[SWITCH] Super Mario Odyssey - "Forgotten Isle" by Sebastian

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Super Mario
Game: Super Mario Odyssey
Console: Nintendo Switch
Title: Forgotten Isle
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Sebastian

[attachment deleted by admin]

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Sebastian]

[LeviR.star]

Ohh man, I remember trying to figure out the time signature while playing this game. I'm lovin' this sheet, Seb! (I tend to enjoy seeing obscure time sigs for some reason). Great work!

[Sebastian]

Whew...thanks! Yeah, it's a rather difficult sheet (hence the performance notes), but not impossible. Glad you like it.

[Latios212]

This is a really interesting song and arrangement! Some general comments to start:
- 16th note = 380 seems a bit too fast to be useful. Perhaps write the tempo marking in quarter, dotted eighth, eighth, or some combination of those? I arranged a song with a weird additive time signature myself and ended up with this for myself: [sheet]. I think since you'd likely count the rhythm in some combination of the longer note durations (like quarters, with the middle of each measure cur short), it'd be better to write out the tempo marking using those.
- Also regarding the rhythms, I think you did a great job making them readable as 4+3+4. Looks odd, but logical. Though, was m. 25 and 30 (lower layer, RH) an oversight?
- It'd probably be better to put the performance note more conspicuously on the first page so anyone looking to play the sheet will see it immediately. Given that, I don't feel like many of the cross-staffing is necessary, as it's pretty easy to interpret what will be taken by what hand.

Now, here are my thoughts on the arrangement.

I don't mean to suggest that you rewrite the whole thing, but have you considered writing the ostinato in the left hand and melody in the right, or some other convolution of one hand playing just the melody and one hand playing just the ostinato? It's just a thought.

Spoiler

You cannot view this attachment.

[close]

A few concerns I have about the way you have it written out right now:
The song is mostly rhythm-centric without a bass part to really anchor everything together. Your left hand low B flats do that somewhat, but I'm not sure how much they really contribute to outweigh the difficulty they impose on the sheet. There are some very awkward figures to play with the right hand, particularly the first beat of m. 31 and similar places. Besides just hitting the notes, the melody gets shortchanged in some places where the player is forced to keep the voices above and below - for instance, the beginning of the lower layer in m. 16 will sound staccato being played by the thumb only, and there are many instances where you can't hold a note nearly as long as the sheet has it written, like m. 8-10 (pedaling here would mess with the staccato bass). In that regard, I don't feel this is a lossless arrangement because given the way it's written, the articulation of the melody will often be sacrificed for the sake of keeping the other layers intact. I'm not sure how good of an idea that would be in practice since the melody seems to be the focus of the sheet given that the other parts don't change (until page 3). Perhaps consider moving the left hand up an octave to make it easier for the left hand to grab some of the middle layer's notes?

[Sebastian]

Thanks for the feedback! I appreciate how much thought you put into each arrangement you review.

- 16th note = 380 seems a bit too fast to be useful. Perhaps write the tempo marking in quarter, dotted eighth, eighth, or some combination of those? I arranged a song with a weird additive time signature myself and ended up with this for myself: [sheet]. I think since you'd likely count the rhythm in some combination of the longer note durations (like quarters, with the middle of each measure cur short), it'd be better to write out the tempo marking using those.

I modeled the bpm marking for my song after this song:
http://www.ninsheetmusic.org/download/pdf/1452

The bpm should match what the song's time signature is. For example, a 4/4 / 5/4 / 3/4, etc. song would have a quarter note. 12/8, 6/8, etc. would be a dotted quarter note (some instances where it'd be a dotted half or an eighth). Those are chosen because of the beats in the song. They can also be subdivided in the measure (for example, 4/4 is four quarters in the measure, etc.) and sometimes is determined by the speed of the song.
You wouldn't write a 11/16 (or any #/16 song) in quarter notes because the measure can't be divided into quarter notes.
It can't be divided into eighth notes, either.

Concerning this song, there aren't any discernible beats (outside of sixteenths).
The first two eighth notes and the last two eighth notes are accented (according to the drums and percussion). Like this:
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 4

I mean, I guess I could put "eighth note = 190" or "quarter note = 95," but if someone set their metronome to that they'd have a hard time following it since there aren't a divisible amount of quarter or eighth notes in that measure (since there are 5.5 eighths in a measure and 2.75 quarter notes in a measure).
The best option (outside of keeping it as is) would be putting "16th = 380 (eighth = 190)."

- Also regarding the rhythms, I think you did a great job making them readable as 4+3+4. Looks odd, but logical. Though, was m. 25 and 30 (lower layer, RH) an oversight?

I believe I beamed those differently to match the previous two notes, but it's probably easier to just beam those two measures like everything else. I'll adjust those.

- It'd probably be better to put the performance note more conspicuously on the first page so anyone looking to play the sheet will see it immediately. Given that, I don't feel like many of the cross-staffing is necessary, as it's pretty easy to interpret what will be taken by what hand.

The cross-staffing lines are a fail-safe for performers that may not know exactly what's going on or what to do. The simile was added to a spot that the performer would most likely get the point of what to do then on.
Also, performer's notes are traditionally put at the end of a piece. Surely any performer will look at the sheet before/while printing it or before playing the sheet after sitting down at the piano.

I don't mean to suggest that you rewrite the whole thing, but have you considered writing the ostinato in the left hand and melody in the right, or some other convolution of one hand playing just the melody and one hand playing just the ostinato? It's just a thought.

Spoiler

You cannot view this attachment.

[close]

Considered? Yes. Reasons for not doing so:

1. The main reason is that it makes the counting much more difficult. The purpose of the left hand is to ground the arrangement in the counting. It's like a sandwhich:
Two eighths = bread - dotted eighth = filling - two eighths = bread.
The LH reinforces this by having the two eighths played and the last two eighths foot stomped. I originally had notes on the last two eighths, as well, but that was too difficult for the performer to reasonably play.

2. Some performers would like a more challenging/fuller version. With just those two voices, the arrangement sounds somewhat dull. It needs some more oomph, and I believe the bass notes give it that. I agree that too easy isn't really ever an issue, but I think some arrangers wouldn't find this difficult to learn (like myself).

3. I gave the option (I guess I need to make it clearer) for the performer to omit the LH, if necessary.

Solution:
Either,
1. Add a more pointed performer's note informing that the performer can leave out the LH entirely...
or
2. Add another 2-3 pages of just the two voices split into two staffs (I guess you could call it an "ossia sheet"). xD


EDIT: As for M. 31, I forgot to make it like M. 18 (put parentheses).

[Sebastian]

Updated the performer's note to give more clarity and edited M. 31 to match M. 17.

[Latios212]

Yes, I'm aware that 11 is prime and can't be evenly subdivided into an equal number of smaller beats. My point was, just as you don't set a metronome to eighth/sixteenth notes in 4/4, there is a rhythm grouping of smaller beats present here that makes it easier to count - as you've noted, 4+3+4. Just as you'd count quarters in 4/4, you'd count the 4+3+4 rhythm as opposed to every sixteenth note. So my suggestion was intended to highlight how fast these beats you count are - to allow the performer to get a feel for how fast the song is going without listening at 380 BPM, if that makes sense. The rhythm here is like a staggered 3/4 with the middle note abbreviated - and that's why I thought it would be helpful for the performer to see how long a quarter note lasts to better estimate how quickly the song is moving.

However, that said, playing to an electronic metronome ticking away at 380 BPM doesn't feel as unnatural as I originally thought, and it is indeed the only way you can actually play to a metronome. So yeah, just wanted to offer those thoughts - you can go ahead and leave it.


The rest of your comments look good - thanks for explaining your arrangement choices to me. However, did you get a chance to take a look at the potential issues I raised?

A few concerns I have about the way you have it written out right now:
The song is mostly rhythm-centric without a bass part to really anchor everything together. Your left hand low B flats do that somewhat, but I'm not sure how much they really contribute to outweigh the difficulty they impose on the sheet. There are some very awkward figures to play with the right hand, particularly the first beat of m. 31 and similar places. Besides just hitting the notes, the melody gets shortchanged in some places where the player is forced to keep the voices above and below - for instance, the beginning of the lower layer in m. 16 will sound staccato being played by the thumb only, and there are many instances where you can't hold a note nearly as long as the sheet has it written, like m. 8-10 (pedaling here would mess with the staccato bass). In that regard, I don't feel this is a lossless arrangement because given the way it's written, the articulation of the melody will often be sacrificed for the sake of keeping the other layers intact. I'm not sure how good of an idea that would be in practice since the melody seems to be the focus of the sheet given that the other parts don't change (until page 3). Perhaps consider moving the left hand up an octave to make it easier for the left hand to grab some of the middle layer's notes?

[Sebastian]

The rest of your comments look good - thanks for explaining your arrangement choices to me. However, did you get a chance to take a look at the potential issues I raised?

I believe I covered all those already.

A few concerns I have about the way you have it written out right now:
The song is mostly rhythm-centric without a bass part to really anchor everything together. Your left hand low B flats do that somewhat, but I'm not sure how much they really contribute to outweigh the difficulty they impose on the sheet.

The purpose of the left hand is to ground the arrangement in the counting. It's like a sandwhich:
Two eighths = bread - dotted eighth = filling - two eighths = bread.
The LH reinforces this by having the two eighths played and the last two eighths foot stomped. I originally had notes on the last two eighths, as well, but that was too difficult for the performer to reasonably play.

There are some very awkward figures to play with the right hand, particularly the first beat of m. 31 and similar places.

edited M. 31 to match M. 17.

Besides just hitting the notes, the melody gets shortchanged in some places where the player is forced to keep the voices above and below - for instance, the beginning of the lower layer in m. 16 will sound staccato being played by the thumb only, and there are many instances where you can't hold a note nearly as long as the sheet has it written

Didn't respond to this yet. For me anyway, I slide my thumb so that it sounds like normal 16ths. Besides that, it's fine sounding staccato. The notes are relatively short already, so it's okay if it sounds staccatoed.

As for certain notes being held as long as they're written, the performer can switch fingers mid-note (that's what I usually try to do before using the pedal). I don't believe a performance note is needed for that since that's recommended/traditional practice. If all else fails, the note won't be held for the intended length which is fine. I'd prefer to keep it in for accuracy's sake.

In that regard, I don't feel this is a lossless arrangement because given the way it's written, the articulation of the melody will often be sacrificed for the sake of keeping the other layers intact. I'm not sure how good of an idea that would be in practice since the melody seems to be the focus of the sheet given that the other parts don't change (until page 3). Perhaps consider moving the left hand up an octave to make it easier for the left hand to grab some of the middle layer's notes?

The LH is only played for the first four brief beats (4/11 of each measure). Moving the LH up would accomplish nothing since the LH has plenty of time to jump up and play those notes.

Also, with the new performer's note, this should be fine. If someone doesn't want to go to the trouble of playing both staves, they can omit the bottom staff. The bottom staff will still be useful even when it's not being played because it will be a visual aid when it comes to counting. The first and last two eighths are visible in every measure. Also, if it helps, the performer can stomp the first two notes, as well, instead of playing them as physical notes.

[nacho2420]

Just one thing I noticed

Meas 49 in the LH, how about adding a dotted 8th rest and then a quarter rest to imply the 4+3+4 feel?

[Olimar12345]

Some notes:
-In your performance notes, you refer to separate lines as "layer 1," "second layer," etc. I would avoid using finale terminology in this manner, because people who don't use finale won't know what you're talking about. Instead just say something like the "upper/lower layer" etc.
-Maybe reword your notes to not use "less advanced" and "more advanced" players. Try to label the music and not the performer.
-D.C. makes more sense here, especially with three pages.
-For the percussion, you have two problems, but they're kind of the same problem. First, you use the same notation (x note head on top of the bass clef staff) for two different sounds (foot stomp and knee slap). The second is their orientation: you've got a low sound, the foot stomp, and a high sound, the "knee slap" also appearing as the same pitch. It would be more approachable to mimic a drum set's notation for these things, likening the foot stomp to a bass drum (first space) and the knee slap to the snare (third space). Doing this would solve both problems, making each distinct sound look different and appear in the appropriate register (highs and lows).

[Sebastian]

Great suggestions. Updated.

[Latios212]

Just one thing I noticed

Meas 49 in the LH, how about adding a dotted 8th rest and then a quarter rest to imply the 4+3+4 feel?

- Also regarding the rhythms, I think you did a great job making them readable as 4+3+4. Looks odd, but logical. Though, was m. 25 and 30 (lower layer, RH) an oversight?

These things still need to be addressed. Also, checked notes, and I don't hear the second-to-last D in m. 34. You've also got a couple of low-hanging 16th rests in m. 43 and 45 (the middle one in the LH) - are they not center staff to be vertically aligned with the following notes or was this an oversight? Other than that, I believe I've said enough about this one, sorry again for raising so many questions. :3

[Sebastian]

These things still need to be addressed. Also, checked notes, and I don't hear the second-to-last D in m. 34.

Fixed all these. I got caught up in fixing Olimar's that I glossed over the others.
As for the Ds, I added that extra one in because it sounded weird without it...but I'll just remove it since I don't think it's in the original. Removed.

You've also got a couple of low-hanging 16th rests in m. 43 and 45 (the middle one in the LH) - are they not center staff to be vertically aligned with the following notes or was this an oversight? Other than that, I believe I've said enough about this one, sorry again for raising so many questions. :3

Most (if not all) of the time I don't have oversights. I don't mean that to sound proud, but rather as a testimony of my thoroughness in arranging and dedication to accurate and performance-worthy engraving and note-placing, which is why I appreciate your sheet checking thoroughness.

But yeah. You're correct about my reasoning for the rests.

Sheet updated. Thanks for the feedback, everyone!

[Latios212]

Haha please don't take my critique as questioning your arranging ability, everyone makes mistakes and I was just making sure that spot wasn't one of them ^^

(Did you replace all the files? The .musx is updated but the PDF is still the old version, haven't checked the mid/mus)