[SNES] Illusion of Gaia - "Final Battle" (Replacement) by Nine Lives

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Other
Game: Illusion of Gaia
Console: Super Nintendo Entertainment System
Title: Final Battle
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Nine Lives


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

[NineLives]

I'm using a different title from the source above as well as the title on-site. I've seen both used, but I saw "Threat of Dark Gaia" first, so I stuck with it.

[Kricketune54]

Track name seems fine. I see it listed in multiple places


• I think release date should be 1993 seems like that was the initial Japanese date. And Enix as publisher, originally at least.
• Looks like you forgot to include a visible tempo marking. Should be dotted quarter = 156
• Generally when time signature is 12/8 you combine two dotted quarters on the same side of the beat into a dotted half rest (numerous instances throughout this sheet)
• m9 and m18-20 RH playing these two octaves for the full measures is very difficult, maybe only do two octaves for the first two full beats and then do the bottom or top notes interchangeably?
• m22-49 you almost could cut this entire section's measure count in half by just having m22 to m33 repeat. Yeah, m34 the E comes in earlier than m22 tho... alas
   • m33-34 and m48-49 RH the tie that carries between these measures should be flipped up.
• m58-65 is quite tight in the RH visually- I would play around with how this looks, or maybe just change to three measures per system. Yeah, that would wreck the nice flow of this page, but it does look quite messy currently. Maybe start by using the note mover tool, but that could be a lot of small movements.
• m75 and 83 LH specifically beat 4.33 this is two 8th's
• m79-82 beat 4 LH the quarter and 8th combo becomes 3 8th's here.
• m86 LH beat 3-4 you could make this a tremolo between F's, maybe lower both octaves down one tho?
• m87-101 LH I believe I'm hearing pitches in between the current two, ex. m87 Bn, m89 C#
   • I also don't necessarily agree with the current pitch stacking as far as accuracy, did you move pitches around to better accompany the melody? Not sure if this is the best way currently if so, but wanted to first confirm if that was the thinking.
• m91-92 LH this would be better written as Bb-F (and with Dn in between), this is an instance where the accidental should match the chords and not necessarily an ascending motion of the previous pitches if that was what you were going for in the LH.

• pages 4-5 the top systems are a bit high relative to the page headers, you could move both of these systems down a little.

[NineLives]

Sheets have been updated and I'm gonna go over what Kricketune and I went over in a voice chat.

• m9 and m18-20 RH playing these two octaves for the full measures is very difficult, maybe only do two octaves for the first two full beats and then do the bottom or top notes interchangeably?
• m86 LH beat 3-4 you could make this a tremolo between F's, maybe lower both octaves down one tho?

I find that the octaves for m9 and others are necessary to keep the intensity and I don't believe they're as hard to keep up with given practice, since most of it is just going up a scale.
For the rolling of the F's, I think it'd be too difficult to roll them and then jump to the chords in the next measure, especially if the F's themselves are moved down an octave.

• I also don't necessarily agree with the current pitch stacking as far as accuracy, did you move pitches around to better accompany the melody? Not sure if this is the best way currently if so, but wanted to first confirm if that was the thinking.

It's been a while since I arranged this piece, but I do believe that was the intent. Yes.

[Kricketune54]

m18-20 Coming back to this after a bit, I'm iffy on the octaves still - they are very difficult to get just one full run in, but going from end of m18 to beginning of m19 is not really possible. Sorry to kind of revert on that a while down the road and feel free to seek a second opinion, but I just don't think this works practically. I know it ends up sounding a little lamer, but I think just swapping back and forth between octaves in the RH is the ideal way to do this section from a playability standpoint.

• m66-69 RH for variation, you could replace current RH part with the part that plays same notes as the LH but up two octaves from that part.
• m102 maybe you could put a low E on beat 1 or an E. I'm going to go back on my comment about 87-101, but I feel like m101 to 102 is much more dramatic in the original than it is currently, going from a G major chord to E major and sounding all sinister. Maybe also add a pedal mark here as well to sustain the E. Something like this?

Spoiler

[close]

Think that's all I have to say though

[NineLives]

m18-20 Coming back to this after a bit, I'm iffy on the octaves still - they are very difficult to get just one full run in, but going from end of m18 to beginning of m19 is not really possible. Sorry to kind of revert on that a while down the road and feel free to seek a second opinion, but I just don't think this works practically. I know it ends up sounding a little lamer, but I think just swapping back and forth between octaves in the RH is the ideal way to do this section from a playability standpoint.

If I had to change how it is written, I'd rather have it so the left hand plays the right hand's phrase as well. Switching between octaves just sounds awkward.

• m66-69 RH for variation, you could replace current RH part with the part that plays same notes as the LH but up two octaves from that part.

I prefer how the section is currently. I think for measures 50 through 57 it works out because it's a good starting point, but for 66 through 69 it feels like it's taking a step back when it should be building up towards the end of the section.

• m102 maybe you could put a low E on beat 1 or an E. I'm going to go back on my comment about 87-101, but I feel like m101 to 102 is much more dramatic in the original than it is currently, going from a G major chord to E major and sounding all sinister. Maybe also add a pedal mark here as well to sustain the E. Something like this?

Spoiler

[close]

I decided to make the whole section from measure 86 to 104 have pedaling, which makes it easier to play the right hand in addition to making it possible to play the octaves from the source that wouldn't be possible otherwise.

[Kricketune54]

If I had to change how it is written, I'd rather have it so the left hand plays the right hand's phrase as well. Switching between octaves just sounds awkward.I prefer how the section is currently. I think for measures 50 through 57 it works out because it's a good starting point, but for 66 through 69 it feels like it's taking a step back when it should be building up towards the end of the section.I decided to make the whole section from measure 86 to 104 have pedaling, which makes it easier to play the right hand in addition to making it possible to play the octaves from the source that wouldn't be possible otherwise.

Fine with decisions above,approving

[XiaoMigros]

Sorry for the wait on this one!

• I feel like this arrangement lacks the intensity of the original in some places. I think to combat this you could try to include more of the timpani, especially in places where there's not much going on in the bass otherwise.
• Places like m5 beat 4 and 7 RH, or m30 beat 2 RH, are difficult to restrike the duplicated notes at this tempo. I'd recommend omitting them, since they're played shortly before/after anyway the difference in sound is negligible.
• m32 & 48 beat 7 RH should have its stem pointing upwards
• m50: Thoughts on perhaps changing the time signature here? The current groupings make this part more difficult to read.
• 53 beat 11 RH and similar: The Abs should be G#s here, they form an E major chord with the B and E.
• m66: You could have the LH play in octaves here, to capture the extra brass instrument that comes in

[NineLives]

I've gotten all the simple stuff out of the way, I believe. Correct me if I missed something.

• I feel like this arrangement lacks the intensity of the original in some places. I think to combat this you could try to include more of the timpani, especially in places where there's not much going on in the bass otherwise.

I'd agree that the first few measures felt somewhat empty, so I tried implementing the rhythm of the timpani to the left hand a little. I still wanted the notes held to an extent.
Beyond the introductory measures, I'm personally pretty happy with how they are currently. I believe measures 22 through 29 and similar make a good contrast to the more busy rhythms that follow and measures 70 through 86 benefit from the less busy left hand because it makes the accented strikes sound more powerful.

• m50: Thoughts on perhaps changing the time signature here? The current groupings make this part more difficult to read.

I think it wouldn't be necessary, given it has the same rhythm mixed in with the triplets that jump in on measure 58. Not to mention the timpani plays a similar rhythm in the earlier measures, including the introductory section I mentioned earlier. I feel if we really wanted to change the time signature, I'd have to change it for the entire piece.

[XiaoMigros]

I believe measures 22 through 29 and similar make a good contrast to the more busy rhythms that follow and measures 70 through 86 benefit from the less busy left hand because it makes the accented strikes sound more powerful.

I think the few measures following m78 could benefit from it- the timpani is the only instrument here in the LH except for the brass hits, adding it would help make it stand out from m70-77.

That's all from me though, the rest of the changes look great as is

[NineLives]

I think the few measures following m78 could benefit from it- the timpani is the only instrument here in the LH except for the brass hits, adding it would help make it stand out from m70-77.

While I agree it'd make it stand out, I can't find a way to write it that'd make it sound good when mixed with what's already written. I've tried using the actual notes the timpani plays and I've tried doing what I did for the introductory measures with the one note being played to the timpani's rhythm. Nothing is agreeing with me on that front.
As an alternative, I thought of doing something similar to what we did in measures 66 through 69 and turning the lone bass notes into octaves. That way it still stands out to a degree. I've updated the sheet with that in mind.

[XiaoMigros]

Hmm, I still feel like this sheet lacks the intense energy of the original due to the omission of the timpani. But, since I haven't got anything else to add, the sheet can be accepted as it stands

[Zeta]

This submission has been accepted by XiaoMigros.

~Zeta, your friendly NSM-Bot