[N64] Pokémon Stadium 2 - "Stadium" by Fernman

[Kricketune54]

now that I think about this, would it have been better that I made the pickup measure only a 1/8 instead of a 1/4. I can't make the change now in finale. That would have also avoided that placement of the mf.

Certainly can do that! I can make that change for you once everything else is squared away.

I don't have a musical reason to disagree with this, however I like the fact that it makes the music cleaner by having less stuff on the page. a dotted 8th and 16th are very recognizable compared to having a space in between.

When I tried changing this in notepad in finale, that music value/space where the rest would go disappear or I would lose space for the beat itself by using the eraser... I would effectively have to restart the measure from scratch and keep all the beats intact. is this how finale works or is there something else I should be doing? This is nothing like Musescore.
Any way you could fix this with all the formatting?

The updating team (as shown by Bloop's post lol) is in a bit of disagreement but is mostly leaning towards always recommending the approach I described.  BUT, we are not going to be requiring this, and I'm not going to stipulate this, just going forward, we will post a "strong" recommendation for what I have suggested.

If you'd like, I'll make this update same as the pickup measure, but otherwise I'm okay with you having it as is.

I think this is the same as the above comment the dotted eight?

Not quite, I was saying that m4 should be consistent with however you decide m2, etc. are. m4 beat 1 is same beat length.

No, I hear the En

Ah relistened hearing as En!

No, I hear it rearticulated as it is written

Still going to disagree here, I pitched up the song an octave in Audacity and it sounds like a consistent held pitch. Would relisten and also try what I've suggested, or slowing the track down. To me I could hear how it sounds like two pitches (but isn't) just on how the percussion and LH notes strike on beat 3. To me it also would make sense to sound like this given how m11 2.5 and 3.0 are tied as well, sort of mirroring rhythms.

The LH Tuba line should be the same as the start of the song, but it is much clearer sounding at the start. I hear it as it is written and it sounds Staccato'd. This gives it a march-y feel. The notes being only detached doesn't have the same feel.

I would again recommend pitching up the original audio in Audacity to get a clearer audio picture

I hear you, but in this case it brings the tone of the song down more than my liking.

Okay that's fine can leave as is. Doesn't bring tone down to me, but makes it a bit fuller sounding.

I removed the forte since that was an old thought. I wanted the crescendo since it is natural to increase in dynamics climbing those notes and to the end of the song for a grand finish.
However, given the feedback from my Versus select arrangement that the crescendo has to go to the next level, in this case forte, then I'll pass. Not that I'm entirely opposed to it, but I rather remove the markings and leave it up to interpretation for NSM purposes. And the original I think is fairly even in dynamics in those measures.

so now that the forte was gone, I wanted to suggest perhaps adding an mp at the end of m24, and then you could cres. up to an mf leading up to the repeat symbol. Thoughts?

I'm not sure if I can edit the 8va in notepad (if so let me know how), and this is interesting to know for the rest of my arranging. However since this is formatting could you handle this and the other stuff you pointed out please.

Certainly can handle this as well!

Outside of responses above with some thoughts for you, had a few other small things.
• m3 RH, you could make layer 2 last three beats, I hear on beat 2 an F# quarter note, and then a Gn quarter on beat 3 before the current one on beat 4.
• m12 and m30, the half rests in these measures could go to "normal" rest height placement in the measure. Would look slightly neater that way, and also a bit closer to the height of the other notes in these layers.
• Another preference/recommendation item, when you have multiple layers of notes, can choose to have staccatos center above stem or notehead (this is another recommendation, ex. at m3 RH beat 1 we would recommend positioning the staccato over the notehead and not stem where it is now). Lmk if you prefer to keep as is, but I can make the change
• This is more a reminder for myself, but Stadium text on page two should have quotation marks around it.

[Fernman]

Regarding the dotted eigth & sixteenth, I would rather keep it as written as I too interpret it as "play it short" instead of divide by 2.

Not quite, I was saying that m4 should be consistent with however you decide m2, etc. are. m4 beat 1 is same beat length.

Fixed

Still going to disagree here, I pitched up the song an octave in Audacity and it sounds like a consistent held pitch. Would relisten and also try what I've suggested, or slowing the track down. To me I could hear how it sounds like two pitches (but isn't) just on how the percussion and LH notes strike on beat 3. To me it also would make sense to sound like this given how m11 2.5 and 3.0 are tied as well, sort of mirroring rhythms.

Regarding m13, I wouldn't compare it to m11 because technically both voices currently arranged overlap in the OST, so it would be separate articulations.
Not sure how to go about resolving this. I uploaded the file to Bandlab and recorded what I heard as separate articulations in the original, ptiched up, and slowed down pitched up.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1VUtDaaRPLdwv9n4NVF-JryUjPz8XrKWv?usp=sharing

Musically it makes more sense to have a rearticulated note to keep the song going than a held note that keeps it less interesting.

Or we agree to disagree.

I would again recommend pitching up the original audio in Audacity to get a clearer audio picture

Ok I hear what you are pointing out on m19. I'm not trying to blend the horn and the low notes you pointed out. I don't like the low notes themselves because they are boring half notes, and the horn is mostly present in the RH, and if I include the horn in the LH it will force me to add the triplets in the LH, which makes it lots more complicated to play against those 16th notes.

Instead I want to take descending tuba heard in m3. It fits well.

If this is not acceptable I can switch back the strings which would require me switching measures 20 to be like measure 4.

so now that the forte was gone, I wanted to suggest perhaps adding an mp at the end of m24, and then you could cres. up to an mf leading up to the repeat symbol. Thoughts?

No, since it is a grand march I'm thinking it can't go less than mf. Only moving between mf and f. and move deliberately in m28 than a gradual increase over many measures.  I'm good with no dynamic markings.

• m3 RH, you could make layer 2 last three beats, I hear on beat 2 an F# quarter note, and then a Gn quarter on beat 3 before the current one on beat 4.

Added

You may do whatever formatting to the staccato you'd like. the staccatos don't seemed well placed in finale and if I have to drag around that dot, I'll pass.

[Kricketune54]

Regarding the dotted eigth & sixteenth, I would rather keep it as written as I too interpret it as "play it short" instead of divide by 2.

Okay, will not make any changes there.

Regarding m13, I wouldn't compare it to m11 because technically both voices currently arranged overlap in the OST, so it would be separate articulations.
Not sure how to go about resolving this. I uploaded the file to Bandlab and recorded what I heard as separate articulations in the original, ptiched up, and slowed down pitched up.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1VUtDaaRPLdwv9n4NVF-JryUjPz8XrKWv?usp=sharing

Musically it makes more sense to have a rearticulated note to keep the song going than a held note that keeps it less interesting.

Or we agree to disagree.

I'm still hearing it as a held pitch - but clearly Bloop didn't say anything about it and at this point I'm fine with saying 2 to 1 on this and keeping it as you have it. Just for future reference though, when I was saying pitching up, I should have clarified I meant I was pitching up the track a full octave. That's one way to pull out basslines easier and also to theoretically make situations like this a little clearer. I use Audacity, I assume Bandlab has that same pitch up by octave feature, but here's a screenshot of what it looks like in Audacity.

Spoiler

[close]

Ok I hear what you are pointing out on m19. I'm not trying to blend the horn and the low notes you pointed out. I don't like the low notes themselves because they are boring half notes, and the horn is mostly present in the RH, and if I include the horn in the LH it will force me to add the triplets in the LH, which makes it lots more complicated to play against those 16th notes.

Instead I want to take descending tuba heard in m3. It fits well.

If this is not acceptable I can switch back the strings which would require me switching measures 20 to be like measure 4.

This seems atypical to our standards, to take exact heard phrase from one measure and to then take over to another whole measure as a matter of preference. Personally, I've never seen it and don't really like the idea of it - what are your thoughts on the following quarter notes instead: Bn An Gn En? These are more in line with the held notes and chords anyway, and still maintains that rhythm you want.

No, since it is a grand march I'm thinking it can't go less than mf. Only moving between mf and f. and move deliberately in m28 than a gradual increase over many measures.  I'm good with no dynamic markings.
Added

Okay! Was just an idea but it is a fairly consistent piece dynamically so not a big deal to me

You may do whatever formatting to the staccato you'd like. the staccatos don't seemed well placed in finale and if I have to drag around that dot, I'll pass.

Will get to this after your response on m19. Otherwise I have nothing else to add

[Fernman]

This seems atypical to our standards, to take exact heard phrase from one measure and to then take over to another whole measure as a matter of preference. Personally, I've never seen it and don't really like the idea of it -

On paper as written above the idea does make one scratch their heads.

In context though the song effectively repeats the first 8 measures beginning at m17, so using a part of the song that was originally written to accompany the melody isn't as far-fetched as it sounds. Though my creative side digresses...
Anyway, I switched it back to the strings part which I liked from the beginning.

[Kricketune54]

Okay. I feel like this part is similar enough that it captures m3 and m19 enough. Fine to be used in two places. Will accept, but will be making a number of edits as the file appears to have gotten jumbled between the copy paste.


EDIT
following updates made:
- updated formatting to new template
- Fixed staccato placement for 2nd layers (above notehead)
- moved some rests around
- moved 8va to more reflect recommended formatting

[Zeta]

This submission has been accepted by Kricketune54.

~Zeta, your friendly NSM-Bot