[GB] Kirby's Star Stacker - "Opening & Title Screen" by LeviR.star

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Kirby
Game: Kirby's Star Stacker
Console: Game Boy
Title: Opening & Title Screen
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: LeviR.star

[attachment deleted by admin]

[attachment deleted by admin]

[LeviR.star]

This is a re-write of a really old sheet of mine, and I'm happy to report that it's the last of its kind to be brought up to standard. As you can see, I've merged it with my new arrangement of the title theme, because while they deserve separate distinctions, many uploaders consider them to be one single track; since I can fit them both onto one page, why not?

I believe notating "Opening" with cross-stave beams was the most reasonable direction, but if there's a better way to write it out, I'm all ears. "Title Screen" is a bit tricky in certain places to transcribe, so I will provide isolated, pitch-shifted tracks for anyone who would like them.

[Bloop]

The cross-stave beaming is fine in the opening! The opening looks fine as is too, maybe you could add staccato dots or a staccato marking to all notes since they seem to be pretty pointy with a reverb effect.

About Title Screen:
-m1: Maybe it's more noticeable in the isolated tracks, but I don't really hear the G at the start of the R.H. run up to m2.
-m3: I don't hear a difference in the articulation of the R.H. in beat 1.5 and 2.25, I'll leave it up to you if you wanna add as slur to beat 1.5 or remove the one on 2.25 ^^
-m5 and 6: I do hear a difference between articulation between beat 1 and 1.5 though, maybe beat 1.5 could have a tenuto marking?
Though, in m5, since the top F on beat 1.5 is part of a little descending line that would be to hard to play at speed, you could do something like this:
You cannot view this attachment.

That's all though, nice sheet ^^

[LeviR.star]

maybe you could add staccato dots or a staccato marking to all notes since they seem to be pretty pointy with a reverb effect.

Hmmm, I'm not sure about this one. Having staccatos on every note would make the ones I already have marked kinda meaningless, plus the notes are so fast that I doubt trying to play them separated would make any audible difference.

-m1: Maybe it's more noticeable in the isolated tracks, but I don't really hear the G at the start of the R.H. run up to m2.
-m3: I don't hear a difference in the articulation of the R.H. in beat 1.5 and 2.25, I'll leave it up to you if you wanna add as slur to beat 1.5 or remove the one on 2.25 ^^
-m5 and 6: I do hear a difference between articulation between beat 1 and 1.5 though, maybe beat 1.5 could have a tenuto marking?
Though, in m5, since the top F on beat 1.5 is part of a little descending line that would be to hard to play at speed, you could do something like this:
You cannot view this attachment.

- oh, it's there, I double-checked Square 1 by itself and heard it. If you'd like me to provide the files so that you can verify it, I can
- I can add the slur
- yes, the tenutos will work fine, but I'm having trouble understanding how my version of m. 5 is more difficult to play than the example you provided. Could you please elaborate more on that?

Files are fixed for now. One question I thought of: would it be more proper to call this sheet "Opening, Title Screen" since one comes right after the other, or is "Opening & Title Screen" more in-line with the site's unwritten rules?

[Bloop]

Hmmm, I'm not sure about this one. Having staccatos on every note would make the ones I already have marked kinda meaningless, plus the notes are so fast that I doubt trying to play them separated would make any audible difference.

There is a little bit of difference between playing them legato and staccato to me, especially since they're spread between hands there's even more legato room than normal. Leaving it as is is fine too though ^^

- yes, the tenutos will work fine, but I'm having trouble understanding how my version of m. 5 is more difficult to play than the example you provided. Could you please elaborate more on that?

I hear this to be exact:
You cannot view this attachment.
But I suggested the 16th note version instead of the 16th triplet version because that would be more playable. I didn't mean that your version would be hard to play (it would be easier than my version haha), but I probably phrased it a bit weird :p

Files are fixed for now. One question I thought of: would it be more proper to call this sheet "Opening, Title Screen" since one comes right after the other, or is "Opening & Title Screen" more in-line with the site's unwritten rules?

I think the current & is fine, a quick search through the "Other" section seems to suggest that most people use & instead of ",[spacebar]" (unless there's more than two themes)

[LeviR.star]

There is a little bit of difference between playing them legato and staccato to me, especially since they're spread between hands there's even more legato room than normal. Leaving it as is is fine too though ^^

I've changed my mind, and decided that the staccato markings would be worth having. Added them in, thank you for the suggestion.

I hear this to be exact:
You cannot view this attachment.
But I suggested the 16th note version instead of the 16th triplet version because that would be more playable. I didn't mean that your version would be hard to play (it would be easier than my version haha), but I probably phrased it a bit weird :p

Okay, that makes more sense to me. Y'know, now that I actually listen to your suggested pattern from earlier, I like it better than what I had before. It's rhythmically closer to the actual transcription, and well, it just sounds much improved, what more can I say? I'll write it in.

I think the current & is fine, a quick search through the "Other" section seems to suggest that most people use & instead of ",[spacebar]" (unless there's more than two themes)

Understood, then I'll keep it as-is.

Files are updated. Thank you, Bloop.

[Bloop]

Great! Then I'll approve!
You cannot view this attachment.

[Kricketune54]

This seems pretty solid, but had a couple ideas about incorporating the harmony channel a little more, as there are a few places in the "Title Screen" portion where I feel the melody and it are intertwined enough to where I feel like I'm missing some stuff in this arrangement, and figured I'd suggest.

- m2 beat 2.5 current note, i hear in the other channel a Bb on beat 2.25, and another on beat 2.75. If you aren't fully on board, maybe could make the rest a 16 rest on beat 2.0, and add 2.25 Bb.
- Similarly on beat 4.5 of this measure I hear a Bb on 4.25 and 4.75 in the harmony channel, same thoughts as above.
   - Both of these points apply for m4 as well
   
- Endings RH you could add the following simplification on beat 3 (maybe add a p dynamic above the RH here?) since it is heard albeit a bit faintly (note also 2nd ending notes are 1 octave less than normal)

Spoiler

[close]

I did also notice at 0:16 in the video you linked, that m3 technically isn't being looped back to, as the ending of this measure at the time stamp is a bit different. I have no qualms with sheet staying with 6 measures for "Title Screen" as opposed to getting rid of separate endings and adding 4 more bars in order to properly convey the difference between m3 and a potential measure 7, but did want to get your thoughts.

[LeviR.star]

This seems pretty solid, but had a couple ideas about incorporating the harmony channel a little more, as there are a few places in the "Title Screen" portion where I feel the melody and it are intertwined enough to where I feel like I'm missing some stuff in this arrangement, and figured I'd suggest.

- m2 beat 2.5 current note, i hear in the other channel a Bb on beat 2.25, and another on beat 2.75. If you aren't fully on board, maybe could make the rest a 16 rest on beat 2.0, and add 2.25 Bb.
- Similarly on beat 4.5 of this measure I hear a Bb on 4.25 and 4.75 in the harmony channel, same thoughts as above.
   - Both of these points apply for m4 as well
   
- Endings RH you could add the following simplification on beat 3 (maybe add a p dynamic above the RH here?) since it is heard albeit a bit faintly (note also 2nd ending notes are 1 octave less than normal)

Spoiler

[close]

I did also notice at 0:16 in the video you linked, that m3 technically isn't being looped back to, as the ending of this measure at the time stamp is a bit different. I have no qualms with sheet staying with 6 measures for "Title Screen" as opposed to getting rid of separate endings and adding 4 more bars in order to properly convey the difference between m3 and a potential measure 7, but did want to get your thoughts.

Okay, I finally got the chance to sit down and read all of this thoroughly. Now, my thoughts...

If I'm understanding these points correctly, Kricketune, you're suggesting that I put more focus on integrating the second Square channel, and from my point of view, that's a completely valid perspective. That said, it's my personal opinion that the only times this line is really worth acknowledging during "Title Screen" is in m. 1, as well as m. 5 & 6 (which is why I have the separate endings marked). In my attempts to integrate more of that material into the texture, I felt like I was overcomplicating things, both in how it sounds and how it is to play (beat 3 of m. 5 in your pictured example is a very fast leap). Moving this material too close to the octave range of the melody line makes it sound like more of a central part of the music, and I don't want that, either, considering how soft the Square 2 channel actually sounds. I appreciate you taking the time to point out all the specific spots where this integration can be done, but to be honest, I prefer what I have at the moment. I hope you understand where I'm coming from.

[Kricketune54]

If I'm understanding these points correctly, Kricketune, you're suggesting that I put more focus on integrating the second Square channel, and from my point of view, that's a completely valid perspective. That said, it's my personal opinion that the only times this line is really worth acknowledging during "Title Screen" is in m. 1, as well as m. 5 & 6 (which is why I have the separate endings marked). In my attempts to integrate more of that material into the texture, I felt like I was overcomplicating things, both in how it sounds and how it is to play (beat 3 of m. 5 in your pictured example is a very fast leap). Moving this material too close to the octave range of the melody line makes it sound like more of a central part of the music, and I don't want that, either, considering how soft the Square 2 channel actually sounds. I appreciate you taking the time to point out all the specific spots where this integration can be done, but to be honest, I prefer what I have at the moment. I hope you understand where I'm coming from.

I appreciate you providing the harmony channel, channel separating is not something I typically bother with. Relistening again that channel is definitely not all that prominent except for maybe the first time through because the repeat section instrument switch is a bit louder... I suppose you could add a higher volume dynamic for the second time through but nbd.

I personally don't think beat 3 of my proposed m5 is that crazy, though beat 3.75 is a bit tough. I think there's a good amount of times where I have the urge to fill space if the melody drops out like on m5-6 beat 3, but your point about moving to the same octave range as the melody is good, and I have no problem accepting

[Zeta]

This submission has been accepted by Kricketune54.

~Zeta, your friendly NSM-Bot