[N64] Star Fox 64 - "Versus Select" by Fernman

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Star Fox
Game: Star Fox 64
Console: Nintendo 64
Title: Versus Select
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Fernman

[Fernman]

This one should be straightforward.

I chose the title "Versus Select" instead of "V.S. Select" as noted on VGMD https://vgmdb.net/album/133 as I prefer to write out the word Versus.


Finale formatting can wait until the end.

I chose the 8va on the top staff since I didn't want the notes going over the staff for better readability.

[Bloop]

-In the R.H. in m9-10, the A#'s should be Bb's, and in m11-13, the Db's and Gb's should be C#'s and F#'s. These are all sus2-chord voicings, but currently look like normal triads. The L.H. Db's in m11 should be C#'s too
-While I know you mentioned you didn't want the notes to go too high above the bar, you don't necessarily need the 8va in m1-8 at least, because the highest note is still just 2 ledger lines above the bar (Eb in m5), which isn't much higher than the lowest note that you currently have (the low C in m2). You could keep m9-10 in F clef too if you're okay with the F and F# one step above the second ledger line, but you could also put these 4 measures in the G clef
-For repeating from m12 back to m1, it's probably easier for the L.H. to take the lower D in the R.H., similarly to how you did in m13-14, but I don't know if there's a straightforward way to notate that :p You could also just leave that up to the player to decide for themself.

[Fernman]

-In the R.H. in m9-10, the A#'s should be Bb's, and in m11-13, the Db's and Gb's should be C#'s and F#'s. These are all sus2-chord voicings, but currently look like normal triads. The L.H. Db's in m11 should be C#'s too

Fixed

-While I know you mentioned you didn't want the notes to go too high above the bar, you don't necessarily need the 8va in m1-8 at least, because the highest note is still just 2 ledger lines above the bar (Eb in m5), which isn't much higher than the lowest note that you currently have (the low C in m2). You could keep m9-10 in F clef too if you're okay with the F and F# one step above the second ledger line, but you could also put these 4 measures in the G clef

My thinking was the notes don't go high enough off the F staff to warrant switching to a G clef, I'm not sure about having so many notes near/above the staff for a prolonged period of time (even though once you figure out the first notes you know the rest of them), and I thought simplifying note position movement by keeping it all 8va would make the song easier to read at first glance. Though maybe getting rid of the 8va is the better decision? That's what I uploaded anyway. What are your thoughts/how would you recommend this be arranged?

-For repeating from m12 back to m1, it's probably easier for the L.H. to take the lower D in the R.H., similarly to how you did in m13-14, but I don't know if there's a straightforward way to notate that :p You could also just leave that up to the player to decide for themself.

I thought about making the F clef have a second voice for the bottom note of the top staff chord, but not sure if that is common practice, that would for sure require me getting rid of the 8va (otherwise it looks weird) and I could either pick up the 8va in the next measure or later on as you suggested.

Otherwise as you said the player would have to figure it out once they get there how they are going to play it.

[Bloop]

My thinking was the notes don't go high enough off the F staff to warrant switching to a G clef, I'm not sure about having so many notes near/above the staff for a prolonged period of time (even though once you figure out the first notes you know the rest of them), and I thought simplifying note position movement by keeping it all 8va would make the song easier to read at first glance. Though maybe getting rid of the 8va is the better decision? That's what I uploaded anyway. What are your thoughts/how would you recommend this be arranged?

My recommendations were what I posted in my first post, this looks good to me! You could also put m9-13 in the G clef if you want less ledger lines, but usually 3 or less ledger lines are still readable enough. I recommend only using 8va's when going lower than the F clef, or higher than the G clef: when going higher than the F clef or lower than the G clef, it's usually better to just switch clefs instead.

I thought about making the F clef have a second voice for the bottom note of the top staff chord, but not sure if that is common practice, that would for sure require me getting rid of the 8va (otherwise it looks weird) and I could either pick up the 8va in the next measure or later on as you suggested.

Otherwise as you said the player would have to figure it out once they get there how they are going to play it.

I don't think writing out a separate layer in the L.H. works as well, mostly because it makes less sense when playing from the start. You could leave a performance note saying something like "optionally, play bottom D in the L.H. on repeat", but it's probably easiest to just leave it up to the player to decide. When they see the optional ending, they might be able to get to the same conclusion.

The image you posted doesn't embed properly for me btw (copying the link does work), but with the new forums you can upload images in the Reply button too (not the quick reply, but the blue reply button in the same space as the page numbers, mark unread button, etc

Lastly, I see some staccatos got added to some 16th notes in m9-12's R.H. and m11's L.H., which weren't there before. It's probably better to leave those out: restriking the notes and chords at this speed effectively means the same thing as playing them staccato anyway.

[Fernman]

All Fixed

[Bloop]

Awesome! I took the liberty to fix the formatting (see this post) and reuploaded those files, so I can approve!

[Latios212]

Looks pretty good - one question is intended at the end of the crescendos? Each of them should have a dynamic at the beginning of the next measure to indicate if it ends up on a louder dynamic level or resets to mf.

Some smaller formatting-type things I can fix up for you easily:
- Composer/arranger info should have : in them
- Measure numbers are missing
- The measure distribution for the last couple of systems looks quite off; I would suggest shortening the last system as well as moving one measure up to the third system

I can handle edits for you for the rest so we don't need to worry about formatting getting reverted by accident.

[Fernman]

one question is intended at the end of the crescendos? Each of them should have a dynamic at the beginning of the next measure to indicate if it ends up on a louder dynamic level or resets to mf.

my original thought was to make it more interesting to play/listen for it to gradually increase in dynamics. By the end of the song it would be forte at most. Starting at mf seemed like a better choice than mp.

If I read your comment correctly since I have 2 crescendos that would mean it would go to forte and fortissimo. which is higher than I would expect. and I wanted the 2nd part to be slightly louder than the 1st and etc. If there is no clear way to notate a slightly increase in dynamic, then it might be easier to omit the crescendos all together. Relistening to the song I don't hear a change in dynamics.

I'm not attached to the dynamics at all so you can make whatever change you prefer and adjust the formatting please.

[Latios212]

If there is no clear way to notate a slightly increase in dynamic, then it might be easier to omit the crescendos all together. Relistening to the song I don't hear a change in dynamics.

Yeah, I think the original is pretty dynamically consistent so I think keeping the whole piece as mf would be fine!

Took care of that and the other stuff I mentioned above, as well as some minor adjustments to system spacing. Good to go!

[Zeta]

This submission has been accepted by Latios212.

~Zeta, your friendly NSM-Bot