[GCN] Star Fox Assault - "Hostilities Revisited (Sargasso Space Zone)" (Replacement) by Kricketune54

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Star Fox
Game: Star Fox Assault
Console: Nintendo GameCube
Title: Hostilities Revisited (Sargasso Space Zone)
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Kricketune54


Replacement Information:
Links to Existing Sheet: MUS | MIDI | PDF
Replacement Type: Challenge (new arranger)

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Kricketune54]

Sheet name should be "Hostiles Revisited", I have no idea what the source is for this video, but I believe the correct track names are in the description, given "Break through the Icefield" is the official name of one of the tracks that's in Smash Bros.

[Static]

Sheet name should be "Hostiles Revisited", I have no idea what the source is for this video, but I believe the correct track names are in the description, given "Break through the Icefield" is the official name of one of the tracks that's in Smash Bros.

The only album I can find is this one, which has that Icefield track but not this one. In this case, I'd probably just go with whatever is more commonly used, or use both and put one in parentheses. I'll leave that up to you.

• m1-3 LH: The tuba plays a low En too. Any reason why you just included the low F?
• m3 RH beat 3: I don't think there's an 8th note here, I just hear the horns come in on beat 3.5
• m12 RH beat 1.75-2: There are Es here also.
• m15-18/34-37 LH: You could make these all octaves (below the current one), wouldn't be that hard to play and it emphasizes the bass more, especially m16/18.
• m15/etc. LH beat 4.5: It sounds like two 16ths instead of an 8th to me, like this:
  
  That extra note might just be in the timpani but I still think it'd be worth including, and it's not really that hard to play. Up to you though.
• m28 LH beat 3: C# should be Db (C7b9 chord)
• m29: Missing Eb (D7b9), Ab in RH should be G# (chromatic neighbor tone).
• m30: Bns should be Cbs (Db7)
• m31: Missing C (root of C7 chord)
• m32: Ebs should be D#s (B7)
• m28-33 LH: You could add some percussion-related stuff in those measures where it's just whole notes to keep the piece moving a bit more. This whole section could probably benefit from additional layers/notes and pedal usage. Feel free to be more creative and go all out with it, if you want. Otherwise, what you have works too.
• m23 RH beat 4.75: The D moves to C here (and on beat 1 of m24).

[Kricketune54]

Hi Static, working on these edits, but wanted to ask your thought on something: do you agree it would be too much to add on the flute 16th notes that play in m8 and several other spots?

I know that is something unique about this vs. Sector Y from Star Fox 64 but I feel it is untenable to include them for this solo arrangement

[Kricketune54]

The only album I can find is this one, which has that Icefield track but not this one. In this case, I'd probably just go with whatever is more commonly used, or use both and put one in parentheses. I'll leave that up to you.

Yeah unfortunately the only official CD for this game doesn't cover the full OST's but yeah I usually see this referred to by this name.

• m1-3 LH: The tuba plays a low En too. Any reason why you just included the low F?

my thinking here originally was to do how the Timpani is going E to F rather than F to E. That was also why the E to F is descending on m4, outside of the fact that would be a big reach going from E to F lol.  Do you think it makes more sense as you recommend though?

• m3 RH beat 3: I don't think there's an 8th note here, I just hear the horns come in on beat 3.5

In my defense, Sector Y from Star Fox 64, which this track is a remake of, has this exact sort of build-up at 0:04, though admittedly if Hostiles started at the same place it's too obscured or not present on beat 1.  I think I was applying Sector Y's rhythm mentally, and I've always heard Hostiles Revisited with the horn playing that quick G there, but I guess I've just been hearing it wrong and it's just the timpani falling in a way that a G would fit.
fun fact the SF 64 tracks are not 1 to 1 remakes and often contain very minute differences that almost seem like arranging errors sometimes

• m12 RH beat 1.75-2: There are Es here also.

Wow that is quite buried lol, fixed. I also added in an F# on beat 4.75 RH m9
 

• m15-18/34-37 LH: You could make these all octaves (below the current one), wouldn't be that hard to play and it emphasizes the bass more, especially m16/18.

I'm not too worried about difficulty with this... but does this make it sound too muddy? I'm also shrinking the staff sizes a tiny bit as a result in order to keep this all on two pages

• m15/etc. LH beat 4.5: It sounds like two 16ths instead of an 8th to me, like this:
  
  That extra note might just be in the timpani but I still think it'd be worth including, and it's not really that hard to play. Up to you though.

This is definitely the timpani... I'd be open to popular opinion but kind of eh on this one. I also don't hear this rhythm repeating in m17; I have given the B on 4.75 in m15 and 4.5 in m17 accents

• m28 LH beat 3: C# should be Db (C7b9 chord)
• m29: Missing Eb (D7b9), Ab in RH should be G# (chromatic neighbor tone).
• m30: Bns should be Cbs (Db7)
• m31: Missing C (root of C7 chord)
• m32: Ebs should be D#s (B7)

Fixed

• m28-33 LH: You could add some percussion-related stuff in those measures where it's just whole notes to keep the piece moving a bit more. This whole section could probably benefit from additional layers/notes and pedal usage. Feel free to be more creative and go all out with it, if you want. Otherwise, what you have works too.

Gotta say not too sure about what to really do here.  The percussion is pretty active and I'm not sure I could do the chords justice emulating the percussion. I did play with this a bit though and added pedal.

• m23 RH beat 4.75: The D moves to C here (and on beat 1 of m24).

Fixed

[Static]

my thinking here originally was to do how the Timpani is going E to F rather than F to E. That was also why the E to F is descending on m4, outside of the fact that would be a big reach going from E to F lol.  Do you think it makes more sense as you recommend though?

Yeah, I see that now. On my first listen, the brass stuck out to me more that's all. You can change it back if you prefer, though the added octaves do sound pretty good imo.

I'm not too worried about difficulty with this... but does this make it sound too muddy? I'm also shrinking the staff sizes a tiny bit as a result in order to keep this all on two pages

I think it sounds good in this range, but it's your arrangement so you do you. These are just some arranging suggestions, not errors or anything. I think utilizing the full range of the piano creates a more "orchestral" sound, but what you had works fine too and is more consistent with the rest of the arrangement I suppose.
You can also make this 5+5 systems per page instead of 4+6. There's plenty of space on page 1.

This is definitely the timpani... I'd be open to popular opinion but kind of eh on this one. I also don't hear this rhythm repeating in m17; I have given the B on 4.75 in m15 and 4.5 in m17 accents

I don't hear it in m17 (or 36) either, but I do in m34. Either way though, you don't have to change it if you don't want to.

Gotta say not too sure about what to really do here.  The percussion is pretty active and I'm not sure I could do the chords justice emulating the percussion. I did play with this a bit though and added pedal.

In general, I think widening the range of the hands is the easiest way to get a bigger sound, so in this case what I might do is something like this (ignore the bad formatting):

- keep the melody on top
- chords in RH (still in middle register)
- timpani part adjusted to match the chords, repeated 16ths removed for ease of playing and to keep the dotted 8th rhythm more apparent as it moves through the parts

Not saying you have to do this, but maybe this will spark some other ideas for you. At any rate, what you have now is fine I think.

Hi Static, working on these edits, but wanted to ask your thought on something: do you agree it would be too much to add on the flute 16th notes that play in m8 and several other spots?

I think leaving them out works better imo. You could also just add them, but make the notes smaller and have text saying "optional" or something. But yeah it's fine as it is.

Also, while I'm looking at this again, m27 RH beat 4.75 should be C instead of A.

[Static]

Giving you a friendly bump

If you have any questions lmk

[Kricketune54]

Yeah... the lack of activity for a month... wasn't particularly enjoying working on this one. Already wasn't too thrilled with that 6 bar section to begin with my initial submission but something about these edits was taxing for me to get around to, for whatever reason.

But not throwing in the towel on it, files are now updated. I went with your recommendation as I couldn't seem to figure something out I liked on my own

[Static]

Yeah... the lack of activity for a month... wasn't particularly enjoying working on this one. Already wasn't too thrilled with that 6 bar section to begin with my initial submission but something about these edits was taxing for me to get around to, for whatever reason.

But not throwing in the towel on it, files are now updated. I went with your recommendation as I couldn't seem to figure something out I liked on my own

Fair enough. If you come up with something else, feel free to change it. What you had before was alright too if you'd rather keep that. Anyway this looks nice.

A few more things:

• m18 LH beat 3.5-4.5: I'm assuming you didn't intend these to be 7ths instead of octaves
• m21-27: Maybe find a way to distinguish m21-24 from m25-27, since the texture changes in the original. Maybe write the RH of 21-24 in parallel 6ths (remove the middle notes) so that the next few measures are richer, or add a dynamic change in m25. Or just leave it, up to you.
• m28-33 RH: The 2nd layer doesn't have to be transcribed exactly; it might be better if it stays below the melody. Feel free to change/remove/add notes as you see fit, as long as it's the same chord.

[Kricketune54]

A few more things:

• m18 LH beat 3.5-4.5: I'm assuming you didn't intend these to be 7ths instead of octaves

Oops... I guess I should've looked at the previous couple measures more closely and copied them

• m21-27: Maybe find a way to distinguish m21-24 from m25-27, since the texture changes in the original. Maybe write the RH of 21-24 in parallel 6ths (remove the middle notes) so that the next few measures are richer, or add a dynamic change in m25. Or just leave it, up to you.

Went with a dynamic contrast, I think I'd like to represent the chords here as they are

• m28-33 RH: The 2nd layer doesn't have to be transcribed exactly; it might be better if it stays below the melody. Feel free to change/remove/add notes as you see fit, as long as it's the same chord.

Pulled the chords of that second layer to be underneath the melody
[/list]

Updated, thank you

[Static]

Looks good, approved

[Maelstrom]

let's begin
-Up2u but RH in the first 2 lines might sound cool with octaves above the current notes to replicate the instruments doubling each other in the original. May decrease playability tho
-This song is so incredibly muddy I can't seem to get a read on it, but I'm not sure I like m15 in the RH. It feels like there's an upwards motion from b1 to b1.75 and the top note of b2 is an E.
Maybe something like this?

-m22RH 2nd chord - I don't hear the A here at all, but I can hear a F# below it so maybe move the bottom note down?
-Not all the Ebs became D#s in m32.
-dynamics not lining up in m34 is bothering me

It feels like there's a lot of things that could be changed to show voice movement better but I can't for the life of me figure out where to begin. If someone else wants to chime in, please go ahead. For now, this is all I've got.

edit: what's the final name for the song, then?

[Kricketune54]

let's begin

Ghost!

-Up2u but RH in the first 2 lines might sound cool with octaves above the current notes to replicate the instruments doubling each other in the original. May decrease playability tho

I think this is a good change. Should an ottava be used though?

-This song is so incredibly muddy I can't seem to get a read on it, but I'm not sure I like m15 in the RH. It feels like there's an upwards motion from b1 to b1.75 and the top note of b2 is an E.
Maybe something like this?

So the reason I did the notes like this was because the high strings are the melody, despite the bombastic brass. This is more clear in Sector Y from Star Fox 64, of which this track is a remake of (check 0:25 mark https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPMRDC_XkSo&t=4s). Correct me if I'm wrong, but the upward motion you feel is the lower brass, which is covered in the LH. Overall, I am still leaning towards keeping the notes I have as is and I'm not really a fan of putting an A in this chord.

-m22RH 2nd chord - I don't hear the A here at all, but I can hear a F# below it so maybe move the bottom note down?

It's faint, but in the midst of the notes in m22 RH I hear an A... technically it's higher by an octave but as a means of emphasizing the F# I put the A at the bottom
 

-Not all the Ebs became D#s in m32.

Ah, I think I didn't change that because of a flawed reasoning on my part, fixed

-dynamics not lining up in m34 is bothering me

Okay lol, I thought that the mf should be evenly spaced between the staffs despite the forte lining up with the crescendo but I've changed it.

It feels like there's a lot of things that could be changed to show voice movement better but I can't for the life of me figure out where to begin. If someone else wants to chime in, please go ahead. For now, this is all I've got.

Could you please clarify this a little? I don't quite understand where voice movement is lacking

edit: what's the final name for the song, then?

I think Hostiles Revisited is the name based off my searches. Thanks for the feedback, updated files including the titles to avoid further confusion

[Maelstrom]

Ghost!

boo!

I think this is a good change. Should an ottava be used though?

only in m1

So the reason I did the notes like this was because the high strings are the melody, despite the bombastic brass. This is more clear in Sector Y from Star Fox 64, of which this track is a remake of (check 0:25 mark https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPMRDC_XkSo&t=4s). Correct me if I'm wrong, but the upward motion you feel is the lower brass, which is covered in the LH. Overall, I am still leaning towards keeping the notes I have as is and I'm not really a fan of putting an A in this chord.

Leaving this up to you in the end, but I think I'd like to add another point. First, I wasn't aware that this was actually a remix. However, the strings don't come in until b2 in m15. And in m17, they aren't restruck on b1.75 and are absent on b2. As such, I think there's a middle ground here between these two, potentially writing both differently, but I'll leave this up to you and what you think is best.

Could you please clarify this a little? I don't quite understand where voice movement is lacking

I'm not sure what I was thinking either
me from a week ago is a mystery to me now

fixed the on site name too
edit: you sure about the name? I can't seem to find an upload of it with that name on youtube, but I can with the old title. The goal with our titles is to both be accurate and make the names of the songs recognizable so people can find songs by the name they know

[Kricketune54]

only in m1

Okay, added one
 

Leaving this up to you in the end, but I think I'd like to add another point. First, I wasn't aware that this was actually a remix. However, the strings don't come in until b2 in m15. And in m17, they aren't restruck on b1.75 and are absent on b2. As such, I think there's a middle ground here between these two, potentially writing both differently, but I'll leave this up to you and what you think is best.

Went with a bit of a different middle ground where I made beat 1.75 just the B for m15, but kept m17 the same.  I still think I can hear the strings on m17 b2 though so I've not changed that measure.  That might illustrate movement a bit better though, and I also now recognize some of the movements or lack thereof you mentioned

I'm not sure what I was thinking either
me from a week ago is a mystery to me now

Okay

fixed the on site name too
edit: you sure about the name? I can't seem to find an upload of it with that name on youtube, but I can with the old title. The goal with our titles is to both be accurate and make the names of the songs recognizable so people can find songs by the name they know

I'm like 90% sure I'm right. My reasoning is as follows: there was a soundtrack CD released which has a limited selection of tracks from the game. Some of these songs appear in the Smash soundtracks with the same name (i.e. Space Battleground and Break Through the Ice Field).

Now, I'm not sure entirely how the titles were sourced,.but KHInsider has a full soundtrack where the titles are listed next to the name of the level/planet from the game... and while some songs from the CD don't quite lineup with this list, I would consider this list the closest to a full OST list.

I'm sure most uploads call this track Sargasso or Sargasso Space Hideout but the correct name should be "Hostiles Revisited" in my reasoning. I don't believe the actual song names of the OST are named after the levels they appear in. Hope that somewhat convoluted explanation makes sense lol

I would point out the most viewed YouTube video of the ost (which I'm pretty sure was just compiled from the same KHinsider source I posted) uses these names though

Files revisited updated