[WiiU] Mario Party 10 - "Proceed with Caution" by cacabish

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Mario Party
Game: Mario Party 10
Console: Wii U
Title: Proceed with Caution
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: cacabish

[attachment deleted by admin]

[cacabish]

This piece is chromatic-ville, USA. I've done my best, but I'm not sure in all situations, so I'll happily take any feedback on the accidentals.

[Latios212]

Nice sheet! Since you asked about accidentals, a quick look...

A section
Nice how each two beats just outlines its own chord and that's about it right? Locally everything is spelled correctly. The one suggestion I would make is to write the second half of m. 2 as a Gb major chord instead of F# major - since the chord drops a semitone to an F major chord in m. 3, you can avoid all those courtesy naturals.

B section
This all looks good - just one thing to mention is that the second note in each group of 4 in m. 10/11/etc. is written as the major seventh of the root in the bass, which is totally fine. But this sometimes results in you adding an accidental and then immediately natural-ing out the same note (like m. 11's D-C#-Cn-B). These are simple chromatic descents in C major so it'd be totally fine to just write them as simply as possible (e.g. only using flats when descending, so m. 11 could be D-Db-C-B). Keeping everything consistent interval-wise is good but not super important here. You definitely don't have to change it, though, since the grace notes already force sharps in some places anyway like in m. 11. See what you think is easiest to read

I'll be back to check the actual notes/arrangement at a later time but this looks solid (actually while I'm here, have you thought about writing the upper melody in beats 3-4 of m. 2/3/etc. in a separate layer?)

[cacabish]

A section
Nice how each two beats just outlines its own chord and that's about it right? Locally everything is spelled correctly. major chord instead of F# major - since the chord drops a semitone to an F major chord in m. 3, you can avoid all those courtesy naturals.

I had previously considered this, but here was the reason for my reservation: measures 2-5 parallel measures 6-9, so m. 3 parallels m. 7. But changing m. 7 in a similar manner as m. 3 would change the E major chord to a... Fb major chord? Now, there may be nothing wrong with that, but I wasn't sure, so I left it as F# major so the two sections parallel each other. Nevertheless, I've gone ahead and changed the F# major to a Gb major (and cleaned up the courtesy accidentals), as you suggested. That said, should I also adjust m. 7 in a like manner or is it okay for them to differ?

B section
This all looks good - just one thing to mention is that the second note in each group of 4 in m. 10/11/etc. is written as the major seventh of the root in the bass, which is totally fine. But this sometimes results in you adding an accidental and then immediately natural-ing out the same note (like m. 11's D-C#-Cn-B). These are simple chromatic descents in C major so it'd be totally fine to just write them as simply as possible (e.g. only using flats when descending, so m. 11 could be D-Db-C-B). Keeping everything consistent interval-wise is good but not super important here. You definitely don't have to change it, though, since the grace notes already force sharps in some places anyway like in m. 11. See what you think is easiest to read

Well, if keeping the interval consistency isn't the main consideration here, then I'll gladly change them (since that was the main consideration that gave rise to how it was)! I've gone ahead and changed them up, so do check if they look good to you (especially m.12, where I elected for a C#, because a D#, Dn, & Db all in a row looks... off).

Have you thought about writing the upper melody in beats 3-4 of m. 2/3/etc. in a separate layer?

Yes, I did actually. The reasons why I didn't do it in the end were playability and consistency. In measures 3, 4, 7, and 8, it is impossible to hold the b. 3 upper melody note whilst trying to hit the b. 3.5 lower melody note with your RH (unless you have Rachmaninoff's hands), so the overall effect as one plays would be as if that note is played staccato. I could've set these to be quarter notes in a separate layer, but then the duration of the note doesn't align with how'd you actually play it. Couple that with the obvious parallel structure of the neighboring measures, and I elected for the common factor of playing them all staccato, maintaining consistency amongst the measures and whilst not having playability issues. Those are my reasons, anyway. If you disagree and think that the separate layers mean something different and would be more appropriate, despite the playability issues I noted above, do let me know! I don't really have super strong feelings either way.

Thanks for the swift feedback, Latios! I appreciate the help navigating through the crazy corners of Chromatic County. Files have been updated.

[Latios212]

I had previously considered this, but here was the reason for my reservation: measures 2-5 parallel measures 6-9, so m. 3 parallels m. 7. But changing m. 7 in a similar manner as m. 3 would change the E major chord to a... Fb major chord? Now, there may be nothing wrong with that, but I wasn't sure, so I left it as F# major so the two sections parallel each other. Nevertheless, I've gone ahead and changed the F# major to a Gb major (and cleaned up the courtesy accidentals), as you suggested. That said, should I also adjust m. 7 in a like manner or is it okay for them to differ?

I think that they don't have to exactly parallel each other; you end up stepping further outside the key signature that way whereas the way it's written now is the simplest to read. That's how I see it, at least!

Well, if keeping the interval consistency isn't the main consideration here, then I'll gladly change them (since that was the main consideration that gave rise to how it was)! I've gone ahead and changed them up, so do check if they look good to you (especially m.12, where I elected for a C#, because a D#, Dn, & Db all in a row looks... off).

Yep that all looks good! Just one minor thing to mention is that you have an extra sharp on m. 16 beat 3.5 (where you don't have courtesy sharps in m. 11/12).

Yes, I did actually. The reasons why I didn't do it in the end were playability and consistency. In measures 3, 4, 7, and 8, it is impossible to hold the b. 3 upper melody note whilst trying to hit the b. 3.5 lower melody note with your RH (unless you have Rachmaninoff's hands), so the overall effect as one plays would be as if that note is played staccato. I could've set these to be quarter notes in a separate layer, but then the duration of the note doesn't align with how'd you actually play it. Couple that with the obvious parallel structure of the neighboring measures, and I elected for the common factor of playing them all staccato, maintaining consistency amongst the measures and whilst not having playability issues. Those are my reasons, anyway. If you disagree and think that the separate layers mean something different and would be more appropriate, despite the playability issues I noted above, do let me know! I don't really have super strong feelings either way.

That's all valid and I figured that's what you were going for that said, I would still suggest notating that those top melody notes are intended to last longer, even if they are being played above the staccato lower layer. Perhaps a tenuto on them?

Thanks for the swift feedback, Latios! I appreciate the help navigating through the crazy corners of Chromatic County. Files have been updated.

Sounds like a Kirby area haha. Happy to help

[cacabish]

I think that they don't have to exactly parallel each other; you end up stepping further outside the key signature that way whereas the way it's written now is the simplest to read. That's how I see it, at least!

Sounds good to me

Yep that all looks good! Just one minor thing to mention is that you have an extra sharp on m. 16 beat 3.5 (where you don't have courtesy sharps in m. 11/12).

Whoops! That one slipped past me. Thanks for the catch! It's fixed now.

That's all valid and I figured that's what you were going for that said, I would still suggest notating that those top melody notes are intended to last longer, even if they are being played above the staccato lower layer. Perhaps a tenuto on them?

So, something like this, perhaps?

[Latios212]

So, something like this, perhaps?

Yeah, that looks good!

[cacabish]

Yeah, that looks good!

Cool! I've gone ahead and updated the files to have the layer split!
(Note: the .mus file has issues with accidentals spanning layers in m.2 and m.6 as Finale Notepad won't let me correct these. I realize that's not a major issue, especially at this stage, but it's worth noting. )

[Latios212]

Cool, looks great, I'll approve

(The file stuff, we can finalize after the next check)

[Static]

Well, I don't really have anything to add here. Great stuff, I'll accept now.
The .mus has been updated, but the other files should be the same as before. Let me know if there are any issues

[Zeta]

This submission has been accepted by Static.

~Zeta, your friendly NSM-Bot