[DELETED] [MUL] Celeste: Farewell - "Beyond the Heart" by PlayfulPiano

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Other
Game: Celeste: Farewell
Console: Multiplatform
Title: Beyond the Heart
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: PlayfulPiano

[PlayfulPiano]

This is from the new DLC of Celeste (titled Celeste: Farewell on the OST which is why the game title in the sheets were mentioned as such. The DLC is only one level but has 40 minutes of music in its own OST, but this can be changed to just Celeste if needed).

I did this entire thing in one day by ear and I feel so freaking accomplished for it. Nothing should be impossible to play, although parts can be pretty difficult with different rhythms.

THIS GAME IS SO FREAKING GOOD, BLESS LENA RAINE


edit: did a quick fix of some dynamic positions, been rushing a little all day to finish this

[LeviR.star]

Do you mind if I ask what you use to export your PDFs? They always look a little blurry to me.

[PlayfulPiano]

Do you mind if I ask what you use to export your PDFs? They always look a little blurry to me.

Print to PDF.

[Zeila]

I like it, and the song is nice too. Here are some things I've noticed:

Formatting:

• The beaming is weird and for future reference you should only beam sixteenth note divisions across a single beat (and thus dotted eighth notes shouldn't start on off beats extending over the next one). Also, people generally don't use dotted rests in non-compound time signatures. Luckily it's super easy to just rebeam everything when Finale automatically does it when you switch time signatures if you choose to rebar everything, so you shouldn't waste your time fixing this sheet in that regard when someone else can while fixing the subtitle and stuff
• I find it strange that you opted to use layers for m31+ but not m62+ where I think it's more important. If you still don't want to use layers because of any potential messiness then you should slur the melody notes together to make it more obvious and distinguishable rather than just accents (and speaking of accents, they're not always on the melody notes anyways like with m67 where beat 3 shouldn't be accented). This is all under the assumption that you keep both parts in the RH

Notes:

• I'm assuming you want to go for a different feel in the beginning by adding a pedal, but I think it would be better to stick with how the original is in the beginning by keeping the notes staccato'd. Plus, you don't really need to add a third octave in measures 3-6, so you can just have the LH play the second layer. Actually looking at the rest of the piece, there are other places that could use more staccato's too like the section at m55, and you could probably add more accents too to spice things up with the ostinato
• m2 the glissando should start on beat 4.5 instead of 4.75
• m7-8 LH the D should be a B (so the chord would go F A B C from lowest to highest), and in m8 the last beat sounds like the chords just land on beats 4 and 4.75; also in general I think it's better to keep the chords consistent instead of raising them on the last sixteenth notes
• m9-10 LH I think the G should be an octave higher and it's also missing a C
• m15-21 LH the part you came up with does not coincide with the bass note like the other ones do, so you could either adjust the first two sixteenth notes accordingly or just write out the full arpeggio
• m34 I think you should add the lead in to m35 as grace notes
• m48-49 the rhythm is wrong as the first two octaves are of quarter note length, so F comes on beat 4.5 and D comes on beat 1.5
• speaking of that section, I think you can add some of the arpeggios to the RH when it's not doing anything
• m55 the LH is inaccurate and sounds something like this (although to me the first note is kind of iffy):
  
  Spoiler

  

  [close]
  I get if you wanted to simplify it, but part of it was note inaccuracy and another part is that some of it (like beat 4) is unnecessary imo
• m56 LH I think it would be better to include the piano part for beats 1 and 2 while using the cello/bass or whatever for the rest of it
• m68 I think resolving the melody should have a higher priority than the ostinato so the first note should be a B instead
• m66+ I think you can rethink this section a little in terms of what you include and how you write it out. For example, you never included any chords alongside the melody, and there are certain parts where the ostinato in the RH interferes too much imo (like m73). Being more creative with it could also lead to a more substantial buildup. Here's an example of what I mean by changing things up:
  
  Spoiler

  

  [close]
  You don't have to follow this at all, especially since it gets kind of busy, but just take it as an example. Also it might be better to bring out the layers in increments even if they all come in at m66, so leaving simple chords from m66-73 and introducing the arpeggios in m74 could work too. Disregarding arrangement choices, the ostinato isn't just straight octaves and it actually alternates between low and high

That's all I feel like doing atm, but I hope this helps! Also about the DLC question, I think it's fine to keep it separate if there's a specific name attached like with how Shovel Knight: Plague of Shadows is different. If you follow the conventions of that example, then you should list this sheet under the game "Celeste: Farewell," especially since you said there are 40 minutes worth of music. But I guess you should wait to change it in case other people feel differently

[PlayfulPiano]

I like it, and the song is nice too. Here are some things I've noticed:

Formatting:

• The beaming is weird and for future reference you should only beam sixteenth note divisions across a single beat (and thus dotted eighth notes shouldn't start on off beats extending over the next one). Also, people generally don't use dotted rests in non-compound time signatures. Luckily it's super easy to just rebeam everything when Finale automatically does it when you switch time signatures if you choose to rebar everything, so you shouldn't waste your time fixing this sheet in that regard when someone else can while fixing the subtitle and stuff
• I find it strange that you opted to use layers for m31+ but not m62+ where I think it's more important. If you still don't want to use layers because of any potential messiness then you should slur the melody notes together to make it more obvious and distinguishable rather than just accents (and speaking of accents, they're not always on the melody notes anyways like with m67 where beat 3 shouldn't be accented). This is all under the assumption that you keep both parts in the RH

Notes:

• I'm assuming you want to go for a different feel in the beginning by adding a pedal, but I think it would be better to stick with how the original is in the beginning by keeping the notes staccato'd. Plus, you don't really need to add a third octave in measures 3-6, so you can just have the LH play the second layer. Actually looking at the rest of the piece, there are other places that could use more staccato's too like the section at m55, and you could probably add more accents too to spice things up with the ostinato
• m2 the glissando should start on beat 4.5 instead of 4.75
• m7-8 LH the D should be a B (so the chord would go F A B C from lowest to highest), and in m8 the last beat sounds like the chords just land on beats 4 and 4.75; also in general I think it's better to keep the chords consistent instead of raising them on the last sixteenth notes
• m9-10 LH I think the G should be an octave higher and it's also missing a C
• m15-21 LH the part you came up with does not coincide with the bass note like the other ones do, so you could either adjust the first two sixteenth notes accordingly or just write out the full arpeggio
• m34 I think you should add the lead in to m35 as grace notes
• m48-49 the rhythm is wrong as the first two octaves are of quarter note length, so F comes on beat 4.5 and D comes on beat 1.5
• speaking of that section, I think you can add some of the arpeggios to the RH when it's not doing anything
• m55 the LH is inaccurate and sounds something like this (although to me the first note is kind of iffy):
  
  Spoiler

  

  [close]
  I get if you wanted to simplify it, but part of it was note inaccuracy and another part is that some of it (like beat 4) is unnecessary imo
• m56 LH I think it would be better to include the piano part for beats 1 and 2 while using the cello/bass or whatever for the rest of it
• m68 I think resolving the melody should have a higher priority than the ostinato so the first note should be a B instead
• m66+ I think you can rethink this section a little in terms of what you include and how you write it out. For example, you never included any chords alongside the melody, and there are certain parts where the ostinato in the RH interferes too much imo (like m73). Being more creative with it could also lead to a more substantial buildup. Here's an example of what I mean by changing things up:
  
  Spoiler

  

  [close]
  You don't have to follow this at all, especially since it gets kind of busy, but just take it as an example. Also it might be better to bring out the layers in increments even if they all come in at m66, so leaving simple chords from m66-73 and introducing the arpeggios in m74 could work too. Disregarding arrangement choices, the ostinato isn't just straight octaves and it actually alternates between low and high

That's all I feel like doing atm, but I hope this helps! Also about the DLC question, I think it's fine to keep it separate if there's a specific name attached like with how Shovel Knight: Plague of Shadows is different. If you follow the conventions of that example, then you should list this sheet under the game "Celeste: Farewell," especially since you said there are 40 minutes worth of music. But I guess you should wait to change it in case other people feel differently

Thanks so much for all this feedback. The layering made it hard for me to get some of the notes right so I hoped that people here could catch my mistakes

-Just rebarred everything via the massedit option. Do you think it's better to have the first LH note in for example m7 to not be barred with the rest since it's the low octave intro to the measure?
-I initially tried doing layers but it became really messy on my end when some of the melody notes broke the spacing for the accompaniment layer. Could try doing something with that while hiding overlapping rests, maybe.

-Which part do you think should be staccato'd in the beginning? The pedal usage is mainly because of the strong LH notes initiating each measure, although a sos marker could work too (idk how that's written though). The third octave was what I heard when listening to it (low is strings, med is pad, high is piano).
-Will change, did that initially to keep the two sixteenths at the end.
-Thanks for catching that. The last sixteenth was based on what I was hearing in the audio, can change though.
-Will try that and see how it sounds. Initially thought it was a Gsus2 which would follow with the Asus2. Edit: Tried it, high G doesn't fit but the C works. Thing's an upward progression so the high G was out of place.
-Honestly the m15-22 section I felt was the more accurate one vs m23-m29, unless you disagree. Either way, how would you recommend changing the two sixteenths? Also, I initially did the full arpeggio but it sounded too busy and muted the RH audio a bit on playback (isn't a good thing to do I know, but I generally do judge things on audio playback).
-Will add.
-Will correct.
-I've had trouble in the past of over-including everything in my arrangements, so I wanted to take a more straight melody/accompiment approach similar to bespinben's primal dialga solo arrangement. That's why I didn't try including the arpeggios in the RH.
-I think the f being the first note is right, but otherwise thanks.
-Can't tell if the first two beats for piano are the same as the previous measure, plus I do like having the C --> F bass/cello included. Maybe only beat 1 can work?
-Will change.
-By any chance could you send an audio of that? Want to hear how it sounds before trying it out. In regards to having it all at once, I do want to keep it as close to accurate as possible to the original, so personal preference I would want to avoid modifying that progression.

[Zeila]

Thanks so much for all this feedback. The layering made it hard for me to get some of the notes right so I hoped that people here could catch my mistakes

You're welcome! :3

-Just rebarred everything via the massedit option. Do you think it's better to have the first LH note in for example m7 to not be barred with the rest since it's the low octave intro to the measure?

The mass edit is even easier yeah, I forgot that was a thing. But about m7+, if you want to include it then making it a separate layer would work best imo

-Which part do you think should be staccato'd in the beginning? The pedal usage is mainly because of the strong LH notes initiating each measure, although a sos marker could work too (idk how that's written though). The third octave was what I heard when listening to it (low is strings, med is pad, high is piano).

I mean the third octave is there, it's just that in order to keep the bass part playing while keeping the staccatos, there would only be 2 octaves. Here's a picture:

staccato + layer example

[close]

-Honestly the m15-22 section I felt was the more accurate one vs m23-m29, unless you disagree. Either way, how would you recommend changing the two sixteenths? Also, I initially did the full arpeggio but it sounded too busy and muted the RH audio a bit on playback (isn't a good thing to do I know, but I generally do judge things on audio playback).

The bass notes actually fall on what you had as the second note, so in m15-16 it's an A, then G, then F. And I would have the second sixteenth note be what the arpeggio actually plays (which is a C throughout m15-20). Also, I meant m15-20 instead of m15-21/22, the bass notes were correct there. In m27 and 28 it goes back to Bb so those two measures are inaccurate too, and in measure 30 it's an A. Also instead of octaves for the eighth notes in m21+, you could have those be the last notes that the arpeggio plays

-Can't tell if the first two beats for piano are the same as the previous measure, plus I do like having the C --> F bass/cello included. Maybe only beat 1 can work?

That's fine

-By any chance could you send an audio of that? Want to hear how it sounds before trying it out. In regards to having it all at once, I do want to keep it as close to accurate as possible to the original, so personal preference I would want to avoid modifying that progression.

Here's a mus file that you can play around with, although the articulations are messed up for older versions of Finale

[PlayfulPiano]

You're welcome! :3
The mass edit is even easier yeah, I forgot that was a thing. But about m7+, if you want to include it then making it a separate layer would work best imo
I mean the third octave is there, it's just that in order to keep the bass part playing while keeping the staccatos, there would only be 2 octaves. Here's a picture:

staccato + layer example

[close]

The bass notes actually fall on what you had as the second note, so in m15-16 it's an A, then G, then F. And I would have the second sixteenth note be what the arpeggio actually plays (which is a C throughout m15-20). Also, I meant m15-20 instead of m15-21/22, the bass notes were correct there. In m27 and 28 it goes back to Bb so those two measures are inaccurate too, and in measure 30 it's an A. Also instead of octaves for the eighth notes in m21+, you could have those be the last notes that the arpeggio plays

That's fine
Here's a mus file that you can play around with, although the articulations are messed up for older versions of Finale

-Wasn't sure if I could do the whole notes second layer thing for the initial note, so thanks.
-I see, what if that whole RH was brought down an octave? Would also fit with how the top note coincides with the single a at the end of the section.
-Thanks. I'll see to correct that section. What you have in the .mus you sent should be how I change it right?
-Alright, I'll do that first beat again then.


Edit: Portal updated with new changes.

[PlayfulPiano]

Quick update:

m66+: I think I got the base chord progression wrong, so now I *think* it's more accurate, although I'm still unsure. If someone can give me the actual chords on the base end, that would be really great. Besides that, I also separated the left hand layers for the chords / arpeggios as well as made the dynamics a bit better I believe.
Also this is now listed as its own game due to it being 40min of DLC music.

Edit: Talked with a friend and discussed the progression, updated the sheets again with it probably being right now (FCA --> EBG --> AEB --> GEB).

[mastersuperfan]

I would move the segno in m3 to be directly over the barline, or closer to it.

Why not have the LH starting from on pages 2-3 play the four-note motifs every beat instead of simplifying it to three notes? I think the continuous rhythm contributes a lot to the driving force of the track, and I don't think it should be too hard to play considering that the notes are close together. The same goes for pages 5-6 (I still think the four-note rhythms would be better), but the three-note simplification works better here than on pages 2-3.

m27, RH beat 3.5: the A sounds like it should be moved an octave up.

It sounds like there are some more embellishments in the RH in page 3 that you haven't written out. I would think about adding them, but if those were omitting for playability concerns with the two layers, then that makes sense too.

m36 RH, check the rhythm in Layer 2—it should be the same as in m37 (last note is an 8th on beat 4.5).

I would tie the whole note in m51 over into the next measure. Sames goes for m108, and any other places I may have missed.

I think m55-61 (and its later reoccurrence in m114-120) could use some articulations (slurs, accents, staccatos), especially with the staccato-y piano notes and the strong, thick strings. In m58 especially, the RH is carrying several different instruments at different points in the measure, and I think the articulations are really necessary to phrase the melody the way you want.

Is there any reason that you suddenly cut out the octaves in the middle of m59? I think it would be a lot better for that high voice to keep going. Also, I'm not hearing the Bb harmony in the RH beat 3 of m59—I hear an F as the harmony instead (so I would write a D-F-D chord there and keep the octaves going).

Kind of subjective, but I hear m60 as 2/4 and m61 as 4/4 instead of the other way around. I'm not sure it makes much of a difference either way.

Staccato in RH m73 is somehow above the RH note on beat 3.25 despite there being no Layer 2.

Dynamic is almost colliding with the RH notes in m74; I would move it down a bit.

There's a missing grace note on beat 1 of m86 (I think it should still be playable even with the octave).

I think it's worth keeping the RH syncopated rhythm in m97 (F starts on beat 3.5 instead of beat 3), and maybe in m93-94 and m108 (and maybe in a few other places) as well.

I don't know if I'm hearing things, but I think there's a really faint G on beat 4.5 in the RH of m97.

Beat 4.5 of m101 RH sounds like two 16th notes (F and G) rather than an 8th note to me.

I'm not hearing the first note in the RH of m103—it sounds like the last note from m102 is still being tied over.

m105 RH beat 4 should have an A, and then the octave in beat 4.5 is playing A's instead of G's. I would move the octave on beat 4.5 down an octave so that it can jump up to the octave in m106.

You may or may not want to add a grace note to the RH octave in m110.

[PlayfulPiano]

I would move the segno in m3 to be directly over the barline, or closer to it.

Why not have the LH starting from on pages 2-3 play the four-note motifs every beat instead of simplifying it to three notes? I think the continuous rhythm contributes a lot to the driving force of the track, and I don't think it should be too hard to play considering that the notes are close together. The same goes for pages 5-6 (I still think the four-note rhythms would be better), but the three-note simplification works better here than on pages 2-3.

m27, RH beat 3.5: the A sounds like it should be moved an octave up.

It sounds like there are some more embellishments in the RH in page 3 that you haven't written out. I would think about adding them, but if those were omitting for playability concerns with the two layers, then that makes sense too.

m36 RH, check the rhythm in Layer 2—it should be the same as in m37 (last note is an 8th on beat 4.5).

I would tie the whole note in m51 over into the next measure. Sames goes for m108, and any other places I may have missed.

I think m55-61 (and its later reoccurrence in m114-120) could use some articulations (slurs, accents, staccatos), especially with the staccato-y piano notes and the strong, thick strings. In m58 especially, the RH is carrying several different instruments at different points in the measure, and I think the articulations are really necessary to phrase the melody the way you want.

Is there any reason that you suddenly cut out the octaves in the middle of m59? I think it would be a lot better for that high voice to keep going. Also, I'm not hearing the Bb harmony in the RH beat 3 of m59—I hear an F as the harmony instead (so I would write a D-F-D chord there and keep the octaves going).

Kind of subjective, but I hear m60 as 2/4 and m61 as 4/4 instead of the other way around. I'm not sure it makes much of a difference either way.

Staccato in RH m73 is somehow above the RH note on beat 3.25 despite there being no Layer 2.

Dynamic is almost colliding with the RH notes in m74; I would move it down a bit.

There's a missing grace note on beat 1 of m86 (I think it should still be playable even with the octave).

I think it's worth keeping the RH syncopated rhythm in m97 (F starts on beat 3.5 instead of beat 3), and maybe in m93-94 and m108 (and maybe in a few other places) as well.

I don't know if I'm hearing things, but I think there's a really faint G on beat 4.5 in the RH of m97.

Beat 4.5 of m101 RH sounds like two 16th notes (F and G) rather than an 8th note to me.

I'm not hearing the first note in the RH of m103—it sounds like the last note from m102 is still being tied over.

m105 RH beat 4 should have an A, and then the octave in beat 4.5 is playing A's instead of G's. I would move the octave on beat 4.5 down an octave so that it can jump up to the octave in m106.

You may or may not want to add a grace note to the RH octave in m110.

-Done

-4 beat rhythm sounded too loud on playback to me for the left hand which was why I simplified it to a 3 beat, although that can be changed. Personally find the left hand lacking a bit in the first place anyways, and feels kind of not in line with the theming of the accompaniment in the original. Maybe something similar to the 4 beat path but combined with the violin could work? I'm just not entirely sure what notes are accurate to it.

-Octave is definitely correct as is, leitmotif is shaped as shown.

-Personally only heard the two melodies so I find that to be fine.

-Thanks for catching that.

-How would you recommend implementing the articulations?

-Honestly, m59-61 is a very rough ear reading, so it probably isn't that accurate. I added in some right hand octaves and did the correction although it probably still needs some improvements.

-Actually I hear m59 as the 2/4 now but m60/61 are 4/4. Not sure if it's important to change though.

-You mean the accent right? Don't know why honestly, blame finale allegro.

-Done.

-Added.

-I feel like the unevenness grabs the person a bit more and what Lena was going for in this section, so I'm not sure about making this change.

-No G.

-Thanks, added.

-It's faint but I can hear it, i'll take out the accent though.

-Yeah I hear what you mean, got that corrected.

-Will do that, it's simple enough.

Portal's updated.

[PlayfulPiano]

Yeah, I feel extremely unsatisfied with the left hand between m15 and m46, it just doesn't match with the original in feel and support of the melody. I know that m59-m61 is basically just a note inaccuracy issue but otherwise is correct in terms of structure and rhythm, but I just really dislike how 15-46's direction is, and I don't know how to transcribe it right nor what notes to use.

To me at least the feel seems to be based around the initial violin followed by a softer arpeggio of the pads, but the violin I can't really understand the notes exactly.


Edit: Portal updated again 4PM EST, Libera helped out a bunch in discord so I made a lot more changes overall. Should be much better now.

[PlayfulPiano]

Alright so I've been playing the current arrangement as is on piano, and there's been a few parts which I feel doesn't fit right in terms of the arrangement on its own. Some of these things can potentially contradict some earlier feedback given, but it just feels like a better call to me. I won't update the portal with these changes, although I'll attach the alternative in this post though. But overall, I do think this is better for the arrangement.
Changes:
m7-m10 and repeating: fabc chord becomes an fac chord, gacd chord becomes a gad chord (Reasoning: only the first two chords in this section were using 4 notes rather than 3 in the chord, and in turn feels muddier to me.)
m8 and repeating: last beat left hand is now just two eighth notes rather than an eighth and two sixteenths (Reasoning: consistency for the arrangement.)
m19-m20 and m35-m36: fcde arpeggio changed to an fabc arpeggio (Reasoning: this felt unnatural compared to the rest of the section.)
m31-m44: moved left hand up an octave & made it treble clef.
m46: A octave changed to a pre-tied A into an E (actual correction)
m55-m56 and m114-m115: left hand simplified greatly into a staccato F --> G --> F (Reasoning: While accurate, the entirety of that left hand in combination to the right feels out of place due to its completion in context of the rest of the arrangement. Since this arrangement is meant to capture the entire track, all instruments included, this section of just the piano feels oversaturated in comparison. In turn, I felt that it should be simplified in the left hand to diminish it somewhat so it fits better with the arrangement)
m62-m73: right hand a is moved up an octave.
m66-m89: left hand arpeggios now 4 notes instead of 3 (as suggested beforehand).
m66-m89: revamped somewhat, left hand arpeggio now occurs for verses 1 and 2, whereas right hand a beat occurs for verses 2 (non octave) and 3 (Reasoning: Currently this section is extremely heavy which doesn't quite fit with the original's intention, not to mention that it is extremely difficult to play. This gradual change is also based on the volume for both in the original.)
m78: added grace note in right hand (d/e)
m81: right hand now has an audible c --> a of the melody (correction)
m82: first beat for the a octave now is a glissando (correction)
m90-m105: left hand top chords are now fac gad abe gbe (correction)

MUS: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1bdwaqjay5_9mtRn_4-qn1psdR-Poc_Br

MIDI: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1N2RWYc3N6XBD3RLE94WBGG-_FUMhfFMn

PDF: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1WFdlXioGL8bpBwzCV1dK_mnSYj6FgISJ

Edit: Note that for the above links, make sure you clicked on it after 9/20/19 at 8:50PM EST. The file was updated a few times after catching a few things in post.

[PlayfulPiano]

Quick update on the links above - decided to push the left hand a bit by making it a 1/5/10th chords for m66+ but adding an arppeggio articulation to the chords based on NSM standard.
Also fixed some dynamic mistakes.

[Libera]

Ok here we go, I might have a lot to say so bear with me.  You've currently got two different files running concurrently which is ... kind of confusing but I'm just going to comment on the most recent one.

-I definitely disagree with the changes to the harmony in bars 7-10 and similar places further on.  I feel like the dissonance in those opening chords is what gives this piece a lot of its tension (along with the ostinato rhythm itself) and just a F chord in bar 7-8 doesn't really do the trick I don't think.  Personally I'd just keep it as you had it F add4 in bars 7-8 and Gsus4 add2 in bar 9-10.
-The left hand in bar 19-20 is F C D E, not F A B C.
-The left hand in bar 29 should be E C D E, not E A B D.
-Check bars 31-44 again for the right hand.  There's lots of wrong rhythms, extra notes, missed notes, flipped layers.  It's probably worth thinking about this section a bit again though as you often have very large intervals between the top and bottom notes in the right hand.  Sometimes it works well (like bar 35) but sometimes a countermelody that sits along with the melody for a lot of the time can be more trouble than it's worth to keep.  (Heterophonic textures do not work well on piano, at least not to my knowledge anyway.)
-The bottom system on page 3 needs respacing as the bass clef is currently obscured behind notes.
-Generally speaking, across the whole sheet the slurs need tinkering with to avoid collisions with other articulations.
-From bar 7 to bar 54, every single right hand note has an accent on it.  This is not really a good use of articulations and could be achieved by using a different dynamic for the right hand (or just by knowing that performers will clearly articulate the melody above the accompaniment without assistance via notation.)  I'm guessing you did it because it makes the playback sound better, but playback should never inform how a sheet looks; you can just hide all of those accents and the playback will still be satisfactory.  (This doesn't just apply to 7-54 by the way, just that was the most egregious example.)
-You could reduce the number of pages by taking a lot of the places where you have two bars per system and swapping them to three bars per system.  At the moment, some bits of the sheet feel very spread out (bars 7-14 for example) whereas others are much denser (bars 15-46).  Spreading everything out more is not really what we want to do since this sheet is already 9 pages long, so it makes more sense to condense the spread out sections.  (Bear in mind that doing this will undoubtedly require some ties to be edited in the bigger chords.)
-On every page after the first, the bottom is awkwardly empty.  I would suggest spreading out the systems better, or trying to go from 5 systems per page to 6 systems per page (which might also help you lose a page in the process).  If you want to try going to 6 systems per page then you'll likely need to mess with the inner space between staves which you currently have set to 1.1 inches
-Bars 55-57 (and also 114-116) is easily the trickiest section of the piece to make work.  The way the piano was presented earlier certainly made this section very awkward and tricky, but now with it gone it's a bit tame.  I'm not 100% sure what the best thing to do is, but if you want to keep it as you have it I'd highly recommend using lots of articulations for those bars.  If it is played plainly, it will be boring and the performer could really do with some help to make it interesting: slurs and staccatos etc.  I think perhaps msf suggested something similar above.
-The G in the right hand of bar 56 should be an F.
-The end of bar 58 sounds a bit fancier to me.  Like this:

Spoiler

You cannot view this attachment.

[close]

-I think the E at the end of 59 should be an octave up.
-Here's my suggestion for bar 60-61.

Spoiler

You cannot view this attachment.

[close]

I preserve the contour of the melody going into bar 60 (moving up to the D rather than down to it) and I include harmony / voice the chords a little more evenly.  (Missing G in bar 60 beat 3 and missing B on both chords in bar 61).  I also don't drop the bass an octave on beat 3 in bar 61 because I don't hear that in the original.
-Slurs should go to the final note in a tie.  i.e. in bar 67 the slur should go to the semibreve in bar 68 instead.  This applies to 75-80 as well.
-I understand the intent behind the first beat in the left hand in bars like 15, 16 etc.  My understanding is that you're trying to mirror the lower string line and then move to the synth on beat 2, but I'm not convinced entirely on how effective it is.  Firstly, it's not particularly accurate as the what that lower string line does changes a lot and it's never just as simple as what you've written, but more importantly I think it gives the accompaniment a kind of stilted feel compared to the original.  Feel free to disagree with me, but I'd suggest thinking about it again or simply just only taking the synth line like you do in later bars (27 etc.)
-The dynamic placement in 73-74 needs cleaning up a little.  At the moment the dynamics aren't placed close enough to the staff they apply to so they kind of look like they're randomly placed on the sheet.
-Speaking of the dynamics, I think that pages 5-6 need a bit of a rethink.  Splitting dynamics is usually ok in small amounts but you need to be careful because it can quickly become very confusing to the reader/performer.  People aren't as good as the playback at remembering exactly what dynamic each hand is meant to be all the time.  For example, you could place the piano dynamic in the centre at bar 66, then place the mp above the staff on beat 3 of bar 67.  The crescendo in bar 73 shouldn't start at the start of the bar since there's nothing on the top staff place there.  In fact, I wouldn't even put a crescendo at all since it only applies to a single note.  Then I think I'd restate that the left hand should still be piano in bar 74 (put the dynamics in brackets) and I'd do a similar thing for the right hand in bar 82.  It'll just make it a lot easier to follow, without having to constantly refer back to previous bars.
-The chords in the ostinato in bars 90-105 don't sound right to me.  I haven't worked them exactly but it sounds like they alternate between Fadd#4 and Gadd2 although there might be some Em7 later on.  Definitely check these again.
-Once again, check the rhythms in the right hand in 90-113.  Some of them aren't quite right, like the A in bar 105 should be on beat 4, not beat 4.5.
-All my previous comments about 55-61 apply to the 114-120 as well.
-I think the chord at the start of bar 62 should be inverted down once.  It sounds like it's an E on top, not an A.
-I don't think the chords in bars 66 onwards are quite right either.  The bass notes should go something like F -> E -> D -> C -> D -> C -> D -> E - > F - > C -> D -> E (taking you all the way up to bar 90).  I'd have another go at these.  Especially in 82 onwards where we haven't got anything else going on, it's important to get the harmonies right.
-The D.S. al coda at the end looks like it's been written in a different font or something?  I don't quite know what's happened there.
-I'd consider dropping the lower octave in the grace note in bar 110.  It's just quite awkward to play it like that.
-In bars 82-89 you mix the melody in with the ostinato which is not particularly easy to read.  I see you used slurs to some extent to alleviate the problem, but I think the best solution is to continue to use two layers here to distinguish them from one another.
-I'm not sure I quite understand the intent behind dropping the semiquavers in bars 82-89.  It feels like we're building up here (all the way from 62 to the end) but losing that motion seems to work against that.  Zeila suggested earlier doing the exact opposite of this, which was introducing the semiquavers later on and leaving them out at the start, which I think would potentially make more sense.  It's definitely worth having another think about this whole build up section to make sure that we're representing it in the best possible way.
-It might be worth pointing out that the glissando in bar 2-3 is actually an octave higher.  You might not want to have the ostinato at that height though, so I can understand keeping it lower if you want.
-Celeste is still published by Matt Makes Games I believe, so I think that's what should be on the copyright.
-Since there is no game entitled Celeste: Farewell, I really think that this should just be titled under Celeste.  The DLC doesn't have a separate release or anything anyway, it's just free content added to the original game.

If you need any help on particulars or want me to go more in depth with something I've said then please ask.  I hope the feedback helps!

Do you mind if I ask what you use to export your PDFs? They always look a little blurry to me.

Yes, Static just pointed this out to me as well.  It doesn't look like the pdfs of your sheets currently on site so something funny is going on.  If you need me to I can export a pdf for you at the end so it doesn't do this.