[SNES] EarthBound - "Sanctuary Guardian" by Yug Guy

Started by Zeta, November 27, 2020, 01:06:32 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Zeta

Submission Information:

Series: EarthBound
Game: EarthBound
Console: Super Nintendo Entertainment System
Title: Sanctuary Guardian
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Yug Guy

[attachment deleted by admin]

[attachment deleted by admin]

Yug_Guy


WHAT



Yeah, this one's a little unorthodox. While I did this arrangement a long time ago, I used this transcription as a reference while polishing it up for submission this time around.

Kricketune54

#2
Ah I've been wondering where this one was in the site's Earthbound collection!

For the melody at 18 I believe it supposed to be the following though and that the same rhythm applies at 24.

Radiak488417

Regarding Kricketune's comment, I'm certain the melody is correct the way Yug has it, although I do think that the notes should be staccato.

Other things:
  • The first two 8th notes in m5 and m9 LH should be Ebs. m46 and m50 LH should also be identical to m5 and m9 LH.
  • The decrescendo in m34 seems a little unnecessary since there's nothing really playing in that measure.
  • I don't really see a reason to raise the chords an octave in m51 and similar.
  • I know that kobbelobbe's transcription is technically correct (and awesome), but since this is just a piano arrangement I think you could consider omitting the extra 32nd rests at the end of m54 and m58.

That's all I've got. This song works way better on piano than I thought, nice job with this one.


Kricketune54

#4
Quote from: Radiak488417 on November 27, 2020, 11:13:37 PMRegarding Kricketune's comment, I'm certain the melody is correct the way Yug has it, although I do think that the notes should be staccato.

My apologies my ears were definitely playing tricks on me.  Upon slowing down the song I stand corrected... guess I've been hearing it wrong this whole time

Maelstrom

First, the +1/16s. I realize that it's precise that way, but man it looks messy. I think a simple // at the end of  those measures would look cleaner and accomplish basically the same thing.

The 2nd major thing is the swing. I don't like the ! in the default expression, but that's up to you. The text you have to indicate straight 8ths feels a bit .. clunky. Other options to explore are notating the LH as triplets (cumbersome), customize a custom smart shape (like AH) and just replace the text with "Straight", remove the hand from the expressions you have and put the first RH one above the staff, or at least remove the L.H. straight later because there are no RH notes to swing ever. The more I think about it the less ideas I have. If you want it as is, that is ok too I guess.

m53-54/57-58 - I hear the top note of these chords as a D, not a C.

Otherwise it looks pretty great.

Also most of what radiak said, it's great feedback. I, however, disagree and hear m5/9 etc as you have it written.

Yug_Guy

Quote from: Maelstrom on January 07, 2021, 11:59:15 AMThe 2nd major thing is the swing. I don't like the ! in the default expression, but that's up to you. The text you have to indicate straight 8ths feels a bit .. clunky. Other options to explore are notating the LH as triplets (cumbersome), customize a custom smart shape (like AH) and just replace the text with "Straight", remove the hand from the expressions you have and put the first RH one above the staff, or at least remove the L.H. straight later because there are no RH notes to swing ever. The more I think about it the less ideas I have. If you want it as is, that is ok too I guess.
I have what I think is a good solution. Let me know what you think about it.

Quote from: Maelstrom on January 07, 2021, 11:59:15 AMm53-54/57-58 - I hear the top note of these chords as a D, not a C.
I didn't believe you at first, but I went & checked myself and you are indeed correct. Fixed.

Quote from: Radiak488417 on November 27, 2020, 11:13:37 PM
  • I don't really see a reason to raise the chords an octave in m51 and similar.
There's some sort of "quality" change in the instrumentation for that part (along with getting softer). I thought that an octave change might be a somewhat-acceptable substitute since you can't really change the overall tone of a piano beyond dynamics.

Radiak488417

I used a channel separator to listen to m5/9 and 46/50 since I was having trouble hearing the bass, and I'm pretty certain those Ebs are there (kobbelobbe has them there too, and I think she transcribed from the actual sequence data). As for the chords at the end, it's ultimately up to you but I think the dynamic changes on their own would work fine to represent what's happening in the original.

Maelstrom

Quote from: Radiak488417 on January 07, 2021, 10:36:45 PMI used a channel separator to listen to m5/9 and 46/50 since I was having trouble hearing the bass, and I'm pretty certain those Ebs are there (kobbelobbe has them there too, and I think she transcribed from the actual sequence data). As for the chords at the end, it's ultimately up to you but I think the dynamic changes on their own would work fine to represent what's happening in the original.
I had a discussion with Levi previously about channel separation vs original on what I think was a sonic spinball submission. My stance hasn't changed; the full track trumps the channels since that's what you hear in-game. I quite clearly and definitely hear no Eb so that's what I think it should be.

Also yug, your triplet mark is collision with the tempo mark in the PDF

Static

Quote from: Maelstrom on January 10, 2021, 06:26:43 AMI had a discussion with Levi previously about channel separation vs original on what I think was a sonic spinball submission. My stance hasn't changed; the full track trumps the channels since that's what you hear in-game. I quite clearly and definitely hear no Eb so that's what I think it should be.
I'm not sure I agree with this, particularly since the texture in this track is pretty sparse. Just because it's hard to hear in the final mix doesn't mean the notes just aren't there... There's an argument to be made about how altering some notes can make a piece sound better on piano, but I don't think it makes a difference in this arrangement. It'd be better for it to be accurate, in my opinion.

With that said, I took a listen myself this is what I hear:
- m5 and 9 should have Ebs like mentioned previously
- m26: The Bbs should be Ans
- m44-45 and 49-50 should look just like m4-5 and 8-9 (with Ebs).

Here's a file with the original bassline channel isolated, and here's the same file one octave up. There is actually another, much lower bassline that appears starting at m10, but it contains mostly the same notes (just occasionally missing the low Cs).

Yug_Guy

Quote from: Maelstrom on January 10, 2021, 06:26:43 AMAlso yug, your triplet mark is collision with the tempo mark in the PDF
It wasn't just the pdf; everything got shifted to the left when I changed the time signature. Should be fixed now.

Quote from: Static on January 10, 2021, 03:12:57 PMI'm not sure I agree with this, particularly since the texture in this track is pretty sparse. Just because it's hard to hear in the final mix doesn't mean the notes just aren't there... There's an argument to be made about how altering some notes can make a piece sound better on piano, but I don't think it makes a difference in this arrangement. It'd be better for it to be accurate, in my opinion.

With that said, I took a listen myself this is what I hear:
- m5 and 9 should have Ebs like mentioned previously
- m26: The Bbs should be Ans
- m44-45 and 49-50 should look just like m4-5 and 8-9 (with Ebs).
To put this thing to bed, I went and isolated the sound channel myself and made the requisite edits. I agree with Static's suggeestions for m5/9 & 44/49. However, the notes in m26 are absolutely Bb, no doubt.

Personally speaking, I aim for accuracy in what's actually being played, and not necessarily what it's perceived as. Sorry Maelstrom; I totally get where you're coming from, but I personally disagree.

Quote from: Static on January 10, 2021, 03:12:57 PMThere is actually another, much lower bassline that appears starting at m10, but it contains mostly the same notes (just occasionally missing the low Cs).
Not exactly relevant, but this sounds to me more like a resonance of the sample rather than a different voice entirely. (Or, maybe it's the fundamental and the more discernable voice is the resonance? idk im not a musicologist)

Static

Quote from: Yug_Guy on January 10, 2021, 03:28:30 PMNot exactly relevant, but this sounds to me more like a resonance of the sample rather than a different voice entirely. (Or, maybe it's the fundamental and the more discernable voice is the resonance? idk im not a musicologist)
It is actually a separate channel, at least it shows up that way when I split them. The Bb sounds good btw, I misheard that.

Static

I was taking another look at the arrangement - m45 should look like 43 shouldn't it? It sounds pretty clearly that way to me.

Yug_Guy

Quote from: Static on January 10, 2021, 08:39:27 PMI was taking another look at the arrangement - m45 should look like 43 shouldn't it? It sounds pretty clearly that way to me.
Yes, it should. Fixed.

Maelstrom

sorry to drag this on further but what is going on with the rests in m1? There's a missing 8th rest in layer 1. I would personally recommend just combining the rests in the 2 layers.

fix this and I approve

edit: also isn't the // supposed to be above the staff not below it