Submission Information:
Series: EarthBound
Game: EarthBound
Console: Super Nintendo Entertainment System
Title: Battle Against a Machine
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Static (http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?action=profile;u=4960)
The harmony in this one seems incorrect. I think it should be more like this:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/8oqc3zrv6t5eob1/Screenshot%202018-02-04%2015.27.10.png?dl=1)
The bass seems a little off, too. I'll check it out more later.
I checked the harmonies again, and I realized I indeed had the wrong notes for the chords, the main issue I think was the tuning.
However, what you have is only one channel (channel 4). If you split the channels, you can see there's actually a 2nd synth (channel 5), which also contains a sus4 chord voicing. This one is incredibly out of tune, but the first set of pitches most closely resembles F-G-C, which is where I got those chord tones from before. This synth also follows a different melodic pattern than the channel 4 one. After re-checking all the chords, I decided I'm going to leave in some these extra pitches, but rearrange the RH to where the channel 4 synth is more prominent, since I think it is the lead synth (and it seems you do as well lol).
The bass, after listening, again, is definitely correct. If it seems off, that's probably just the pitch bends that come right after the attacks. When I transcribed the bassline, I went by what the initial pitch was for each note.
Also, if you want to take a listen to any of those separate tracks I mentioned, I have them here (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1rLQaw4pkoYy9F-7MdrysSpgn5sM1H6VO). The ones not posted are percussion and echo tracks.
Now, the only thing I'm not 100% sure on is the accidentals. There's a few spots where they just don't seem to work at all (like m18 and 22 beat 4), and each new spelling I think of doesn't mesh well with surrounding spots or the rest of the piece. I ended up going with what I thought made the most sense.
Edit: The files have been updated to reflect the above changes.
I agree with Static on the notes concerning the tuning. I did a pretty thorough note check and came up with what he has. Pretty weird song.
The accidentals look good to me. This is one of those songs where you go with the most plausible accidental spellings or you totally go user-friendly by forgetting the chords, etc. and helping the performer even if the accidentals are technically dead wrong. Kind of like this (first few measures as an example):
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ztxmgflnxl5f6me/Screenshot%202018-05-17%2018.50.32.png?dl=1)
Also, the composer/arranger is slightly off alignment. ;D
Quote from: Sebastian on May 17, 2018, 03:53:54 PMI agree with Static on the notes concerning the tuning. I did a pretty thorough note check and came up with what he has. Pretty weird song.
The problem here is that you are including the major third, which does not occur in any of the isolated sound files that Static provided. The theme of this piece is to plane the sus2 triad, and including the major third ruins that. There might be a de-tuned variation that can be rounded towards that F natural, but it should be omitted for the greater good of preserving the idea of the piece.
Quote from: Sebastian on May 17, 2018, 03:53:54 PMThis is one of those songs where you go with the most plausible accidental spellings or you totally go user-friendly by forgetting the chords, etc. and helping the performer even if the accidentals are technically dead wrong.
Except that they are functional chords, and that chords are much easier to read than choosing random accidentals ???
Also Static: the 4/4+3/16 seems highly unnecessary. Why not just make them separate bars? It's not like the two are really two meters combined, it's just extending a pause. I think it would be easier to read separated.
Quote from: Olimar12345 on May 17, 2018, 04:44:37 PMExcept that they are functional chords, and that chords are much easier to read than choosing random accidentals ???
"most plausible spellings" = functional chords. Also, lots of pianists don't see functional chords as easiest to read...and what I'm talking about isn't "random accidentals." I was just giving an option. Not a huge deal.
Quote from: Olimar12345 on May 17, 2018, 04:44:37 PMThe problem here is that you are including the major third, which does not occur in any of the isolated sound files that Static provided. The theme of this piece is to plane the sus2 triad, and including the major third ruins that. There might be a de-tuned variation that can be rounded towards that F natural, but it should be omitted for the greater good of preserving the idea of the piece.
Again, not a huge deal. I was just specifying what I believe I heard.
Quote from: Olimar12345 on May 17, 2018, 04:44:37 PMAlso Static: the 4/4+3/16 seems highly unnecessary. Why not just make them separate bars? It's not like the two are really two meters combined, it's just extending a pause. I think it would be easier to read separated.
I second this
Quote from: Sebastian on May 17, 2018, 08:07:00 PM"most plausible spellings" = functional chords. Also, lots of pianists don't see functional chords as easiest to read...and what I'm talking about isn't "random accidentals." I was just giving an option. Not a huge deal.
I don't mean to draw this out, but now I
really don't know what you meant to say in your first post... I don't see how this piece can work just as well by "forgetting the chords" when they're so apparent. Also, what do you mean by "lots of pianists don't see functional chords as easiest to read?" I can only imagine someone choosing to read functional harmony in a non functioning manner by mistake, by being ill-informed, or by being a beginner etc. (basically unintentionally). Again, the idea that the piece centers around (the sus2) is what should be the focus. If you could clarify (if it's still relevant) that would be great.
Quote from: Sebastian on May 17, 2018, 08:07:00 PMAgain, not a huge deal. I was just specifying what I believe I heard.
That's fine. I was just specifying why I disagreed again.
I'm saying that lots of pianists (beginners, etc.) (Especially people visiting NSM) may not have the proper training to see these functional chords, especially in a difficult key like this. I was suggesting that an "easier" spelling
could work. Not really a hill that needs to be died on.
EDIT:
Quote from: Latios212 on May 17, 2018, 08:52:21 PMI second this
I third this. If it was more than one measure, I would agree with what Static has, but since it's only one measure then it would be easier to read counting-wise to have it split into two measures.
bump for arranger
i think the real critique is why did you chose to arrange this .-.
Quote from: FireArrow on June 01, 2018, 11:46:27 PMi think the real critique is why did you chose to arrange this .-.
Why
wouldn't anyone want to arrange this?
Quote from: FireArrow on June 01, 2018, 11:46:27 PMi think the real critique is why did you chose to arrange this .-.
The same reason I choose to arrange a lot of the songs I arrange: because I'm almost certain no one else would want to.
I edited the submission with the timesig and harmony changes. I think it sounds better with just the one sus2 voicing anyway, and trying to cram in the other notes isn't worth the sheet sounding off. I also changed some of the spellings in the bassline to make more sense imo.
Yes, looks much better. It has my blessing.
This submission has been accepted by Sebastian (http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3424).
~Zeta, your friendly NSM-Bot