MapleStory Sheet Music Site!

Okay then, I apologize for that; I was thinking that you meant to practice entire pieces one hand at a time.

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.


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.

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]

I'm glad we could come to an agreement on some things. As for your reasoning behind your denial of the second version of being simplified, I can accept that as well.

As for the whole thing about art, that's the thing. There are people like you and I who've had intensive training in music. And to us, everything looks juvenile and poor. And rightfully so. We've had years of training. They've only informally done it wherever they do it for short periods of time. It's expected that there's a gap between production. I tell that to my friends all the time about pop music and certain videos on youtube. Its really simple, and often devoid of talent. In fact, at times, from my (or our to some extent), it makes us want to tear our hairs out. I'm not saying criticism is bad or that you aren't allowed to criticize. I'm saying it becomes awfully painful if you were to point out every single poor demonstration of music/art with the intensity that you did. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but your initial post had a "omg, no. I CANNOT believe you did it. I have a problem with the way you do things, and I take it personally (well maybe not personally, but I hope you get where I'm going)". What I merely meant is that there's simply too much bad art out there to point and scream and yell about. That it's not worth your time, because to be honest, they probably dont care. Perhaps it was worded poorly, but what I'm saying is you can't expect people to work on the level you do, as its unfair, as they have not had the training you have. You wouldn't expect someone who just started learning piano to play at a virtuosic level. Neither would you expect quality, university-music-school-level transcription from a bunch of amateurs (Rima and others, I really hope you don't take offense to that). I agree in the sense that I disagree with "If you have nothing good to say, don't say it", because I shoot straight to the point most of the time just as well. I just don't feel its fair to judge them and expect them to be at your level, that's all. And to be honest, it's kinda pointless, cause no matter how you tell these people, the level of production they give will probably never be up to your standards.

Once again on the range thing, I feel my point still stands: Changing anything about a piece (though technically transcribing it for piano is already changing something) changes the context of it from the original intention of the composer. Point taken that perhaps the other pieces are up there as well, as I probably didn't spend as much time looking at these scores as you have. That being said, I would just like to clarify I was not trying to name-drop. Fugues were an example of simplified practicing used earlier about simplification. As for the Elgar Cello Concerto, any piece would've worked for the context of my point of playing music which evoke certain emotions in a different key, register, or timbre. I just chose a cello concerto because it was extreme, as it sends the point more concisely.

As for your edit, I quoted the whole post purposely this time, though I usually don't, because if that's the way you prefer it, that's fine with me. You're exactly right. I prefer to address points over people, because when you get into people, it can turn ugly fast (imagine if I jumped on your first comment about my piano level and started ranting about qualifications and whatnot...). As I said though, I'm fine with both. Its nice to see people passionate about their art. But over-zealous passion for it takes the enjoyment out of it.