InsigTurtleE. Gadd Industries
Criteria (15/15 pts):
Many time sigs were used, although they tended to stay ⅝ and ⅞. Both of these are odd, and neither are native to either piece, so this is good. No awkwardness is present, but the line played by the Violins in m11-17 is repeated quite a bit. That said, such repetitiveness keeps the piece grounded, as it is a major part of “Chasm Cave”.
Creativity (13/15 pts):
I felt as though the piece did not go anywhere, as though it favored the Static* side of the spectrum, if you will. Now, the piece is very rhythmically diverse and dynamic, two big components in this particular competition. So the piece did well in that regard!
*Side note, I’m not fixing that typo. I absentmindedly capitalized that, which probably means I’ve been spending too much time on NSM. But that’s okay, and I’m fine with that.
Preservation (10/10 pts):
Both themes were definitely recognizable throughout the piece, and they didn’t clash.
Orchestration (10/10 pts):
Three words describe the orchestration: dark, dreary, depressing. And it fits, especially “Chasm Cave”. I especially appreciated the flute and varied use of percussion.
Presentation (10/10 pts)
Formatting:
Everything appears as it is needed. Measure numbers, page numbers, title, subtitle. What more could be asked?
Legibility
Playing directions were very clear, expressions were straightforward, and almost nothing was clashing. The only issue present was a small amount of clashing between the de/crescendo and the dynamics markings, and even with the clashing, it was still readable. It might not sit well with the OCD folk, though. Just warning you.
Playability
I had to look up the highest notes playable on flute and violin, but everything seems to be playable within a natural instrument’s range. And everything generally looks playable, especially with the tempo.
Total: 58/60 points
Andy
Criteria - 15
Creativity - 14
Preservation - 9
Orchestration - 10
Presentation - 9
Total: 57/60
MasterSuperFan
Criteria (12/15): The 5/8 part works relatively well, I think. The simple dotted quarter-eighth-eighth rhythm makes the 5/8 feel natural and easy to understand to the listener; when it came to the 5/8 parts, I understood the rhythm very quickly and never felt lost. I do think that, given the constant rhythm of the original, it makes the 5/8 feel a bit dull after a while—I feel that it would sound more interesting in this time signature if you did something different with the melody other than "long note at beginning of measure" + "pickup note(s) to next measure." Other instruments do help when they play different parts, but that line is always there with a very heavy presence.
I like the switch to time signatures to change things up, but, unlike in the 5/8 sections, I could never really get the hang of where the beat or measure breaks were in the 7/8 section without having to count aloud with the sheet music. It's not hard to listen to, but I just stopped keeping track of the measures and listened to what I felt like was just a free-flowing section without much of a set meter. I think that does hurt it a bit when the theme is about time signatures.
Creativity (13/15): I definitely like your slow, solemn take on two of the more urgent, faster-paced tracks that play in the dark future. The time signature definitely helps with this too—the dropped eighth note from the original (in 3/4) ensures that the first held note of each measure isn't prolonged too much so that the track doesn't lose the forward motion it once had, even if the tempo is much slower now. I like the variety of unique voices and melodies—and the references to Hidden Highland are a special touch.
I think that maybe the best way to improve this further (and I'm starting to notice that I've been saying this quite a bit across all the arrangements now!) is to develop some more variety as the piece progresses. I love how the Chasm Cave sections are broken by the quieter, mellower Barren Valley part in the middle. But some part of me desperately wants to hear that the same peak the piece hits in the second Chasm Cave section at around 4:40 is something different and new from the first peak 1:00 other than some more added blaring horns and other background instruments. Perhaps I'm missing some nuance here, but I wish there was something more to keep me engaged the second time around after the Barren Valley section was over. (See also: what I mentioned about the dull, repetitive rhythm in the Criteria section.)
I like the ending, though.
Preservation (8/10): I can definitely hear Chasm Cave in there, but to be honest, I'm not sure someone would be able to recognize it with certainty without knowing beforehand that it was based off of it until, say, measure 45. I'd say this is likely attributable to the fact that Chasm Cave has such a simple, repetitive rhythmic pattern—and you don't really go beyond that first melody until you're right about to transition into the Barren Valley section. Maybe there was a way to incorporate the intro or some of the other melodies from Chasm Cave as well?
The Barren Valley section is more recognizable, but I did have to go back and check the original to make sure I placed the melody correctly. Admittedly, though, I'm not as familiar with the whole track as I am with Chasm Cave.
Orchestration (9/10): I really like the variety of instruments you've included in here; they definitely help to increase the tension and drama of the arrangement, and I like how the melody switches from the violins in the Chasm Cave section to the woodwinds in the Barren Valley section. But part of me wishes for a little more variety in the roles of these instruments within the sections themselves, rather than just changing what part gets the melody depending on which of the two themes you're using. Give the violins and their high-pitched line a break during one of the Chasm Cave parts and allow another instrument to take the spotlight. The ending begins to go there—giving the flute and trumpet their own parts after the violins have dropped out—but I really would have liked to see something like that during part of the buildup or climax itself, not just the finale as the arrangement calms down to its resolution.
Presentation (10/10): Formatting, legibility, and playability all seem good here. Nice use of dynamics, articulations, slurs, and double barlines.
TOTAL SCORE: 52/60
E. Gadd Industries
Criteria (15/15 pts):
Not only did the entrant effectively use one time signature, the entrant masterfully incorporated a total of 16 signature changes throughout the entire piece (plus or minus a few, I might have lost count in the last 3-4 pages). There was no awkwardness detected, and the piece flowed very smoothly for the full 8 minutes. Very well done! (This is the first piece I judged, and if all of them are this good, which I am anticipating, this will be a fun round of scoring!)
Creativity (15/15 pts):
Much of the creativity found in this piece was found in the effective combination of three different songs from the game’s OST. And not only that, but all 3 are in 4/4 time naturally, so to see all of them weave in and out of the various time signatures (and each other) so easily shows me the entrant really tried hard to pull this together, and they did extremely well. And yeah, all that other stuff goes in as well. Rhythmic structure, variation, dynamics. I didn’t quite catch any specific feeling, but I am attributing that to my lack of familiarity with the game, and not on the fault of the entrant.
Preservation (10/10 pts):
All three tracks are quite well-preserved in the piece, and someone familiar with the game will easily be able to identify them.
Orchestration (10/10 pts):
The orchestration is well-varied and it fits the piece very naturally. And it is reasonably well-balanced. I especially liked the call-and-response style utilized throughout.
Presentation (10/10 pts):
Formatting: It’s all there, section headings, measure numbers, page numbers, a title, and everything else asked of the entrant.
Legibility: The piece is more-than-sufficiently legible, with no overcrowding of expressions, articulations, and the like, and it is very clear what to play and how.
Playability: Every part seems to be playable, no yellow notes are present. Nothing seems to be overbearingly difficult for a person to play.
Total: 60/60 points
Andy
Criteria - 14
Creativity - 10
Preservation - 7
Orchestration - 7
Presentation - 4
Total: 42/60
MasterSuperFan
Criteria (15/15): Holy DAMN, this is good. The varied time signatures work unbelievably well—I always knew where the beat fell, and the rhythms always felt natural. I really have to commend how your rhythms and patterns always make it clear where the beat is so that the time signature doesn't ever get confusing. It's incredible how you can use such a variety of time signatures without ever losing me as a listener. This feels like it could be in a video game, strange time signatures and all, and fit perfectly in place. Bravo—you really pulled off the theme of this contest.
Creativity (15/15): After listening to the original tracks, I was initially worried that your orchestration would be too similar to the original and not distinctly "you" enough. I was wrong. Yes, many of the instruments might be similar, but the way that you develop so many different sections uniquely and transition between them so well blows me away. From the grandiose trumpets blaring melodies to the snare drum drumming a quiet march, from the flutes singing a melody of triumph to the slow, sorrowful tuba, this really does feel like a quest—a journey, from beginning to end—and I love every moment of it.
Preservation (10/10): Admittedly, this is the only one of the entries whose original tracks I'm not familiar with. But I've gone back and listened to all three of the tracks listed in the title, and their preservation is very clear in your theme—I might've almost thought it too similar, but the extensive variety in your arrangement is far more than enough to make up for that! Also, I think you've got me hooked on the Radiant Historia soundtrack now.
Orchestration (10/10): Beautiful. The strings in the background and the trumpets, flutes, and violins each playing majestic melodies really work together to make this sound absolutely stunning. The timpani gives the theme a very pounding, dramatic feel, and the snare drum adds a steady, march-like feel—and when both of these are absent, the piece becomes slow, somber, emotional. The instrumentation is very reminiscent of the original, but the sheer diversity of how each instrument is used throughout the whole piece to create such a variety of moods makes it so much more unique. This really DOES feel like it belongs in a grand video game already, and I know this is something I'm going to keep coming back to listen to long after this contest has passed.
Presentation (10/10): Formatting, legibility, and playability all seem good here. Lots of helpful articulations throughout; they make it very clear to the performers how you want this played.
TOTAL SCORE: 60/60
E. Gadd Industries
Criteria (15/15 pts): The piece definitely did what was asked of it. The time signature is definitely nowhere near a “normal” time signature, and it makes it work very well! Awkwardness is minimal (with the exception of some clashing harmonies, which were intentional, as stated in the entrant’s PM containing the piece files).
Creativity (15/15 pts): This piece ties with Bloop’s for the craziest time signature of all the entries. Really, I didn’t think 27/16 would ever have a chance of working out, and yet here I am, and here this piece is. Brilliant work getting that to work! Not to mention the other creative bits in this piece, from the improv section (which was great) to the chord progression (also a good bit of extra added in)!
Preservation (10/10 pts): They original is easily recognizable throughout the entire piece.
Orchestration (10/10 pts): What is it about jazz and desert themes? This piece, Shamar from Sonic Unleashed, and I know there are more, but it’s 11:30 and I’m not going to mess with that. Anyway, the instrumentation was very fitting, it complemented the style very well (and to an extent the crazy time signature!)
Presentation (9/10 pts):
Formatting: Everything’s there. Yay.
Legibility: Everything is clear and readable (although the rhythm groupings may be hard to follow upon the first few times reading and practicing it). That is what caused a point to be deducted. They are understandable, however, as they come with the presence of such a complicated time signature.
Playability: The piece is playable by most musicians, although it is best fit for jazz musicians.
Total: 59/60 points
Andy
Criteria - 14
Creativity - 14
Preservation - 10
Orchestration - 10
Presentation - 10
Total: 58/60
MasterSuperFan
Criteria (14/15): Now this time signature is out there, but you make it work well. With it being so unorthodox, it did throw me off for a bit, but I got used to it after listening to the piano for only a few measures, and that's a plus—with a time signature like this it's bound to be strange at first, but I like the way you make it feel natural than I thought it even could. I really am a fan of the funky, jazzy feel that this time signature gives, dropping a beat at the end too. The one thing that continues to throws me off is the main melody—it still throws me off listening to it in some places, and I feel like it doesn't really line up with the time signature the way the rest of the parts do. But I really have to applaud you for going so far with the weird time signature idea—I approve.
Creativity (15/15): Apart from the occasional wonkiness of the melody as mentioned above, there's nothing at all disagreeable in this arrangement. I'm not the biggest fan of all types of jazz, but I do love some pieces in a jazzy style—and this is absolutely one of them. The improvised solo section between the melodies is a great break from the original track, and you vary the instrumentation, melody, and mood enough throughout that each part feels fresh and never repetitive. You clearly came into this project with a clear idea of what direction you wanted to take this theme in—and made it happen spectacularly.
Preservation (10/10): All parts of the melody are stand out well and are very easy to recognize, even as you put your own twist on them with this time signature. Even the piano chords, despite being different, are reminiscent of the original as well. Good work here.
Orchestration (10/10): The instrumentation here absolutely fits the jazzy style of the funky time signature you've chosen. I'm in love with those piano chords, and the trumpets here hearken back to the original while the sax brings a totally new feel to the track. I love that short section when the piano plays the melody before the end, too. I almost wonder if the bass should be louder, but I get the feeling that it's a personal preference and it still does its job well as is—and it's playback anyways, so not worth worrying about.
Presentation (10/10): Formatting, legibility, and playability all seem good here. The articulations on the piano part really bring out the jazzy feel, and the chords written throughout are helpful as well–particularly at the improvised solo section. You definitely know what you're doing when it comes to notation in this style of music.
TOTAL SCORE: 59/60
Poll
2 (18.2%)
Author
Topic: Arrangement Contest No. 9 in C-triple-flat major “An Odd Time for a Contest!” (Read 48226 times)