[PC] Minecraft - "Infinite Amethyst" by PlayfulPiano

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Other
Game: Minecraft
Console: PC
Title: Infinite Amethyst
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: PlayfulPiano

[attachment deleted by admin]

[PlayfulPiano]

Yeah so uh Lena decided to bless us with more minecraft tracks and out of all of them this is probably one of the easier ones to transcribe.

m19-m28 has an added like echo layer that I wasn't really able to figure out an easy way to arrange/transcribe into the right hand, so I decided to leave it to just the melody. If anyone has ideas on how to implement it then sure I can go add it, but otherwise it should be fine.

[Whoppybones]

This arrangement looks really nice, and the song is beautiful! I have a few things I'd like to bring to your attention.
  - In measures 3, 5, and 7, I'm hearing a really quiet undertone that lasts for about a beat.
  - m29, there's kind of a pulsing layer. I'm assuming you're leaving that out intentionally?
  - m62 b2, I'm hearing a transition to a G from the upper F.
  - m70 b3, I hear a D in the RH.
  - m75, I hear a G in the LH.

Once again, this arrangement is gorgeous! Wonderful job!

[PlayfulPiano]

This arrangement looks really nice, and the song is beautiful! I have a few things I'd like to bring to your attention.
  - In measures 3, 5, and 7, I'm hearing a really quiet undertone that lasts for about a beat.
  - m29, there's kind of a pulsing layer. I'm assuming you're leaving that out intentionally?
  - m62 b2, I'm hearing a transition to a G from the upper F.
  - m70 b3, I hear a D in the RH.
  - m75, I hear a G in the LH.

Once again, this arrangement is gorgeous! Wonderful job!

-I can't really hear the undertone here, might it be the synth effect that you're hearing?
-When you mean a pulsing layer do you mean the first like two measures having a continued echo? If so, then I purposefully excluded it since this section I feel should just be the RH octave.
-I tried implementing that as best as I could figure out pitch wise.
-Fixed, also tbh removed the octave aspect in m71/m72 as well in the RH.
-Fixed

Thanks, updated.

[Bloop]

more calming minecraft vibes, nice!

-m29: Although the melody is played in octaves in the original, it sounds emptier than the single notes before. Maybe you could remove the lower octave of the melody to make it sound a bit emptier, or you could add a here.
-m39: Instead of a metric modulation, you could just keep it at the original tempo and write the tuplet figure in sextuplet 16ths:

Spoiler

You cannot view this attachment.

[close]

(measure numbers in this post will still refer to the non-changed ones though). If you really wanna keep the metric modulation, you should change the quarter note tied to half notes every second bar (of the 4-bar phrase) to dotted half notes.
Also, about these tuplets: it's pretty hard to go to the first note after the bass note, maybe you could either just remove this one or put it between brackets/shrink the notehead to show it's optional. Going back from the last tuplet note is a bit easier, but you may wanna bracket/shrink/remove this one too for even easier playability.
-m55 and on: I see you added some extra notes to the 4th and 5th note in the melody, but every 4th note should have an Ab (at least, it's there in the original in the second voice). Maybe you could change the G on beat 4 in m55 and and m63 to Ab? I'm also doubting whether I like the parellel Ab to Eb chords in m59-60 and m67-68, but if you wanna keep it, that's alright too.
-m62: Did you add the top notes on beats 2 and 4 here? I don't hear them in the original and I feel they distract from the actual extra voice that is there. Maybe something like this would work a bit better:
You cannot view this attachment.
-m70: I hear an Eb on top of beat 3 instead of a D. In isolation the Eb sounds really off, but in context it does work. Maybe you could add a high D to m71 too, so this Eb resolves nicely to that D.
-m71: It's hard to hear what the electric piano chord in this part is under all the fade-out-stuff, but maybe it'd make sense to add the G in the L.H. too like all other chords? Also, dynamically, I think you can put this whole page in . I don't feel like m79 is that much softer than what happens before, and the contrast between and would be a bit bigger.

[PlayfulPiano]

more calming minecraft vibes, nice!

-m29: Although the melody is played in octaves in the original, it sounds emptier than the single notes before. Maybe you could remove the lower octave of the melody to make it sound a bit emptier, or you could add a here.
-m39: Instead of a metric modulation, you could just keep it at the original tempo and write the tuplet figure in sextuplet 16ths:

Spoiler

You cannot view this attachment.

[close]

(measure numbers in this post will still refer to the non-changed ones though). If you really wanna keep the metric modulation, you should change the quarter note tied to half notes every second bar (of the 4-bar phrase) to dotted half notes.
Also, about these tuplets: it's pretty hard to go to the first note after the bass note, maybe you could either just remove this one or put it between brackets/shrink the notehead to show it's optional. Going back from the last tuplet note is a bit easier, but you may wanna bracket/shrink/remove this one too for even easier playability.
-m55 and on: I see you added some extra notes to the 4th and 5th note in the melody, but every 4th note should have an Ab (at least, it's there in the original in the second voice). Maybe you could change the G on beat 4 in m55 and and m63 to Ab? I'm also doubting whether I like the parellel Ab to Eb chords in m59-60 and m67-68, but if you wanna keep it, that's alright too.
-m62: Did you add the top notes on beats 2 and 4 here? I don't hear them in the original and I feel they distract from the actual extra voice that is there. Maybe something like this would work a bit better:
You cannot view this attachment.
-m70: I hear an Eb on top of beat 3 instead of a D. In isolation the Eb sounds really off, but in context it does work. Maybe you could add a high D to m71 too, so this Eb resolves nicely to that D.
-m71: It's hard to hear what the electric piano chord in this part is under all the fade-out-stuff, but maybe it'd make sense to add the G in the L.H. too like all other chords? Also, dynamically, I think you can put this whole page in . I don't feel like m79 is that much softer than what happens before, and the contrast between and would be a bit bigger.

-honestly I would prefer making m19-m28 more complex with the echo layer (which I can't really figure out how to implement well) over changing m29-m38. Not sure what the space is meant to be between "add a" and "here", but i'm gathering it's a dynamic change. If you have a possible suggestion for the echo layer though I'm all ears.

-I wasn't exactly sure how to implement this w/o metric modulation and it not looking squished (nice job in the screenshot for reference), but also I do think it's nicer to have it modulated so a performer can better visualize the pulse of the beat during this fast pace section. I'll make the dotted half change though.

-Are you sure about that Ab? Because then it wouldn't match with the pattern the track has had in past phrases (first melody repeat being Bb, second melody repeat being Ab).

-I was having trouble figuring out the exact pitches of the quieter section while also including the continuing melody with the new chording. I was basically hearing a combination of the F --> G --> Ab --> G while also having a higher D --> C --> C --> Bb up top. At least when I was listening to this.

-For m70, I had it like how you described it I think (Eb/G/Eb chord) but then based on whoopy's feedback the actual b3 chord had a base of a D. It sounded like it staircased down very slightly, hence why I made it G --> F for the middle note of the triad. Since then I don't really hear that Eb in the right hand chord anymore.

-Looks like there's that weird empty space again between "whole page in" and ".". I'll add the G though.


Updated with the dotted half / G addition changes.

[Bloop]

oh huh, I wanted to try using pictures of dynamic markings instead of italicized letters, but maybe I'm the only one who can see those and I just didn't notice (they're media.discordapp.net images). This was what I meant:

-m29: Although the melody is played in octaves in the original, it sounds emptier than the single notes before. Maybe you could remove the lower octave of the melody to make it sound a bit emptier, or you could add a p here.
-m71: It's hard to hear what the electric piano chord in this part is under all the fade-out-stuff, but maybe it'd make sense to add the G in the L.H. too like all other chords? Also, dynamically, I think you can put this whole page in p. I don't feel like m79 is that much softer than what happens before, and the contrast between p and f would be a bit bigger.

(maybe this does work though: You cannot view this attachment. and You cannot view this attachment.)

-honestly I would prefer making m19-m28 more complex with the echo layer (which I can't really figure out how to implement well) over changing m29-m38.

I think it's fine without the echo: the delay feels a bit random, and adding it to the sheet might just make it a bit too messy to hear the difference between the two. Going with a p at m29 would work enough though, so it's clear that it should be at a lower dynamic than the part before.

-I wasn't exactly sure how to implement this w/o metric modulation and it not looking squished (nice job in the screenshot for reference), but also I do think it's nicer to have it modulated so a performer can better visualize the pulse of the beat during this fast pace section. I'll make the dotted half change though.

Just going by 2 un-modulated measures per system it is about the same as 4 modulated measures per system. I don't think it's that hard to see the pulse, as each sextuplet is one beat long, but triplet 16ths would work too for showing the 8th pulse:
You cannot view this attachment.
Anyway, that's just how I view it. I can see the 8th triplets are a bit more recognizable, so if you really prefer that, it's alright too. I personally just feel the metric modulation would be more confusing to the player than the 16th triplets. Also, did you see this part of my comment about the tuplets?

Also, about these tuplets: it's pretty hard to go to the first note after the bass note, maybe you could either just remove this one or put it between brackets/shrink the notehead to show it's optional. Going back from the last tuplet note is a bit easier, but you may wanna bracket/shrink/remove this one too for even easier playability.

-Are you sure about that Ab? Because then it wouldn't match with the pattern the track has had in past phrases (first melody repeat being Bb, second melody repeat being Ab).

I meant just changing the G in the middle of the chord to Ab:
You cannot view this attachment.

-I was having trouble figuring out the exact pitches of the quieter section while also including the continuing melody with the new chording. I was basically hearing a combination of the F --> G --> Ab --> G while also having a higher D --> C --> C --> Bb up top. At least when I was listening to this.

I really don't hear that top line though. I only hear the instrument that's playing the main melody D-C (and a slidy synth doing the F-Eb), and the electric piano/pingy synth that's doing the F-G-Ab-G figure.

-For m70, I had it like how you described it I think (Eb/G/Eb chord) but then based on whoopy's feedback the actual b3 chord had a base of a D. It sounded like it staircased down very slightly, hence why I made it G --> F for the middle note of the triad. Since then I don't really hear that Eb in the right hand chord anymore.

I actually meant it as D-G-Eb. In m70-71, the main melody instrument plays F-Eb-D, while the electronic piano/pingy sinth plays F-D (and stays on D during m71). I see you initially removed the top octave D in m71, but doing this, you could put it back in again:
You cannot view this attachment.

One thing I apparently forgot to mention: in m73, I don't hear the Ab in the R.H., I think it's only in the L.H.

[PlayfulPiano]

oh huh, I wanted to try using pictures of dynamic markings instead of italicized letters, but maybe I'm the only one who can see those and I just didn't notice (they're media.discordapp.net images). This was what I meant:(maybe this does work though: You cannot view this attachment. and You cannot view this attachment.)
I think it's fine without the echo: the delay feels a bit random, and adding it to the sheet might just make it a bit too messy to hear the difference between the two. Going with a p at m29 would work enough though, so it's clear that it should be at a lower dynamic than the part before.
Just going by 2 un-modulated measures per system it is about the same as 4 modulated measures per system. I don't think it's that hard to see the pulse, as each sextuplet is one beat long, but triplet 16ths would work too for showing the 8th pulse:
You cannot view this attachment.
Anyway, that's just how I view it. I can see the 8th triplets are a bit more recognizable, so if you really prefer that, it's alright too. I personally just feel the metric modulation would be more confusing to the player than the 16th triplets. Also, did you see this part of my comment about the tuplets?I meant just changing the G in the middle of the chord to Ab:
You cannot view this attachment.
I really don't hear that top line though. I only hear the instrument that's playing the main melody D-C (and a slidy synth doing the F-Eb), and the electric piano/pingy synth that's doing the F-G-Ab-G figure.
I actually meant it as D-G-Eb. In m70-71, the main melody instrument plays F-Eb-D, while the electronic piano/pingy sinth plays F-D (and stays on D during m71). I see you initially removed the top octave D in m71, but doing this, you could put it back in again:
You cannot view this attachment.

One thing I apparently forgot to mention: in m73, I don't hear the Ab in the R.H., I think it's only in the L.H.

-I'll add the mentioned dynamics then, sure.

-Alright. That's fair.

-I missed that about the triplet. I made the noteheads smaller, hope that looks fine.

-Oh ok, sure. Changed that to Ab.

-I swear I hear two notes during beats 2 an 4 of m62, not just the one though. It sounds too muddy to simply be one note imo, and I don't think it's reverb in this case. Maybe it's not D C C Bb specifically but I do think there is that second note layer.

-Oh actually I think I get it listening back. So because of the instrument choice used in the RH, I kinda have it where the synth represents the higher octave, but only when the piano is also playing. That's why in m71 I took out the higher octave, because the piano stops playing there. Hope that's fine.

-Removed the extra Ab in m73.

Updated.

[Bloop]

For m62 I do hear a Bb now on beat 4, but maybe that's better off an octave lower than it is currently (so below the G), as it's only in the piano and not in the synth. I don't hear anything else happening on beat 2 melodically (other than the G)
As for m70-71, I think it'd still be better to include the higher octave D to m71. The thing that's most in the foreground in m70-71 is the piano playing F Eb D, but now the Eb doesn't resolve to the D (it being played an octave lower doesn't resolve it yet :p). You could add the D above the F in m71 but remove the one below the F to keep it emptier; you could also change the D-G-Eb chord in beat 3 to Eb-G-D so the F Eb D figure is on the bottom, but I personally like the first option a bit more. As long as the F Eb D is in somewhere without octave displacements, I'm happy ^^

Also, just a few small formatting thingies:
-The p markings in m29 and m71 could go a little bit to the right, so they're centered under the notehead.
-You could flip the ties of the Ab in m55 and m63, so they don't touch the ties of the Eb below

[PlayfulPiano]

For m62 I do hear a Bb now on beat 4, but maybe that's better off an octave lower than it is currently (so below the G), as it's only in the piano and not in the synth. I don't hear anything else happening on beat 2 melodically (other than the G)
As for m70-71, I think it'd still be better to include the higher octave D to m71. The thing that's most in the foreground in m70-71 is the piano playing F Eb D, but now the Eb doesn't resolve to the D (it being played an octave lower doesn't resolve it yet :p). You could add the D above the F in m71 but remove the one below the F to keep it emptier; you could also change the D-G-Eb chord in beat 3 to Eb-G-D so the F Eb D figure is on the bottom, but I personally like the first option a bit more. As long as the F Eb D is in somewhere without octave displacements, I'm happy ^^

Also, just a few small formatting thingies:
-The p markings in m29 and m71 could go a little bit to the right, so they're centered under the notehead.
-You could flip the ties of the Ab in m55 and m63, so they don't touch the ties of the Eb below

So in regards to m62, what would you probably recommend now, since you can hear the Bb? Or is it fine as is with the current note progression?

I added the high octave D back to m71.

I fixed the formatting issues you mentioned.

Updated.

[Bloop]

What you have now in m62 works better! You could also put the top notes in a separate layer like this:
You cannot view this attachment.

Either way, I'll approve now!
You cannot view this attachment.

[PlayfulPiano]

Did a quick update here b/c I figured out how I wanted to notate the echo after trying some things. Otherwise the arrangement should look more or less the same as before.

[Latios212]

Nice work! This is quite neat looking now.

Did a quick update here b/c I figured out how I wanted to notate the echo after trying some things. Otherwise the arrangement should look more or less the same as before.

Just to clarify, which part are you talking about here - m. 19-28? I think it's fine without it, but what you wrote in also looks good to me. For the odd-numbered measures though I would suggest using the Note Mover Tool (under Special Tools) to push the F on beat 4 to the right a little bit, as it's rather squished up against the augmentation dot of the Eb on beat 3.5 right now.

Aside from that, a small detail - for m. 25/27 make sure the ending repeat numbers are above the beat 1 noteheads instead of awkwardly to the right (Finale doesn't do this automatically unfortunately)

[PlayfulPiano]

Nice work! This is quite neat looking now.
Just to clarify, which part are you talking about here - m. 19-28? I think it's fine without it, but what you wrote in also looks good to me. For the odd-numbered measures though I would suggest using the Note Mover Tool (under Special Tools) to push the F on beat 4 to the right a little bit, as it's rather squished up against the augmentation dot of the Eb on beat 3.5 right now.

Aside from that, a small detail - for m. 25/27 make sure the ending repeat numbers are above the beat 1 noteheads instead of awkwardly to the right (Finale doesn't do this automatically unfortunately)

Yes, I am referring to m19-28. I know it sounded fine enough without the echo, but with the echo allows that section to differentiate with the prior phrase in m11-m18.

I did the adjustments to the F in the 2nd layer + shifting the augmented dot down by 1 (shift? down arrow? grid point?) to make it not clank with the tie line as much.

Otherwise, updated.


(Also, I saw the message you gave in big shot. I'm really sorry that it fell flat then, and I won't resubmit it until I get through the changes that static provided in feedback. I know this is like the third time this has happened, and I guess I should just not make these types of submissions until they're checked within discord's #help or similar to see if there's any large mistakes or what not that I've missed while personally checking through it)

[Latios212]

Yes, I am referring to m19-28. I know it sounded fine enough without the echo, but with the echo allows that section to differentiate with the prior phrase in m11-m18.

I did the adjustments to the F in the 2nd layer + shifting the augmented dot down by 1 (shift? down arrow? grid point?) to make it not clank with the tie line as much.

Otherwise, updated.

Alrighty looks good!

(Also, I saw the message you gave in big shot. I'm really sorry that it fell flat then, and I won't resubmit it until I get through the changes that static provided in feedback. I know this is like the third time this has happened, and I guess I should just not make these types of submissions until they're checked within discord's #help or similar to see if there's any large mistakes or what not that I've missed while personally checking through it)

Yep - really above all else, make sure that you've spent a sufficient amount of time fixing up the sheet to the best of your ability before you submit, and be ready to rework things as needed even if feedback may take a little while to get through.

Anyway, this sheet looks good - I'll accept!