[DELETED] [N64] Conker's Bad Fur Day - "Rock Solid (Two Pianos)" by Sebastian

Started by Zeta, May 26, 2018, 06:18:42 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Zeta

Submission Information:

Series: Other
Game: Conker's Bad Fur Day
Console: Nintendo 64
Title: Rock Solid
Instrumentation Two Pianos
Arranger: Sebastian

Sebastian

Don't fear the length! It's a really repetitive and easy song to check.




Maelstrom

First of all, make some repeat systems. Please. You could easily cut this piece in half.
And the big thing: Does this really need to be a duet? I'm listening to the original and I can't really hear any parts that desperately want to be a duet. This could easily be a solo piece, even as it's written now. In addition, you didn't really justify the duet nature with your arrangement at all. It's not really full or anything like that.

Sebastian

Quote from: Maelstrom on May 31, 2018, 11:10:08 AMFirst of all, make some repeat systems. Please. You could easily cut this piece in half.
I thought of this already, but that wouldn't work. Each phrase (or period) introduces something new, whether that be a change in dynamic, percussion, notes, etc. Using repeats would only rob the song of any special touch that I purposely put in from the original.

Quote from: Maelstrom on May 31, 2018, 11:10:08 AMAnd the big thing: Does this really need to be a duet? I'm listening to the original and I can't really hear any parts that desperately want to be a duet. This could easily be a solo piece, even as it's written now. In addition, you didn't really justify the duet nature with your arrangement at all. It's not really full or anything like that.
Piano duo, actually. I actually originally started by considering this song as a piano solo, but that idea quickly dissipated. I wanted to incorporate as much from the original as I could and add as many touches as I could. Excluding the beginning section, both pianos are, in fact, doing something the whole time. I made each piano have their own sound font so each can be easily distinguished between the other.

Sheet break-down:
- M. 1-16 (16 measures): Piano I has the constant bass in the left hand. Piano II has the stomp.
- M. 17-28 (12 measures): Same as the first section, but this section is a tad more intense adding the knee slap on Piano II.
- M. 29-40 (12 measures): Same as the first two sections, but Piano I's volume intensifies.
- M. 41 - Pause between next sections.
- M. 42-57 (16 measures): This section is more intense in volume. Piano I remains the same (except for volume). Piano II adds the secondary bass and continues on with the percussion.
- M. 58-73 (16 measures): This section is the same as last, but adds an alternate bass in the left hand of Piano II.
- M. 74-89 (16 measures): Less intense. Some voices are dropped out and the dynamics are everything in these measures.
- M. 90-105 (16 measures): Piano I starts the melody and switches bass lines with Piano II to account for playability. Piano II takes on the constant, signature bass and percussion heavily relying on dynamics.
- M. 106-137 (32 measures): Piano I does the melody with varying dynamics every 4 or 8 measures. Piano II: percussion drops out and plays the bass drop every 8 or so measures.
- M. 138-153 (16 measures): Climax section of the piece. Piano I resumes melody. Piano II resumes bass and percussion.
- M. 154-169 (16 measures): (I guess this section could be considered the climax of the piece since it's the fullest). Same as previous section, but adds a melodic line to the right hand of Piano II.
- M. 170-185 (16 measures): All melodic lines turn into dyads and the dyads and bass notes echo down to nothing. The signature bass starts again very quietly and crescendos back to the beginning volume of the piece.

Technically, this isn't a "musical analysis" of the piece. Just wanted to show you why I don't want to put repeats, why I have it in piano duo format, and why I did what I did.

Hope that makes sense. :P



Olimar12345

I agree with Mael here (also, I don't think the text break-down adds anything that we can't already see from the sheet itself...). Literally the first 89 measures (until page 8) you could do with one musician without omitting anything. After that, the only section that takes advantage of having both pianos is one 16-bar phrase at m.154-169. The majority of Piano 2's part is literally foot-stomping, often paired with an empty second staff. Sans the section I mentioned, there are no other parts that even have both hands playing simultaneously in the 2nd piano part.
Visit my site: VGM Sheet Music by Olimar12345 ~ Quality VGM sheet music available for free!

Sebastian

Quote from: Olimar12345 on May 31, 2018, 12:55:37 PMI agree with Mael here (also, I don't think the text break-down adds anything that we can't already see from the sheet itself...). Literally the first 89 measures (until page 8) you could do with one musician without omitting anything. After that, the only section that takes advantage of having both pianos is one 16-bar phrase at m.154-169.
M. 41 (page 4), not page 8.

Quote from: Olimar12345 on May 31, 2018, 12:55:37 PMThe majority of Piano 2's part is literally foot-stomping, often paired with an empty second staff. Sans the section I mentioned, there are no other parts that even have both hands playing simultaneously in the 2nd piano part.
Iirc, a knee slap involves a hand, so it's not just an empty staff. Also, one hand or not, Piano II is a big addition to this piece in my opinion.

I specifically designed this arrangement for 2 pianos and added everything that I want added. I would've done solo piano if I wanted. So, unless there is a rule against having a 2 piano sheet, I'm keeping it this way.



Olimar12345

Quote from: Sebastian on May 31, 2018, 01:26:42 PMM. 41 (page 4), not page 8.
I'm not sure I consider an optional knee-slap part a reason to be in the vicinity of an entire second piano...

Quote from: Sebastian on May 31, 2018, 01:26:42 PMAlso, one hand or not, Piano II is a big addition to this piece in my opinion.
It seems silly to say that its a big addition to the piece and also call it "Piano II," when most of the time it isn't even playing the piano, lol.

Quote from: Sebastian on May 31, 2018, 01:26:42 PMSo, unless there is a rule against having a 2 piano sheet, I'm keeping it this way.
I mean there isn't a rule against creating a duet of anything, but it has been a blanket policy that the arrangement should be substantial enough to warrant a second instrument. If you want to get technical, the guidelines even say this:
Quote from: G-Han on April 28, 2008, 05:26:18 AMFor Duets written for 2 Pianos, try to give both parts the melody at some point and aim to have them roughly equal in difficulty if possible.

The point we're trying to make here is that the arrangement is lop-sided, and it seems more like a piece for solo piano with percussion accompaniment (and the occasional extra piano hand). I would suggest seeing if you can involve the second player more at the piano. If not, like Mael said, it would be easy to convert this to a solo.
Visit my site: VGM Sheet Music by Olimar12345 ~ Quality VGM sheet music available for free!

Sebastian

Quote from: Olimar12345 on May 31, 2018, 01:43:00 PMI'm not sure I consider an optional knee-slap part a reason to be in the vicinity of an entire second piano...
Um, Piano II plays just as much as Piano I on page 4+. It's not just knee slapping.

Spoiler
[close]

Also, the LH changes to a different rhythm in M. 58, which I specified already.

Quote from: Olimar12345 on May 31, 2018, 01:43:00 PMIt seems silly to say that its a big addition to the piece and also call it "Piano II," when most of the time it isn't even playing the piano, lol.
Quote from: Olimar12345 on May 31, 2018, 01:43:00 PMI mean there isn't a rule against creating a duet of anything, but it has been a blanket policy that the arrangement should be substantial enough to warrant a second instrument.
In my opinion, it is. The song wouldn't be the same without all the additions that the Piano II adds.

Examples:
- The contrast between the pianos in M. 74+. What I have is the feel I was going for-- dynamics-wise and voice-wise.
- Obviously, M. 90-169 are very full and have all the voices I want to be incorporated that wouldn't be in a solo.
- The contrast between the voices in M. 170 to the end. A very cool effect that I purposely wrote that way.
- The slow building up found in M. 130 that wouldn't be there in a solo.
These are a few examples of what would not be found in a solo and things that mimic the original in a way that I was going for. I specifically arranged this for 2 pianos and put a lot of work into it.

Just because M. 1-41 doesn't have anything but percussion noises doesn't mean that "piano II isn't even playing piano most of the time." The Piano I & II are equal from M. 42-105. Then there is one voice from M. 106-129. And then the pianos are equal again from M. 130-185. Looks like Piano II is playing way more than half to me.







Olimar12345

Quote from: Sebastian on May 31, 2018, 03:02:51 PMUm, Piano II plays just as much as Piano I on page 4+. It's not just knee slapping.
Spoiler
[close]
On page 4 sure, but prior was what I was talking about. However, circling back to my original point, that entire picture can be played by one person.

To better explain my point, let me just post some numbers. This piece has a total of 185 measures. Piano 1 has one hand completely out during 105 of these measures, and contains no alternate playing during these times (foot stomping, etc.). That's over half of the piece. Pno 2 on the other hand has 53 measures where only one hand (or one foot) involved. However, since I can stomp my foot and use both hands at the same time, I'm going to consider a piano not necessary for the foot stomping sections (makes sense, right? I don't necessarily have to have a piano to be able to stomp my foot). This brings the number of measures where only one hand is involved (both playing the piano and knee-slapping) up to 115 measures, again being well over half of the piece (note: this is considering if the knee slapping is not intended to return at measure 42, since it was not notated to do so). Additionally, the piano is not being utilized at all for 60 measures, a good chunk (about a third) of the piece (piano 2).

Now, obviously not everyone needs to be playing all the time, and there's nothing wrong with thinning out the texture. However, it is important to consider that if you intend for two people to be playing two instruments, there should be enough content for them to actually be playing to consider it effective as a duet.

Unrelated to the above: Notation-wise, the foot stomp should be the lowest thing on the staff. I would either switch the staves or write it in the second layer underneath the second staff and put an "etc." mark of some kind to indicate that it continues, concluding it with some kind of "senza" marking.

I'll admit that looking through it again like this I can see that it is not as empty as I previously thought, and that it is orchestrated well. However, I'd like to hear what other's have to say about it.
Visit my site: VGM Sheet Music by Olimar12345 ~ Quality VGM sheet music available for free!

Latios212

Quote from: Olimar12345 on May 31, 2018, 04:03:09 PMI'll admit that looking through it again like this I can see that it is not as empty as I previously thought, and that it is orchestrated well. However, I'd like to hear what other's have to say about it.
Sure, I can offer my thoughts.

Normally I, personally, ask people to reconsider duets when it's not clear they have really given enough thought and consideration into condensing it into a solo. That's not the case here, and it's clear Sebastian has weighed his options, so I respect that decision.

As for my personal opinion, I could go either way for this one. If you're going to make this a duet complete with percussive tapping, there's more you could do. For instance, the first 40 measures seem to me pretty repetitive and dull for anyone performing or listening, even with the slight changes in your arrangement you pointed out. Why not try and capture more of the drum rhythms that enter at measure 9? You could also build up to the climax at m. 41 better than having a super long crescendo over 12 measures, which would realistically result in such a gradual change in volume that it would barely be noticeable. Perhaps you could play octaves, or have the percussion intensify - there's a bit of room to get creative. Things like that.

Also, things to fix or consider changing:
- Piano 2 should probably have an opening dynamic.
- Did you mean to export all the dots above the percussive notes in the PDF? It looks like a mistake to me.
- In measure 17, the written direction contradicts what's written on the staff, which implies that the right hand is being used for the percussive beat. I'd suggest just writing out notes using the other staff instead of the written direction. Also because currently it's unclear how long the knee slap is supposed to go on for. Similarly for m. 138+.
- Measures 41, 106, 114, 122, and if I missed anywhere else this figure appears: shift the 8va over so it's clearer exactly which notes it applies to.
- I'd suggest moving m. 41 to the previous system, both so you can have a section change over a system break and because the following measures contain more stuff than the preceding ones.
- Fix rhythm groupings in the piano 1 RH of odd-numbered measures starting with 107.
My arrangements and YouTube channel!

Quote from: Dudeman on February 22, 2016, 10:16:37 AM
who needs education when you can have WAIFUS!!!!!

Spoiler
[close]
turtle

Sebastian

Thanks for the feedback! I'll respond to this when I get home from work.



Sebastian

Once again, thanks for the feedback! I apologize for the lateness of these edits.

Quote from: Latios212 on May 31, 2018, 05:34:46 PMAs for my personal opinion, I could go either way for this one. If you're going to make this a duet complete with percussive tapping, there's more you could do. For instance, the first 40 measures seem to me pretty repetitive and dull for anyone performing or listening, even with the slight changes in your arrangement you pointed out. Why not try and capture more of the drum rhythms that enter at measure 9? You could also build up to the climax at m. 41 better than having a super long crescendo over 12 measures, which would realistically result in such a gradual change in volume that it would barely be noticeable. Perhaps you could play octaves, or have the percussion intensify - there's a bit of room to get creative. Things like that.
Did a bit of spiffing up concerning this.

Quote from: Latios212 on May 31, 2018, 05:34:46 PM- Piano 2 should probably have an opening dynamic.
Good idea. Fixed.

Quote from: Latios212 on May 31, 2018, 05:34:46 PM- Did you mean to export all the dots above the percussive notes in the PDF? It looks like a mistake to me.
For some reason, those aren't hidden (they should be). Fixed.

Quote from: Latios212 on May 31, 2018, 05:34:46 PM- In measure 17, the written direction contradicts what's written on the staff, which implies that the right hand is being used for the percussive beat. I'd suggest just writing out notes using the other staff instead of the written direction. Also because currently it's unclear how long the knee slap is supposed to go on for. Similarly for m. 138+.
I went ahead and added some clarification in various spots throughout the piece. Hopefully, this clears up any confusion the performer has.

Quote from: Latios212 on May 31, 2018, 05:34:46 PM- Measures 41, 106, 114, 122, and if I missed anywhere else this figure appears: shift the 8va over so it's clearer exactly which notes it applies to.
The "8va" is part of the symbol and anything below that is applied to the marking; however, I adjusted them anyway.

Quote from: Latios212 on May 31, 2018, 05:34:46 PM- I'd suggest moving m. 41 to the previous system, both so you can have a section change over a system break and because the following measures contain more stuff than the preceding ones.
Nice suggestion. Fixed.

Quote from: Latios212 on May 31, 2018, 05:34:46 PM- Fix rhythm groupings in the piano 1 RH of odd-numbered measures starting with 107.
Whew...I definitely agree with you on this. In addition to fixing the wrong groupings, I revised the entire section to make it more performer-friendly rhythm-wise.

Files updated.



Static

Some more feedback:

- Every bar that looks like m20 Piano I (where the end of the bar in the bassline goes up to a D) should look like m20.
- The simile marking in m19 (Piano II) is usually meant for articulations. If you want to cut down on the writing and length of the sheet, you might want to consider using one- or two-bar repeats (under Staff Styles) in some sections.
- For Piano II in m86-89, you should have it crescendo as Piano I diminuendos.
- In places like m90, the 2nd layer chords would probably be better suited as the RH of Piano II; the rest of the piano parts already provide enough rhythmic interest to the point where the foot stomping there is unneeded. To keep those notes there, I would make the LH part of Piano I just constant 8th notes instead of offbeats.

Sebastian

I'll be submitting a different one and leaving this on the back burner, but I still plan on getting this done soon.



Brassman388

A couple couple more things.

The intro has opportunities where you can put accents on the ends of that 16th note figure. Yes, they're electronic effects, but I think sudden sfz could do the trick. Break up some of the monotony, yo.

Also, there are sections that could benefit from adding repeats, and since the only texture that's changing most of the time in the recording is percussion, I don't see why you wouldn't want to add repeats, then have a text note about how the texture changes during the last time. Could be simpler, in my opinion.

Lastly, the chords that play beneath the 16th note runs isn't obvious that the left hand plays those notes. Maybe a performance direction is needed, or throw them on the top layer of the bottom staff. Both could work.

M. 106 - 169; I find this happening throughout the whole piece, but very much so in this section. It would be a good idea to condense this into a 2/4 section. Why? Because those syncopations get lost in the measure. Barlines could help fix that. Yes, measure number increase, but it's a reasonable compromise if I didn't have to sit and calculate where the beat lands every 8th of a measure.

Not a bad attempt, but I feel like this is one of those pieces that I don't think works well overall as a piano arrangement.