Easy Versions Idea

[MaestroUGC]

but aren't you the only one who is against the easy piano arrangements idea?? who else would fling shit at her??

Me.

Classy.

[Brawler4Ever]

These issues are non-existent if you treat Easy Versions as completely new arrangements with just as much effort rather than derivative works.

True. If I want to create a simplified version of "One Winged Angel" from Final Fantasy VII completely from scratch, I have that liberty (if this is accepted). It would be a difficult task, and I don't see any argument against me receiving full credit for my work, in that case.

However, my thought process is that very few (if any) of these are going to be completely new arrangements. They would be more likely to be, as you said, derivatives. Why should we reinvent the wheel? It would save several hours for each arrangement to edit the previous version. But, that creates the issue of ownership as Olimar (previously), FireArrow, and I were discussing. Both ideas have their pros and cons, and should be discussed if the idea is accepted. If it would be preferred that each simplified arrangement be made from scratch, then I'm fine with that. I would prefer for that not to be the case, but I wouldn't argue against it.

[Olimar12345]

I just want to say this now: I am not opposed to site changes. Big bad Olimar just has to play mom duty here, and address all of the potential issues that could arise from this idea. Below I have listed my concerns and if possible, I have also provided a possible suggestion to combat these issues. I ended up cutting a lot from here in order to keep things short and to-the -point, so do ask for elaboration of you need me to.

1) arrangers (specifically newer ones) substituting these for lack of experience and using this as a crutch. This point has been beaten to a pulp, so I don't think I need to say anymore about it.

How to combat this: restrictions on submissions, or a possible grace period placed.

2) Arrangers getting lazy with their edits, and switching their submission over to a simplified version rather than making normal updater suggested edits.

HTCT: Not allowing arrangers to switch their submissions from normal to easy I guess.

3) easy versions becoming the only option for an arrangement.

HTCT: restrict easy versions submissions to hosted arrangements only.

4) Crediting easy version editions. Replacements are already tricky, and take a careful eye to not screw up, and this would just expand on this.

HTCT: make it the same as revised/edited arrangements and keep the arranger info as is. (Not the best idea, imo)

5) Arrangers simplifying arrangements by other members, who DON'T want their arrangements edited. I'll be honest right now, I am extremely picky about my own arrangements and don't want anyone other than me editing them (unless I say or something). I imagine that I am not alone in this boat, ether.

HTCT: get consent? Idk this one is tricky.

6) Allowing more variations of arrangements could lead to more kinds of arrangements being requested to be hosted on the site. This isn't necessarily an issue, but our original mission here has been to provide quality and accurate piano solos to the public, and we are kind of straying from that. I mean, we finally finished cleaning all of the virtuoso arrangements off the site. d:

7) More work from our staff and updaters, and a slower submission process. Not only in normal updating, critiquing, and uploading, but in moderating the simplicity levels, crediting issues and other issues that arise from this idea, essentially just adding to our already slow process (at the slowest time of the year too, I might add!).


I will admit though that I am not a fan of this idea, mostly because I am predicting failure of execution. I would also like to point out all of the restrictions that might have to be implemented to make this work. If we can find a way to make this work, then I don't mind giving it a test run, or trial period, but I hope this post has helped you guys see things a bit from a different perspective.

[Altissimo]

Couple things (less passionately):

5) Arrangers simplifying arrangements by other members, who DON'T want their arrangements edited. I'll be honest right now, I am extremely picky about my own arrangements and don't want anyone other than me editing them (unless I say or something). I imagine that I am not alone in this boat, ether.

HTCT: get consent? Idk this one is tricky.

The problem with this one is that easy arrangements are probably gonna look similar or the same whether the arranger borrows from a previously existing arrangement or re-arranges by themselves. So, like, someone who is making an easy arrangement of a song that you happen to be the original arranger for, isn't necessarily going to be editing your arrangement. You know? Like I guess if they submit it with all the exact same formatting and junk it'll be a bit of a clue, but the music itself isn't changing whether it's an easy version borrowed from an existing rearrangement or an entirely new ... easy version. There's no real way to tell unless we force everyone to say outright if the arrangement is edited or a completely new transcription, and this could lead to lies. Besides, a lot of the original arrangers are gone off the site and can't offer consent... I'd say just let people arrange easy versions as they choose. It's gonna be (roughly) the same music no matter how it's done, because music is music. But I know I can't force everyone to think that, just pointing it out.

7) More work from our staff and updaters, and a slower submission process. Not only in normal updating, critiquing, and uploading, but in moderating the simplicity levels, crediting issues and other issues that arise from this idea, essentially just adding to our already slow process (at the slowest time of the year too, I might add!).

I'm thinking it doesn't have to be this complicated. I mean, you suggested earlier that easy arrangements be given only to sheets already on site, right? Well, if that's the case, it's real easy to compare an easy sheet with its harder brother. Any member would be able to look at a hard sheet and see if the easy sheet matches it (or roughly matches it) in terms of rhythm, pitch, articulation, etc. It's not like the current submission process where you have to closely compare with the original track to see if there are any changes that could be made, because this is (for the most part) simplifying pre-approved arrangements. Thus I feel like even normal members, non-updaters, could approve easy sheets. Not everyone obviously (or else newbies could approve their own badly-done formatting sheets), but people with a reasonable length of membership and a track record for knowing the formatting rules and being able to accurately compare sheets. I know this solution is probably going to be shot down by some, but I at least wanted to point it out.

[Olimar12345]

5) it's more of a matter of keeping up with who did what. The more different versions of the same song we have on the site, the harder it is to tell who actually arranged which version and who copied from what (even if they didn't copy from an existing arrangement).

The actual point I was trying to make in that bullet though, was that if someone doesn't want a different arrangement of one of their existing arrangements made? How are we going to honor that?

7)  I was more referring to the issues similar to the one above. Not so much the actual critique of the arrangement, but more of keeping track of who did what, checking for a lazy plagiarism, stuff like that.

[Brawler4Ever]

I think it would be best if we came up with some rules (in contrast to guidelines) about the requirements of submitting a simplification of a sheet, to make everything as simple as possible. Some ideas:

1) Protect the integrity of the current arrangements. Every simplified sheet requires a full sheet, but not every full sheet requires a simplified sheet. This leaves our current arrangements as is. If I want to submit Kefka, I can submit Kefka without necessarily creating a simplified sheet alongside it. However, I cannot call my Kefka sheet "simplified" because a current Kefka sheet currently does not exist on the site. The full version of Kefka must come first, with all of our current standards in place. If a full version of Kefka is already on the site, then an arranger (including the original arranger) has the liberty of arranging a simplified version of it.

2) Protect the integrity of the sheet. All simplified sheets must meet the requirements and approval of the updaters upon submission. Self-explanatory, but necessary all the same. We don't want lazy arrangements. This isn't an excuse to flood the site with one's sheets. Quality > Quantity, every time. This also includes the idea of "should this specific sheet be simplified?". For example, it is my opinion that the Super Mario Bros Theme should be not simplified. However, somebody else might disagree, and decide to arrange it. If the sheet is not simplified enough, or is of not good enough quality, it would be rejected by the updaters. Or, if it's a good sheet, it might be accepted. Again, it all depends on the updaters' discretion.

3) Protect the integrity of the new arranger (FireArrow's idea). To submit any simplified sheet to the site, an arranger must first arrange three original arrangements. I'm liking this idea more as I think about it; by the time that a new arranger submits three original arrangements, they will have ample experience with NSM's policies and standards. There should be no problem after that point of a new arranger messing up (beyond the usual hiccups).

4) Protect the integrity of the original arranger. Credit will be determined by the updaters. This is already done with replacements anyway. In replacing a sheet, I may say that I've done enough to a current sheet to call it mine, but an updater might disagree. Who wins that argument? The updater. If the updater feels that "Edited by [New Arranger]" or "Arranged by [New Arranger]" is correct, then it is. They may change their mind as they see fit, but the decision belongs exclusively to the body of the updaters, not the arranger. Same thing with a simplification. If I can prove that it is entirely my work, then I deserve full credit for my sheet. If I based my simplification off of an existing sheet, then the extent to which I would receive credit is determined by the body of the updaters, not by me.

5) Protect the integrity of the site. Only one simplified arrangement will be allowed per arranger, per update. This stops the site from being flooded with new simplified arrangements, without actually adding anything new to the site's current sheets. It keeps the arrangements fresh, while still allowing for accessibility.

The first sentence in each rule explains the purpose. The second sentence would be the actual rule. The idea is that, if accepted, these would be final; there would be no exceptions for any simplified sheet. Each requirement must be met before any simplified sheet is submitted to the site. Obviously, we still need to discuss this, but I figured that we were eventually going to come up with some rules anyway. This just gives us something concrete to discuss, to satisfy everybody's concerns.

[mikey]

brawler x KefkaticFanatic

[FireArrow]

5) Arrangers simplifying arrangements by other members, who DON'T want their arrangements edited. I'll be honest right now, I am extremely picky about my own arrangements and don't want anyone other than me editing them (unless I say or something). I imagine that I am not alone in this boat, ether.

HTCT: get consent? Idk this one is tricky.

I'd say if you don't have consent you need to arrange it from the ground up (there really isn't any way to enforce this, but so long as they claimed to have not touched yours (and the sheet isn't blatantly copy-pasted) this should solve any pride issues.) If you're so touchy about it that you don't want someone sharing the spotlight of arranging that song, well, that's kinda what you agree to let happen by hosting your arrangement on NSM.

6) Allowing more variations of arrangements could lead to more kinds of arrangements being requested to be hosted on the site. This isn't necessarily an issue, but our original mission here has been to provide quality and accurate piano solos to the public, and we are kind of straying from that. I mean, we finally finished cleaning all of the virtuoso arrangements off the site. d:

This slope is very slippery.

7) More work from our staff and updaters, and a slower submission process. Not only in normal updating, critiquing, and uploading, but in moderating the simplicity levels, crediting issues and other issues that arise from this idea, essentially just adding to our already slow process (at the slowest time of the year too, I might add!).

That's an entirely different issue that also needs addressing (why we didn't continue trying solutions after the failure of veteran arrangers I'm not sure, but I digress.) I don't think simplified arrangements would be that much of a burden considering there will be an already accepted (or going to be accepted) sheet to use for reference.

I will admit though that I am not a fan of this idea, mostly because I am predicting failure of execution. I would also like to point out all of the restrictions that might have to be implemented to make this work. If we can find a way to make this work, then I don't mind giving it a test run, or trial period, but I hope this post has helped you guys see things a bit from a different perspective.

That's pretty reasonable, given NSMs track record. However, given the popular demand and ease of implementation (relative to other ideas *cough* difficulty ratings *cough*) I feel it would be criminal to not try out.

[Olimar12345]

If you're so touchy about it that you don't want someone sharing the spotlight of arranging that song, well, that's kinda what you agree to let happen by hosting your arrangement on NSM.

Incorrect, no one has agreed to let any of their hosted arrangements be rearranged AND RE-CREDITED. This is completely different from anything we've ever done, and it treads thin ice.

Edit: And just to clarify, this should not be compared to replacement arrangements in which we add an "edited by" section. In those instances, we are fixing an arrangement that doesn't meet our current standards. In this scenario, we are creating something new from an already up-to-par arrangement, an addition, not an edition.

And don't worry too much about the details of implementation, the updater staff has been discussing this privately.

[FireArrow]

Incorrect, no one has agreed to let any of their hosted arrangements be rearranged AND RE-CREDITED. This is completely different from anything we've ever done, and it treads thin ice.

Erm, everyone that takes our midis would disagree with you.

We would have rules in place to prevent people taking credit when they don't arrange from the ground up. If you're really worried about it you can always just simplify your own arrangements

[Olimar12345]

Erm, everyone that takes our midis would disagree with you.

Idc about what happens outside NSM, but I'll be damned if we let that happen here. d:

[FireArrow]

Idc about what happens outside NSM, but I'll be damned if we let that happen here. d:

:3 Fair enough
How does "the "simplifier" is always credited as "simplified by xxx."" sound to you? Namely because now that I think about it, you'd be an idiot to arrange an easier version from the ground up, because you have an accurate well arranged sheet right in front of you. You sacrifice fringe cases where people really wanna do it all by themselves to ensure the integrity of the original arranger is always protected.

[MaestroUGC]

In regards to the bit in point six regarding the virtuoso stuff: Those were supposed to be removed years ago. In fact I was one of the first to say take them down years ago, as they don't in any way match the aims of the site, at least back when quality control started to become a thing. The fact that they weren't removed after my initial request was on the staff at the time. I wasn't even aware I still had stuff on the site at this point until you arranged the Tetris A-Theme a few months back.

Anyway, I'd like to chime in on these by point:

1) If this is an argument against having newer arrangers making simpler stuff, then sure, they'd do better learning the ropes and good arranging practices first. But this is a non-issue for older arrangers who should know what they're doing to a reasonable degree.

2) You already argued against this point, and the solution you proposed is probably the best idea.

3) Same as 2.

4 and 5) These two seem to revolve around the idea of credit and "what actually constitutes a new arrangement". First of all any simplification, especially if it's competently done, is going to bear some, if not complete, similarities to the fuller version. I'm not sure why you brought this point up as some sort of issue. Of course they're going to share some similarities, if they didn't I'm fairly certain the arrangement in question is flat out wrong.

In fact, considering you'd likely need a full version before a simplified version is approved, odds are pretty good that the arranger in question would likely just edit the primary file in question. Why wouldn't they? Why shouldn't they? Why would you force the arrangers to do more work to produce the same product? Even if they did do it from scratch, outside of some formatting choices you shouldn't be able to see any differences between the two version outside of simpler technique. Beyond that, how could you disprove someone simply didn't pull a copy/paste into a new sheet and make the necessary edits? An argument against plagiarism? It's a derivative of a derivative. No one in their right mind would opt to arrange and already arranged song with the aim of making it easier. Just simplify the original arrangement.

In regards to the whole "credit" idea, his treads a similar case with the whole "sheet edits" issue. A skillfully produced simplification should be indistinguishable from the fuller counterpart, so I argue credit should be "Simplified Arrangement by X" and leave it at that, rather than a proper "Arranged by X". If they want the fuller version they can find it, with it's properly credited glory.

6) If the sheet isn't accurate, why would you even approve it in the first place? "Simpler" doesn't mean "wrong", hell you guys take liberties all the time just by trying to adapt various piece in the first place. Omitting stuff is far less criminal than adding stuff in terms of accuracy. Any piece, regardless of the fluff, can be distilled to its core and still be recognized as a proper arrangement.

7) Not really, as they'd still need to go through the same process as the other submissions. They'd just filter into the system with the rest of the sheets, and they'd be easier to check if you compare it to the fuller version that'd already be on site.

[Tobbeh99]

Ok I updated the OP, to give people a more clear view on the idea and also for new people willing to take part of the discussion.
Please tell me if there is something I've missed.

[Sebastian]

Olimar's long post

I agree with this, guys. I only see more problems coming from simplified arrangements and more work for the Updaters :/
There is just to many variables.

Since like 90% of the members here are for it.....it would be foolish not to consider it further even though Olimar and I are against it. Here are some ideas if we do decide to host simplified sheets.

1. There should be a separate part of the main site for simplified arrangements so we don't have a ton of "song title (simplified)" strewn all over the place.

2. You are only allowed to submit a simplified version of a sheet that is already on site. Then this would encourage the arranger to make a normal version as well and we wouldn't have a ton of simplified versions without normal versions.

3. We could make a new site: NinSheetMusicSimplified.org



Honestly, I don't see how simplified versions is gonna work :/