00:22:879 (1,1,1,1) - wats this, im pretty sure both piano and drums are supposed to be 1/3
01:01:949 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - would consider spacing out 01:01:949 (1,2,3) - 01:02:298 (4,5,6) - 01:02:646 (7,8,9) - out more to keep with the crescendo effect that you have going with 01:02:995 (1,2,3) -
yea that makes sense but i did this specifically because the crescendo being so much in the background the music gives a feel of just "trucking along" or going on monotously with this part despite existing and then the crescendo goes to the forefront where it actually takes a hold of the mapping style. therefore im actually going to fix 01:04:391 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - this part because its not as accurate to the music and give nice playability if fixed
01:25:205 (1) - i think the NC should be moved to 01:25:321 (2) - because there isn't any change in the song where the NC is now
02:21:135 (1,2,3) - would be neat to see this actually increase in spacing instead to contrast 02:19:739 (1,2,3,4) -
03:01:187 (1,2,3) - wondering why this "sayonara" is so much different from 02:58:615 (1,2,3) - ; would consider at least spacing 03:02:044 (2) - a bit more like 02:59:472 (2) -
03:17:901 (1,2,3,1) - would decrease spacing between 2->3 and increase spacing between 3->1 to better emphasize the arpeggio
04:12:833 (1,2) - cud try smth like this https://i.imgur.com/wcQfeX0.jpeg
the movement feels more fitting for the fluid violin sounds, current pattern feels a little snappy
04:39:221 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1) - this feels. just so overdone in general, nothing change too much from the previous section but it just spikes hard asf here for some reason.
08:10:155 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - i'd find a way to distinguish between the 1-2s here since the pitchs is increasing; using same spacing for each 1-2 is a bit underwhelming imo. for example, doing the opposite of 08:12:272 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - would be neat