[PS2] We Love Katamari - "DAN DON FUGA (Canon of Kings)" by Purple1222119

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Other
Game: We Love Katamari
Console: PlayStation 2
Title: DAN DON FUGA (Canon of Kings)
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Purple1222119

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Purple1222119]

- I know the game is listed here in the video as being from Me & My Katamari, but the track originated from We Love Katamari, it just didn't get an official soundtrack release until the Me & My Katamari CD.
- I tried to replicate three-part fugue writing to the best of my ability, cross-referencing some WTC Bach stuff to see how it's notated but I'm still quite unsure of the placement and notation of the middle voice. I think which hand plays the middle voice can be somewhat subjective sometimes too so I'd love some input on that! I used some line notation to signify the passing of the middle voice between hands, as I think I've seen that notation around before, no idea if it's really proper though.
- The use of articulations in Bach fugues is usually pretty sparse to non-existent depending on the arranger, so I was somewhat light on the articulations overall. I think there could maybe be slurs/staccatos in a couple places, but I feel like the performance of the track is reflected pretty well regardless? Not too sure on that front either, but I'm definitely open to adding them!
- Let me know if any other changes need to be made and I'll make them ASAP! Thanks!

[Static]

Generally looks pretty good, just a few small things here:

- I thought the title of this track was "DAN DON FUGA", as seen on the track listing here. That's also the title I see more often on YouTube and other sites. Unless it's called "Canon of Kings" in-game, I forgot.
- The placement of the middle voice is appropriate - sometimes the best way to find out is just by testing it out on a keyboard. I think the way you wrote it is pretty comfortable to play, at least from my little bit of playing.
- I think sparse articulation works better for this piece. It's more stylistically appropriate, and beyond that, none of the notes really sound (to me at least) deliberately articulated legato or staccato. The accents are appropriately placed.
- A turn (like in m7) indicates an up-down motion starting on A (A-Bb-A-G-A). However, in the original, it starts on Bb. This would better be written as just 32nd notes (Bb-A-G-A).
- Maybe space out the staves on the first system of page 2, so m15 doesn't look so cramped.
- I would use another set of cross-staff lines to connect to/from beat 3 of m22 (to the Bb).
- The flat sign in m21 RH is touching the Eb above it.
- The 2nd loop adds the harpsichord part, and while I wouldn't say its strictly necessary to include given the complexity of the sheet as it is, I can't help but wonder if there's a good way to incorporate it. At the very least, though, I would consider adding in the middle voice in the 1st ending.
- Copyright text, page number, and running title are all outside the page margins.

Also, a note about those cross-staff lines, I sometimes see the dotted lines being used for voices that just cross hands (i.e. the hand does not move to play the voice in the other staff), and solid lines indicate that the hand also moves to play the notes. But I don't think this is widely distinguished, and by reading the score people will usually just do whatever makes the most sense. I think the lines, as you have them, are OK.

[Purple1222119]

- I thought the title of this track was "DAN DON FUGA", as seen on the track listing here. That's also the title I see more often on YouTube and other sites. Unless it's called "Canon of Kings" in-game, I forgot.

Oh yeah, that's a good point, I'm familiar with that title too actually! In the Me & My Katamari in-game music player it is titled Canon of Kings though, so now I'm not quite sure which title to go with haha. I'd be fine with using either one.

- The placement of the middle voice is appropriate - sometimes the best way to find out is just by testing it out on a keyboard. I think the way you wrote it is pretty comfortable to play, at least from my little bit of playing.
- I think sparse articulation works better for this piece. It's more stylistically appropriate, and beyond that, none of the notes really sound (to me at least) deliberately articulated legato or staccato. The accents are appropriately placed.

Yeah, I did do extensive keyboard testing and I think the way I wrote it is most comfortable for me to play personally, although I was torn on a couple notes (the middle voice F in m5 I feel like could go either way, for example, as well as the middle voice C in m6). Glad to have some reassurance on the voicing and articulations though, thanks!

- A turn (like in m7) indicates an up-down motion starting on A (A-Bb-A-G-A). However, in the original, it starts on Bb. This would better be written as just 32nd notes (Bb-A-G-A).

Interesting! Wikipedia (and some other sources from a quick Google search) define a turn as the note above the written note, then written note, note below, then written note again, which matches with how I used it (to signify Bb-A-G-A in this case). However if that is incorrect/not widely used in that way, I'd rather just use the 32nd notes if it makes it clearer! I'll change it to 32nd notes for now. Edit: Actually, I can't find a source that includes the root note as starting the turn, so now I'm pretty torn between the two options! Still keeping it as 32nd notes for now though, pending further feedback.

- Maybe space out the staves on the first system of page 2, so m15 doesn't look so cramped.
- I would use another set of cross-staff lines to connect to/from beat 3 of m22 (to the Bb).
- The flat sign in m21 RH is touching the Eb above it.

All fixed! The RH m21 flat sign is a little tricky to fix, I might have made the music spacing look a little wonky. Let me know if there's a better way to fix it!

- The 2nd loop adds the harpsichord part, and while I wouldn't say its strictly necessary to include given the complexity of the sheet as it is, I can't help but wonder if there's a good way to incorporate it. At the very least, though, I would consider adding in the middle voice in the 1st ending.

As far as I can tell, it sounds like the harpsichord part is playing in unison with the voice parts? Albeit the type of harpsichord that has strings paired in multiple octaves per note, so admittedly it does fill out the sound more. I didn't find it necessary to transcribe the octaves in this case, since I didn't really consider them separate parts.

- Copyright text, page number, and running title are all outside the page margins.

Pesky margins!! Fixed!

Also, a note about those cross-staff lines, I sometimes see the dotted lines being used for voices that just cross hands (i.e. the hand does not move to play the voice in the other staff), and solid lines indicate that the hand also moves to play the notes. But I don't think this is widely distinguished, and by reading the score people will usually just do whatever makes the most sense. I think the lines, as you have them, are OK.

This is good insight! I feel like the dotted lines might be aesthetically more pleasing, so I'll make that change for now too.

Thanks so much for all the feedback! I'll continue to make changes as needed.

[Static]

Oh yeah, that's a good point, I'm familiar with that title too actually! In the Me & My Katamari in-game music player it is titled Canon of Kings though, so now I'm not quite sure which title to go with haha. I'd be fine with using either one.

You could just use both, like DAN DON FUGA (Canon of Kings), or the other way around. Might be easier to find that way.

Interesting! Wikipedia (and some other sources from a quick Google search) define a turn as the note above the written note, then written note, note below, then written note again, which matches with how I used it (to signify Bb-A-G-A in this case). However if that is incorrect/not widely used in that way, I'd rather just use the 32nd notes if it makes it clearer! I'll change it to 32nd notes for now. Edit: Actually, I can't find a source that includes the root note as starting the turn, so now I'm pretty torn between the two options! Still keeping it as 32nd notes for now though, pending further feedback.

Actually, I think you're right about this lol, my bad on that one. I always assumed the turn includes the written note as the starting note, but it looks like this isn't the case from the sources I'm reading too. I'd probably just use the turn marking then to save space.

The rest of the changes look great! I think the harpsichord is just doubling as well, though it's a bit hard to tell. At any rate, I have no issue with leaving it out.

[Purple1222119]

Alrighty, I've included both titles in the submission and files, and I've reinstated the turn! Again, thanks for all the feedback, and I'll make further changes as needed ASAP!

[Static]

Awesome! I'll go ahead and give this one a good old-fashioned approval, nice sheet (just be sure to get the title on the 2nd page as well - with quotes)

[Purple1222119]

Updated the second page title and re-submitted! Thanks a bunch!

[FireArrow]

Hey, huge fan of this piece and WTC so this was super fun to look over! Initially I thought there were some errors with stem directions/voicing but after playing through it I realized I was mistaken.

So far as I can tell:
-Notes are accurate
-Enharmonics are all spelled correctly
-Everything is notated in familiar style for fugues (your effort in referencing WTC really shows!)

Only suggestions I can think of:
- The dotted line notation for voice crossing is used very seldomly in this style (it does show up, but your use it notably more liberal), at least in comparison the versions of WTC I have. That being said, its very common for piano reductions and thus something seen a lot in modern internet transcriptions so this isn't really a bad thing, just a stylistic choice between traditional and modern. Most people will fine the dotted lines easier to read, although people more familiar with Bach might find it cluttered.
- Consider adding fingering suggestions. These are common in a lot of version of the WTC and also, how you use your fingers is the big 'gotcha' when it comes to learning to play fugues. That being said, when I played through it everything up until the 4th voice was added felt relatively easy so I don't know how necessary that really is here.

Both of the above are optional and up to you and the updaters. This was really well executed and beautiful sheet! Keep up the good work!

edit:
The squiggle after the trill and the fermata at the end are unnecessary, as its already implied by the baroque style. You can still choose to leave them in though as a courtesy to people who may not know that.

[Purple1222119]

Thanks so much for all the feedback on this, FireArrow!

The distinctions between the traditional baroque and more modern notation are definitely good things to consider! I'm willing to make any changes in that regard if necessary, although I would defer to NSM's standards of notation if there are any for these cases! The dotted lines, fermata, and extended trill marking should be easy and quick changes to make, but I may need some guidance on the fingerings if those need to be added in, haha.

I think I'll leave it as-is for now just for clarity's sake, since I think more people might be familiar with the modern notation style, but I'd love a second opinion to see if any of these changes should be made, and I'll make them ASAP! I'll keep an eye on this page, let me know!

[Latios212]

This looks great! Not the kind of submission you see every day, it's nice to have something like this

Thanks so much for all the feedback on this, FireArrow!

The distinctions between the traditional baroque and more modern notation are definitely good things to consider! I'm willing to make any changes in that regard if necessary, although I would defer to NSM's standards of notation if there are any for these cases! The dotted lines, fermata, and extended trill marking should be easy and quick changes to make, but I may need some guidance on the fingerings if those need to be added in, haha.

I think I'll leave it as-is for now just for clarity's sake, since I think more people might be familiar with the modern notation style, but I'd love a second opinion to see if any of these changes should be made, and I'll make them ASAP! I'll keep an eye on this page, let me know!

I will say as someone not super familiar with this style of writing that the way you wrote it makes sense I don't have any concerns about the dotted lines, fermata, and trill marking in particular. Though the trill (and turn in m. 7) are displaced slightly to the right, and you might want to put a fermata in the left hand at the end to match the right hand.

Fingerings, will leave that up to you if you want to add them, and I can help comment if they make sense if you need. They're not necessary but a nice touch, but either way is fine

Just a few other very minor comments from me:
- Dynamic in m. 1 could be lowered a bit to be centered between the staves
- Top voice in m. 10 beat 4 sounds like a quarter note rather than dotted quarter
- The tie into measure 14 RH points down while the outgoing tie from m. 13 points up (use the Tie Tool to flip the one in m. 14)
- The stem for the low C# on beat 2 of m. 17 seems oddly short for some reason?
- There's a couple of tiny visual quirks in the last system - the left and right ends of the first ending bracket don't line up vertically, and there's somehow a rogue tie visible inside the last whole note...?

[Purple1222119]

Though the trill (and turn in m. 7) are displaced slightly to the right, and you might want to put a fermata in the left hand at the end to match the right hand.
- Dynamic in m. 1 could be lowered a bit to be centered between the staves
- Top voice in m. 10 beat 4 sounds like a quarter note rather than dotted quarter
- The tie into measure 14 RH points down while the outgoing tie from m. 13 points up (use the Tie Tool to flip the one in m. 14)
- The stem for the low C# on beat 2 of m. 17 seems oddly short for some reason?

Fixed all these! Let me know if I overcompensated on any of them, I'm not sure if there are alignment tools I could use to line up the articulations better haha. Not sure why that stem length in m. 17 changed actually.

- There's a couple of tiny visual quirks in the last system - the left and right ends of the first ending bracket don't line up vertically, and there's somehow a rogue tie visible inside the last whole note...?

Fixed the bracket with "align bracket" function, hopefully that fixed that issue! Dang it, I thought I hid that tie well enough lol, it must have changed somehow. I actually couldn't figure out how to make that Bb in m. 29 not have a tie on it without also deleting the tie on the Bb in the previous measure, so that was my kind of makeshift solution for it. For the time being, I've now hidden it even better hopefully! If somebody knows how to actually hide it or remove it without also affecting the tie in m. 28 that would be much appreciated!

As for the fingerings, I'm not too confident in my abilities to make logical ones or knowing where to place them, so I think I'll opt to not add them for now.

Let me know if there's any other changes I need to make! Thanks so much for all the feedback again!

[Latios212]

Awesome, everything looks good! I don't see the tie in the last measure at all, so that works haha.

Don't think I have anything else to add, so will accept. Great work!

[Zeta]

This submission has been accepted by Latios212.

~Zeta, your friendly NSM-Bot