Seishin no Kairi no, Sakebi to Nageki.

00:00:238 - put timing point here so you don't need the double red in the beginning?

00:01:398 (1) - would end the spinner 1 tick early and add a circle because theres no real feedback on the big loud crash atm

00:21:852 (1) - remove NC? Blue tick NCs are ehhh most of the time

00:36:239 (5) - shoudl probably be NCd, since the previous part is just drum fill leading to this

01:05:557 (1,2) - spacing these out a bit would really enhance the feeling of stopping and restarting movement that is really prevalent in this pattern leading up to the chorus

01:05:966 - timing point here, not at 01:07:057 -

01:08:147 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - 01:09:238 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - shouldnt spacing of these be reversed tbh

01:11:420 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,1,2) - you could be consistent with your NCing here

also, could make either 01:12:102 (1,2) - or 01:12:238 (3,4) - into a slider as well to better work with the vocals (basically either being consistent with what you did by doing 01:12:238 (3,4) - , or changing up the focus to lead into the stream part by doing 01:12:102 (1,2) - ; both are valid options, but the current way it is feels a bit off

01:31:057 (2) - nc this instead of 01:30:988 (1) - this because the stronger sound is on the white tick.

01:31:602 (2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - by all means, doesn't this just sound like regular 4+4 phrases? Why the 3-oriented, and strongly at that too (with jumpstreams and such). I'd just repattern 01:31:534 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - so that 01:31:534 (1) - is part of hte previous stuff, and then 01:31:602 (2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - follows the fours

there isn't really anything intrinsically wrong with wacky groups or anything, but if this sounds like 4+4 to the player, this patterning this strongly is unlikely to feel fit to play, not to mention that it's also significantly harder as it is

01:32:897 (4,1,2) - shuldnt here be something similar to 01:32:625 (4,1,2) - in spacing according to the guitar? Or even bit more than that as it ascends

01:34:057 (1,2,3,4,1) - guitar is quite clearly 1/3, maybe do it that way? Though alternatively could just roll with the 1/2 drum line there as well (maybe same as 01:33:784 (1,2) - for example)

01:41:875 (4) - pretty sure this is unsnapped, should be on the blue tick

01:41:897 (1,2) - see this is why blue tick NCs aren't good, with the slider before it, I unironically read this as 1 being on white tick (and 2 as on red tick) and was about to post that this spacing is kinda megalow unless you are going for reverse emphasis

well, the spacing is fine, but you really should NC 01:41:966 (2) - instead of 01:41:897 (1) - , and remove NC from 01:42:102 (1) - as well at that point

01:46:329 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - shouldnt this have way more spacing though? I would nerf 01:44:147 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - and buff this 01:46:329 (1,2,3,4,5,6) to be bit higher than em

02:26:693 (9) - I would NC this instead of 02:26:829 (1) - for phrase clarity. I doubt this one woudl be as easily misunderstood asd that one previous I linked, but honestly this patterning kinda looks like there would be huge jumpstream towards 1 instead of it being 1/2 like it is (with 9 as the big white)

maybe I'm just retarded ¯_(ツ)_/¯

02:28:875 (1) - remove ticks and slides (at least ticks) , would sound better

generally so as well I suppose, though havent' been that many long sliders around thus far

02:57:920 (1) - the distortion is fairly minor, so idk about the extent of gameplay effect, but there's no way to see it from the shape, which is generally not great for sliders of this kind

03:13:056 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - neither of these are triples though? Just 1/2

03:47:147 (1) - delete the nc here?

03:57:784 (1,2) - this is pretty fine as is, but you could get stronger effect by doing bit of same you did earlier in some parts by making 03:58:057 (2) - actually slow SV slider, so the contrast is notably bigger. Adding to this, there's snare triple from 03:57:920 - onward, so you could make 03:57:784 (1) - a 1/4 kickslider leading into the triple leading into slow slider 03:58:057 (2) - , which would bring huge landing at 03:58:329 (1) - kicking in with the faster SV on the strong vocs and stuff

04:01:397 (1) - saem here as early on with that one

04:13:943 (2,1) - that's a huge diffspike imho (similar with the case of #3347552 ), although this is slightly less serious than that in the 2nd diff i still strongly recommend nerfing it

04:15:784 (5) - and this one too, same as early on

04:16:875 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,1) - the vocals are kinda the most important part, so why wouldnt you follow them with the phrasing / grouping? You are alreayd following them with the spacing anyhow