Easy Versions Idea

[Latios212]

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.

[Olimar12345]

Don't have time to fully respond atm, but altissimo you meet to simmer tf down rn.

[Altissimo]

So glad my input is appreciated. Sorry this is an issue I'm a bit passionate about. :///////

[Brawler4Ever]

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

That would be determined by the song in question. Most likely we would be working with more of the popular songs, not the obscure ones. Not every song needs to be simplified.  One example is the Super Mario Brothers Theme. In my opinion, it doesn't need to be simplified, due to it being relatively easy. Others might disagree, and that's fine. The Overworld from the Legend of Zelda, however, might be more complicated to new piano players, and would probably be a good choice for simplification/easification(?). It all depends on the need of the song.

Just looks at the Mega Man 2 Dr. Wily stage (which already has a simplified version). The only major difference between them is the replacement of 16th notes for 8th notes. The tempo, melody, and structure of the song remain entirely intact.

[SlowPokemon]

(Quote)

^^^^^my goal is not to make an "easy" arrangement, as I stated earlier, but to make an arrangement people will be able to play.

@Olimar -- I understand you're afraid of a quality drop on our site because of laziness, but as I stated earlier in the thread, it is way easier to add to and embellish a simple arrangement than simplify a difficult or complex one. This is ESPECIALLY true of beginning students. Don't be so pretentious about this. You don't have a legitimate reason to be against this besides "I don't want the quality of the sheets to drop," and that is a legitimate reason, but don't get off that subject. Your personal feelings about being a musician are not the same as anyone else's, so accept that everyone has different ways of being musical and don't say things like "any idiot can simplify an arrangement." I really want to know how the other mods feel about this issue, too.

@everyone -- to understand my thoughts on this issue, read my post here and you should understand my argument.

[Bespinben]

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

The practice is really just as much of an art as full-scale arranging. You all have seen me give "arranging advice" plenty times in the submissions -- there are many ways to simplify a piece of music, but some methods might be more effective for a particular situation.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein

I'm in on this boat because I feel that by regularly creating and critiquing simple arrangements, I can lend the skill set I use in that to my full-scale arrangements. I'd really like to dispel the Bespin-Impossible stereotype, and this might help me learn to dissect the essence of a piece more effectively.

So glad my input is appreciated. Sorry this is an issue I'm a bit passionate about. :///////

There's no reason you should feel ashamed. The majority is on your side according to my survey. We're all veterans of inane political debates and belligerent religion bashing as of the last couple months anyway, so I think we can handle a little bit of passion.

[Brawler4Ever]

If one of the main concerns about this plan is the mass of simplified arrangements that may come, why don't we set up a rule where an arranger can only submit one simplified sheet per update?

And I stick with what I said earlier: unless the simplification is given a massive work-over, the original arranger receives credit, not the simplifier. I don't even see why a "Simplified by [Arranger]" would be necessary in most cases, to be honest. Simplifying a sheet is way easier than arranging one.

If we make the intent behind this plan clear from the beginning, I don't see why it wouldn't work, from a moral standpoint.

[Latios212]

*staff post*

I'm hearing a lot of good stuff. However, the issue right now is a lack of staff-staff and staff-community communication. I propose scheduling a live meeting/chat online with all the updaters (time and format tbd) so we can have some thoughtful back-and-forth exchanges oh topics where opinions differ instead of *quote**reason**quote**reason**quote**reason* posts.

As much good intent there is here from everyone, there's just a little too much textwalling, and that doesn't help facilitate communication. If we can sit down with staff and community together and have a real conversation, then things might happen.

[Sebastian]

I'm not really for or against the simplifying sheets thing. I'm on the fence about it.
I do think that simplifying arrangements would be nice especially for younger/less experienced pianists and it would also draw more people to NSM.

I also think that simplifying arrangements could cause problems. Knowing what voice to put in or leave out, laziness of the arranger, etc.
If we do have this, it would nice to have a separate section of the main site to put them so we do have a bunch of "song title (simplified version)"

Idk.....I'm on the fence about this whole thing. 

If one of the main concerns about this plan is the mass of simplified arrangements that may come, why don't we set up a rule where an arranger can only submit one simplified sheet per update?

And I stick with what I said earlier: unless the simplification is given a massive work-over, the original arranger receives credit, not the simplifier. I don't even see why a "Simplified by [Arranger]" would be necessary in most cases, to be honest. Simplifying a sheet is way easier than arranging one.

If we make the intent behind this plan clear from the beginning, I don't see why it wouldn't work, from a moral standpoint.

Excellent point^

*staff post*

I'm hearing a lot of good stuff. However, the issue right now is a lack of staff-staff and staff-community communication. I propose scheduling a live meeting/chat online with all the updaters (time and format tbd) so we can have some thoughtful back-and-forth exchanges oh topics where opinions differ instead of *quote**reason**quote**reason**quote**reason* posts.

As much good intent there is here from everyone, there's just a little too much textwalling, and that doesn't help facilitate communication. If we can sit down with staff and community together and have a real conversation, then things might happen.

Excellent idea^

[MaestroUGC]

Things have been heated here lately, and for good reason it shows that you all care, and it's clear to me that this is something mostly the entire community wants; which is very rare for NSM. I'd be willing to weigh in on whatever debates and help facilitate the discussion.

[FireArrow]

@Olimar -- I understand you're afraid of a quality drop on our site because of laziness, but as I stated earlier in the thread, it is way easier to add to and embellish a simple arrangement than simplify a difficult or complex one. This is ESPECIALLY true of beginning students. Don't be so pretentious about this. You don't have a legitimate reason to be against this besides "I don't want the quality of the sheets to drop," and that is a legitimate reason, but don't get off that subject. Your personal feelings about being a musician are not the same as anyone else's, so accept that everyone has different ways of being musical and don't say things like "any idiot can simplify an arrangement." I really want to know how the other mods feel about this issue, too.

If that's the only valid reason:
"You cannot submit simplified arrangements unless you have at least 3 full arrangements on site."

There ya go, now you can't have random joes who don't know how to arrange come and try to glory hound with simplified arrangements.

@everyone -- to understand my thoughts on this issue, read my post here and you should understand my argument.

I think your arrangement is a perfect example of why we need this. I'm a huge baroque fanatic, so when I hear a 3 voice fugue, you sure as all hell better bet your ass I'm gonna want to play it, and with all 3 voices too. If someone who isn't into music too much really enjoyed that game and wants to play that peice, s/he's not gonna want to play something that advanced, and your two voiced adaption of it would be perfect for him.

[Brawler4Ever]

If we can sit down with staff and community together and have a real conversation, then things might happen.

We can use the TWG chat, since it's not being used right now. xD
https://client00.chat.mibbit.com/?channel=%23TWG&server=irc.nfnet.org

[FireArrow]

And I stick with what I said earlier: unless the simplification is given a massive work-over, the original arranger receives credit, not the simplifier. I don't even see why a "Simplified by [Arranger]" would be necessary in most cases, to be honest. Simplifying a sheet is way easier than arranging one.

You need to credit whoever simplified it. The original arranger may or may not want to be accredited with the simplified version of their arrangement.

[Brawler4Ever]

Judging by our current standard of replacing sheets, I would disagree. But, It wouldn't bother me at all if giving the simplifier credit turned out to be the case; my comment was more to answer olimar's earlier concern about "average joe's" making cheap edits to get their name on the site. I do believe that that is a valid concern, and not giving the simplifier credit would be one way to counteract that.

"You cannot submit simplified arrangements unless you have at least 3 full arrangements on site."

This idea works as well, imo.

[Altissimo]

Judging by our current standard of replacing sheets, I would disagree. But, It wouldn't bother me at all if giving the simplifier credit turned out to be the case; my comment was more to answer olimar's earlier concern about "average joe's" making cheap edits to get their name on the site. I do believe that that is a valid concern, and not giving the simplifier credit would be one way to counteract that.

There already are average joes getting their shit on site though! They're just called ThatGamer. :p