[3DS] Fire Emblem Awakening - "Duty" by Libera

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Fire Emblem
Game: Fire Emblem Awakening
Console: Nintendo 3DS
Title: Duty
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Libera

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Libera]

[Maelstrom]

is there a reason the pickup measure is a quarter instead of an 8th?
m10 RH - b4.75 - the C should be a Db
It's really confusing when the same note is spelled different ways in different phrases - one that stood out was m19+20 - the phrase at the end of 19 and beginning of 20 starts on a G# and ends on a Ab.
What was the reason you chose Cb as your key of choice? i'm sure there was a reason because damn it's hard to sightread sometimes.
The next person should probably check accidentals because this gets insane and I have no clue where to start.

Aside from that, this is an absolutely fantastic arrangement. You did a great job with this and it's honestly better than I could have imaged a sheet like this turning out. It perfectly captures the feel of the original without ever being too difficult to play or simplifying too much. Nice sheet.

[Libera]

Thanks for checking!  I've put new files up.

m10 RH - b4.75 - the C should be a Db

Fixed.  Nice catch.

is there a reason the pickup measure is a quarter instead of an 8th?

I usually feel more comfortable with the pickup being a whole beat (relative to the time signature).  It just feels more natural to me.

It's really confusing when the same note is spelled different ways in different phrases - one that stood out was m19+20 - the phrase at the end of 19 and beginning of 20 starts on a G# and ends on a Ab.
What was the reason you chose Cb as your key of choice? i'm sure there was a reason because damn it's hard to sightread sometimes.
The next person should probably check accidentals because this gets insane and I have no clue where to start.

Yeah accidentals were tricky in this one.  (While I was checking the accidentals this time I spotted a mistake I made in bar 16 LH due to accidentals which I've now fixed.)  I've grouped these three points you made together because they're all interlinked I think.  My reason for going with 7 flats rather than 5 sharps is because it usually leads to having naturals as accidentals rather than double sharps which I personally find easier to read.

With regards to 19-20 with the G#/Ab situation, there's a few reasons why this ended up happening.  Firstly, if you try to spell 16-19 with flats instead of sharps it a) looks horrible due to loads of double flats, and b) you end with the exact same issue that you brought up in 15-16 (with a Gn being rewritten as an Abb).  You could try respelling the whole sheet in sharps, but then the Gn at the end of 15 becomes an F## and so 16-17 now has loads of double sharps OR we keep 16-19 as it currently is and we have the same issue at 15-16 with F## being rewritten as Gn.

The long and short of it is that these respellings occur to avoid large numbers of double flats, and while it isn't great, none of the alternatives I can think of are better.  As far as I'm aware, the only other instance of this is 42-43, which is less egregious but occurs for exactly the same reasons.  Feel free to give suggestions though if you think you have a better idea!

Aside from that, this is an absolutely fantastic arrangement. You did a great job with this and it's honestly better than I could have imaged a sheet like this turning out. It perfectly captures the feel of the original without ever being too difficult to play or simplifying too much. Nice sheet.

Thanks!  This arrangement had been in the works for a long time and I'm happy that the finished product ended up paying off!

[Maelstrom]

Provided someone more talented than I checks the accidentals, I give it my approval.

[Latios212]

I think this video has a better sound quality...

I think the accidentals/keys make sense. Overall not too hard to read and when there are significant chord changes (i.e. 19, 43) the accidentals are consistent with a different harmony so it's pretty sensible.

Anyway, once again nice work! I don't have a whole lot to add, mostly small things.
- I feel like the upper layer Gb on beat 2 of m. 8 kind of overshadows the resolution of the lower layer melody, and I'm not really hearing it prominently in the original either. Would you be open to omitting it?
- Stray 8th-tied-16th in m. 10 should be a dotted eighth
- First bass notes in m. 13 sound like Gb-Ab rather than Ab-Bb
- Are the bass notes between m. 20-21 supposed to be tied? If not, then I would suggest flipping the other tie up
- Beat 4 of m. 34 and 38 just sound like eighth notes to me.
- m. 36 should indicate that beat 1 is somewhat detached in the melody (not legato like the rest of the part)
- A bit hard to tell but I think beat 4 of m. 40 is a triplet in the melody?
- m. 43 beat 4 sounds like an E instead of D#
- Probably can get rid of the outgoing accidentals in the keysig changes.

Oh, and one larger thing - I'm hearing the m. 47+ section pretty differently than how you have it right now. Specifically, I'm hearing the second of each group of 3 melody notes as ascending a minor second rather than descending a major third:
You cannot view this attachment.
(Also not hearing the minor seconds on top of each of the interspersed chords and think they would be a lot nicer to play down an octave, but that's more of a preference thing)

[Libera]

Thanks for checking it over!  I've put new files up.

- Stray 8th-tied-16th in m. 10 should be a dotted eighth
- First bass notes in m. 13 sound like Gb-Ab rather than Ab-Bb
- Are the bass notes between m. 20-21 supposed to be tied? If not, then I would suggest flipping the other tie up
- m. 36 should indicate that beat 1 is somewhat detached in the melody (not legato like the rest of the part)
- m. 43 beat 4 sounds like an E instead of D#

All fixed!  Nice catches.

- I feel like the upper layer Gb on beat 2 of m. 8 kind of overshadows the resolution of the lower layer melody, and I'm not really hearing it prominently in the original either. Would you be open to omitting it?

Hmm.  I really like this little line that comes in over the resolution in the original. I think it gives a really nice effect and I was pretty happy to get it over into the sheet, so I don't think I want to get rid of it really.  The resolution is written in clearly so the performer can accentuate it if they want to.

- Beat 4 of m. 34 and 38 just sound like eighth notes to me.

They sound like they come in after beat 4.5 to me (34 more clearly but I think it makes sense for them to match).  If you compare it to the strings on beat 4.5 you can hear the delay which suggests the dotted rhythm to me.

- A bit hard to tell but I think beat 4 of m. 40 is a triplet in the melody?

I thought the same when I was originally doing this section, but I think it's just a different part overlapping with this one that gives the impression of the triplet rhythm.  At least that's the conclusion I came to after listening to it a bunch of times.

Oh, and one larger thing - I'm hearing the m. 47+ section pretty differently than how you have it right now. Specifically, I'm hearing the second of each group of 3 melody notes as ascending a minor second rather than descending a major third:

I relistened to this again a load of times and I cannot hear this at all.  Admittedly this section has a lot of parts and is pretty confusing so I'm not 100% sure, but I can hear the third movement I wrote in clearly at least.

(Also not hearing the minor seconds on top of each of the interspersed chords and think they would be a lot nicer to play down an octave, but that's more of a preference thing)

Firstly, I can definitely still hear the minor seconds.  My reasoning for putting those 'interspersed chords' in that higher register is to help them stick out, which they really do in the original.  I admit it makes it harder to play but I think it helps bring over the character better if you can pull it off.  It's also an easy change for the performer to put those chords down the octave if they find it too challenging.

[Latios212]

Cool, everything looks good, your comment makes sense. I can't really say I hear m. 34-41 super clearly so what you wrote makes sense. For m. 47+ I think my ear is homing in on a different voice, but listening closer again I can hear what you wrote in and it checks out.

Accepting time!

[Zeta]

This submission has been accepted by Latios212.

~Zeta, your friendly NSM-Bot