Submission Information:
Series: Super Mario
Game: Super Mario Galaxy 2
Console: Nintendo Wii
Title: Starship Mario 1
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Sebastian (http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3424)
Replacement Information:
Links to Existing Sheet: MUS (http://www.ninsheetmusic.org/download/mus/867) | MIDI (http://www.ninsheetmusic.org/download/mid/867) | PDF (http://www.ninsheetmusic.org/download/pdf/867)
Replacement Type: Challenge (new arranger)
[attachment deleted by admin]
[attachment deleted by admin]
Correct title is "Starship Mario 1"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1fhegjp_Po
No harp flourish in bar 3? It sure would sit beautifully and it's not like the pianist is doing much else of world importance in that bar.
Perhaps bar 8 onwards would be tidier with both accompaniment parts in the LH staff?
Also in that section: playability?
For the two voices to make sense in bars 24-27 you need the bottom voice visible as a separate note in some places, eg beat 1 & 3 in bar 24. Otherwise it can look like random double stemming.
No harp glissez in the last line?
In measure 26 there's absolutely no way anyone looking at a printed sheet would know if those notes in the second layer are quarter notes or half notes. Not sure what the solution is though.
Love this track! :) Was kinda disappointed at the arrangement we had too when I tried to read it about a year-ish back (really. idk why.), so it's great that you've done a solid replacement :)
I'm in favour of keeping the accompaniment pattern that crosses over the way it is. It would be pretty nice to keep it in the lower staff, but when you have notes that range, generally, from around middle G to D, then it's not feasible to do so (changing clefs is confusing).
As for the inner voice of the upper staff at bars 24-27, I think it makes a little sense to do that because you want to show the performers that you, as a composer, recognised a chromatic scale in the track. You wouldn't be wrong, but the performers would just go "hmm okay" and wish they weren't there. Bascially, it's awesome that you saw the chromatic scale, but as a performer, I would prefer the more organised score you get if you remove that part altogether~
As Deku Trombonist mentioned, harp glisses! Yes please. We need that glimmer somewhere, especially on bar 3. The one at the ending is kinda-ish okay-ly substituted by tremolos. But something needs to lead-in to the opening section at bar 3, and while a piano gliss probably sucks (unless you do it in thirds! dont you dare.), a modified arpeggio might be okay :)
Otherwise, great work; a nice potential sight-reading piece! :) Fantastic effort and much thanks~
Quote from: Deku Trombonist on June 09, 2016, 01:12:56 AMNo harp flourish in bar 3? It sure would sit beautifully and it's not like the pianist is doing much else of world importance in that bar.
To be completely honest, I'm not very good at adding things like that. I actually had this same idea before, but every attempt of mine didn't turn out nicely. I even tried slowing the song down to 50%, but it's still extremely hard to hear. Any ideas? I'm very interested in incorporating this.
EDIT: Here is a crude "first draft." What's everyone think of something like this?
Spoiler
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/s2ps80epouvngyv/Screenshot%202016-06-09%2009.44.29.png?dl=1)
Quote from: Deku Trombonist on June 09, 2016, 01:12:56 AMPerhaps bar 8 onwards would be tidier with both accompaniment parts in the LH staff?
That's exactly what I had before Latios and I discussed this sheet over skype, but Latios recommended this way. Honestly, I think this way is easier for the performer and cleaner looking in general. Having it in the left hand seemed messier and harder for the performer to read.
Quote from: Deku Trombonist on June 09, 2016, 01:12:56 AMAlso in that section: playability?
Not impossible. I tried playing it and I can do it relatively easily without much practice.
Quote from: Deku Trombonist on June 09, 2016, 01:12:56 AMFor the two voices to make sense in bars 24-27 you need the bottom voice visible as a separate note in some places, eg beat 1 & 3 in bar 24. Otherwise it can look like random double stemming.
It was actually Olimar that recommended that I put the notes together in this fashion. Olimar and I had a nice discussion about it here:
We start the conversation here:
http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?topic=4911.msg341037#msg341037
He specifically brings it up here and here:
http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?topic=4911.msg341060#msg341060
http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?topic=4911.msg341113#msg341113
Quote from: Deku Trombonist on June 09, 2016, 01:12:56 AMNo harp glissez in the last line?
Heck, no :P
Four voices might be a little overkill lol.
Quote from: FireArrow on June 09, 2016, 01:20:18 AMIn measure 26 there's absolutely no way anyone looking at a printed sheet would know if those notes in the second layer are quarter notes or half notes. Not sure what the solution is though.
As I told Deku, Olimar had me change it.
I
could do something like this:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/zom1o5i7wtbr7n6/Screenshot%202016-06-09%2009.27.24.png?dl=1)
Again, that's what I originally had. Olimar (as you can see on my arrangement page) had me change it. Honestly, I like how I currently have it now, but I do agree with your statement, FireArrow.
Quote from: dajwxp on June 09, 2016, 02:05:25 AMLove this track! :) Was kinda disappointed at the arrangement we had too when I tried to read it about a year-ish back (really. idk why.), so it's great that you've done a solid replacement :)
Thank you! I've been meaning to replace this sheet for about a year now, but only got around to it this past month.
Quote from: dajwxp on June 09, 2016, 02:05:25 AMI'm in favour of keeping the accompaniment pattern that crosses over the way it is. It would be pretty nice to keep it in the lower staff, but when you have notes that range, generally, from around middle G to D, then it's not feasible to do so (changing clefs is confusing).
I totally agree.
Quote from: dajwxp on June 09, 2016, 02:05:25 AMAs for the inner voice of the upper staff at bars 24-27, I think it makes a little sense to do that because you want to show the performers that you, as a composer, recognised a chromatic scale in the track. You wouldn't be wrong, but the performers would just go "hmm okay" and wish they weren't there. Bascially, it's awesome that you saw the chromatic scale, but as a performer, I would prefer the more organised score you get if you remove that part altogether~
Hmmmm, we'll see. I would like to hear the others' thoughts on this.
Quote from: dajwxp on June 09, 2016, 02:05:25 AMAs Deku Trombonist mentioned, harp glisses! Yes please. We need that glimmer somewhere, especially on bar 3. The one at the ending is kinda-ish okay-ly substituted by tremolos. But something needs to lead-in to the opening section at bar 3, and while a piano gliss probably sucks (unless you do it in thirds! dont you dare.), a modified arpeggio might be okay :)
I plan on getting the one up in M. 3, but I, unfortunately, don't know
what to put. I've always tried staying away from these types of things because they always end bad for me xD
About the ones in the last system, I'll just leave that system as is.
Quote from: dajwxp on June 09, 2016, 02:05:25 AMOtherwise, great work; a nice potential sight-reading piece! :) Fantastic effort and much thanks~
Great to hear! Thank you very much. : )
Oooooh I really wanna play this :D
Quote from: Deku Trombonist on June 09, 2016, 01:12:56 AMPerhaps bar 8 onwards would be tidier with both accompaniment parts in the LH staff?
Yeah, I recommended the way we have right now because that layer is entirely off the staff (middle C is the lowest it gets) and goes as high as a D (five ledger lines). I also like it this way because even though it doesn't overlap with the melody, you can see exactly how close it gets.
Quote from: dajwxp on June 09, 2016, 02:05:25 AMa nice potential sight-reading piece! :)
Quote from: DS on June 09, 2016, 07:02:59 AMOooooh I really wanna play this :D
augh I wanna play it too
That image of M.3 looks pretty good I think. That is probably how I would arrange that as well. You could also add a cresc. on the way up and a dim. on the way down.
Ok^.
Anyone else have any thoughts on it?
I added the flourish in M. 3 and added a screenshot to accommodate for the odd formatting.
Any others edits needed for this sheet?
bump
You asked for it, and you'll get it
First: I completely understand if this is an artistic choice, but is there a reason that the eighth notes in m4-7 don't have staccatos like the rest?
Second: Have you considered staccatos for the baseline as well? I don't remembre the proper musical/string term, but I'm pretty sure a staccato would be the best way to notate it.
Third: The riff.
Here's my edited version:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/t9pi9kud3j7sjto/Super%20Mario%20Galaxy%202%20-%20Starship%20Mario.musx?dl=0
After this, it should be done.
edit: Probably flip the stem of the dotted half in m3/4
Quote from: Maelstrom on June 16, 2016, 11:43:02 AMFirst: I completely understand if this is an artistic choice, but is there a reason that the eighth notes in m4-7 don't have staccatos like the rest?
Since those are the only voices playing, I didn't want them to sound all choppy by adding staccatos which is why I didn't.
Quote from: Maelstrom on June 16, 2016, 11:43:02 AMSecond: Have you considered staccatos for the baseline as well? I don't remembre the proper musical/string term, but I'm pretty sure a staccato would be the best way to notate it.
They don't need detached or shortened any more than they are already. They are clearly held
longer in the original then they are currently notated.
Quote from: Maelstrom on June 16, 2016, 11:43:02 AMThird: The riff.
Here's my edited version:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/t9pi9kud3j7sjto/Super%20Mario%20Galaxy%202%20-%20Starship%20Mario.musx?dl=0
I like mine better. I guess yours works. It doesn't seem very cool sounding or very "pianistic" like mine.
Quote from: Maelstrom on June 16, 2016, 11:43:02 AMedit: Probably flip the stem of the dotted half in m3/4
.....the whole notes?
Quote from: Sebastian on June 16, 2016, 11:55:28 AM1Since those are the only voices playing, I didn't want them to sound all choppy by adding staccatos which is why I didn't.
2They don't need detached or shortened any more than they are already. They are clearly held longer in the original then they are currently notated.
3I like mine better. I guess yours works. It doesn't seem very cool sounding or very "pianistic" like mine.
4.....the whole notes?
1. I made the comment for consistency's sake..
2. I don't think you can "hold" a plucked string
3. Mine may not be as creative, but it's what's in the song.
4. Nvm. Sorry if those got messed up when I cleared the last quarter of the measure. Yeah, they should be whole notes.
Just look at any string player when they play pizzicato. It may not resonant very long, but until the person actually lets go of the string, it's definitely being held. Seb plays cello, so he can attest.
Thanks.
Quote from: Bespinben on June 16, 2016, 12:08:48 PMJust look at any string player when they play pizzicato. It may not resonant very long, but until the person actually lets go of the string, it's definitely being held. Seb plays cello, so he can attest.
This.
Even after you let go of the string, it still vibrates for a little bit. So it's definitely being played for longer than I have notated.
Also, I don't think I've ever seen staccatos on pizzicato notes; but, alas, this is a piano solo.
Also, if Seb feels his "pianistic" approach better expresses the composition than strict MIDI-like transcription, then I'm all for it
Reasoning:
Spoiler
Quote from: Bespinben on February 16, 2015, 02:28:03 PM"...the attempt to make a useful object equally usable for a variety of purposes is usually the way to spoil it completely."
~Arnold Schoenberg
Spoken in the context of piano reductions, I have come to believe that making a pure, computer replica-esque piano reproduction of a song "spoils it completely". I do certainly aim for the highest degree of faithfulness, no doubt, but when push comes to shove, if a song has a bunch of long sustained tones with a really driving percussive rhythm, I'm going to make a accompaniment that reflects the timbre of the percussion using the tones spelled out in the chords (ex: "Primal Dialga", PMD2 "Ending Theme", Pokémon Ranger "Title Theme", etc.), even if not necessarily given in the OST. In the end, I feel like this approach actually produces a MORE accurate piano arrangement than by the "strict" approach.
A similar scenario from other people's sheets: stellarlight24's "Kracko"
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1111.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fh475%2FBespinben%2Fkracko_zpsgz1eqifh.jpg&hash=3f985df1b12c5be5d9967a4add6ee0273ce86213) (http://s1111.photobucket.com/user/Bespinben/media/kracko_zpsgz1eqifh.jpg.html)
Okay, so I think "let's incorporate the rhythm of the high RH ostinato into the notes of the current LH chords, and make that the new right hand part, and then write in the omitted bass:
(https://www.ninsheetmusic.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1111.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fh475%2FBespinben%2Fstrgrllidea2_zps69a4338c.jpg&hash=efe9667fc895598d2287bd79a8ea27dd924b7f4e) (http://s1111.photobucket.com/user/Bespinben/media/strgrllidea2_zps69a4338c.jpg.html)
She likes it! But then...
We have this idea of changing ANYTHING from the original somehow makes it less faithful, somehow less worthy of the title "transcription", but I would like to challenge this notion.
Uhh, Ben?
Did you look at the two versions first?
It's not really a matter of which is more pianistic
I'm fine with interpretive things that let you add in more voices and stuff, but the harp was nearly strictly chromatic and Seb's version was anything but. In fact, it hit the highest note of the scale a few beats to early.
If you want to get literal, here is the most accurate:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1dsh6hop02k0neq/Super%20Mario%20Galaxy%202%20-%20Starship%20Mario.musx?dl=1
I admit. How I had it wasn't too faithful to the original since I thought mine was "cool".....but I guess we don't do that here >.<
Quote from: Bespinben on June 16, 2016, 12:24:54 PMAlso, if Seb feels his "pianistic" approach better expresses the composition than strict MIDI-like transcription, then I'm all for it
^
That's not to say we don't allow for interpretive stuff here. We do, and encourage it. We draw the line where it becomes quite different from the original. This is most common on clear-cut songs. Creative freedom should be used when needed, but not on clear-cut scales.
Btw, you probably want to change that dotted half to a whole note.
So which did we decide on?
Errm guys? Let's turn off the heat a little maybe?
Hehe.
Anyway, I saw a music debate, so you know. I spent my precious mobile data actually listening to the youtube track, and now I'm pretty sure of what goes on in that sacred bar.
I'm holding my stand at the point around halfway to Maelstrom's idea.
Quote from: Maelstrom on June 16, 2016, 12:29:11 PMbut the harp was nearly strictly chromatic and Seb's version was anything but. In fact, it hit the highest note of the scale a few beats to early.
No and yes! ^^ The harp is never chromatic because it just can't be (harps are tuned to diatonic scales usually). But yes, Seb's version did hit the highest note too early. It should be almost square on the third beat~
Quote from: Maelstrom on June 16, 2016, 12:40:52 PMCreative freedom should be used when needed, but not on clear-cut scales.
What I heard was a dominant seventh arpeggio leading up to a high A, which comes down in a diatonic F major gliss. So, yes, Seb's version did stray off the original quite a bit.
That being said, you can't do an F major gliss on the piano (plus it sounds like shite if you wanted the sound of a harp), and an F major scale at a harp gliss speed is tough even if you use two hands unless you're Prokofiev. Or Shostakovich. Or better than they were. And btw, they were angry Russians. *runs*
I would keep the flourish idea (not note-perfect though) in the first half of the bar as it is, definitely. But for this to be effective it shouldn't start on the first beat of the bar - in fact maybe leave an eighth rest before you fade in with the dominant seventh arpeggio. Let it somehow end up on a high A at the third beat, then descend on a A-E-C-Bb pattern (because that's a little ambiguous-ish). The closest example I can think of it Liszt's Rigoletto Paraphrase, which spams this fun little figure around the middle of the introduction.
If you don't get it I'll definitely try scoring it out...once I get access to a computer. But do consider ^^
Also, music is fun! Salt is not. Let's be fun people! ^^
Quote from: dajwxp on June 16, 2016, 05:48:07 PMErrm guys? Let's turn off the heat a little maybe?
I didn't know the heat was turned on :P
Also, Ben and I have been working on this via skype. We should be done shortly.
Quote from: Sebastian on June 16, 2016, 05:53:19 PMI didn't know the heat was turned on :P
Eep. Weeellllll then.
QuoteAlso, Ben and I have been working on this via skype. We should be done shortly.
Great to hear this though! ^^ Hope to see the final soon
so i can promptly devour it and wash it down in flames nah just kidding i wanna play it :)
This is how you typeset music:
[MUS] (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/35209091/Super%20Mario%20Galaxy%202%20-%20Starship%20Mario%20%28Edit%29.mus) [MIDI] (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/35209091/Super%20Mario%20Galaxy%202%20-%20Starship%20Mario%20%28Edit%29.mid) [PDF] (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/35209091/Super%20Mario%20Galaxy%202%20-%20Starship%20Mario%20%28Edit%29.pdf) [MUSX] (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/35209091/Super%20Mario%20Galaxy%202%20-%20Starship%20Mario%20%28Edit%29.musx)
Notice that the only actual music edits were on the harp gliss (m. 3, as per dajwxp), and raising the bass line in m. 8+ up an octave (as per Deku). Everything else is strictly in the realm of engraving -- layer management, beaming, stem direction, system spacing, measure distribution, white-space optimization, etc. Focus on the things that matter (visually), and you will get this result every time. Assessing the arrangement/music itself can be helpful to some, but, as a sheet music site, what matters most is facilitating communication between arranger and performer through highly polished musical typesetting.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/35209091/starship%281%29.PNG)
^^
That looks really nice Ben. Though in M.3, I'd prefer to keep the LH in the bass clef, and have the notes up in the RH but use bracket or text to indicate which hand the notes are to be played with.
Thanks tobbeh, really glad you like it! Seb and I did in fact try that method (and a few others, like using split beaming and opposite stem directions to indicate hand positioning), but this method yielded the most visually uncluttered result, in my opinion. I also was fond of this method since it has a similar style to those virtuoso runs you might find in a Chopin urtext manuscript.
Thanks again, Ben, for the great advice and the time you dedicated to reviewing and revising this arrangement with me! : )
Quote from: Bespinben on June 17, 2016, 05:09:23 AMEverything else is strictly in the realm of engraving -- layer management, beaming, stem direction, system spacing, measure distribution, white-space optimization, etc. Focus on the things that matter (visually), and you will get this result every time. Assessing the arrangement/music itself can be helpful to some, but, as a sheet music site, what matters most is facilitating communication between arranger and performer through highly polished musical typesetting.
Amen.
Will remember these golden words, man. ^^
That score looks beautiful, haha :)
Beautiful work once again, you two!
This submission has been accepted by Latios212 (http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?action=profile;u=4344).
~Zeta, your friendly NSM-Bot