Arcology On Permafrost

00:11:077 (11077|2) - this note does not represent significant sound. there is repeating ounds on every 1/4 and there is no difference with othere sounds. so this one should not be LN. try to change to rice.

00:11:187 (11187|1,11298|3,11408|1,11518|3) - I found this motion a bit too static for how the melody behaves. pic related:

• moved the 2 notes in 00:11:408 - to the left to differentiate from 00:11:187 -
• gap between 00:11:849 - & 00:11:959 - better expresses melody's pitch gap

00:18:467 - apply the same highlighted notes for consistency

00:20:011 - 00:22:658 sounds get longer.

you used 1/2 length LNs on 00:22:217 - to express longer sound. although the sound gets longer gradually, only last part has longer LNs.

so to make notes better follow song, try one of these options:

1. make LNs get longer gradually. with in 1/12 measure, try like: 3/12 on first quater, 4/12 on second quater, 5/12 on third quater, 6/12 on last quater.

2. make first half 1/4 and second half 1/2

00:21:224 (21224|2) - Personally feel it a bit unexpected for this one to be shorter while the pitch is in highest compared with other sounds, probably it can be more stand out, for example

00:33:246 - & 00:34:901 - : wondering why not using the usual 1/6 LN for the synth. I suggest avoiding the minijack altogether in col1 since the sound for minijack seems to start from 00:33:687 - , and it feels a bit more consistent with 00:26:187 - or 00:29:717 -

additionally, I think making these LN 00:34:680 (34680|1,34901|3) - go from 1/4 --> 1/6 allows 00:34:901 (34901|0) - to become LN too for the synth and helps the transition to the 1/4 LNs in 00:35:342 - (idea correlated to #3707325)

00:36:334 - 00:42:290 - etc, are these intended to be mapped as 1/6 here? The actual snap is pretty clear to be 1/8 on them

00:39:864 (39864|3,39974|0,40084|1,40195|2) - due to the context that these notes are in, I think these should be normal notes because nothing is really supporting these sounds of that intensity ( plus u did it at 00:43:393 (43393|1,43504|0) - so idk why u don't do it here )

same thing happens in the second half

00:42:731 - very simple suggestion: move 00:42:842 (42842|0) - to col1. resulting structure looks more compact. col4 should be reserved pitch-wise for the important LN in 00:43:173 -
02:46:261 - same

00:44:276 (44276|0,44386|1,44496|2,44606|0,44606|1,44606|3) - Not really sure about your intention to make them being extra tight here for the 1/4 sound, which is inconsistent with previous pattern at 00:37:217 - . Also if it was intended, why does it go back to 'normal' pattern at 00:45:158 (45158|2,45268|0,45379|1,45489|2,45489|0,45489|3) - again?

similar question for 02:33:246 - and repeated parts

00:46:481 (46481|3,46569|3,46657|2,46746|2) - these note form some jack, but you expressed same sound (00:45:820 - ) with streams. switching stream to jack with no musical change is quite confusing for players. kinda unexpextable.

try to stick with rices. 00:46:569 (46569|3) - to col 2, 00:46:746 (46746|2) - to col 4.

00:46:996 (46996|1) - to col 3 for bonus.

( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 )

00:46:849 (46849|0,46996|0,47143|0) - From my listening these sounds are somewhat still having slightly slow down effect here, so probably you can adjust snap to better indicate that, also more accurate i think

02:50:379 -

00:47:364 (47364|0,47364|3) - Feel like you can probably give triple here for more impact, not big deal tho

00:59:606 - since you use 00:59:276 (59276|1,59386|2,59496|3) - 1/6 LNs to follow melody sound,you should use LN on 00:59:606 (59606|0) - .

01:01:923 - either col2 or col3 should be and LN extended to 01:02:033 - to represent the piano synth that also used LN in 01:02:033 - . note you did something similar in 01:08:981 (68981|2) -

01:03:932 (63932|0,64165|3) - supposed to be snapped to 01:03:908 - and 01:04:129 - innit?

01:03:932 (63932|3,63932|0) - Don't see the reason to be double here, probably should just be grace like 01:03:577 (63577|1,63614|0,63687|2,63724|1,63798|3,63834|2) - since they're same sound, similar for 01:18:050 (78050|0,78050|3) -

Also would like to ask if it's actually intended to give different emphasize for places like 01:10:967 (70967|0) - , which is only expressed in single note despite being pretty similar with case above

01:05:011 - 01:05:783 - 01:06:665 - Compared with previous pattern at similar position 01:01:481 - 01:02:254 - 01:03:136 - i think these loud bass sound is actually quite repeated as they're indicating the stable rhythm of the song in this section. While they might have very minor difference with each other, but it seems there are too many changes in your pattern so it kinda makes it a bit confusing when looking through it

Not sure if there is any intuitive idea behind it, but would like to hear your thoughts on this (for both ln head and tail) since it would likely affect this whole kiai

01:05:452 (65452|3,65550|0,65550|3,78050|3,78050|0) - it might be a bit off that you give the emphasize here on the less intense sound 01:05:550 (65550|3,65550|0) - , while the emphasize on loud snare is much less, probably can adjust by a bit

Also would like to see if it's intended to use less notes for snare at some places, mostly when there is still enough space

01:08:981 (68981|2,68981|3) -
01:19:570 (79570|3) -
01:23:981 (83981|2) -

01:05:452 - unaccurate notes. synth notes should probably be resnapped to 1/8. last note could be an LN extended to 01:05:783 - , since the sound is glitchy and has no clear pitch, very different from 01:05:550 - , so differentiating the sounds by using LN would be nice
(the resulting minijack in col4 would be balanced out by 01:07:106 - )
01:19:570 - same

01:16:739 (76739|3) - this one should be longer to properly follow sound. extend it to 01:17:033.

01:21:776 - 01:22:106 - 01:22:437 - These three loud snares here would be quite obvious when going through this section if you compare this with previous point, 01:07:658 - 01:07:989 - 01:08:320 - . So i think ideally it would be better to at least give some contrast between these two places

Probably a bit difficult to find new pattern because how saturated current pattern is, but could possibly just change previous pattern as well

01:23:099 (83099|2,83136|3,83136|1) - i think it will be difficult to justify the pattern here when it's literally being pretty similar with 01:08:981 (68981|3,68981|2) - and there is nothing at the point you place double 01:23:136 (83136|1,83136|3) - , focus on visual a bit too much here i think

01:25:305 (85305|1,85305|0,85415|0) - Feel unatural that the chord usage here doesn't sync with drum (at 1/4), while it's clear that you're following that later by 01:25:746 (85746|3,85746|0,86187|0,86187|3) -

01:26:739 (86739|3) - Technically it should be the similar snap like 01:26:923 (86923|0) - (1/6), and 01:26:818 (86818|2) - is 1/12, so maybe you can try

01:26:812 (86812|2,86849|1) - could be ctrl+H? currently the LN's snap isn't very clear for a roll like that, and feels rather manippable. mirroring it is also more visual in gameplay

01:27:070 - The snap here is actually gradually getting faster from my listening, so not sure why it's changing from 1/8 to 1/7 now. Not necessary to be 100% accurate when that's impossible to do, but i think it should at least follow the correct trend

01:27:952 with the context of the wub pattern at 01:30:158, musically this wub 01:28:393 (88393|2) is supposed to start on 01:28:283. it should also be a 1/2 LN like 01:29:165 to stay consistent

i'm aware this might be an unfortunate placement as it's really close to 01:28:136 (88136|1,88173|2), so do changes to your own intent with my given information

01:30:158 (90158|0) - i personally won't add note here because there seems nothing to be emphasized other than being the first sound of the sequence

01:37:217 - 01:44:276 -

01:32:998 (92998|2,93026|3) - i think it would be better extend them by a bit, the sound doesn't sound like that short here

01:33:687 vs - 01:34:570 - Not sure what's the difference here, might be a bit too minor to make such big difference imo

01:36:445 (96445|0,96500|2) - (a bit related to #3712692) sound gap between these notes could be more emphasized by using slightly altered snaps for a slightly bigger gap. pic related:

• 01:36:500 (96500|2,96610|3,96720|3) - are now 1/10
• 01:36:390 (96390|1,96445|0) - are now 1/9 (which kept the pace with 01:36:187 (96187|0,96236|2,96285|1) - also in 1/9)

01:50:452 - same

01:39:754 (99754|0,99781|2) - Previous repeated synth seems to be nearly dead here, so it's probably better to just remove 01:39:781 (99781|2) - for the fading out, i'd say it's the similar idea with what you do at 00:59:606 (59606|0) -

01:40:746 (100746|2,100783|3,100820|0) - too much LN for such a silent synth, which is present in 01:39:864 - & 01:42:511 - as background but those triples are for the bass. 01:40:746 - doesn't have any bass, and both vocal and synth are ignorable in comparison of the wubs before and after.

may sound extreme, but I suggest removing all 3 LNs for more contrast with 01:40:939 - . also, maybe add another LN in 01:40:526 - col1 (same length) to make up a bit for lack of notes and because that sound could use more than just single.
01:42:180 - consider the same: remove note for ignorable vocal

01:41:959 (101959|2) - Should it be 1/16 earlier like others 01:41:270 (101270|1,101436|2,101601|0,101766|1) - ?

01:42:879 (102879|0,102897|1) - timing difference in those notes are unnoticibly small. it gives some kinds of impression, but compared to other notes on kiai, i think you should give more difference in timing.

01:45:158 (105158|3,105158|1,105158|0,105268|2,105268|0,105379|3,105379|1,105489|3,105489|0,105599|2,105599|0,105599|1) - Feels a bit messy to me or maybe i don't understand what you're going for here

Main question is that why you change the layering A LOT here while i don't think those sound does not change much, from triple usage and different LN length like 01:45:268 (105268|2,105379|1,105489|3,105599|2) , i do find it a bit confusing

Same thing about LN length also happens after 01:51:776 - , where i find some evidence of progression like 01:53:099 (113099|3,113099|0,113154|2,113209|0,113265|1,113320|3) - , but still not so sure about the choice of different length of LN jack

01:46:261 (106261|0,106371|3,106481|1,106592|2) - those LNs are slightly longer than other LNs. is it mistake?

01:50:618 - can be emptied to emphasize 01:50:562 - .

01:50:893 (110893|1) - I want to say that this LN should be released at so that it at least represents the drums at 01:51:224 - but this is up to u

01:50:948 (110948|3) - This might be shorter because the sound's volume is decreasing very fast here from my listening, currently it gives me a bit of feeling like holding long for nothing

01:52:548 (112548|2,112548|3,112548|1,112548|0,112658|3,112658|2,112658|1,112658|0) - Not sure if this needs to be exagerrated to this extend, from emphasize purpose it's fine, but it's also clear that it causes byproduct like the long jack in col4 01:52:327 (112327|3,112437|3,112548|3,112658|3,112768|3,112879|3) -

01:52:548 - is there a reason to use only rice in triples here and to use LN in these 01:45:489 - ? sounds really like the same thing to me

01:57:318 (117318|1,117345|3,117345|0,117413|2,117456|0,117462|3) - Might be a bit too much here when the sound isn't really being too complex/intense, i feel that it's better to make them less dense, currently kinda sudden burst to me

02:08:209 - Actually hear sth similar with previous sounds 02:07:548 (127548|1,127879|1) - here, so probably can add one note for that

02:08:761 (128761|1,128871|2,128981|1,129092|0,129312|0) - vs 02:09:533 (129533|2,129643|1,129754|2,129864|3,129974|1) - Feel like it's a bit inconsistent with how you mapped for these sounds

There are 1/4 sounds that don't get expressed from your pattern, at 02:09:202 - 02:09:423 - , unless it's done on purpose or it feels too selectively expressed, a bit weird mainly due to how similar these two melody series are

02:11:077 - the LN density progression decays a bit for not much reason. this rendition follows more gradually and taking 02:09:533 - more into consideration. also removed this note 02:11:959 - since there's no sound

04:11:187 - same maybe

02:12:401 (132401|0) - 02:13:173 (133173|2) - Are these two left in single on purpose? As i see from your later pattern whenever there is LN it's always double

Also 02:13:641 (133641|3) - is it actually wrongly snapped?

02:13:724 (133724|2,133834|3) - should be ctrl+G to maintain the same flow direction for each time a new LN comes. at least in 02:16:812 - & 02:21:224 - the notes change because of melody but the direction tends to go to the same direction anyway, unlike 02:13:724 - where there's no distinctive melody nor need to make that direction change

02:18:687 (138687|0,138798|2) - I suggest moving both notes one column to the right. it seems to fit better to how the melody goes up

02:23:540 - it seems more reasonable for me to still fully express the synth melody here, given how clear they're i think it doesn't really warrant the break feeling here

02:58:614 (178614|2,178614|3) - Probably should be just single here if you're intended to leave them single at 02:59:496 (179496|0) - 03:00:379 (180379|0) - etc

03:07:658 (187658|2,187658|0,187686|1,187686|3,187768|2,187768|0,187805|1,187823|3) - The pattern here seems to be pretty dense compared with the average in this part, i think mainly due to the fast grace 03:07:658 (187658|0,187658|2,187686|3,187686|1) -

While i understand there might be a complex bell sound to warrant it, but feel like when you main focus is synth sound like 03:07:217 (187217|3,187217|0,187242|1,187244|2,187437|3,187437|0,187462|1,187465|2) - in this part, you can probably reduce one note here to make it less dense, also more contrast

if you're willing to change here, also apply at 03:11:187 - for consistency, and actually i'm not sure why 03:11:298 (191298|1,191325|3,191408|0) - is expressed so differently

03:12:401 (192401|0,192401|3) - Subjective point, but personally would reduce the one at col1 so it won't be too strain as a transition

Density can be reduced by a bit at 03:17:695 - as well

03:15:599 (195599|1,195599|0,195599|2,195599|3) - Personally feel using a quad here would be possibly a bit too much consider it's only followed by a single 03:15:709 (195709|2) - (due to flow purpose? but still a kick), i think it makes more sense to reduce one here

03:20:342 (200342|1,200397|2,200452|3) - If i get your intention correctly, the grace LNs here should be still the semi-dump for the extension of the melody, thus i personally feel it should be made more rounded so it won't get as sharp as where there is an actual sound 03:19:901 (199901|3,199956|2,200011|1) - . For example

03:23:651 (203651|1,203706|3,203724|2,203761|0) - Seems like you're expressing the complex synth sound by the fast and grace LNs here, but there is nothing for it previously at 03:20:121 - , might be a bit inconsistent if no good reason for that, or is it progression to the next section 03:26:959 - ?

03:27:731 (207731|0,207731|3,207842|0,207842|3,207897|1,207952|2,208062|3,208173|0) - From the expression here it seems that you only focus on the main melody here while other synth gets ignored. As seeing at 03:26:959 - you actually weigh more for those complex synth, so it's a bit unexpected to see them just absent here consider how near they're in the timeline

03:31:040 (211040|0) - Do feel better to add at least one more note here consider the same case at 03:30:158 (210158|1,210158|0,210158|3) -

maybe also consider adding for 03:38:099 (218099|0) - , normally i do see the trend that drums do not get prioritized that much but these two pointed out are just being pretty empty currently

03:31:923 - although the current pattern flows nicely, I felt the prominent 1/3 drums were omitted. highlighted notes show how a 1/3 rhythm in the left hand (instead of 1/4) could help expressing the actual rhythm

03:56:959 - Did you just miss out the last drum here?

03:57:106 - could add a rice note here col1? I think it fits nicely by how strings behave, like "breezing" the first notes

03:57:511 (237511|2) - Optional but add one here might be cool consider how loud the clap is

04:03:136 this felt really odd that there's a missing emphasis on this sound, previously you've done it (00:13:724), so I think this should be emphasized as well to stay consistent

Similarly on 04:10:195, 04:11:077 as well. Though they distract the piano melody present, so it can ignored if you feel the same about it too

04:09:202 - Probably better to add one here consider its similarity with 04:10:084 (250084|3) -

similar case for 04:23:320 -

04:18:908 (258908|0) - No bell sound here like 04:18:687 (258687|3,259129|3) - so using LN feels a bit werid

04:22:686 (262686|1,262695|2) - i do get that the louder sound here is pretty delayed, but consider the previously dominant bell is still right at 1/1 line, personally would still move the normal note 04:22:686 (262686|1) - back to 1/1 for that