Submission Information:
Series: Other
Game: Shovel Knight: Plague of Shadows
Console: Multiplatform
Title: Tango of the Troupple King
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Zeila (http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?action=profile;u=4766)
[attachment deleted by admin]
Since it's DLC exclusive (and part of a different OST), I made the game name in the sheet "Shovel Knight: Plague of Shadows," while the copyright year is 2015 instead of 2014. If I should submit it under a new game altogether, then I can do that too
For everyone else's sake, Zeila's Youtube links to the wrong song--this is the correct song:
The one accuracy concern that stuck out to me right now is, at least through my speakers, I hear a higher 16th-note run at 0:24-0:26 instead of the block chords of Bars 30-31.
I'm curious why you chose a glissando in measure 47. It's a bit short and sixteenth note triplet would do the job.
Thanks for pointing that out, I must've been out of it. As for the sixteenth triplet run, I originally simplified it to a regular sixteenth note run, but I felt that the quarter notes were more important. The top notes are more pronounced, but the rest of the chord notes are still there (or well, at the very least some of them are for certain). Also, about the glissando, I think I put it there because it wasn't simply a triplet, but it's incorrect to put it there anyways (and it's short like you mentioned). Instead of a sixteenth note triplet, I put 4 grace notes leading to the Eb in m48.
Aside from that, I changed the note length of the half note in m29 to a quarter note and added a few staccatos. Thanks for looking it over!
A couple of quick things:
- The 16ths in measure 3 sound like the same as in m. 4 (that is, En for the second). Also worth a thought: using a slur or staccato to show that they are articulated differently.
- Flip beat 1 in m. 14 and move the 8th rest in m. 35 up a bit.
I just put staccatos on the 16th notes in m3. The rest should be fixed, thanks!
Bump
Bump
Bump pls
Some things:
Quote from: Olimar12345 on February 11, 2018, 09:27:03 AM-Might want to adjust the left margin a bit. It's really big and that space could probably be put to good use elsewhere, especially when we're using two beams.
-Measures 32 and 36 have a chord happening on beat two, not just a single note.
-Measures 30-31 could really use those arpeggios.
-The F in measure 62 is missing a mordant.
Thanks for checking it over!
Quote from: Olimar12345 on February 17, 2018, 10:48:01 AM-Measures 32 and 36 have a chord happening on beat two, not just a single note.
Did 32, not sure about what I put for 36
Quote from: Olimar12345 on February 17, 2018, 10:48:01 AM-Measures 30-31 could really use those arpeggios.
I did that originally before changing it, but now I omitted the bassline because I think the chords transition better
The rest is done, and I changed a few other things
Happy belated birthday
When you have a sustained note followed by a staccato note (beat two of measure one and the like, beats one and two of measure two and the like, etc.), it's customary to slur the two, as opposed to putting a tenuto over the first—and the staccato itself isn't even necessary in this case, but it's up to you if you leave it there. (This also applies to the left hand in measure 49, etc.) Likewise, I would slur the four eighths in measure 13 and the like.
The last note sounds more like an accent than a marcato to me; marcato usually implies that the note should be given a dry, percussive sound, which isn't the case here. (Also, the initial "con slancio" indication should be written without a capital s.)
Very long overdue:
-Measure 4, LH desperately needs a slur marking over the notes. In the recording it contrasts with the detached statement prior to it by being smooth and connected, and simply not having the staccato markings risks it looking like it should be played the same way, like you would see if "simile" was there.
-Measure 5-6 the moving line in the LH imo would look nicer separated, with the moving line being beamed upwards while the held pitch being lower.
-I would recommend adding staccatos on the eighth notes throughout measures 8-22, LH, since they're always detached from the following notes and never connected.
-Measure 15, RH, layer 1 I would add staccatos to the sixteenth notes. I'd also recommend moving that preceding rest up to join the rest of that layer.
-Death has a point about the slur-staccato figures. It's much more common to see that as opposed to tenuto-staccato.
-Speaking of that figure, your arrangement is lacking in consistency with these markings. Tangos are known for their speech-like articulation, and long-short is common:
(https://s22.postimg.cc/orr0sjwc1/Screenshot_2018-05-29_11.37.37.png)
(applied throughout the rest of the piece as well, when appropriate)
-The atempo in measure 8 needs to be un-hidden. I would even put a double bar line there since it's a tempo change.
-Likewise, I would recommend a double bar line at the tempo chance just before 32 and 48.
-I would recommend more dynamic contrast overall. Measure 5-6 should be somewhat greater than at the beginning, then it should come down at the atempo. Measure 32 begs to be at least at a forte. 48 could come down to mezzo forte so that 64 can rise again too.
-I would suggest slurring the sextuplets in bars 30-31.
-Measure 51 LH, up-beat of 1 should be octave F's, not Gb's.
-Measure 59 LH, up-beat of 1 should be an Eb, not a Db.
-Last two measures LH should be up an octave.
-It seems weird that you would choose the upper (more appropriate imo) octave for the LH figure in measure 34, but then switch to the lower octave in 38. Better to just pick one and be consistent.
-RH in measures 48-53, 56-59, as well as the LH in measures 64-69 is missing the third voice. Adding it would help fill out those chords. See my file below for details.
-Gb's in the LH measures 68-69 should be G naturals.
-I would suggest removing the clef change at 40-46. To be honest, that Bb isn't terribly high, and the figure builds up to it so I don't see the real need to switch so drastically here. The clef change seems to distort the contour here more than it makes it easier to read. Same thing in 64-69.
Rather than listing out all of the articulation changes I touched on above, please review this file that includes them all: https://www.dropbox.com/s/jrts7u8gp8emuq4/Tango%20of%20the%20Troupple%20King12345.mus?dl=1
Additionally, my second biggest gripe with this arrangement is the entirety of the accompaniment. In your effort to include as many pitches as possible, you've not only made it incredibly difficult to play (with just about everything the LH does being in octaves with harmony), but you've lost both the contour of important lines as well as the character of the tango. Below is an edition containing what I would personally have done with this arrangement. You don't have to do this, and your version with the corrections I've put above would be okay, but I hope you consider something more like this. There is a beauty in simplicity and not giving away too much too soon.
Here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/zznkdn6eed522mh/Tango%20of%20the%20Troupple%20King123456.mus?dl=1
These revisions look great and I agree with all of Olimar's feedback. I only have one thing to add:
- This game was actually released in 2014, not 2015. Go ahead and update that in the copyright information.
Once this and the above stuff is fixed, I approve.
EDIT: Nvm. Mael straightened me out on it.
It's DLC exclusive, and the DLC came out in 2015
Alrighty. Edited my post.
Yeah, Zeila said that in her first post.
Sorry for butting in, but with Specter of Torment being released as a stand-alone game, wouldn't it make more sense for Plague of Shadows to be put in it's own separate category? I realize the lines here are a bit blurry in regards to what counts as its own game or not, but to me that makes the most sense.
I've been thinking about this lately, and yeah I'm starting to think it would make more sense as it's own game entry.
Thanks for the feedback everyone! I updated it with a few changes to the 2nd file Olimar posted (like lowering the figure at m7/others an octave or changing m8-11 to be more similar to the following measures)
edit: whoops, I forgot a tenuto sorry
Looks wonderful now. Excellent work. I am pleased.
Nice work, Zeila.
This submission has been accepted by Sebastian (http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3424).
~Zeta, your friendly NSM-Bot