[3DS] Pokémon X & Pokémon Y - "KISEKI" by Latios212

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Pokémon
Game: Pokémon X & Pokémon Y
Console: Nintendo 3DS
Title: KISEKI
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Latios212

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Latios212]

Note: for this sheet I was slightly more liberal than usual in my interpretation of the song given its nature. For the melody there are some places that may not match up exactly with the original (instrumental) version, in order to accommodate the English lyrics. And I played around with the left hand textures a bit in the different sections of accompaniment under the melody, though the underlying chords and everything are of course still the same - I just may have inverted or used different voicings.

[Latios212]

Pokemon

[Libera]

Sorry for the wait!  Checking it now...

-This is how I'd personally split up bar 2.  The Ab feels more at the same volume as the accompaniment and I intuitively hear the melody coming back in on the C:

Spoiler

You cannot view this attachment.

[close]

-In bar 44-45 I think the lower voice in the right hand goes up to Ebs rather than Ds.  I get maybe wanting to keep the intervals the same, but that chord sounds a lot more clashy than the original to me with the Ds.
-The chord on the second beat of bar 16 doesn't sound right to me.  Also I think if it were me I'd voice the chord lower than the melody note on beat 1 since otherwise (as we don't have the luxury of different instruments) it's liable to sound like the melody rising.  With regards to what the chord should, I'm not 100% sure but I think I can hear the bass move from Bb -> Bn so it's liable to be some sort of diminished thing.
-Maybe invert the beams in bar 99 like you did for 91.
-Super picky point here, but could you make the dashed line in bar 93 be three full length dashes like it is elsewhere?  It's driving me nuts haha.
-I think the voicings in bar 68-69 are kind of backwards.  Like it's a light moment in the original and yet it's voiced more heavily than the surrounding sections.  I'd certainly cut back on the double octave in the right hand at least.
-Could the mp in bar 67 just got in between the staves like all of the other dynamic markings do?  It's just looks a little odd to me at the moment.
-Especially since we're being so loose with the left hand, I don't see any reason not to drop the Eb at the end of bar 15 by an octave so it doesn't cross over the melody line and also that way it leads into the next left hand notes more smoothly.  Either way I'm not sure why that note is bracketed since it's not a collision and I didn't think we bracketed hand crossings.  You could also do the same thing with with the final notes of bars 9 and 14, but I don't think they're as important since they're collisions not crossings.
-Not 100% on the chords in bar 40; I think I can hear a C in there.  Might be worth just double checking that particular moment.
-I feel a little uneasy about bars 77 and 85 where you have a slur starting on the same note that a slur finished on as it doesn't really make sense to me from a phrasing point of view.  You could do it as one big wavy slur, or just have the second slur start on the second note of the bar rather than the first.  (I think the second one is how I would instinctively play it myself.)
-I think in bars 41-48 I would have emphasised the repeated note pattern in the left hand rather than just using the same arpeggio pattern that you have in the rest of the piece.  Something along these lines:

Spoiler

You cannot view this attachment.

[close]

(that's just using the same left hand harmonies that you wrote in.)

I think that's pretty much everything I have to say about this, but it's quite a long one so I might spot something later.  In general, though, it's a very nice arrangement.

[Latios212]

Thanks for looking! ^^

-This is how I'd personally split up bar 2.  The Ab feels more at the same volume as the accompaniment and I intuitively hear the melody coming back in on the C:

Spoiler

You cannot view this attachment.

[close]

Thanks for the suggestion but I'd rather keep it as is for a few reasons. The rhythmic pattern for both pattern matches both the measures around it right now, and it'd be easier for the right hand to play the Ab. In addition, this bar isn't going strictly by the melody anyways; if so, the C on the fifth beat would also not be included - compare to m. 17-19 as well as observe the chime doubling the piano voice in the intro.

-In bar 44-45 I think the lower voice in the right hand goes up to Ebs rather than Ds.  I get maybe wanting to keep the intervals the same, but that chord sounds a lot more clashy than the original to me with the Ds.

Ah yeah sure that sounds good

-The chord on the second beat of bar 16 doesn't sound right to me.  Also I think if it were me I'd voice the chord lower than the melody note on beat 1 since otherwise (as we don't have the luxury of different instruments) it's liable to sound like the melody rising.  With regards to what the chord should, I'm not 100% sure but I think I can hear the bass move from Bb -> Bn so it's liable to be some sort of diminished thing.

Ooh yeah I think you're right about that chord. Changed the Bb in the right hand to a Cb. Lemme know if this is an issue anywhere else I wrote in a sus4 chord. For the LH jumping above in the pickup to that measure see my response below to the other point.

-Maybe invert the beams in bar 99 like you did for 91.

Eh, I'd like to keep the beam on the same side of the notes for this one (the beams were already between the staves in 91 due to layers)

-Super picky point here, but could you make the dashed line in bar 93 be three full length dashes like it is elsewhere?  It's driving me nuts haha.

Oops, good call xD

-I think the voicings in bar 68-69 are kind of backwards.  Like it's a light moment in the original and yet it's voiced more heavily than the surrounding sections.  I'd certainly cut back on the double octave in the right hand at least.

I see what you're saying but the dynamics convey the intention here, and in addition really the heaviness present in the arrangement comes from the left hand part in which densely voiced/low notes in the measure before make way to the mid-range notes in these couple of measures. Also the chords need to have the distinct pitches to fully flesh out the B9sus4 (I love that chord haha). I considered removing the octave doubled notes, but those are taken verbatim from the original and they sound alright to me. I did move them to the left hand to make it easier on the right hand, though.

-Could the mp in bar 67 just got in between the staves like all of the other dynamic markings do?  It's just looks a little odd to me at the moment.

Oh yeah sure

-Especially since we're being so loose with the left hand, I don't see any reason not to drop the Eb at the end of bar 15 by an octave so it doesn't cross over the melody line and also that way it leads into the next left hand notes more smoothly.  Either way I'm not sure why that note is bracketed since it's not a collision and I didn't think we bracketed hand crossings.  You could also do the same thing with with the final notes of bars 9 and 14, but I don't think they're as important since they're collisions not crossings.

I already parenthesized it to suggest it be explicitly deprioritized or omitted so I'd like to just leave it there to avoid having the LH audibly descend there - that would sound pretty different from the original. For the beginning of the song I stuck closer to a direct transcription since the song was relatively sparse there, compared to where I conjured up some thicker pianistic textures for the more densely orchestrated parts later on.

-Not 100% on the chords in bar 40; I think I can hear a C in there.  Might be worth just double checking that particular moment.

Hmm maybe on the second one but here I'm pretty clearly hearing Ab, Cb, Eb (Abm) to start with here. I don't want to add anything else to the left hand to avoid creating a denser texture just yet.

-I feel a little uneasy about bars 77 and 85 where you have a slur starting on the same note that a slur finished on as it doesn't really make sense to me from a phrasing point of view.  You could do it as one big wavy slur, or just have the second slur start on the second note of the bar rather than the first.  (I think the second one is how I would instinctively play it myself.)

Normally I would totally agree but here you can think of it as the two separate phrases coinciding there but making use of the different E's. The low bass voice ascends B-C#-D# resolving on the low E, and the upper voice starts ascending up the E major scale from the top E there. So visually I think it makes sense.

Also I realized I forgot to pepper the left hand with slurs in some other places in the middle of the song, so I went and did that.

-I think in bars 41-48 I would have emphasised the repeated note pattern in the left hand rather than just using the same arpeggio pattern that you have in the rest of the piece.  Something along these lines:

Spoiler

You cannot view this attachment.

[close]

(that's just using the same left hand harmonies that you wrote in.)

That's a fine accompaniment pattern but I think the arpeggios better encapsulate the nonstop ebb and flow of the section better.

I think that's pretty much everything I have to say about this, but it's quite a long one so I might spot something later.  In general, though, it's a very nice arrangement.

Thank you! I spent a lot of time on it

Files updated with all of the above~

[Libera]

Normally I would totally agree but here you can think of it as the two separate phrases coinciding there but making use of the different E's. The low bass voice ascends B-C#-D# resolving on the low E, and the upper voice starts ascending up the E major scale from the top E there. So visually I think it makes sense.

I guess you're thinking of things from an analytical point of view rather than a performance point of view.  I stand by saying that this doesn't make sense in terms of phrasing, but if you'd like to keep it that way then fair enough.

Everything else looks good and I think I can sign off on this.  Approved.

[Maelstrom]

Quite good

[Zeta]

This submission has been accepted by Maelstrom.

~Zeta, your friendly NSM-Bot