[Wii] Kirby's Epic Yarn - "Water Land" by Latios212

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Kirby
Game: Kirby's Epic Yarn
Console: Nintendo Wii
Title: Water Land
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Latios212

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Latios212]

I'm long overdue for another KEY sheet

[Static]

I really like this track, one of the best map themes in the game for sure...

• m10 RH beat 4 should be a dotted 8th + 16th (both on D).
• That first two 8th notes in m14 LH sounds like it should have an F# next to the G, it sounds a little more crunchy than what's on your sheet.
• I also hear F#s in m17 LH beat 1, but they're a little more faint.
• m21/23 RH beat 1 should be up an octave.
• Stylistically, this would be more appropriate in 2/4 or 2/2 since it's a samba/bossa nova feel... I know it's a pain to rewrite the entire sheet like that, but consider it.

[Latios212]

I really like this track, one of the best map themes in the game for sure...

Yeah I agree ^^

m10 RH beat 4 should be a dotted 8th + 16th (both on D).

Ah that's quite subtle! Updated that

That first two 8th notes in m14 LH sounds like it should have an F# next to the G, it sounds a little more crunchy than what's on your sheet.

I also hear F#s in m17 LH beat 1, but they're a little more faint.

I don't think F# is right - I originally wrote in an E on top of the current chords, it sounds like a C/D chord here. I took it out to make it easier to play but looking at it again it's actually not bad, so I put it back on all the LH chords here. As for m. 17, it just sounds like a regular Am7 chord to me...

m21/23 RH beat 1 should be up an octave.

I'm hearing the same note strike on beats 1 and 1.5 still.

Stylistically, this would be more appropriate in 2/4 or 2/2 since it's a samba/bossa nova feel... I know it's a pain to rewrite the entire sheet like that, but consider it.

I did try rewriting it (see here), but idk... it feels too stretched out to me, I think I like it how I have it better. But let me know if someone else also thinks it'd look better changed.

Updated files with the stuff I mentioned above~

[Static]

I don't think F# is right - I originally wrote in an E on top of the current chords, it sounds like a C/D chord here. I took it out to make it easier to play but looking at it again it's actually not bad, so I put it back on all the LH chords here. As for m. 17, it just sounds like a regular Am7 chord to me...

I still hear the F#s in m14 at least. (To clarify, only on beats 1-2, where it sounds like a Gmaj7/D chord - beats 3-4 is C/D like you mentioned)

I'm hearing the same note strike on beats 1 and 1.5 still.

Sorry, I was unclear here; both of those notes (1 and 1.5) should both be G5. They are the same octave like you said, but they sound like the same sample used on beat 4.25 of the same measures (m21/23). Beat 4.5 of m24, to me at least, has a slightly different timbre and sounds distinctly lower than the other Gs in that section.

[Latios212]

I still hear the F#s in m14 at least. (To clarify, only on beats 1-2, where it sounds like a Gmaj7/D chord - beats 3-4 is C/D like you mentioned)

I still hear C/D here...

Sorry, I was unclear here; both of those notes (1 and 1.5) should both be G5. They are the same octave like you said, but they sound like the same sample used on beat 4.25 of the same measures (m21/23). Beat 4.5 of m24, to me at least, has a slightly different timbre and sounds distinctly lower than the other Gs in that section.

Ah I see... I agree the timbre sounds a bit different in those places but I've always heard the melody ascending from beat 1-1.5 and writing those notes an octave higher doesn't sound right to me. Maybe writing them both in as an octave would work?

[Static]

Maybe writing them both in as an octave would work?

I've always hear the opposite lol, but I think writing both octaves would work.

I also still hear the F#, but someone else should probably take a listen too... Either way, I approve this one

[mastersuperfan]

Just wanted to chime in to say that (a) I don't hear the F# in m14 and (b) I hear m21/m23 RH like how Latios has written it.

[Static]

The F# is very subtle so it can be hard to hear, especially since it's voiced under the G. However, on guitar this minor 2nd is much less abrasive than it sounds on piano, so I can still understand its exclusion.

Steel drums, on the other hand, when heard unaltered, are sometimes ambiguous when it comes to the octave that it's playing in. So, to test my suspicions, I opened this track up in Audacity and shifted the pitch up and down an octave to hear how it sounded. Listening to it either up or down makes it quite clear that the high G (G5) is indeed the one that plays on beat 1, 1.5, and 4.25 of m21 and 23, and also that the low G (G4) plays on beat 2.5 of m24. Like I said, I would also be in favor of including both octaves, but I wouldn't recommend including just the bottom octave in m21/23.

[mastersuperfan]

Steel drums, on the other hand, when heard unaltered, are sometimes ambiguous when it comes to the octave that it's playing in. So, to test my suspicions, I opened this track up in Audacity and shifted the pitch up and down an octave to hear how it sounded. Listening to it either up or down makes it quite clear that the high G (G5) is indeed the one that plays on beat 1, 1.5, and 4.25 of m21 and 23, and also that the low G (G4) plays on beat 2.5 of m24. Like I said, I would also be in favor of including both octaves, but I wouldn't recommend including just the bottom octave in m21/23.

I can sort of hear it an octave down, but not entirely. As soon as I bring it back to its normal octave (or an octave higher than normal), I can only hear the contour as ascending.

I think the best thing would be to see how other people hear it. Even if the note really is an octave higher, if most people hear the contour as ascending, I think that's more than enough reason to write it the way Latios has it.

[Radiak488417]

For the steel drum notes, I'm hearing it as written, even when I pitch it up or down. Those first 2 Gs do have a very strong overtone, but the G on beat 4.25 doesn't sound like it has the lower octave, which indicates to me that it's higher than the ones on beats 1 and 1.5. The one on beat 4.5 of m24 does sound different than the other ones, but I think that's probably due to round-robin sampling in the steel drum VST.

Also, I agree with Static in that I'm feeling the piece in 2 rather than 4, but it's your call on whether to change it.

[mastersuperfan]

Also, I agree with Static in that I'm feeling the piece in 2 rather than 4, but it's your call on whether to change it.

I did try rewriting it (see here), but idk... it feels too stretched out to me, I think I like it how I have it better. But let me know if someone else also thinks it'd look better changed.

Maybe try 2/4?

[Latios212]

Re: time signature, I think I'd still like to keep it as is... I think it'd be a bit odd to have what is m. 3-16 now split into two measures each without the chord striking on beat 1 of the second measure.

[Static]

I can sort of hear it an octave down, but not entirely. As soon as I bring it back to its normal octave (or an octave higher than normal), I can only hear the contour as ascending.

For the steel drum notes, I'm hearing it as written, even when I pitch it up or down. Those first 2 Gs do have a very strong overtone, but the G on beat 4.25 doesn't sound like it has the lower octave, which indicates to me that it's higher than the ones on beats 1 and 1.5. The one on beat 4.5 of m24 does sound different than the other ones, but I think that's probably due to round-robin sampling in the steel drum VST.

No matter how hard I try, I can't hear the low octave, especially after pitch shifting it. For what it's worth, this transcription goes to the high G there. Even before hearing this however, I still heard it that way in the original track.

I trust you guys' judgement so I will leave it be.

Re: time signature, I think I'd still like to keep it as is... I think it'd be a bit odd to have what is m. 3-16 now split into two measures each without the chord striking on beat 1 of the second measure.

A lot of Latin 2/4 or 2/2 rhythms will usually be 2-4 bars in length, but they're still felt in 2 if that makes any sense. Regardless, I think the arrangement works fine enough in 4/4.

[mastersuperfan]

I don't have anything else to add. Looks good!