[DELETED] [MUL] Celeste - "Quiet and Falling" by PlayfulPiano

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Other
Game: Celeste
Console: Multiplatform
Title: Quiet and Falling
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: PlayfulPiano

[PlayfulPiano]

This was an arrangement I completed over on musescore a while back, but had to remake it over on finale with some edits so it would work well in this format.

There's one specific section which I labeled as a text box where I have no real idea of what to do. Outside of that, the tempo is marked with a piacere, so tempo wise it flows a bunch based on the performer. I tried actually marking the tempo in musescore, and I'm not doing it again in finale. Way too messy.

[Khunjund]

Measures 59 and 60 made me chuckle.

Ok, first, a piacere isn't really used as an indication of character. The more usual way is to use rubato. In either case, it shouldn't be in italics. Whenever the tempo slows down to 100 BPM, you should write poco meno mosso, or something else to that effect, along with the metronome marking. When the tempo goes back up to 110, use tempo primo. (You'd repeat "rubato", etc., if you wanted to mark the end of a section wherein the tempo needed to be adhered to strictly, for example.)

Next, since the left hand is a bunch of rests throughout, I suggest you put all the arpeggios in the left hand, and use cross-staff notation when you want to split them up between both hands. This also avoids unecessary second layers full of rests. For measures 17–24 exclusively, you could put the arpeggio in the right hand, to save on layers (still using cross-staff notation).

Since you can't sustain notes on the piano, I'd rearticulate every measure notes that are supposed to be held for longer than a whole note (like in measure 2, etc.).

Notes saying to play things only during the second pass should be close to what they pertain to: "play low notes on second pass" should be under the bottom staff, "play trill on second pass" should be between both staves (though this is actually a mordent, not a trill), etc. Also, you could notate this more concisely by putting parentheses around the object in question and writing seconda volta or 2a volta next to it. In any case, I'd still put parentheses around the bass notes in measures 17–24, just to make sure people don't think the directive applies to every low note in the piece.

For measures 59–60, it's quite simple: either you remove the eighth note arpeggio, or you move the thirty-second note motif up an octave (which doesn't cause any issues because you've already moved all the eighth note arpeggios to the bottom staff). I recommend the latter, for two reasons:

• The thirty-second note arpeggios are a new element that's being introduced here, and raising it by an octave will put emphasis on that by making it stand out. (You could even raise them by two octaves if you really wanted to draw attantion to them, but then you'd lose a bit in terms of continuity when you go back down two octaves in measure 61. That being said, it's not impossible, as an arranger, to make the decision to raise all those arpeggios in measure 61 onwards by an octave, for example. It depends on what you're looking to achieve with your arrangement.)
• The biggest change that occurs in measure 61 is that the eighth note arpeggio ceases, so you'd be giving away that "surprise" early by dropping it in measure 59. Moreover, introducing a new element and taking away an old one simultaneously gives the impression that the piece is moving more quickly than if you had done these things sequentially, and I think the latter suits this piece better.

If the simile indication refers to the dynamics, it should go between the staves. (See my point on directives for second passes.)

I'd triple-check the last three pages to make sure there aren't any missing repeat bars. (I haven't checked thoroughly at all, but measures 109–112 and 125–128 look similar, etc.) It's not serious if there aren't any, but it's always nice to have one fewer page to deal with.

Finally (for now, anyway), most of your dynamics are too close to the surrounding measure bars, and you should check for missing courtesy accidentals (measure 9, etc.).

[PlayfulPiano]

Measures 59 and 60 made me chuckle.

Ok, first, a piacere isn't really used as an indication of character. The more usual way is to use rubato. In either case, it shouldn't be in italics. Whenever the tempo slows down to 100 BPM, you should write poco meno mosso, or something else to that effect, along with the metronome marking. When the tempo goes back up to 110, use tempo primo. (You'd repeat "rubato", etc., if you wanted to mark the end of a section wherein the tempo needed to be adhered to strictly, for example.)

Next, since the left hand is a bunch of rests throughout, I suggest you put all the arpeggios in the left hand, and use cross-staff notation when you want to split them up between both hands. This also avoids unecessary second layers full of rests. For measures 17–24 exclusively, you could put the arpeggio in the right hand, to save on layers (still using cross-staff notation).

Since you can't sustain notes on the piano, I'd rearticulate every measure notes that are supposed to be held for longer than a whole note (like in measure 2, etc.).

Notes saying to play things only during the second pass should be close to what they pertain to: "play low notes on second pass" should be under the bottom staff, "play trill on second pass" should be between both staves (though this is actually a mordent, not a trill), etc. Also, you could notate this more concisely by putting parentheses around the object in question and writing seconda volta or 2a volta next to it. In any case, I'd still put parentheses around the bass notes in measures 17–24, just to make sure people don't think the directive applies to every low note in the piece.

For measures 59–60, it's quite simple: either you remove the eighth note arpeggio, or you move the thirty-second note motif up an octave (which doesn't cause any issues because you've already moved all the eighth note arpeggios to the bottom staff). I recommend the latter, for two reasons:

• The thirty-second note arpeggios are a new element that's being introduced here, and raising it by an octave will put emphasis on that by making it stand out. (You could even raise them by two octaves if you really wanted to draw attantion to them, but then you'd lose a bit in terms of continuity when you go back down two octaves in measure 61. That being said, it's not impossible, as an arranger, to make the decision to raise all those arpeggios in measure 61 onwards by an octave, for example. It depends on what you're looking to achieve with your arrangement.)
• The biggest change that occurs in measure 61 is that the eighth note arpeggio ceases, so you'd be giving away that "surprise" early by dropping it in measure 59. Moreover, introducing a new element and taking away an old one simultaneously gives the impression that the piece is moving more quickly than if you had done these things sequentially, and I think the latter suits this piece better.

If the simile indication refers to the dynamics, it should go between the staves. (See my point on directives for second passes.)

I'd triple-check the last three pages to make sure there aren't any missing repeat bars. (I haven't checked thoroughly at all, but measures 109–112 and 125–128 look similar, etc.) It's not serious if there aren't any, but it's always nice to have one fewer page to deal with.

Finally (for now, anyway), most of your dynamics are too close to the surrounding measure bars, and you should check for missing courtesy accidentals (measure 9, etc.).

Rubato is noted.

I don't think I can do cross staving with Finale Allegro.

Do you mean changing whole notes into the duration up to whenever the other layer needs to be played? Would I need multiple layers in that case?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 2a volta / mordent.

I'll try to do the latter change.

Simile refers to the dynamics.

They don't repeat, there are some slight differences.

Dynamic thing is a little weird on my end. I tend to use playback heavily and whenever they're positioned more to the right they automatically move to the start of the measure, so I basically have it close so it's less annoying to see constantly. I can change it at the end though.

[Khunjund]

I don't think I can do cross staving with Finale Allegro.

I can do it for you, but it'll have to wait a bit.

Do you mean changing whole notes into the duration up to whenever the other layer needs to be played? Would I need multiple layers in that case?

The first D is a synth note that's sustained throughout the first two measures, right? In that case, I'd put a whole note D in measure one, and another whole note D in measure two, splitting what was one sustained note into two repeated notes.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 2a volta / mordent.

A trill is alternating repeatedly between two adjacent notes for its entire duration, whereas a mordent (which is what we have here) is a single, quick flutter between two such notes. Instead of writing out "play mordent the second time only", you could put parentheses around the symbol (the wavy line) and right next to it write 2a volta, which has the same meaning, but takes up less than half the space. You could choose to stick with English for aesthetic reasons, though.

Simile refers to the dynamics.

In that case, it should go between the staves to the right of the forte indication, where the dynamics it replaces are supposed to go. Maybe you could write out the dynamics in full for two systems and only use simile starting with the third iteration, just to make it extra clear.

Dynamic thing is a little weird on my end. I tend to use playback heavily and whenever they're positioned more to the right they automatically move to the start of the measure, so I basically have it close so it's less annoying to see constantly. I can change it at the end though.

You mean when you press play, everything placed with the expression tool gets displaced? That happens to me too, sometimes; doesn't everything go back to normal when you stop playback? In any case, the sheet should have priority over Finale playback, because it's the sheet that determines IRL playback. I think you're able to move dynamic symbols with the arrow keys to avoid moving their anchor points.

[PlayfulPiano]

I can do it for you, but it'll have to wait a bit.

The first D is a synth note that's sustained throughout the first two measures, right? In that case, I'd put a whole note D in measure one, and another whole note D in measure two, splitting what was one sustained note into two repeated notes.

A trill is alternating repeatedly between two adjacent notes for its entire duration, whereas a mordent (which is what we have here) is a single, quick flutter between two such notes. Instead of writing out "play mordent the second time only", you could put parentheses around the symbol (the wavy line) and right next to it write 2a volta, which has the same meaning, but takes up less than half the space. You could choose to stick with English for aesthetic reasons, though.

In that case, it should go between the staves to the right of the forte indication, where the dynamics it replaces are supposed to go. Maybe you could write out the dynamics in full for two systems and only use simile starting with the third iteration, just to make it extra clear.

You mean when you press play, everything placed with the expression tool gets displaced? That happens to me too, sometimes; doesn't everything go back to normal when you stop playback? In any case, the sheet should have priority over Finale playback, because it's the sheet that determines IRL playback. I think you're able to move dynamic symbols with the arrow keys to avoid having switch anchor points.

Sure, but at least that should be done last so any other changes can go through on my end before I lose accessibility (once the sheet goes past v2008ish, then I won't be able to access it through Finale Allegro anymore, only Notepad).

Alright, should the second whole note be softer then technically?

Ok that makes sense now, thanks for the explanation.


Yeah it only is an issue during playback, not while editing. It is frustrating to see though while edits are getting made though. I'll fix it.

[Khunjund]

Sure, but at least that should be done last so any other changes can go through on my end before I lose accessibility.

For sure. For now you can just move all the arpeggios to the bottom staff and use ledger lines.

Though you could always download a cracked version of Finale 2014, if you're not opposed to that sort of thing.

Alright, should the second whole note be softer then technically?

Not necessarily. For example, in the first two measures, the sustained D doesn't change in dynamic until it fades out during the last beat or so of measure 2; the natural decay of the piano should be sufficient here. In any case, you definitely don't want to start micromanaging and putting dynamic indications on every note where it's not necessary.

[Libera]

Bump for Playful.

[Latios212]

Archiving for inactivity as requested; feel free to resubmit with changes at a later time.