[MUL] Bionic Commando - "Piano Theme" by Alpacatron

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Other
Game: Bionic Commando
Console: Multiplatform
Title: Piano Theme
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Alpacatron

[attachment deleted by admin]

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Alpacatron]

[Zeila]

Hi and belated welcome to NSM! For starters, you should change your Arranger Name through the forums so that it'll classify correctly instead of listing Alpacatron

Formatting stuff

• There are some inconsistencies with your sheet vs. the formatting guidelines, such as copyright sizes, missing italics/bold, and unaligned text
• The Page layout, spacing, and more thread also goes over certain techniques and placings that are either incorrect or unoptimal in your current sheet. A few things of note include the tempo marking and alteration positions, dynamics positionings, measure distributions, and staff spacing.
• After looking over both of those threads, if you need any more specific help then feel free to reach out
• I noticed that measures 18-31 and 38-51 are identical in your sheet, and it seems to be that way in the original song too, so you should just use a repeat marking with 1st and 2nd endings where m32-37 are under the 1st and the current m52-end are under the 2nd. Also measure 37 doesn't seem to exist in the original either, it sounds like it just repeats after measure 36
• For the spots with eight 32nd notes, you could use the beam break tool to split it into two sections of four 32nd notes
• In measure 15, you should slur the grace notes to the attached eighth note
• Flip the tie in measure 21
• Using the ped marking with asterisks concurrently with the line markings seems redundant to me. Just omit the asterisk release since the hook already implies that. Speaking of pedaling, there are other spots that include it where you didn't explicitly write it out. I think it is better to do all or nothing (by nothing I just mean text direction only at the start)
• This could a bit more dynamic variation. For example, in measures 33-36 there is a notable diminuendo and there's more range than just piano here (you did that in m52-end but then you had it decrescendo into piano again when it was already at piano)

Note stuff

• m5-6 I'm not hearing those Bb's, were those added in by you?
• m8 you could just use a dotted half note here because it's simple enough by being on beat 1
• m11 beat 3 LH missing upper G octave
• m13 why is there a courtesy accidental on the G?
• m18-20 add an octave below the second note from the top (i.e. low A-Bb-A-Ab-G)
• m23 Bb sounds like B instead
• m33 I think it would be more accurate to shift the subito piano marking to the second eighth note since it sounds like the first chord is still at the previous dynamic level

I didn't go super in depth but this should get you started! Most of the notes were already there, so it's mainly just presentation issues

[Alpacatron]

Hello, and thanks for the welcome!
I looked through my Profile, and can't find where I would edit my "Arranger Name" specifically.

Formatting
I have now corrected the copyright size, and italics in credits. I'm unsure if there are other corrections to be made.
I took your advice for the repeat with two endings, this makes sense, however I'm not sure what you meant about measure 37?
I have now broken the beams on the 32nd note runs.
I have now slurred the grace notes, however due to size I can't get the slur to actually appear.
I have now flipped the tie in measure 21.
I adjusted the pedal markings.

Note stuff
The high Bbs are there in the original recording.
For the dotted half note, I am actually using the original arrangers preferred notation for this (I know him), so as not to "break" the 3rd beat.
For the octaves in m11, same thing, this is how it was played as per the original arranger/performer.
m13, courtesy accidental removed.
m18-20, again this is per the arranger/performers preference.
m.23 B's adjusted, thank you for catching this!

[Zeila]

I looked through my Profile, and can't find where I would edit my "Arranger Name" specifically.

Hmm I remember it being there before, but that's okay because Latios or someone else could change it for you if necessary

I have now corrected the copyright size, and italics in credits. I'm unsure if there are other corrections to be made.

It's not entirely fixed, so here's a list of things that would also need to be changed:
- Composer text needs to be bold
- Game subtitle needs to be italicized
- Missing "Piano" staff instrument name at the start
- This is very subtle but the arranger info was just slightly misaligned to the right, and the subtitle wasn't aligned to the center either
- Copyright and header info are outside of the margins
- Tempo marking should be aligned with the time signature

Apart from that, there are still visual improvements to be made even after your adjustments. I'll break it down into points to make it easier to digest

• The first page looks cramped while the last page has all this excess space. I would recommend putting 4 systems on the first, 5 on the second, and 3 on the third. This way, the credit text also would have more room to spread out
• You could just put Rubato with the tempo marking so you could put the piano dynamic by the notes (this is just a suggestion)
• Speaking of tempo markings, I've seen alterations/modifiers like rit. and accel. in the middle of the staff, but not "a tempo". This is more of an observation than anything
• I don't understand that line by the accel. on the first system. Is it a pedal marking or a duration specifier? If it's the former, then it should be below the staff and accompanied with "Ped." to be consistent with the other spots, and if it's the latter then it should be a dashed line just like the ones with the ritardandos
• Dynamic hairpins should be in between the staves instead of below (except for rare cases or where it only applies to one staff). And do try to align them with the adjacent dynamics if possible
• It would look better if the "Ped." text were horizontally aligned with the line markings instead of being on top of them
• The arpeggio markings are clashing with accidentals and noteheads, plus they aren't centered well. Additionally, in some spots like measure 30, you could add between 0.02-0.06 of extra space at the beginning under measure attributes so that the markings aren't too close to the barlines or notes
• Just noticed this, but the courtesy accidental on the E of measure 11 also isn't necessary
• Another thing I just noticed but the first tie in measure 16 should also be flipped so that it's consistent with the following two ties
• In measure 22, "a tempo" should be moved down a bit so it's not colliding with the note stem
• In measure 33, the subito piano marking is colliding with some stems, so you could either increase the inner staff distance or shift it down a bit
• The first and second endings are colliding with the notes, so they should be raised
• I think the rit. in the last system should be above the staff to create space for the hairpin and avoid colliding with the piano marking (same goes for the other spot where there's a rit. and decrescendo in the same measure too)

I made most of these changes for you, but the rest is up to your preference. Also in measure 8, the crescendo overlaps with some notes so you could either just write "cresc." instead or increase the staff spacing to make more room. A lot of these small changes add up and can make a big difference in terms of legibility, so just keep these points in mind for future reference

[MUSX]

Okay that's it for formatting, so these are just replies to your comments

I took your advice for the repeat with two endings, this makes sense, however I'm not sure what you meant about measure 37?

To me it sounds like you put extra notes when it repeats to measure 18 after the last A of measure 36

I have now broken the beams on the 32nd note runs.

I should've clarified more, but I meant to split it up so that there's only one beam connecting the two groups instead of zero or three
You cannot view this attachment.

I have now slurred the grace notes, however due to size I can't get the slur to actually appear.

It looks like you put a tie instead of a slur

The high Bbs are there in the original recording.

I meant the Bbs in the LH, but if that's what you were talking about then okay

For the octaves in m11, same thing, this is how it was played as per the original arranger/performer.
m18-20, again this is per the arranger/performers preference.

It really does sound different in the video (and I just noticed but it also sounds like there's no G eighth note on beat 3 of measure 20 in the LH, nor is there a mordent in the RH), but I can't argue against insider knowledge

Everything else is fine :3

[Alpacatron]

I posted a reply, but I don't see it now... so hopefully I'm not duplicating it here!

Thank you so much for implementing these changes for me, I really appreciate it!
I adjusted a few other things based on your recomendations as well.

My only other comment is regarding that mordent, I looked back and realized it was actually just the artist's "preference" that it be there, he didn't actually record it that way for the soundtrack. I've removed it now.

I've updated all the docs again to reflect the current updated version.

[mastersuperfan]

Sorry for the wait!

Here's an annotated PDF that might help, but all of the feedback in there (plus more) is listed below: https://www.dropbox.com/s/z0cauupeqb2gwy6/Bionic%20Commando%202.pdf?dl=0

- It would probably be clearer to just list both Junko Tamiya and José Luis Gonzales Castro as composers. Right now, the distinction between "Arranged by" and "Transcribed by" makes it a bit ambiguous to figure out who actually created the sheet itself (what you have is completely accurate, but confusing IMO).
- It seems like the tempo starts out around 60 BPM, then at m9 it increases to 77 BPM, and then it fluctuates from the low to the high 70s for the rest of the piece (based on using this: https://www.all8.com/tools/bpm.htm). I would suggesting starting out with q=60 at m1 and then increasing to q=76 at m9, since 60 and 76 are found on analog metronomes. (On top of the tempo markings, you could also add a direction like "Più mosso" to m9 since there's a pretty significant shift there.)
- In places where there are four consecutive eighth notes on either beats 1-2 or beats 3-4, like m4 RH beats 3-4, all four eighths should be beamed together. If you're using full Finale, you can go to Documents > Document Options > Beams and check "Beam Four Eighth Notes Together in Common Time," then "OK," then highlight all measures and go to Utilities > Rebeam > Rebeam Music.
- In places where you have a quarter note on beat 2 tied to a quarter note on beat 3, you can write those as half notes—this is one of the cases where hiding beat 3 is fine because it's such a simple rhythm. I've circled them in the PDF above.
- Similarly, m8 LH can be a dotted half.
- In m16, you don't need to write everything as tied layers—you can just write the top notes as a single layer (quarter-quarter-half) because the pedal will sustain them anyway.
- Maybe a fermata on m17 beat 4?
- I don't hear the G# on m25 RH beat 1.
- In m26, I think I hear the LH playing octaves on beats 1-3 (i.e. another E above the one you already have written).
- I don't really hear the chords in m26/28/30 being rolled like you've written them. If you want to keep them for effect, though, that's fine.
- m32 LH beat 1 should be an F instead of an A.
- In m33/38, I don't hear the upper octave in the RH on beats 2-3.
- m37 seems like an extra measure that isn't actually in the original—it should be deleted altogether.
- In m40, the last D in the LH actually starts on beat 1, not beat 3. m40 LH doesn't have any eighth notes.
- The fermatas in the last measure are a bit misaligned—they should be centered with the notehead, but right now they're too far right. (I'm not sure why that is—maybe try deleting and re-entering them?) Also, I didn't mention this in the PDF, but the fermata in the LH should also be above the note, instead of below.

That's it for now—aside from a very small number of things I listed, the notes were perfect (great job!). Let me know if you need any help with these changes. Once these are done, I'll give a few more comments to help you clean up the minor visual stuff, and that'll be it.

[Alpacatron]

Thank you for the feedback!

For the eighth notes beaming, I don't mind changing it, my preference is how I had it, but I am primarily Jazz-trained.

As for a half-note from beats 2 to 3, I would prefer to avoid this, due to my own preference, but also the original composer's/arranger's.
If it really needs to be a half-note in order to be hosted here, I can make the change.

For mm25-28 and mm32-38, I have the notation as per the arranger/performer's confirmation.

I have removed m37, thank you for noticing that!
Same for m40 and fermatas!

[mastersuperfan]

As for a half-note from beats 2 to 3, I would prefer to avoid this, due to my own preference, but also the original composer's/arranger's.
If it really needs to be a half-note in order to be hosted here, I can make the change.

- It's recommended, but not required. Our view is that it looks messier to have the two notes written out with a tie and would still be equally as clear to read as a half note, but if you feel strongly about it, you can keep it as is. However, I would strongly encourage using a dotted half note in m8; instances like those are what dotted half notes are for in the first place.
- As an alternative to writing half notes on beat 2, you might consider writing the eighth-tied-quarter as a dotted quarter in places like m10/12 RH to avoid having three notes tied in succession, which looks a bit cluttered.
- The composer info extends too far left (reaching the subtitle) right now, so you could move part of it onto a second line, like so:


- It looks like the beaming on m27/29 RH beats 3-4 got reset to how it was before Zeila's suggestion.
- I noticed that several of my note-related suggestions weren't addressed (e.g. m25, m32, m33/37). Would you be able to either incorporate these suggestions, or leave a comment on whether you hear differently/have some other reason to write it this way? It helps to ensure that feedback isn't accidentally overlooked.

All right, the formatting/visuals: this is where most of the work on the sheet will be taking place now. It's important to make sure that the dynamics, tempo directions, pedal markings, etc. are properly positioned so that the arrangement looks clean. One thing I notice is that a lot of your markings are colliding with each other or with notes, e.g. m3-4 dashed line, m20 pedal, m25 crescendo, m27 beams, m33 dynamic, etc. You'll want to make sure that nothing's colliding by adjusting the positioning of the markings and the space between staves and systems. The dashed lines associated with the tempo markings also aren't necessary (and not commonly used nowadays, to my knowledge), so you could remove those to save space if you wanted.

I'd suggest taking a look at the help guide HERE and the associated slideshow HERE. Of note is how to properly position dynamics, tempo markings, and repeat ending numbers, as well as measure distribution (right now you have a single-measure system hanging at the end there). I know it's a lot—let me know if you have any questions about this, or if there are any specific points you want additional guidance on!

[Alpacatron]

Hello,

Thank you again for these recommendations!

I have adjusted everything mentioned in your last message.
Regarding the ones you mentioned I didn't adjust, I mentioned in my reply, all of those are in the recording, not just to my hearing, but also as per the arranger who recorded the piece for the soundtrack (I corresponded with him extensively while transcribing this). This applies to the following points:

- I don't hear the G# on m25 RH beat 1.
- In m26, I think I hear the LH playing octaves on beats 1-3 (i.e. another E above the one you already have written).
- I don't really hear the chords in m26/28/30 being rolled like you've written them. If you want to keep them for effect, though, that's fine.
- m32 LH beat 1 should be an F instead of an A.
- In m33/38, I don't hear the upper octave in the RH on beats 2-3.

I have updated the document to move some things around as you suggested to avoid collisions.

Given the tempo alterations at the beginning, maybe I should remove the Rubato and A Tempo markings now?

I have uploaded the new files, Thank you!

[mastersuperfan]

Given the tempo alterations at the beginning, maybe I should remove the Rubato and A Tempo markings now?

I think these are fine.

All right, looking better. Some formatting/positioning aspects to give some more care to (and you can check the linked slides in presentation mode for visual examples):
- Dynamics should be centered with the noteheads on the beats they start, whenever possible. For example, in m1/13/18, the dynamics are currently too far to the left.
- The left edge of tempo directions should be aligned with the left edge of the noteheads on the beats they start, wherever possible. For example, in m3/5, your tempo directions stick out to the left past the left edge of the note and should be moved right a little. In m1/18, you don't need to worry about this because the dynamic is already in the way (the dynamic should be centered on beat 1 and the tempo marking can just be to the right of the dynamic).
- Measure distribution—right now you still have a single-measure system hanging at the very end of the score, which is undesirable. You could try changing the measure distribution to distribute the measures more evenly, or, alternative, shorten the last system so that it doesn't extend all the way across the width of the page.
- Collisions—you still have some collisions going on. For example, in m8, the crescendo collides with the sharp at the end of the measure. In m37, the dashed line of the rit. collides with the beams. You can alleviate these problems by increasing the white space between the LH and RH staves—in fact, this would be good to do for most or all of the systems in this sheet, because even when things aren't colliding, they often look cramped (m18, m25, m27, m32-39) especially when there are markings between the staves.
- Pedal marking positioning (m13-17)—this is tricky, but try to make sure that the positioning of your pedal changes relative to the noteheads are consistent. For example, on m13 beat 3 and m16 beat 1, the pedal change is way left of the notehead, but on m14 beat 3 and m15 beat 1, the pedal change is in the middle or on the right side of the notehead. (Additionally, the pedal markings in m15-16 get close to touching the stems; they could be moved down a bit.)

Feel free to let me know if you have questions!

[Alpacatron]

Thank you again!

I have made these updates, and uploaded the new files 

[mastersuperfan]

All right, looks really good! Just a few last comments from me before I approve:
- Small, but you could move the dynamic (and rubato) in m1 slightly more to the right. The p should be centered with the center of the notehead, but right now it's approximately centered with the stem.
- Listening again, I actually don't really hear a significant accel. in m3-4. I personally wouldn't keep it in the sheet, especially since it's ambiguous without a tempo marking at the end to indicate exactly how much it speeds up (but if you do keep it, I would move it up slightly since the dashed line gets pretty close to the flat in m3).
- Pedal markings in m15-17 could be moved slightly lower—the pedal change on m15 beat 3 is really uncomfortably close to touching the stem.
- It doesn't make sense for the rit. in m36 to extend through m37, since m36 and m37 belong to different endings. Did you mean for the rit. to only apply to m36?
- It sounds like the tempo is slower again at m18 (around q=68), and then faster again at m26 (around q=85). It's up to you how specifically you'd like to notate these—you could put specific tempo markings at each spot, or (since there quite a few of these changes, including the one at m9, and the piece is fairly free-flowing) you could be a bit more general with "Poco più mosso" / "Poco meno mosso" / "Più mosso", or you could do both—for example, "Poco meno mosso (q=68)"; "Più mosso (q=85)".

And that's it from me.

[Alpacatron]

Thanks! I've made these changes, and am uploading the updated files now!

[mastersuperfan]

All right, looks good! For some reason the tempo wasn't working properly on playback (on my end at least), so I reset the MIDI playback and the tempo markings so that it works. I also moved the dynamic + a tempo in m18 and the rit. in m36 up slightly so that they weren't so close to the LH. I've updated the files in the OP—if you want to make further changes, you should download and edit those files.

I'll approve this one now for the next person to take a look, but one more thing you should consider—now that you've removed the a tempo in m5, it's ambiguous what the pianist should do in m5. The dashed line from the accel only extends to the end of m4; at m5, should the pianist go back to the original tempo or continue accelerating until m9? If the latter, then it would be clearer to remove the dashed line and write "poco a poco accel" in m3.