Submissions General Questions, Comments, etc

[EFitTrainr]

I haven't been involved in an official arrangement project, but that is also irrelevant to the issue at hand.

[MaestroUGC]

The only problem I see with Unofficial Projects is there relative over abundance to everything else in Submissions. Unless the Updaters feel the need to change how they choose to operate, there' nothing to discuss about it.

[EFitTrainr]

Then perhaps we should have regulations imposed on updaters.

[Olimar12345]

I think I get what you're saying. Essentially, right now the updater's priority safe the submissions board and the official arrangement projects. Anything other than these things is deemed "unofficial" business, and maybe chosen to or to not be done at the updater's discretion. "Acceptance" in one of these miscellaneous fields should be (and has in the past) been a temporary thing that implies that it will just be easier to accept in the future; that it has been looked at by an updater already and it will be easy work in the future, not that it is already "accepted." Arrangers posting about their own arrangements being "accepted" will be disappointed.

[Tobbeh99]

I've looked at the Guide to Making Replacement Arrangements. And it's pretty fine but I can see a sort of problem. For the first 2 replacement types (revised and revisited) it says that you've edited a sheet, either quite little (revised) or by a lot (revisited). And for "challenge replacement" it says that it's an arrangement you arranged completely from scratch and therefore you have the rights to all the credits for it. The big problem here is: how are you supposed to know if you arranged it from scratch or not?
That's why i'd like to purpose a change to the description of the replacements to be more based on the "amount of improvement" you've made in contrast to the one already on site. So revised could be like "only minor changes, mostly formatting", revisited could be "quite a lot of changes, both musically and formatting", and challenge replacement could be "either entirely new-arranged or changed entirely throughout the entire arrangement". The thing is that I want the different types to be based on the how big improvement it is in comparison to the one on site, rather than if you have arranged it from scratch or not. That way it will be a lot easier seeing what type of replacement it is.
The reason I'm concerned with this is because I've seen a lot of replacements, of which some I've thought "is that really an x replacement", and sometimes people seem to just want to do challenge replacements just to get all the credit while they doesn't necessarily deserves it.   

[mikey]

I don't think that's something we need to worry about like how much credit is your username on a piece of internet sheet music really worth

[Olimar12345]

Don't worry, Tobbeh. Part of the updating duty is to review the replacement types and make sure that the appropriate type is selected. The Challenge Replacements are really only intended for the really old stuff that predates our quality-assurance, so if it comes up on something newer, it's seen as a red-flag.

[Tobbeh99]

Don't worry, Tobbeh. Part of the updating duty is to review the replacement types and make sure that the appropriate type is selected. The Challenge Replacements are really only intended for the really old stuff that predates our quality-assurance, so if it comes up on something newer, it's seen as a red-flag.

Thanks! Sounds relieving!

[Dekkadeci]

I don't think that's something we need to worry about like how much credit is your username on a piece of internet sheet music really worth

At one point, it was worth something to Bespinben, according to http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?topic=8721.0. I personally suspect that cases like that are what Tobbeh99 is referring to.

Don't worry, Tobbeh. Part of the updating duty is to review the replacement types and make sure that the appropriate type is selected. The Challenge Replacements are really only intended for the really old stuff that predates our quality-assurance, so if it comes up on something newer, it's seen as a red-flag.

Perhaps it would be a good thing to encourage arrangers in submission threads for replacements to explain what and why they're rearranging to that degree in the post that contains the YouTube panel. I think any of the below are acceptable explanations:

• Which bars and notes you edited for accuracy or severe playability issues
• A justification of how the previous arrangement is inaccurate, flawed, etc.
• A link to a request you did not post to replace the arrangement

It would also indirectly speed up the replacement evaluation rate.

[Olimar12345]

Perhaps it would be a good thing to encourage arrangers in submission threads for replacements to explain what and why they're rearranging to that degree in the post that contains the YouTube panel.

Maybe if they want to, but otherwise unnecessary. The three types of replacements discussed here, which one must already specify when submitting, should explain enough.

I think any of the below are acceptable explanations:

• Which bars and notes you edited for accuracy or severe playability issues
• A justification of how the previous arrangement is inaccurate, flawed, etc.
• A link to a request you did not post to replace the arrangement

Again, highly unnecessary. While it might be nice to see exactly what one did, the updating job is to evaluate EVERYTHING about an arrangement. This would mean that one would check even the things that weren't listed by the arranger as well, making it extra work for the arranger to type up.

It would also indirectly speed up the replacement evaluation rate.

Again, again, not at all due to what I said above.

[Zunawe]

So, concerning Shadow of the Colossus arrangements... etc

[Olimar12345]

So, concerning Shadow of the Colossus arrangements, the game's soundtrack was officially released under the name Shadow of the Colossus: Roar of the Earth. The CD included 7 extra pieces not released with the original game. One of those (Memories, which is currently arranged and on the main site) was included in the PAL release a year after Roar of the Earth came out. So, now the actual questions:

1. Roar of the Earth was published by King Records, and is the official listing of the song titles and such. The game itself was published by Sony Computer Entertainment. Should the copyright be "King Records", "Sony Computer Entertainment", "King Records/Sony Computer Entertainment", or "Sony Computer Entertainment/King Records"? (The game and soundtrack came out in the same year, so that's not different)

2. When I put the first arrangement up, it was decided that Kō Ōtani was the best (or at least most common?) way to spell his name. Ryan McGaughey's arrangements are both Kow Otani.

3. I assume all pieces (including ones not in the game, but on the soundtrack CD) are fair game?

I just want to make sure there's consistency before too many more arrangements make it up on the site.

1) comma

2) Kō Ōtani

3) sure, especially since they are from an official OST.

[nayuki]

Hello, I have some Pokémon Game Boy sheet music to offer. I'm wondering if anyone can help translate the sheet music from my format to NinSheetMusic's format.

Recently I published a small collection of Pokémon Game Boy (Red/Green/Blue/Yellow, Gold/Silver/Crystal) song transcriptions on my own web page: https://www.nayuki.io/page/transcription-of-pokemon-game-boy-music
My work emphasizes on accuracy and completeness. Because the Game Boy has 4 audio channels that you can listen to separately, it was a straightforward effort to transcribe each channel and obtain perfect pitch, octave, and rhythm.

All the songs I transcribed overlap with the existing collection available at NinSheetMusic: http://www.ninsheetmusic.org/browse/series/Pokemon
But when I listened to and read the songs at NinSheetMusic, I noticed some of them had a few notes off, and some had entire melodic tracks missing. (Specific examples available)

I would be delighted to donate the content of my sheet music. But it was hard enough to make and publish one copy of the music; it pains me to do it a second time. Can anybody help with this? Thanks in advance.

[Tobbeh99]

Feels really sad to say this but... We had a big Pokémon R/B/Y project some like some... month or maybe even a year back or so. And we, the NSM community, has basically arranged the entire soundtrack and in good quality as well. So it would be tough to make those transcriptions made into submissions to the main site as we already has arrangements in good quality.

But if your question is about the "NSM format" then this is a good topic to start with: http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?topic=481.0
And later this topic as well: http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?topic=7600.0

Those topics contains 1) the "NSM formatting standards" and 2) A topics with links to templates for various time signatures.

[Latios212]

Hang on a sec - different reply.

Your transcriptions sound terrific and I'm not noticing any inaccuracies when listening (comparing them to my memory lol). But while you can do a bunch of things with transcriptions, our site is tailored specifically for piano arrangements. In that regard, some of the source material has been altered or omitted for the sake of playability. Keep in mind the limitations of a solo pianist - hands can only stretch so far and move so fast. That's why you'll see many sheets differ from the exact sound you find in the game - they're written for the pianist, making them playable while maintaining as much of the notes and "feel" of the original as possible.

That said, mistakes do happen, so if you notice anything you think is an error, like an incorrect rhythm or pitch, please do let us know! We strive for accuracy at the same time as keeping sheets playable.

And I think your site is absolutely fantastic. There's a ton of cool stuff on there! (As a math/CS guy I really like it...)