[DELETED] [SW] Super Mario Bros. Wonder - "Piranha Plants on Parade" by Jocose Jed

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Super Mario
Game: Super Mario Bros. Wonder
Console: Nintendo Switch
Title: Piranha Plants on Parade
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Jocose Jed

[Jocose Jed]

Hello. I've perused this site for many years, though this marks my first submission. To be honest, I don't see myself doing very many VGM arrangements for awhile, as I have other non-VGM music projects that I really should be working on instead. However, I played through this game over the weekend and this song has been stuck in my head ever since, so I felt the need to write it down to get it out of my system, so to speak.

Anyway, thanks for the consideration.

[Kricketune54]

Hi there! Sorry for a bit of a delayed welcome, but welcome to this side of NinSheetMusic. Glad you are here

I think the file template that you are using is a tad old, the current template and formatting guide can be found here. We are attempting to keep a visual consistency across the different sheets that are submitted to the site, so copying over your work to this template will help with that.

Some actual feedback:
• I counted the tempo to be slightly slower at q=110. "Marching" is fine as a tempo text, but I would again reference the formatting guidelines for how the tempo appears.
• Time signature wise, this is definitely going to work better in 4/4. For identifying this, I would suggest looking at how writing this in 2/4 splits the melody at m9 between it and m10. As far as fixing this, you can change the time signature, and select "rebar" music and the measures will merge 2/4 + 2/4 into 4/4.

Spoiler

[close]

• Generally, you do not need to assign a dynamic for each staff if they are the same; the starting forte dynamic is fine so m4 doesn't need that under the Bn.
• from the m9 on when the main melody comes in, it sounds like there are some measures where the chord notes beneath the melody are not present in the original, and some measures where they are in the original but are not currently written in. I would do a bit of a reexamination of these measures, perhaps slowing sections down in the YouTube video to verify if pitches are present or not (ex. current m9 there should be no notes under the RH melody)
• I think you could add staccatos to most of the accompaniment part (LH) notes; it might seem a little silly as a reference, but if you compare the sound of Finale's playback to the original song, you'll notice the notes in the original sound shorter than what is currently present. I'd suggest also you could look into utilizing the term "simile" (found in the expression tool), meaning similar to indicate each note in measures beyond this text also is staccatoed. You could then hide most of the staccatos for the LH.

[Jocose Jed]

I think the file template that you are using is a tad old, the current template and formatting guide can be found here. We are attempting to keep a visual consistency across the different sheets that are submitted to the site, so copying over your work to this template will help with that.

Explain, please. I literally downloaded the musx file from that post and made sure each text body was the correct font, size, and orientation.

• I counted the tempo to be slightly slower at q=110.

No offense but I feel like this is extremely pedantic. It is marked circa 112, after all. Doesn't seem worthwhile to nitpick over a 2 BPM difference.

"Marching" is fine as a tempo text, but I would again reference the formatting guidelines for how the tempo appears.

So... is that what's off about the formatting then? The number is not supposed to be size 14 bold, enclosed in parentheses, but rather open in size 12, unbolded font? That's the only discrepancy I see with the formatting between the score and the template. Is there anything else I'm missing regarding formatting? Too easy for me to overlook these things.

Time signature wise, this is definitely going to work better in 4/4. For identifying this, I would suggest looking at how writing this in 2/4 splits the melody at m9 between it and m10.

Funnily enough, I originally had it in common time and second guessed myself halfway through.... Unfortunately, rebarring is not as simple as that, as whenever I try to rebar the whole thing, it scrunches up the notes really close. https://i.imgur.com/edujcap.png

It looks terrible. Even rebarring only two measures at a time screws up the spacing, so idk. There might be some advanced setting I'm overlooking but everything I've tried doesn't work. Curiously, only page view is affected, rebarring looks fine in scroll view. Unfortunately, that's not what I need. Idk, probably will just be easier and faster to simply rewrite it in 4/4. Yay.

Generally, you do not need to assign a dynamic for each staff if they are the same; the starting forte dynamic is fine so m4 doesn't need that under the Bn.

Interesting. I don't typically focus on writing for piano, so it just seemed weird to have a staff with an unassigned dynamic, even if it was a tad redundant given that it's the same instrument lol. But you're right, going through my piano books that's how it usually is.

from the m9 on when the main melody comes in, it sounds like there are some measures where the chord notes beneath the melody are not present in the original [...] (ex. current m9 there should be no notes under the RH melody)

Composer's instinct kicked in I guess, lol. Alright, I'll take those out.

and some measures where they are in the original but are not currently written in.

Where?

I think you could add staccatos to most of the accompaniment part (LH) notes; it might seem a little silly as a reference, but if you compare the sound of Finale's playback to the original song, you'll notice the notes in the original sound shorter than what is currently present. I'd suggest also you could look into utilizing the term "simile" (found in the expression tool), meaning similar to indicate each note in measures beyond this text also is staccatoed. You could then hide most of the staccatos for the LH.

Yeah, wasn't really sure how much I wanted to ornament the left hand. But that's a good idea. I'll also add that I've been using Finale for well over a decade, so I'm pretty familiar with its features.

Anyway, thanks for the response, I'll make adjustments accordingly.

[Jocose Jed]

Alright, I've made some alterations according to the feedback and uploaded the updated files. I believe the formatting is 1:1 with the template file from the linked thread, but please let me know if I am missing anything else.

Funny enough, I upgraded to Finale 27 and the note scrunching thing from doing the time signature change was resolved. I don't know what was causing it in the first place, but I'm glad to say the least.

[Kricketune54]

Explain, please. I literally downloaded the musx file from that post and made sure each text body was the correct font, size, and orientation.

Okay, here's a little more context, please see screenshot of the template in my instance of Finale v27. Pno. should not be appearing at the head of each system, and for some reason your sheet is a little offset to the right of the page as a result. Let me know if you need addition assistance on achieving this! Whatever version of Finale you were previously using, some of the fonts are showing up a bit small, as if they are a couple points smaller than they should be. Usually this is seen with converting from MuseScore. 

Spoiler

[close]

No offense but I feel like this is extremely pedantic. It is marked circa 112, after all. Doesn't seem worthwhile to nitpick over a 2 BPM difference

. That's fair. 110 is def. a more "common" standard time mark, but I make that comment about exact tempos quite often out of habit. I personally like replicating exact tempos into arrangements. Sorry about that

So... is that what's off about the formatting then? The number is not supposed to be size 14 bold, enclosed in parentheses, but rather open in size 12, unbolded font? That's the only discrepancy I see with the formatting between the score and the template. Is there anything else I'm missing regarding formatting? Too easy for me to overlook these things.

I just thought having the parentheses + marking c. 110 when the quarter note in the tempo mark already tells the performer what beat value the BPM is associated with, some of that stuff isn't entirely needed.

Funnily enough, I originally had it in common time and second guessed myself halfway through.... Unfortunately, rebarring is not as simple as that, as whenever I try to rebar the whole thing, it scrunches up the notes really close. https://i.imgur.com/edujcap.png

It looks like you made this work well! Rebarring of course involves deleting the left over measures and reorganizing systems, but looks good now.

Where?

I'm going to go through this in more detail below. Basically, I heard some parts that I felt didn't line up between your arrangement and what notes are present in the original

Yeah, wasn't really sure how much I wanted to ornament the left hand. But that's a good idea. I'll also add that I've been using Finale for well over a decade, so I'm pretty familiar with its features.

At least with the arrangements here, we strive or at least encourage emulating the original source material for stuff like this. And good to know about the last part!

Feedback
• m3-4 RH I don't think you need to put this up an octave, the Bn's only really would share staffs on m4 beat 2.5, and you could either parentheses the one in the LH or just remove it entirely from that hand on this beat for maximum clarity.
• m4 LH beat 2.5 the current G# sounds like a Gn
• m5 RH beat 1.5 sounds staccatoed
• m6 so here's an example of where I'm not hearing the lower notes - the Plant singers in the original are singing their parts in unison. Same applies for m10 RH.
• m9 LH beat 3.0 sounds staccatoed as well
• m10 RH beat 4.0 just for the sake of looking a little nicer - I would write the C# as a Db, here. Tonally it sounds like Bb minor for the second half of m10, and also, the way you have written the LH here is also flats.
• m11 beat 2.0 hearing G# atop the En
• m12 RH you could add the sort of strike on beat 4 with two E octaves. If you'd rather not though, I think the previous beats could have a lower octave, just based off what I'm hearing.
• m14 RH for this measure I'm hearing a chord pitch below each note
• m15 and m16 RH 3.5 sounds staccatoed
• m15 and m16 RH the 1st/top layer half rests could go to normal rest height. With layers, ideally the rest heights fall in a place that are more in line with the other notes in their layer. Keep the 8th rest on 3.0 where it is though, because it gets too close to the top of the 2nd layer if you move it down within the staff.

• m17 RH 1.5, 4.0, and 4.5 all sounds staccatoed
• m18 RH beat 2.0 sounds staccatoed
• m18 RH hearing Bn above the G# on 4.5.
• m19 RH 2.0 and 2.5 sounds staccatoed. Additionally, I hear an F# on beat 4.0 between current notes, and a G# between the notes on beat 4.5

• m20 RH you could add that lower octave to beat 2.0 (could add parentheses to LH 2.5 if you'd like, but given the portato above the Bn currently it means the player won't hold out the note in full anyway). Also, hearing a Gn on 3.0 and 3.5 between current notes, and an En between 4.0's notes.

• m20 LH 4.0 and 4.5 you could have this be two 8th notes, I'm hearing a Gn and Bn on beat 4.5. Maybe you could keep the accent on 4.0/the Bb to stress the emphasis. Also, for LH 3.5 this G# should be a Gn.
• m21 RH hearing G# and Bn in between current E's

That should cover a good amount of specifics for now. Let me know if you have any questions/need further explanation on any of the above points! The goal of this feedback process is to make corrections, as well as arrangement suggestions.

For a little more background on the feedback process, us updaters will make posts on each submission for the first round of feedback; once that's done, the sheet is considered approved. The next updater ideally won't have as much to do, moreso spot checks before the sheet is accepted for the next site sheet update.

[Kricketune54]

Bump for arranger, are you still around to work on this one?

[Kricketune54]

I'm going to archive this submission, feel free to review my feedback and resubmit in the future

[Zeta]

This submission has been deleted by Kricketune54.
         
~Zeta, your friendly NSM-Bot