Submission Information:
Series: Ace Attorney
Game: Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney: Trials and Tribulations
Console: Nintendo DS
Title: Detention Center ~ Elegy of the Detained
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Onionleaf (http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3620)
A fairly straightforward piece, both to arrange and play.
Only thing I really have to comment about is the missing harmonies in m.10-18, like B F#, A# G, B F#, A# G D E in m.14-18, and then it should be good
Thanks, I've added the missing harmonies like you described - let me know if I missed anything. :)
Nice! Let's have a look...
- This piece sounds to me like it's in 3/4 rather than 6/8. Thoughts?
- You could eliminate the overlapping B's in the left hand in measure 2-3. There's not really a need for them as the LH is just playing the descending voice.
- Measure 11, I'm hearing a C instead of B for the left hand.
- Measure 14-18 sound a bit heavy, perhaps consider getting rid of the lowest note in the left hand for each? (Particularly, m. 18, the D-E sounds kinda funny.)
Quote from: Latios212 on January 28, 2018, 06:35:45 PM- This piece sounds to me like it's in 3/4 rather than 6/8. Thoughts?
I think I can see what you mean, the second half of the piece especially sounds like 3/4 would be more appropriate, but 6/8 seems more fitting for the beginning. I'm so used to seeing and hearing it in 6/8 that I find it difficult to change my thinking around. x.X
I took all other changes on board, though - any more recommendations?
I recommend 3/4 as well.
Same here.
Nah, it's totally 6/8. The arpeggios are accenting the top note, which is a characteristic of 6/8 over 3/4. Just look at the roost from animal crossing, it's just like this and is in 6/8. The contrasting section could probably be written in 3/4, but that could be overkill as it could work as 6/8 being syncopated.
But the arpeggios aren't accenting the top note? If anything it's ambiguous because it's just a constant stream of eighth notes. The only thing we really have that anchors a rhythm is the quarter beats in measures 10-13, and I don't know why you would prefer those syncopated when they're just straight quarters.
Quote from: Latios212 on January 29, 2018, 03:16:19 PMBut the arpeggios aren't accenting the top note?
Not in a volume or attack way, I meant in a visual way. The contour goes up then down, which is better shown in 6/8 where that figure normally dwells.
Quote from: Latios212 on January 29, 2018, 03:16:19 PMThe only thing we really have that anchors a rhythm is the quarter beats in measures 10-13
See: contour.
Quote from: Latios212 on January 29, 2018, 03:16:19 PMI don't know why you would prefer those syncopated when they're just straight quarters.
Well, consequently, I couldn't see why you'd want to sacrifice a clear 6/8 figure, which makes up the vast majority of this piece, all because of four bars.
Besides, like I said: you could still do this:
Quote from: Olimar12345 on January 29, 2018, 02:26:26 PMThe contrasting section could probably be written in 3/4, but that could be overkill as it could work as 6/8 being syncopated.
I feel like it would be blasphemous to notate the first 8 measure in anything but 6/8.
I've always heard this in 3/4 the whole way through.
I won't mind whatever the verdict will be, but I'll throw in my 2 cents anyways. :) I'm personally much more inclined towards 6/8 time due to the grouping of the arpeggios in the first few bars as Olimar pointed out, but it also seems more fitting overall in terms of phrasing. 3/4 time causes the overall feel of the tempo to be too fast for such a sorrowful piece, whereas the 6/8 creates two groups of three notes in each bar, creating a calmer flow of time, albeit sounding syncopated in several bars. (Hopefully that made sense, more or less...)
Here are the files in 3/4 time if needed: MUSX (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ugprxyiq1wlkq97/Detention%20Center%20Elegy%20x%202.musx?dl=1) MUS (https://www.dropbox.com/s/pn3f0p4diyrpoza/Detention%20Center%20Elegy%202.mus?dl=1) MIDI (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ntei3evdnfnummm/Detention%20Center%20Elegy%202.mid?dl=1) PDF (https://www.dropbox.com/s/dwbt378ymljrmu5/Detention%20Center%20Elegy%202.pdf?dl=1)
Not only can any number of 8ths/quavers be beamed together in 3/4 (Elaine Gould, Behind Bars, pg. 153), it is an expected engraving practice to beam all three beats together, such as in the first 8 bars of Detention Center:
"The rule is: group together as many notes as make one beat EXCEPT .... if a bar of 3/4 ... consists entirely of quavers, then all the notes should be grouped together".
(The Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music, Rudiments and Theory of Music, https://musescore.org/en/node/9924)
Finale's default setting to separately beam consecutive quavers/8ths in 3/4 into individual beats really is lamentable, as that should really only be done if the utmost clarity is required, or to indicate a change of pitch pattern (Elaine Gould, Behind Bars, pg. 154).
Franz Liszt's Liebestraum uses a 6/4 meter (essentially a double 3/4), and beams each 3/4 subgroup in groups of 6 quavers/8ths. Just as it would be absurd to to assume that the contours of the right hand arpeggios in the beginning of Liebestraum imply a compound sub-division, it is equally absurd to assume that the contours of the right hard arpeggios in the beginning of "Detention Center" imply a 6/8 meter.
While I have seen instances where pieces in 6/8 or 3/4 have a whole bar's eighth notes beamed together, I find it extremely hard to believe that is some sort of "rule" since, you know, we have hundreds of years worth of music that does the opposite.
Frankly, "we have hundreds of years worth of music that does the opposite" is poor logic. There are millions of piano pieces that have a plethora of different styles. You can't just put this song in a bubble since it has a certain aspect found in 6/8 time, especially when the second half of the piece is more ambiguous and open to interpretation.
Also, I have never come across a piece that is notated like M. 10 + in 6/8 time. Yes, you could argue that the first 9 measures are in 6/8. They do have a two-beat feel, but I am not feeling that at all in M. 10+.
Quote from: Bespinben on February 05, 2018, 02:10:35 AMFranz Liszt's Liebestraum uses a 6/4 meter (essentially a double 3/4), and beams each 3/4 subgroup in groups of 6 quavers/8ths. Just as it would be absurd to to assume that the contours of the right hand arpeggios in the beginning of Liebestraum imply a compound sub-division, it is equally absurd to assume that the contours of the right hard arpeggios in the beginning of "Detention Center" imply a 6/8 meter.
THIS.
Any true pianist would understand this.
Quote from: Sebastian on February 07, 2018, 10:02:50 AMFrankly, "we have hundreds of years worth of music that does the opposite" is poor logic. no it isn't, since it's true and you're about to contradict yourself twice. There are millions of piano pieces that have a plethora of different styles. this sentence was unnecessary and added nothing. You can't just put this song in a bubble since it has a certain aspect found in 6/8 time, especially when the second half of the piece is more ambiguous and open to interpretation. welcome to the debate, finally
Quote from: Sebastian on February 07, 2018, 10:02:50 AMAlso, I have never come across a piece that is notated like M. 10 + in 6/8 time. Frankly, "I've never seen it" is poor logic. Yes, you could argue that the first 9 measures are in 6/8. They do have a two-beat feel, but I am not feeling that at all in M. 10+.
Seb, there are two topics going on right now and you are mixing them up. One is the debate of whether or not to put this piece in 3/4 or 6/8 and the other (that Ben just brought up) is that music in both 3/4 and 6/8 should have all 6 eighth notes beamed together within the bar.
I can darn well read for myself and I know exactly which topics are being discussed.
First of all, I'm sick of your snarky "reading is hard yo," "learn to read," or any other statement you have up your sleeve that indirectly insults one's intelligence, especially when it is said to manipulate someone. If anything, you're the one not reading. Nowhere did Ben say that 6/8 should be beamed into six 8ths.
Second of all, "no it isn't, since it's true and you're about to contradict yourself twice" and "this sentence was unnecessary and added nothing" are two statements that would make good descriptions of your arguments, as well. Apparently, everything you say is gospel truth (even if it's the same "unnecessary" and "contradictory" posts that I or anyone else makes). But, no. Your statements are always correct. It's ironic how you hold people to a higher standard by expecting us to cite every one of your sentences, but then you get to do "reading is hard yo" and/or totally disregard anything we have to say by seeing it as "unnecessary" or "contradictory." Heck, all you have to do is put bold letters in my posts to make me look stupid or like you're shoving words in my mouth...literally.
But guess what? No one says any of this for fear of being guilty of ad hominem! Therefore, we have come full circle.
And, finally, just because you think your opinion is correct about this issue doesn't mean it's correct. Believe it or not, we (Ben, me, etc.) have musical experience too and work with music every day.
Also, just because a 19th-century publisher did something doesn't make it good engraving. Otherwise, we'd still have syllabic beaming in vocal music
(c) Bespinben).
Even masters like Mozart, Bach, etc. made mistakes. Just because you've seen something done a certain way, or even done the same certain way many, many times, doesn't mean it represents high standards. Chopin, Lizst, Debussy, etc, have all made mistakes in their music. They have bent rules, innovated with new ideas, colored outside the lines, and, ultimately, they have influenced modern music. You can't just stereotype music. Yes, there are rules that need to be followed, or we wouldn't have music theory or aural skills. My point is that you need to be more open to other interpretations, ideas, and understand that there are other people that are well-versed in music that may not always agree with your stance. Welcome to life.
As for the issue at hand, I still believe this sheet is in 3/4. Another example that this song can be compared to is Kakariko Village:
The contours clearly suggest 6/8 if you look at the arpeggios, but it's not in 6/8. Yes, some would argue that the melody helps define it in 3/4, but there was a point when I was convinced this song was in 6/8. This song, detention center, doesn't have a melody line or any means to back up the arpeggiations until M. 10, and
then it feels like 3/4. One could conclude that this song is not much different from Kakariko Village.
I addressed your Kakariko Village comment more than once on discord, but you never seemed to reply:
[4:48 PM] Olimar12345: Kakariko isn't the best example because its ostinato changes and it doesn't play the arpeggios for like 2/3's of the piece
[4:48 PM] Olimar12345: unlike the roost (from animal crossing), which plays that the whole way through.
[4:49 PM] Olimar12345: but realistically, this figure is a triplet figure
[4:49 PM] Olimar12345: I have countless method books that have these exercises and none of them are in 3/4
You bringing up the part about the melody helping that example supports this too. Consider this: if you removed the melody and the other two thirds of the piece, would you still think that Kakariko village should be in 3/4 time? I wouldn't, because just like you said, the contours clearly suggest 6/8 if you look at just the arpeggios. It's because that figure naturally wants to be grouped in groups of three, because there is a pattern, and we as humans logically tend to want to group things together in patterns (in more facets of life than just music).
Now lets look at my example, The Roost from the Animal Crossing series:
At first glance, this has the same issue as the submitted sheet; it's got an arpeggiated ostinato in groups of threes, while the melody has many rhythms that lend themselves to 3/4. It even has the same rhythm as the B section from the submitted sheet; the rhythm "must" be in 3/4 since it is beats one and two in 3/4. The first thing to consider is that with this (and the submitted sheet) there are conflicting rhythmic tendencies. This is where we must bring syncopation into play. Syncopation is a tricky thing to argue for or against because you have to consider that it can be used on both sides of the argument. If you see these things and still believe that the roost should be in 3/4, I implore you to give this a listen:
This is a remix that was included in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. The composer, Totaka, was directly involved with its creation, so that's coming from him not me! :X The important thing in this recording is the use of the drum set, which solidifies any question there might have been about the meter.
In the instance of the submitted sheet, I believe that the submitted piece does better with less syncopation. The route of less syncopation would lie in 6/8, since every arpeggio would be a syncopation in 3/4. Saving the syncopation explanation for the melody makes more sense and is more commonly seen. This is because you need to have a control in order to alter something. Notating it this way would create the control (6/8), then accent the off beats (the very definition of syncopation) in the question areas.
etc, etc.
For those arguing that the beginning 8 measures could be in 6/8 and the rest could be in 3/4, consider this: Measures 15, 17, and 19 also lend themselves to 6/8 more because the phrases end on down-beats in 6/8, which is much stronger than ending on up-beats. Otherwise the piece would end on the up beat of two, the single most weak beat in 3/4 time (which would not be a strong resolution by any means) and would seem odd because of that. Additionally, the D.C. should be considered. It connects the ending and the beginning, which in some sense means that the two phrases are really one in the same.
I know I didn't really address the matter of the note beaming, but to be honest that isn't really the issue here d:
I get that there is more than one way to do things. The point here is to decide on which would be the BEST way to do it, not necessarily the ONLY way to do it.
I can feel Detention Center in both 3/4 and 6/8 just as easily (and I think they both look fine when written out), but I too think that 6/8 would work better. Not because of the "contour" or arpeggios or something; the visuals in my opinion have nothing to do with how a time signature should be applied. I much prefer looking at songs like these (or any song, really) from the bigger picture and trying to see what the composer's intent was, what the song was used for, etc. As Onionleaf said, this is a pretty slow, sad piece, and 6/8 captures that essence a lot more I think.
This is one of those cases I would say either time signature would be fine (like in a case of 2/4 vs. 4/4, this is very subjective), and because of that, I think it's better just to side with the arranger.
Quote from: Static on February 07, 2018, 12:55:13 PM...I too think that 6/8 would work better. Not because of the "contour" or arpeggios or something; the visuals in my opinion have nothing to do with how a time signature should be applied. I much prefer looking at songs like these (or any song, really) from the bigger picture and trying to see what the composer's intent was, what the song was used for, etc. As Onionleaf said, this is a pretty slow, sad piece, and 6/8 captures that essence a lot more I think.
I get what you're saying in the later half of this quote, but the bold I would have to disagree with. How we see notation directly correlates with how we interpret notation, time signatures included. In that instance, how a piece is written has EVERYTHING to do with how the meter works to convey the piece. You could take this arrangement and give it all sorts of wonky time signatures etc and instantly it becomes incredibly more difficult to perceive the composer's intentions.
Hoo boy, looks like I missed a lot yesterday. First, my thoughts:
Olimar, you make a number of fine points. However, even after considering them all, it doesn't change the fact that my mind always snaps back to listening in 3/4 when I play back the song. Let me address a few of them:
Quote from: Olimar12345 on February 07, 2018, 12:22:44 PMConsider this: if you removed the melody and the other two thirds of the piece, would you still think that Kakariko village should be in 3/4 time? I wouldn't, because just like you said, the contours clearly suggest 6/8 if you look at just the arpeggios.
You seem to suggest that arpeggios that ascend and descend in this manner should be written in 6/8 unless sufficient context is given to suggest otherwise. However, my takeaway from Kakariko Village is that an ostinato is
ambiguous until a rhythm is anchored by other parts. Even when the melody of Kakariko Village is absent, allowing the ostinato to play alone, I still hear it in 3/4. The contour of the notes alone doesn't suddenly cause me to hear those sections in 6/8. As such, I conclude that the rhythm of the ostinato is not determined by the contour, but rather through the context of other parts. This quote from Ben sums up what I mean:
Quote from: Bespinben on February 05, 2018, 02:10:35 AMJust as it would be absurd to to assume that the contours of the right hand arpeggios in the beginning of Liebestraum imply a compound sub-division, it is equally absurd to assume that the contours of the right hard arpeggios in the beginning of "Detention Center" imply a 6/8 meter.
Quote from: Olimar12345 on February 07, 2018, 12:22:44 PMSyncopation is a tricky thing to argue for or against because you have to consider that it can be used on both sides of the argument. If you see these things and still believe that the roost should be in 3/4, I implore you to give this a listen:
I get the same idea from The Roost - to definitively anchor the fact that it's in 6/8, you bring in more context through the addition of rhythm backing with the Brawl remix, rather than draw a conclusion based on the interaction of the melody and ostinato in the original alone; you seem to imply the original is ambiguous.
Quote from: Olimar12345 on February 07, 2018, 12:22:44 PMFor those arguing that the beginning 8 measures could be in 6/8 and the rest could be in 3/4, consider this: Measures 15, 17, and 19 also lend themselves to 6/8 more because the phrases end on down-beats in 6/8, which is much stronger than ending on up-beats. Otherwise the piece would end on the up beat of two, the single most weak beat in 3/4 time (which would not be a strong resolution by any means) and would seem odd because of that.
I still hear these measures in 3/4, but I'm fully aware of what you're trying to say here. I'll just say that ending on the up-beat of 2 does indeed make it sound somewhat open, which I think fits perfectly here since this part sounds somewhat unsettling. I don't agree with putting this section in 6/8 so that it resolves; I think conversely that the end section is supposed to sound unresolved.
However, all the above said, it's clear that advocating for either 3/4 or 6/8 has merit, and as such I doubt any minds will be changed significantly by posting further. In the interest of moving things along, I suggest that we accept this sheet in its current state, as that's how Onionleaf wants it.
Quote from: Latios212 on February 08, 2018, 08:49:54 AMIn the interest of moving things along, I suggest that we accept this sheet in its current state, as that's how Onionleaf wants it.
I agree.
That took a while. I sent Onionleaf a PM with a whole bunch of actual fixes already. :V
Why not just post them here in the thread? ???
*meekly updates the files with a tidier version of sheets and backs away slowly*
Thanks for all the help, guys! If there's anything else that needs changing, please let me know.
Final notes (I think):
-Even in 6/8, you can still beam 10-13 in 3/4 without a time change. That's not unusual to see in pieces like this. Personally I think it would be easier to read that way. Up to you.
-Measures 15 and 17 have a harmony of G minor, so the A#'s need to be Bb's.
-Measures 18-19 have a harmony of E half diminished, so the A#'s need to be Bb's.
-The second layer in 10-13 doesn't capture the harmonic changes from the original as well as it could, and I think this is because of the inversions you used. I would recommend that you rewrite it to maintain the lowest voice as the bass as it was in the original. The B in 11 should also be a C, which is also contributing to this.
-In adition to the above bullet, the LH in that section is also a contributor to that issue. Methinks that should be much higher, like where the bells would naturally sound. They also contain more notes than just the root and fifth (check out my example below).
-I think the dynamics could use some tweaking. Piano seams more appropriate for the outer two sections. The section at 10 could come up some more since it is so different.
Below is a version of this sheet with the suggested changes listed above. Use it as you please: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8quc1ncokehv95a/elegy12345.mus?dl=1
Bump for arranger.
pokepokepoke
Archived for inactivityPlease resubmit when these changes have been put into effect.
Quote from: Olimar12345 on February 17, 2018, 10:25:13 AMFinal notes (I think):
-Even in 6/8, you can still beam 10-13 in 3/4 without a time change. That's not unusual to see in pieces like this. Personally I think it would be easier to read that way. Up to you.
-Measures 15 and 17 have a harmony of G minor, so the A#'s need to be Bb's.
-Measures 18-19 have a harmony of E half diminished, so the A#'s need to be Bb's.
-The second layer in 10-13 doesn't capture the harmonic changes from the original as well as it could, and I think this is because of the inversions you used. I would recommend that you rewrite it to maintain the lowest voice as the bass as it was in the original. The B in 11 should also be a C, which is also contributing to this.
-In adition to the above bullet, the LH in that section is also a contributor to that issue. Methinks that should be much higher, like where the bells would naturally sound. They also contain more notes than just the root and fifth (check out my example below).
-I think the dynamics could use some tweaking. Piano seams more appropriate for the outer two sections. The section at 10 could come up some more since it is so different.
Below is a version of this sheet with the suggested changes listed above. Use it as you please: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8quc1ncokehv95a/elegy12345.mus?dl=1