You should still die tbh
-00:47:023 - 00:51:126 - soft-whistle would be better, since you don't hitsound similar kicks (like 00:46:510 - )
-00:51:467 (6,7,8) - where are the aesthetics ;;
-01:00:698 (4) - Add nc?
-01:44:117 (8,1) - would rather stack these instead of simulating a 4 note stream.. or even moving it a bit like 02:04:971 (3,4) - is better i guess
-03:33:432 - Wouldn't it be better to do a full stream here to fit the drums fully? Right now it feels like something is missing uh
-04:20:012 (1) - add clap?
-04:39:500 - dat song switch lmao, my poor ears
-04:50:440 - Lower the volumen of these finishes pls. This part is still the 'slow part' so having these very loud hitsounds is a bit unpleasant.
-05:42:063 (3,4) - using similar distance as 05:41:721 (1,2) - would be better in this case. you could even stack (2) on top of 05:40:696 (6) -
-05:54:029 (2,3) - If you ctrl'g this rhythm, it'll fit that pum-pum sound you're trying to map. It's more like pum---pum and 05:54:542 (1,2) - is pum-pum so..ya, k
-06:33:003 (2) - nc?because consistency
-06:48:046 - no finish with low volumen??
-09:02:062 (1) - drum finish?
-09:24:797 (4) - Wouldn't NC help readability on this kind of patterns?
-10:13:173 - Appreciate if you lower the volumen of these finishes. It's so resonant that is irritating ;(
-11:34:881 (9,10,1) - stack is screwd on my end, no idea why
-13:02:402 (6,7) - Intense verse, but no jump? ;_; Kinda kill the momentum on the song.. If it's because you do a lot of jumps right after, 13:24:282 (8,9) - doesn't have a excuse
-13:38:299 (1,2,3) - Why (3) looks different than the other 2 ? uh look better if the 3 were the same
-13:44:452 (1) - 13:45:820 (1) - there's no need for these NCs at all
-14:05:649 (1,2) - Uhm if these are meant to hold the vocals, then why do you ignore 14:06:504 - ? I'm confused aaa
-14:39:837 (1,2,3) - For this song transition, mapping less dense will sound a lot better.
-14:58:640 (6,7) - if you're going to do this, doing do same for 14:58:982 (1,2) - would look a bit better. Means that moving 14:59:324 (2) - 254/138 will custom-stack better
-15:30:435 - drum finish or something?
-16:14:195 - shouldn't this be normal-finish like the whole kiai?
-17:02:058 (1,2) - Like 1/2 sounds better i think. The 1/3 roll starts more clearly from 17:02:742 - so leaving just that as 1/3 sounds better.
-17:50:434 (4) - This makes me think you're mapping that melodic electronic sound thing, so why do you ignore 17:48:468 - 17:53:938 - ;(
-20:03:938 (1) - finish'd fit better than a simple whistle
whatever i do is the best nojk
-00:47:023 - 00:51:126 - soft-whistle would be better, since you don't hitsound similar kicks (like 00:46:510 - )
-00:51:467 (6,7,8) - where are the aesthetics ;;
-01:00:698 (4) - Add nc?
-01:44:117 (8,1) - would rather stack these instead of simulating a 4 note stream.. or even moving it a bit like 02:04:971 (3,4) - is better i guess
-03:33:432 - Wouldn't it be better to do a full stream here to fit the drums fully? Right now it feels like something is missing uh
-04:20:012 (1) - add clap?
-04:39:500 - dat song switch lmao, my poor ears
-04:50:440 - Lower the volumen of these finishes pls. This part is still the 'slow part' so having these very loud hitsounds is a bit unpleasant.
-05:42:063 (3,4) - using similar distance as 05:41:721 (1,2) - would be better in this case. you could even stack (2) on top of 05:40:696 (6) -
-05:54:029 (2,3) - If you ctrl'g this rhythm, it'll fit that pum-pum sound you're trying to map. It's more like pum---pum and 05:54:542 (1,2) - is pum-pum so..ya, k
-06:33:003 (2) - nc?because consistency
-06:48:046 - no finish with low volumen??
-09:02:062 (1) - drum finish?
-09:24:797 (4) - Wouldn't NC help readability on this kind of patterns?
-10:13:173 - Appreciate if you lower the volumen of these finishes. It's so resonant that is irritating ;(
-11:34:881 (9,10,1) - stack is screwd on my end, no idea why
-13:02:402 (6,7) - Intense verse, but no jump? ;_; Kinda kill the momentum on the song.. If it's because you do a lot of jumps right after, 13:24:282 (8,9) - doesn't have a excuse
-13:38:299 (1,2,3) - Why (3) looks different than the other 2 ? uh look better if the 3 were the same
-13:44:452 (1) - 13:45:820 (1) - there's no need for these NCs at all
-14:05:649 (1,2) - Uhm if these are meant to hold the vocals, then why do you ignore 14:06:504 - ? I'm confused aaa
-14:39:837 (1,2,3) - For this song transition, mapping less dense will sound a lot better.
-14:58:640 (6,7) - if you're going to do this, doing do same for 14:58:982 (1,2) - would look a bit better. Means that moving 14:59:324 (2) - 254/138 will custom-stack better
-15:30:435 - drum finish or something?
-16:14:195 - shouldn't this be normal-finish like the whole kiai?
-17:02:058 (1,2) - Like 1/2 sounds better i think. The 1/3 roll starts more clearly from 17:02:742 - so leaving just that as 1/3 sounds better.
-17:50:434 (4) - This makes me think you're mapping that melodic electronic sound thing, so why do you ignore 17:48:468 - 17:53:938 - ;(
-20:03:938 (1) - finish'd fit better than a simple whistle
whatever i do is the best nojk