[GB] The Final Fantasy Legend - "Fight" by LeviR.star

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Final Fantasy
Game: The Final Fantasy Legend
Console: Game Boy
Title: Fight
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: LeviR.star

[attachment deleted by admin]

[LeviR.star]

Adding Final Fantasy to my list of franchises to arrange from.

I simplified the midvoice to make the sheet practical and playable. I'll consider anyone's suggestions for alternate ways to play the song more accurately to the original.

[Libera]

A few things to do with spellings.

-Bars 5-6 should have every C# replaced with Dbs.  If you do this you'll notice that it just mirrors the first two bars but a semitone up, cool huh.

-The C# and G# in bars 12 and 16 should be Db and Abs.  It's like a flat II chord I believe resolving down to the tonic by a semitone.

Something not to do with spellings.

- I'm hearing something like this for bar 1-2 and similar again for 5-6:
You cannot view this attachment.

I haven't checked this thoroughly though by the way as I appear to be getting increasingly tired...

[LeviR.star]

- I'm hearing something like this for bar 1-2 and similar again for 5-6:
You cannot view this attachment.

Ah, yes, this. I was going to present my past ideas.

Long

Fig. 1: The Actual Bass Line

You cannot view this attachment.

Given that the RH melody is just a series of half and whole notes throughout the first section, this sounded boring, and rather empty without the E flats.

Fig. 2: First Merging Attempt

You cannot view this attachment.

Better than my first shot, but I wasn't pleased with how the first note of the measure didn't have that satisfying strike of a C, especially since the song is in C minor, after all.

Fig. 3: Second Merging Attempt, ft. Dyads

You cannot view this attachment.

This looked like a good idea until I played it back, and decided that it was not only ugly-sounding, but awkward to play.

Fig. 4: Third Merging Attempt: Octave Jumping

You cannot view this attachment.

Not even sounding that great, this idea made me realize I was losing the feel of the GB soundfont and the tone of the song.

Fig. 5: The Actual Notes

You cannot view this attachment.

My original planned style for the song, until I was became worried with how demanding a second layer would be to the RH. I don't know if this is what you really heard, Libera, but this is a pure transcription.

[close]

I'll update the files once I get more opinions.

P.S: On the spelling of m. 5-8: does this mean the LH needs Dbs, too? I would assume so, as long as m. 7 gets a courtesy accidental.

[Libera]

Well you've certainly thought about it more than I did last night.
Might I suggest:
You cannot view this attachment.
This gives you the Eb on the first beat without the gruesomeness of my previous suggestion.

P.S: On the spelling of m. 5-8: does this mean the LH needs Dbs, too? I would assume so, as long as m. 7 gets a courtesy accidental.

Yes.  And also the B#s should then be rewritten as Cns.

[LeviR.star]

Ok, after fiddling with the midvoice and LH, and adjusting some other accidentals I examined a bit closer, I updated the files.

I really hope some FF arrangers can swoop in and save me here.

[mastersuperfan]

From a few quick listens the notes sound right. Some notes on articulations:

• I've made this comment before, but it bugs me that Finale starts it 8va waayyy too far to the right. I'd drag the starting point a little bit more to the left to cover all the notes fully.
• I was taught that two-note slurs in piano scores generally indicates that the first note is to be emphasized and the second note is to be played staccato. So those slurs on beat 2 in the LH of m11-12 and m15-16 make me feel a bit uneasy.
• Any particular reason why you choose to use tenutos instead of two-note slurs in m17-24? Slurs are more common and they would convey the pattern of the LH much more clearly here; I feel that the tenuto is getting overused.
• Considering how the LH is usually staccato, it may be beneficial to have slurs across all the notes in m18, m20, m22, and m24. (Though if you incorporate the above suggestion then the sheet could get too cluttered with them)
  

That's all I got. Overall, this sheet looks good, sounds good, and plays good!

[LeviR.star]

I've made this comment before, but it bugs me that Finale starts it 8va waayyy too far to the right. I'd drag the starting point a little bit more to the left to cover all the notes fully.[/li][/list]

Fixed, but I wish you or somebody else would have said something about it with my other 200 sheets.

I was taught that two-note slurs in piano scores generally indicates that the first note is to be emphasized and the second note is to be played staccato. So those slurs on beat 2 in the LH of m11-12 and m15-16 make me feel a bit uneasy.[/li][/list]

Eh, fair enough. Slurs deleted, but I hope the articulation still gets the point across.

Any particular reason why you choose to use tenutos instead of two-note slurs in m17-24? Slurs are more common and they would convey the pattern of the LH much more clearly here; I feel that the tenuto is getting overused.[/li][/list]

Because I don't like this:

this.

You cannot view this attachment.

[close]

Considering how the LH is usually staccato, it may be beneficial to have slurs across all the notes in m18, m20, m22, and m24. (Though if you incorporate the above suggestion then the sheet could get too cluttered with them)

I don't like this, either

You cannot view this attachment.

[close]

That's all I got. Overall, this sheet looks good, sounds good, and plays good!

Thanks, msf; I'm glad I could get it to somewhat work.

[Libera]

Sorry for taking a while to get back to this.  Notes look good, so let's just talk about a few little things.

-In 9-16 the lower voice in the right hand part is a lot more complicated than what you've notated.  I just want to check that you've consciously simplified it down and haven't been 'aliasing' the part in.  (if that makes sense.) 
-Spellings still need to be changed in the left hand in bar 12 and bar 16.  You asked for clarification on this earlier so I assume you either forgot or reverted to a previous version?  Either way it's a minor fix.
-I could echo the same comment about two note slurs as opposed to tenutos but you've already said you don't like how it looks so I'll respect that decision.  (At least the idea's been put out there.)

That's all I have.  Looking good!

I've made this comment before, but it bugs me that Finale starts it 8va waayyy too far to the right. I'd drag the starting point a little bit more to the left to cover all the notes fully.

Yeah I've been doing this myself as well.

[LeviR.star]

-In 9-16 the lower voice in the right hand part is a lot more complicated than what you've notated.  I just want to check that you've consciously simplified it down and haven't been 'aliasing' the part in.  (if that makes sense.)

Levi from about a year ago would have written it in as he heard it; I wasn't sure this time if that would be appropriate for solo piano. But, if you think it would be playable even if I didn't alter the part, I can change it to how it is in the actual song.

[Libera]

Let's see what you come up with!  We can always revert it back to the original version if it's not to our/your liking.

[Khunjund]

In measures 3 and 4, the underlying chord is C diminished; the A naturals should be B double flats (so the G sharp appoggiatura is an A flat), and the F sharps should be G flats.

Why do you have a courtesy natural on the C in measure 6?

In measures 7 and 8, the underlying chord is B diminished; the G sharps should be A flats.

In measures 12 and 16, the left hand C sharps should be D flats. Having D flats and C sharps at the same time isn't impossible, but you should definitely think twice about it if you ever find yourself writing things like that.

Instead of writing alternating tenutos and staccatos, consider slurring the notes in groups of two: it's customary for this articulation (and, in my opinion, a lot more presentable).

[LeviR.star]

Instead of writing alternating tenutos and staccatos, consider slurring the notes in groups of two: it's customary for this articulation (and, in my opinion, a lot more presentable).

Now hold on a minute, msf just told me to take those out.

What'll it be, updaters?

[Libera]

I believe he's talking about in bars 17-24, which is also what msf and I were talking about.  You said you'd prefer not to have them as you don't like how they look.  Ultimately, it's your decision.

[LeviR.star]

Why do you have a courtesy natural on the C in measure 6?

I don't even know why courtesy accidentals have to be necessary; it shouldn't be hard to understand things like these.

More Accurate Version

Few things I'm not so sure about:

- that layer 2 A natural in m. 10 and 14 that won't move far enough away from the grace notes no matter what I do
- the pickup 16ths going into m. 17; they're the only ones that are supposed to be forte
- the entire sheet in general

^^ Alright, Libera, here's that one section edited to match the original. But if you believe that playing repeated 16ths at 180 bpm with the LH pinky is feasible, then I would like to ask that you stop accusing me of hearing rhythms and voices incorrectly; I've had a long history of impossible sheets and I'd like to move on towards performer-friendly arrangements.

I'm not sure I like the direction this sheet is going. Any other updaters out there that can give Libera and I some help?