[NDS] Pokémon Black Version & Pokémon White Version - "Nacrene City" (Replacement) by Latios212 & Ni

[NineLives]

Okay, so for the chords of measure 62, we're hoping on having the updaters give a second opinion on it because we're unsure what'd be the best spelling for it, so Whoppy's concern isn't off the table, we'd just be more comfortable having some others weigh in on it.
For measure 64's high A, I'm starting to hear it now too, but personally, with how quiet it is in comparison to the melody's lower A, it sounds off having both notes be played in the same dynamic, since the higher A, even when listening to the other sources Radiak listed, sounds less prominent and noticable. For that reason, the way we have it written now sounds best and, like Whoppy said, flows better in our opinion.

[Kricketune54]

Sorry for a bit of a wait on this, tried to best pickup where this was last at but seems like it's in a pretty good place

Okay, so for the chords of measure 62, we're hoping on having the updaters give a second opinion on it because we're unsure what'd be the best spelling for it, so Whoppy's concern isn't off the table, we'd just be more comfortable having some others weigh in on it.

As files are seems like a good way of spelling the chord to me, but I did notice the start of the "The Battleship Halberd: On Deck" was spelling Eb for that m1-2 and is a similar chord. Latios, I suppose it's your call given both are sheets of yours lol

For measure 64's high A, I'm starting to hear it now too, but personally, with how quiet it is in comparison to the melody's lower A, it sounds off having both notes be played in the same dynamic, since the higher A, even when listening to the other sources Radiak listed, sounds less prominent and noticable. For that reason, the way we have it written now sounds best and, like Whoppy said, flows better in our opinion.

I think you're good to leave this high A out

Notes

I understand this arrangement is trying to keep it simple for first half of track/first iteration of melody but I had a few places I thought worth mentioning to add some  potential support. Feel free to take none of these suggestions but wanted to mention for consideration
- m10 RH beat 3.5 could add the notes here to complete the movement? Sounds like an F and B
- m32 RH beat 1.5 D under the G
- m29 beat 3.0 RH there's a C# under the B could add
- m37 RH beat 3 could add the B under the G
- m60 RH beat 1-1.5 could add the additional C# in here
- m65 sounds like there's a C# in here but I think it's good to leave out (whether above the A in RH or in between E and A in LH)

The only truly "constructive" feedback
- m60 LH beat 1 sounds like a quarter note

[Latios212]

Sorry for a bit of a wait on this, tried to best pickup where this was last at but seems like it's in a pretty good place

Thank you! No worries, it's somewhat of a more complex piece than it appears on the surface.

Nothing to add based on your first couple of responses, but in regards to your other comments below:

- m10 RH beat 3.5 could add the notes here to complete the movement? Sounds like an F and B

Yep, Whoppy had brought up the same thing:

Yep it's there, but it resolves to another chord at the beginning of the next measure when the melody plays. I'd prefer to omit this motion in the arrangement for ease of playing but also to not distract from or making it sound like the chord leads into the melody line.

- m32 RH beat 1.5 D under the G
- m29 beat 3.0 RH there's a C# under the B could add

These are both here in the other layer and fit harmonically, though I think we have a slight preference to omit them since they might feel a bit out of place - with the countermelody not really included in other places. Don't have a super strong opinion, though.

- m37 RH beat 3 could add the B under the G
- m60 RH beat 1-1.5 could add the additional C# in here
- m65 sounds like there's a C# in here but I think it's good to leave out (whether above the A in RH or in between E and A in LH)

- m. 37: Would prefer to leave this one out because when listening it could be perceived as the secondary voice dropping to B instead of going back to G. Also it's a bit of a stretch to hold the top note if not using the pedal
- m. 60: It's part of the chord, but it's already present in the left hand and including it in the RH chord might make it sound a bit more clustery than it should. I think it's supposed to sound a bit dissonant but not necessarily so dense, if that makes sense!
- I think you mean m. 64? In any case, yeah putting it in the left hand would cause it to sound a bit muddier and putting it in the right hand would distract from the melody. In any case, the A7 chord is apparent already so I don't think it's an issue to omit it.

The only truly "constructive" feedback
- m60 LH beat 1 sounds like a quarter note

Just double checked and both of us still hear the C# strike on beat 1.5.

No edits have been made right now, but let us know if you feel strongly about any of the above. Thanks again!

[Kricketune54]

No edits have been made right now, but let us know if you feel strongly about any of the above. Thanks again!

Not particularly! Gave the sheet another check and not seeing anything stick out beyond what I mentioned (I'm also hearing m60 as you have), Approved

[Libera]

Sorry for the wait, let's get this one finished!

-I feel like the the chord in 38 should get the little ornament run in.  I understand dropping most of the other ones, but there's nothing really going on here otherwise for it to get in the way, and you did add the graces at the start of the piece.
-I think the A on beat 1 of bar 64 should be up the octave.
-Maybe the courtesy accidentals could be a little more consistent.  For example, you have ones for beat 3 of bar 19, beat 1.5 of bar 54 etc. but not in beat 3.5 of bar 13 or beat 1 of bar 15.  Perhaps there's some difference in those cases that I'm missing.

[Latios212]

-I feel like the the chord in 38 should get the little ornament run in.  I understand dropping most of the other ones, but there's nothing really going on here otherwise for it to get in the way, and you did add the graces at the start of the piece.

Ah do you mean the E# leading into the F# in the lower layer! Added that in~

-Maybe the courtesy accidentals could be a little more consistent.  For example, you have ones for beat 3 of bar 19, beat 1.5 of bar 54 etc. but not in beat 3.5 of bar 13 or beat 1 of bar 15.  Perhaps there's some difference in those cases that I'm missing.

It's been so long I can't really remember but I feel like we might have just missed those places. Gave it another look and added courtesy naturals there!

Also, reworked the spacing a little bit to fit on 3 pages. Thanks for checking, files updated!


And for the last thing...

-I think the A on beat 1 of bar 64 should be up the octave.

Quoting relevant snippets from above in the thread - relistening to it again I don't think it's that big of a deal but would probably prefer to keep it where it is.

-m64 beat 1: melody note sounds like it should be up an octave. You could include the harmony under it as well (bottom to top Bb-C#-E).

I think there is an A up there, but it sounds like it's part of a chord strike and not the actual melody which we both hear as the lower A we wrote in. The harmony doesn't really fit as well with that in mind, but we did add the E (fifth) in the left hand chord.

Checked the sequence data just to be sure, and the organ melody does play the note up an octave, no chord strikes are hitting it. I can hear the lower A you're taking about, but I think it's an overtone from the bass since there's no actual note there in the sequence.

I trust you but, it just sounds off to me when comparing with the original... would like another opinion on this from someone else. Just curious what others hear in the end product as well before we change it

I do hear m64 RH as it is currently written. Inquiry for Radiak: Is the entire organ part an octave up? It might be that technically it was written an octave up but because of the soundfont sounds more like how Lat and NineLives put it, especially because I can kinda sorta hear all of the notes m62 b3.33 to m65 as an octave up from what they've written.

The sheet has the melody in the correct octave as far as I can tell, it's just that one note that's up an octave. Here's a link to the midi conversion, the note is in m42: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r6FsBBmBFT9js0JEkWreYPSUxgEtZdJe/view?usp=sharing (yes i know it's in 4/4 that's how the composer input it don't blame me)

Also, I noticed that the video linked in this thread sounds like it was recorded with a limiter, so the volume levels are a bit distorted compared to the original track. I think the note is a little clearer in this other upload and in the accordion version (timestamp 1:28 for both).

Radial, I listened to both of the YT links you provided (phone said the drive file had an issue tho). I can now hear why you think there's an upper A, and maybe there is, but I feel like it flows a lot better with the A where it's at. The downward motion feels so natural to me and I feel like adding in another A, while maybe accurate, would make it feel different. As an implementation note it could be included with parentheses or a small note head to mark it as optional if your feelings on this remain the same, Latios and Nine Lives.

For measure 64's high A, I'm starting to hear it now too, but personally, with how quiet it is in comparison to the melody's lower A, it sounds off having both notes be played in the same dynamic, since the higher A, even when listening to the other sources Radiak listed, sounds less prominent and noticable. For that reason, the way we have it written now sounds best and, like Whoppy said, flows better in our opinion.

I think you're good to leave this high A out

[Libera]

Looks good.  Re; bar 64 the melody being the high A is really clear to me, so I'm definitely agreed with Radiak on that one.  And if the sequence data backs it up as well...  I guess it's not that big of a deal, but the melody does sound 'wrong' at the moment, at least to me.

[XiaoMigros]

I concur with Libera and Radiak FWIW, it sounds the same as the A a few measures prior and changing it, while giving a flow maybe preferred by some, sounds off to my ears.

[Latios212]

Alrighty, that's enough of a consensus we suppose the upper A has been added (with the lower one still there).

[Radiak488417]

-m64 beat 1: melody note sounds like it should be up an octave. You could include the harmony under it as well (bottom to top Bb-C#-E).

Quick post before this gets accepted, I still think having the Bb and C# here at the very least would be good, to preserve the b9 and 3rd of the chord.

[NineLives]

Quick post before this gets accepted, I still think having the Bb and C# here at the very least would be good, to preserve the b9 and 3rd of the chord.

We added the C#, but left out the Bb because of the crunchy sound it gives off, which we feel distracts from the melody's A. We did add the E from the chord discussed before, however, moving it from the left hand to the right.

[Libera]

Ok, it all looks good now to me.  Very happy to accept this one!

[Zeta]

This submission has been accepted by Libera.

~Zeta, your friendly NSM-Bot