Easy Versions Idea

[braix]

I have no idea if we'd already discussed this, but why not a new page on the main site?

[TheMarioPianist]

I have no idea if we'd already discussed this, but why not a new page on the main site?

Although this could lead to people attempting to reach 2500 easy sheets rather than focusing on transcribing new ones to completion. I want the easy versions idea to succeed, and I do like your idea, but I think we need to increase our number of easy arrangements on the site before we consider a separate page. For now, listing them in their appropriate games would probably be fine.

Now, my own thoughts completely unrelated to the quoted post. In a utopian NSM society, we'd have maybe 3 difficulty levels of each song (I think that would accompany all pianists better), but that would be too crazy. But in order to jumpstart this idea, we have to reach a consensus of what difficulty we are arranging for in the simplified versions.

[Brawler4Ever]

we have to reach a consensus of what difficulty we are arranging for in the simplified versions.

This is the entire argument against an easy versions idea. What does easy mean to the pianist? For everybody, it means something different, hence the confusion. Even if we put the label "easy" on a sheet, not everybody will be able to play. Earlier in this thread, I posted an easy version of Athletic from Super Mario World. Many pianists, myself included, would not be able to play this sheet. So calling it "easy" would be an oxymoron, which would be unprofessional of the site.

However, this is all moot anyway.

let the staff discuss it. They've been at this much longer than most of us, and I'm totally fine with whatever decision that they make.

Either the staff never discussed the idea, or they discussed the idea and rejected it. If they rejected it, bringing it back up won't help. If they never discussed it, then maybe we can bring it back up and hopefully convince them. But I'm thinking that it's more likely that this isn't being implemented intentionally.

For the record, I'm still on board this idea, entirely.

[Tobbeh99]

But in order to jumpstart this idea, we have to reach a consensus of what difficulty we are arranging for in the simplified versions.

emm no, that was not my idea. My idea was that you make an easier version of the arrangement. That doesn't mean that it is easy it only means that it is easier. So if you make a hard song easier it might still be hard but just easier than the original, and some songs might not be possible to simplify without removing to much of the essence of the song.

[braix]

Why are we calling it 'Easy Arrangements'? 'Simplified Arrangements' would be better in my opinion

[SlowPokemon]

Nah simplified has a different connotation. Easy Piano is actually an official term believe it or not.

[FireArrow]

There is no reason not to have this.

The argument that it would be "inconsistent" is, quite frankly, bullshit.  We have bespinben nearly-impossible-because-you're-playing-an-entire-orchestra arrangements right next to Slow Pokemon anyone-can-play-it-because-I-left-out-half-the-voices arrangements. How is that any less consistent than allowing simplified arrangements?

We have to either:

a) Updators need to enforce an "include everything you possibly can" standard and expect less advanced enthusiasts to simplify themselves.
or
b) Allow simplified and full versions.

because any arguments against simplified arrangements also applies to our current system that allows arrangements of nearly every level of "fullness" (so long as you're a well respected arranger I suppose.)

[JDMEK5]

The argument that it would be "inconsistent" is, quite frankly, bullshit.

The argument that it would be "inconsistent" is, quite frankly, bullshit.

This.

Everybody here (except Olimar it seems; forgive me if I'm missing anyone else) is all for this idea and Cobraroll (once again) hit the nail on the head in every single regard.

What does easy mean to the pianist? For everybody, it means something different, hence the confusion. Even if we put the label "easy" on a sheet, not everybody will be able to play. Earlier in this thread, I posted an easy version of Athletic from Super Mario World. Many pianists, myself included, would not be able to play this sheet. So calling it "easy" would be an oxymoron, which would be unprofessional of the site.

If it's so hard to define, why do so many hundreds of publishers have "Easy Piano" arrangements of literally everything under the sun? There's absolutely no reason why we can't have this that doesn't flop when we investigate further. Obviously some "Easy" sheets will be harder than others but the idea is a new class that can take beginners to almost intermediate level or something like that.

Now, my own thoughts completely unrelated to the quoted post. In a utopian NSM society, we'd have maybe 3 difficulty levels of each song (I think that would accompany all pianists better), but that would be too crazy. But in order to jumpstart this idea, we have to reach a consensus of what difficulty we are arranging for in the simplified versions.

I think 3 levels is too many. The arrangements we have already range from intermediate to advanced to why-the-hell-even-try difficulties. I think the sheets we have now (with little concern for 'easiness') can be one class, and then "Easy" be another. That's plenty imo. Having 3 versions of each sheet would be too much and let's face it, nobody really needs that many.

I have no idea if we'd already discussed this, but why not a new page on the main site?

Exactly. A new tab at the top or something. Obviously this can't go in the forums.

[TheMarioPianist]

I think 3 levels is too many. The arrangements we have already range from intermediate to advanced to why-the-hell-even-try difficulties. I think the sheets we have now (with little concern for 'easiness') can be one class, and then "Easy" be another. That's plenty imo. Having 3 versions of each sheet would be too much and let's face it, nobody really needs that many.

Yea, I'm completely aware of 3 being too many. I was just saying that because that would be the closest we could get to covering all bases. Of course, 2 would encompass 90-95% of all pianists, but I was kind of thinking based upon an easy, medium, hard type progression. Like my idea for easy would be like to take it all the way down to a level of like Level 2-3 of an Alfred's piano lesson book. Of course, I doubt anyone would ever need anything that simplified. I was just kind of thinking in terms of people who maybe only have played piano for a year (or even less) but still wanted to play these types of songs. But hey, I agree that one easy version should suffice.

Oh yea, and everything else you said I totally agree with.

[Altissimo]

Not gonna lie, as much as I love all the detail put into the Mystery Dungeon sheets (which are the only ones I ever want to play) they're kind of impossible for me without much more time dedicated to practice than I have to spare. Easy versions would be the best thing ever.

[Olimar12345]

This topic just keeps coming back to life. Rather than type up a new post wall, here's a link to my last one:

http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?topic=7151.msg294354#msg294354


Edit: I will address this though:

The argument that it would be "inconsistent" is, quite frankly, bullshit.

If you're referring to my first post in this topic, I was referring to the over complication of the entire process, not just the site display.

[FireArrow]

Edit: I will address this though:

If you're referring to my first post in this topic, I was referring to the over complication of the entire process, not just the site display.

I was mostly referring Don on the second page. No matter if you're talking about the site or the process, it wouldn't be any different than duets. If you don't want to add another complicated thing (sorry, but I don't really see how it's all that complicated in the first place), then replace duet arrangements with simplified arrangements. Duets aren't exactly a high demand thing NSM visitors want unlike the extremely popular simplified arrangements. I mean seriously, just look at all the testimonies in this thread alone. Remember when that mom posted in the forum to find an easy song for her son? It's something that could really benefit NSM.

Since you want a reply to the post you linked (or is it the final words of the staff?):

No. As you already know, our focus lies in accuracy and playability. We aren't typically focusing on any specific degree of difficulty in the current submissions; we try to keep things reasonable. As you stated later in that post, though, we keep an eye open for the extremes. If things are unrealistic or not pianistic (as in, ignoring the way the piano works (possibly being too transcription-y and often not arranged for the piano very well)) I will usually address it and suggest a change in the work. On the other side of that spectrum, if an arrangement is overly simplistic, then the inclusion of absent voices (if applicable) should at least be attempted to be worked in, in some fashion.

Reasonable is a relative term. What NSM, a community consisting of skilled musicians and music majors, considers a reasonable difficulty, a lot of casual piano players don't. Why some songs are pushed to be as accurate and difficult as possible while others are left simplified I suppose could be a counter argument to this, but that's a rather sloppy solution. If I want a full version of Slow Pokemon's arrangement, why should I as a visitor be denied that because NSM only allows one version of a song to be hosted? Likewise, if I want a version of Temporal Tower that doesn't involve me studying in a conservatory for 3 decades, why should I be denied that because NSM doesn't allow simplified versions.

You are giving this one too much thought. Any idiot can make adjustments to a piece to make it more accessible for themselves, (adjust octaves, simplify LH, etc.) and if they can't do that yet, than they shouldn't have internet access at their age. One of the greatest qualities about our site is that we offer arrangements that are faithful to the originals actually sound like the original tunes. Most other sites in our field can't offer the quality we do.

If the solution to the issue is "arrange everything as faithfully as possible and have the audience simplify it themselves" then why do we accept overly simplified submissions? All that does is deny more advanced players, who may or may not be able to arrange the missing voices themselves.

I wouldn't mind if it worked that way, as I did say:

We have to either:

a) Updators need to enforce an "include everything you possibly can" standard and expect less advanced enthusiasts to simplify themselves.
or
b) Allow simplified and full versions.

though I do feel that option grants arrangers much less freedom than the latter.

It kind of does, as a matter of fact lol. Determining the level of difficulty for the rating system would go hand in hand with determining the level simplicity of an adjusted arrangement, and if both systems were ever simultaneously implemented, I would imagine that they would be regulated similarly. Of course, the technical side of these two (actually getting the tech in place to work) is an unrelated issue. I didn't say these two topic were the same; I said that they "tied in" with one another.

The only difficulty that needs to be defined is "substantially easier than the full arrangement", which can be defined at the updator's discretion on a piece to piece basis. This is not difficult at all and I don't see why it would be an issue.

My touch on that topic was about the possibly ambiguity in having multiple arrangements of the same tune:

Super cool mario song
Super cool mario song [simplified]

How is that ambiguous?

A: Just about any major change we make will draw attention from a different audience. This one just happens to focus on the beginner.
B: Sure, I guess pressing that "Accept Arrangement" button is pretty easy to do, when you ignore everything else.

I think I addressed all of the questions/points in that post.

A: Beginners happen to be one of our largest audiences.
B: It'd be significantly easier then going over a full version arrangement, though yes, it would be more work.

[Altissimo]

[idiocy]

[InsigTurtle]

The only thing I'm really wondering about is to what degree should they be simplified to?

[Altissimo]

The only thing I'm really wondering about is to what degree should they be simplified to?

Me personally, I'm thinking melody, bass, countermelody if it has a rhythm that can easily be performed alongside the other line in whatever staff it ends up in, and (if extant - I do mostly 8-bit arrangements so this doesn't often apply) harmonies that are either just an octave or full triads where the span is less than an octave. But it would be different sheet to sheet.