• [General]

1. Tags: change "ha" to "wa"
2. Preview point is currently unsnapped. Please put it at 00:00:761 -

• [Oni]

1. 00:32:607 (102) - consider changing this note to k for the prominent snare ?
2. 00:36:761 (123) - maybe k to follow the increased pitch of vocal across 00:36:530 (121,122,123) - ?
3. 00:39:991 (139,140) - similar to 00:32:607 (102) - , you may swap these notes to k d as well.
4. 00:45:761 (169,170,171,172,173) - try kkddd ? This would fit the relatively high-pitched vocal well.
5. 00:47:607 (180,181,182,183,184) - same as ^
6. 01:00:530 (242) - k would accompany the pitch increase nicely. Then you may change 01:02:376 (250,251,252) - to kkd and 01:01:453 (245,246,247) - to ddd for coherence.
7. 01:11:722 (25,27) - maybe swap these two for the higher-pitched vocal ? Also, it seems to be stronger than the ones at 01:07:914 (4,5,6,7) and 01:09:761 (14,15,16,17) -
8. 01:21:068 (77) - I think K here could give a better emphasis to the vocal as its pitch is apparently higher than 01:20:607 (76,78) -
9. 01:25:684 (96) - I guess you may have missed the finish here ?
10. 01:31:107 - maybe add d here to keep it consistent with 01:23:722 (88) - ?
11. 01:36:761 - As the music pace is quite similar to the part from 00:15:530 to 00:30:299 - , it would make more sense to use 1.0x SV starting from this point.
12. 01:42:530 - consider adding k here ? I think this cymbal sound should not be neglected.
13. 01:54:068 (234,235) - you may want to delete these notes for a similar break as 01:52:222 - . Since the guitar rhythm returns at 01:55:222 - , I feel like the part before this point could be a bit sparser.
14. 02:01:222 (265,266) - same as 00:39:991 (139,140) - . Then you may change 02:01:914 (268,269,270,271,272) - from d k kdk to k d kkd to reflect the pitch changes more appropriately.
15. 02:06:991 (297,298,299,300,301) and 02:08:837 (308,309,310,311,312) - similar to 00:45:761 (169,170,171,172,173) - , you may use kdkdd instead for pattern variety.
16. 02:18:530 (358) - maybe d here to cohere with 02:14:837 (340) - ?
17. 02:40:453 (82) - same as 01:21:068 (77) -
18. 03:21:530 (188,189) - swapping these notes to d k would follow the vocal nicely.
19. 04:27:645 (31) - again, k would help emphasize the higher-pitched vocal in a more proper way.
20. 04:36:761 (91) - same as 01:21:068 (77) -

Nardoxyribonucleic wrote:

Hi, here is the M4M as requested.

• [General]

1. Tags: change "ha" to "wa" Added "wa" instead, because "ha is still relevant.
2. Preview point is currently unsnapped. Please put it at 00:00:761 - Fixed.

• [Oni]

1. 00:32:607 (102) - consider changing this note to k for the prominent snare ? I tend to avoid using dkk; I only use it when it's 100% effective on a single instrument/vocal that I'm matching. Here, the k in the triplet's matched to the vocals, as you could probably tell. Switching to the instrumentals and making it a k would make both sounds lose emphasis imo, and it also supports my reluctance to use dkk patterns as well.
2. 00:36:761 (123) - maybe k to follow the increased pitch of vocal across 00:36:530 (121,122,123) - ? I wanted to establish a sense of similarity between this and 00:34:684 (110,111,112,113,114). The k at the end of the former shows how there's vocals present in this section, while not making it too different from the latter.
3. 00:39:991 (139,140) - similar to 00:32:607 (102) - , you may swap these notes to k d as well. As mentioned before.
4. 00:45:761 (169,170,171,172,173) - try kkddd ? This would fit the relatively high-pitched vocal well.
5. 00:47:607 (180,181,182,183,184) - same as ^ Done both.
6. 01:00:530 (242) - k would accompany the pitch increase nicely. Then you may change 01:02:376 (250,251,252) - to kkd and 01:01:453 (245,246,247) - to ddd for coherence. Cool.
7. 01:11:722 (25,27) - maybe swap these two for the higher-pitched vocal ? Also, it seems to be stronger than the ones at 01:07:914 (4,5,6,7) and 01:09:761 (14,15,16,17) - Sounds great :3
8. 01:21:068 (77) - I think K here could give a better emphasis to the vocal as its pitch is apparently higher than 01:20:607 (76,78) - Having all these as Ds gives nice emphasis to the instrumentals, which I intend to match here. Also thought it gave a bit more contrast on 01:21:991 (79).
9. 01:25:684 (96) - I guess you may have missed the finish here ? In comparison to 01:21:991 (79) I felt it wasn't worth a finisher.
10. 01:31:107 - maybe add d here to keep it consistent with 01:23:722 (88) - ? Yep.
11. 01:36:761 - As the music pace is quite similar to the part from 00:15:530 to 00:30:299 - , it would make more sense to use 1.0x SV starting from this point. Oh yeah, that was way back when I had this portion as a kiai. Fixed.
12. 01:42:530 - consider adding k here ? I think this cymbal sound should not be neglected. Sure.
13. 01:54:068 (234,235) - you may want to delete these notes for a similar break as 01:52:222 - . Since the guitar rhythm returns at 01:55:222 - , I feel like the part before this point could be a bit sparser. Yeah, was thinking of that.
14. 02:01:222 (265,266) - same as 00:39:991 (139,140) - . Then you may change 02:01:914 (268,269,270,271,272) - from d k kdk to k d kkd to reflect the pitch changes more appropriately. Did the last part; changed 02:02:376 (269,270,271) to kkd.
15. 02:06:991 (297,298,299,300,301) and 02:08:837 (308,309,310,311,312) - similar to 00:45:761 (169,170,171,172,173) - , you may use kdkdd instead for pattern variety. Yep.
16. 02:18:530 (358) - maybe d here to cohere with 02:14:837 (340) - ? Sure.
17. 02:40:453 (82) - same as 01:21:068 (77) - As mentioned before.
18. 03:21:530 (188,189) - swapping these notes to d k would follow the vocal nicely. Wasn't sure about this previously. Changed.
19. 04:27:645 (31) - again, k would help emphasize the higher-pitched vocal in a more proper way. Done
20. 04:36:761 (91) - same as 01:21:068 (77) - As mentioned before.

You may call me back after that~

• [Oni]

1. 01:25:684 (96) - I would still recommend you to add finish here for stricter pattern consistency since you did it at 02:45:068 (103) -

Nardoxyribonucleic wrote:

A quick recheck here. (no kd)

• [Oni]

1. 01:25:684 (96) - I would still recommend you to add finish here for stricter pattern consistency since you did it at 02:45:068 (103) - I didn't notice it was inconsistent xD Fixed.

That would be all~

IamKwaN wrote:

Please tell me the Source is a movie or something....

newyams99 wrote:

IamKwaN wrote:

Please tell me the Source is a movie or something....

It's the album which this song is from.

ranking Criteria wrote:

Only use the Source field if the song comes from or was made famous by a video game, movie, or series.

ranking Criteria wrote:

Only use the Source field if the song comes from or was made famous by a video game, movie, or series.