[3DS] Bravely Default - "Serpent Devouring the Horizon" by Maelstrom & Latios212

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Other
Game: Bravely Default
Console: Nintendo 3DS
Title: Serpent Devouring the Horizon
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arrangers: Maelstrom & Latios212

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Latios212]

This should be the last time there's a topic for this monster of a sheet

Context on some of the stuff on the last page here

[Kricketune54]

Monster of a sheet. Serpent. 

-Thoughts on putting pauses after the last note of the first 3 bars?  And maybe a fermata on bar 4

Hahah not much commentary to put out all at once tbh, but this seems really good

[Bloop]

m5-12 made me think of this
Very nice work on this! It's a long one, but thankfully a lot of repeated material, so it wasn't as hard going through it.

-m1: Did you want the player to use the pedal for the whole piece, or just for these 4 bars? I was assuming you only meant the first bars, in which case it might be a good idea to add "senza pedale" at m5, but if not, ignore this (and my comment about m143)
-m27 and 37: I hear a high B from the violins, which you could include as an octave above the B on beat 1.
-m30: Maybe it makes sense to write the last three notes as a descending triad (so E-C#-A# instead of E-G-A#), as the bass slides down from beat 4, and it makes the jump to the B octave in m31 a bit more manageable to play.
-In m43 and 47 an additional guitar line plays these chromatic runs up a third (Fn in m43 and A in m47), maybe you could switch the R.H. to these lines instead of keeping it at D? From m51, you could then even add top notes on beats 1, 2.5 and 4 to imitate the piano that gets added (D in m53, C# in m52, Cn in m53 and B in m54), which is playable but maybe a bit much.
-m54: Maybe you could remove the C# on beat 1.75 so the R.H. has a bit of time to get to that high B glissando.
-m66: Did you consciously leave out the 16th note run starting at 2.5? I think it could work well as a transition from this part to the next, maybe with a crescendo hairpin too. In its current octave it does clash a bit with the L.H.: you could either move the L.H. down an octave from m2.5, or put the melody from m67 up an octave. The run is a C melodic minor scale, starting from a D.
-m75: Maybe you could add the ending G from the previous melody here too (if you decide to move the melody from m67 up an octave, you might have to live with the C on beat 1 being up an octave as well)
-m86-87: This is not the correct rhythm for m86. There's also an organ line on beats 2 and 3 of m87:
You cannot view this attachment.
-m88: It might make more since to write the D# in the second triplet as Eb and the En in the third triplet as Fb. It does break the consistency of the chord voicings, but I think the voice leading makes a it a bit easier to read.
-m93: I think it's safe to say we've modulated to Fm here. I originally thought you may have left it out since it's just for 12 bars, but I later noticed you have an 8 bar key change at m143, so I guess having one for 12 bars is safe too :p
-m125 beat 4 and m126 beat 1: I feel it's a bit more natural to read the D#'s, G# and A# as Eb's, Ab and Bb for these two beats. If you wanna be entirely technical, this is pretty much outlining an Adim(7) chord, which means the F#-part in m125 beat 2-3 should maybe be Gb's (with Cb and Db), but having this as F# works too probably.
-m143: Were you intending for the player to use the pedal here, as most of these whole notes can't be held for the whole bar? If so, it might make sense to add "con pedale" here, and "senza pedale" at m151.
-m150: I hear G# instead of An on beat 3 in the L.H.
-m174-175: I hear some harmonies going to G and A major going along with the bass, maybe you could put the two lower notes on beat 1 of m174 into a separate layer as a half note, put B-D on beat 3 of m174, and C#-E on beat 1 of m175
-m182: I specifically hear a break on the second triplet note of beat 4, so maybe you could put a rest there in the L.H. instead of a note?

[Latios212]

m5-12 made me think of this

aha yes ^^ that's familiar to me before even hearing this Bravely Default piece for the first time...

Very nice work on this! It's a long one, but thankfully a lot of repeated material, so it wasn't as hard going through it.

Thank you! Yeah this wasn't quite as bad as I thought it'd be to go through. Most of it came out of several very focused arranging sessions

-m1: Did you want the player to use the pedal for the whole piece, or just for these 4 bars? I was assuming you only meant the first bars, in which case it might be a good idea to add "senza pedale" at m5, but if not, ignore this (and my comment about m143)
...
-m143: Were you intending for the player to use the pedal here, as most of these whole notes can't be held for the whole bar? If so, it might make sense to add "con pedale" here, and "senza pedale" at m151.

I actually did intend for the performer to apply pedal liberally throughout pretty much the whole piece (at least, that's what I would do). I feel it's pretty essential to keeping the arrangement sound full rather than dry (and this is based on me trying it out, not on the playback). Most parts are pretty conducive to allow usage of pedal without sounding too muddy. Do you think that warrants a clearer indication at the start (e.g. "pedal as needed")?

-m27 and 37: I hear a high B from the violins, which you could include as an octave above the B on beat 1.

I'm not sure I really hear this prominently, but regardless I think it distracts from the ascending motion of the three eighth notes so I think I'd prefer to leave it as is.

-m30: Maybe it makes sense to write the last three notes as a descending triad (so E-C#-A# instead of E-G-A#), as the bass slides down from beat 4, and it makes the jump to the B octave in m31 a bit more manageable to play.

I like that! Added it in

-In m43 and 47 an additional guitar line plays these chromatic runs up a third (Fn in m43 and A in m47), maybe you could switch the R.H. to these lines instead of keeping it at D? From m51, you could then even add top notes on beats 1, 2.5 and 4 to imitate the piano that gets added (D in m53, C# in m52, Cn in m53 and B in m54), which is playable but maybe a bit much.

I did think about that a bit, and when playing around with it I felt like moving the line up makes it feel emptier, which is the opposite effect (piling on more) than the original gives off - I have the left hand part do the buildup instead. Unlike m. 109-116 you can't really keep all the harmonies though, so I dunno. Do you think transposing the line up sounds better?

-m54: Maybe you could remove the C# on beat 1.75 so the R.H. has a bit of time to get to that high B glissando.

Yes! Sounds good

-m66: Did you consciously leave out the 16th note run starting at 2.5? I think it could work well as a transition from this part to the next, maybe with a crescendo hairpin too. In its current octave it does clash a bit with the L.H.: you could either move the L.H. down an octave from m2.5, or put the melody from m67 up an octave. The run is a C melodic minor scale, starting from a D.

Nope, not sure why I didn't write that in haha. I included a crescendo and opted to move the LH down starting on beat 2.5 since I didn't want to change the octave of the melody.

-m75: Maybe you could add the ending G from the previous melody here too (if you decide to move the melody from m67 up an octave, you might have to live with the C on beat 1 being up an octave as well)

Ah yeah this was bothering me, added that in haha

-m86-87: This is not the correct rhythm for m86. There's also an organ line on beats 2 and 3 of m87:
You cannot view this attachment.

Thanks, this was bothering me too lol

-m88: It might make more since to write the D# in the second triplet as Eb and the En in the third triplet as Fb. It does break the consistency of the chord voicings, but I think the voice leading makes a it a bit easier to read.
...
-m125 beat 4 and m126 beat 1: I feel it's a bit more natural to read the D#'s, G# and A# as Eb's, Ab and Bb for these two beats. If you wanna be entirely technical, this is pretty much outlining an Adim(7) chord, which means the F#-part in m125 beat 2-3 should maybe be Gb's (with Cb and Db), but having this as F# works too probably.

Yep these spellings make more sense, updated!

nd the En in the third triplet as Fb. It does break the consistency of the chord voicings, but I think the voice leading makes a it a bit easier to read.
-m93: I think it's safe to say we've modulated to Fm here. I originally thought you may have left it out since it's just for 12 bars, but I later noticed you have an 8 bar key change at m143, so I guess having one for 12 bars is safe too :p

I wasn't sure about this originally but looking at it again it makes sense, yeah. (Also, the reason I more liberally applied the key change in m. 143 is because the four sections from m. 127-158 are excerpts from four character themes in the game (starting at this one), so I'd have been a bit more inclined to make some more abrupt section changes if necessary.)

-m150: I hear G# instead of An on beat 3 in the L.H.

man how did you find this in the sea of 10 pages lol

-m174-175: I hear some harmonies going to G and A major going along with the bass, maybe you could put the two lower notes on beat 1 of m174 into a separate layer as a half note, put B-D on beat 3 of m174, and C#-E on beat 1 of m175

Ah yeah I can have the harmonies plane with the chords outlined by the left hand. I opted to go with lower inversions for the dyads so they don't clash with the melody (e.g. I didn't like the E on beat 1 of m. 175 since the melody plays E on beat 1.75). This allows me to continue writing in that layer until beat 1 of m. 176, after which it'll interfere with the melody.

-m182: I specifically hear a break on the second triplet note of beat 4, so maybe you could put a rest there in the L.H. instead of a note?

Yes!

Files updated, thanks for checking

[Bloop]

I actually did intend for the performer to apply pedal liberally throughout pretty much the whole piece (at least, that's what I would do). I feel it's pretty essential to keeping the arrangement sound full rather than dry (and this is based on me trying it out, not on the playback). Most parts are pretty conducive to allow usage of pedal without sounding too muddy. Do you think that warrants a clearer indication at the start (e.g. "pedal as needed")?

It could be that I tend to be a bit sparser with pedal usage, because I don't think I would've used it until m59, haha. I think either "pedal as needed" or "ped. ad lib." could work yeah!

I'm not sure I really hear this prominently, but regardless I think it distracts from the ascending motion of the three eighth notes so I think I'd prefer to leave it as is.

Makes sense!

I did think about that a bit, and when playing around with it I felt like moving the line up makes it feel emptier, which is the opposite effect (piling on more) than the original gives off - I have the left hand part do the buildup instead. Unlike m. 109-116 you can't really keep all the harmonies though, so I dunno. Do you think transposing the line up sounds better?

I can kinda hear what you mean, keeping it all at D does sound a bit fuller overall, though I don't feel like changing voices has a build-down effect. It's especially not that bad if the player decides to play each voice a little bit louder too, though I'm not yet sure if and how you could convey that in the notation (building up with dynamics seems like a bit of overkill, since you'll end with fff or ffff at least). All in all though, I'm also fine with keeping it as is, if you still prefer it! You don't have to transpose it just because I like it a bit better :p
Maybe another way to think about it is to see if there's a way to build up in the L.H. a bit more: currently there's only one real change in the arrangement (m47, when the drums change as well), but there's nothing to imitate the buildup in m43 and 51. For m43 I can think of removing one of the whole-note-voices in m39-42, so there's a buildup when it comes in at m43, but I don't really know a good suggestion of what to do in m51.

man how did you find this in the sea of 10 pages lol

i'm a super octopus

All other changes or alternative changes look good too! I can approve after the (possible) changes to the pedal mark and the buildup part ^^

[Maelstrom]

Thought I'd chine in on the whole m39+ section 16th notes.
I'm personally in favor of keeping it as is. The main reasoning for this is the layers don't feel like they are added into the mix equally. The constant line still seems to be the driving force throughout each of the layers added on and is easy to pick out in each repeat, unlike the others.

[Latios212]

It could be that I tend to be a bit sparser with pedal usage, because I don't think I would've used it until m59, haha. I think either "pedal as needed" or "ped. ad lib." could work yeah!

Yep, changed it! (Yeah I think I prefer a bit more pedal usage than many...)

I can kinda hear what you mean, keeping it all at D does sound a bit fuller overall, though I don't feel like changing voices has a build-down effect. It's especially not that bad if the player decides to play each voice a little bit louder too, though I'm not yet sure if and how you could convey that in the notation (building up with dynamics seems like a bit of overkill, since you'll end with fff or ffff at least). All in all though, I'm also fine with keeping it as is, if you still prefer it! You don't have to transpose it just because I like it a bit better :p
Maybe another way to think about it is to see if there's a way to build up in the L.H. a bit more: currently there's only one real change in the arrangement (m47, when the drums change as well), but there's nothing to imitate the buildup in m43 and 51. For m43 I can think of removing one of the whole-note-voices in m39-42, so there's a buildup when it comes in at m43, but I don't really know a good suggestion of what to do in m51.

Thought I'd chine in on the whole m39+ section 16th notes.
I'm personally in favor of keeping it as is. The main reasoning for this is the layers don't feel like they are added into the mix equally. The constant line still seems to be the driving force throughout each of the layers added on and is easy to pick out in each repeat, unlike the others.

I left the right hand as is as Maelstrom mentioned above. For the rest, I did remove the fifths in m. 39-42 - works nicely since the left hand is coming in from octaves previously anyway. For m. 51 I don't think there's an obvious solution for the left hand so I slapped an ff on the measure (which works well anyway since this is pretty much building up to the climax of the first half of the piece).

Files updated, thanks again

edit: oh one last thing I forgot to explicitly ask about was if the accidentals in m. 89-92 make sense. I wasn't too sure about them

[Bloop]

I left the right hand as is as Maelstrom mentioned above. For the rest, I did remove the fifths in m. 39-42 - works nicely since the left hand is coming in from octaves previously anyway. For m. 51 I don't think there's an obvious solution for the left hand so I slapped an ff on the measure (which works well anyway since this is pretty much building up to the climax of the first half of the piece).

Ah yeah that's a good solution for m51! Also thanks Maelstrom for sharing your opinion as well, that part looks good then ^^

edit: oh one last thing I forgot to explicitly ask about was if the accidentals in m. 89-92 make sense. I wasn't too sure about them

I think it looks fine, but maybe you could write the Bn's in m90 as Cb's: together with the Gb it makes a nice Cb-Gb-Cb power chord, and it's descending to Bb afterwards.

One other small thing I just noticed, is about the metric modulations (m89 and 97): in Behind Bars, I read that the =-sign usually goes above the barline of where the modulation takes place (the reason being that it's clear that the half note applies to the previous measure and the quarter note to the current measure). I suddenly noticed it because I was thinking "hm the 8va marking in m89 should go maybe a bit to the left- owo what's this". Moving the metric modulation there to the left creates some room for the 8va to start a little bit earlier.

I'll approve it for now nonetheless, as these are all just small fixes ^^ Again, very nice work on this!
You cannot view this attachment.

[Latios212]

Thank you once again! Those couple of suggestions above sound good, so I've edited those in too

[Libera]

Sorry for the wait on this.  I've now checked the first 5 and half pages, all the way up to bar 105.  I will be back tomorrow morning to check the rest, so feel free to wait until then to respond if you want to.

-The LH Bs on beat 4 of bar 9/17 sound like A#s to me.
-I think bar 21's RH would make more sense with the F# on top, like in bar 23.  It's not like the rising line from bar 20 actually resolves onto a B, the choir just stops at the start of bar 21.
-Maybe bars 39-54 would be a bit more interesting in the RH if you play the higher layers when they come in (not as well as, I mean instead of).  I think that might help that section to build up a bit more and would imitate the rising that you get in the original.  I think that's jumping up a tritone in bars 43 and then a major third in bar 47.  You could also try adding in some of the chords underneath in bar 51 but I don't know how well that would work.
-I don't hear the fourth beat of bar 56, it just sounds like it holds the E from the previous beat for a half note.
-The second time around, bar 58 is not the same as the first time.  Also I'm not really sure that is how a D.S. works.  I don't think they're like repeats where the second time you get to them you go past them (mainly because I think in normal usage D.S. on its own isn't really a thing).
-The bass sounds like it plays another Eb on beat 2 of bar 64.
-The chord in bar 60 sounds like a double sus chord that resolves on beat 2, like F Eb Bb G -> F D Bb F or something like that.
-The chord in bar 61 sounds like Abmaj7.
-The chord in bar 63 sounds like another sus chord, maybe Fm7sus2 or something, so no Ab.  At least I can't hear an Ab anyway.
-I think the chord in bar 65 is missing an F.
-The F# in bar 84 sounds like an Fn to me.
-I feel like there has got to be a better way to spell out 87-88 that doesn't involve reusing letters (Ab vs An etc.) and keeps the intervals more consistent.  Especially the An -> Ab that goes across the staves going into beat 3 is particularly confusing.  My suggestion would be this:

Spoiler

You cannot view this attachment.

[close]

Note that I added courtesies on the Dn on beat 2 of bar 88, which I felt was appropriate.  This does use two double sharps, but overall I think it's a lot more readable.  Maybe there is another option as well that I didn't think of.
-I think there is a Dn on beat 1 of bar 89 in the RH an octave lower than the one on beat 1.5.
-The spellings in 89-92 feel kind of weird to me but I couldn't really come up with much better so I guess it's probably fine.

[Libera]

Continuing on from yesterday... so bars 105 onwards.

-Some of the inner ties in bars 113-116 need cleaning up.
-I think the left hand of bar 120 should look more like bar 124.
-There are probably a few places you could put graces in bar 127-134, but the one that stands out to me the most is just before the G in bars 130/134.
-I don't actually hear the F# on beat 1.5 of bar 143.  It's definitely there in bar 147, but not here as far as I can tell.
-The bass goes up to an F# on beat 4 of bar 158, so that may be something to imitate rather than just staying on the Bn.
-I feel like maybe the harmony parts could be a little more accurate in bars 159+, rather than just playing repeated notes that outline the chords.  For example you have the parallel sixths movement in bars 163-164 and the Bn on beat 4.5 of bar 165 that anticipates the sus chord in the next bar.  There's also the D on beat 3.75 of that same bar, which you could substitute the C# for since you already have that in the bass.  Picture:

Spoiler

You cannot view this attachment.

[close]

-Bar 176 currently sounds really weird with the harmony movement suddenly disappearing and nothing to take its place.  You could also still write in the A-C# on beat 1 of bar 177 since the 'ad lib' doesn't start quite yet.
-You could write out something more explicit for bar 181 in the LH but it's probably fine like this as well.
-The melody parts should definitely move a lot more in bar 182.  There should be restrikes on beats 2.666, 4 and 4.666, with the brass jumping up to F#s on the final two.
-Following on from the previous point, I feel like these last four bars need to be bigger.  I'd suggest putting this up the octave and doubling the top note below (maybe you have to miss out the D on beat 1 in bar 185 for this...).  This is pretty much the biggest moment in the whole piece so it needs some more power I think, rather than the way the RH currently seems to come down from bar 182.  Speaking of, how about fff?  Just a thought.
-No OST ending?  Cowards.

Nice work.  It'll be cool to have a sheet for this on site finally.

[Latios212]

Thanks for going over this

-The LH Bs on beat 4 of bar 9/17 sound like A#s to me.

Ah, yep

-I think bar 21's RH would make more sense with the F# on top, like in bar 23.  It's not like the rising line from bar 20 actually resolves onto a B, the choir just stops at the start of bar 21.

Dang, you're right lol that resolution to B must have been what I wanted to hear[

-Maybe bars 39-54 would be a bit more interesting in the RH if you play the higher layers when they come in (not as well as, I mean instead of).  I think that might help that section to build up a bit more and would imitate the rising that you get in the original.  I think that's jumping up a tritone in bars 43 and then a major third in bar 47.  You could also try adding in some of the chords underneath in bar 51 but I don't know how well that would work.

Yeah... we discussed this above (see Maelstrom's post and mine below it). I just don't think it sounds right with the right hand rising on piano and I think the accompaniment part does a decent enough job at building up energy throughout this section.

-I don't hear the fourth beat of bar 56, it just sounds like it holds the E from the previous beat for a half note.

Hmm it's a bit hard to tell because all the chord tones are kind of these but I do think the C# is probably struck here. That would parallel the phrase repeating twice as fast in the next couple of measures. For what it's worth, I think it's a bit more explicit in the live recording

-The second time around, bar 58 is not the same as the first time.  Also I'm not really sure that is how a D.S. works.  I don't think they're like repeats where the second time you get to them you go past them (mainly because I think in normal usage D.S. on its own isn't really a thing).

What's different about 58 the second time? And yeah I had brought this up a while back somewhere... but the repeat structure isn't so easy for this piece because there's a lot of nested parts. What I have right now roughly looks like this, where A = 5-12, B = 13-28, C = 29-58, D = 59-end

Code Select Expand

S           D.S.      Go to A
A  [:B:]   C         DA couple of options without D.S. look like this, which are either more confusing or a waste of space:

Code Select Expand

A [: [: [: B :] C :] D :]
A [: BBCBBCD :]Would it help to add a performance note alongside the D.S. at m. 58? A nice addition may also be to add a final barline at 58 because I believe I read somewhere that it only plays up to here before looping when you fight the boss earlier in the game.

-The bass sounds like it plays another Eb on beat 2 of bar 64.

Yep!

-The chord in bar 60 sounds like a double sus chord that resolves on beat 2, like F Eb Bb G -> F D Bb F or something like that.
-The chord in bar 61 sounds like Abmaj7.
-The chord in bar 63 sounds like another sus chord, maybe Fm7sus2 or something, so no Ab.  At least I can't hear an Ab anyway.
-I think the chord in bar 65 is missing an F.

Agreed on bar 61, and swapped the Ab in the RH for a G. For m. 60 I... think yeah it sounds something like an Eb chord underneath the F. Regardless, since the melody isn't moving on beat 2, I would rather simply write in the Bb chord. For m. 63, I'm still pretty sure I hear an Ab there (maybe Fm9?) but testing it I've swapped it out for an Eb and G. For m. 65, perhaps but it'd be awkward to include in the first chord and an F is present on beat 3, so I'd prefer to just leave it.

-The F# in bar 84 sounds like an Fn to me.

Yep!

-I feel like there has got to be a better way to spell out 87-88 that doesn't involve reusing letters (Ab vs An etc.) and keeps the intervals more consistent.  Especially the An -> Ab that goes across the staves going into beat 3 is particularly confusing.  My suggestion would be this:

Spoiler

You cannot view this attachment.

[close]

Note that I added courtesies on the Dn on beat 2 of bar 88, which I felt was appropriate.  This does use two double sharps, but overall I think it's a lot more readable.  Maybe there is another option as well that I didn't think of.

I get that the spellings are kinda weird here, but I really disagree with the double sharps - I feel they're super jarring to come out of nowhere in a Cm keysig. I'm okay with respelling beat 4 to avoid the diminished octave between the Ab and An, but I would prefer a couple of applied accidentals on the same note around beat 3 instead of respelling that group. I've added an explicit flat on the first note of beat 3, and respelled beat 4 using G#/D# so hopefully this is a nice compromise. I don't think the An>Ab between beats 2-3 or the G>G# between beats 3-4 is too weird to read.

-I think there is a Dn on beat 1 of bar 89 in the RH an octave lower than the one on beat 1.5.

Yep... and had to adjust the tempo marking a bit to fit. Lemme know if I should nudge anything around a bit more

-The spellings in 89-92 feel kind of weird to me but I couldn't really come up with much better so I guess it's probably fine.

Same

Checkpoint reached! Updated files with everything above, part 2 to come before I fall asleep... hopefully...

[Latios212]

And back from my break!

-Some of the inner ties in bars 113-116 need cleaning up.

Unsquished the inner ones!

-I think the left hand of bar 120 should look more like bar 124.

Yep

-There are probably a few places you could put graces in bar 127-134, but the one that stands out to me the most is just before the G in bars 130/134.

Hmm I've never really heard this section with any grace notes in it... and listening again I can't say I do now, nor do I think they feel like they'd fit in the arrangement.

-I don't actually hear the F# on beat 1.5 of bar 143.  It's definitely there in bar 147, but not here as far as I can tell.

I'm not sure about this one, but I'm more than happy to take it out since the jump from the beat 1 chord was bothering me anyway

-The bass goes up to an F# on beat 4 of bar 158, so that may be something to imitate rather than just staying on the Bn.

It sounds like it does a slide up and down, so I wrote in some 16ths between the B and F#

-I feel like maybe the harmony parts could be a little more accurate in bars 159+, rather than just playing repeated notes that outline the chords.  For example you have the parallel sixths movement in bars 163-164 and the Bn on beat 4.5 of bar 165 that anticipates the sus chord in the next bar.  There's also the D on beat 3.75 of that same bar, which you could substitute the C# for since you already have that in the bass.  Picture:

Spoiler

You cannot view this attachment.

[close]

Thanks! Yeah I missed the important parallel movement of the sixths there and agree with the places you suggested. Except for the D in m. 165 beat 3.75, I'm not sure I follow there. The rest in 163-165 I've updated, with 171-173 to match. Lemme know if anywhere else needs adjusting.

-Bar 176 currently sounds really weird with the harmony movement suddenly disappearing and nothing to take its place.  You could also still write in the A-C# on beat 1 of bar 177 since the 'ad lib' doesn't start quite yet.

Trying this out again keeping the harmony line in doesn't sound as weird as I previously thought. Wrote in those dyads on beat 3 of 176 and beat 1 of 177

-You could write out something more explicit for bar 181 in the LH but it's probably fine like this as well.

I don't have any better ideas at the moment, so it'll stay as is I suppose

-The melody parts should definitely move a lot more in bar 182.  There should be restrikes on beats 2.666, 4 and 4.666, with the brass jumping up to F#s on the final two.
-Following on from the previous point, I feel like these last four bars need to be bigger.  I'd suggest putting this up the octave and doubling the top note below (maybe you have to miss out the D on beat 1 in bar 185 for this...).  This is pretty much the biggest moment in the whole piece so it needs some more power I think, rather than the way the RH currently seems to come down from bar 182.  Speaking of, how about fff?  Just a thought.

Makes sense! I'm not sure what notes exactly you were going for in 182 but I've added in what I think is there (though it's a bit tricky to play...). Agreed on m. 183+. I won't pass up an opportunity to use fff in a sheet of this length although I think it'd be most appropriate in 182.

-No OST ending?  Cowards.

Given how much time I spent on the last page, trying to write that in would probably be the end of me >_> As much as I'd love to for completeness` sake, I'd... love not to lol

Nice work.  It'll be cool to have a sheet for this on site finally.

Thank you! I'm excited too since the existence of a version of this sheet is actually older than I am on NSM Thanks again for going through it all.

[Libera]

What's different about 58 the second time?

It has triplets in the second half of the bar.  Adding it in is going to be a pain due to the repeats already being confusing enough as it is.  Maybe one option is to write those triplets in as an extra staff with a note, but also you may have a better idea.

And yeah I had brought this up a while back somewhere... but the repeat structure isn't so easy for this piece because there's a lot of nested parts. What I have right now roughly looks like this, where A = 5-12, B = 13-28, C = 29-58, D = 59-end

Code Select Expand

S           D.S.      Go to A
A  [:B:]   C         DA couple of options without D.S. look like this, which are either more confusing or a waste of space:

Code Select Expand

A [: [: [: B :] C :] D :]
A [: BBCBBCD :]Would it help to add a performance note alongside the D.S. at m. 58? A nice addition may also be to add a final barline at 58 because I believe I read somewhere that it only plays up to here before looping when you fight the boss earlier in the game.

I don't really know what happens in the game as I never got this far, but I think adding a note might be helpful.  Nested repeats sounds even more confusing without explicitly saying which bar to go to at each point, and those bits out again fully sounds like its going to get really long...

I get that the spellings are kinda weird here, but I really disagree with the double sharps - I feel they're super jarring to come out of nowhere in a Cm keysig. I'm okay with respelling beat 4 to avoid the diminished octave between the Ab and An, but I would prefer a couple of applied accidentals on the same note around beat 3 instead of respelling that group. I've added an explicit flat on the first note of beat 3, and respelled beat 4 using G#/D# so hopefully this is a nice compromise. I don't think the An>Ab between beats 2-3 or the G>G# between beats 3-4 is too weird to read.

I view this section as not really being very related to the key signature so it didn't seem like a big deal to me.  Anyway this looks a lot better regardless, so it's fine.

I don't think I need to respond to anything else, since it all looks fine.  Although an additional thing that I noticed but forgot to write down is that maybe in bars 115-116 you might consider dropping the lowest notes in those chords.  The effect will still come across pretty much the same but it would be a lot easier to play.  An idea anyway.