[DELETED] [GCN] Kirby Air Ride - "Sky Sands" (Replacement) by Brassman388

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Kirby
Game: Kirby Air Ride
Console: Nintendo GameCube
Title: Sky Sands
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Brassman388


Replacement Information:
Links to Existing Sheet: MUS | MIDI | PDF
Replacement Type: Challenge (new arranger)

[Brassman388]

Tear me up.

[LeviR.star]

Minor typo I saw on the .pdf: says "Airride" instead of "Air Ride"

[Latios212]

Does my sheet warrant being replaced? (Open question)

[LeviR.star]

I was going to question this. While Latios did make a fine replacement a few months back, Brassman has seemed to make some improvements. Regardless, should this be labeled as entirely re-arranged, even though Brassman didn't use Latios' version for reference?

[Latios212]

I don't mean to bash Brassman's sheet or anything, it's great, but "improvements" is subjective. We just seem to have made different arrangement choices.

[Olimar12345]

I don't think yours needs replacing, remembering having just worked on it with you, but I haven't reviewed Brassman's yet.

[Sebastian]

Regardless, should this be labeled as entirely re-arranged, even though Brassman didn't use Latios' version for reference?

Why would it be labeled any differently if he arranged it from scratch?

[LeviR.star]

I don't mean to bash Brassman's sheet or anything, it's great, but "improvements" is subjective. We just seem to have made different arrangement choices.

Sorry; "improvements" wasn't quite the term I was looking for. Just some creative differences, it seems. Nothing wrong with either sheet.

Why would it be labeled any differently if he arranged it from scratch?

Well, there was this, for example.

[Brassman388]

Okay, so there's a couple of moving parts to this.

Firstly, this was mainly a test to see how the whole idea of a "replacement" would go with you guys. In the past, there wasn't much delegation as to what warranted a reasonable replacement. From what I remember, anyone could just submit a replacement and it would get put on the site. Maybe my memory betrays me, but nonetheless the past is the past.

Secondly, I didn't think Latios' arrangement needed replacing either. This song has been in the works ever since I submitted my other kirby songs. That's why it looks the way it does and such. I just wanted it to see the site at least once since its creation so yeah.

Thirdly, I take no ill will towards its rejection to the site. It is stylistically different, and that's it. It's not better or worse than Latios' arrangement. And I didn't upload it as a thing against him or the site for what it's worth. I just wanted you guys to see what my version of this song had to offer or something, and maybe as a bonus it got accepted? I don't know.

Do what you will with this info.

[Latios212]

We tend to not remove something from the site if there isn't anything wrong with it, though challenge replacements for good sheets come very rarely so it isn't something we deal with a lot.

However situations like this can arise where someone else makes a sheet that's different but also perfectly valid. It doesn't seem totally fair to reject a submission based on the premise of "we already have a sheet of this" IF (and this is a big if) it brings something new to the table. We've had some on and off discussion amongst the staff regarding hosting multiple arrangements of the same song on site, and it seems like a good proposal to me, but there are a few kinks that need to be worked out that worry me a bit. (I can elaborate later if you want.)

(As for this actual sheet, I haven't had the time to do anything more than take a quick glance but I'd be down to discuss differences and arrangement decisions when I get a chance!)

Those are my thoughts, anyway.

[Sebastian]

Well, there was this, for example.

That sheet wasn't arranged from scratch, which is why it was later changed. It doesn't matter how different the sheet being replaced is to the sheet replacing it. Challenge replacement only means it was arranged from scratch (aka the file being replaced wasn't used in the making). It doesn't have anything to do with how different the sheet is.

It doesn't seem totally fair to reject a submission based on the premise of "we already have a sheet of this" IF (and this is a big if) it brings something new to the table. We've had some on and off discussion amongst the staff regarding hosting multiple arrangements of the same song on site, and it seems like a good proposal to me, but there are a few kinks that need to be worked out that worry me a bit. (I can elaborate later if you want.)

I, for one, would be willing to give this a shot. I would be happy to help work out any kinks to turn this into a thing.

[The Deku Trombonist]

This sheet predates Lat's by a few years so there's no question about it being arranged from scratch.

[Brassman388]

Thanks, Deku.