Quote:I'm not sure how you're interpreting what I'm saying, but I think we're talking about essentially the same thing. Simplifying things to make it easier to learn, which is what you're talking about with hands-separated for a measure or two/line or two before putting it together. I'm sorry if I was unclear, but when mentioning those methods, I did not mean to just run through whole works that way; I was referring to practicing them to build the foundations before moving forward. Just like building a house always starts from the foundations, learning to play a piece does as well.Okay then, I apologize for that; I was thinking that you meant to practice entire pieces one hand at a time.
Yes, in some instances, hands separate work is useless (the one that immediately comes to mind is triplet vs. eighth passages), but I would never refute hands separate practice as something "beginner".
Again, as a finished product, I would agree. But what's wrong with learning it from the ground up? What's wrong with using the simplified version to learn the basics before moving on to the complete transcribed version?
But that's really the only thing here. There is nothing wrong with practicing a simplified version of a piece before moving on to a full version. The point I'm trying to make here is that this isn't simplified enough. The right hand is exactly the same in both versions, and the only difference is the blocked out chords in the left. The problem here is that the left hand isn't difficult enough to warrant this in the first place, which is what I was trying to say in my last post. If you make a simpler version of a song, you simplify both hands. If the piece is difficult enough for someone that they need this "simplified" version (not my hypothetical one, the one we actually have here), then removing all difficulty from the left hand isn't going to help much as the left hand is magnitudes easier than the right. I mean, is this too far a stretch here?
The second "simplified" piece is completely unnecessary and helps reinforce the bad habit of not wanting to focus on one hand. It is not truly a "simplified" piece, and if you gave this to any professor he'd fail you. My point here is that if a person can play one hand in this song, they can play both with a bit of work. If a person cannot play one hand, especially if that hand is the left one which is much easier than the right, they are not ready to play this song. This "simplified" version would not help them in the slightest. I'm not sure how much more clearly I can put this.
Quote:And here is where I disagree. Would I play the part originally written for those very low instruments down there? Nope. Simply put, it'd get too muddy down there. That being said, would I move it up all the way to middle C? Nope. I would put it somewhere in between. Different ranges in the piano have different complexions. For example, the very bottom of most pianos are very murky. As it reaches the center, it becomes warmer. As it goes upwards, it has almost a delicate sound. What I'm saying is, the range DOES matter. Think Henesys. Think all that is associated with it. Now think if it still fits if it was sung by a bass.You know what? No. You don't get to do that. You don't get to completely ignore what I said and then accuse me of being on a high horse with that last comment.
Or Elgar's Cello Concerto played in that Henesys C5-C6 range. Tell me if it's the same thing.
At that rate, you might as well change the key as well (yes, changing the key changes the mood too. Imagine Henesys in F+ instead of the key given. It would sound less vibrant and lively). Pieces are written in their instruments, keys, and ranges for a reason. If everything were written in middle-C range for the piano, it'd be boring.
In the end, there's more than one way to approach things. Music is an art. As is transcribing. Music can be presented in many different ways, and that's the fun in it: there's more than one way to do it! Perhaps you should get off your high horse, and appreciate the diversity that comes with music, the different methods of learning, the different methods of presenting it, and most importantly, the fun that can come with it. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying there's more than one right way of doing things.
Is music an art? Yes.
Is transcribing an art? Arguably, yes.
Does something being an art mean that it's suddenly immune to criticism? No, and anyone who thinks so doesn't deserve to do so in the first place. This is exactly the kind of attitude that perpetuates sites like deviantart and the reason that many people dislike it so much, that because something is an art or is "their style" the people offering criticism are suddenly just being big ol' meanies who won't get off their high horses and just enjoy being hateful people. Stop it. There is nothing wrong with an honest criticism. Even dishonest criticism can be useful at times, but the phrase "I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying there's more than one right way of doing things" in the method you use it is intellectually dishonest.
I never said anything about moving the melody of Henesys into the bass. I specifically said I wasn't moving it into the bass, you even quoted me as saying I only suggested bumping the right hand an octave down. If you want to play it that high, go right ahead, because the thing is here that I was giving a few suggestions on how to improve the transcribing of these pieces. Having the right hand so high isn't something only in this piece, I mentioned it because it's found very commonly throughout many of the transcriptions they have up so far. I even said that originally, but I guess that doesn't matter because we're only talking about Henesys now (except when you start namedropping other songs or mentioning fugues trying to prove me wrong)
Edit: I did read the first part of your post (the parts before where I quoted you. I didn't quote that part because I felt that the entirety of your post up until the first section I quoted was all talking about the same thing. I already hate having to break posts up like this. I like being able to just quote a single post a lot more, because it actually feels more like a debate/discussion (even if it's a discussion where calling the other person a meanie face is an acceptable method). I personally feel that when you break up posts, you're no longer addressing the person, but rather their points. It makes the whole thing feel impersonal, at least to me. Just wanted to let you know that I did read it, just didn't quote.
Anyway that's my story welp cya [/edit]