[NDS] New Super Mario Bros. - "Overworld" by LeviR.star & PokéMaster

[LeviR.star]

Discussed the previous post with PokeMaestro over Discord. He went ahead and updated his files.

[Latios212]

Great work guys! Just a couple minor comments from me.
- I think the last eighth notes in the LH in measures 14, 22, and 26 should be the same as the first note of the next measure, not beat 3 of their containing measure.
- I think it would make sense to extend the slurs in the phrases to beat 2.5 of m. 34, 38, 42. This would better visually differentiate those parts from the rhythmic strikes on beat 3.
- Similarly, you might want to extend the slur to beat 3 of m. 47. I also think that dotted quarter should be a quarter + eighth rest as there's a noticeable pause before the last note comes in.
- First LH note in 48 should be D, not F.
- The D.S. at the end seems a bit high.

Also, Levi, we already went over this for the first half of the piece but I think there are some bass pick-ups to beats that are missing in the second half as well - G in m. 33 beat 2.5, D in m. 35 beat 4.5, and a bunch more particularly where you have half notes written right now. I'd suggest going through again and seeing if you can hear them. Even if they don't stand out a ton in the original, I'd suggest putting them in as that rhythm is really accented throughout the piece and missing out on those can make the arrangement feel a bit empty at times.

Other than the above, looks good to me!

I've also edited the submission to add Levi as a co-arranger.

[LeviR.star]

Alrighty guys, I finally got around to fixing up my edit, and I think I got all the bass pickups right this time around -- raising the audio up an octave really helped. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to you guys checking over the LH closely one last time for me, just in case I'm speaking too soon. Files are ready otherwise.

[Static]

Expression: "Presto (Half=100)"
Why did you use an alla breve instead of an alla semibreve (4/4)? I'm interested.

I just wanted to pop in and point out that the tempo marking "presto" isn't really accurate here, since the tempo and feel of the tune is given in half notes. It has a more relaxed Latin or Boss Nova style, so I think something like moderato would be a more accurate label.

[LeviR.star]

I just wanted to pop in and point out that the tempo marking "presto" isn't really accurate here, since the tempo and feel of the tune is given in half notes. It has a more relaxed Latin or Boss Nova style, so I think something like moderato would be a more accurate label.

That's what I was thinking, too. Fixed.

[Latios212]

Sweet, this looks fantastic now! I have nothing to add, other than the tempo marking seems to be up a bit high.

approve

[Maelstrom]

First, I'd recommend lowering the tempo and composer/arranger ever so slightly. It looks like they're flying away as it is. Maybe check some sheets on the site for reference.
Second, I'd recommend taking the accent off of beats 1 and 2.5 of m35 RH and the like. (leaving a staccato there) This is because the quieter layer here is given the same emphasis as the loud BAHs. By only accenting when the BAHs are present, it would sound more like the original.
Finally, it's time to talk about 8th note beaming. There's nothing wrong with letting the 8th notes exist in groups of 4. In fact, that's notationally correct. However, proper notation also dictates that they should only be grouped into 4 when there are exactly 4 of them. This means beaming over rests is incorrect like in m1 RH (and also looks not great), and beaming in sets of 3 is incorrect, like m2 (because someone sight reading might mistake them for triplets). The sets of three is debatable, as not everyone agrees on it. I am in favor of breaking them, but this one is up to you.
Here's what the first system looks like with beams broken:

It looks a lot cleaner and is more aesthetically pleasing, in my opinion at least.

Fix/address these things and you're good to go. You've put together a pretty great sheet here.

[LeviR.star]

First, I'd recommend lowering the tempo and composer/arranger ever so slightly. It looks like they're flying away as it is.

Noted, they do look a little high. Usually I try to space the tempo marking directly between the top of the first system and the bottom of the arranger credits, but I can make an exception here.

Second, I'd recommend taking the accent off of beats 1 and 2.5 of m35 RH and the like. (leaving a staccato there) This is because the quieter layer here is given the same emphasis as the loud BAHs. By only accenting when the BAHs are present, it would sound more like the original.

Thanks for pointing that out; I originally only had the bah's written in, but forgot about the accents when it was suggested I add the other part overlapping them.

Finally, it's time to talk about 8th note beaming. There's nothing wrong with letting the 8th notes exist in groups of 4. In fact, that's notationally correct. However, proper notation also dictates that they should only be grouped into 4 when there are exactly 4 of them. This means beaming over rests is incorrect like in m1 RH (and also looks not great), and beaming in sets of 3 is incorrect, like m2 (because someone sight reading might mistake them for triplets). The sets of three is debatable, as not everyone agrees on it. I am in favor of breaking them, but this one is up to you.
Here's what the first system looks like with beams broken:

It looks a lot cleaner and is more aesthetically pleasing, in my opinion at least.

I totally get what you're saying, it makes a lot of sense, but with all due respect I'd like to leave this step out. As this is a collab submission with PokeMaestro, it's not really my call to go back and break all of the beams, but I will keep this in mind for future sheets where it applies.

Fix/address these things and you're good to go. You've put together a pretty great sheet here.

Oh pshaw, it was a collaborative effort

[Maelstrom]

I totally get what you're saying, it makes a lot of sense, but with all due respect I'd like to leave this step out. As this is a collab submission with PokeMaestro, it's not really my call to go back and break all of the beams, but I will keep this in mind for future sheets where it applies.

I'm not really sure I understand your reasoning here. As I see it, breaking the beams in this case is something that should be done by default, with exceptions made for special cases. If there's a legitimate reason you have for keeping them, please tell me.

[LeviR.star]

I'm not really sure I understand your reasoning here. As I see it, breaking the beams in this case is something that should be done by default, with exceptions made for special cases. If there's a legitimate reason you have for keeping them, please tell me.

Okay, I'll explain. The reason I was trying to give in my last post was this one:

A). PokeMaestro wasn't around to approve the changes, so I wouldn't do it until he gave me a thumbs-up because the sheet's not entirely mine.

... but the real reason is more along the lines of this:

B.) With all due respect, I would rather have them beamed together; I think it's plenty readable without breaking them. This stance of mine is a personal preference, but if special beaming is something that needs to be regularly implemented into the site's sheets (even if this is a special case,) the formatting guidelines really ought to be updated. I've been getting several conflicting points between updaters on my sheets, and as I'm trying to push for consistency (at least within my own arrangements,) the way I see it, nitpicks like this really need to be set into stone, as I really don't want to "pick favorites" among the submission staff.

That's the jist of it. Hope you understand.

[Maelstrom]

If you are personally strongly for it, then I'll let it pass. The way you worded it earlier didn't make that clear to me.

I'll accept it.

[Zeta]

This submission has been accepted by Maelstrom.

~Zeta, your friendly NSM-Bot