[NDS] Pokémon Black Version 2 & Pokémon White Version 2 - "Virbank City" by Latios212

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Pokémon
Game: Pokémon Black Version 2 & Pokémon White Version 2
Console: Nintendo DS
Title: Virbank City
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Latios212

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Latios212]

Been a little while since I submitted a new Pokémon sheet...

[cashwarrior1]

!!!! i like this one

I'm feeling this one at half the tempo you have it. I don't think the time signature changes at all because the snare is consistently playing on 2 and 4. Also, I don't think it'd look bad with sixteenth notes, but it does kinda look cleaner with eighth notes (also I think you did this because of the swing?). I just think that the changing time signatures in the beginning doesn't give off the feeling of being ahead of the down beat that the original has.

[Latios212]

!!!! i like this one

It's a good one

Yeah, I definitely think this is cleanest with eighth note swing rather than 16th note swing.

Good point about the percussion. All the same I think I discussed this with MSF and daj independently some time back and they also heard it the way I wrote it... I find it very difficult to mentally place beat 1 of measures 2-4 in a place where neither the melody nor accompaniment plays, especially given the places that they do play simultaneously - melody, chords, and bass on beat 1 of measures 2-3 as I have them now. I'm not 100% sure, but that's what makes the most sense to me right now.

More thoughts?

[Libera]

The chords in this one are pretty cool (and hard to pick out...)  Nice piece.  Some things:

-The melody in bar 13 sounds like it is restruck on beat 1.5 to me.
-Not so sure about the chords you wrote in at the end of bar 16.  Its kind of hard to hear but sounds more like B D F -> B D F# to me, moving towards Cm at the start of the next bar.
-There's a cool bass thing that happens in bar 21 which is more complicated than what you wrote in.  I know other things have been left out, but this one felt more prominent to me.
-'is this a G or Ab' I think it's a G, like you have it.
-Be careful of the ties in 12 and 15 intersecting the tails of the notes.
-I don't really hear the drop to the C at the end in the bass, it just sounds like it bends back off the note onto the F.

Finally, I think that you've misinterpreted heavy syncopation at the start of the piece for time signature changes.  All of this fits nicely into 4/4, with the chord changes anticipating by a beat for bars 2-3 of each phrase.  As cashwarrior pointed out, you can hear that the percussion stays consistent throughout the whole thing.  If you're having trouble counting along, I think that thinking of it in two helps to feel the syncopation.  You'll also notice that this anticipating of the chord changes by a beat continues for much of the rest of the piece; it's not unique to this opening section.

[cashwarrior1]

I had asked some other people opinions about this a while back, and they were agreeing with Latios' interpretation. I think it might be an interpretation thing, but it seems like the other musicians + people who don't play instruments don't feel it as 4/4.

large images

[close]

Might need more opinions though, from other people here

[mastersuperfan]

I bet 4/4 is probably what the composer intended, and then mixed meter is what it ended up sounded like to most people (including me).

[Static]

For what it's worth, when listening to the piece alone before looking at the sheet, I heard it in 4/4 all the way through. Only when reading the sheet while listening did I feel the actual meter changes rather than syncopation. Almost all of the time with jazz pieces (or really anything built off of drum patterns), I use the drums as reference for the time rather than the melody, so 4/4 sounds more natural to me personally, but I can see how the changing meters convey the feel as well.

[Latios212]

Thanks for looking!

-The melody in bar 13 sounds like it is restruck on beat 1.5 to me.

Not sure what you mean here, the melody's strike is on beat 1.5?

-Not so sure about the chords you wrote in at the end of bar 16.  Its kind of hard to hear but sounds more like B D F -> B D F# to me, moving towards Cm at the start of the next bar.

Ah yeah I think that sounds better.

-There's a cool bass thing that happens in bar 21 which is more complicated than what you wrote in.  I know other things have been left out, but this one felt more prominent to me.

You're referring to the slide from Eb to Eb on beat 3-4? Given how low the part is I think it'd sound rather muddy if I tried to match it too closely (especially since pedal usage is implied), but I did insert a Bb on beat 3.5 to indicate that downward motion which I think works nicely.

-'is this a G or Ab' I think it's a G, like you have it.

Gotcha. It's kind of strange how that makes a minor ninth ascent unlike m. 5 which is just a normal octave... but yeah I think it sounds like a G

-Be careful of the ties in 12 and 15 intersecting the tails of the notes.

Fixed!

-I don't really hear the drop to the C at the end in the bass, it just sounds like it bends back off the note onto the F.

The original sounds like it does a slide/bend from the G to G an octave lower before going back to the F at the beginning of the repeat. So I wanted to capture that downward motion ahead of the measure 1 F, and the C felt most natural transition as the fifth of the F.

Updated the files with the above stuff, will respond to the time signatures in a separate post below...

[Latios212]

Finally, I think that you've misinterpreted heavy syncopation at the start of the piece for time signature changes.  All of this fits nicely into 4/4, with the chord changes anticipating by a beat for bars 2-3 of each phrase.  As cashwarrior pointed out, you can hear that the percussion stays consistent throughout the whole thing.  If you're having trouble counting along, I think that thinking of it in two helps to feel the syncopation.  You'll also notice that this anticipating of the chord changes by a beat continues for much of the rest of the piece; it's not unique to this opening section.

I had asked some other people opinions about this a while back, and they were agreeing with Latios' interpretation. I think it might be an interpretation thing, but it seems like the other musicians + people who don't play instruments don't feel it as 4/4.

large images

[close]

I bet 4/4 is probably what the composer intended, and then mixed meter is what it ended up sounded like to most people (including me).

For what it's worth, when listening to the piece alone before looking at the sheet, I heard it in 4/4 all the way through. Only when reading the sheet while listening did I feel the actual meter changes rather than syncopation. Almost all of the time with jazz pieces (or really anything built off of drum patterns), I use the drums as reference for the time rather than the melody, so 4/4 sounds more natural to me personally, but I can see how the changing meters convey the feel as well.

Thanks for all the comments I get that the percussion stays consistent. The thing that feels most off to me though is that writing the sheet in 4/4 doesn't really... look like it makes sense, and I think is pretty weird to read.

Here's the sheet with the first four bars laid out in 4/4, with the similar next four bars in 3+4+4+5 as I had them. I've put the rest in the 4-measure hypermeter as well to better see parallels across sections. I've also highlighted where chords fall at the beginning of a measure.

Spoiler

You cannot view this attachment.

[close]

You'll also notice that this anticipating of the chord changes by a beat continues for much of the rest of the piece; it's not unique to this opening section.

This does happen for the odd-numbered measures in the rest of the piece (from 9-23), but every other measure snaps it back to having the chord fall on beat 1, making it relatively easy to count. With that in mind, the thing that's really strange to me for the intro section is that when writing it in 4/4, nothing falls on beat 1 for any of measures 2, 3, or 4. The downbeat from the percussion is lost and keeping the beat in measures 2-4 becomes more difficult as none of the parts follow it. (This is in contrast to m. 5-8 where the chord falls on beat 1 of m. 6 and 7 as well.)

Basically, I feel that without the percussion being there on the piano sheet, displacing the chord strikes for multiple bars in a row makes it unnatural to read. That's not to say I'm certain about keeping it the way it is, though. For those of you who hear this in 4/4, do you think it still makes more sense as 4/4 on the sheet given the side-by-side comparison in the above image?

[cashwarrior1]

Okay, I can definitely see why you did it the way you did when I see the 5/4 measure in 4/4. When I first looked at the sheet, the 5/4 part was the one that felt the most weird to me, but it seems even more weird in 4/4. I think as a piano performance, it would likely be more natural to read it with changing meters than with straight 4/4.

[Libera]

Not sure what you mean here, the melody's strike is on beat 1.5?

Sorry I meant it restrikes on beat 2.

The original sounds like it does a slide/bend from the G to G an octave lower before going back to the F at the beginning of the repeat. So I wanted to capture that downward motion ahead of the measure 1 F, and the C felt most natural transition as the fifth of the F.

Ah I see what you mean now.  To me it feels like that effect might be captured better with the C changed to a G.  The C kind of stuck out to me as too 'normal' I guess, but the G sounded pretty good to me.


Time signature time.

Here's the sheet with the first four bars laid out in 4/4, with the similar next four bars in 3+4+4+5 as I had them. I've put the rest in the 4-measure hypermeter as well to better see parallels across sections. I've also highlighted where chords fall at the beginning of a measure.

Thanks for writing this out.  Though I feel like the green boxes would have been more helpful if you'd written the whole thing in 4/4.  Obviously more fall on the beat in 5-8 when you change the time signature to make it happen, though maybe I'm missing the point.  Personally, seeing it written out in 4/4 solidifies my thinking that it makes more sense this way.  When I try and follow along with the sheet listening to the original, I find it a lot more confusing with the mixed meter.  It's also solidified my thinking that actually I would write this sheet in 2/2 rather than 4/4.  I think it's much easier to count like that and the syncopations make a lot more sense musically that way.  I understand that now less matches up with the starts of the bars, but I find it much easier to see the beat in this way and to 'feel' the syncopation, if that makes sense.  Writing it in mixed meter obscures the syncopation, so when I hear the syncopation whilst following along with the sheet, I get very confused.

Spoiler

You cannot view this attachment.

[close]

This does happen for the odd-numbered measures in the rest of the piece (from 9-23), but every other measure snaps it back to having the chord fall on beat 1, making it relatively easy to count. With that in mind, the thing that's really strange to me for the intro section is that when writing it in 4/4, nothing falls on beat 1 for any of measures 2, 3, or 4. The downbeat from the percussion is lost and keeping the beat in measures 2-4 becomes more difficult as none of the parts follow it. (This is in contrast to m. 5-8 where the chord falls on beat 1 of m. 6 and 7 as well.)

I wasn't trying to say that it was exactly the same later on, but more than it continues to use this technique throughout the rest of the piece.  You could write a lot of the rest of the piece in 3/4 +5/4 and use exactly the same argument to justify it.  The only difference is that it does it for 3 bars in a row rather than 1 at a time, but the theory is still the same.  To me this feels like the same thing as taking a rock song that anticipates beat 1 by a quaver every bar and writing it in 7/8 + 4/4 + 4/4 + ... + 9/8. i.e. very odd.

Basically, I feel that without the percussion being there on the piano sheet, displacing the chord strikes for multiple bars in a row makes it unnatural to read. That's not to say I'm certain about keeping it the way it is, though. For those of you who hear this in 4/4, do you think it still makes more sense as 4/4 on the sheet given the side-by-side comparison in the above image?

Obviously this is probably subjective, but I don't think it's that unnatural to read (I'm sure there's plenty of jazz scores with much more complicated syncopation than this).  I'll just finish with a final point.  Ignoring the percussion and the syncopated chords for now, I think writing it out in mixed meter hurts the phrasing of the melody.  For example:

Spoiler

You cannot view this attachment.

[close]

This is bar 6 written in mixed meter.  In the original, the strong beat of this four note melodic phrase (on beats 3-4) is beat 4 (which is beat 3 if you write everything out in 4/4) whereas it looks like the strong beat is beat 3 (which is beat 2 if you write out everything in 4/4).  I admit that this is subtle, but this does change the phrasing of the ... phrase (poor wording) a fair bit, and I think this is one of the key elements that throws me off when I'm listening to the original alongside the mixed meter.

Sorry for the ramble, but I guess I feel strongly about this one haha.

[Latios212]

Thanks for writing this out.  Though I feel like the green boxes would have been more helpful if you'd written the whole thing in 4/4.  Obviously more fall on the beat in 5-8 when you change the time signature to make it happen, though maybe I'm missing the point.

Right - my aim here was to have the two different ways written side-by-side for comparison.

Personally, seeing it written out in 4/4 solidifies my thinking that it makes more sense this way.  When I try and follow along with the sheet listening to the original, I find it a lot more confusing with the mixed meter.  It's also solidified my thinking that actually I would write this sheet in 2/2 rather than 4/4.  I think it's much easier to count like that and the syncopations make a lot more sense musically that way.  I understand that now less matches up with the starts of the bars, but I find it much easier to see the beat in this way and to 'feel' the syncopation, if that makes sense.  Writing it in mixed meter obscures the syncopation, so when I hear the syncopation whilst following along with the sheet, I get very confused.

Gotcha. Given this and the other things you've mentioned above I can see why it would make sense to put it in 4/4... I just don't hear it that way no matter how many times I listen to it.

I wasn't trying to say that it was exactly the same later on, but more than it continues to use this technique throughout the rest of the piece.  You could write a lot of the rest of the piece in 3/4 +5/4 and use exactly the same argument to justify it.  The only difference is that it does it for 3 bars in a row rather than 1 at a time, but the theory is still the same.  To me this feels like the same thing as taking a rock song that anticipates beat 1 by a quaver every bar and writing it in 7/8 + 4/4 + 4/4 + ... + 9/8. i.e. very odd.

I getcha. It's just more difficult to follow for 4 bars at a time instead of two. I'd just also like to mention that just because a temporary shift in the meter fits in the original time signature doesn't mean it would shouldn't be notated (Pokémon Diamond and Pearl's Victory Road, for example). But I digress, since the style of Virbank is more structured and the percussion contextualizes the rhythm consistently.

Obviously this is probably subjective, but I don't think it's that unnatural to read (I'm sure there's plenty of jazz scores with much more complicated syncopation than this).  I'll just finish with a final point.  Ignoring the percussion and the syncopated chords for now, I think writing it out in mixed meter hurts the phrasing of the melody.  For example:

Spoiler

You cannot view this attachment.

[close]

This is bar 6 written in mixed meter.  In the original, the strong beat of this four note melodic phrase (on beats 3-4) is beat 4 (which is beat 3 if you write everything out in 4/4) whereas it looks like the strong beat is beat 3 (which is beat 2 if you write out everything in 4/4).  I admit that this is subtle, but this does change the phrasing of the ... phrase (poor wording) a fair bit, and I think this is one of the key elements that throws me off when I'm listening to the original alongside the mixed meter.

Honestly I hear the phrasing as I wrote it in mixed meter, but this is at least as valid objectively.

I've uploaded new files in 4/4, with the last note changed to a G (and m. 13 unchanged since we discussed and that melody note is indeed held). Thanks!

[Libera]

I'd just also like to mention that just because a temporary shift in the meter fits in the original time signature doesn't mean it would shouldn't be notated (Pokémon Diamond and Pearl's Victory Road, for example). But I digress, since the style of Virbank is more structured and the percussion contextualizes the rhythm consistently.

Yes, I agree with this.

Everything looks great to me.  Again, this piece is really cool and the sheet really does it justice.  I especially like the chords in 19-23 and it comes through great on piano too.

Approved!

[mastersuperfan]

- I don't hear a C in the chord on m4 beat 3.5... I guess the C sounds cool though.
- Maybe consider a Db instead of D for the last note in m4 RH? I like Db better since it descends chromatically to the C in the next chord, whereas the D doesn't resolve cleanly.
- m6 RH beat 3.5 should be a Bb instead of a C.
- For m9, maybe use F# for the bottom notes in the RH Layer 2 beat 4 chords? I hear a voice playing those F#'s, but I don't hear a G anywhere except in the bass.
- I don't think the first two chords in m10 RH have D's in them.
- For the chord at the end of m11, I hear En instead of F. (And in this case, maybe the Db should be written as C# because it's an A major chord? Looks weird with the next measure following, though...)
- Maybe write m13 RH Layer 2 beat 4 as a staccato quarter since that's how the LH is written there?
- In m14 LH, I would write those grace notes instead as eighth notes on the last triplet beat, since they have a pretty defined rhythm.
- I hear the first two chords in m15 and m17 RH as a G-Bn-D-F.
- m17 LH beat 4 should be G instead of Bb.
- m19 RH beat 2.5 has an Ab below the C.
- I'm not hearing a C in the last chord in m19 RH... it sounds like a Bb7 chord under the Eb melody, but changing the C to a D creates a sharp dissonance in the RH, so I'd suggest just omitting it entirely. (I do hear a C at the very beginning of the chord, but it quickly slides to a D; I think it's just an ornament.)
- For m20 RH beat 3, I hear the bottom note as an Ab instead of a Bb. I do hear a Bb, but it's a holdover from the chord on beat 4 of m19, whereas I hear the Ab articulated along with the F and C on m20 beat 3.
- The last two chords in m20 RH and the Layer 1 chord in m21 RH are piano dyads + underlying guitar(?) chords. For the last two chords in m20, it looks like you've filled the chord using the guitar harmony, so I would suggest either doing the same in m21 (adding a G to the chord) for consistency, or making them all dyads.
- For m21 LH beat 3.5, maybe consider a G instead of a Bb since the slide reaches the low notes pretty quickly?
- For m23 RH beat 1, I'm not hearing an Ab in the chord... but I do hear the D doubled by another voice. My suggestion would be to write the RH chord as F-C-D-G; since it's all white keys without the Ab, it's much easier to play the F an octave lower, which prevents it from being so close to the melody.
- On a similar note, I wouldn't double the Ab on beat 2.5... I still don't hear it as part of the underlying chord here; it seems to be exclusive to the melody.
- I don't think I hear a D in the chord at the end of m23... I guess it sounds fine though. I do hear a Bn, but it doesn't sound great on piano, even an octave down. So I dunno.
- You could add a low C on m25 LH beat 2 to mimic the slide down and up.
- For Layer 2, m26 has the same chord progression as m25 (i.e. Eb major for the first two chords). In both measures, however, the piano plays a dyad with C at the bottom (C-G in m25 and C-F# in m26; also C-F in m27). So fitting these together is weird. I also don't really like how the countermelody is obscured by having chord notes above it. Maybe something like this would work:

- Not too fond of doubling the F on m27 beat 1 since, again, it feels more melodic than harmonic (I don't hear it in any of the underlying parts).
- Don't hear a Bb in the second-to-last chord in m27 RH... I do hear a G though, and changing the Bb to a G sounds a lot better IMO.

Whew... I think that's it.