[NES] Mega Man 2 - "Metal Man" (Replacement) by LeviR.star

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Mega Man
Game: Mega Man 2
Console: Nintendo Entertainment System
Title: Metal Man
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: LeviR.star


Replacement Information:
Links to Existing Sheet: MUS | MIDI | PDF
Replacement Type: Challenge (new arranger)

[LeviR.star]

And so, my efforts to replace Mega Man 2's sheet catalogue continues. You may notice in some spots like m. 12, 16, 18 and 22 that the transcription appears "off" but this only a result of some creative liberty; there are times at which the accompaniment line obscures the melody, so I am simply attempting to preserve it by shifting the voice leading around. When arranging this music for piano, it's less obvious where the primary part is when we lose that timbral variety from the NES's sounds.

[Kricketune54]

Very little to say about this one

• m16 RH I assume this might fall under your comment, but 1.0 there is an audible Db. If that is the case, my defense is m4 features similar beat syncopation between melody and accompaniment.
• m20 did you not add the triangle tom bit like m16 because the LH is also supposed to do part of the 16th run?

and not to be a bug about it, could you match your tempo marking notehead to the new template's MaestroTimes font?

[LeviR.star]

• m16 RH I assume this might fall under your comment, but 1.0 there is an audible Db. If that is the case, my defense is m4 features similar beat syncopation between melody and accompaniment.
• m20 did you not add the triangle tom bit like m16 because the LH is also supposed to do part of the 16th run?
• and not to be a bug about it, could you match your tempo marking notehead to the new template's MaestroTimes font?

- not sure what my omission of that note has to do with m. 4 or 8, but yes, I left it out because it's obscuring the melody, as you alluded to my introduction. Muting the Square 2 channel (which is what's playing that note) from the NSF file makes it easier to hear, and I'd be happy to provide the isolated Square 1 track if needed
- I think the triangle tom's translation to piano really takes away the impact from the melody 16ths in that particular bar, not to mention its inclusion makes m. 20 rather difficult to perform. I'd rather keep it out, if it's all the same to you
- though the formatting of my tempo marking was one of the very few things I managed to keep consistent across 500 sheets, I think it'd be in my best interest to adhere to the new guidelines, out of fairness to the other arrangers. I don't want to do it, but the difference is barely noticeable to the outside observer so I'll try my best not to let it bother me

Thank you for your time, Kricketune. I hope what I said here makes sense; the files are updated to reflect the new tempo marking notehead.

[Kricketune54]

- not sure what my omission of that note has to do with m. 4 or 8, but yes, I left it out because it's obscuring the melody, as you alluded to my introduction. Muting the Square 2 channel (which is what's playing that note) from the NSF file makes it easier to hear, and I'd be happy to provide the isolated Square 1 track if needed

I did say in my post that I felt the rhythmic syncopation of the melody and accompaniment was similar to m4 or m8, I was drawing a comparison as to why I felt it was worth adding in the beat 1.0 Db. But in this place (m16) you're leaving out the first note of the melody...? Confused on what your interpretation of the melody is then because to me the RH part is the melody

- I think the triangle tom's translation to piano really takes away the impact from the melody 16ths in that particular bar, not to mention its inclusion makes m. 20 rather difficult to perform. I'd rather keep it out, if it's all the same to you

Okay that's fine, good to keep out.

[LeviR.star]

But in this place (m16) you're leaving out the first note of the melody...? Confused on what your interpretation of the melody is then because to me the RH part is the melody

That's the thing though, I'm not leaving out any part the melody. Please give this isolated snippet a listen and you'll find that the note in question doesn't belong to the melody at all. In producing this arrangement, I'm not intent on transcribing the track note-for-note.

[Kricketune54]

This one note just seems like an odd exclusion for an arrangement, I have listened to the sample of Square 1 but I'm just going off of what my ears hear when I hear this song, and to me it would make sense to include this note. I'm not going to make it a big thing though, so I will approve this sheet. If another updater raises it, I would include it but otherwise, solid arrangement.

[Latios212]

Reading the comments above about m. 16 beat 1, I have to say I agree with Kricketune here. Listening to the track in its entirety it doesn't make any sense to me why that note isn't there. Everywhere else it's readily apparent where you've isolated the melody from the distracting accompaniment, but here the bare Db sounds similar to the one on beat 1.5.

Taking apart the channels to figure out what's written as what voice can help to make sense of things, but how would the listener be able to tell that's supposed to be a different voice without deconstructing the track?

[LeviR.star]

Reading the comments above about m. 16 beat 1, I have to say I agree with Kricketune here. Listening to the track in its entirety it doesn't make any sense to me why that note isn't there. Everywhere else it's readily apparent where you've isolated the melody from the distracting accompaniment, but here the bare Db sounds similar to the one on beat 1.5.

Taking apart the channels to figure out what's written as what voice can help to make sense of things, but how would the listener be able to tell that's supposed to be a different voice without deconstructing the track?

All I wanted was to create a, how do I say this, less literal interpretation of the track? As I'm sure you've noticed, the accompaniment's voice leading doesn't translate super clearly into piano; this is a problem with the sheet I'm replacing, and one that I sought to remedy. So I'm not exactly sure why the other parts where I did this are fine, but this one isn't. Yes, I know it's hard to hear without isolating the tracks, but that's not my point.

If this is noteworthy enough that two separate updaters take issue with it, then I'll put it back in, but I'd like to hear your thoughts once more.

EDIT: After few days worth of reflection, I've decided to add the note back in the next time I update the files, hopefully soon. Thank you for giving me a moment to think about this.

[LeviR.star]

EDIT: After few days worth of reflection, I've decided to add the note back in the next time I update the files, hopefully soon. Thank you for giving me a moment to think about this.

It is done. Thank you, Kricketune and Latios, for bringing me back to my senses on this.

[Bloop]

Don't have much to say about this either! Only comment I might make is the tied notes in the R.H. in m10 and 14 might look better as an 8th tied to a half note, but if you prefer it as is, I'm ready to accept!

[LeviR.star]

Only comment I might make is the tied notes in the R.H. in m10 and 14 might look better as an 8th tied to a half note, but if you prefer it as is, I'm ready to accept!

Ooh, good point, I hadn't thought to write it that way. Consider it done; the files are ready.

[Bloop]

Awesome, then I'll accept!

[Zeta]

This submission has been accepted by Bloop.

~Zeta, your friendly NSM-Bot