Giselle (full act)

00:00:000 to apply in 7K

#4397824/12564131

00:00:872 (872|3,933|2,994|1,1056|0) - i cant get this out of my head but i'm like 99% sure these are way faster lol. just see the note on 00:01:056 (1056|0) - it's WAY too late compared to where the strongest sound actually lands on

00:14:039 (14039|3) - i thhink i can suggest smth ehre, i'm very thrown off by your take on this sound since:

1. the note i highlighted would be better on the 1/16, 00:14:074 -
2. the sound clearly has some sort of ''whistle'' before it hits peak, so a grace could possibly work better

00:14:963 (14963|1) - vs. 00:17:006 (17006|1) - why's the 1st note on the 1/16? i'm pretty sure it should be 1/2 just like 00:17:006 -

00:18:157 (18157|3,18289|0) - pretty unnecessary and you can ignore this suggestion, but hah it'd be a nice detail to emphasize the different musical rhythm here, it sounds like swing to me if you lsiten closely

00:23:221 00:26:874 intentionally ignored the note?

00:26:762 (26762|2) - i think im sure this should be double imo

00:26:930 (26930|2,26987|3) - Missing one note here, it's F# -> F -> D#. It would be around 00:26:902 and 00:26:930 (26930|2) could be adjusted to snap on the 1/12, perhaps?

00:27:212 (27212|0,27212|1,27440|2,27440|0,27669|1,27669|2,27900|3,27900|0) - i feel this could be expressed more clearly as the pitch variation is going up here:

same for 00:28:600 (28600|3,28600|0,28830|3,28830|1,29062|0,29062|1) - :

00:38:431 (38431|3,38525|3) - personally i feel it should be consistent with 00:40:140 (40140|0,40199|1) - . I'm not saying which one is absolutely correct and both of them makes sense. Just make their pattern jacky or not jacky

00:51:469 (51469|1,51503|2) - i feel the LN 00:51:469 (51469|1) - could be shortened by 1/12 as it would be expressed being weak and lower in musik as well compared to 00:51:073 (51073|2) - . just like you did 00:52:742 (52742|2,52777|0,53165|2,53193|1) - 00:49:494 (49494|2,49494|3,49850|1,49902|0) - the strength variation

01:01:698 i think you missed a sound here. and it could have some relations to 01:00:911 (60911|0,61009|0,61305|1,61403|1) - which are same in musik:

01:07:290 (67290|0) - Not sure if note is meant to be part of a sort of quad with 01:07:339 (67339|3,67339|2,67339|1), but the strings and piano have a note at around 01:07:240 which is either unsnapped with this note or missing altogether

01:11:820 - Probably missing a note, perhaps graced, to match 01:10:136 (70136|3) -

01:26:494 (86494|0,86494|2) - should be grace to be consistent with 01:26:913 (86913|1,86939|3,86939|0) - and 01:26:074 (86074|1,86126|3,86126|0) -

01:30:510 (90510|2,90510|0,90608|0) - should be mapped same as 01:29:721 (89721|3,89721|2,89820|0) - imo?

01:30:510 - stacked note sadfaisuhdhfdasf

02:14:569 (134569|2,134569|0) - this is worthy to be triple imo. Its nearly same strength as 02:13:637 (133637|0,133637|2,133637|3) - and also distinguish from 02:15:527 (135527|2,135527|3) - 02:16:480 (136480|0,136480|1) - where the strength is lower.

02:16:294 (136294|1,136356|2,136418|3) - Why does this suddenly turn into a 1/8esque rhythm? Shouldn't we maintain the 1/6 rhythm? The end of the LN can be adjusted accordingly

02:16:480 (136480|1,136480|0,141284|1,141433|3,141582|2,141732|1,141879|0,142026|3,142174|2,142317|1,142460|3) - i have an idea for this part. we could make this simple jumpstream more vivid. The strength and the pitch is going up here so we could change the LN length for it:

2/12 --> 3/12 --> 4/12

If you agree, then avoid unnecessary sheild and apply for 02:25:053 02:36:544 as well

02:28:677 (148677|1) - this is worthy double imo. it has certain strength as 02:30:602 (150602|2,150602|3) - and it's very obvious in the musik

same for 02:31:588 (151588|2) -

02:41:344 (161344|2,161344|3) - The double should be theoretically at 02:41:544 (161544|2). If you prefer to keep it hear just for sound intensity that's valid too

02:49:474 (169474|2,169590|1,169590|0) - There is definitely a note missing between these two in the trill; if this is not intentional for introducing a break, you may need to rearrange stuff to include it

02:57:167 (177167|2,177248|1) - These two are certainly too early, it's more in a gallopy rhythm at around 02:57:225 + 02:57:272 (aprox)

02:59:198 (179198|1,179325|2,179376|1) - This part of the trill is missing a note

03:02:795 (182795|3,182868|0,182966|3,183064|0,183137|3,183210|0,183308|3,183381|0,183455|3,183528|0,183626|3,183699|0,183773|3,183822|0,183920|3,183993|0,184091|3) - you could make some of them double according to your concept and thoughts here as the strength is still strong here but current density seems being much lower than 03:00:816 (180816|0,180816|1,180890|3,180963|0,180963|1,181043|3,181043|2,181123|0,181123|1,181203|2,181203|3,181284|0,181284|1,181360|2,181360|3,181437|0,181437|1,181513|3,181513|2,181590|1,181590|0,181667|3,181667|2,181744|0,181744|1,181821|3,181898|0,181898|1,181970|3,181970|2,182042|0,182042|1,182133|3,182133|2,182188|0,182282|3,182282|2,182345|0,182345|1,182440|3,182527|0) -

03:09:532 (189532|3,189532|0,189625|3,189625|0) - more stronger than 03:09:345 (189345|2,189345|1,189438|1,189438|2) - imo. You could make them triple for emphasising also have a structure of single --> double --> triple with 03:09:158 (189158|0,189252|0,189345|1,189345|2,189438|1,189438|2) -

03:16:623 (196623|2) - Feels like it snaps much cleanly on the 1/2

hmmm 03:17:644 (197644|3,197644|1,197645|0) - should be mapped same as 03:19:225 (199225|0,199225|3,199258|1,199291|2,199357|0) - imo? they're same in musik

03:22:778 (202778|0,202778|3,202778|2) - you could have similar pattern to 03:21:988 (201988|0,201988|3,202021|2,202054|1) - imo. They're all same in the music
do something like this?

03:24:041 (204041|3) - This snaps much better on the following 1/3; see 03:25:672 (205672|3) for reference

03:28:040 (208040|1) - i personally think this grace should be at 03:28:073 (1/12 line) where it truly bursts.
Also for 03:28:303 (208303|0) - you could make it 1/12 earlier as well although i know there's a sound at current timeline but its not that obvious. do this could express 2 stuff the same time imo:

03:32:509 (212509|3,212575|1) - This should be technically be a 1/8 stream rather than 1/6, do we have room to include without making a terrible burst?

03:45:919 (225919|3) - If this is LN, then 03:45:523 (225523|0) should too

04:16:294 (256294|2) - should be 1/16 later at 04:16:320 imo . Also its strong so how about:
!{](https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/19124874/ae7a) make it double as well

04:22:770 (262770|3,262770|0) - I have the feeling that gracing this for the earlier note on the right hand of the piano would be adequate

04:25:044 (265044|0,265044|2) - This feels early, I think it snaps well on the 1/8

04:27:537 (267537|1,267606|2) - Can't hear two here, a single note on the 1/16 inbetween both should be enough

04:40:009 (280009|2,280009|1) - should be triple imo. current one doesnt express its strength very properly. It should be distinguished from 04:37:010 (277010|0,277010|1,277540|0,277540|1) - also be consistent with 04:39:208 (279208|0,279243|3,279243|1,279582|1,279614|2,279614|3) -

04:44:641 (284641|0,284641|3,285070|2,285070|1) - I feel these fit much better as single LNs to create contrast with the more intense 04:44:841 (284841|1,284841|0,285242|3,285300|0) -

04:46:177 (286177|0) - move this to col3? as 04:44:841 (284841|0,285300|0) - pitches all same so just to distinguish from them?

05:00:261 (300261|1,300426|2) - Missing a note of the leitmotiv between these two

05:05:166 - Missing a piano note here; faint, but feels necessary to make the pattern complete

05:05:956 (305956|0) - Wouldnt include this if you dont map 05:05:561 and 05:05:759

05:12:791 (312791|2,312791|1) - These seem to snap fine on the 1/2

05:15:722 (315722|0) - This should have the double rather than 05:15:651 (315651|1,315651|2) -