[GCN] Pokémon Colosseum - "World Map" by Kricketune54

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Pokémon
Game: Pokémon Colosseum
Console: Nintendo GameCube
Title: World Map
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Kricketune54

[attachment deleted by admin]

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Kricketune54]

Going to submit this one after all.  I wanted originally to do this one and Echo's Edge, but I also would rather do the X and Y title screen sheet, and I think Echo's Edge and that at the same time is asking a lot of the updating team.  There's some additional stuff I'd like to sort out before submitting Echo's Edge, and it's not really something I'm interested in doing this month.  Sorry Kirbo fans, though I will have a different Star Allies sheet for next month, and Echo's Edge will be submitted at some point 

Anyhoo, same notes as my previous submission of "World Map".  It's a new world in 2022!

-m3-4 I originally had as follows, but decided to simplify it in the actual submission files (m4 second layer is merged and the Dn doesn't carry from second layer m3 RH)

Spoiler

[close]

-On this same thread when playing m3 in the RH, I did find myself playing the D#, restriking, and holding it out beyond beat 2.  Should this instead be quarter, dotted half as a bottom layer, and then the G# and C# in the top?

Spoiler

[close]

Last bit to point out, I hear in m7 a Dn on the bottom of the LH, but it's not reachable, so I made it an F# so that it's consistent with m8 as far as number of notes in the chord.  I tried putting the Dn on the bottom and removing the top F#, sounded a bit too muddy and D heavy for my liking.

[cacabish]

Ooh! I like this piece! I like pieces that are nice and grand like this and it manages to capture that grandeur very succinctly! Plus it's Pokémon, so there's some bonus points from me.

Here's some feedback from me:
- The metronome mark could bother to be a little lower. It looks okay where it is, but I think a bit lower looks better.
- I'm not completely sure, but I feel like the piece could actually be in B major, not E major. Granted, switching keys doesn't have that much of an impact because of how short the piece is, but I feel like B major fits better, just given the chord movements. I could be wrong, though.
- The 8th note rest in the LH at m. 2, beat 1, I feel is too close to the tie. This could either be resolved by moving the rest lower or by flipping the ties of the tied whole note in m. 1-2. I'm not sure which is more correct, but either way, the rest and the tie seem too close together.
- In response to this:

-On this same thread when playing m3 in the RH, I did find myself playing the D#, restriking, and holding it out beyond beat 2.  Should this instead be quarter, dotted half as a bottom layer, and then the G# and C# in the top?

Spoiler

[close]

I feel like this is better than what is currently written because, personally, I'm confused when I see a whole note and then immediately have to restrike the note, without doing anything in-between. That said, you could also go for something like this:

Now, I'm not an expert on this by any measure (pun intended), so take this suggestion with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, I still feel like writing it where you restrike and hold the second time is better than having the whole-note, quarter-note that's currently written.
- In m. 5, I feel that the eighth-note rests in the RH should be moved down a bit and the eighth-note rests in the LH should be moved up a bit. The rest in the RH b. 2.5 is especially too close to the F# that's above it, so it should be moved down to give the F# some space (then move the b. 4.5 rest to pair with the first). In the LH, whilst I feel the rests are okay where they are, I think they look better if they are moved up a staff line.
- The Fn in the LH m. 5, b. 3 should be an E#, which makes the chord a fully-fledged C# major chord and pairs with the E# already in the RH.
- For the strings in m. 7 RH, it sounds to me like they are slurred, so you could bother to add a slur or two here. If I had to add them, I would put one from the D (beat 1) to the A (beat 4) and another from the D (beat 4.25) to the staccato-ed B in beat 1 of m. 8, however, you do you.
- The tenuto-staccato articulation in m. 8, b. 3.5 looks strange to me. I think it's because the staccato and the tenuto are hugging that top staff line. I did some testing and MuseScore places this in the same relative position as the one over the E in beat 4, but I did some reading and it seems like the more correct thing is to have the staccato vertically centered between its staff lines and the tenuto for its staff lines (just imagining a phantom staff line above it), so it looks something like this:

Now, I'm not sure entirely how to do this in Finale without just having 2 separate articulations (and even then, the tenuto isn't as thick as it should be). Regardless, I feel that either option looks better than what is currently there.
- I feel like you should add some extra space between the staves for the 2nd system (m.5-8). I would add enough so the crescendo and the forte are nice and vertically centered. I think it looks really nice when you do this.
- Speaking of crescendos, the hairpins in measures 6, 9, and 10 all terminate right against the barline. This looks off to me, so you should give a little space between the end of the hairpin and the barline (this may mess up the MIDI, unfortunately).
- As much as I enjoy the big crescendo in m. 9 (especially with the tremolos), when I listen to the piece, I don't really hear this. To me, it sounds like a constant forte, with the rolling timpani and the chord progression creating a "crescendo"-like effect. But, that's just me.
- The measure widths should be adjusted for measures 9-12. I think measures 9 and 10 look quite squished and I don't think the tied whole notes in m. 10-11 need all that space.
- Finally, I hear the timpani go down to a B for the last chord and I don't really hear any D#'s, so I think the last chord works well as a B-F#-B, which is a nice callback to the open E-B-E chord in the first measure. However, if you disagree with me, that's totally fine -- either way sounds fine to me!

That's all from me for now! This is my first time giving feedback, so I'm not quite sure what to say, how to phrase it, or if I'm just up in the night. Nevertheless, I hope you find some of this helpful.

[Kricketune54]

- The metronome mark could bother to be a little lower. It looks okay where it is, but I think a bit lower looks better.

Shifted the metronome mark down a bit, and the systems as well.  Definitely had the space to do so lol.

- I'm not completely sure, but I feel like the piece could actually be in B major, not E major. Granted, switching keys doesn't have that much of an impact because of how short the piece is, but I feel like B major fits better, just given the chord movements. I could be wrong, though.

I think you're correct on this.  Upon further listening the first chord definitely sounds more appropriate as a B major rather than E major.

- The 8th note rest in the LH at m. 2, beat 1, I feel is too close to the tie. This could either be resolved by moving the rest lower or by flipping the ties of the tied whole note in m. 1-2. I'm not sure which is more correct, but either way, the rest and the tie seem too close together.

Moved the rest down a bit.  I'll be honest not sure what the deal would be with ties either but I would think they would stay as is

- In response to this:I feel like this is better than what is currently written because, personally, I'm confused when I see a whole note and then immediately have to restrike the note, without doing anything in-between. That said, you could also go for something like this:

I like this better.  It definitely looks like it would make more sense to the player who may not know the original.  Fixed!

- In m. 5, I feel that the eighth-note rests in the RH should be moved down a bit and the eighth-note rests in the LH should be moved up a bit. The rest in the RH b. 2.5 is especially too close to the F# that's above it, so it should be moved down to give the F# some space (then move the b. 4.5 rest to pair with the first). In the LH, whilst I feel the rests are okay where they are, I think they look better if they are moved up a staff line.

Yep this definitely looks better, fixed

- The Fn in the LH m. 5, b. 3 should be an E#, which makes the chord a fully-fledged C# major chord and pairs with the E# already in the RH.

Oops, fixed

- For the strings in m. 7 RH, it sounds to me like they are slurred, so you could bother to add a slur or two here. If I had to add them, I would put one from the D (beat 1) to the A (beat 4) and another from the D (beat 4.25) to the staccato-ed B in beat 1 of m. 8, however, you do you.

Added a slurs as advised

- The tenuto-staccato articulation in m. 8, b. 3.5 looks strange to me. I think it's because the staccato and the tenuto are hugging that top staff line. I did some testing and MuseScore places this in the same relative position as the one over the E in beat 4, but I did some reading and it seems like the more correct thing is to have the staccato vertically centered between its staff lines and the tenuto for its staff lines

Yeah never really noted that before you pointed it out. Unfortunately it looks like it is a character tied to a font, so I can't really separate it graphically.  Having the staccato and tenuto as separate symbols made the playback only do the staccatto for some reason, so I left as is.  If someone else has as solution feel free to put it out there -  otherwise maybe the solution is to just put the articulation up higher.

- I feel like you should add some extra space between the staves for the 2nd system (m.5-8). I would add enough so the crescendo and the forte are nice and vertically centered. I think it looks really nice when you do this.

Did this, I think it's as far apart as you were indicating (nice and centered)

- Speaking of crescendos, the hairpins in measures 6, 9, and 10 all terminate right against the barline. This looks off to me, so you should give a little space between the end of the hairpin and the barline (this may mess up the MIDI, unfortunately).

Oh shoot I misremembered stuff from the workshop about dynamics and cresc.  Fixed

- As much as I enjoy the big crescendo in m. 9 (especially with the tremolos), when I listen to the piece, I don't really hear this. To me, it sounds like a constant forte, with the rolling timpani and the chord progression creating a "crescendo"-like effect. But, that's just me.

I think your hearing of it is more accurate, fixed as well

- The measure widths should be adjusted for measures 9-12. I think measures 9 and 10 look quite squished and I don't think the tied whole notes in m. 10-11 need all that space.

Pre cresc. removal I think it made more sense to have more space, but I have removed and updated

- Finally, I hear the timpani go down to a B for the last chord and I don't really hear any D#'s, so I think the last chord works well as a B-F#-B, which is a nice callback to the open E-B-E chord in the first measure. However, if you disagree with me, that's totally fine -- either way sounds fine to me!

While I think D# fits into that chord, my ears might've been tricking me into thinking there was one in there.  I agree it is a nice call back your way, so I have updated to that.

That's all from me for now! This is my first time giving feedback, so I'm not quite sure what to say, how to phrase it, or if I'm just up in the night. Nevertheless, I hope you find some of this helpful.

Much appreciated!  Visuals were good and I didn't feel like there was anything that I couldn't understand/implement on a first go through (outside of that one articulation but that's not on you).  Updated accordingly, thanks!

[Bloop]

ah yeah the piece where i usually don't hear more than the first 4 bars because i already went to another place
Nice work on this one! Pretty much all of the notes are correct: there's just some little details and suggestions I noticed while looking through this sheet.

I'm not sure if a pedal is needed for this arrangement. You've put in a lot of staccato and tenuto markings, but those get overruled by the pedal. The only thing where it could be necessary, is to extend the L.H. notes from m1 and 3, beat 1, but then the timpani note lengths still get overruled. Did you have other intentions for the pedal?
My suggestions would be to:
-Remove the con pedale
-Either change the low E and B in m2 beat 1 to an 8th note, or just leave it as is
-Either remove the top G# in m3 and 4 or let the player restrike the notes on m3 beat 4 alongside the timpani hit (it's not possible for the player to reach the D# while holding the top G#)

-m3-4 I originally had as follows, but decided to simplify it in the actual submission files (m4 second layer is merged and the Dn doesn't carry from second layer m3 RH)

Spoiler

[close]

I actually think this ^ is the clearest version so far, because it's immediately clear how the voices work. Currently, the player might think the phrase that starts in m1 ends in m3 beat 2 (instead of beat 1), and think that beats 3-4 of m4 are part of the melody that started in m3 beat 2. It probably won't matter for most players, but some pianists might phrase the melodies differently because of this. Restriking and reholding a note is something that appears in other sheets too, so that's not something you should necessarily avoid.

For the other stuff:
-m4: The Cn's here should both be B#'s (G# major chord). The Cn on beat 4.5 is chromatically descending to B, but I think the chord function takes priority here.
-m5: In the L.H., I think I hear B in beat 2.5 and C# on beat 3 and 4.5. Also, you could put the top layer of the L.H. to the R.H. too, since it's pretty much the exact same motion as m6.
-m5 and 6: Is there a specific reason you only chose to put a portato mark on beat 3 and not beat 1? Also, you were pretty consistent with keeping the lower/middle voice in the R.H. as a dotted quarter note, maybe you could also change the F# in m6 beat 3 to a dotted quarter note in a separate layer.
-m7: On beat 4, I hear an 8th note triplet A-B-C#: the low D is from another voice (see below)
-m7-8: Aside from the above thing, there's nothing necessarily wrong here, but I do have a whole bunch of suggestions: feel free to include or not include some of them!
There's a second violin voice starting on m7 beat 4, though it does interfere with the first violin a bit. Also, maybe it's an idea to place the chord-filler notes in the R.H. instead of the L.H., because thirds in the L.H. tend to sound a bit muddy. I'm hearing the bass notes play D-E too, and lastly, maybe this part could be in fortissimo instead of forte for an even bigger contrast between this part and the start. Summarized, maybe something like this?
You cannot view this attachment.
-m9: If you want, you can also add the octaves below the 16th note runs (beat 2.5 and 4.5): it's just as playable as m6.
-m10: Maybe not 100% necessary, but you could add a courtesy accidental on the D#.

Lastly, since you have a slur in m7-8, here are some more slur suggestions
-m3 beat 2 to beat 4
-m5 beat 2.5 to m6 beat 1 (also in the L.H. if you decide to keep it there)
-m6 beat 2.5 to beat 4
-m9 beat 2.5 to beat 3
-m9 beat 4.5 to m10 beat 1.

[Kricketune54]

-Remove the con pedale

Took the pedal out

-Either change the low E and B in m2 beat 1 to an 8th note, or just leave it as is
-Either remove the top G# in m3 and 4 or let the player restrike the notes on m3 beat 4 alongside the timpani hit (it's not possible for the player to reach the D# while holding the top G#)
I actually think this ^ is the clearest version so far, because it's immediately clear how the voices work. Currently, the player might think the phrase that starts in m1 ends in m3 beat 2 (instead of beat 1), and think that beats 3-4 of m4 are part of the melody that started in m3 beat 2. It probably won't matter for most players, but some pianists might phrase the melodies differently because of this. Restriking and reholding a note is something that appears in other sheets too, so that's not something you should necessarily avoid.

Changed to your suggestion for the first bullet.  For the second, I did put the G# in question into the RH for a quarter note on beat 1.  I felt like losing that G# completely was not good but let me know if that's too awkward

-m4: The Cn's here should both be B#'s (G# major chord). The Cn on beat 4.5 is chromatically descending to B, but I think the chord function takes priority here.

Good to know, hopefully I apply this in the future

-m5: In the L.H., I think I hear B in beat 2.5 and C# on beat 3 and 4.5. Also, you could put the top layer of the L.H. to the R.H. too, since it's pretty much the exact same motion as m6.

I can hear the B and C's now.  I have also bumped the beat 1 B down an octave

-m5 and 6: Is there a specific reason you only chose to put a portato mark on beat 3 and not beat 1? Also, you were pretty consistent with keeping the lower/middle voice in the R.H. as a dotted quarter note, maybe you could also change the F# in m6 beat 3 to a dotted quarter note in a separate layer.

Well I thought there was enough of a difference between beat 1 and 3 in length, but maybe I'm just fooling myself.  Portato now on beat 1 as well.  On subject of consistency, I have removed the separate RH layers for m5 and 6 and have made the inner notes the same length as the melody notes.  Having two layers looked messy now that what was the top LH layer in m5 was moved up to the RH

-m7: On beat 4, I hear an 8th note triplet A-B-C#: the low D is from another voice (see below)

Oof, I hate when I have heard something wrong for such a long time, fixed

-m7-8: Aside from the above thing, there's nothing necessarily wrong here, but I do have a whole bunch of suggestions

I'll take em, I didn't know that about LH parts and 3rd's and while I initially was excluding that secondary violin part, it looks like it isn't adding that much complexity that isn't augmenting the richness

-m9: If you want, you can also add the octaves below the 16th note runs (beat 2.5 and 4.5): it's just as playable as m6.
-m10: Maybe not 100% necessary, but you could add a courtesy accidental on the D#.

Lastly, since you have a slur in m7-8, here are some more slur suggestions
-m3 beat 2 to beat 4
-m5 beat 2.5 to m6 beat 1 (also in the L.H. if you decide to keep it there)
-m6 beat 2.5 to beat 4
-m9 beat 2.5 to beat 3
-m9 beat 4.5 to m10 beat 1.

Added

[Bloop]

Changed to your suggestion for the first bullet.  For the second, I did put the G# in question into the RH for a quarter note on beat 1.  I felt like losing that G# completely was not good but let me know if that's too awkward

That's a good solution too! You could also make that quarter note a (dotted) half note, because the R.H. has some time before it needs to jump up. The way I play it is using the 1st finger for the G# and the 2nd finger for the D#, after which the thumb takes over the D# between beat 3 and 4.

On subject of consistency, I have removed the separate RH layers for m5 and 6 and have made the inner notes the same length as the melody notes.  Having two layers looked messy now that what was the top LH layer in m5 was moved up to the RH

I think I prefer this even, looks good!

Oof, I hate when I have heard something wrong for such a long time, fixed

I didn't notice it at first few listens either, that D from the second violin is quite distracting.

I'll take em, I didn't know that about LH parts and 3rd's and while I initially was excluding that secondary violin part, it looks like it isn't adding that much complexity that isn't augmenting the richness

I made a little mistake myself on the second bar, don't know when it got lost when editing: the 2nd violin plays B-E in quarter notes in beats 1 of m8:
You cannot view this attachment.

Aside from that, everything looks good!

[Kricketune54]

Okay, that wasn't how I was playing that measure but I see how it works.  Updated, as well as m8

[Bloop]

Awesome! Then I'll approve
You cannot view this attachment.

[Latios212]

This looks terrific and straightforward to play - thanks Kricketune, Cacabish, and Bloop for the hard work on this!

I just have a couple of remaining comments to clarify a couple of performance details:
- The overlap in m. 8 beat 3 between the tied note on the top layer and the note on the bottom layer leaves it a big unclear whether to re-strike the G or not. I believe your intent here is for the G# to be re-struck on beat 3, so it would be better to write the top layer as an eighth rest since it's not being held (even if the original is sustained here, the performance won't be).
- I would recommend a diminuendo in m. 10 so it isn't a sudden jump from ff to mp in measure 11.

(Also, the mf in m. 1 could be nudged left a bit, and the ff in m. 7 up a bit to be more aligned with the cresc.)

[Kricketune54]

Okay made the those changes, but was just wondering if I should move that rest in the top layer of RH m4 a bit higher for consistency

Thanks again to everyone who gave this a look! 

[Latios212]

Okay made the those changes, but was just wondering if I should move that rest in the top layer of RH m4 a bit higher for consistency

Higher would be okay, but this is fine too to have it be a little lower like beat 2.

I'll accept now

[Zeta]

This submission has been accepted by Latios212.

~Zeta, your friendly NSM-Bot