[NDS] Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - "Investigation ~ Core 2001" by Onionleaf

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Ace Attorney
Game: Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney
Console: Nintendo DS
Title: Investigation ~ Core 2001
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Onionleaf

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Onionleaf]

[Brassman388]

This one seemed like it could have been a challenge since it's mainly synths and we all know things don't end well when trying to adapt a piece of electronic music.

That being said, very good attempt.

This stuff is more just kinda moving things around visually since the tones are pretty much in place. The idea is to make your sheet as readable as possible at this point.

Measure 4: when designating an area for dynamic changes, unless you're dealing with more than two staves, you want to keep it to the bottom of the corresponding measure. The hairpin into the pianissimo would be much clearer if in between both staves, and to not confuse the performer, maybe a senza dynamic? or mezzoforte in parenthesis? I'll leave that up to you.

Measure 6: again with the dynamic being in a confusing spot. The thing is, by the time you get to measure 13, you start designating both dynamics for both staves in the correct way. Consistency is key, even if it looks a little wonky at first.

There are a couple of instances where you land a 16th note run on the beat. The downbeat as a 16th isn't the problem, as that's how I would write it, except for what's going on in measure 16 and 17 when syncopation is introduced. It would benefit the performer if that second 16th on beat 3 to be a staccato'd 8th, I would feel because of the syncopation. Then again, it's not exactly that hard to read if taken a minute, just really something to consider.

Other than that, everything else looks and sounds fine.

Good work.

[Onionleaf]

Hiya, thanks for the prompt feedback!

I agree that the dynamics needed improvement. Finale can be really unhelpful when alternating dynamics between hands, and the playback only worked correctly when I placed the dynamics over the top staff. I made cosmetic changes to those measures where the dynamics were unclear., as well as changing the 16th note to an 8th where syncopation occurs. Hopefully it's easier to read now.

[Brassman388]

Yeah, I hear ya.

One thing I started doing was putting both on their own separate channel, then hiding the dynamics for the bottom staff.

Give this a try.

[Onionleaf]

Yeah, I hear ya.

One thing I started doing was putting both on their own separate channel, then hiding the dynamics for the bottom staff.

Give this a try.

I've used this trick for this arrangement, but for some reason when I open my older MUS file in the newest Finale version and save as a MUSX, the dynamics don't seem to work the way they should. It felt like too much work to re-do this sheet in a new MUSX file so at the moment this was the quickest workaround I could think of.

[Brassman388]

I'm not fond of the .musx format so I understand.

[mastersuperfan]

yikes grand piano soundfont

I made an old multi-instrument arrangement for this a while back, so I pulled that out and compared the two. Some feedback:

• m7, beat 2.75: the F# in the left hand is actually a G#.
• m1: I really think you should try to give some more build-up throughout this measure, but obviously held notes on a piano can't crescendo, so I was thinking maybe a tremolo with a crescendo in the left hand. How does that sound?
• Also in m1: There's also another G in between the C's in the left hand, but I'm not sure how feasible that is to play with a tremolo at the same time. While I can kind of hear the D that high if I slow it down and really listen, I think the D is more noticeable an octave lower, and the G sounds like the higher note instead. At the same time, the D in the arrangement does give the measure a tense atmosphere that I think helps make up for the limitations of the piano. Finally, I'm not hearing an E in the right hand—but it happens to work pretty well, so in a similar vein, it might be worth keeping so that the first measure sounds better on piano. These are all your call.
• Where it doesn't cross beats, I would personally replace any sixteenth notes with sixteenth rests right after with a staccato'd eighth note (i.e. m2 beat 1.5 RH, m3 beats 1.5 and 2.5 RH and beat 3 both RH and LH). At the same time, I know that some people will argue that a sixteenth note and a staccato'd eighth note aren't interchangeable like that, so it's up to you. I just find that it makes the rhythms much easier to read.
• The bassline in m13–17 is tripping me up right now. My old arrangement has the same bassline as yours, but listening again some things sound different? m14 sounds like the bassline is actually A instead of G# (though the end of m13 is still G#). On beats 3–3.25 of m14, m16, and m17, I'm hearing an eighth note instead of two sixteenth notes like this:

• Not only that, but I think the bassline in m13 is different during the second pass:

• It doesn't look like you have space to split this repeat system up without going onto a third page, so, uh... if you want I guess you could leave it, or just add a performer's note with the second-pass-only note in parentheses or something like that.
• Personally, I think dropping all percussion in m21 and doing a tremolo + crescendo with the left hand would be better; I don't think the chord really has the same punch without the lower notes. I think the measure should be the same as whatever you do in m1. (The same comments I made about m1's chord still apply here.)
• I'd really like if you could emulate the percussion more accurately in m11-12 and in m20. The percussive rhythms you have going on are pretty simple throughout, but the percussion itself is a lot more distinctive than that (except in m18-19, where it actually is that simple). It's one of the things I love most about this track, and in those spots where it's the only thing to keep the music going, I think trying to preserve all those rhythms would make the sheet a lot better. m21 also has those funky rhythms, but if you're going to be playing with both hands like I suggested then it's probably better to drop it (unless you want to keep some stomps in there).
• I'd also suggest changing the "shaker" to lap/knee slapping, because I feel like a shaker out of nowhere would be kind of odd in this sort of case. (I also just really like how lap/knee slapping sounds tbh, I do it all the time when I'm bored)
• One last, more minor thing: I'm not sure I'd keep all the articulations on those notes at the end of m3, m5, m7, and m9. They don't feel accented or emphasized to me, especially not m7; I think m5 and m9 are brought out slightly more just by virtue of being higher. Feel free to keep some articulations if you want to emphasize them in your arrangement specifically, but also: I'm not really sure about tenutos, since those suggest that you hold the note for its full duration and, any player will already be holding all the sixteenth notes here just because of how fast they are. I imagine you chose the tenutos because you thought the accents would be overkill, though. It's really up to you—feel free to leave them or modify them however you want; I don't really mind. (You might also consider keeping some articulations in m3, m5, and m9 but not m7 because that just doesn't sound emphasized to me at all.)

This all looks like a lot, but that's really more about the track being less suited for piano than it is the arrangement itself. Nice work! Really looking forward to having this one on the site.

[Trasdegi]

hmm, I also have an arrangement of this, and I heard the bassline as a constant 8th-16th-16th pattern... And I also thought it sounded different on 2nd pass, the 3rd whole note being a F on 2nd pass.

[mastersuperfan]

hmm, I also have an arrangement of this, and I heard the bassline as a constant 8th-16th-16th pattern...

Yeah for some reason I turned the pitch up an octave and I started hearing a constant 8th-16th-16th pattern, but I turned it back down to the original octave and I started hearing mostly constant 16th notes except for those few spots I pointed out. It's weeeird

And I also thought it sounded different on 2nd pass, the 3rd whole note being a F on 2nd pass.

Oh, I totally forgot about that. That's also true. Yeah, I don't think another repeat system is going to work all that well here :/

[Maelstrom]

bump for arranger

[Onionleaf]

Hi there, thanks for the feedback. It really helps to get a second opinion, especially considering you have arranged this track before.

I've made all changes that you've mentioned, with some additional commentary below:

Also in m1: There's also another G in between the C's in the left hand, but I'm not sure how feasible that is to play with a tremolo at the same time. While I can kind of hear the D that high if I slow it down and really listen, I think the D is more noticeable an octave lower, and the G sounds like the higher note instead. At the same time, the D in the arrangement does give the measure a tense atmosphere that I think helps make up for the limitations of the piano. Finally, I'm not hearing an E in the right hand—but it happens to work pretty well, so in a similar vein, it might be worth keeping so that the first measure sounds better on piano. These are all your call.[/li][/list]

Yeah, I definitely spent some time thinking over how best to arrange the very first and last measures. At the moment I think your tremolo suggestion was a good improvement and am happy with how it is at the moment.

Where it doesn't cross beats, I would personally replace any sixteenth notes with sixteenth rests right after with a staccato'd eighth note (i.e. m2 beat 1.5 RH, m3 beats 1.5 and 2.5 RH and beat 3 both RH and LH). At the same time, I know that some people will argue that a sixteenth note and a staccato'd eighth note aren't interchangeable like that, so it's up to you. I just find that it makes the rhythms much easier to read.[/li][/list]

I see what you mean, but I would prefer to leave the 16ths notes as they are, seeing as in the original they don't sound like staccato 8ths to me, and it would be best if the performer plays all these quick notes in the same manner.

Keep those thoughts and suggestions coming.

[Libera]

This is a fun piece.  Checking notes and everything else now.

-So for the bassline at 13-17 I can see we seem to have split opinions on the exact rhythms.  My personal feeling is that more often than not it is actually quaver-semiquaver-semiquaver.  (There are a few places where I'm hearing four semiquavers though.)  However, my suggestion would to actually replace everything with the quaver-semiquaver-semiquaver rhythm.  One reason is that I actually think that's what it sounds like it's doing in most places, but secondly because it'd be far easier to play.  If you'd prefer to have a more exact transcription, I can have a really careful comb through the bassline and try and work out exactly what the rhythms are but ... I'm not sure the sheet gains much from it (in my personal opinion).
-Echo comments from msf that that the chord in bar 1 and the final bar doesn't sound like it has an E in it and the D# sounds an octave lower to me, but if you've made that the decision to make it work on piano better I'll respect that.
-Since bar 1 is identical to the final bar, wouldn't it make more sense to just have a standard repeat back to the start rather than a D.S. and just cut the final bar?  Perhaps I'm missing something here though.
-In bars 14 and 16 you've written a group of four semiquavers all with tenutos.  I think it'd look more natural to write that as a slur instead.  I'd also write the final semiquaver group in bars 5, 7 and 9 slurred.
-If you're doing different dynamics for each staff, one should be above the whole thing and the other should be below the whole thing (rather than one being below and one being in the middle.)
-With regards to the percussion, I actually think it's fine the way it is.  These are piano arrangements which will be played by pianists, not percussionists.  You could try for a more accurate transcription of the rhythms, but in my opinion they'd overcomplicate those sections.  Still if you'd like to try to make them more accurate you can do that too.
-With regards to the 13-17 section.  I agree with trasdegi that the semibreves are C# -> G# -> D# -> B (below) and then on the second pass C# -> G# -> F# -> B (above).  Also there is the noticeable difference in the bass-line at bar 13 that msf pointed out (also I think there a few minor differences in the bass-line but as I've said before, I think that it should be simplified so from my point of view those don't matter.)  You could get around the semibreve issue (which I think is the most important one) by making your first and second time bars actually two bars long each, which would only add one bar to your arrangement which you could probably add without having to go to a third page.

That probably seems like a lot, but they're all minor things.  You've done a good job so far!

[Onionleaf]

Hiya, I've made some more changes, and have some replies below:

-So for the bassline at 13-17 I can see we seem to have split opinions on the exact rhythms.  My personal feeling is that more often than not it is actually quaver-semiquaver-semiquaver.  (There are a few places where I'm hearing four semiquavers though.)  However, my suggestion would to actually replace everything with the quaver-semiquaver-semiquaver rhythm.  One reason is that I actually think that's what it sounds like it's doing in most places, but secondly because it'd be far easier to play.  If you'd prefer to have a more exact transcription, I can have a really careful comb through the bassline and try and work out exactly what the rhythms are but ... I'm not sure the sheet gains much from it (in my personal opinion).

Yeah, I find it quite difficult to hear the bassline here note-for-note. I think it's reasonable to focus on playability, as any changes will surely not deviate far from the original.

-Since bar 1 is identical to the final bar, wouldn't it make more sense to just have a standard repeat back to the start rather than a D.S. and just cut the final bar?  Perhaps I'm missing something here though.

That... makes much more sense. xP I must've kept these bars separate while I was initially drafting the arrangement due to the percussive sounds only playing after the repeat.

-If you're doing different dynamics for each staff, one should be above the whole thing and the other should be below the whole thing (rather than one being below and one being in the middle.)

This will need to be confirmed, as I've previously changed these dynamics as per a previous post (see below):

Measure 4: when designating an area for dynamic changes, unless you're dealing with more than two staves, you want to keep it to the bottom of the corresponding measure. The hairpin into the pianissimo would be much clearer if in between both staves, and to not confuse the performer, maybe a senza dynamic? or mezzoforte in parenthesis? I'll leave that up to you.

-With regards to the 13-17 section.  I agree with trasdegi that the semibreves are C# -> G# -> D# -> B (below) and then on the second pass C# -> G# -> F# -> B (above).  Also there is the noticeable difference in the bass-line at bar 13 that msf pointed out (also I think there a few minor differences in the bass-line but as I've said before, I think that it should be simplified so from my point of view those don't matter.)  You could get around the semibreve issue (which I think is the most important one) by making your first and second time bars actually two bars long each, which would only add one bar to your arrangement which you could probably add without having to go to a third page.

Nice save! The new repeats work really well.

[Libera]

Nice!  I'll check about those dynamic markings with the other updaters, but other than that I think this is ready!