[GCN] Kirby Air Ride - "Fantasy Meadows" by LeviR.star

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Kirby
Game: Kirby Air Ride
Console: Nintendo GameCube
Title: Fantasy Meadows
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: LeviR.star

[attachment deleted by admin]

[LeviR.star]

[Latios212]

Absolutely fantastic job! This is a rock-solid sheet that I'm super happy to see at last

I think the one part that leaves something to be desired is m. 47-53. You have a f dynamic here to contrast with the previous m. 37 part, but it still sounds rather empty compared to the original - particularly since the octaves in m. 46 build up some energy that immediately dissipates. I would suggest trying out one of the following:
1 - Omit the grace notes leading into beat 1 of m. 48-53 and instead write in harmonies under the LH melody
2 - Abandon the triplets, put the melody in the RH, and write in the bass/rhythm for the LH
I would probably personally prefer #2, but I haven't really tried it out yet - see what you think!

A few other miscellaneous things:
- Accents should be below the chords on beat 4 of m. 22/24/28/30/32
- The mordent on beat 1 of m. 32 needs a natural sign on it, to signify that it uses the Cn instead of C#. (You could put one on m. 30 beat 2 as well but it's already implied since there's a Cn on beat 1.)
- Double barline at key change
- Do you want to go back to mp on beat 2 of m. 37?
- This won't actually save on page count, but the part from the beginning to the triplets fits pretty comfortably at 4 measures/system. Having 3 measures per system there makes things rather stretched out.

Spoiler

You cannot view this attachment.

[close]

[Kricketune54]

Wanted to add some comments/thoughts as well on this one:

-This is a pretty clean arrangement.  m6 though I think the RH would benefit from including some of the chord notes that are heard in addition to the An there currently.  Maybe like one of these two options

Spoiler

[close]

-Circling back to m1-2, there are some softer notes I hear after beat 1 RH, I think given how your arrangement is it's okay to exclude those
-m9-10 perhaps put a forte here as the trumpet part really comes out in front of the woodwinds... given there's already added fullness with the chord notes though it might be unnecessary, but I thought I'd throw out the idea

2 - Abandon the triplets, put the melody in the RH, and write in the bass/rhythm for the LH
I would probably personally prefer #2, but I haven't really tried it out yet - see what you think!

If you go with this from Latios, in a perfect world you could start this at m47, imo it sounds better that way, but I know that can't really work out as this part is pitch wise.  Only if you really bumped the current melody in m47 up two octaves and made it a right hand part.

[LeviR.star]

- I think the one part that leaves something to be desired is m. 47-53. You have a f dynamic here to contrast with the previous m. 37 part, but it still sounds rather empty compared to the original - particularly since the octaves in m. 46 build up some energy that immediately dissipates
- Accents should be below the chords on beat 4 of m. 22/24/28/30/32
- The mordent on beat 1 of m. 32 needs a natural sign on it, to signify that it uses the Cn instead of C#. (You could put one on m. 30 beat 2 as well but it's already implied since there's a Cn on beat 1.)
- Double barline at key change
- Do you want to go back to mp on beat 2 of m. 37?
- This won't actually save on page count, but the part from the beginning to the triplets fits pretty comfortably at 4 measures/system. Having 3 measures per system there makes things rather stretched out.

- I rewrote that section to bring out some more of that bass oomph. What do you think of the new material?
- right, will fix it
- I created a custom articulation for this and went through the list of graphics, found a tiny natural sign. It'll do just fine, I reckon
- okie-doke, I'm on it
- no, but I can bring it back down to mezzo-piano by m. 39 using a decrescendo
- I think my measure/system distribution looks just fine, personally. I'd rather not cram things together unless we brought the page count down, and even so, there's no reason to here

-m6 though I think the RH would benefit from including some of the chord notes that are heard in addition to the An there currently.
-Circling back to m1-2, there are some softer notes I hear after beat 1 RH, I think given how your arrangement is it's okay to exclude those
-m9-10 perhaps put a forte here as the trumpet part really comes out in front of the woodwinds... given there's already added fullness with the chord notes though it might be unnecessary, but I thought I'd throw out the idea

- I'll go with the root position triad. Didn't want to include it at first because the choir fades in, but it can't hurt
- yeah, I think I'll just exclude them
- I think the thickened texture of the chords does enough to bring out the trumpets' power, and I don't really want to bring the dynamic up for two bars

Files are ready for more feedback.

[Latios212]

Most of the stuff looks good, but a few follow-ups:

- Accents should be below the chords on beat 4 of m. 22/24/28/30/32

I think you missed m. 30 beat 4 RH

- The mordent on beat 1 of m. 32 needs a natural sign on it, to signify that it uses the Cn instead of C#. (You could put one on m. 30 beat 2 as well but it's already implied since there's a Cn on beat 1.)

Measure 32, not measure 30. The natural on the mordent modifies the note above the one written on the staff. Measure 30 beat 1 is Cn-Dn-Cn which is fine as a regular mordent since D is already natural as part of the key signature. Beat 1 of measure 32 is Bn-Cn-Bn, so the natural sign is needed on the mordent to signify the Cn since the key signature contains C#.

Also, the staff name is "Piano 1" instead of just "Piano".

That's all in the way of corrections before I approve but one more thing I'd like to discuss below...

- This won't actually save on page count, but the part from the beginning to the triplets fits pretty comfortably at 4 measures/system. Having 3 measures per system there makes things rather stretched out.

Spoiler

You cannot view this attachment.

[close]

- I think my measure/system distribution looks just fine, personally. I'd rather not cram things together unless we brought the page count down, and even so, there's no reason to here

This comes up often when I'm reviewing your sheets and I feel like I may be talking past you. Measure distribution is largely up to personal preference, so I'm not going to make you change anything, but I want to try to explain my thought process to have you think about it a little more at least. Sometimes my feedback is rather hastily written, but sometimes there's a little deeper reasoning I don't type out initially. Apologies if this seems a bit forceful - that's not my intention; I just want to provide you with my thoughts

I don't think the screenshot I posted counts as "cram things together". Discounting the fact that the articulations are misplaced due to Finale versions, there is nothing that is uncomfortably close together and nothing that needs to be adjusted besides a few slur contours. All of the rhythms are clear and nothing is disproportionately squished or stretched.

By contrast, I do feel like parts of your current sheet are rather stretched out - particularly the first system, and the systems starting at m. 24 and 33. There's nothing interesting going on rhythmically and hardly any symbols that take up horizontal space so you end up with just a lot more space between notes than elsewhere. This is particularly apparent when you compare m. 33-35 to m. 36-38 which is also 3 measures per system but contains many more notes. The note density on the page is more consistent using one system for m. 32-35.

Snapshot of 33-38 in your current sheet

You cannot view this attachment.

[close]

Regardless, if both a slightly more compact layout and a slightly more spacious layout are both generally agreeable, why do I typically recommend opting for the more compact layout? Well, there's page count where this only makes a difference sometimes. Other than that there's ease of reading. Wider measures mean you as the reader have to scan the page faster when reading, and if you look away towards your hands, the measure you're at when you resume will be further away from the measure you stopped looking at. Blazing fast through the sheet music isn't as easy to follow along with as going through the page more slowly.

But what about hypermeter / keeping a consistent number of measures per system, so that the reader can move at a consistent pace across the page? This is important, but always needs to be weighed against the content of the measures. You wouldn't necessarily want to keep the same number of measures per system for two sections that play only half notes, and only 16th notes, for example. Here we have four measures full of quarter notes and three measures full of 16th notes or 8th note triplets, so it makes sense that we may want to allocate a bit less/more space accordingly.

Apologies for all the text - there's nothing wrong with this submission, but I have a feeling I was bound to write this up sooner or later, and this sheet is a good example of where I can demonstrate the difference in preference. Just some food for thought for you to make sure you're making the right choice. Let me know what you think, and we can continue this conversation later/elsewhere if you're busy

[LeviR.star]

- I think you missed m. 30 beat 4 RH
- Measure 32, not measure 30. The natural on the mordent modifies the note above the one written on the staff. Measure 30 beat 1 is Cn-Dn-Cn which is fine as a regular mordent since D is already natural as part of the key signature. Beat 1 of measure 32 is Bn-Cn-Bn, so the natural sign is needed on the mordent to signify the Cn since the key signature contains C#.
- Also, the staff name is "Piano 1" instead of just "Piano".

- oops, fixed now
- somehow when I got caught up looking for the tiny natural, I forgot to place it on the correct mordent. I've moved it
- that must be a product of the playback wizardry I had going on, but it's corrected now

If you're fine with the changes I made to m. 47 - 53, then that's good enough for me, I suppose.

That's all in the way of corrections before I approve but one more thing I'd like to discuss below...

This comes up often when I'm reviewing your sheets and I feel like I may be talking past you. Measure distribution is largely up to personal preference, so I'm not going to make you change anything, but I want to try to explain my thought process to have you think about it a little more at least. Sometimes my feedback is rather hastily written, but sometimes there's a little deeper reasoning I don't type out initially. Apologies if this seems a bit forceful - that's not my intention; I just want to provide you with my thoughts

I don't think the screenshot I posted counts as "cram things together". Discounting the fact that the articulations are misplaced due to Finale versions, there is nothing that is uncomfortably close together and nothing that needs to be adjusted besides a few slur contours. All of the rhythms are clear and nothing is disproportionately squished or stretched.

By contrast, I do feel like parts of your current sheet are rather stretched out - particularly the first system, and the systems starting at m. 24 and 33. There's nothing interesting going on rhythmically and hardly any symbols that take up horizontal space so you end up with just a lot more space between notes than elsewhere. This is particularly apparent when you compare m. 33-35 to m. 36-38 which is also 3 measures per system but contains many more notes. The note density on the page is more consistent using one system for m. 32-35.

Snapshot of 33-38 in your current sheet

You cannot view this attachment.

[close]

Regardless, if both a slightly more compact layout and a slightly more spacious layout are both generally agreeable, why do I typically recommend opting for the more compact layout? Well, there's page count where this only makes a difference sometimes. Other than that there's ease of reading. Wider measures mean you as the reader have to scan the page faster when reading, and if you look away towards your hands, the measure you're at when you resume will be further away from the measure you stopped looking at. Blazing fast through the sheet music isn't as easy to follow along with as going through the page more slowly.

But what about hypermeter / keeping a consistent number of measures per system, so that the reader can move at a consistent pace across the page? This is important, but always needs to be weighed against the content of the measures. You wouldn't necessarily want to keep the same number of measures per system for two sections that play only half notes, and only 16th notes, for example. Here we have four measures full of quarter notes and three measures full of 16th notes or 8th note triplets, so it makes sense that we may want to allocate a bit less/more space accordingly.

Apologies for all the text - there's nothing wrong with this submission, but I have a feeling I was bound to write this up sooner or later, and this sheet is a good example of where I can demonstrate the difference in preference. Just some food for thought for you to make sure you're making the right choice. Let me know what you think, and we can continue this conversation later/elsewhere if you're busy

This is a lot to take in, and I personally think it would be best to continue this conversation elsewhere, on Discord probably. I'm not ignoring your thoughts, I just want to have enough time to discuss it so that I can understand where you're coming from. Expect a follow-up from me in DMs soon!

Files are ready for more feedback.

[Latios212]

This is a lot to take in, and I personally think it would be best to continue this conversation elsewhere, on Discord probably. I'm not ignoring your thoughts, I just want to have enough time to discuss it so that I can understand where you're coming from. Expect a follow-up from me in DMs soon!

Yep all good~

If you're fine with the changes I made to m. 47 - 53, then that's good enough for me, I suppose.

Ah shoot I was going to type my thoughts on this too but I forgot, sorry xD yes - overall I think the distribution of parts is good. The two things I would comment on are:
- Playing the grace notes into triads is pretty awkward - but the user can choose to modify this if they want by playing the grace notes slower, omitting the grace notes, or omitting harmonies below the melody
- I think the bass actually stays at D throughout the whole time but moving it around with the melody is alright I think to generate some interest to go along with the RH

So, I'll approve although the next person to look may have something to say about that part above ^^ once again nice job on this one!

[Bloop]

Looking good already! Kirby music can be so deliciously chaotic :p Just a few comments:

-m9: The L.H. note on beat 2 should be staccato as well (either 8th note staccato as it seems to be as short as all others, but quarter note staccato works fine too).
-m7 and 15: I think I just hear an 8th note F# on beat 2.5 instead of this triplet.
-m10: Though not necessarily needed, you could add a courtesy accidental to the Gn on beat 2 in the R.H., as it has been playing G#'s for the last few bars.
-m20-34: Maybe you could add slurs to the longer accented chords (like m20 beat 4, m22 beat 4, m24 beat 4, m25 beat 2 and 4, etc), like you did in m34-35. It'll be clearer for the player that these are longer than the staccato chords afterwards. You could even do this with the pick up measure and m59 too, if you prefer that ^^
-m41-42: I think the implied chord here is F#ø, so I think F# would make a bit more sense harmonically than Gb in this part, even though it goes down to Fn. If you change this, you may want to add courtesy naturals at the beginning of m43.
-m59: Just a dynamic suggestion: forte is not that big of a dynamic contrast from fortissimo, so "subito forte" probably won't feel that "subito". Maybe you could do sub. mf or sub. mp, with a crescendo to forte on beat 4 to imitate the cymbal roll?

As for m47-53, I haven't seen what it was before, but I do agree with Latios' comments:

- Playing the grace notes into triads is pretty awkward - but the user can choose to modify this if they want by playing the grace notes slower, omitting the grace notes, or omitting harmonies below the melody
- I think the bass actually stays at D throughout the whole time but moving it around with the melody is alright I think to generate some interest to go along with the RH

If you leave the bass as D throughout, you can omit the D's in the R.H., which makes the grace notes a lot more comfortable to play.

[LeviR.star]

Talked over everything here with Bloop over Discord, and updated the files!

[Bloop]

Great!
You cannot view this attachment.

[Zeta]

This submission has been accepted by Bloop.

~Zeta, your friendly NSM-Bot