What key/time signature is this song in?

[Olimar12345]

Just a quick comparison here.

I've been taught that 6/8 time goes: 1 + + 2 + +
Compared to 3/4, which goes: 1 + 2 + 3 +

The first image (what I had originally), matches the bassline to the beat of 6/8. The second image (what you're telling me) doesn't match, so I never even considered it when arranging.

You would be correct in thinking that, if what you had in the lowest voice there was the bass. Listening to the bass in the youtube video provided, it sounds like the bass is on a low F for two bars (of the second picture) then it goes down to a lower Db for the next to bars. The part you have notated as the lowest voice in this version seems to support the syncopated part in the voice above it. Having that as the bass is why it looks weird.

[WaluigiTime64]

You would be correct in thinking that, if what you had in the lowest voice there was the bass. Listening to the bass in the youtube video provided, it sounds like the bass is on a low F for two bars (of the second picture) then it goes down to a lower Db for the next to two bars.

When I pay more attention to that, I can actually hear it. But there's a priority concern. Should I have what is more audible? Or should I have the proper bassline? It does sound quite different with the proper bassline though.

The part you have notated as the lowest voice in this version seems to support the syncopated part in the voice above it. Having that as the bass is why it looks weird.

Here's a sample of 2 later measures.

Problem 1: Got any playability suggestions for the left hand?
Problem 2: The chords in the left hand still follow that off-beat rhythm.
Problem 3: Demisemiquavers. There's not really a problem, they just bother me.

Honestly if I look further into the arrangement, the 4/4 sections would look a bit messy with those note values, and I don't want to have an unnecessary tempo change (from 90 to 180).

[Olimar12345]

1) Perhaps sustained long tones? It's your arrangement, man; I'm just saying that having the actual bass as the lowest voice will make it sound more authentic, rather than doubling that voice like in the previous version.

2) This is not a problem, that is how the original sounds! It's called:

syncopation

3) Again, not an issue. Those note values exist for this vary scenario and there is nothing wrong with using them. It would be played the exact same way if you notated it with one less beam running across the top.

For the 4/4 section that follows, the tempo indication only needs to be a simple q=q. The tempo doesn't change; the only thing that changes is that note value that the beat falls on.

[WaluigiTime64]

1) Perhaps sustained long tones? It's your arrangement, man; I'm just saying that having the actual bass as the lowest voice will make it sound more authentic, rather than doubling that voice like in the previous version.

Got something down. It's honestly not that great and I'll probably have to find a better alternative, but what I have works for now.

2) This is not a problem, that is how the original sounds!

Got it.

3) Again, not an issue. Those note values exist for this vary very scenario and there is nothing wrong with using them. It would be played the exact same way if you notated it with one less beam running across the top.

Yeah, anything shorter than a semiquaver used in mass just bothers me a bit (then again, a lot of small things like this bother me).

For the 4/4 section that follows, the tempo indication only needs to be a simple q=q. The tempo doesn't change; the only thing that changes is that note value that the beat falls on.

So, something like this? Except that instead of the various tempo change-like messages, you have the q=q, right? Because I use Musescore, I don't have access to a q=q, so I found a slight alternative (until I get it formatted, of course).

[Tobbeh99]

Problem 1: Got any playability suggestions for the left hand?

An easy trick you could do is to just remove the lower note on the strong beats where the chords are. So you play the chord, then immediately go down and play 2 bass notes etc. 

[Lenny Face]

What time signature and key signature is this in? I'm creating an arrangement of this for a standard orchestra.

I think its E flat Major (my favorite key signature ever)

[Tobbeh99]

It's 4/4 for sure, although the accompaniment rhythm is like 3+3+2.

As for key sig, I think it's in Eb-major, but I'm not sure.

[Olimar12345]

Def. Eb major.

[Dekkadeci]

What time signature and key signature is this in? I'm creating an arrangement of this for a standard orchestra.

I think its E flat Major (my favorite key signature ever)

I third E flat major and second 4/4, although it definitely adds more flats to the key at times, and it's also syncopated.

[Olimar12345]

Lenny, if you're making an arrangement of this, the correct title for this track is "The Starship Travels."

Spoiler

from the official OST:
http://vgmdb.net/album/19454

[close]

[WaluigiTime64]

MUS

Main things I need help with:
 - Beaming in 7/8
 - Knowing if those sections are 7/8 in the first place
 - Key signatures (excluding Measures 57-72 (which actually ARE in A Minor), and Measures 73-88 (which are in either A Sharp (which I put) or B Flat Minor))

Thanks!

[Dekkadeci]

Bars 1-12 are, indeed, in 7/8 time.

Key signature help:
Bars 1-24: E minor (A strong Phrygian influence (mainly use of F natural) obscures the E tonic here. I'm going with Olimar12345-style key signatures for now.)
Bars 25-56: E flat minor a.k.a. D sharp minor (I generally default to E flat minor because I'm a big fan of secondary dominants and I keep thinking that the natural on the leading tone counts as a natural when I think about how many accidentals a key signature sounds like it has. Secondary dominants are more readable with heavy-flat key signatures than heavy-sharp key signatures--secondary dominants in heavy-sharp key signatures tend to need double sharps.)
Bars 89-112 (end): E minor again (This sounds like Bars 1-24.)

You got the rest of the key signatures correct.

[WaluigiTime64]

I'm going with Olimar12345-style key signatures for now.

I have absolutely no idea what this means.

Thanks for the help! Much appreciated.

[Dekkadeci]

I have absolutely no idea what this means.

I was referring to this quote that Olimar12345 re-posted in the "Key Signature for Modes?" thread:

That way of identifying the key signature through my experience requires more unnecessary work. It's as if you're working the possibilities of all four answer choices of a multiple choice math problem rather than use a formula to solve the problem at hand; it works, but seems like more work than it needs to be. I've found that identifying tonic first makes it simple: once you know that note is tonic, identify if it is in a major or minor tonality, then use any regularly reoccurring oddities to that as pointers for the mode. For example: I hear that a piece has a definite tonic pitch of A and sounds like it's in minor, easy: A minor. Then I notice there are a lot of F sharps throughout, I might want to consider if it is in the Dorian mode. Just remember that the modes are split into major and minor categories:

Phrygian, Aeolian, and Dorian are the minor modes, ordered from most lowered pitches to least.

Mixolydian, Ionian, and Lydian represent the major modes, again ordered from most lowered pitches to least (with Lydian having a raised pitch (4)).

Locrian is the bastard child mode, being based on the seventh scaled degree and essentially being a "diminished" mode (and being pretty damn hard to tonicize lol).

Although being able to recognize these modes in music can be extremely useful, I would never notate them using the key signature. I reserve that spot for displaying tonic, using accidentals to represent the modes. For example, C Lydian would be written in C major with the F sharps written out. This way at first glance the performer may more easily identify that C is tonic and the alterations are clearly marked. I would almost argue that this way would display the mode BETTER than having it all of the accidentals in the key signature because the performer is treated to an abundance of clarity, both with the identification of tonic (when you see one flat in the key signature, you instinctively think "F major or D minor" before the rest of the modes) and the manual visual representation of the altered pitches that characterize the specific mode.

Man I think I'm rambling lol.

I generally agree with him, but none of my music theory books do--they'd notate E Phrygian just like you've currently notated Bar 1: no accidentals in the key signature.

[FireArrow]

I'd make those 4/4 sections 8/8.

Actually nevermind it's pretty distinctly 4/4 especially later on.