[DELETED] [N64] Kirby 64: The Crystal Shards - "02 Battle" by Brawler4Ever

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Kirby
Game: Kirby 64: The Crystal Shards
Console: Nintendo 64
Title: 02 Battle
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Brawler4Ever

[Brawler4Ever]

I made the adjustments that Tobbeh and Dekkadeci suggested. It only took 2 years or so! xD

[joeberryosponge]

• You should fix any collisions with notes and other features. e.g. the mf in the first measure, octave lines clashing with notes, inconsistant ties near the end. etc.
• I think the 15ma should be changed to 8va. The line then wouldn't be more than three ledger lines. The transition looks a huge leap between measure 68 and 69.
• Check the stems of your notes. You have a lot of notes upstemed when they should be downstemed. Remember, anything higher than a B in treble clef should be down unless there are more than one voice.

[Brawler4Ever]

I fixed the collisions, ties, and the dynamics. 15ma changed to 8va. Stems updated.

I also updated the middle section. I'm not sure of the exact method that i should use, but I figured that a "crescendo poco a poco" was better than intermittent crescendos. The song decrescendos gradually immediately afterward. I put dynamic markings at each instance to give the player more guidance.

[InsigTurtle]

couple of comments, i haven't done a thorough run-through but it sounds like m.9 should have the Am chord while m.11 has the C chord, and it's pretty hard to get the intensity at the climax from just single notes played loudly like that, so you might consider integrating some tricks to make the sound richer there like doubling or adding some pedal

[Khunjund]

I understand wanting to change the bass line a little to make it more interesting, but I think you've changed it a little too much. This is what I hear:

Spoiler

[close]

The bass note is always A, and the second chord has no B—it's C/A, not G or G/A.

I'm pretty sure it's like this through the entire piece. If you want to make variations, I recommend you at least keep the chord structures as well as the A pedal.

The bottom right hand voice in measure 13 should be C, and the middle voice in measure 14 should be F—the top line going from B to A is the only change I hear.

I hear the chord in measure 15 as D-F-B.

You could add the second voice starting from measure 25 (with a bit of octaviation), to to make it so its appearance coincides with the start of the second phrase, like this:

Spoiler

[close]

I was curious, however: you wrote this section using two layers, but inverting the stems so as to make them merge together; do you want the layers to be viewed as separate lines or not? If so, you should invert the stems to keep both lines distinct. If not, then I believe you should write them within a single layer.

Your dynamic changes (the "crescendo poco a poco" in measure 49, the "decrescendo poco a poco" in measure 65, and the hairpin in measures 85–88—which you should consider replacing by a written "diminuendo" in measure 85, since hairpins are generally not used for dynamics changes spanning more than two measures) should be between the two staves rather than above the top one.

Is the second layer in measures 45–48 supposed to follow the bell line? If so, the note heights are wrong: the bells play F>F>E>F>D>F>B>B over those four measures.

Measures 65–72, the notes are played in thirds, and I hear equal rythms at the start, with the quarter-eighth rythm only coming up near the end, somewhat like this:

Spoiler

[close]

In measures 73–81, the note lengths are correct, but they're a bit out of sync; notice the harmony changes halfway through the Ds, not when the line goes back up to E, like so:

Spoiler

[close]

Likewise, the second layer line in measure 79 comes a bit too early, and I hear it going faster than regular eighth notes (though definitely not as fast as straight sixteenths); maybe something like this:

Spoiler

[close]

Naturally, I recommend leaving out the last group of sixteenth notes in favour of the melody.

This brings me to my next point: you might want to write this entire piece in 4/4 or 2/2 time signature. That might sound counter-intuitive considering rythm section, but it's not unheard of for a piece to feature triplets throughout and still be written with a binary time signature—Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata being the most famous example. This would also explain the duplets in measures 65–70, as well as the quadruplets in measures 79–80, and measures 72–81 in general would look a lot cleaner. See for yourself:

Spoiler

[close]

This is all up to you, however.

Finally, I suggest you use another disposition for the final chord. I recommend a full chord instead of a powerchord, since I haven't heard a chord where the third was omitted throughout the piece, but in any case, it should be in root position, so as to sound final. Currently, you end on a second inversion omit 3 chord, which frankly sounds out of place in the harmonic context of the piece.

[Brawler4Ever]

Thanks for the advice. I'll get to this probably over the summer.

[Libera]

Thanks for letting us know, I'll archive this thread for now then.  You can refer back to it in the summer when you're ready to make edits.