by an octave, and play the F>Eb of measure 10 and D>C of measure 12 with the right hand.
• I don't like the fact that you choose to incorporate the glockenspiel in a few very opportunistic moments. Either use it more (to fill out the harmony, etc.), or leave it out entirely. (And in measures 32–33, at least keep the last part of the line intact: Bb down to F, and back up to C.)
• I'm pretty sure there's an F in measure 15, which you could place under the right-hand G to keep the melody at the top. It would then resolve to a lower Eb, so the right hand in measure 16 would play Eb-G-Eb, which gives a more balanced colour than tripling the tonic.
• How did you decide when to double in octaves? It doesn't seem to be based on the textures or dynamics of the original, so it comes off as a bit random, especially in measure 28, when you just drop it for the the final D of the phrase.

[Libera]

I've updated the files.

When you have two layers, the least you could do is place the rests in the staff, rather than leave them floating two miles bove it.

This is a massive exaggeration and I think they look fine.

For measure 23 (and in general), you could put the left hand motif in the bass clef entirely; it's not like reading up to four ledger lines is a particularly arduous task.

This looks bad in my opinion.  Also, sure, you could read four ledger lines, but I'd prefer to avoid that where I can.

There's no reason to drop the arpeggios of measures 9 and 11 by an octave.  I suspect you did it because you were worried about playing the same notes as the right hand, but that should be a non-issue.

I disagree.  I don't know why you'd think this was a non-issue.

I tried to address most of your other comments in my edits.  Also I just had a tinker with the sheet in general.

[Khunjund]

This is a massive exaggeration and I think they look fine.

Sorry, hyperbole just comes naturally to me. Nonetheless, I've yet to see a professionally edited sheet that didn't avoid placing rests like this. If it's possible to have the rest in its normal position, like in measures 1, 2, 8, etc., you should place it as such. When this isn't possible, like in measure 10, it's customary to place the rest as close to its default position as possible (so for measure 10, you should place the layer 1 half-rest on the fourth line, and the layer two half-rest on the second line).

This looks bad in my opinion. Also, sure, you could read four ledger lines, but I'd prefer to avoid that where I can.

It was just a suggestion; I don't find it appealing currently, but it's not problematic. In measure 20, however, the "left-hand" eighth rest should be above the right-hand C.

I disagree.  I don't know why you'd think this was a non-issue.

It's rather trivial to let go of the right-hand note as the left hand comes to play it. You're using the pedal anyway, so there's no way anybody would notice you only held down those notes for a beat and a half rather than two full beats, especially if you're properly colouring the melody so as to make it stand out over the accompaniment.

Folding the arpeggio pattern over on itself, on the other hand, has a tremendous impact. Not only are you sounding the fifth of the chord below the root, obscuring the progression of the intended bass line and muddying the chord's colour, but more importantly, you're ruining the flowing effect of the arpeggio and replacing it with a line that sounds very static, because it has a much smaller range and starts and ends on the same note.

[Libera]

Sorry, hyperbole just comes naturally to me.

Well, it comes across as rude to me.  Try to keep this in mind when you're writing feedback in the future.

In measure 20, however, the "left-hand" eighth rest should be above the right-hand C.

Fixed.

It's rather trivial to let go of the right-hand note as the left hand comes to play it. You're using the pedal anyway, so there's no way anybody would notice you only held down those notes for a beat and a half rather than two full beats, especially if you're properly colouring the melody so as to make it stand out over the accompaniment.

Folding the arpeggio pattern over on itself, on the other hand, has a tremendous impact. Not only are you sounding the fifth of the chord below the root, obscuring the progression of the intended bass line and muddying the chord's colour, but more importantly, you're ruining the flowing effect of the arpeggio and replacing it with a line that sounds very static, because it has a much smaller range and starts and ends on the same note.

I don't want to have it overlapping the melody.  However, I have moved the first note in each phrase down an octave to keep the original line intact as you make a valid point there.

I'm holding off on the rests at the moment but I might change them later.

Thanks for taking the time to look through it.

[Brassman388]

Two major things come out right away.

The E-flat maybe measure 8 could possibly maybe be a D-sharp. It may not need to function as the flat-9th since the other harmonies aren't present, but you could tinker with that and find what fits.

Second is the doubled-D in measure 28 in the parenthesis. I get what you're going for when it comes to the individual voices and how you're layering them, but maybe this could be a bit of an overstatement? Like, while there are three, maybe four voices sounding there, does the piano part need to do reflect that just because? I would say no, but again that's just me.

[Khunjund]

The E-flat maybe measure 8 could possibly maybe be a D-sharp. It may not need to function as the flat-9th since the other harmonies aren't present, but you could tinker with that and find what fits.

What do you mean? It's clearly a IV>V>I cadence in G minor, and the only note which is omitted in the D7(b9) chord is the fifth. Plus, I don't know why you'd go out of your way to write a D# when the key signature already has an Eb, unless it's absolutely undeniable that that's what you're dealing with (e.g. you have B7>Emin, though even then, you could make a case for notating it Cb7>Fbmin, depending on the context).

Aside from that, I find the Cmin chord in measure 16 a bit heavy. You have three voices in measure 14, a fourth one pops up halfway through measure 15, then you suddenly go up to six voices in measure 16, on top of the naturally heavier texture of chords vs. the preceding contrapuntal lines. Personally, I would omit the right-hand C in measure 16, and sustain the G for the full four beats in measure 15 (placing it in layer 1). This way, you start off measure 15 with three voices, a fourth one shows up on beat 2 (left hand upper C), and a fifth one shows up on beat 3 (right hand F), and you finish the build up to measure 16 by playing all the voices at once rather than one at a time, without having to pile on extra voices right at the end.

[Brassman388]

I mean, if you actually read what I said that maybe it wouldn't be that confusing.

Trust me, I know what I'm doing.

[Khunjund]

What I don't understand is what harmonies you believe to be missing from that progression. From what I can tell, everything points to the Eb being the flat 9th, as opposed to an augmented octave or a chromatic passing tone (and in the latter case, you'd still write it as Eb).

Trust me, I know what I'm doing.

Oh believe me, I'm not an amateur either when it comes to music.

[Brassman388]

I'm proud of you, but we've talked about it with the other staff and came to a decision already. If any of the other staff question what we talked about then we'll consider the former but for now it stays.

[Khunjund]

It wasn't my intention to boast, so I apologize if it came across that way.

I would appreciate it, however, if you were to actually debate with me, instead of haughtily questioning my ability to read or simply dismissing me in virtue of your authority as a staff member.

From my understanding, the point of these threads is to work together towards a better end result and to share knowledge in general, not to have "authority figures" dictate to us what to do and dispraise anyone who comes up with any kind of reproach.

[Latios212]

This is something I've noticed across a bunch of your posts. They tend to come across as demanding and condescending, even if you don't intend them as such. A lot of "This sounds/looks bad", I don't like this", and "Do this". It's only natural to disagree and defend one's choices against such comments. Be respectful: it's one thing to raise a suggestion and another to complain. In the end, though yes it is the goal of the community to help, you have to keep in mind that this is not your sheet.

As for the above part in question I'd defer to Libera to comment.