[Wii] Super Mario Galaxy 2 - "Starship Mario 1" (Replacement) by Sebastian

[Zeta]

Submission Information:
Series: Super Mario
Game: Super Mario Galaxy 2
Console: Nintendo Wii
Title: Starship Mario 1
Instrumentation Solo Piano
Arranger: Sebastian


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

[attachment deleted by admin]

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Sebastian]

Correct title is "Starship Mario 1"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1fhegjp_Po

[The Deku Trombonist]

No harp flourish in bar 3? It sure would sit beautifully and it's not like the pianist is doing much else of world importance in that bar.

Perhaps bar 8 onwards would be tidier with both accompaniment parts in the LH staff?

Also in that section: playability?

For the two voices to make sense in bars 24-27 you need the bottom voice visible as a separate note in some places, eg beat 1 & 3 in bar 24. Otherwise it can look like random double stemming.

No harp glissez in the last line?

[FireArrow]

In measure 26 there's absolutely no way anyone looking at a printed sheet would know if those notes in the second layer are quarter notes or half notes. Not sure what the solution is though.

[daj]

Love this track! Was kinda disappointed at the arrangement we had too when I tried to read it about a year-ish back (really. idk why.), so it's great that you've done a solid replacement

I'm in favour of keeping the accompaniment pattern that crosses over the way it is. It would be pretty nice to keep it in the lower staff, but when you have notes that range, generally, from around middle G to D, then it's not feasible to do so (changing clefs is confusing).

As for the inner voice of the upper staff at bars 24-27, I think it makes a little sense to do that because you want to show the performers that you, as a composer, recognised a chromatic scale in the track. You wouldn't be wrong, but the performers would just go "hmm okay" and wish they weren't there. Bascially, it's awesome that you saw the chromatic scale, but as a performer, I would prefer the more organised score you get if you remove that part altogether~

As Deku Trombonist mentioned, harp glisses! Yes please. We need that glimmer somewhere, especially on bar 3. The one at the ending is kinda-ish okay-ly substituted by tremolos. But something needs to lead-in to the opening section at bar 3, and while a piano gliss probably sucks (unless you do it in thirds! dont you dare.), a modified arpeggio might be okay

Otherwise, great work; a nice potential sight-reading piece! Fantastic effort and much thanks~

[Sebastian]

No harp flourish in bar 3? It sure would sit beautifully and it's not like the pianist is doing much else of world importance in that bar.

To be completely honest, I'm not very good at adding things like that. I actually had this same idea before, but every attempt of mine didn't turn out nicely. I even tried slowing the song down to 50%, but it's still extremely hard to hear. Any ideas? I'm very interested in incorporating this.

EDIT: Here is a crude "first draft." What's everyone think of something like this?

Spoiler

[close]

Perhaps bar 8 onwards would be tidier with both accompaniment parts in the LH staff?

That's exactly what I had before Latios and I discussed this sheet over skype, but Latios recommended this way. Honestly, I think this way is easier for the performer and cleaner looking in general. Having it in the left hand seemed messier and harder for the performer to read.

Also in that section: playability?

Not impossible. I tried playing it and I can do it relatively easily without much practice.

For the two voices to make sense in bars 24-27 you need the bottom voice visible as a separate note in some places, eg beat 1 & 3 in bar 24. Otherwise it can look like random double stemming.

It was actually Olimar that recommended that I put the notes together in this fashion. Olimar and I had a nice discussion about it here:
We start the conversation here:
http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?topic=4911.msg341037#msg341037

He specifically brings it up here and here:
http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?topic=4911.msg341060#msg341060
http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?topic=4911.msg341113#msg341113

No harp glissez in the last line?

Heck, no  
Four voices might be a little overkill lol.

In measure 26 there's absolutely no way anyone looking at a printed sheet would know if those notes in the second layer are quarter notes or half notes. Not sure what the solution is though.

As I told Deku, Olimar had me change it.
I could do something like this:


Again, that's what I originally had. Olimar (as you can see on my arrangement page) had me change it. Honestly, I like how I currently have it now, but I do agree with your statement, FireArrow.

Love this track! Was kinda disappointed at the arrangement we had too when I tried to read it about a year-ish back (really. idk why.), so it's great that you've done a solid replacement

Thank you! I've been meaning to replace this sheet for about a year now, but only got around to it this past month.

I'm in favour of keeping the accompaniment pattern that crosses over the way it is. It would be pretty nice to keep it in the lower staff, but when you have notes that range, generally, from around middle G to D, then it's not feasible to do so (changing clefs is confusing).

I totally agree.

As for the inner voice of the upper staff at bars 24-27, I think it makes a little sense to do that because you want to show the performers that you, as a composer, recognised a chromatic scale in the track. You wouldn't be wrong, but the performers would just go "hmm okay" and wish they weren't there. Bascially, it's awesome that you saw the chromatic scale, but as a performer, I would prefer the more organised score you get if you remove that part altogether~

Hmmmm, we'll see. I would like to hear the others' thoughts on this.

As Deku Trombonist mentioned, harp glisses! Yes please. We need that glimmer somewhere, especially on bar 3. The one at the ending is kinda-ish okay-ly substituted by tremolos. But something needs to lead-in to the opening section at bar 3, and while a piano gliss probably sucks (unless you do it in thirds! dont you dare.), a modified arpeggio might be okay

I plan on getting the one up in M. 3, but I, unfortunately, don't know what to put. I've always tried staying away from these types of things because they always end bad for me xD
About the ones in the last system, I'll just leave that system as is.

Otherwise, great work; a nice potential sight-reading piece! Fantastic effort and much thanks~

Great to hear! Thank you very much. : )

[DS]

Oooooh I really wanna play this

[Latios212]

Perhaps bar 8 onwards would be tidier with both accompaniment parts in the LH staff?

Yeah, I recommended the way we have right now because that layer is entirely off the staff (middle C is the lowest it gets) and goes as high as a D (five ledger lines). I also like it this way because even though it doesn't overlap with the melody, you can see exactly how close it gets.

a nice potential sight-reading piece!

Oooooh I really wanna play this

augh I wanna play it too

[Tobbeh99]

That image of M.3 looks pretty good I think. That is probably how I would arrange that as well. You could also add a cresc. on the way up and a dim. on the way down.

[Sebastian]

Ok^.
Anyone else have any thoughts on it?

[Sebastian]

I added the flourish in M. 3 and added a screenshot to accommodate for the odd formatting.

Any others edits needed for this sheet?

[Sebastian]

bump

[Maelstrom]

You asked for it, and you'll get it
First: I completely understand if this is an artistic choice, but is there a reason that the eighth notes in m4-7 don't have staccatos like the rest?
Second: Have you considered staccatos for the baseline as well? I don't remembre the proper musical/string term, but I'm pretty sure a staccato would be the best way to notate it.
Third: The riff.
Here's my edited version:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/t9pi9kud3j7sjto/Super%20Mario%20Galaxy%202%20-%20Starship%20Mario.musx?dl=0
After this, it should be done.

edit: Probably flip the stem of the dotted half in m3/4

[Sebastian]

First: I completely understand if this is an artistic choice, but is there a reason that the eighth notes in m4-7 don't have staccatos like the rest?

Since those are the only voices playing, I didn't want them to sound all choppy by adding staccatos which is why I didn't.

Second: Have you considered staccatos for the baseline as well? I don't remembre the proper musical/string term, but I'm pretty sure a staccato would be the best way to notate it.

They don't need detached or shortened any more than they are already. They are clearly held longer in the original then they are currently notated.

Third: The riff.
Here's my edited version:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/t9pi9kud3j7sjto/Super%20Mario%20Galaxy%202%20-%20Starship%20Mario.musx?dl=0

I like mine better. I guess yours works. It doesn't seem very cool sounding or very "pianistic" like mine. 

edit: Probably flip the stem of the dotted half in m3/4

.....the whole notes?

[Maelstrom]

1Since those are the only voices playing, I didn't want them to sound all choppy by adding staccatos which is why I didn't.

2They don't need detached or shortened any more than they are already. They are clearly held longer in the original then they are currently notated.
 
3I like mine better. I guess yours works. It doesn't seem very cool sounding or very "pianistic" like mine. 

4.....the whole notes?

1. I made the comment for consistency's sake..

2. I don't think you can "hold" a plucked string

3. Mine may not be as creative, but it's what's in the song.

4. Nvm. Sorry if those got messed up when I cleared the last quarter of the measure. Yeah, they should be whole notes.