Messages

• You could add rubato performance text to this one, there are definitely times in the original where things pick up or slow a bit.
• m37 3.0 hearing an Eb above the current notes and no An.

- Sounds good to me! Added to the tempo marking
- Oh good catch! I didn't realize this place has the same countermelody as in m. 33/35. I added an explicit flat on the Eb since it's naturaled out in the left hand previously. Looking at this again, I also added staccatos to all the beat 3+ notes in both hands since this is articulated differently from pretty much everywhere else in the piece.

Thanks for checking, updated

This might be overly explicit, but m5-14 the LH could use staccatos b1 and b3 and a tenuto b4. (or just add articulations m5-7 and add simile)

I thought about this a bit since I wasn't sure whether to indicate pedal to the user or not. I think it does make sense to make the articulation a little more explicit, though! I don't want to put staccato on beat 1 since as the only bass notes here I'd like them to stick around a bit longer, but beat 1.5/3/3.5 make sense to have staccatos, and yes tenuto on beat 4. Simile sounds good at m. 7

I'm hearing the end of m3 as a triplet not tresillo.

Ah yep, good catch

m15-16,19-20 I'm hearing the horns replay b3 on b4. If it doesn't look too detached, could have the LH replay the same notes on b4.

Oh, I never noticed that! The bass doesn't restrike but I think replaying the upper notes on beat 4 of those measures sounds good underneath the melody.

Files updated, thank you for the feedback

[looks great]

hmm. I'm not sure I like that solution but I do see that there is room for improvement here. The 7th (C) in the Dm7 that low sounds too muddy for my liking, and that's not going to really change the chord quality as drastically as the next chord. For the G7b9 I've kept the arpeggio shape from the first beat but added in the notes from the original. Trying to play that Ab from the G was a little too prone to being "missed" for me. Check it out and tell me what you think.

I think this works nicely! Agreed that the G7b9 is more important here and I think what you have now conveys that well while also being comfy to play.

Nothing to add onto the other comments, looks great to me!

Awesome sheet! I wrote this one out a long time ago but this is definitely neater for playing than my old one is. Here are my comments:

- The arpeggios in the original in first half of m. 5 outline Dm7 and G7b9 chords. How would you feel about incorporating those additional notes into the left hand? (e.g. play the seventh on beat 1.25/2.25 instead)
- In the second half of m. 6 (RH), the secondary voice jumping above the melody seems a bit disorienting to me on piano, despite them being laid out that way in the original. Thoughts on inverting downwards to keep the main melody on top as it is everywhere else?
- m. 12 beat 2 RH is actually a triplet beginning on D - did you intentionally simplify this to make it easier to lead into the tremolo?
- m. 15 LH beat 2: I hear G-G# instead of G#-A
- m. 16 LH beat 4.5: I hear another low G here
- m. 18 LH: I hear G on beat 1 and the octave of beats 2-2.5 flipped (I suppose this would apply to the coda measure as well)

[looks good]

Hmm, that would make sense theoretically (I do hear the F in the harp on beat 2), but I would've suspected that the low F would have a similar attack to the piano notes afterwards too, but the Ab seems to have that attack instead. I think I'd rather keep the low Ab in the R.H. and the F in the L.H., so that it's easier to have that Ab accentuated.

Ah, I mostly just meant to point out that the melody is supposed to be F here voicing it in this way makes sense to play!

I admittedly have used them a bit more in this sheet than I've done in others, but I wanted to show that these voices are not necessary for the arrangement to sound good, while keeping them available for more advanced players that do want to include them if they choose to. I don't play the L.H. small notes in m63-78 for example, and don't play the R.H. small notes in m63-70 to contrast them with m71-78.

Alrighty, fine by me!

Nothing more from me I think, this looks good ^^

Noticed a playback error on "MNN+@0・ (Ma-non Ship (Day))" where it kept repeating endlessly. I fixed it so that it only loops once. Could someone please update the files? Thanks in advance!
.mid
.mus

And sharing this one, just in case!
.musx

Hey! It doesn't look like I have access to files, but if the playback is the only thing wrong I can just edit the existing file on site. I've changed the DC at the end to only jump on first pass and updated the file on site - see if that's good!

Hello

In the first seven measures of Metroid Prime's Chozo Artifact Temple, the E just under the fifth line of the staff which appears twice in the pattern on the right hand should be a D for the first seven measures.

Fixed this along with:
- https in URL
- "and" in composer info
- Measure number positioning
- A bit of staff spacing and margin work
- Removal of octave clefs
- Corrected some incorrectly flipped notes
- Adjusted some rhythm groupings
- Removed 8va in left hand


The others mentioned above will be fixed soon too! Sorry for the wait!

Time for some more France

Yeah, the on-site sheet is rough--thanks for doing this one, Sunshine music rules. Per the 35th anniversary release of the soundtrack, I believe this one is called "Proto Piranha".

Hmm, okay. Finding the official names of any Mario track is a bit sketchy so I wasn't sure. We'll see what the updaters have to say

I booted up Super Mario 3D All-Stars (RIP Mario) and "Proto Piranha" is indeed correct. Unless there are any other earlier official sources that conflict, we should use that title.

But... the music player does an interesting thing. The track before this in the player is "Mid-Boss" (with a hyphen) which sounds the same aside from the intro. When I play the track listed as "Proto Piranha" in the music player, it plays the version you arranged, but fades out after 15 seconds or so, presumably because the rest is the same as the previous track.

So, thoughts about combining both into one sheet - just writing out and labeling both intros at the beginning and calling the sheet something like "Mid-Boss & Proto Piranha" or "Mid-Boss / Proto Piranha"?

FWIW, the track after, "Phantamanta", is largely the same structurally but does have some differences in instrumentation, so it plays the entire track.

Ooh, great sheet! I had never really stopped to think about this piece before, but knowing Rhea, this piece has a lot of depth to it...

In places where the R.H. doesn't have anything to do (like m1-6) I know it's possible for it to play the missing F5's on beat 2, but I left them out for consistency.

You could always just have the left hand play F4 instead (on top of the existing triad). I think the resulting 4-note chord is pretty comfortable to play and doesn't add a lot of difficulty (don't think it's too reliant on hand size either? It's just a good position). But if you want to keep triads that's fine too.

- In m. 33, I think beat 2 RH should be an F octave and the Ab is part of the LH dyad instead.
- I can sorta get why the high notes are small to indicate they're somewhat embellishments, but is there any reason for the lower voice harmony in m. 47+ (and LH in m. 63+) to be small notes? I don't mind the use of small notes for embellishments in general but they seem unnecessary here. They're just part of the music, intended to be played, and already differentiated by being in a different voice.

[Looks good]

Awesome! Looks good to me then

You cannot view this attachment.

If it was purely for visual highlighting, you could also do something like this:
In which the player can still decide to play with the R.H. if they want. Keeping it as is is fine too though, in which the player can still decide to play it with the L.H., haha

Yeah I think I'd still prefer to keep it as is, it makes the most sense to me separated on the other staff

I can kinda hear the pitches in the original, but much less the actual attack of the notes, which makes me think they're overtone shenanigans. The difference isn't particularly big though, so I don't mind if you leave them in. Upon listening this part again I do think I hear a Bn above the L.H. Ab in beat 3.5, it sounded like there's more than two unique notes there.

It's a bit hard to tell for sure, but what I have written in right now makes the most sense to me - not cluttering with too many notes, but including a countermelodic line that fits in.

Everything else looks good though! Maybe you could add some dynamics in the m30-32 and m38-40 sections? The rest of the piece seems to stay in that p range, but in those sections there's a bit of a crescendo and decrescendo. An actual dynamic marking might be a bit overkill, but a crescendo and decrescendo probably gets the point across that there's something happening here.

I wasn't sure at first since a lot of the ebb and flow of this piece (both in terms of timing and volume) is pretty loose and up to the performer to draw out, but yeah these couple of places make sense! I haven't specified a dynamic level, just added hairpins to show that it swells a bit.

Files updated! ^^

The OP has files for your Mega Man sheet! Looking forward to going over this one soon though, I love this piece and the file I downloaded before looked good~

You'll notice that I took a certain liberty from m. 9 through 16, and that involves replacing the original bass line with an inversion of the accompaniment pattern, rather than transcribing the bass line verbatim while omitting the accompaniment. This may come across as a controversial change, but with all due respect, I stand by it as this setup preserves the groove far better than the alternative. Aside from that, this is a pretty straight-forward arrangement.

This all looks good to me! No qualms, sounds fine and is reasonable to play.

Only correction to suggest, I think - second to last note in m. 19 LH should be G instead of F?

Oh, and please change the sheet's title to "Quick Man Stage" Thanks!

Will get that a bit later!

Bumping this up. Is this one done??

See Bloop's comment above

Glad to see a replacement for this one especially given how popular this piece has been lately. The one we have now isn't bad but is showing its age. Here are a few passing comments as I skim this over:


I feel like the voicing for the chords needs some work. In m. 3-8, the jumps are very large and pretty difficult to pull off accurately at this tempo. Could you try inverting the triads downwards and/or using dyads instead to make it easier on the left hand? I can provide some suggestions if you like.

In measures 12+, the bass is missing and having the left hand play the mid-range chords. I think this could be addressed by making sure you have your inversions correct (ex. m. 12 plays Eb in the bass) first and thinking about what other chord tones would make sense to include from there. Again, happy to suggest some options if you like.

For m. 19, use a regular An instead of Bbb. In measure 22, make sure to keep your intervals consistent. The second chord would work better written as a simple Dm triad, and last one as Bm. (Technically could be Ebbm and Cbm but we could do without that many flats lol)