forum

Girls Dead Monster - Alchemy (MUZIK SERVANT vs you Remix) [T

posted
Total Posts
97
show more
Nwolf
he might have missed that two spots IN YOUR OWN PART use completely different snapping, doing that does seem pretty awkward though. Maybe you should check that instead of focusing on the criticism on the 1/3?

00:56:524 (301,302,303,304) - why does this exist, like seriously. There's not even any sound on this. Except the normal 1/2 sounds!
Nofool
Or he actually bothered listening to both parts and noticed that the sound was not acting the same way. The last sound at the second spot in my part, at the very end of the song, ends later than the other one at 04:07... Even about that 1/6s we wrote multiple times why we used them, that 1/6 you are pointing out is not more weird than the one at - 03:30:467 (504,505,506,507) - or idk... that's just a way to map that kind of sound and we don't abuse it.

At least check the whole map before pointing random spot and listen correctly to the song... your blastix riotz werewolf diff is full of things not reflecting the song at all yet i don't bitch about every single snapping not respected, when it goes approved should i do the same to show you how dumb this is ?

A possibly important thing to think about is how Charlotte and I mapped slightly differently - 03:18:980 - and - 05:12:809 -, but then again is it really and unrankable issue ? it's gonna get DQed anyways thanks to Ono asking DQs before gathering other's opinion but well..
Okoratu
dq first, then discuss.
Nofool
they are bringing points we already talked about before the qualification tho zzzzzz

that rule makes it possible to DQ a map and requalify it without any changes if the discussion ends up being useless tho, peoples sure like to waste their time 8)
OnosakiHito
Yes, Dake didn't do his job well then. Happens. Not like it is the end of the world. The 1/6 are fine to me because they are just placed in a small, but even snapping range: 1/2. The 1/3 however, are placed to make it somehow fit into the already odd sound, which the different patterns for these particular cases prove and make playing it a pain as well. It could be acceptable if the patterns would be at least consistent, but they aren't. That's the point why it might be / is unrankable. We shouldn't be against slightly unsnapped notes when odd sounds start to kick in. But then we have to keep it at least consistent:

  1. 01:51:209 and 03:18:980 are the same sound like 04:06:981 . But they provide different snappings. That's a no go, whether you like it or not.

  2. 05:12:809 is, as you said, a bit different; extended. But it has the same start like the other cases.
Those are valid issues. Not made up by me. But maybe arose because you didn't check your partner's part and syndicate with it. To come back to your word: At least check the whole map
Nofool
haha now we don't need to delete them but keep them consistent ? dude you can't even keep up with your own reasoning. you are discovering the map a bit more each time nice. of course i checked Charlotte's part before, us doing 2 different things was a known fact zzzz i literally did post about it rigt before you to avoid that..

"The 1/3 however, are placed to make it somehow fit into the already odd sound, which the different patterns for these particular cases prove and make playing it a pain as well"
"That's a no go, whether you like it or not"
"Those are valid issues. Not made up by me"

but who made that up then ???? could you please show me that guy i can't find him ;-;
Chromoxx
well, to be honest i have to agree with ono on this one. The patterning at 04:06:981 - sounds pretty awkward and would fit better imo if it were mapped like the other 2 places that ono pointed out before.
I don't see what the big deal is here, as you can go ahead and get it requalified again after this is fixed.
Don't rush things and remember that Ono is just trying to help you improve your map.
OnosakiHito
Learn to differ between suggestions and the treatment of a problem itself, Nofool. Oh, thanks for the input Chromoxx. I will see if I can get lolcubes into this, since he is normaly a trusful person when it is about timing / snapping stuff.
Kurokami
Seems like there is an active discussion in this thread. And I agree with the mentioned issues. Using 1/3 where it actually nothing to follow with it is just awkward. You are not the composer of the song, you just simply need to follow it, that is the meaning of the rhythm games. Well, I hope you solve this soon, I like this song. :3

Disqualified
lolcubes
╭( ・ㅂ・)/

Was asked for an opinion on this, so here are my 2c.

Comparing 01:51:209 (687,688,689,690) - and 03:18:980 (413,414,415,416) - to 04:06:981 (33,34,35,36,37) - and 05:12:809 (359,360,361,362,363) - kinda shows that this is a collab haha.

Anyway, for the same "sound" all those notes are mapped, different snap was used, and that shouldn't be correct in either case.

I think that that sound shouldn't be mapped with notes, instead a spinner should be used. It would represent that scratch pretty well in my opinion. The problem with using notes is that it's not possible to hit the correct ticks with the current timing.

What happens here is (I will use 05:12:809 - as an example) I hear 5 sounds from 05:12:809 - to 05:13:152 - , where the first two fit on a 1/4 snap, and the other three "almost" fit on a 1/16 snap (first two on a 1/16 and then the final one on 1/6), cause they speed up a little. Basically, to map this correctly you would need to use several red sections, 1 for every note. After these 5 notes, the upcoming sounds slow down a little and there is a slight pause, then the final note that was mapped, which actually fits better on 1/16 as well.

That's it.

╭( ・ㅂ・)و
please don't hurt me
Nofool
Well no new about that 1/16 snapping, we agreed about using 1/3s instead as long as it was kinda similar zzz a spinner never crossed my mind as the spot is too short and will play weird imo. Also having nothing plays weird too since the rest of the stream follows that same sound.
Nwolf
still no clue why the same sounds in your own part (04:06:981 - 05:12:809 - ) are snapped differently then
Topic Starter
Charlotte

OnosakiHito wrote:

Hi. Just a few things I would like to mention which could be improved. Bolded marks important mentions.

  1. 00:42:639 (220,221) - It's just a small thing, but I would rather expect (220) to be a finisher and (221) be deleted. Stanza wise this would be the right decision because you would make the appearance of finisher even. fixed. & changed pattern.
  2. 01:07:495 (373,374) - Swap these notes. I think you tried to follow the vocals, but swapping these notes looks to be the more accurate solution. fixed.
  3. 01:15:724 (435,436) - k k. Just own preference I wanted to suggest, since suddenly it goes down to don-only and makes the pattern section sound / look uneven, even though sound gives out beats. nope.I think d-d-d-d is good flow.
  4. 01:16:752 ~ 01:22:238 - Recommending to change this section to something like this (hilighted notes = finisher). Of all parts in the song, this one was very odd to me because strong beats and clash were ignored. pattern is no changed.but,01:17:609 - & 01:23:095 - added finish.
  5. 01:23:952 (487,488,489,490,491,492,493) - Maybe try this. Follows beat and the wubb-wubb-sound. nope.I think kkkkd is more good.
  6. 02:36:467 ~ 02:41:781 - Suggesting to lower note density. This part is lower tuned than 02:44:695 but contains more notes. I changed oattern.but,02:44:695 -I think no need notes.
  7. 03:17:609 - Suggesting to have a stream like 01:49:838 - . This one is really out of place. Song provides straightforward monotonical sound. If varity is in question, deleting only 03:18:209 (404) - might be enough as well. I changed pattern
  8. 03:18:980 (413,414,415,416,417) - There is no 1/3. Maybe it has been tried to follow the "slowdown" in song, but then the 1/3 are very inaccurate in this matter. (414) to (417) can be just deleted. There is a strong beat at 03:18:980 which can end this pattern section anyway. In addition, I think this is one of the better solutions: 01:07:152 We talked this issue.→I chnaged Nofool pattern.I tride spinner...but,I think notes is good.
  9. 04:06:981 (33,34,35,36,37,38) - ^
In general a fine map. But 1/3 are a real problem and probably even unrankable since they are not snapped correctly anyway. For instance, 03:18:980 and 05:12:809 are differently snapped even though it is the same sound. Wish you good luck guys!
Thank you mod everyone.
Nofool
Ok after discussing with Charlotte here is what we chose :
Use the same 1/3 at - 04:06:981 -; - 01:51:209 -; - 03:18:980 - and having the last note of - 05:12:809 - a bit later as it sounds (this was explained earlier and even OnosakiHito noticed it).
We picked the 1/3 i was originally using, i asked Charlotte to chose mine or his :
log
15:22 Nofool: hey
15:23 Nofool: tell me when you have time for alchemy
15:24 Charlotte: ok.
15:25 *Charlotte is editing [http://osu.ppy.sh/b/848579 Girls Dead Monster - Alchemy (MUZIK SERVANT vs you Remix) [Angel Oni]]
15:25 Nofool: do you want to keep 1/3 ?
15:27 Charlotte: 1/3 or spinner?
15:27 Nofool: i prefer 1/3
15:27 Nofool: but you chose
15:29 Charlotte: I tried spinner.but I like 1/3...
15:29 Nofool: ok so we try to keep 1/3
15:30 Nofool: 03:18:980 (413,414,415,416,417) -
15:30 Nofool: and 04:06:981 (33,34,35,36,37,38) -
15:30 Nofool: what 1/3 do you prefer ?
15:31 Nofool: we have to do the same, so we must chose yours or mine
15:33 Charlotte: wait a moment.
15:34 Charlotte: I prefer Nofool's 1/3 pattern.
15:34 Nofool: ok
15:36 Nofool: 01:51:209 (687,688,689,690,691) - and - 03:18:980 (413,414,415,416,417) -
15:36 Nofool: need to be like - 04:06:981 (33,34,35,36,37,38) -
15:36 Nofool: then
15:36 Charlotte: sure.
15:37 Nofool: i can post on thread, and explain our choice
15:37 Nofool: if you want
15:38 Charlotte: Thank you></
15:39 Nofool: no problem, sorry for disqualification
After that he also changed a bit the following pattern at the first spot to get the same break everywhere.

Now @Chromoxx you preffered Charlotte's 1/3, so here is the reasonning behind mine :
As Lolcubes explained there is a burst at the beginning of that sound which even supports 1/16 snapping, then the slow down is pretty clear. So to represent that i wanted to have first an 1/4 triplet for the burst then an 1/3 triplet for the slow down. The result seems pretty easy to read to me.
You can still compare with the way Charlotte made it, here is the snapping for the notes he was previsously using :
- 01:51:209 - k
- 01:51:324 - k
- 01:51:438 - d
- 01:51:552 - d
- 01:51:724 - d
(for the part at - 01:51:209 - of course) tell me what do you think then.

The remaining difference is the colors we used for that structure, which should not be a real issue.. so how is that ?
newyams99
Ok, the issue looks fixed with me, and the colour differences are reasonable enough.

Re-bubbled!

Re-bubble #1
OnosakiHito
Too fast newyams99. In such cases, where people discuss about a problem, you have to wait for the conclusion which is found in the group, not only by the mapper itself! In this case, people probably didn't even check the change yet. So first give it a day or two, to ensure it won't be disqualified again. If people can agree with a change, go and bubble / qualify it. But not earlier.

Nofool wrote:

The remaining difference is the colors we used for that structure, which should not be a real issue.. so how is that ?
With the changes Charlotte made I am fine. About the 1/3, I would still prefer nothing or a spinner as some mentioned. But I guess if people fine with it, it shouldn't be a problem anymore. At least it is consistent now.
Chromoxx
Looked at it again and it seems fine now tbh. The reasoning is pretty solid and i honestly think the 1/3 are a lot nicer than a spinner here.
Nice map and i hope this can get brought back on track soon enough ^^
newyams99

OnosakiHito wrote:

Too fast newyams99. In such cases, where people discuss about a problem, you have to wait for the conclusion which is found in the group, not only by the mapper itself! In this case, people probably didn't even check the change yet. So first give it a day or two, to ensure it won't be disqualified again. If people can agree with a change, go and bubble / qualify it. But not earlier.

Nofool wrote:

The remaining difference is the colors we used for that structure, which should not be a real issue.. so how is that ?
With the changes Charlotte made I am fine. About the 1/3, I would still prefer nothing or a spinner as some mentioned. But I guess if people fine with it, it shouldn't be a problem anymore. At least it is consistent now.
Sorry about that. I thought that by bubbling I could notify that the difficulty was more or less ready to be ranked/reranked, and if anyone had any objections at the time they could pop the bubble and suggest whatever was necessary. Anyways, thanks for the guidance and I will wait longer from now on.
OnosakiHito
Then you star a difficulty, not bubble it.
newyams99

OnosakiHito wrote:

Then you star a difficulty, not bubble it.
Will do so from now on. Thanks for letting me know, and sorry for being disrespectful to everybody involved.
Charles445
So my understanding of using "questionable" snap in taiko is that it's okay as long as it can be reasonably followed / planned out.
For example this set uses a lot of 1/6 in odd places, like 03:08:866 (326,327,328,329) - , but it works because the player is simply trying to fill in the gap between the first and fourth note.
Tons of taiko maps do that.

It's trickier to do with the 1/4 into 2/6 segments, but seems to follow a similar principle (over a whole beat instead of just a half).

An example of places where 1/6 isn't quite in the music but is playable anyway
01:11:267 (403,404,405,406) -
01:41:095 (607,608,609,610) -
03:08:866 (326,327,328,329) -
03:30:467 (504,505,506,507) -

All locations with 1/4 to 2/6 transitions
01:51:209 (687,688,689,690,691,692) -
03:18:895 (412,413,414,415,416,417,418) -
04:06:981 (33,34,35,36,37,38) -
05:12:809 (359,360,361,362,363,364) -

05:13:324 - The reason this doesn't sound correct is because previously the vocalist would step in here, masking the ending of the scratching sound.
You should move 05:13:438 (364) - to 05:13:324 -, it's still supported by the piano.
You can also consider putting a note at 05:13:667 - , but that might be too dense for the end bits.



So as someone who doesn't play taiko but sees people complain about stuff in it a lot, my recommendation would be to move 05:13:438 (364) - to 05:13:324 - .
Take another look at 03:18:980 (413,414,415,416) - and really try and decide whether transitions like this play well at all. Other 1/6 streams have the benefit of being isolated, but these 2/6 streams come right after deathstreams.

Spinners are a fun killer IMO I wouldn't use them but it is a quick fix for all of this.
Nofool

Charles445 wrote:

05:13:324 - The reason this doesn't sound correct is because previously the vocalist would step in here, masking the ending of the scratching sound.
You should move 05:13:438 (364) - to 05:13:324 -, it's still supported by the piano.
You can also consider putting a note at 05:13:667 - , but that might be too dense for the end bits.
o shit thats true, definitely not adding another note tho


So as someone who doesn't play taiko but sees people complain about stuff in it a lot, my recommendation would be to move 05:13:438 (364) - to 05:13:324 - .
Take another look at 03:18:980 (413,414,415,416) - and really try and decide whether transitions like this play well at all. Other 1/6 streams have the benefit of being isolated, but these 2/6 streams come right after deathstreams.
well the structure pretty simple, even to read, i mean those parts never bothered me while playing even tho they were mapped differently at first.. this doesn't really need much effort after playing the "deathstream" (advanced player will hardly ever call that a deathstream i think xd).

Spinners are a fun killer IMO I wouldn't use them but it is a quick fix for all of this. spinners have no effect in taiko lol, i mean it won't kill you but it plays like shit in such a short spot
hmmmmm actually i don't know if this really needs to be fixed since the vocal makes it for the other parts as you pointed it, because if we follow that sound for real then that's the 3 other parts that are wrong lol not the last one. however consistency is supposed to be important since the snapping is unclear..

update : http://puu.sh/nZWUp/a3e636b124.osu
^ in this version i moved 05:13:438 (364) - to 05:13:324 - as suggested above.

sorry @newyams99 and Charlotte, i am fine with the actual version and the updated one i linked above, your call.
edit : Charlotte actually updated
Topic Starter
Charlotte
updated~ :)
Nwolf
CHARLOTTE: I still don't understand why you would map 1/6 in places like 00:56:524 (301,302,303,304) - and 01:41:095 (608,609,610,611) - ?? I mean, 01:11:267 (403,404,405,406) - even makes sense to me, it's mapped to a pretty normal dubstep sound that is mapped a lot as 1/6 in taiko but the others are not even close to that.

Nofool's only 1/6 (03:30:467 (505,506,507,508) - ) makes sense too, but maybe you could remove 03:30:581 (507) - to make it a 1/6 doublet because the sound is pretty short and doesn't last til the don.
Topic Starter
Charlotte

Nwolf wrote:

CHARLOTTE: I still don't understand why you would map 1/6 in places like 00:56:524 (301,302,303,304) - and 01:41:095 (608,609,610,611) - ?? I mean, 01:11:267 (403,404,405,406) - even makes sense to me, it's mapped to a pretty normal dubstep sound that is mapped a lot as 1/6 in taiko but the others are not even close to that.

Nofool's only 1/6 (03:30:467 (505,506,507,508) - ) makes sense too, but maybe you could remove 03:30:581 (507) - to make it a 1/6 doublet because the sound is pretty short and doesn't last til the don.
newyams suggestion I have the same reason.so no changed

sheela's suggestion + Nofool's answer.

03:30:467 (503,504,505,506) - I mentioned this on Charlotte's part that 1/4 snap sounds more correct, as I don't hear anything with 1/6 snap. I however suggest you check with someone, maybe with Charlotte or the previous modder to confirm. There is no 1/6 snap, that's just a fine way to map this kind of sound. That would be bad if we were abusing it but this kind of sound occurs only a few times and we kept it consistent by mapping it the same way Charlotte and I.

so...I prefer 1/2,1/4<<1/6
Nofool

Nwolf wrote:

CHARLOTTE: I still don't understand why you would map 1/6 in places like 00:56:524 (301,302,303,304) - and 01:41:095 (608,609,610,611) - ?? I mean, 01:11:267 (403,404,405,406) - even makes sense to me, it's mapped to a pretty normal dubstep sound that is mapped a lot as 1/6 in taiko but the others are not even close to that.
well to support Charlotte in case you still don't have enough, what would you do instead ? kkd 1/4 ? will this change incredibly improve the so called "map quality" you guys are knowing so well apparently ? I don't get the issue, those are specific sounds that can actualy support 1/6 as they have no clear snapping. Why would - 01:11:267 (403,404,405,406) - make more sense to you ?? just because peoples here tend to use 1/6 on dubstep sounds ? that's some really weak reasoning..

Nwolf wrote:

Nofool's only 1/6 (03:30:467 (505,506,507,508) - ) makes sense too, but maybe you could remove 03:30:581 (507) - to make it a 1/6 doublet because the sound is pretty short and doesn't last til the don.
while this is kinda true that this sound is shorter, did you even take the playability into consideration here ? just a kk 1/6 then d plays pretty bad (from most of the opinions i have seen about that kind of pattern here, and i do think so myself), that's where you guys are trying so hard to follow the song that it may end up having terrible patterns. kkkd is imo way more intuitive to play than kk d as you are kind of mixing up 2 different snappings with that short break, this adding to the fact that this is a sudden sound that you cannot predict as a player.
DakeDekaane
First of all, I apologise for my carelessness for the 1/3 matter. After reading the thread and thinking better about it, I find a break for those patterns could be a cool touch that could help to emphasize the notes in the downbeat (01:51:209 (690) - , 03:18:980 (414) - , 04:06:981 (33) - , 05:12:809 (359) - ).

This idea came when I looked at 04:17:952 (1) - , which is mapped as a spinner and it feels out of place given it's mapped on a different instrument than the notes before and after it. A break here would be nice too.

After checking carefully the pointed 1/6 comments, I have to say 00:56:524 (301,302,303) - fits both as 1/6 and 1/4, although 1/4 doesn't give a good build-up feeling as 1/6 does, so I can see Charlotte's intention for this one.
Topic Starter
Charlotte

DakeDekaane wrote:

First of all, I apologise for my carelessness for the 1/3 matter. After reading the thread and thinking better about it, I find a break for those patterns could be a cool touch that could help to emphasize the notes in the downbeat (01:51:209 (690) - , 03:18:980 (414) - , 04:06:981 (33) - , 05:12:809 (359) - ). we can keep 1/3.

This idea came when I looked at 04:17:952 (1) - , which is mapped as a spinner and it feels out of place given it's mapped on a different instrument than the notes before and after it. A break here would be nice too. removed spinner.

After checking carefully the pointed 1/6 comments, I have to say 00:56:524 (301,302,303) - fits both as 1/6 and 1/4, although 1/4 doesn't give a good build-up feeling as 1/6 does, so I can see Charlotte's intention for this one.
Thanks!
newyams99
先程話していた 1/3 についての画像です。


また呼んでください~
Topic Starter
Charlotte

newyams99 wrote:

先程話していた 1/3 についての画像です。

リズム


試してみました。確かに悪くない配置で聞いててよかったのですが、プレイ感としてはd-kkd(1/4) kkdkdのほうが合うかなと思いました。現状はno changeでいきたいと思います。

また呼んでください~
newyams99
Ok, looks like the conversation has died down and the issues that were originally the cause of the disqualification were addressed appropriately. Hopefully this is alright Ono :D

Rebubbled!

Rebubble #1
JUDYDANNY
Hello, Requested to check the bubbled map via PM.
Symbol meaning
 
  1. >> Normal suggestion.
    Big text >> Strong suggestion.
    :?: >> Questionable imo.
    :!: >>> Needs to improve some. (Rhythm is not good , plays or sounds weird)
    No comment >>simple (you can notice easily: just hits on drums or simple beats) , or already explained on the other place.

[._.]

  • :?: 01:51:609 (694,695) - , 03:19:381 (418,419) - , 04:07:381 (37,38) - , 05:13:209 (364,365) - , sounds not the best imo. Not clearly sounds and plays weird to sound over. consider to remove only 2nd notes(695,41,38,365) ,or them.
[Charlotte]
  1. 00:15:209 (30,31,32,33) - dd-dk instead? 00:15:724 (32,33) - d-dは異音が一番はっきりする部分ですし....出来る限り避けてほしいです
  2. 00:17:952 (43,44,45,46) - dk-dk instead?
  3. 01:10:752 - move to 01:10:409 - ? and reduse some on 01:10:924 (400,401,402) - ? 切ってる部分がボーカルのノビも殺して、スネアも殺してますし....どうかなと
  4. 02:38:524 - ^
    :!: 01:17:438 (447,448) - dK or 01:17:095 (444,445,446,447,448) - kdd-k-D?
    本来のパーカッションの流れのフローと噛み合ってません。
  5. 01:54:638 - , 01:57:381 - , 02:00:124 - normal? KDだと本来のDにあてるべき音の味があまり強く出ない気がしたのと変えることで後の02:03:209 - のfinisherKのアクセントが強く目立つので個人的にはnomarlがよいと思います、
  6. 02:24:467 (3,4,5) - 1/6 ?
  7. 02:45:724 (161) - k?
  8. 02:48:467 (180,181,182,183) - k-ddk >>> d-k-remove-removeに変更? ドラムに切り替えるなら一足遅く切り替わってるので.
[Nofool]
  1. 03:30:295 - kkddkdk? it suddenly seems too surprised flow.
  2. 03:48:638 - k? same as 03:54:124 - ?
  3. 04:26:181 - d? need to follow the build up drums.
  4. 04:51:895 - k?
    :!: 04:18:895 - remove to focus after finisher. inconsist the theory with 04:29:952 - .
一旦これで締めます(特に最初の提案の返事が聞きたいので)
Good Luck (¦3[___]
Nofool

JUDYDANNY wrote:

[._.]

  • :?: 01:51:609 (694,695) - , 03:19:381 (418,419) - , 04:07:381 (37,38) - , 05:13:209 (364,365) - , sounds not the best imo. Not clearly sounds and plays weird to sound over. consider to remove only 2nd notes(695,41,38,365) ,or them. well i do not agree, removing the 2 last notes makes it more awkward to play as you got only one 1/3 note that doesn't end on a red or white line from the normal rhythm, Charlotte should make the choice
[Nofool]
  1. 03:30:295 - kkddkdk? it suddenly seems too surprised flow. hu are you sure about the timing ? there is a 1.6 here lol.. can't see where to use kkddkdk
  2. 03:48:638 - k? same as 03:54:124 - ? ok
  3. 04:26:181 - d? need to follow the build up drums. nha this part focus mainly on the melody, i don't want to use d here to clearly show the density difference with the kiai part
  4. 04:51:895 - k? ok
    :!: 04:18:895 - remove to focus after finisher. inconsist the theory with 04:29:952 - . removed the finisher
一旦これで締めます(特に最初の提案の返事が聞きたいので)
Good Luck (¦3[___]
thanks for the check
diff : http://puu.sh/oet4e/e8caa0e875.osu
Topic Starter
Charlotte

JUDYDANNY wrote:

Hello, Requested to check the bubbled map via PM.
Symbol meaning
 
  1. >> Normal suggestion.
    Big text >> Strong suggestion.
    :?: >> Questionable imo.
    :!: >>> Needs to improve some. (Rhythm is not good , plays or sounds weird)
    No comment >>simple (you can notice easily: just hits on drums or simple beats) , or already explained on the other place.

[._.]

  • :?: 01:51:609 (694,695) - , 03:19:381 (418,419) - , 04:07:381 (37,38) - , 05:13:209 (364,365) - , sounds not the best imo. Not clearly sounds and plays weird to sound over. consider to remove only 2nd notes(695,41,38,365) ,or them. 尻の2打削除したら01:52:067 - ここからの1/4までの時間が長いように感じますし、1/6の余韻を残してもいいと思ったので削除しないことにしました。
[Charlotte]
  1. 00:15:209 (30,31,32,33) - dd-dk instead? 00:15:724 (32,33) - d-dは異音が一番はっきりする部分ですし....出来る限り避けてほしいです fixed
  2. 00:17:952 (43,44,45,46) - dk-dk instead? ^
  3. 01:10:752 - move to 01:10:409 - ? and reduse some on 01:10:924 (400,401,402) - ? 切ってる部分がボーカルのノビも殺して、スネアも殺してますし....どうかなと I changed pattern.
  4. 02:38:524 - ^ ^
    :!: 01:17:438 (447,448) - dK or 01:17:095 (444,445,446,447,448) - kdd-k-D?
    本来のパーカッションの流れのフローと噛み合ってません。changed kdd-k-D
  5. 01:54:638 - , 01:57:381 - , 02:00:124 - normal? KDだと本来のDにあてるべき音の味があまり強く出ない気がしたのと変えることで後の02:03:209 - のfinisherKのアクセントが強く目立つので個人的にはnomarlがよいと思います、fixed.
  6. 02:24:467 (3,4,5) - 1/6 ? 無しでいいかなと思いました。
  7. 02:45:724 (161) - k? fixed.
  8. 02:48:467 (180,181,182,183) - k-ddk >>> d-k-remove-removeに変更? ドラムに切り替えるなら一足遅く切り替わってるので. fixed.

一旦これで締めます(特に最初の提案の返事が聞きたいので)
Good Luck (¦3[___]
Thank you mod :)
JUDYDANNY

Nofool wrote:

JUDYDANNY wrote:

[notice][Nofool][list]
[*]03:30:295 - kkddkdk? it suddenly seems too surprised flow. hu are you sure about the timing ? there is a 1.6 here lol.. can't see where to use kkddkdk
03:35:267 (533,534,535,536,537,538,539) - lol.

IRC Charlotte part in Japanese
15:53 JUDYDANNY: こんばんは~
15:53 Charlotte: こんばんは
15:53 JUDYDANNY: お時間よろしいですか~? ガルデモのアルケミーについていくつか~
15:53 Charlotte: はい
15:54 JUDYDANNY: 00:29:867 - , 00:40:838 - k …. でいいような... どちらかといえばシンセの音は変化によってピッチが割高になってますし,手前のkddその落差?は表現できるかと、 一貫性kkd系で統一しても変化に差し障りないと思います
15:54 JUDYDANNY: ※kdd系が00:29:181 - からkddkであってその後>>> kkd的な
15:56 Charlotte: なるほど採用します
15:57 JUDYDANNY: 01:08:352 - k ? 個人的にこの方がやりやすいかなと感じたので
15:58 JUDYDANNY: 他意はないw
15:59 Charlotte: ...dkddk dkddkだったので...dkddk dkkdkいいですね
16:00 JUDYDANNY: finisherの01:14:009 -K と01:15:552 -D って同じ音(なような気がします)ですし、 01:15:209 (432,433,434) - kdK 。。。でもいいのでは?
16:01 Charlotte: 01:14:352 (427,428,429,430,431,432,433,434) - k-d-d-k-d-k-d-Kですかね?
16:01 JUDYDANNY: desu
16:04 Charlotte: 悩みましたがfixed.
16:04 JUDYDANNY: 01:44:181 (631,632) - ...k? 633のdのシンバル異音カバーで
16:05 Charlotte: fixed.
16:05 JUDYDANNY: 02:07:495 (796,797,798) - 最後の1/4のラスト3連部分が(02:07:153 (793,794,795) - ) dkdになっているため、dkd-dkdとココだけ抜き取って聞いた場合,,,なんかしっくりきません...
16:06 JUDYDANNY: 提案として
16:06 JUDYDANNY: 02:07:153 (793,794,795) - dkdをkddに変えて kdkdd-dkdとつなげるか
16:06 JUDYDANNY: 02:07:495 (796,797,798,799,800,801) - dkd-kkdをkkd-kdkのように変えてみるといった感じでdkd-dkdを何かしら避ける形をつくってみてはどうでしょう...
16:08 Charlotte: 02:07:495 (796,797,798,799,800,801) - dkk kkdはどうですかね
16:10 JUDYDANNY: 言いと思います
16:10 JUDYDANNY: いいと思いますw
16:10 Charlotte: それでいきます
16:10 JUDYDANNY: ok~
16:10 JUDYDANNY: 02:08:609 - k, 次のスネアの異音を明確にさせるためのメリハリ
16:11 Charlotte: ok
16:11 JUDYDANNY: 02:48:638 - finisher入れてもいいかもしれません、入れなくてもいですw ちなみに1番は全く同じ部分で対応する箇所は01:20:867 - ここになってます finisher入れてもあまり悪目立ちもしないかなと
16:11 JUDYDANNY: ※2番だけfinisher入れてもあまり悪目立ち以下略
16:14 JUDYDANNY: 次の提案もfinisherで数秒後なんでもしかしたら関わってるかもしれないんで先に言っておきます
16:14 JUDYDANNY: 02:52:238 - K?, Dkk-Dの繋ぎはなんか違和感....02:50:009 - Dから52:238までを1つのフレーズとして見ても D →D終わりなんか....締りがないというかもやもやします?w
16:14 Charlotte: なしのほうがいいかなと思います。すぐ後にfinishもあるので...
16:14 JUDYDANNY: ok
16:14 JUDYDANNY: Kに変えたらその後の02:52:409 (204,205) - の配色を変えるのもアリだと思います
16:16 JUDYDANNY: 一応これで全部です! 後はNofoolの提案のミスタイムスタンプのところをフォーラムに書きなおしてます
16:17 Charlotte: Kdkどうでしょうか?とりあえずKに変えました
16:17 Charlotte: 了解です=w=/
16:19 JUDYDANNY: ok~
JUDYDANNY
Improved the map.
Re #2
sheela
All right, it's been long since the discussion has ended and consensus has been reached. There's nothing I can suggest, so here's my flame!

Approved!
Raiden
Gratz!
DakeDekaane
I think I arrived a bit late.

Congratulations!
Okoratu
congrats :D/
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply