[MUL] The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess - "Diababa Battle (Second Half)" by Bloop

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: The Legend of Zelda
Game: The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
Console: Multiplatform
Title: Diababa Battle (Second Half)
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Bloop

[Bloop]

The official soundtrack name of the Twilight Princess boss battles are "Boss Battle #[number] ([number]th half)", but I use the boss names instead to be more recognizable (and to stay consistent with my other arrangements already on site)

[TheZeldaPianist275]

Love these boss themes Bloop. For this one I'm curious why you wrote m. 36-47 in 3/4+7/8 as opposed to just 13/8. It seems like the latter would be more elegant, since the rhythm stays consistent across those measures.

[Bloop]

Love these boss themes Bloop. For this one I'm curious why you wrote m. 36-47 in 3/4+7/8 as opposed to just 13/8. It seems like the latter would be more elegant, since the rhythm stays consistent across those measures.

Glad you're enjoying them! I think either would've worked technically, but these two measures feel more like two separate measures to me rather than one long measure. Also, I usually think breaking up longer time signatures into smaller sections makes it a bit easier to keep track of how the beats are subdivided rather than something like 2+2+2+2+2+3

[Latios212]

hey look it's that part of zant battle

This piece is surprisingly not that painful to check and I don't have much to add here. Nice work!
- The slur begins a bit high in m. 7/28, and the one in m. 47 is a bit exaggerated
- Is there a reason you split up the RH rhythm in the latter half o m. 16 and similar into the triplet + three eighths? Normally it'd be the triplet and beat 3.5 beamed together, and 4-4.5. It doesn't seem too off as is, but it did catch my eye
- Have you considered some way of trying to incorporate the low G on beat 2 of m. 35? It feels kind of weird without it leading into the A-Bb on beats 3 and 4.
- The chords in m. 36+ sound like they have minor seconds on the lower note instead of the upper note. Namely, m. 36/38 sound like they have D# instead of A#, 40/42 sound like F# instead of C#, 44/46 sound like A instead of E.
- Is the melody in m. 37/39/etc. raised an octave to make jumping to/from the higher voices easier?
- Maybe move the eighth rests in m. 38/42 back to their mid-staff positions?
- You could move systems closer together on all pages past the first to give more room underneath the header.

I think either would've worked technically, but these two measures feel more like two separate measures to me rather than one long measure.

I'm in agreement with splitting it up as such!

[Bloop]

- Is there a reason you split up the RH rhythm in the latter half o m. 16 and similar into the triplet + three eighths? Normally it'd be the triplet and beat 3.5 beamed together, and 4-4.5. It doesn't seem too off as is, but it did catch my eye

Not particularly, I knew I wanted some distinction between the triplet and the 8th on beat 3.5, but the bracket I added now is probably better than doing what I had before.

- Have you considered some way of trying to incorporate the low G on beat 2 of m. 35? It feels kind of weird without it leading into the A-Bb on beats 3 and 4.

I didn't notice it at first I think, but I think I hear a low Eb instead of a G? Either way, I added below the L.H., and was able to put the top Eb's in the R.H.

- Is the melody in m. 37/39/etc. raised an octave to make jumping to/from the higher voices easier?

I think that might've been my original thought yeah, but it's possible to keep them in the original octaves, so I moved them down!

- Maybe move the eighth rests in m. 38/42 back to their mid-staff positions?

m38 isn't possible anymore because of the D#, and m42 feels a bit close, but I went with them moving up one stave space per row

- You could move systems closer together on all pages past the first to give more room underneath the header.

Turns out I actually had loads of space left below each page to fit another system on each of page 2-4 as well as give more room underneath the header, which also saves a page. How lucky!

Fixed everything else too, thanks for taking a look!

[Latios212]

Nice! Just a couple final comments before I sign off on this one:

I didn't notice it at first I think, but I think I hear a low Eb instead of a G? Either way, I added below the L.H., and was able to put the top Eb's in the R.H.

Oops, listening again I clearly hear a G# on beat 2 - that forms a chromatically ascending line with beats 3 and 4 that stands out quite a bit to me. I think I would personally emphasize those notes and leave the Eb in the right hand as is, what do you think?

I think that might've been my original thought yeah, but it's possible to keep them in the original octaves, so I moved them down!

Cool! I do think that the pedal release markings might be a little confusing placed under the time signature, which doesn't really represent a moment in time where the pedal should be released. Is the intent to lift the pedal as the pickup eighth is played? Or at the beginning of the next measure?

Also one thing I forgot to mention last time - is the use of the bracket alongside the finger number in m. 22-23 standard? I feel like I typically see it beside the noteheads instead for clarity. Either way, I think the intention is probably clear enough that you don't need it after the first instance. (Also unrelated but the parentheses are rather close to the forte here - maybe pad them with space??)
You cannot view this attachment.

[Bloop]

Oops, listening again I clearly hear a G# on beat 2 - that forms a chromatically ascending line with beats 3 and 4 that stands out quite a bit to me. I think I would personally emphasize those notes and leave the Eb in the right hand as is, what do you think?

I went with octaving the tuba part and adding accents to them too, because leaving out the bottom Eb's makes the next part sound a bit empty. I wrote the G# as an Ab though, as G#-Eb-G# looks a bit weird in the L.H.

Cool! I do think that the pedal release markings might be a little confusing placed under the time signature, which doesn't really represent a moment in time where the pedal should be released. Is the intent to lift the pedal as the pickup eighth is played? Or at the beginning of the next measure?

Ah yeah, it was supposed to be the beginning of next measure, changed them accordingly!

Also one thing I forgot to mention last time - is the use of the bracket alongside the finger number in m. 22-23 standard? I feel like I typically see it beside the noteheads instead for clarity. Either way, I think the intention is probably clear enough that you don't need it after the first instance. (Also unrelated but the parentheses are rather close to the forte here - maybe pad them with space??)

What I had was the way I saw it in Behind Bars (though with the brackets accidentally reversed), but tbh I don't specifically remember if I've seen it before like that, if I have actually ever seen it. I think the bracket before the notes is clearer though, so I went with that!

Files updated!

[Latios212]

Awesome! You could add a bit of extra space at the beginning of m. 22 to give the bracket a little bit more room, but it's also alright as is.

Everything looks good, so I shall approve!

You cannot view this attachment.

[Kricketune54]

The m3-m6 part kinda reminds me of some of Bernard Hermann's music from Psycho

• Note font and tempo marking seem to be from an older template
• m16 and 18 RH 1.5 - you could add a Bn grace to the Cn, I hear a very subtle one taking place here but will leave it up to you
• m27 LH you could have same percussive roll like m6 4.5 and 4.75
• m36 3.5 LH not hearing an En here?
• m49 RH 3.0 hearing Bb instead of Db in this cluster
• m50-51, m54-55, m57-59 RH hearing this a bit different - Dn instead of F# (1.0, 2.0, 3.5)
• m60-61 RH also hearing this different - For every 8th note I hear Fn and Gb, but for 1.0, 2.0, and 3.5 I hear Bb (above Fn and Gb).  And if I'm not mistaken, those beats are the only pitches in m61 (no notes on 1.5, 2.5 and so on)?
• m74 LH 3.0 I hear this up an octave

[Bloop]

The m3-m6 part kinda reminds me of some of Bernard Hermann's music from Psycho

I hear the resemblance yeah, haha

• Note font and tempo marking seem to be from an older template

I don't think they are? They are Finale's standard music and text font, EngraverTextT 12 regular.

• m16 and 18 RH 1.5 - you could add a Bn grace to the Cn, I hear a very subtle one taking place here but will leave it up to you
• m27 LH you could have same percussive roll like m6 4.5 and 4.75

Did both of these!

• m36 3.5 LH not hearing an En here?

Did you mean m35? There's no En in m36's L.H. on 3.5. In m35, that's an Eb, which is part of the low string accents (like in m34)

• m49 RH 3.0 hearing Bb instead of Db in this cluster
• m50-51, m54-55, m57-59 RH hearing this a bit different - Dn instead of F# (1.0, 2.0, 3.5)
• m60-61 RH also hearing this different - For every 8th note I hear Fn and Gb, but for 1.0, 2.0, and 3.5 I hear Bb (above Fn and Gb).
• m74 LH 3.0 I hear this up an octave[/quote]
Fixed all of these!

And if I'm not mistaken, those beats are the only pitches in m61 (no notes on 1.5, 2.5 and so on)?

I can hear them but veeery faintly, they get a bit drowned out by the brass.

Reuploaded the files!

[Kricketune54]

I don't think they are? They are Finale's standard music and text font, EngraverTextT 12 regular.

I thought MaestroTimes was the notefont for the tempo marking, and Times New Roman for BPM value?

Did you mean m35? There's no En in m36's L.H. on 3.5. In m35, that's an Eb, which is part of the low string accents (like in m34)

Yes sorry, meant m35 and I see/hear now how that makes up the low strings.


• m5, m26 RH I hear an En on 1.0 only. I don't think the B# is actually present on 1.0 here as well, the horn seems to go from Eb's in m3-4 for example to an En on m5 1.0, and then B# as you have it for 2.0 and so on. Let me know if you can hear the same or if further explanation would help.
• m73 RH 2nd layer I think Fn would work slightly better instead of Eb, given this chord is F minor?

Think that's going to be all from me

[Bloop]

I thought MaestroTimes was the notefont for the tempo marking, and Times New Roman for BPM value?

(moved this to the updater discord for now)

• m5, m26 RH I hear an En on 1.0 only. I don't think the B# is actually present on 1.0 here as well, the horn seems to go from Eb's in m3-4 for example to an En on m5 1.0, and then B# as you have it for 2.0 and so on. Let me know if you can hear the same or if further explanation would help.

Huh, it seems you're right yeah, the E is a bit harder to hear but I can definitely hear that the B# is not there. I wonder why they've decided on that.

• m73 RH 2nd layer I think Fn would work slightly better instead of Eb, given this chord is F minor?

Fixed this as well!

[Kricketune54]

(moved this to the updater discord for now)

I've been applying this comment to a lot of people about fixing fonts to the current templates, but we talked as updaters... turns out this was not a consistent understanding. Can ignore this comment.
 

Huh, it seems you're right yeah, the E is a bit harder to hear but I can definitely hear that the B# is not there. I wonder why they've decided on that.

Not sure either, but it seems like it's similar to how m3 or m24 start off with a singular different note that is not repeated in the phrase (Cn in that case).

Nothing else for me, Diababa is now Diaccepted!

[Zeta]

This submission has been accepted by Kricketune54.

~Zeta, your friendly NSM-Bot