[SW] Paper Mario: The Origami King - "Autumn Mountain Battle" by mastersuperfan & Latios212

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Paper Mario
Game: Paper Mario: The Origami King
Console: Nintendo Switch
Title: Autumn Mountain Battle
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arrangers: mastersuperfan & Latios212

[attachment deleted by admin]

[mastersuperfan]

best track in the game babyyyyy

[Static]

This is neat

• My main point of contention with this is that the arrangement feels a bit sparse at times, but I think the simplicity works for this piece... it more clearly shows the slow buildup here. I think if it was performed live I'd probably feel a bit different about how it sounds.
• I like the attention to detail on the articulations, but I disagree with some of them. Beat 4.5 of m14 and similar sound more legato than staccato, beat 3 of m15 and similar should be staccato, etc. I'd suggest going over the RH part once more and using some more accurate articulations.
• I would pick some different systems to be the 2-measure ones, since there's not really a lot going on on page 4. Looks a bit too empty/stretched out compared to everything else.

That's all I really got for this one, looks pretty good.

[mastersuperfan]

• My main point of contention with this is that the arrangement feels a bit sparse at times, but I think the simplicity works for this piece... it more clearly shows the slow buildup here. I think if it was performed live I'd probably feel a bit different about how it sounds.

It is a bit sparse, but I think it'd be nigh impossible to add anything really more substantial without making it significantly more difficult than it needs to be. As is, I think it works pretty well.

• I like the attention to detail on the articulations, but I disagree with some of them. Beat 4.5 of m14 and similar sound more legato than staccato, beat 3 of m15 and similar should be staccato, etc. I'd suggest going over the RH part once more and using some more accurate articulations.

I went through and changed m14/18/30 beat 4.5 and m15 beat 3. Everything else seemed fine to me.

• I would pick some different systems to be the 2-measure ones, since there's not really a lot going on on page 4. Looks a bit too empty/stretched out compared to everything else.

I played around with it a bit and I feel like any other two-measure system would be just as, if not more stretched. I think I'd rather keep this one as is because these two-measure systems look less stretched to me than the alternatives... and I like the way it places a four-measure phrase on the last page, divided evenly in half with the crescendo extending across the last system. @Latios thoughts?

[Static]

Looks good, just a few more specific things:

• m3 RH beat 3 sounds staccato.
• m5, 21 RH beat 4 should have an E 16th note before the F#.
• m34 RH beat 4.5 should not be staccato.

• I played around with it a bit and I feel like any other two-measure system would be just as, if not more stretched. I think I'd rather keep this one as is because these two-measure systems look less stretched to me than the alternatives... and I like the way it places a four-measure phrase on the last page, divided evenly in half with the crescendo extending across the last system. @Latios thoughts?

  Systems 10-11 I think would be better candidates for being 2-measure systems imo.
  

[mastersuperfan]

• m3 RH beat 3 sounds staccato.

Did you mean m3 RH beat 2.5? Updated.

• m5, 21 RH beat 4 should have an E 16th note before the F#.

I... can't hear this at all.

• m34 RH beat 4.5 should not be staccato.

Fair enough, updated. I wrote it out as staccato originally for playability reasons, but it's also reasonable to play it held by pedaling for half a beat, I think.

• Systems 10-11 I think would be better candidates for being 2-measure systems imo.
  

Talked with Latios about this—we'd both prefer to keep the measure distribution the way it is now. I agree that m27-29 is a bit tight, but m27-28 on their own look much too stretched as a system on their own. m42-45 have a pretty high volume of 16th notes, they're on their own page, and they're not a parallel of previous phrases.

[mastersuperfan]

• m5, 21 RH beat 4 should have an E 16th note before the F#.

Update: Latios and I decided to include the E in m5 but not in m21.

[Static]

Talked a bit on Discord, we agreed on changing the F# to C# on beat 4.25 of m21. I shall approve now

[Libera]

Generally seems good.  Most of my comments are about details.

-Double barline for the segno?  I know it's only in bar 2 but still I think it'd look better/clearer with it.
-Bar 1 LH 4.5 I hear this an octave down.
-Bar 16/32 LH 2.25 sounds like a G# to me rather than an E.
-Bar 29 LH beat 2.5 sounds like D -> F# semiquavers rather than just a D.
-Not sure about the rhythm you wrote in for the LH of bar 37.  It just sounds like crotchets to me, B -> B -> C#.
-I'm not sure it's really necessary/a good idea to go to octaves in the left hand in 44-45.  You never do it anywhere else and it seems to be working against the softest dynamic you've written in for the whole piece.
-I think you've got the voices muddled in the pick up on beat 4 of bar 21.  There's a tuned percussion style instrument that plays something like C# -> E -> E (maybe a restrike here?) -> F# (F# on beat 1 of 22) and a string instrument that plays something like F# -> A -> B -> C# (C# on beat 1 of 22).  I'd recommend just sticking to one voice; the string one is probably better (and more like what you have here.)
-Hearing more of B on beat 2, C# beat 4 for the harmonies in RH 30-32, rather than just A's everywhere.  At the moment not really sure where the A's come from.  Same sort of comments for 34-36.
-I'm not really sure about the chord on beat 3-4 of bar 33.  I don't hear the 7th (the D) and it sounds kind of odd to me.  Maybe change it to a G#?
-I feel like it'd be better to be consistent with 21 for the harmonies in 37 i.e. use the line beginning on D rather than F#.  (I can't really hear the F# thing specifically anyway...)
-I don't hear the harmonies at all in bar 40.  I guess they're just to beef up that melody, but I feel like it overrides the 'purity' of that little melodic interjection.  If you wanted more notes I think it'd be better to just add them at the start of the bar and leave the melody as it's own thing.
-You could add a B below the F# in bar 42 (beat 3 RH) from the lower line (since you've got dyads in a bunch of places there).
-Bars 2-4 is (perhaps arguably) the most chordal section of the piece (rather than just single melodic lines over basslines) so it might be nice to differentiate it from the other sections with some chords/harmonies in the right hand.  At the moment the only thing between 2-4 and 6-9 etc. is it being written one dynamic lower, despite those two presentations sounding very different in the original.  Something to think about anyway.

Hopefully something in there is useful.

[mastersuperfan]

Responses in bold.

Generally seems good.  Most of my comments are about details.

-Double barline for the segno?  I know it's only in bar 2 but still I think it'd look better/clearer with it. added
-Bar 1 LH 4.5 I hear this an octave down. yep, good catch
-Bar 16/32 LH 2.25 sounds like a G# to me rather than an E. we wrote E instead of G# for playability
-Bar 29 LH beat 2.5 sounds like D -> F# semiquavers rather than just a D. ah year I hear this now, but I'd rather keep it as is to avoid getting too muddy with the pedal
-Not sure about the rhythm you wrote in for the LH of bar 37.  It just sounds like crotchets to me, B -> B -> C#. still hearing what I have written
-I'm not sure it's really necessary/a good idea to go to octaves in the left hand in 44-45.  You never do it anywhere else and it seems to be working against the softest dynamic you've written in for the whole piece. I like the effect of quiet octaves in the LH, but I'll ask Latios about this one. I'd definitely want to keep the octaves in m45 at least
-I think you've got the voices muddled in the pick up on beat 4 of bar 21.  There's a tuned percussion style instrument that plays something like C# -> E -> E (maybe a restrike here?) -> F# (F# on beat 1 of 22) and a string instrument that plays something like F# -> A -> B -> C# (C# on beat 1 of 22).  I'd recommend just sticking to one voice; the string one is probably better (and more like what you have here.) agh Static Latios and I already debated over this one, I wanted to write F# while they wanted C#. The string instrument doesn't actually play F# on beat 4.25 in this one instance, which is what makes it tricky to decide. I'd rather use F# myself but I'll discuss it with Latios
-Hearing more of B on beat 2, C# beat 4 for the harmonies in RH 30-32, rather than just A's everywhere.  At the moment not really sure where the A's come from.  Same sort of comments for 34-36. I played around a lot with these before. Definitely not feeling B on beat 2; C# on beat 4 sounds okay, but I think I still prefer the A because of how this track tends to use fourth/fifth harmonies in general. The A harmonies are added in to distinguish this phrase from the previous iterations.
-I'm not really sure about the chord on beat 3-4 of bar 33.  I don't hear the 7th (the D) and it sounds kind of odd to me.  Maybe change it to a G#? I really like how the D sounds, personally. Also I do hear a D in the original, albeit one octave lower than it is written here
-I feel like it'd be better to be consistent with 21 for the harmonies in 37 i.e. use the line beginning on D rather than F#.  (I can't really hear the F# thing specifically anyway...) I distinguished m21 and m37 in that way because I wanted to put more focus on that particular line in m21, whereas in m37 I just wanted to emphasize the chords themselves. Changing the middle notes in m37 to the same line in m21 messes with the harmonies at such a climactic point in the piece, IMO.
-I don't hear the harmonies at all in bar 40.  I guess they're just to beef up that melody, but I feel like it overrides the 'purity' of that little melodic interjection.  If you wanted more notes I think it'd be better to just add them at the start of the bar and leave the melody as it's own thing. IMO it feels way too empty with only single notes in each hand. Would prefer to keep as is
-You could add a B below the F# in bar 42 (beat 3 RH) from the lower line (since you've got dyads in a bunch of places there). did you mean C#? I think making it a dyad sounds like a good idea but B doesn't seem to fit there, so I added a C# instead
-Bars 2-4 is (perhaps arguably) the most chordal section of the piece (rather than just single melodic lines over basslines) so it might be nice to differentiate it from the other sections with some chords/harmonies in the right hand.  At the moment the only thing between 2-4 and 6-9 etc. is it being written one dynamic lower, despite those two presentations sounding very different in the original.  Something to think about anyway. added in some harmonies, let me know what you think

Updated the files.

[Latios212]

Further responses for a few specific comments in red bold

Generally seems good.  Most of my comments are about details.

-Double barline for the segno?  I know it's only in bar 2 but still I think it'd look better/clearer with it. added
-Bar 1 LH 4.5 I hear this an octave down. yep, good catch
-Bar 16/32 LH 2.25 sounds like a G# to me rather than an E. we wrote E instead of G# for playability
-Bar 29 LH beat 2.5 sounds like D -> F# semiquavers rather than just a D. ah year I hear this now, but I'd rather keep it as is to avoid getting too muddy with the pedal
-Not sure about the rhythm you wrote in for the LH of bar 37.  It just sounds like crotchets to me, B -> B -> C#. still hearing what I have written I'm also quite certain of this
-I'm not sure it's really necessary/a good idea to go to octaves in the left hand in 44-45.  You never do it anywhere else and it seems to be working against the softest dynamic you've written in for the whole piece. I like the effect of quiet octaves in the LH, but I'll ask Latios about this one. I'd definitely want to keep the octaves in m45 at least Yeah I'd like to keep them in 45. For 44 I'd be fine either making it single notes or raising the octaces by an octave, I'll leave that up to you MSF.
-I think you've got the voices muddled in the pick up on beat 4 of bar 21.  There's a tuned percussion style instrument that plays something like C# -> E -> E (maybe a restrike here?) -> F# (F# on beat 1 of 22) and a string instrument that plays something like F# -> A -> B -> C# (C# on beat 1 of 22).  I'd recommend just sticking to one voice; the string one is probably better (and more like what you have here.) agh Static Latios and I already debated over this one, I wanted to write F# while they wanted C#. The string instrument doesn't actually play F# on beat 4.25 in this one instance, which is what makes it tricky to decide. I'd rather use F# myself but I'll discuss it with Latios I keep listening to this full speed and slowed down and I really hear the C# prominently on 4.25, I'd like to keep it like that. As MSF there doesn't seem to be an F# in the main voice like in m. 6 or 9.
-Hearing more of B on beat 2, C# beat 4 for the harmonies in RH 30-32, rather than just A's everywhere.  At the moment not really sure where the A's come from.  Same sort of comments for 34-36. I played around a lot with these before. Definitely not feeling B on beat 2; C# on beat 4 sounds okay, but I think I still prefer the A because of how this track tends to use fourth/fifth harmonies in general. The A harmonies are added in to distinguish this phrase from the previous iterations. Listening again I hear what Libera's talking about and would be fine adjusting it accordingly
-I'm not really sure about the chord on beat 3-4 of bar 33.  I don't hear the 7th (the D) and it sounds kind of odd to me.  Maybe change it to a G#? I really like how the D sounds, personally. Also I do hear a D in the original, albeit one octave lower than it is written here
-I feel like it'd be better to be consistent with 21 for the harmonies in 37 i.e. use the line beginning on D rather than F#.  (I can't really hear the F# thing specifically anyway...) I distinguished m21 and m37 in that way because I wanted to put more focus on that particular line in m21, whereas in m37 I just wanted to emphasize the chords themselves. Changing the middle notes in m37 to the same line in m21 messes with the harmonies at such a climactic point in the piece, IMO.
-I don't hear the harmonies at all in bar 40.  I guess they're just to beef up that melody, but I feel like it overrides the 'purity' of that little melodic interjection.  If you wanted more notes I think it'd be better to just add them at the start of the bar and leave the melody as it's own thing. IMO it feels way too empty with only single notes in each hand. Would prefer to keep as is I agree with MSF here
-You could add a B below the F# in bar 42 (beat 3 RH) from the lower line (since you've got dyads in a bunch of places there). did you mean C#? I think making it a dyad sounds like a good idea but B doesn't seem to fit there, so I added a C# instead
-Bars 2-4 is (perhaps arguably) the most chordal section of the piece (rather than just single melodic lines over basslines) so it might be nice to differentiate it from the other sections with some chords/harmonies in the right hand.  At the moment the only thing between 2-4 and 6-9 etc. is it being written one dynamic lower, despite those two presentations sounding very different in the original.  Something to think about anyway. added in some harmonies, let me know what you think

[Libera]

Accepted.

[Zeta]

This submission has been accepted by Libera.

~Zeta, your friendly NSM-Bot