ruin of opals (Full Ver.)

00:02:274 (2274|2,2300|0) - CTRL+G ?

the inversion in the current pattern is a bit of a setup emphasis.

the direction flow of 00:02:248 - ~ 00:03:364 - is intended to be to the left until this interval, and then 00:03:567 (3567|1,3595|2) - a turning point to the right, so 00:02:905 (2905|0,2918|2,3121|2,3364|0) - vs 00:03:567 (3567|1,3595|2,3786|2,4006|1) - the same column, but one octave higher.

also by using 00:04:349 (4349|0,4391|1,4501|2,4556|3) - as a turning point, can create a more perfect rotation structure than now.

00:07:153 (7153|2,7170|3) - isnt there a slightly better option?

um yeah there is not anything that needs to be fixed, but i have a deep understanding of the perfect typing for players, so im suggesting this.

so

00:07:346 (7346|1,7575|0) - this bass is solid, but i think we need to be a little more lenient about the pattern connection

00:04:501 (4501|2,4556|3) - 00:07:153 (7153|2,7170|3) - if this ending overlaps. or 00:08:789 (8789|2,8825|3) - if u dont change this pattern 00:07:153 (7153|2,7170|3) - then this seems to be a bad case here too.

00:08:825 (8825|3,8842|1) - as i mentioned here earlier #4724404

fortunately, same section. so 00:09:079 (9079|2,9348|1,9602|3,9602|1,9842|3,10202|1) - 00:10:563 (10563|2,10583|3) - it will help more with this direction change.

00:24:029 (24029|2) - i think its okay to delete this

really simply 00:23:772 (23772|2,23858|2) - trying to increase the range of this technique, and also 00:23:858 (23858|2,23943|1,24029|2,24115|1) - mismatched rotation and 00:24:115 (24115|1,24200|0,24286|1,24372|2) - visual visual emphasis on this note

and lastly, since the current piano expression structure is gallop, there is no need to connect this sound 00:24:029 - buried in the background sound, and i think it feels better to remove the playability.

00:26:772 (26772|1,26858|0) - i dont agree with this note going left

since you have been repeatedly digesting low notes like this 00:26:686 (26686|3,26943|3,27200|3) -, it would be better to use the same mechanism with a similar flow for the left hand

also your intention is to connect these two patterns 00:26:515 (26515|2,26600|1) - 00:26:772 (26772|1,26858|0) -, but i think it would be prettier and better to connect here 00:27:029 (27029|0,27115|1) -

00:30:115 (30115|2,30144|3) - agree with the detailed expression, but unfortunately it doesnt seem appropriate to use here 00:29:258 - ~ 00:30:458 -

its hard to hear, and since it focuses only on loud sounds to maintain intensity, it would be difficult to maintain standard intensity if its expressed like that even on small sounds. also 00:29:858 (29858|3,29943|2,30115|2,30144|3,30372|3,30458|2) - i think its too much of a turn and different from the flow that the song is leading.

something feels off about the playability at 00:30:972 (30972|2,31058|3,31229|3,31315|2,31486|3,31658|3,31743|2,31829|3) - 00:31:486 (31486|1,31743|0,31915|0,32000|1,32172|0,32172|1) -

i think its because the spacing between notes breaks the flow of some columns or the effect of the fingers floating

so i think the correct playability is achieved by moving this note 00:31:315 (31315|2) - to column 2
( bcuz of this 00:31:486 (31486|3,31658|3,31829|3) - 00:31:743 (31743|0,31915|0,32172|0,32343|0) - )

00:37:315 (37315|0,37429|1,37543|2) - isnt this arrangement a bit weird?

i think the highest note 00:37:315 (37315|0) - is expressed the lowest and the playability is also very disappointing.

00:37:829 (37829|0) - how about removing this too? ( as like this #4724428 )

00:37:915 (37915|3,37915|1,38000|1,38000|3) - the impact here is so great that there is too much of a gap to use it with other low-end parts.

00:48:254 (48254|3,48344|2) - i think it would be better to move it one space to the left

bcuz of stack from column 4 00:48:254 (48254|3,48523|3,48792|3,48971|3,49239|3,49418|3,49508|3) - ,but the connection to this 00:48:075 (48075|2) ​​- looks a little bit better too

00:53:842 -
what about this arrangement?

00:53:984 - the double here affects 00:54:097 - and it seems a bit bad from the start of this triple 00:53:842

so i need your opinion on how to make the most of this point, since the single -> double -> triple structure is the simplest way to create a high note.

00:57:299 (57299|1,57412|0,57526|1,57640|0,57755|1) - im a little bit dazed

if you agree, i think it would be better to place this differently 00:57:299 (57299|1,57412|0) -.

01:05:407 (65407|1,65407|2) - isnt that too early?

honestly, considering the backing sounds, seems better to place the existing snap here 01:05:423 -.

its right to put a note here 01:08:774 - in terms of flow

its really weak, but it might be a good choice for a single flow

01:10:970 (70970|1) - how about removing this?

bcuz of this grace emphasis ( 01:10:857 (70857|1) - ), 01:10:857 (70857|1,70970|1) - this gap is also irregular and feeling of the backflow from here 01:10:841 (70841|3,70841|0,70857|1) -, also 01:11:099 - it reaches here enough,

so there is no need to put a single on the red line.

01:14:591 (74591|0) - wouldnt it be better to change the position of the double? at 01:14:607 -

honestly, i dont agree because of cant hear the piano clearly divided.

01:35:246 - the little breaks between each set of graces in this section SHEEEEESH

super super satisfying to play

01:59:071 (119071|3) - seems not correct location

u should place it here 01:59:071 -

two smol changes that we talked about in DMs:

• 01:59:920 - kiai now ends here instead of 01:59:072 - (fixed conflicting green/red line settings
• 04:00:513 - kiai is now snapped

02:00:991 (120991|3,121120|2) - CTRL G?

since it was used here 02:00:991 -instead of the white line, the gap between notes is large.

so i suggested it to add visual aspect, and also playability is applied correctly.

It looks like you are working on modifying the map, so I leave the random mods
02:01:977 (121977|1,121977|2) - This one is definitely delayed. Maybe 1/16th?

02:03:005 (123005|3) - this note also 02:02:934 (122934|3) - it looks like it would be nice to increase the spacing with unsnap at the same interval like this

by using ctrl+ cv

02:46:720 (166720|3) - move this to column 1

bcuz of big stacks from this 02:46:120 (166120|3,166291|3,166377|3,166548|3,166720|3,166977|3,167148|3) -

03:00:149 - 03:00:206 - r u really going to throw these sounds away?

(just curious) yeah this state is not bad either, intentionally

03:05:234 -
what about thiss

unlike before, the high sounds heard from column 4 are emphasized with a stack.

03:07:720 (187720|0,187720|3,187734|2) - vs 03:07:977 (187977|1,187977|3,187977|2,188148|1,188148|0,188148|3,188320|2,188320|1,188320|0) - it seems okay to express the piano sounds that are crossed in the same way as unsnap

but why didnt you do it?

03:18:777 - ~ 03:41:406 - amazing solos

03:43:720 - feel like need to put a note in col 0 to emphasize it more (0|1|2|3)

03:48:091 (228091|0,228091|2,228177|3,228177|1) -, 03:50:834 (230834|0,230834|2,230920|3,230920|1) -
vs
03:49:463 (229463|2,229463|3,229549|0,229549|1) -

With different pitch changes between those pianos, I think it would be more interesting to have a contrast in the flow. Maybe something like this?

03:54:949 (234949|0,234949|2,235034|3,235034|1) - same