[SW] Paper Mario: The Origami King - "Disco Devil" by ManOfDucks

Started by Zeta, April 06, 2021, 05:30:38 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Zeta

Submission Information:

Series: Paper Mario
Game: Paper Mario: The Origami King
Console: Nintendo Switch
Title: Disco Devil
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: ManOfDucks

[attachment deleted by admin]


Latios212

wow you madlad

this is my favorite boss theme from The Origami King ;D
My arrangements and YouTube channel!

Quote from: Dudeman on February 22, 2016, 10:16:37 AM
who needs education when you can have WAIFUS!!!!!

Spoiler
[close]
turtle

ManOfDucks

It's a close second for me right behind The Shifty Sticker! I don't think I ever expected to hear a combination of the Byzantine scale and disco music lol.

mastersuperfan

Quote from: Latios212 on April 06, 2021, 06:07:04 PMwow you madlad

this is my favorite boss theme from The Origami King ;D
Quote from: ManOfDucks on April 06, 2021, 07:26:32 PMIt's a close second for me right behind The Shifty Sticker!
y'all forgetting about vellumental

The main thing I want to say about this sheet is that I feel like it's pretty sparse at a lot of points, especially in the LH. The LH has a lot of rests, particularly on the beats, and I feel like it makes the sheet sound a lot empty and less driven than the original. I think you could take a lot of liberty in improvising more notes into the LH—I think the LH really needs to be a major rhythmic driver to make up for the lack of percussion.

On the note of the sheet being a bit sparse, you might also consider trying to add harmonies throughout, especially in places like m14-21 RH.

Other thing: I would recommend displaying the eighth rests in m22-29 RH.
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on February 11, 2016, 03:00:36 PMthere's also a huge difference in quality between 2000 songs and 2010 songs
Quote from: Latios212 on February 11, 2016, 03:29:24 PMThe difference between 2000 songs and 2010 songs is 10 songs.

Latios212

Feedback :)

- Dynamics - would definitely suggest varying it up more than just a mf at the start :P While the original doesn't change in volume much, some parts are more climactic than others and there's definitely a few notable places where the piece builds up or releases tension between sections. Here's what I'd personally suggest, though of course you're free to do what you feel is right:
  - f at 2
  - ff at 14
  - mf at 30
  - f at 34
  - ff at 38
  - mf at 45
  - crescendos in the first and last measures
- The couple of LH chords in m. 3 (beats 3.5-4) sound a bit muddy. Are you trying to highlight the D#-E motion? If so, I think you could go without the octave G's enclosing them.
- I think the Gn's in m. 26/28/29 would be better written as Fx's to match the upper layers - those octaves don't look like octaves right now. (If so, the a courtesy sharp would be good on the first F# in m. 29)
- The jumps between octave 16th notes look pretty tough in 34/36 and 39/43... think you could maybe omit a couple of notes or otherwise make adjustments, or do you think it's playable as written?
- I don't think the courtesy sharps are necessary in m. 40 - they directly follow the key signature and C#s in the previous measure. The latter is true for m. 44 as well.
- The title's just "Disco Devil", no "The", unlike the other bosses...

man I could just keep listening to this track all night
My arrangements and YouTube channel!

Quote from: Dudeman on February 22, 2016, 10:16:37 AM
who needs education when you can have WAIFUS!!!!!

Spoiler
[close]
turtle

mastersuperfan

Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on February 11, 2016, 03:00:36 PMthere's also a huge difference in quality between 2000 songs and 2010 songs
Quote from: Latios212 on February 11, 2016, 03:29:24 PMThe difference between 2000 songs and 2010 songs is 10 songs.

ManOfDucks

Sorry for the delay!

QuoteThe main thing I want to say about this sheet is that I feel like it's pretty sparse at a lot of points, especially in the LH. The LH has a lot of rests, particularly on the beats, and I feel like it makes the sheet sound a lot empty and less driven than the original. I think you could take a lot of liberty in improvising more notes into the LH—I think the LH really needs to be a major rhythmic driver to make up for the lack of percussion.

I added in some LH notes on the "e"s and "a"s to keep the rhythm pushing forward while leaving in (most) of the original bassline for consistency's sake.

QuoteOn the note of the sheet being a bit sparse, you might also consider trying to add harmonies throughout, especially in places like m14-21 RH.

Done! The only thing notation wise I'm a little unsure about is the tied E in measures 16 and 20, because I think it almost looks like a slur to the D#. Thoughts?

I left the harmonies out of the repeated section in measures 38-44 because I didn't want to make it harder than it already is, plus I think the octaves in the bass help it sound a little less thin.

QuoteOther thing: I would recommend displaying the eighth rests in m22-29 RH.

Done!

Quote- Dynamics - would definitely suggest varying it up more than just a mf at the start :P While the original doesn't change in volume much, some parts are more climactic than others and there's definitely a few notable places where the piece builds up or releases tension between sections. Here's what I'd personally suggest, though of course you're free to do what you feel is right:

Done!

Quote- The couple of LH chords in m. 3 (beats 3.5-4) sound a bit muddy. Are you trying to highlight the D#-E motion? If so, I think you could go without the octave G's enclosing them.

I took out the bottom G#s but left the top ones in since they continue the voice from the preceding 2 beats!

Quote- I think the Gn's in m. 26/28/29 would be better written as Fx's to match the upper layers - those octaves don't look like octaves right now. (If so, the a courtesy sharp would be good on the first F# in m. 29)
Quote- I don't think the courtesy sharps are necessary in m. 40 - they directly follow the key signature and C#s in the previous measure. The latter is true for m. 44 as well.

Done and done!

Quote- The jumps between octave 16th notes look pretty tough in 34/36 and 39/43... think you could maybe omit a couple of notes or otherwise make adjustments, or do you think it's playable as written?

I don't think the jumps in measures 34 and 36 are too bad to play, a little quick maybe but since the distance is only an octave muscle memory should help out! The parallel octaves in measures 39/43 are tricky to play, but if you use finger 4 on the D#s (I wrote it in the score) it is possible.

Quote- The title's just "Disco Devil", no "The", unlike the other bosses...

Oopsie... fixed.

Aside from the changes mentioned I also added in some fingering numbers for some of the trickier sections.

Thank you both for the feedback!


Latios212

Awesome, the changes look great! A few last comments from me:
- Finger numbers - in m. 2 I think it might be better to have the number above the staff instead of intersecting it, and in m. 41 the one over the grace note would be better off regular size. (Ran through these quickly and they seem sensible - nice for adding clarity :) )
- I'd suggest removing the slurs between repeated notes in the RH of m. 30-36 - they could be visually mistaken for ties and at this speed I don't think the notation will affect much how the note will be re-struck.
- I think the last RH note in the lower layer in m. 37 is offset a bit much to the right - compare the note with the tenuto to the one under it.
- Don't forget to update the submission title in the NSM Panel too.

And regarding the additional harmonies added to the right hand in m. 14-21:
- I think the 4-note chords for the four eighth notes in beats 3-4 of m. 14 and 18 might be a bit much. Probably the beat 1 (and maybe 3) of these measures would be the best places to emphasize the harmony without making it much heavier/more difficult to play.
- I think that any additional harmonies in here would probably be best applied to the end section as well (m. 38/40/42/44 in particular since the other measures in the end section have other stuff going on).

I'm almost ready to approve, but I'll let MSF comment on some of the accompaniment changes before we finish up :P
My arrangements and YouTube channel!

Quote from: Dudeman on February 22, 2016, 10:16:37 AM
who needs education when you can have WAIFUS!!!!!

Spoiler
[close]
turtle

ManOfDucks

Quote- Finger numbers - in m. 2 I think it might be better to have the number above the staff instead of intersecting it, and in m. 41 the one over the grace note would be better off regular size. (Ran through these quickly and they seem sensible - nice for adding clarity :) )

I actually learned something really interesting about this! I thought they also looked kind of odd intersecting the staff, but I consulted the G. Henle Verlag editions and found that they often put fingerings intersecting the text. That being said I still think it looks a bit odd so I went ahead and bumped it up, just thought it was something interesting and wanted to share :)

Quote- I'd suggest removing the slurs between repeated notes in the RH of m. 30-36 - they could be visually mistaken for ties and at this speed I don't think the notation will affect much how the note will be re-struck.
- I think the last RH note in the lower layer in m. 37 is offset a bit much to the right - compare the note with the tenuto to the one under it.
- Don't forget to update the submission title in the NSM Panel too.

These are all fixed!

Quote- I think the 4-note chords for the four eighth notes in beats 3-4 of m. 14 and 18 might be a bit much. Probably the beat 1 (and maybe 3) of these measures would be the best places to emphasize the harmony without making it much heavier/more difficult to play.
- I think that any additional harmonies in here would probably be best applied to the end section as well (m. 38/40/42/44 in particular since the other measures in the end section have other stuff going on).

So are these!


Latios212

Quote from: ManOfDucks on April 18, 2021, 05:00:19 PMI actually learned something really interesting about this! I thought they also looked kind of odd intersecting the staff, but I consulted the G. Henle Verlag editions and found that they often put fingerings intersecting the text. That being said I still think it looks a bit odd so I went ahead and bumped it up, just thought it was something interesting and wanted to share :)
Gotcha! Yeah I think it can make sense sometimes but here it's just one note and the only one staff space away, so it's probably cleanest to nudge it up. Thanks for doing the research!

Looks good to me, approving :)
My arrangements and YouTube channel!

Quote from: Dudeman on February 22, 2016, 10:16:37 AM
who needs education when you can have WAIFUS!!!!!

Spoiler
[close]
turtle

mastersuperfan

All right, let's see...
- Hm, third harmonies in the LH? I'm not sure if they fit the style of a track like this, at least in my opinion. Maybe try experimenting with fifth harmonies or something else? The thirds work fine, though, if other ideas don't work and/or if you prefer it this way.
- The grace note slur on m2 RH beat 4 might look better if went above the note instead of below? Not sure.
- m4/36 LH looks super confusing broken up into two layers, especially without rests (it looks like there's only one layer except the last eighth note is detached and flipped). I would just suggest condensing it into one layer.
- For m3/5/35 LH, it's typically not preferred (although still acceptable) to beam eighth notes in groups of three. You might consider breaking up that beam so only the within-beat pair is beamed.
- You have extra staccatos on m9 RH Layer 1 beats 3-4... not that you can see them because they overlap on your end, but Finale v26 shows all of them. This doesn't actually make a difference but you might as well delete them anyway, lol.
- The chord on m14/18/38/42 RH beat 3 sounds a bit out of place to me since it's a full chord surrounded by octaves without any harmonies. Maybe consider either removing one note from this chord, or adding fifths to the other parallel octaves on beats 3-4 (although that would be hard to play).
- In m16/20/40 RH, the slur should be extended all the way to the last note. Also helps make the slur not look like a tie.
- On that note, I don't like how the slur in m44 RH really does look like a tie at first glance... I guess it's okay, since this is the fourth time the player will have encountered this pattern. The alternative (which I might prefer, but you might not) would just be to remove the slur in this measure.
- I hear m23/27 a bit differently, specifically:
Image
[close]
(I also hear beat 1 of m16/20/40/44 RH being tied over, not re-articulated, but I think I'm an outlier in that...)
- m37 RH beat 4, the bottom natural is really close to touching the previous 16th note—could you space them out a bit?
- I also hear m39 RH beat 1 differently, specifically (approximately):
Image
[close]
- For the last measure, I think it would be clearer to show the Layer 2 rest on beat 1 in both hands. Also, it seems a bit inconsistent that you keep the RH Layer 2 flipped up (it would be flipped down by default if there were no Layer 1) but flip the LH Layer 2 down... thoughts?
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on February 11, 2016, 03:00:36 PMthere's also a huge difference in quality between 2000 songs and 2010 songs
Quote from: Latios212 on February 11, 2016, 03:29:24 PMThe difference between 2000 songs and 2010 songs is 10 songs.

ManOfDucks

Quote- Hm, third harmonies in the LH? I'm not sure if they fit the style of a track like this, at least in my opinion. Maybe try experimenting with fifth harmonies or something else? The thirds work fine, though, if other ideas don't work and/or if you prefer it this way.

The idea in measures 6-13 was to highlight the A Major to G# Major movement that pops up throughout the rest of the piece. I think the thirds help with this more than using 5ths, plus I think having the thirds helps it sound a little less thin since there are so many repeated G#s in this section (also I just think it sounds kinda neat).

I agree with you on measures 14-21 though. I don't think the thirds are really needed since the harmony is already filled out in the right hand, so I went ahead and substituted those notes for root and 5ths. I think this also helps keep the baseline more in the style of the fill in measure 21.

Quote- The grace note slur on m2 RH beat 4 might look better if went above the note instead of below? Not sure.
- m4/36 LH looks super confusing broken up into two layers, especially without rests (it looks like there's only one layer except the last eighth note is detached and flipped). I would just suggest condensing it into one layer.

Fixed these!

Quote- For m3/5/35 LH, it's typically not preferred (although still acceptable) to beam eighth notes in groups of three. You might consider breaking up that beam so only the within-beat pair is beamed.

I like beaming notes like this because I think the extra flag looks a little messy when they're separated, but I'm not too stubborn about this one so I went ahead and changed it!

Quote- You have extra staccatos on m9 RH Layer 1 beats 3-4... not that you can see them because they overlap on your end, but Finale v26 shows all of them. This doesn't actually make a difference but you might as well delete them anyway, lol.

Whoops! v26 users should be safe now!

Quote- The chord on m14/18/38/42 RH beat 3 sounds a bit out of place to me since it's a full chord surrounded by octaves without any harmonies. Maybe consider either removing one note from this chord, or adding fifths to the other parallel octaves on beats 3-4 (although that would be hard to play).

I left the chord on beat three in because I like how having those inner notes left over from beat 1 helps to emphasize the resolution from A to G#. I added in harmonies to the 3 following 8th notes though. I'm not at a piano atm, but just by fingering through it on my desk I don't think it's that bad to play especially since the B# is held through most of the notes, and the G# in the final 8th note sets you up nicely for the A in the next measure.

Quote- In m16/20/40 RH, the slur should be extended all the way to the last note. Also helps make the slur not look like a tie.

Done!

Quote- On that note, I don't like how the slur in m44 RH really does look like a tie at first glance... I guess it's okay, since this is the fourth time the player will have encountered this pattern. The alternative (which I might prefer, but you might not) would just be to remove the slur in this measure.

I'd prefer to leave this slur in just for the sake of consistency, but I'm not too stubborn on this one so I'd be willing to remove it if you still think it's best!

Quote- I hear m23/27 a bit differently, specifically:

Didn't catch this one, thanks for pointing it out!

Quote(I also hear beat 1 of m16/20/40/44 RH being tied over, not re-articulated, but I think I'm an outlier in that...)

I agree that the second note isn't articulated, but I think the strings are doing a gliss up to the D# (I'm not a string layer so everything I just said may be false lol). While having to rearticulate it on the piano isn't ideal, I think it's a better alternative to just leaving it a C# or D# the whole measure.

Quote- m37 RH beat 4, the bottom natural is really close to touching the previous 16th note—could you space them out a bit?

Done!

Quote- I also hear m39 RH beat 1 differently, specifically (approximately):

This is the single measure in the entire piece that gave me the most trouble! It also didn't help that when the measure is repeated in 43 that I think it's played slightly differently in the recording. After slowing the recording down and relistening to it over and over again, I could distinctly hear the back half of the beat (F# to D# as sixteenths), but I couldn't quite pin down the first half. I can hear it playing D# to F# then back to D#, but the rhythm is still fuzzy. The two closest answers I could come up with were either 3 sixteenth-note triplets (what I have written in now), or 32nd/32nd/16th (which I thought sounded more like a stumble rather than intentional, so I went with the other option). I went back through tonight again and slowed it down and relistened to it on repeat, and this is still what I hear. I really think that this is what's in the recording!

Quote- For the last measure, I think it would be clearer to show the Layer 2 rest on beat 1 in both hands. Also, it seems a bit inconsistent that you keep the RH Layer 2 flipped up (it would be flipped down by default if there were no Layer 1) but flip the LH Layer 2 down... thoughts?

My thoughts: I think you're right! Fixed these.

mastersuperfan

Looking good! A last few things:
- In m5, I hear LH beats 1-2 doubled in the RH. Also, I hear beat 1.5 as a G# instead of Fx, and I hear a Cn in the RH on beat 1 (see image). If you don't want to double this line in the RH (which is understandable since it's quiet), I would at least suggest adding the Cn to beat 1 in the LH.
Spoiler
[close]
- For m15/19 LH, maybe add another note on beat 4.5? Feels a bit strange that the rhythm stops there. Even if the bassline stops there in the original, I think it'd be nice if the LH kept providing a constant eighth-note driving force here.
- Double staccatos strike again on m23/27 RH beat 2, lol
- Do you want other articulations on the eighth notes on beat 2 of m23/37?
Quote from: NocturneOfShadow on February 11, 2016, 03:00:36 PMthere's also a huge difference in quality between 2000 songs and 2010 songs
Quote from: Latios212 on February 11, 2016, 03:29:24 PMThe difference between 2000 songs and 2010 songs is 10 songs.

ManOfDucks

Quote- In m5, I hear LH beats 1-2 doubled in the RH. Also, I hear beat 1.5 as a G# instead of Fx, and I hear a Cn in the RH on beat 1 (see image). If you don't want to double this line in the RH (which is understandable since it's quiet), I would at least suggest adding the Cn to beat 1 in the LH.

I added the C in the bass, but I think it should be a B# since it's in a Byzantine scale. I can hear two distinct pitches on the sixteenth notes of beat 1.5, I think it's a little more clear when that part repeats itself in measure 37. I opted against doubling it in the right hand because I just think it sounds a little odd on the piano.

Quote- For m15/19 LH, maybe add another note on beat 4.5? Feels a bit strange that the rhythm stops there. Even if the bassline stops there in the original, I think it'd be nice if the LH kept providing a constant eighth-note driving force here.

Good point, I've added an extra eighth note!

Quote- Double staccatos strike again on m23/27 RH beat 2, lol

I can't find these on my end. I have a staccato on layer 1 and layer 2 of the RH though, so that might be what's causing the issue?

Quote- Do you want other articulations on the eighth notes on beat 2 of m23/37?

Oops, there was supposed to be a tenuto on the and of beat 2, I've written it in!