[GB] The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening - "Tal Tal Heights" (Replacement) by Tobbeh99

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: The Legend of Zelda
Game: The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening
Console: Game Boy
Title: Tal Tal Heights
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Tobbeh99


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

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Tobbeh99]

Bespinben's arrangement is well... cool and all, but crazy hard and a lot of improvisation in the arrangement.

[cashwarrior1]

You mean to tell me that it's not supposed to be cool and crazy with tons of improvisation?!? :O

[Latios212]

Welcome back! Good to see you working on sheets still.

Looks like a pretty solid transcription, mostly have two concerns.
- The intro - at this tempo playing those dyads I feel is sort of pushing the limit of what can be executed nicely. Ben's sheet indicates using two hands for the first few bars and then changing it up in the next four so the right hand isn't stuck hammering away at those dyads. I also recently came across this really nice cover of Tal Tal Heights that uses a different technique to make it more manageable. You don't have to change your sheet to match one of these of course. I'd probably be alright with you leaving it as is, but it's definitely worth thinking about. (Also I'd recommend having staccatos on the eighth notes.)
- The spacing - the continuous 16th notes get very cramped particularly when there are accidentals/key changes, and you have a lot of unused space on the third page. I played around with it a bit and ended up with this, see if you like: https://www.dropbox.com/s/mbesde1t1x2t8mt/Tal%20Tal%20Heights.musx?dl=1

[Tobbeh99]

Hmm I thought about your idea. And I liked my version because of the hypermeasure with 4 bars. But then I agreed with you that it looked very tight. So I took your version. But I slightly edited it. Having 4 bars at page 4 so that part D starts on the first bar in the hypermeasure (having the same measure spacing as part B (since they are the same, just different keys)). Although I do get a sort of awkward bar at the E section with only 2 bars. But ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I think this is still the best (and moving one up is not that good I think, since you'd like the 2 last rows to have 4 measures each, and also because of the key change).

And fixed you play-ability issue with parenthesis. (Maybe could do some ossia version to make it look better, with fewer parenthesis, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, it's ok). I do recall myself playing those galloping notes at a pretty high tempo (when I've played this) don't know if it was this high or lower. But I do believe it's possible. But still, this is a good change.

Also not sure about those arpeggiated chord things. But ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, best I could I think. People could just octave up the lower note or something (on their own) if they feel like it.

Edit: Tried it with a metronome at 145 (I don't know if the actual tempo is like 143 (as that's what I have as the tempo in the score, but the sign says 145 because it's rounded up)), and well... it was really tough, and I think I've played it at a slightly lower tempo, like 140 or somewhat below that I think. But I do think it's possible, you've just got to have very relaxed arms and a very flexible wrist, I think.

Also noticed that at measures 15-16 that the bass plays Bb-D-Bb-D, C-E-C-E, D-F#-D-F#. But that's just way to hard jumping up an octave and a 3rd at this tempo, plus playing it well (I tried and it sound a bit choppy, like not that legato-ish which you'd want). So that leaves me with an option of going with the one I have, or version 2: playing Bb-Bb-F-Bb (fifths from Bb to C to D). Both has their advantages and disadvantages. The problem with the first is that it's sort of wrong bassline, as the base goes Bb-C-D (and the D is probably the most important there, as it's the root of the dominant chord, so with the fifth as the the bass it feels less powerful and more soft sort of). But the second has it's disadvantages as the higher voices line (that plays C-A-C (m.14) then D-Bb-D, E-C-E (m.15), F#-D-F# (m.16) breaks at measures 15, with the fifths-line. And it also sound a bit open an to neutral with all the fifths, unlike the first version which have 3rds. Especially at the last chord, which just becomes a D5 chord rather than a D-major chord.
I could also do the original, but that's sort of complicated and hard, lol. Which is just unnecessary. I could also do some mix line with the first version at measure 15, but then the original at measure 16 (D-F#-D-F#). Yet again hard, you do get a low D, which is the advantage at that version but, also the bass is different and not ascending stepwise, the whole way. I think the one I got is the best tbh (as the ascending line with 3rds seem pretty important).

Version 1

[close]

Version 2

[close]

Version 3

[close]

Also I don't know if there's some low drone G (or something) at the first 8 measures, or just low noice. Although I think it's unnecessary to include it. 

[Tobbeh99]

bump.

[Latios212]

And fixed you play-ability issue with parenthesis. (Maybe could do some ossia version to make it look better, with fewer parenthesis, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, it's ok). I do recall myself playing those galloping notes at a pretty high tempo (when I've played this) don't know if it was this high or lower. But I do believe it's possible. But still, this is a good change.

Edit: Tried it with a metronome at 145 (I don't know if the actual tempo is like 143 (as that's what I have as the tempo in the score, but the sign says 145 because it's rounded up)), and well... it was really tough, and I think I've played it at a slightly lower tempo, like 140 or somewhat below that I think. But I do think it's possible, you've just got to have very relaxed arms and a very flexible wrist, I think.

Hmm, I don't really think the parentheses really clear anything up, though. It just makes it more confusing what the intended execution is. If you think it's fine to play with one hand then I think you can leave it as it was. Mostly just wanted to mention it as something to think about.

Hypermeter looks fine as per your comments, although I would really suggest moving m. 48 down to the next system. Also consider using double barlines at your section changes.

Generally not a fan of those super large rolled intervals but I'd say they're fine here since there's not much else to do besides the obvious of what you mentioned (and besides you can easily pedal to keep the middle layer).

Regarding measures 15-16, I think it's best the way you currently have it! Even though you do technically lose the bassline of the original, it's still crystal clear what the chords are and I think the consistent intervals and lack of jumping around (transitions very smoothly into the parts around it) make it the most natural option both in terms of sound and ease of playing. The low on-beat notes you have written down right now are anyway in the original - the LH here just consists of the notes played by the middle layer instead of a combination of the lowest and middle layers.

Checking the rest now, found these remaining things:
- Crescendo shouldn't touch the barline in 12 and 36.
- m. 40: beat 4 is the same as the others, it doesn't descend like in the Gm section.
- m. 46: similarly the bass note on beat 4 isn't there like in the Gm section.
- Measure spacing seems a bit funny especially at the beginning of C; click each to make sure they're spaced correctly.
- One final thought - I'd recommend reviewing the articulation of the right hand melody once more. There are some inconsistencies (compare beat 1 of m. 13, 14, 21 - the same rhythm is written differently).

Good work!

[Tobbeh99]

Fixed the ones you mentioned above.

Also I thought parenthesis sort of meant that the notes are optional, but still, I removed them like you said.

Also measure spacing in section C seems ok to me. Also tried clicking and nothing changed.
And I think the articulations are fine. I wanted it so. Wanted it a bit more light in measure 21.

[Latios212]

Alright, approved!

[mastersuperfan]

Not really an issue when it comes to PDF or MIDI playback, but I remember reading elsewhere that measures shouldn't unnecessarily be placed in different layers. Sooo m29–46 would probably just be better in layer 1?

I'm not sure the beat 2 quarter notes in m13, 14, 21, 37, 38, and 45 warrant staccatos. I feel like the notes in the original aren't as light and detached as the staccatos suggest them to be—if I were playing the piece like the original, I'd keep these notes held out.

For m45, I think you should carry the slur over from m44 onto the first note and remove the first staccato to keep the articulation consistent with m12-14.

That's all I have. This sheet is very solid—nice work.

[Tobbeh99]

Not really an issue when it comes to PDF or MIDI playback, but I remember reading elsewhere that measures shouldn't unnecessarily be placed in different layers. Sooo m29–46 would probably just be better in layer 1?

Y I have it for playback purposes. And y, you shoulnd't really use different layers, but here I have it for playback purpose, so I think it's fine.

I'm not sure the beat 2 quarter notes in m13, 14, 21, 37, 38, and 45 warrant staccatos. I feel like the notes in the original aren't as light and detached as the staccatos suggest them to be—if I were playing the piece like the original, I'd keep these notes held out.

Maybe. But I'll keep them as they are. I think they're fine that way.

For m45, I think you should carry the slur over from m44 onto the first note and remove the first staccato to keep the articulation consistent with m12-14.

That's a great idea, makes more sense to slur it up to the top note. I edited the files with your suggestion.

That's all I have. This sheet is very solid—nice work.

Thanks!

[Maelstrom]

Just a few things:
m20+m36 - your crescendos are colliding with the barlines.
M50 beat 4 - I get why you have this hear, but changing the pitch of the percussion sounds really off. I'd recommend making those last 4 16ths Ab, as it transitions just fine that way.

Fix this and I approve

[Tobbeh99]

I fixed it. Also the cresc. in m.44 was also colliding. But I fixed it as well. And y, I think it's better as you said about m.50, so I edited it as well.

[Maelstrom]

Great! You did an excellent job on one of my favorite songs, btw.

Accepted

[Zeta]

This submission has been accepted by Maelstrom.

~Zeta, your friendly NSM-Bot