[GBA] Harvest Moon: Friends of Mineral Town - "Fall" by Code_Name_Geek

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Harvest Moon
Game: Harvest Moon: Friends of Mineral Town
Console: Game Boy Advance
Title: Fall
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Code_Name_Geek

[attachment deleted by admin]

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Code_Name_Geek]

It's worth mentioning that I wasn't totally sure about the chords in the 8 bars leading up to the repeat, but I think it's pretty close at the very least. I also decided to use octaves for the melody echo to emulate the stereo separation in the original mix.

[mastersuperfan]

So the accompaniment only actually ever plays in dyads in the original track, but I would definitely encourage you to keep the third note you've added to make the arrangement sound fuller. That said, there are a few chords to be fixed:
- The dyad in LH m22 is playing D and G# (you're missing the D), so I would go ahead and shift the whole chord up to a G#-B-D triad.
- The top note in LH m23 should be a B, not a C#.
- I would consider removing the B from m26—I think the chord sounds good without it and the B makes a bit too clustered/dissonant.
- In LH m27, the E is the top note, so I would just shift the inversion and move the E up an octave.
- The dyad in the last measure is D and E, which goes nicely with an added G# as the bottom note (G#-D-E... maybe throw in a B in there as well?). The problem is that the notes clash with the E in the RH, which is particularly problematic because the LH is staccato and the RH is held. I played around with several possibilities, including shifting the LH E down an octave, removing the LH E entirely, and removing the dotted half note but making the three E's held instead of staccato (while the rest of the chord is still staccato). My suggestion would be to simply move the RH E up an octave, which changes the melody but sounds the best IMO. However, if you want to preserve the melody, then you can experiment with the other possibilities instead.

Something else to be mindful of is the notation of quarter notes falling on beat 2.5. Take measures 1 and 3, for instance: in the RH, you have a quarter note, but in the LH, you have two tied eighth notes. In isolation, I would consider each of these staves to be notated properly: the RH because the rhythm is simple and repeitious (and so you save space by writing it out like that every time), and the LH because it makes the moving bassline clearer and easier to read. However, together, the two lines look weird because they're the same note duration in the same place, written differently. Take note of a similar thing happening in measure 13, too. It may be better to keep it as is, or it may be better to change one to match the other—I'm not sure. Just give it some consideration if you haven't already.

[Code_Name_Geek]

So the accompaniment only actually ever plays in dyads in the original track, but I would definitely encourage you to keep the third note you've added to make the arrangement sound fuller. That said, there are a few chords to be fixed:

Oh yeah, since it wasn't possible to get the bass line in the whole arrangement I compromised and filled out the harmony in the accompaniment a bit. Thanks for catching the mistakes in the last eight bars, I was able to get the gist of the chords but the exact pitches were evading me. Anyways these should all be fixed now!

- The dyad in the last measure is D and E, which goes nicely with an added G# as the bottom note (G#-D-E... maybe throw in a B in there as well?). The problem is that the notes clash with the E in the RH, which is particularly problematic because the LH is staccato and the RH is held. I played around with several possibilities, including shifting the LH E down an octave, removing the LH E entirely, and removing the dotted half note but making the three E's held instead of staccato (while the rest of the chord is still staccato). My suggestion would be to simply move the RH E up an octave, which changes the melody but sounds the best IMO. However, if you want to preserve the melody, then you can experiment with the other possibilities instead.

I tried out the different ways you suggested and I decided to take out the LH E (while adding a G# and B). I think with the E in the melody it's still obvious that it's meant to be an E7 chord, even without it being repeated. Plus, it seemed to be the smoothest transition from the A triad in the previous bar.

Something else to be mindful of is the notation of quarter notes falling on beat 2.5. Take measures 1 and 3, for instance: in the RH, you have a quarter note, but in the LH, you have two tied eighth notes. In isolation, I would consider each of these staves to be notated properly: the RH because the rhythm is simple and repeitious (and so you save space by writing it out like that every time), and the LH because it makes the moving bassline clearer and easier to read. However, together, the two lines look weird because they're the same note duration in the same place, written differently. Take note of a similar thing happening in measure 13, too. It may be better to keep it as is, or it may be better to change one to match the other—I'm not sure. Just give it some consideration if you haven't already.

I hadn't thought about this but that's a good point to bring up. I changed the RH rhythms in the intro to match the LH rhythms which I think looks better in this case, but I did switch back to the quarter note for the rest of the song (which I don't think is too confusing but if someone else feels differently let me know!). For measure 13, I think it's more important for the RH voice 1 to line up with the quarter notes in the RH voice 2 than the LH, and by then the accompaniment has been pretty well established so I'm keeping that one the way it is for now.

Thanks for the in-depth feedback, it was really helpful!

[InsigTurtle]

My only real complaint with this is that with the octave separation, I see that you aren't letting some of the voices finish their phrases cuz it'd be impossible to play. It does help to distinguish between them though, I'll give you that. Another option is, you could have the performer play the other voice in the same octave but with a lighter tone and volume. This sort of performance direction doesn't translate very well to MIDIs, though. Up to you to decide what to do.

[Code_Name_Geek]

My only real complaint with this is that with the octave separation, I see that you aren't letting some of the voices finish their phrases cuz it'd be impossible to play. It does help to distinguish between them though, I'll give you that. Another option is, you could have the performer play the other voice in the same octave but with a lighter tone and volume. This sort of performance direction doesn't translate very well to MIDIs, though. Up to you to decide what to do.

The first time that happens (m. 9) was both reach and because it overlaps with the top note of the accompaniment anyways, though I could have the left hand hold that C# through the rest of the bar if that helps? The other time it happens (at the repeat) was purely reach—I did consider putting the last note of that melody an octave down but couldn't think of a way to notate that without things getting messy with the repeat (though I also see this as less of an issue since it's the "echo" voice). Considering those are the only two places that happens, I decided to sacrifice the endings for the octaves. If either of the two changes I mentioned would make it clearer then I'd be happy to do those however!

[Static]

I think the way you separated the melody works fine for this piece. But either way is completely OK.

Regarding what msf said about those quarter notes on beat 2.5 - personally, I am not a big fan of the way you wrote it, since it implies 6/8 rather than 3/4. Most of the time, you can get away with using it and it works fine, but sometimes (like in m13) it clashes with the RH rhythms. I would rewrite all those quarter notes in the LH to look like m1 and 3 (and also change m21, 23, 25 RH). This will make everything else look less weird. When writing in 3/4, I tend to think similarly to 4/4: always show beat 3.

[Code_Name_Geek]

I think the way you separated the melody works fine for this piece. But either way is completely OK.

Regarding what msf said about those quarter notes on beat 2.5 - personally, I am not a big fan of the way you wrote it, since it implies 6/8 rather than 3/4. Most of the time, you can get away with using it and it works fine, but sometimes (like in m13) it clashes with the RH rhythms. I would rewrite all those quarter notes in the LH to look like m1 and 3 (and also change m21, 23, 25 RH). This will make everything else look less weird. When writing in 3/4, I tend to think similarly to 4/4: always show beat 3.

I'm used to seeing two dotted quarters and other rhythms that would usually imply 6/8 in 3/4 as they are often interchangeable in jazz so I've never really thought twice about it, but what you said makes sense too. I went ahead and fixed those rhythms, thanks!

[Static]

I'm used to seeing two dotted quarters and other rhythms that would usually imply 6/8 in 3/4 as they are often interchangeable in jazz so I've never really thought twice about it, but what you said makes sense too. I went ahead and fixed those rhythms, thanks!

You're right too (and it annoys me in jazz charts also), but I guess I'm just very particular about these kind of things. The biggest thing for me is just consistency across repetitions of similar rhythms.

I'll go ahead and approve this sheet now.

[Latios212]

This looks terrific, great work guys!

[Zeta]

This submission has been accepted by Latios212.

~Zeta, your friendly NSM-Bot