[SNES] Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island - "Baby Bowser" by LeviR.star

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Super Mario
Game: Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island
Console: Super Nintendo Entertainment System
Title: Baby Bowser
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: LeviR.star

[attachment deleted by admin]

[LeviR.star]

Here's to hoping that all of the work this took pays off!

[Latios212]

Ooh, this is a really interesting one... good work dealing with all the wackiness!

If I may ask, how exactly did you end up with the rhythm/tuplets you have for the intro? While it doesn't look wrong it doesn't look the most intuitive (although the original is indeed strange...)

[LeviR.star]

If I may ask, how exactly did you end up with the rhythm/tuplets you have for the intro? While it doesn't look wrong it doesn't look the most intuitive (although the original is indeed strange...)

Great question! I thought I'd get asked this straightaway, so I'll give you an answer straightaway ~

The Process

The first phase of arranging this piece was a night session, about 2 1/2 - 3 hours long, and during that time I pieced the intro together through exhausting trial-and-error. The most important (and also difficult) part was determining a tempo to go off of; it took me a great deal of time to conclude that the melody was neither 8th notes nor triplets of 8th notes. This was hard because the bass notes in the first 6 measures were sustained, and I had no percussion line to use as a reference.

I then tried to see if the tempo was different than what followed m. 9, and saw success, but only for a few minutes. It was at this point I realized that m. 9 itself was the key to the entire puzzle: it had consistent rhythm in both lines. After using a tempo tapper and playing the original in reverse down through m. 9, and eventually past even that, it turned out that the tempo was constant throughout the entire song, though the meter was not.

Once I had the overall tempo set to 120 bpm, I came up with this lineup for the time signatures in the intro: [4/4, 3/4, 5/4 - 4/4, 4/4, 5/4 - 4/4, 3/4, 5/4, 9/16]. I also decided that several of the rhythm groupings were actually quintuplets, and that worked out pretty nicely. The only measures at this point that weren't finished were m. 3, 5, and 9. Switching the meter to 3/4 and using triplets was too fast, and switching it to a compound 9/8 and using no tuplets was too slow, as well as unnecessary. When I interpreted the melody line reverb as part of the rhythm, I finally settled on nonuplets spanning over a 5/4 bar, which I helped prove using the chromatically-rising bass line in m. 9, the key to the puzzle.

The rest of the sheet was no piece of cake, but at least I knew what meter I was in.

[close]

Yes, I have considered the idea that the first passage is more of a rubato one; I just think that everything in this song is very intentional, and urge anyone to check over my rhythms themselves. I have confidence that the way I have it is the best way to write it out.

[mastersuperfan]

I don't think the notes in the beginning are short enough to warrant staccatos; slightly shorter than an eighth note (their indicated value without staccatos) is already short enough. Sure, they're not prolonged, but they're not bouncy, either.

For m23 and m25-26, I would use a bracket to indicate that only those three notes are part of the triplet (i.e. the kind of bracket you see in a quarter note triplet). For m27-29, the consecutive sets of triplets within each beat should be sextuplets instead.

[LeviR.star]

I don't think the notes in the beginning are short enough to warrant staccatos; slightly shorter than an eighth note (their indicated value without staccatos) is already short enough. Sure, they're not prolonged, but they're not bouncy, either.

- I see where you're coming from, but I also feel that the notes in m. 3 have a ever-so-slight separation between them, and that it should be somewhat clear that they ought not to be slurred. Should I use tenuto markings for that measure to get the message across?

For m23 and m25-26, I would use a bracket to indicate that only those three notes are part of the triplet (i.e. the kind of bracket you see in a quarter note triplet). For m27-29, the consecutive sets of triplets within each beat should be sextuplets instead.

- I figured it was already understandable enough what the rhythm was to be, but I trust you. How do I add those brackets to non-quarter triplets?

[mastersuperfan]

- I see where you're coming from, but I also feel that the notes in m. 3 have a ever-so-slight separation between them, and that it should be somewhat clear that they ought not to be slurred. Should I use tenuto markings for that measure to get the message across?

To be honest, I actually think they would just sound better connected on piano. I didn't even notice there was a small separation between them until you pointed it out (and I had to really listen for it), and I think it just works much better on piano as two-note-slur phrases (not that you actually have to use slurs, but that same feeling of accented connected to unaccented note, if that makes sense).

- I figured it was already understandable enough what the rhythm was to be, but I trust you. How do I add those brackets to non-quarter triplets?

Use the tuplet tool, click on the tuplet, and select "Always Use Specified Shape." The 3 probably won't be centered in the generated bracket, so you might have to adjust that manually.

[LeviR.star]

Great, thanks for the tip. How does that look?

[Latios212]

Great question! I thought I'd get asked this straightaway, so I'll give you an answer straightaway ~

The Process

The first phase of arranging this piece was a night session, about 2 1/2 - 3 hours long, and during that time I pieced the intro together through exhausting trial-and-error. The most important (and also difficult) part was determining a tempo to go off of; it took me a great deal of time to conclude that the melody was neither 8th notes nor triplets of 8th notes. This was hard because the bass notes in the first 6 measures were sustained, and I had no percussion line to use as a reference.

I then tried to see if the tempo was different than what followed m. 9, and saw success, but only for a few minutes. It was at this point I realized that m. 9 itself was the key to the entire puzzle: it had consistent rhythm in both lines. After using a tempo tapper and playing the original in reverse down through m. 9, and eventually past even that, it turned out that the tempo was constant throughout the entire song, though the meter was not.

Once I had the overall tempo set to 120 bpm, I came up with this lineup for the time signatures in the intro: [4/4, 3/4, 5/4 - 4/4, 4/4, 5/4 - 4/4, 3/4, 5/4, 9/16]. I also decided that several of the rhythm groupings were actually quintuplets, and that worked out pretty nicely. The only measures at this point that weren't finished were m. 3, 5, and 9. Switching the meter to 3/4 and using triplets was too fast, and switching it to a compound 9/8 and using no tuplets was too slow, as well as unnecessary. When I interpreted the melody line reverb as part of the rhythm, I finally settled on nonuplets spanning over a 5/4 bar, which I helped prove using the chromatically-rising bass line in m. 9, the key to the puzzle.

The rest of the sheet was no piece of cake, but at least I knew what meter I was in.

[close]

Yes, I have considered the idea that the first passage is more of a rubato one; I just think that everything in this song is very intentional, and urge anyone to check over my rhythms themselves. I have confidence that the way I have it is the best way to write it out.

Alright, I'm willing to roll with this if that's the way you want it ^^

Rest of my feedback:
- Beam the D and C together in m. 10. A time signature 9/16 generally implies a 3+3+3 rhythm, which makes sense here.
- I also think the triplets in m. 39 should be sextuplets like the others.

...that's it! Everything else looks awesome. Good job getting the notes down for this one.

[LeviR.star]

Rest of my feedback:
- Beam the D and C together in m. 10. A time signature 9/16 generally implies a 3+3+3 rhythm, which makes sense here.
- I also think the triplets in m. 39 should be sextuplets like the others.

...that's it! Everything else looks awesome. Good job getting the notes down for this one.

Got it! Thanks for checking it over!

[Latios212]

Looks good~

[Static]

Nice arrangement!

• While the intro is technically correct (impressively so), I'm not really a big fan of how it's written - personally I would make the rhythms simpler and just put a "freely" marking, and in one bar like a cadenza. But, it's fine the way you have it, I just wanted to share my perspective here on other possibilities.

• - Beam the D and C together in m. 10. A time signature 9/16 generally implies a 3+3+3 rhythm, which makes sense here.
  

  I disagree here. I'd beam the 9/16 bar 5+4 in this case; it's not a typical compound triple meter. So in cases like this, I would beam according to the music/phrases, if that makes sense. It's more similar to a 2/4 bar with a 16th note pickup or something.
• m41-44: Some accents on the RH that line up with the LH notes would probably be nice here.

Everything else looks great.

[LeviR.star]

• While the intro is technically correct (impressively so), I'm not really a big fan of how it's written - personally I would make the rhythms simpler and just put a "freely" marking, and in one bar like a cadenza. But, it's fine the way you have it, I just wanted to share my perspective here on other possibilities.
• I disagree here. I'd beam the 9/16 bar 5+4 in this case; it's not a typical compound triple meter. So in cases like this, I would beam according to the music/phrases, if that makes sense. It's more similar to a 2/4 bar with a 16th note pickup or something.
• m41-44: Some accents on the RH that line up with the LH notes would probably be nice here.

- I've considered this, and although (with all due respect) I'd like to keep it this way, I thank you for sharing your perspective
- makes sense to me. In a simple meter song, it makes sense to me to keep it as close to that as possible
- you got it!

I'll let you and Latios talk over the beaming of the 9/16 bar, but for now, the files are updated.

[Latios212]

- Beam the D and C together in m. 10. A time signature 9/16 generally implies a 3+3+3 rhythm, which makes sense here.

I disagree here. I'd beam the 9/16 bar 5+4 in this case; it's not a typical compound triple meter. So in cases like this, I would beam according to the music/phrases, if that makes sense. It's more similar to a 2/4 bar with a 16th note pickup or something.

There's not much rhythmic context here because the previous and following sections are different, and regardless of how this is beamed it's a weird little transition. 3+3+3 made the most sense to me because the first three and last three notes have the same descending Ab-G-F. If you disagree and would prefer the 5+4 that's fine, though I don't quite agree with isolating the first note like that.

[LeviR.star]

There's not much rhythmic context here because the previous and following sections are different, and regardless of how this is beamed it's a weird little transition. 3+3+3 made the most sense to me because the first three and last three notes have the same descending Ab-G-F. If you disagree and would prefer the 5+4 that's fine, though I don't quite agree with isolating the first note like that.

Alright, this I can settle with. Changed it back to 3+3+3 beaming.