[NES] Castlevania III: Dracula's Curse - "Dead Beat" by Atcero

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Castlevania
Game: Castlevania III: Dracula's Curse
Console: Nintendo Entertainment System
Title: Dead Beat
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Atcero

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Atcero]

Filling out the CV3 catalogue :catjam:

I will apologize for the accidentals, I did them the best I could with help on the cord but this song loves its accidentals.

[XiaoMigros]

I will apologize for the accidentals, I did them the best I could with help on the cord but this song loves its accidentals.

You did great for the most part, let's just get those out the way first:

Accidentals

• m4: beats 1.5 and 3.5 in the RH would be better of with E# instead of Fn, seems odd in this keysig but it keeps the intervals intact (and reduces accidentals overall)
• m7&11: beat 2 in the RH & LH should be G# rather than Ab, along with beat 3.5 in the RH
• m13 b2.5: The Eb in the RH should be D#
• m14 b4.5 LH: G# instead of Ab, leads into the following A better
• m20 b3.5 LH: The LH should be the same as the RH here, also meaning G# instead of Ab

[close]

Now on to the rest:

• m1-2: I think the top line of notes in the RH would be better an octave lower, what do you think?
• m7&11: I dont hear the C at beat 2.5, and you have one too many G#s/Abs on beat 2.
• m8: I hear this for the run at beat 4
• m11: beat 4.5 should be an A
• m12: The run here sounds like 16ths and not a quintuplet, I'm hearing E-F#-G-G#
• m13&17: I'm not sure how playable those consecutive 16th notes are in the lower RH layer, I think they would be fine as 8ths. I also don't hear the D#/Eb at beat 2.5 as tied, imo a single 8th note would do.
  For the LH, there's a rhythmic grouping mistake (which you did correctly in m18)
• m16: I don't see a strong reason to have the lower layer an octave lower than in the original, I think it's fine if it's higher than the other layer.
• m20: beat 4 in the RH doesn't seem that playable, maybe you could remove the first 2 notes in the lower layer?

[Atcero]

Got that all updated, thank you!

I will say I did not do this

m16: I don't see a strong reason to have the lower layer an octave lower than in the original, I think it's fine if it's higher than the other layer.

as I feel it detracts from the melody line having the second voice go higher (even though it technically is more accurate to the OG song)

[XiaoMigros]

I will say I did not do thisas I feel it detracts from the melody line having the second voice go higher (even though it technically is more accurate to the OG song)

That's fair, I just liked the different accentuation when listening to it but either works

A few more things:

• The notes that are tied into m8 and m12 should have their ties flipped upwards to accomodate for the newly joining second layer
• I think you can hide the lower layer fourth rests in those measures too
• The quintuplet in m8 is spaced a little tightly

If any of these aren't fixable with notepad I can make the changes now or at a later point in time

[Atcero]

I'll get that fixed later today, thank you! And I have full finale so that won't be necessary lol

[XiaoMigros]

right

[XiaoMigros]

• I think you can hide the lower layer fourth rests in those measures (m8 & m12) too

Did you miss this, or did you decide against it? Either way is fine..

• I suggest moving the first system down a little so that arranger text and tempo marking aren't at the same height.
• You also might want to readjust the crescendo/mf markings in m4/5, better centering them horizontally and vertically.

[Atcero]

Got that all updated and yes forgot to say I'm pretty used to showing the rests on the second layer now so I would prefer to keep those shown if thats fine. Thank ya!

[XiaoMigros]

Looks great! You have my approval :)

[Latios212]

Looking good! A handful of small things before we finish up here:
- Composer information is missing a "and"/"&" before the last composer
- Thoughts about putting staccatos on all the notes in the intro? Not strictly necessary but this part does sound different from the rest of the piece in that regard.
- The G (second to last note) in m. 8/12 needs a natural on it because Gb is present earlier in the measure
- I think you could remove all the courtesy naturals in this piece if you wanted to. The key signature is blank and there's a lot of chromatic movement, so the performer should already be doing a mental reset of accidentals across barlines anyway. It's totally fine if you want to keep them though, as the ones you have are in good places where a natural note follows soon after a modified one.
- This isn't a huge deal because this is an arrangement and not a transcription, but in beat 2 of m. 6 and 10 you break the 3-voice limit by including the A in both hands. Having both doesn't really change much sound-wise, so you could just remove it from the left hand since the middle voice is primarily being included in the right hand in this section.
- The D.C. is a bit cramped - you could move the last system down a tiny bit to allow putting it a little higher above the RH part.
- The quarter rest in m. 13/17 looks odd since the top layer dips low enough that it looks like the eighth note is supposed to come after the quarter note. Actually, I'd just suggest combining voices in the RH in the entirety of m. 13-9 since they mostly move in parallel here.
- The Gb on beat 3.5 of m. 14 RH would be better as an F# to preserve the parallel fourths (even though it gets naturalled out in the next dyad).
- Maybe consider having the last system being the one to have two measures since the previous one seems a bit stretched out right now? Though I guess you'd have a stretched system either way unless you shortened the last system.

I will say I did not do thisas I feel it detracts from the melody line having the second voice go higher (even though it technically is more accurate to the OG song)

Also, yeah I agree with keeping it as is to preserve the main melody on top

[Atcero]

We did some more minor tweakin in discord and all that, thanks Latios!

[Latios212]

My pleasure! Now it's time...

You cannot view this attachment.

[Zeta]

This submission has been accepted by Latios212.

~Zeta, your friendly NSM-Bot