[3DS] Pokémon Super Mystery Dungeon - "Road to Primeval Forest" by Cashwarrior1

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Pokémon Mystery Dungeon
Game: Pokémon Super Mystery Dungeon
Console: Nintendo 3DS
Title: Road to Primeval Forest
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Cashwarrior1

[attachment deleted by admin]

[attachment deleted by admin]

[cashwarrior1]

I changed the last four measures of the opening (21 - 24) to help with the build up, I figured just playing octaves in the left hand will help dramatize that opening.
 

[Zeila]

Formatting

• m45 this is picky but you could align the hairpins together so they match. you can do this by highlighting both and clicking align horizontally
• m61 I think the eighth rest would look better in its default position; also you could flip the top tie at the end so it's pointing up
• m68/72 use the beam angle tool to make the second beam point towards the upper staff and raise the third beam so it isn't sticking out too much. Here's a picture for clarity:
  You cannot view this attachment.
• m72 add some space in the beginning for the arpeggio marking (right click the measure -> edit measure attributes)
• I would personally align the first system of page 5 with the other pages since there's enough space for it
• m87-89 you could slur the grace notes
• I think it's better to move the D.C. up so it can still be aligned with the barline instead of having it off to the side

Notes

• m9+ I think the way you separate voices here is a bit confusing, even if that's how you would separate the notes by hand. Using more layers here may help distinguish the additional parts from the previous ones
• m77 it almost sounds like this chord is played softer than the other two, so maybe you could put a decrescendo to piano here?
• m79+ the accompaniment sounds more staccato
• m79 this isn't necessary, but you could add a single bass note in some parts where only the percussion plays to make it a bit more fleshed out. Here's an example:
  You cannot view this attachment.

[cashwarrior1]

• m9+ I think the way you separate voices here is a bit confusing, even if that's how you would separate the notes by hand. Using more layers here may help distinguish the additional parts from the previous ones

I intentionally left them in a single layer because to me it becomes more a wall of sound that all blends together rather than multiple voices playing different lines. I think for the performer it'll be less confusing to see it this way than to see multiple voices and not know how to separate them.

• m79 this isn't necessary, but you could add a single bass note in some parts where only the percussion plays to make it a bit more fleshed out. Here's an example:
  You cannot view this attachment.

I like this idea, though I don't have time to get it right now, so I'll have to do that later.

Updated.

[Bloop]

oh this sounds pretty cool, nice work!

I can agree on having everything from m9-16 in one layer, though I do think it may work a bit better to have the R.H. play a large potion of those notes, as it's a bit awkward for the L.H. to play them alongside the repeated string notes. When doing this, you can add the other notes of the strings too:

Spoiler

You cannot view this attachment.

[close]

There are some other notes in hear I heard as well btw, most notably in m11.
As for m17-24, I can see having the octaves makes it a bit more dramatic than just keeping the bassline. I don't think you'll have to include the top F's in m19 and 20 yet though, as it makes the L.H. a bit more awkward to play while giving the same effect as having the R.H. continue with the repeated F's. As for the R.H., I think I hear a few more clustered notes as well:

Spoiler

You cannot view this attachment.
You cannot view this attachment.

[close]

Last thing about this section is the dynamics: I think it could work better if you pull on the extremes a bit more. Currently, you start soft and tell the player to play louder and louder over the course of 16 bars, just to end up at a medium soft dynamic, after which you eventually end on the climax in m25 where it's just medium hard. Maybe you could start on p, go mp in m9, mf in m17 and f in m25. You can leave out the cresc. poco a poco, as that would be implied with the dynamic markings, though you could add crescendos at the last bar or two before a new dynamic marking (like you already did in 21-24). If you really don't want to end with a forte, you could also just tone every dynamic down and start at pp.

A few other comments as well:
-m25-32 L.H.: Maybe you could add accents + staccatos (or just staccatos) at the last Eb in every bar, as those are part of the same accented low strings as the low F's.
-m29-32 R.H.: I think it would work better to have the slur go over these whole four bars instead of 2+2, as the F and G in m30 are connected too and it better shows the structure of the melody (short phrase, short phrase, long phrase based on short phrase)
-m37 R.H.: The grace note here should be an F#
-m41-48: I hear this in the L.H.:

Spoiler

You cannot view this attachment.
You cannot view this attachment.

[close]

-m49: damn this chord hits hard
I think it would work better to have this in the same or even a higher dynamic marking than m25, as it definitely doesn't feel softer to me. Fortissimo may be a bit much though, so this is either f or mf depending on what you decide to do with m25. Also, I think this section would work better with an E minor key signature (1 sharp), as it's less dorian based than everything before.
-m53-60 L.H.: I think you can lower the long bass notes by an octave here too, as I'm really missing the deep bass notes here. The jumps are a bit harder to play but still managable.
-m56 R.H.: I hear an Fn in the higher strings here too, maybe you could change the E in the second layer to an Fn?
-m58 L.H.: I hear a G on beat 1.5 (instead of an A)
-m64 L.H.: I hear the last two notes as F# and D# (instead of G# and E)

Just two more points for now (I'll go through the rest of the song another time):
1. Is there a reason why the chords starting at m33, m49 and m57 are all notated a bit differently? At first you have a second layer over two bars, then a second layer in 1 bar, and then just added into the first layer. I think it's better to have these all the same. I think my preference would go to the second option (second layer in just the first bar), as the pedal will keep it going for the second bar and the notes won't clutter the second bar too much.
2. About the pedal: I get that the low bass notes being held over two bars indicate that the player should use a pedal, but instead of having them think "Am I expected to use a pedal here?", it's probably better to just add a pedal marking and a simile so they'll think "Ah, I should use the pedal here."

[cashwarrior1]

Just two more points for now (I'll go through the rest of the song another time):
1. Is there a reason why the chords starting at m33, m49 and m57 are all notated a bit differently? At first you have a second layer over two bars, then a second layer in 1 bar, and then just added into the first layer. I think it's better to have these all the same. I think my preference would go to the second option (second layer in just the first bar), as the pedal will keep it going for the second bar and the notes won't clutter the second bar too much.

Likely because it was different arranging sessions and I did things differently each time. Also, it isn't a thing I've ever really thought about so it never occurred to me lol

Updated.

[Bloop]

Great! A few things about that first part still:

-I forgot to mention it before, but add slurs to the grace notes in m37 and 41 (also in 71 in the new part).
-You still have m47 and 48 as it was before, but I don't hear the B sixteenth's and the last two 8th notes of 48 should be Eb and F.
-In m63 (as well as 67 and 71), there's an A on beat 1 of the L.H. in the marimba part which is possible to include.

Now about the new part:
-m73-78: I'd use pedal marks here every two bars. Also, it's a bit hard for me to really hear individual notes, but I don't think there's anything between the bass notes and the octave above in m73 and 75 (so no E and F#). Lastly, I'd either start the decrescendo marking at m75, or just leave it out, as you can't really play the decrescendo in only m76
-m79-86: I'd write this as single notes instead of octaves, as it's just one high violin (or well, violin section) that plays the melody. I think I'd prefer leaving out the higher octave, as that register is a bit thinner sounding than the lower octave, but the original plays only the high octave.
-m87-90: If you want, you could actually add the lower octave to this part too, as it's being played by both the flute and the violin section. You can leave it out after m90 as it goes softer in dynamics too anyway. Also, I'd change the grace note lengths to 8ths instead of 16ths (I usually use 8ths for single notes, and 16ths for multiple notes).
-m99: I hear this in the last two beats:
You cannot view this attachment.
I also renotated the C#'s as Db's (because of the Eb7 chord). The notes on beats 2.75, 3.25 and 3.75 are really faint though, so it might even be worth leaving them out for easier playability.
-m100: I think I hear Bb instead of Ab in the R.H. on beat 2.75.
-m102: Maybe you could write the Db on beat 2 in the L.H. as Bb? I hear Db-Bb-Db on beats 1.5-2, though because the Db is already in the melody, it might actually be better to change it to Bb-F-Bb.
-m103: You don't really need to let the L.H. play the G on beat 2, the R.H. can manage just fine. Also, because the Bn is already played on beat 3 in the R.H., it may be better to change the L.H. on beats 3.5-3.75 to B-G and D.
-Lastly, theoretically, the modulation to F dorian shouldn't happen until after these last 4 bars, which means these should be in F#m still too. I think it's still readable in that key signature (though I may be a bit more used to classical pieces that modulate a lot without changing the key signature). It'd mean that a cautionary key signature change at the end of the bar is preferred though, which could be a bit annoying to make.

[cashwarrior1]

-You still have m47 and 48 as it was before, but I don't hear the B sixteenth's and the last two 8th notes of 48 should be Eb and F.

Oh, I had missed that one. I didn't realize the bottom part of the screenshot was also lh lol

-Lastly, theoretically, the modulation to F dorian shouldn't happen until after these last 4 bars, which means these should be in F#m still too. I think it's still readable in that key signature (though I may be a bit more used to classical pieces that modulate a lot without changing the key signature). It'd mean that a cautionary key signature change at the end of the bar is preferred though, which could be a bit annoying to make.

Well we must be theoretically correct! 😤

Updated.

[Bloop]

Great! I'll give this an abloopval

Spoiler

You cannot view this attachment.

[close]

[Latios212]

Sorry for the wait! Here's my feedback:

One main thing I have to say is that the way m. 5-8 (and 9-16) is written completely messes up the voices, making it really difficult to tell what melodic lines are going where because they're not just splintered between voices but combined with others giving a visual sense of continuity. That said, this piece does have some pretty wacky crossings of voices that aren't clearly prioritized over one another so I think it's fine to write it like this. Just keep in mind for the future that trying to jam in all the voices and then split it up into two hands can really confuse the reader if there is supposed to be a melodic line to prioritize.

Small things:
- First couple measures have some note spacing issues, just click somewhere on them using the simple entry tool
- Last RH note in m. 5 should be G instead of Ab
- RH note positionings need to be fixed in m. 36 (either delete and re-enter, or use the Note Position Tool and choose clear manual adjustments)
- Ties flipped the wrong way in RH between m. 61-62

[cashwarrior1]

One main thing I have to say is that the way m. 5-8 (and 9-16) is written completely messes up the voices, making it really difficult to tell what melodic lines are going where because they're not just splintered between voices but combined with others giving a visual sense of continuity. That said, this piece does have some pretty wacky crossings of voices that aren't clearly prioritized over one another so I think it's fine to write it like this. Just keep in mind for the future that trying to jam in all the voices and then split it up into two hands can really confuse the reader if there is supposed to be a melodic line to prioritize.

I originally was going to prioritize the first voice that began in measure one, but I kinda felt like it was written with the intent of it all to meld into one sound so I went with that mindset. Though it would've probably made sense to prioritize one of them, so I'll keep that in mind if it happens again lol

Updated.

[Latios212]

Yep, makes sense with a piece like this~

All good for acceptance!

[Zeta]

This submission has been accepted by Latios212.

~Zeta, your friendly NSM-Bot