[NES] Solstice - "Title Theme" by Cashwarrior1

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Other
Game: Solstice
Console: Nintendo Entertainment System
Title: Title Theme
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Cashwarrior1

[attachment deleted by admin]

[cashwarrior1]

This one was tough 😫

Firstly, I checked every measure to make sure it wasn't awkward to play and wrote in a lot of fingerings (though i got kinda lazy at the end).

Secondly, there's obviously a lot of interpretation going on since you kinda have to to make this doable. That being said, the technique he uses to get multiple harmonies in one channel also makes it a little difficult to decipher exact harmony so I'm not confident about those.

[Zeila]

This is quite the complicated piece, but you did a great job on it ^.^ (Tim Follin is a beast btw) It looks like a lot of comments, but everything is very dense

*edit: I went to go listen to the PAL OST, and I found out that it's supposedly the version Follin originally composed for. I saw a direct comment from him, but it's for a different game's OST. Perhaps you could make a note that it could be performed at a slower tempo, or actually change it alongside the key signatures and base this off of the PAL version. OR you could put a range or something somewhere in between the two tempos if that were to be his "ideal" speed

I also wrote an adjustment to my comment for m. 50 that I realized was incorrect. I double checked a few spots (like m. 26, 31 and the end chord), but not everything, so I hope there aren't other mistakes like that... sorry

Formatting

• Does this song repeat? Or does it stay silent for the rest of the title screen or wherever this plays?
• Just a tip, but you can use a custom Ped. smart shape that has the * attached to the pedal in a single expression so you don't have to manually enter the asterisk too. The only issue is that you would have to drag it to the end of the section you want pedaled, so maybe you already know this and intentionally use the P and L articulation shortcuts, but at least the smart shape would be easier to align together if you cared about neatness to that extent
• It looks like you put a space after "Piano" in the full group name for the staff, so it looks off-centered. Erasing it fixes that
• This is more of a personal preference, but I think it would look more consistent if you used 4/4 instead of common time given the switch in time signatures
• I know this is a byproduct of the decreased staff size, but the tempo markings look a bit tiny. Fixed size looks too big, but you could try changing the font size to 14pt instead of 12pt. This isn't necessary though, so you don't have to bother with it
• I went to check Behind the Bars for proper fingering formatting since it doesn't look very readable due to the small numbers colliding with the staff lines, and in short they should supposedly be bolded and clear of the stave whenever possible. It's probably more important here when you also have triplets/sextuplets. Here's an excerpt:
  
  Spoiler

  You cannot view this attachment.

  [close]
• It feels bad that you only have 1 system on the last page, so you could try condensing the first page even more. I would say you could just add more space to the rest of the staves and make the last page include multiple systems, but the only place where that is really necessary is the 4th system on page 3 (or the one starting at measure 43). Shifting other measures around might make it look too spaced out, but you could try doing 3 measures per system starting from page 3 to the end so that there are 2 systems on the last page instead of just 1. I demo'd a demonstration of the two ideas below, and I'd probably go with the latter
  
  cramped 1st page

  after changing the staff size to 0.65cm and decreasing the space in between staves
  You cannot view this attachment.

  [close]
  spread out 3rd page

  You cannot view this attachment.

  [close]
• If you're going to keep it like it is now or go with the latter, you should put more space in between the systems of the first page because it already looks too close together with the low hanging notes and pedal markings
• m. 5-8 I think you shouldn't hide the rests to make it clearer
• m. 38 I think subito or sub. p is more appropriate than a regular piano dynamic marking
• m. 42 why do you have a staccato on the inner side of the lower octave for the last two notes? if you want to separate the two by each hand, then you should split the stems, or at the very least put the staccatos on the beam side. Disregarding that, since it doesn't look like that was your intention given the jump, then only the top staccato markings are necessary
• m. 45/48/49/etc. the arpeggio markings are a bit close to the staff line, and you can add extra space at the beginning through editing the measure attributes. **you don't really have to do this, it's just a nitpicky suggestion to make it look slightly neater
• m. 48/67/68/79/80 why did you put a slur ending on staccatos practically everywhere except here?
• m. 50 I'm kind of conflicted on the group that's cross-staved but I guess it's okay. You should at least hide the natural though since it's present in the LH already
• m. 51 why does this trill look different compared to m. 27/29?
• m. 59 I know that there are two layers here, but since the top one is a whole note, I think it would look better if you flipped the staccatos and slurs because they look a bit awkward
• m. 64 you could maybe get away with lowering the rests by 6 steps so that it sticks out less
• m. 79/81/82 super picky but you could center the natural trill a bit more, and then 80's is probably just a tad bit to the left

Notes

• m. 5-9 just commenting that I think this is a nice interpretation given playability reasons
• m. 9 I think it would be nice to include a crescendo to the mf. It also sounds like the low point is at the start of beat 2 rather than beat 2.5 or wherever else
• m. 10 I think if you're going to put a staccato on the 3rd sixteenth note, then you should put it on every 3rd sixteenth note of measures 10/12 and only the 3rd/6th sixteenth note of measures 11/13. Also I'm going to assume you left out the mordents here because it's already pretty fast
• m. 13 I don't see why there are accents here
• m. 18/20/22/24 LH I'm going to assume you took out the 8th sixteenth note (unlike the RH) for playability reasons
• m. 26/28/30/32 LH I think the 2nd part actually goes F#-E-C#-B-A-G#. Picture for clarity
  You cannot view this attachment.
• m. 31 last 6 notes sound like a regular D major scale starting at G. You also mentioned that the composer used tricks to emulate more harmony (like a flam or grace note of sorts, quickly switching from one note to the next one), and here it sounds like the A part of the chord changes to a B, so you could add a B on that last accented hit if you really wanted to. Measure 33 is the same but raised an octave
  You cannot view this attachment.
• m. 34-37 LH I don't think the accents on beat 4 or 6 (i.e. starting from the second group of three notes) are appropriate compared to the original, but I also don't really care if you leave it in. This is another good interpretation with incorporating the percussion given that the bass part actually starts a sixteenth note late, but the punch at beat 1 is more important
• m. 34-38 the chord hits sound like A-E-D from top to bottom instead of G-D-A
• m. 39/41/etc. why did you write a triplet here instead of a mordent like in m. 6/8?
• m. 39-42 I would say this section feels more like it should be a simple time signature instead of compound, but then the parts after it do sound like it should be compound meter. It just feels weird because it's similar to m. 5-9
• m. 39/41/45/53/etc. melody figure in general: I think the slur should start on the 7th eighth note (or the 3rd eighth note group) rather than starting from the 6th eighth note because it sounds like there's a slight divide between the two
• m. 43/45/47/49 I think the bass part plays two sixteenth notes as a pickup to the preceding measures (basically in unison with the percussion). It doesn't add much though so you don't really need to add it, just pointing it out in case you didn't know, and I could be wrong anyways
• m. 47 doesn't sound like there's any staccato here
• m. 48/50 what made you stop the extra bass hits similar to measures 44 and 46? Also, as a suggestion for that, I think it could be nice if you made the eighth pickup to the quarter note two sixteenth notes, with one being an octave lower
  
  Spoiler

  You cannot view this attachment.

  [close]
• m. 50 unsure but I think it sounds like this instead. you can pick which voice line to cover **sorry I was mistaken here, it actually sounds like the D I put in the picture for the first note of the run in the LH is a low F# instead
  
  Spoiler

  You cannot view this attachment.

  [close]
• m. 71 RH sounds like this instead (the last sixteenth note of group 2 and the 2nd to last sixteenth notes were changed to F# and E respectively)
  You cannot view this attachment.
• m. 72 RH this particular layer sounds like it plays two eighth notes instead of the first two quarter notes, similar to measures 67/68/73, unless you want to kind of mix it with the other melody which does play a quarter note. The last quarter note sounds like it should be an eighth note + eighth rest
• m. 74 RH the last three eighth notes sound like B-F#-D# instead of B-G#-E
• m. 75/76 RH last eighth note sounds like G# rather than F#
• m. 79-82 LH the 6th eighth note sounds like an F# rather than an E
• m. 79-81 RH I think there's a layer that goes Dn-A, I don't hear any B at all, and the G# sounds like a Gn instead. This would be a lot more accurate if the channels were separated, but I don't want to bother with that
• m. 82 RH I do hear a B here unlike the previous three measures, and there's also an A present. I'd probably write the chords like this, and you can modify the grace notes however you like
  You cannot view this attachment.

Okay that's it from me

[cashwarrior1]

• Does this song repeat? Or does it stay silent for the rest of the title screen or wherever this plays?

It plays during an opening sequence and then is silent after that

• m. 42 why do you have a staccato on the inner side of the lower octave for the last two notes? if you want to separate the two by each hand, then you should split the stems, or at the very least put the staccatos on the beam side. Disregarding that, since it doesn't look like that was your intention given the jump, then only the top staccato markings are necessary

Oops, I forgot to remove those lol

• m. 48/67/68/79/80 why did you put a slur ending on staccatos practically everywhere except here?

I dunno I was thinking since the notes repeated it didn't slur or something + I forgot

• m. 51 why does this trill look different compared to m. 27/29?

Because those earlier ones were put there a year ago and I forgot 🤓

• m. 5-9 just commenting that I think this is a nice interpretation given playability reasons

thank

• m. 13 I don't see why there are accents here

I was thinking that it could be done to bring out the counter melody or something, I don't think its necessary tho

• m. 18/20/22/24 LH I'm going to assume you took out the 8th sixteenth note (unlike the RH) for playability reasons

Yes

• m. 34-37 LH I don't think the accents on beat 4 or 6 (i.e. starting from the second group of three notes) are appropriate compared to the original, but I also don't really care if you leave it in. This is another good interpretation with incorporating the percussion given that the bass part actually starts a sixteenth note late, but the punch at beat 1 is more important

I put them in to kinda like bring out the bassline thing but incorporating percussion sounds smarter so lets go with that

• m. 39/41/etc. why did you write a triplet here instead of a mordent like in m. 6/8?

....oh

• m. 39-42 I would say this section feels more like it should be a simple time signature instead of compound, but then the parts after it do sound like it should be compound meter. It just feels weird because it's similar to m. 5-9

I put it in compound because the drums play in compound (the snare is on 4 and 10, the 2 and 4 of 12/8) but i feel like it's literally both.

• m. 43/45/47/49 I think the bass part plays two sixteenth notes as a pickup to the preceding measures (basically in unison with the percussion). It doesn't add much though so you don't really need to add it, just pointing it out in case you didn't know, and I could be wrong anyways

This I am also unsure about (especially because I don't really hear any pitched notes)

• m. 48/50 what made you stop the extra bass hits similar to measures 44 and 46? Also, as a suggestion for that, I think it could be nice if you made the eighth pickup to the quarter note two sixteenth notes, with one being an octave lower
  
  Spoiler

  You cannot view this attachment.

  [close]

It doesn't do the pickup in 48/50? I hear the bass just hold through the percussion

• m. 79-81 RH I think there's a layer that goes Dn-A, I don't hear any B at all, and the G# sounds like a Gn instead. This would be a lot more accurate if the channels were separated, but I don't want to bother with that
• m. 82 RH I do hear a B here unlike the previous three measures, and there's also an A present. I'd probably write the chords like this, and you can modify the grace notes however you like
  

I was having such a hard time with these chords and I was exhausted by the time I reached them so I just kinda gave up lol. Thanks

Updated.[/list][/list]

[Bloop]

Sorry for the long wait! I checked the first half (38 bars) of the sheet, here's some comments on the sheet itself:
-m5-8: I think it's better to write separate pedal marks for beat 1 and beats 2-4, instead of one for the whole bar.
-m8: I hear an E major chord (so E's instead of D#'s) in beat 1 here.
-m11 (and similar): In the L.H. on beat 3.666... I hear an E instead of a D in the L.H.
-m12-13: Do you think it'd be interesting to write out the 2nd melody here fully (possibly with a couple of notes from the first, or none of them), to differentiate it more from 10-11? Just an idea ^^
-m18 and elsewhere: Anytime you have this 3:2 polyrhythm (the three hits in the last six 16ths), you could beam it like three 8ths: it's a beaming exception for polyrhythms in compound time signatures. It reads a bit easier too. Also, I'm not sure if the added 5ths in the bass are that necessary, since the accents give enough extra power as is. There isn't that much extra accentuation in the original either. Also also, I hear a C# in the bass on beat 3.333... too, following the melody.
-m23: in the R.H., I hear C# A F# as the last three 16ths
-m31: Maybe you could add a courtesy accidental to the Gn in the R.H.? We haven't had a Gn since m17, so it's easy to forget it's there.
-m34-37: You could move the B down an octave on beat 1.666... in the L.H.: it feels a bit more comfortable to play than stretching my 2nd finger to the B next to the thumb. I play the octave as 4-1 instead of 5-1 then btw
-m38: The Dsus2 chord stabs are orchestrated similarly as before, so maybe this makes a bit more sense in this bar?
You cannot view this attachment.

And here's some ideas/suggestions based on the fingering choices you made:
-m10-11: This fingering at the start should set you up for almost these entire 2 bars:
You cannot view this attachment.
-m11: In the L.H. Instead of suggesting the 4 at the end of this bar, you could suggest it at the D in m12 at beat 1.666... There you'll have 2-4 with only the distance of a second, instead of 5-4 with the distance of a fourth.
-m13: In beat 3.333..., I'd change 3-2-4 to 3-1-4. It's a lot easier to move over the thumb than over the index finger.
-m16: Using 2 instead of 1 at beat 1.666... sets your hand position up a bit better for the next part.
-m19: Instead of suggesting 1 at the end of the bar in the L.H., you could suggest 2, so the player is more likely to end on 4 on the B in the next bar. However, I would personally play the bassline in m18-19 (and similar) with my 3rd finger on the B, so I have to use the weaker fingers (4 and 5) less
-m22: Using 1-5 instead of 2-5 at beat 1 gives the 2nd finger a bit more time to move to the C# in beat 1.666.., instead of having to immediately jump after beat 1.
-m23: Similarly here, but using 1-2 instead of 1-3 so the 3rd finger doesn't have to immediately jump to beat 1.666... Also, including the fix at the end of the bar, I'd suggest something like this:
You cannot view this attachment.
-m25: Instead of suggesting a 2 on beat 4, you could suggest a 1 on the D on beat 3.666... 4-1 is easier to play than 5-2
-m27: I think the 2 to 2-1 feels a bit weird to play in the L.H.: you could suggest 3 to 2-1 instead, if you're okay with the jump from the low F# to the E. If you decide on removing these 5ths too though, there's not problem with just using 2 to 1.

[cashwarrior1]

-m12-13: Do you think it'd be interesting to write out the 2nd melody here fully (possibly with a couple of notes from the first, or none of them), to differentiate it more from 10-11? Just an idea ^^

I like this idea. I didn't include any of the notes from the first melody though.

-m18 and elsewhere: Anytime you have this 3:2 polyrhythm (the three hits in the last six 16ths), you could beam it like three 8ths: it's a beaming exception for polyrhythms in compound time signatures. It reads a bit easier too. Also, I'm not sure if the added 5ths in the bass are that necessary, since the accents give enough extra power as is. There isn't that much extra accentuation in the original either. Also also, I hear a C# in the bass on beat 3.333... too, following the melody.

I added the 5ths because the middle voice is playing chords but it was difficult to put in the right hand. As well as since this track is based on prog rock I wanted to include power chords so it felt more like that. And the C# I excluded for ease of playing and to sound a little nicer.

-m23: in the R.H., I hear C# A F# as the last three 16ths

I didn't write that arpeggio because I couldn't play it up to tempo consistently :p

-m34-37: You could move the B down an octave on beat 1.666... in the L.H.: it feels a bit more comfortable to play than stretching my 2nd finger to the B next to the thumb. I play the octave as 4-1 instead of 5-1 then btw

ohhhh i didn't think to do 4-1 lol

-m13: In beat 3.333..., I'd change 3-2-4 to 3-1-4. It's a lot easier to move over the thumb than over the index finger.

Since I changed to the counter melody this doesn't apply anymore

-m16: Using 2 instead of 1 at beat 1.666... sets your hand position up a bit better for the next part.

I'm guessing you meant beat 2? I don't see any 1 on beat 1.666

-m22: Using 1-5 instead of 2-5 at beat 1 gives the 2nd finger a bit more time to move to the C# in beat 1.666.., instead of having to immediately jump after beat 1.

Because I'm playing the last three notes of the previous measure as 2-1-2, it's easier to just leave 2 on the F# at this tempo than to make that jump on beat 1. I've tried playing it that way but I kept stuttering.

-m23: Similarly here, but using 1-2 instead of 1-3 so the 3rd finger doesn't have to immediately jump to beat 1.666... Also, including the fix at the end of the bar, I'd suggest something like this:
You cannot view this attachment.

disregard my earlier comment

-m27: I think the 2 to 2-1 feels a bit weird to play in the L.H.: you could suggest 3 to 2-1 instead, if you're okay with the jump from the low F# to the E. If you decide on removing these 5ths too though, there's not problem with just using 2 to 1.

I'm kinda sliding my index on there. The E I play with the tip of the finger and the F# I'm playing in the middle of my index. Though, I do have long fingers... And I'm keeping the 5ths for the power chord feel.

Updated.

[Bloop]

I added the 5ths because the middle voice is playing chords but it was difficult to put in the right hand. As well as since this track is based on prog rock I wanted to include power chords so it felt more like that. And the C# I excluded for ease of playing and to sound a little nicer.

The chords are playing in the whole bar though right? They don't seem more prominent in the second half of the bar than the first half. Though I can see the power chord argument you made there ^^ As for the L.H. C#, I don't find it that much more difficult to play, but it does sound a bit more messy.

I'm guessing you meant beat 2? I don't see any 1 on beat 1.666

hm
I think I meant using 2 instead of 3 on beat 2.666, idk what went wrong there lol. On beat 2 you can leave it as 1-5 ^^

Because I'm playing the last three notes of the previous measure as 2-1-2, it's easier to just leave 2 on the F# at this tempo than to make that jump on beat 1. I've tried playing it that way but I kept stuttering.

I don't have as much problem with it :p The jump from F# up to C# for the second finger feels more stuttery than the jump down from A to F# for the thumb.

I'm kinda sliding my index on there. The E I play with the tip of the finger and the F# I'm playing in the middle of my index. Though, I do have long fingers... And I'm keeping the 5ths for the power chord feel.

I did the same, it just felt kinda unusual haha.

-m14: I don't remember anymore, but the 4th finger on beat 1 in the R.H. seems harder to play than the 5th here, though I don't think that's something that needs to be indicated. The 4 on beat 2 would make more sense, and then you don't need the 2 afterwards anymore.
-m38: The 3:2 beaming thing stil applies here too ^^
-m39 and similar: Whenever you have this 3:2 figure in the second half of the bar, you can beam it as 2:2:2 too for the same reason as before. In here it's not necessarily clear it's a polyrhythm, but it is in m53 and similar.
-m39-42: I don't think you need the 8va here: the Eb is still very readable with 3 ledger lines.
-m50: I hear the run in beat 3-4 differently:
You cannot view this attachment.
-m59 until end: Maybe putting this whole section in F#m minor makes a bit more sense? The F#m section sound a bit more resolved to me than the C#m and Bm sections. Also, there are some places in this section where you tried to go back and forth between octaves or voices to put both melody voices in at the same time, but I feel like this makes the end result sound like neither of the two voices. Maybe you could either trade off some voices (like in 67-70), or choose the one that's most prominent (for example, in m73 there's this very high piercing voice that stands out more than the rest, which I think would make a bit more sense to include).
-m74: Maybe instead of using the 4th finger just before beat 4, you can use 5, so the 2nd finger can stay on the F#, the 4th can go to the B, and the thumb just goes underneath the 2nd and 3rd finger to pick the A and go back for the D#

[cashwarrior1]

The chords are playing in the whole bar though right? They don't seem more prominent in the second half of the bar than the first half. Though I can see the power chord argument you made there ^^ As for the L.H. C#, I don't find it that much more difficult to play, but it does sound a bit more messy.
hm

Yeah they are playing through the whole bar. I don't remember the exact reason I didn't have the other chords play, but I'm guessing it's because of playability (i wanted to avoid having to lift my hand)

I don't have as much problem with it :p The jump from F# up to C# for the second finger feels more stuttery than the jump down from A to F# for the thumb.

I'll go ahead and change it since it'll probably be easier that way for others

Updated.

[Bloop]

Looking great, I like how the melody distribution in the second part now! Just a few tiny things before I'm ready to approve:

-m50: This is a cross-staff thing, but you can hide the natural at the Gn on the second note of the L.H. run up. The Gn is there already earlier in the bar
-m66: Maybe you can move the R.H. down an octave if you want, so the melody doesn't suddenly jump up from m65. Both are fine tho ^^
-m67: The double barline here is a leftover from the previous key changes right? Since you don't have them in the rest of this last section, it'd probably make sense to leave this one out too.

[cashwarrior1]

-m67: The double barline here is a leftover from the previous key changes right? Since you don't have them in the rest of this last section, it'd probably make sense to leave this one out too.

it sure was oop

updated.

[Bloop]

Awesome! I'm ready to approve!
You cannot view this attachment.

[Kricketune54]

Sorry it's taken so long for follow up feedback, I've listened and looked at this arrangement a couple times over past month and a half. Quite a piece to get through but I think a lot of the true feedback has already taken place. Just want to clear up some bits.

• I understand the tempo font sizes being bigger overall, maybe make that consistent for all the noteheads too? Starting tempo quarter notehead is only 12 pt and the 113 text is 14 pt font; it looks a little weird considering all the other tempo noteheads are 14 pt.
• I'm not sure how many people will note the PAL difference. Maybe you could include the PAL tempo in your note at the bottom? Are you intending it to be an optional tempo?
• Should both CSG Imagesoft and Nintendo be put in the credits? Publishing and release section on Wikipedia is somewhat of an amusing read.
• m34-37 RH was first going to comment about the octaves being different but I understand why you wrote it this way. No feedback just acknowledging

[cashwarrior1]

• I understand the tempo font sizes being bigger overall, maybe make that consistent for all the noteheads too? Starting tempo quarter notehead is only 12 pt and the 113 text is 14 pt font; it looks a little weird considering all the other tempo noteheads are 14 pt.

LOL how did that happen

• I'm not sure how many people will note the PAL difference. Maybe you could include the PAL tempo in your note at the bottom? Are you intending it to be an optional tempo?

It's intended to be an optional tempo, more along the lines of "don't feel like you have to play up to tempo. I didn't include the tempo because then I'd have to include it for each tempo change.

• Should both CSG Imagesoft and Nintendo be put in the credits? Publishing and release section on Wikipedia is somewhat of an amusing read.

90s publishing is wild 😳

• m34-37 RH was first going to comment about the octaves being different but I understand why you wrote it this way. No feedback just acknowledging

Updated.

[Kricketune54]

It's intended to be an optional tempo, more along the lines of "don't feel like you have to play up to tempo. I didn't include the tempo because then I'd have to include it for each tempo change.

I guess I was wondering is it like a few beats slower overall? Like you add that to the note at the bottom for example, "The original PAL version is slightly slower. Optionally lower each tempo by 5 beats per minute". Not trying to be nitpicky, but if it's an optional slower tempo just thought some specificity wouldn't hurt (but also if it's not consistent between tempo changes than slightly slower is fine)

[cashwarrior1]

Alright so I found and listened to an upload of the PAL version and added all those tempos as a tempo range for each tempo change. I changed the note to say that the ideal tempo would be halfway between those two (and set the playback to play at that tempo), as that is what Tim Follin said in the link Zeila shared.

*edit: I went to go listen to the PAL OST, and I found out that it's supposedly the version Follin originally composed for. I saw a direct comment from him, but it's for a different game's OST. Perhaps you could make a note that it could be performed at a slower tempo, or actually change it alongside the key signatures and base this off of the PAL version. OR you could put a range or something somewhere in between the two tempos if that were to be his "ideal" speed