congratz on micheal buble
wait what
wait what
forum
Aimer - words
posted
Total Posts
90
OD 8 pls :c 
I'll try modding ur's XD
[Rhetoric]
Btw it's bubbled ._. Nevermind this then xD
[Rhetoric]
- 00:23:568 (3) - Hmm what about making this a bit more straight for aesthetics? It's not changing the pattern tho. https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/6023015 It looks much better for me than being so curvy...
- 00:30:424 (2) - Fix this blanket if you meant to blanket it xP
- 00:58:924 (4) - What about putting this a bit lower for emphasizing this 00:59:139 (1) -
- 01:10:710 (4) - Blanket's off. (3 pixels? XD)
- 03:50:026 (4,5) - What about stacking these with slider end to avoid overlapping with 03:51:205 (3,4) - .
- 04:25:705 - Lowering the sound here would be better to fit the music?
Btw it's bubbled ._. Nevermind this then xD
Topic Starter
Uh, thanks I guess.William K wrote:
I'll try modding ur's XD
[Rhetoric]Hope these helps :V
- 00:23:568 (3) - Hmm what about making this a bit more straight for aesthetics? It's not changing the pattern tho. https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/6023015 It looks much better for me than being so curvy... No, I like this better.
- 00:30:424 (2) - Fix this blanket if you meant to blanket it xP ok
- 00:58:924 (4) - What about putting this a bit lower for emphasizing this 00:59:139 (1) - Emphasizing with flowbreak.
- 01:10:710 (4) - Blanket's off. (3 pixels? XD)ok
- 03:50:026 (4,5) - What about stacking these with slider end to avoid overlapping with 03:51:205 (3,4) - .No, i want them spaced like that. The overlap is not even visible in game play, they're too far apart in time.
- 04:25:705 - Lowering the sound here would be better to fit the music?No, music isn't softer there... Only after the break.
Btw it's bubbled ._. Nevermind this then xD
You don't need it, but I'll throw it anyways +1
SPOILER
2016-09-07 15:46 neonat: ok so first i wanna ask about the hitsounds at the start
2016-09-07 15:46 neonat: specifically this section 00:09:010 (2,3) -
2016-09-07 15:46 neonat: i think u can remove the whistle at the start of slider 00:09:010 (2) -
2016-09-07 15:47 neonat: emphasize that piano
2016-09-07 15:47 Monstrata: hm
2016-09-07 15:47 Monstrata: yea i wasn't really sure about that tbh
2016-09-07 15:47 Monstrata: yea i think removing sounds good too
2016-09-07 15:48 neonat: 00:22:712 (2) - this one is the same too
2016-09-07 15:48 Monstrata: 00:22:712 (2) - i'll remove t
2016-09-07 15:48 Monstrata: o
2016-09-07 15:48 Monstrata: heh
2016-09-07 15:48 neonat: this was timing checked right?
2016-09-07 15:48 Monstrata: yep
2016-09-07 15:48 Monstrata: pishi checked it
2016-09-07 15:48 neonat: ok
2016-09-07 15:50 neonat: 00:40:067 (5) - could really be triplets in this section though
2016-09-07 15:50 neonat: the slider though mirroring the other one seems quite underwhelming
2016-09-07 15:50 Monstrata: the snapping is really uh
2016-09-07 15:50 Monstrata: off here
2016-09-07 15:50 Monstrata: it should be more 1/6
2016-09-07 15:50 Monstrata: but it also isn't that accurate
2016-09-07 15:51 Monstrata: so I just used a slider instead of some 1/6 repeats
2016-09-07 15:51 Monstrata: cuz it was entering a calmer section
2016-09-07 15:51 neonat: then uh 00:39:853 (4,5) -
2016-09-07 15:51 neonat: instead can u ctrl g the slider and shift the circle up there instead
2016-09-07 15:51 Monstrata: oh
2016-09-07 15:51 Monstrata: yea sure
2016-09-07 15:51 neonat: i just find the current movement for 00:39:210 (2,3,4,5) - rather awkward
2016-09-07 15:52 Monstrata: ah
2016-09-07 15:52 Monstrata: sure
2016-09-07 15:53 neonat: 00:53:996 (5) - was this supposed to be NC or
2016-09-07 15:54 Monstrata: o wops
2016-09-07 15:56 neonat: 00:55:710 (1,2,3,1,2,3,4) - and 00:41:996 (1,2,3,4,5) - sound similar so i think they can follow either pattern
2016-09-07 15:56 neonat: but maybe just stick to either NC after 2 bars or 1
2016-09-07 15:56 neonat: and not the 2 bars for 00:59:139 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - lol
2016-09-07 15:57 Monstrata: 01:00:853 (4) - nc;ed this
2016-09-07 15:57 Monstrata: 00:43:924 (3) - left this without NC cuz the previous one was really short. and also cuz the focus is drums instead of vocal here
2016-09-07 15:59 neonat: 01:26:996 (2) - remove whistle? kinda additional
2016-09-07 15:59 neonat: same with the end of 01:28:282 (1) -
2016-09-07 16:00 Monstrata: o
2016-09-07 16:00 Monstrata: k
2016-09-07 16:00 neonat: then add on 01:28:924 (3) -
2016-09-07 16:00 neonat: and remove on start of 01:29:139 (4) -
2016-09-07 16:00 Monstrata: sure
2016-09-07 16:00 neonat: i think then it seems more fitting
2016-09-07 16:00 Monstrata: o
2016-09-07 16:00 Monstrata: ya that works pretty well
2016-09-07 16:00 Monstrata: k
2016-09-07 16:00 neonat: i think i left out 01:28:710 (2) -
2016-09-07 16:01 neonat: try adding it on that too?
2016-09-07 16:01 Monstrata: mmm
2016-09-07 16:01 Monstrata: i guess it fits there too but that one seems a bit unnecessary imo
2016-09-07 16:01 Monstrata: makes it feel like theres too many whistles suddenly
2016-09-07 16:01 neonat: ok
2016-09-07 16:02 neonat: even though we removed more whistles than added oh the irony haha
2016-09-07 16:02 Monstrata: lol
2016-09-07 16:04 neonat: 02:18:633 (2,4) - removing one of the slider end whistles here, what do you think?
2016-09-07 16:04 neonat: or both
2016-09-07 16:05 Monstrata: hm
2016-09-07 16:05 Monstrata: i kinda like the whistles on the ends tho
2016-09-07 16:05 Monstrata: i can make the volume lower tho, i was kinda going for an echo rhythm here
2016-09-07 16:06 Monstrata: like on the slider-ends
2016-09-07 16:06 neonat: maybe vol might work
2016-09-07 16:06 Monstrata: k reduced to 30
2016-09-07 16:06 Monstrata: 25 sounds a bit too soft
2016-09-07 16:07 Monstrata: actualy 25 is fine
2016-09-07 16:07 Monstrata: k
2016-09-07 16:07 neonat: 02:41:990 (1) - remove that slider end whistle, place it on 02:42:633 (2) -
2016-09-07 16:07 neonat: remove the one on 02:42:848 (3) - as well
2016-09-07 16:07 Monstrata: o
2016-09-07 16:07 Monstrata: yaa
2016-09-07 16:07 neonat: place it on 02:43:276 (4) -
2016-09-07 16:08 Monstrata: okay, sounds nice
2016-09-07 16:08 Monstrata: sets up the whistles for the vocals right after
2016-09-07 16:09 neonat: i like how 02:57:419 (1,2,3,4) - is every 2 objects then every object at 02:59:133 (1,2,3,4) - so now that I saw this I think you could have used the same pattern earlier at 01:31:710 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - which seemed weird for some of the sliders to have missing sounds
2016-09-07 16:09 neonat: 01:33:424 (1,2) - to be specific
2016-09-07 16:09 neonat: cuz i felt u didnt want to have it to heavily hitsounded but the 2nd kiai time u didnt have the same issue
2016-09-07 16:10 neonat: to be too*
2016-09-07 16:10 Monstrata: oh
2016-09-07 16:10 Monstrata: right i fixed those earlier sliders
2016-09-07 16:10 Monstrata: added more whistles
2016-09-07 16:10 Monstrata: 01:31:710 (1,2,3,4) - added whistles here
2016-09-07 16:14 neonat: yea
2016-09-07 16:14 neonat: that's it
2016-09-07 16:15 Monstrata: o sweet
2016-09-07 16:15 Monstrata: update?
2016-09-07 16:15 neonat: ok
2016-09-07 16:19 neonat: 01:45:205 (6,7,1) - touches hp bar though, do you really want that
2016-09-07 16:19 Monstrata: and yea, i wanna keep if its fine, cuz its important to the structure lol
2016-09-07 15:46 neonat: specifically this section 00:09:010 (2,3) -
2016-09-07 15:46 neonat: i think u can remove the whistle at the start of slider 00:09:010 (2) -
2016-09-07 15:47 neonat: emphasize that piano
2016-09-07 15:47 Monstrata: hm
2016-09-07 15:47 Monstrata: yea i wasn't really sure about that tbh
2016-09-07 15:47 Monstrata: yea i think removing sounds good too
2016-09-07 15:48 neonat: 00:22:712 (2) - this one is the same too
2016-09-07 15:48 Monstrata: 00:22:712 (2) - i'll remove t
2016-09-07 15:48 Monstrata: o
2016-09-07 15:48 Monstrata: heh
2016-09-07 15:48 neonat: this was timing checked right?
2016-09-07 15:48 Monstrata: yep
2016-09-07 15:48 Monstrata: pishi checked it
2016-09-07 15:48 neonat: ok
2016-09-07 15:50 neonat: 00:40:067 (5) - could really be triplets in this section though
2016-09-07 15:50 neonat: the slider though mirroring the other one seems quite underwhelming
2016-09-07 15:50 Monstrata: the snapping is really uh
2016-09-07 15:50 Monstrata: off here
2016-09-07 15:50 Monstrata: it should be more 1/6
2016-09-07 15:50 Monstrata: but it also isn't that accurate
2016-09-07 15:51 Monstrata: so I just used a slider instead of some 1/6 repeats
2016-09-07 15:51 Monstrata: cuz it was entering a calmer section
2016-09-07 15:51 neonat: then uh 00:39:853 (4,5) -
2016-09-07 15:51 neonat: instead can u ctrl g the slider and shift the circle up there instead
2016-09-07 15:51 Monstrata: oh
2016-09-07 15:51 Monstrata: yea sure
2016-09-07 15:51 neonat: i just find the current movement for 00:39:210 (2,3,4,5) - rather awkward
2016-09-07 15:52 Monstrata: ah
2016-09-07 15:52 Monstrata: sure
2016-09-07 15:53 neonat: 00:53:996 (5) - was this supposed to be NC or
2016-09-07 15:54 Monstrata: o wops
2016-09-07 15:56 neonat: 00:55:710 (1,2,3,1,2,3,4) - and 00:41:996 (1,2,3,4,5) - sound similar so i think they can follow either pattern
2016-09-07 15:56 neonat: but maybe just stick to either NC after 2 bars or 1
2016-09-07 15:56 neonat: and not the 2 bars for 00:59:139 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - lol
2016-09-07 15:57 Monstrata: 01:00:853 (4) - nc;ed this
2016-09-07 15:57 Monstrata: 00:43:924 (3) - left this without NC cuz the previous one was really short. and also cuz the focus is drums instead of vocal here
2016-09-07 15:59 neonat: 01:26:996 (2) - remove whistle? kinda additional
2016-09-07 15:59 neonat: same with the end of 01:28:282 (1) -
2016-09-07 16:00 Monstrata: o
2016-09-07 16:00 Monstrata: k
2016-09-07 16:00 neonat: then add on 01:28:924 (3) -
2016-09-07 16:00 neonat: and remove on start of 01:29:139 (4) -
2016-09-07 16:00 Monstrata: sure
2016-09-07 16:00 neonat: i think then it seems more fitting
2016-09-07 16:00 Monstrata: o
2016-09-07 16:00 Monstrata: ya that works pretty well
2016-09-07 16:00 Monstrata: k
2016-09-07 16:00 neonat: i think i left out 01:28:710 (2) -
2016-09-07 16:01 neonat: try adding it on that too?
2016-09-07 16:01 Monstrata: mmm
2016-09-07 16:01 Monstrata: i guess it fits there too but that one seems a bit unnecessary imo
2016-09-07 16:01 Monstrata: makes it feel like theres too many whistles suddenly
2016-09-07 16:01 neonat: ok
2016-09-07 16:02 neonat: even though we removed more whistles than added oh the irony haha
2016-09-07 16:02 Monstrata: lol
2016-09-07 16:04 neonat: 02:18:633 (2,4) - removing one of the slider end whistles here, what do you think?
2016-09-07 16:04 neonat: or both
2016-09-07 16:05 Monstrata: hm
2016-09-07 16:05 Monstrata: i kinda like the whistles on the ends tho
2016-09-07 16:05 Monstrata: i can make the volume lower tho, i was kinda going for an echo rhythm here
2016-09-07 16:06 Monstrata: like on the slider-ends
2016-09-07 16:06 neonat: maybe vol might work
2016-09-07 16:06 Monstrata: k reduced to 30
2016-09-07 16:06 Monstrata: 25 sounds a bit too soft
2016-09-07 16:07 Monstrata: actualy 25 is fine
2016-09-07 16:07 Monstrata: k
2016-09-07 16:07 neonat: 02:41:990 (1) - remove that slider end whistle, place it on 02:42:633 (2) -
2016-09-07 16:07 neonat: remove the one on 02:42:848 (3) - as well
2016-09-07 16:07 Monstrata: o
2016-09-07 16:07 Monstrata: yaa
2016-09-07 16:07 neonat: place it on 02:43:276 (4) -
2016-09-07 16:08 Monstrata: okay, sounds nice
2016-09-07 16:08 Monstrata: sets up the whistles for the vocals right after
2016-09-07 16:09 neonat: i like how 02:57:419 (1,2,3,4) - is every 2 objects then every object at 02:59:133 (1,2,3,4) - so now that I saw this I think you could have used the same pattern earlier at 01:31:710 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - which seemed weird for some of the sliders to have missing sounds
2016-09-07 16:09 neonat: 01:33:424 (1,2) - to be specific
2016-09-07 16:09 neonat: cuz i felt u didnt want to have it to heavily hitsounded but the 2nd kiai time u didnt have the same issue
2016-09-07 16:10 neonat: to be too*
2016-09-07 16:10 Monstrata: oh
2016-09-07 16:10 Monstrata: right i fixed those earlier sliders
2016-09-07 16:10 Monstrata: added more whistles
2016-09-07 16:10 Monstrata: 01:31:710 (1,2,3,4) - added whistles here
2016-09-07 16:14 neonat: yea
2016-09-07 16:14 neonat: that's it
2016-09-07 16:15 Monstrata: o sweet
2016-09-07 16:15 Monstrata: update?
2016-09-07 16:15 neonat: ok
2016-09-07 16:19 neonat: 01:45:205 (6,7,1) - touches hp bar though, do you really want that
2016-09-07 16:19 Monstrata: and yea, i wanna keep if its fine, cuz its important to the structure lol
GL
Did nobody else notice that the bpm should be 70 here?
Why not?those wrote:
Did nobody else notice that the bpm should be 70 here?
qftthose wrote:
Did nobody else notice that the bpm should be 70 here?
Mainly it affects additional beats intensity for the nightcore mode, also some minor effects like pulsing in main menu, intensity of kiai flashes, etc[-Chocola-] wrote:
Why not?those wrote:
Did nobody else notice that the bpm should be 70 here?
Won't require a lot of effort to fix if someone cares.
Topic Starter
Poked goldenwolf and he said 140 fits the structure better but admits that 70bpm can also work. I'd prefer to use 140 in this case since the song is mapped like 140 bpm song.
You're right, but did you know that 280bpm would also work? Just listening to the preview and take note of when the bass and snare kick in, and you'll see that the bpm is 70. There was a case in the past where I had to explain this but am somehow unable to find it for reference, but I hope that won't be necessary.
bass bass kick kick bass kick kick
i would agree here. bpm should follow kicks and drum. and wrong bpm is against RCthose wrote:
You're right, but did you know that 280bpm would also work? Just listening to the preview and take note of when the bass and snare kick in, and you'll see that the bpm is 70. There was a case in the past where I had to explain this but am somehow unable to find it for reference, but I hope that won't be necessary.
its an easy fix anyway. half bpm double SV
Topic Starter
You here kicks and drums, I hear Flower Dance.
BPM is debatable. I think 140 fits the song much better.
BPM is debatable. I think 140 fits the song much better.
Debatable for the untrained maybe, and even then that's a stretch. But if you don't care about accuracy, then whatever, right? It's perfectly fine if you knowingly want to be worse than what takes next to no time to fix.
Topic Starter
Well, I've discussed my view on the bpm, and I've asked other pro-timers for their opinion, and we agree that 140 bpm fits the song's structure better.
Consider that the term is "beats" per minute, not snares per minute, or kicks per minute. Have a nice day!
Consider that the term is "beats" per minute, not snares per minute, or kicks per minute. Have a nice day!
I haven't heard the music yet, but there exists a bpm that is 'musically' right, and it usually comes with the snare sounds (not always though), and we should follow that no matter how the map is mapped like. Because timing points should alwats represent the music as best as they can.
Can you please elaborate?Monstrata wrote:
fits the song's structure better
Topic Starter
Structure first of all; as in the type of rhythms I employ, and their associated spacing, the sounds and rhythm choices that I follow, all of which suggest a 140 bpm style of mapping. This is the map's aspect, which is potentially artificial, as I could have mapped this to a 280 bpm style too. So let's consider the song now.
Structure too, in how the instruments and vocals interact, as well as the specific rhythms that are contained in each measure. Halving the NC rhythm in this map would be a good indicator of why the rhythm, and the density of the notes suggests 140 bpm. Of course, musically, all of for example 03:02:562 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,1) - can be one measure on 70 bpm. But you would halve the NC. Your motivation for NC'ing may be because the combo's are too long, but probably, your motivation for NC'ing is because notes like 03:04:276 - are downbeats where an NC would fit. Consider where the vocals are stressed too, and how dense much of the map is, in terms of drums, and other instruments. This is the song's aspect.
Put them together, with the song itself suggesting 140 bpm, and the mapping reflecting this through rhythm choices, and mapping, and you see why this is 140 bpm.
I'm all for fixing stuff if It's worth fixing. I mean, I requested a DQ on my Inferno map even after alacat said the concerns brought up by the modder were valid, but not important enough to absolutely require a disqualification: p/5390054. I maintain the same stance with all my maps, because requalifying is simple for me, and i'm not in a position where I'm having trouble ranking my maps. But I genuinely believe this is 140 bpm.
Structure too, in how the instruments and vocals interact, as well as the specific rhythms that are contained in each measure. Halving the NC rhythm in this map would be a good indicator of why the rhythm, and the density of the notes suggests 140 bpm. Of course, musically, all of for example 03:02:562 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,1) - can be one measure on 70 bpm. But you would halve the NC. Your motivation for NC'ing may be because the combo's are too long, but probably, your motivation for NC'ing is because notes like 03:04:276 - are downbeats where an NC would fit. Consider where the vocals are stressed too, and how dense much of the map is, in terms of drums, and other instruments. This is the song's aspect.
Put them together, with the song itself suggesting 140 bpm, and the mapping reflecting this through rhythm choices, and mapping, and you see why this is 140 bpm.
I'm all for fixing stuff if It's worth fixing. I mean, I requested a DQ on my Inferno map even after alacat said the concerns brought up by the modder were valid, but not important enough to absolutely require a disqualification: p/5390054. I maintain the same stance with all my maps, because requalifying is simple for me, and i'm not in a position where I'm having trouble ranking my maps. But I genuinely believe this is 140 bpm.
If you didn't already know, BPM is purely for defining the number of milliseconds between each object and has absolutely nothing to do with how and where objects are placed. As a seemingly obvious example, https://osu.ppy.sh/s/99918. You would argue that this map was "mapped like 160 bpm" similarly how your map is "mapped like 140 bpm", but these phrases don't mean anything besides setting a base amount of time between each object; denser sections are just a fractional factor of milliseconds based on the base amount of time.
Topic Starter
Like I said, the mapping aspect is potentially artificial, which is why the composition of the song itself is the crux of my argument.
Would you consider stuff like https://osu.ppy.sh/s/349445 350 bpm then? Because there are kicks on every beat in Makina. Basing a bpm solely on the percussion won't work with all cases, unfortunately. Music is much more complex and rich.
Would you consider stuff like https://osu.ppy.sh/s/349445 350 bpm then? Because there are kicks on every beat in Makina. Basing a bpm solely on the percussion won't work with all cases, unfortunately. Music is much more complex and rich.
kinda have to justify with the length of an instrumental sequence here but if the thread is talking about how it's "mapped" then i can't really say much
00:28:282 - just for example, the piano sequence here would last for 2 bars on 140 BPM (it should be 70 BPM so it lasts 1 bar (and that should be ideal, right(??)))
01:36:848 - another example here would be the hi-hat/click sequence in this chorus, @ 01:39:848 - it's 1/8 (or 1/6?) and also @ 01:43:276 - it does the same thing again, from this, we can say that the instrumental sequence lasts for 2 bars here too
think these stuff repeat so I wouldn't really repeat too
Another thing that made me feel that this should be relatively slow would be that there isn't an instrument that is constantly utilizing the 140 1/1 rhythm, felt that the 2nd and 4th beat is redundant in a way, much like how some songs can be set to double the bpm and still sound sensible.
just my 2cents
00:28:282 - just for example, the piano sequence here would last for 2 bars on 140 BPM (it should be 70 BPM so it lasts 1 bar (and that should be ideal, right(??)))
01:36:848 - another example here would be the hi-hat/click sequence in this chorus, @ 01:39:848 - it's 1/8 (or 1/6?) and also @ 01:43:276 - it does the same thing again, from this, we can say that the instrumental sequence lasts for 2 bars here too
think these stuff repeat so I wouldn't really repeat too
Another thing that made me feel that this should be relatively slow would be that there isn't an instrument that is constantly utilizing the 140 1/1 rhythm, felt that the 2nd and 4th beat is redundant in a way, much like how some songs can be set to double the bpm and still sound sensible.
just my 2cents
Topic Starter
Hmm... @Evening I think your assumption is that a recurring instrumental sequence = a measure being repeated. As in, A A B B if this were a rhyme scheme. But I think its AB AB CD CD.
I would like to check this myself but can't be online until nighttime (around 6 hours) so imma do that then.
it is an assumption to back up my stand as to quantify itMonstrata wrote:
Hmm... @Evening I think your assumption is that a recurring instrumental sequence = a measure being repeated. As in, A A B B if this were a rhyme scheme. But I think its AB AB CD CD.
doesn't really explain the click sequence though, its unique sequence (ends on the 1/8) lasts through 2 entire bars but if you see it as 1 unique sequence = 2 bars then i have nothing else to say i suppose
Topic Starter
Anyways, seems like there are differing opinions, which is fine. I believe its 140bpm, and hopefully I've explained my reasoning clearly. I trust the people who time maps on a regular basis, and both modders I consulted on timing gave me 140 bpm.
I've been called for my opinion on this, and I am 100% for 70BPM, I don't even see any reason for it to be 140BPM, all the reasons you brought up were either about the map or the feeling, and I for one felt from the first second I heard it in song select that it's 70BPM, I mean just look at the pulsating speed of the logo in the menu, that seems waay to hectic imo. And all the technical aspects that have already been mentioned hint to 70BPM too.
(I think I time more regularly than GoldenWolf nowadays, also I discuss half/full-BPM-stuff quite often with pishi bc there's a lot of songs where it's much more complicated than here xd)
(I think I time more regularly than GoldenWolf nowadays, also I discuss half/full-BPM-stuff quite often with pishi bc there's a lot of songs where it's much more complicated than here xd)
Topic Starter
Well, I'm 100% sure its 140 bpm. I'm aware it can also be interpreted as 70 bpm, but for me, that doesn't capture the song, only a layer of the song. I'm sure we can agree that the actual timing of the song (snapping, whether its 35/70/140/280/560 bpm) is accurate. We disagree on what number to give it, and what subsequent snapping to give all objects in the map (whether they should be 1/4 or 1/8 etc...). The only differences between 70 and 140 bpm is the kiai flashes and the main menu pulse, and while Bonsai believes it's too fast, I think it's just right.
Monstrata wrote:
The only differences between 70 and 140 bpm is the kiai flashes and the main menu pulse, and while Bonsai believes it's too fast, I think it's just right.
Sieg wrote:
Mainly it affects additional beats intensity for the nightcore mode, also some minor effects like pulsing in main menu, intensity of kiai flashes, etc.
Monstrata, you do realize that structurally, doubling the BPM also doubles the structural scale, right?
No shit, if a vocal line lasts two measures, if you double the bpm, it's going to last one measure, and will "fit structurally". It's still wrong.
Just by looking at the beginning of the chorus, from a vocal standpoint, 01:36:848 - is the start of the first line, 01:40:276 - is the start of the second (the vocalist starts early to emphasis the ee sound), with 01:43:705 - being the start of the third (again, vocalist starts early), 01:47:133 - the fourth, etc. Doubling the BPM means you have major downbeats in the middle of these sections, where, entirely by coincidence, the music also occasionally changes up slightly. But the music isn't structured to have measure beats in the middle of the vocal lines. It's structured to have most of the chorus flow into a doubled pair of 4-measure vocal paragraphs. That's what music do.
This is why I get so annoyed over your 4/4/4/4 structre spam - I know you, at least unconsciously, understand these concepts and apply them extremely efficiently. Unfortunately, even where they don't fit.
Like, 140bpm is functional here, because the musical structure is very clean and even. But if this track were more unevenly structured, you'd have cases where you had major downbeats where there are just normal downbeats. This is what happens when Nightcore is used - it throws cymbals (i think it's cymbals, haven't used nightcore in years) on every major measure downbeat because that's how 99% of nightcore is structured. This is why it's so commonly referred to when talking about double bpm tracks - because it can be used as a point against doubling the BPM because it debases the structure of the track.
tl;dr calling it "well its structured like 140bpm" is a major error because doubling the bpm can still make it somewhat "fit" while still being blatantly incorrect. I personally don't feel it's an error worth DQing over, but generally speaking people should be educated, rather than reprimanded, for making fairly innocent mistakes. Nobody really gives a shit about kiai flashes or menu pulsing or god forbid, nightcore overlay sound fitting-ness.
PS: It's absolutely, 100%, positively for sure, structured at 70bpm. But I don't care if it's 140bpm.
PSS: (I'm pretty sure my fuego map is structured at 100bpm, but it's too busy for me to map it at anything but 200bpm, sue me and get ready to DQ that if you DQ this lol)
PSSS: SHUT UP PISHI IT'S HARD TO WORDS
PSSSS: yeah looking at the non-chorus parts it's really really obvious that every other measure downbeat isn't actually on any relevant musical beat, this is an obvious enough clue that the bpm is doubled
No shit, if a vocal line lasts two measures, if you double the bpm, it's going to last one measure, and will "fit structurally". It's still wrong.
Just by looking at the beginning of the chorus, from a vocal standpoint, 01:36:848 - is the start of the first line, 01:40:276 - is the start of the second (the vocalist starts early to emphasis the ee sound), with 01:43:705 - being the start of the third (again, vocalist starts early), 01:47:133 - the fourth, etc. Doubling the BPM means you have major downbeats in the middle of these sections, where, entirely by coincidence, the music also occasionally changes up slightly. But the music isn't structured to have measure beats in the middle of the vocal lines. It's structured to have most of the chorus flow into a doubled pair of 4-measure vocal paragraphs. That's what music do.
This is why I get so annoyed over your 4/4/4/4 structre spam - I know you, at least unconsciously, understand these concepts and apply them extremely efficiently. Unfortunately, even where they don't fit.
Like, 140bpm is functional here, because the musical structure is very clean and even. But if this track were more unevenly structured, you'd have cases where you had major downbeats where there are just normal downbeats. This is what happens when Nightcore is used - it throws cymbals (i think it's cymbals, haven't used nightcore in years) on every major measure downbeat because that's how 99% of nightcore is structured. This is why it's so commonly referred to when talking about double bpm tracks - because it can be used as a point against doubling the BPM because it debases the structure of the track.
tl;dr calling it "well its structured like 140bpm" is a major error because doubling the bpm can still make it somewhat "fit" while still being blatantly incorrect. I personally don't feel it's an error worth DQing over, but generally speaking people should be educated, rather than reprimanded, for making fairly innocent mistakes. Nobody really gives a shit about kiai flashes or menu pulsing or god forbid, nightcore overlay sound fitting-ness.
PS: It's absolutely, 100%, positively for sure, structured at 70bpm. But I don't care if it's 140bpm.
PSS: (I'm pretty sure my fuego map is structured at 100bpm, but it's too busy for me to map it at anything but 200bpm, sue me and get ready to DQ that if you DQ this lol)
PSSS: SHUT UP PISHI IT'S HARD TO WORDS
PSSSS: yeah looking at the non-chorus parts it's really really obvious that every other measure downbeat isn't actually on any relevant musical beat, this is an obvious enough clue that the bpm is doubled
Topic Starter
The bpm isn't being blatantly doubled here, nor does it only "somewhat" fit, that's the thingShiirn wrote:
Like, 140bpm is functional here, because the musical structure is very clean and even... etc...
. Like I said, it's 100% 140 bpm. But i'm aware it can be seen as 70 bpm too. Anyways, the post Gaia made is quite relevant too, and previous discussions involving doubling bpms have all ended in both numbers being fine.it doesn't only "somewhat" fit. it doesn't fit at all outside the chorus. see: half the measures having pointless downbeats
but it's still functionally fine and isn't dq-worthy, it's just something to bear in mind. This map really should have had 70bpm, but if it doesn't, oh well.
but it's still functionally fine and isn't dq-worthy, it's just something to bear in mind. This map really should have had 70bpm, but if it doesn't, oh well.
tbh i think the bpm is 70bpm cuz somehow feel really strange when i play it (maybe it's just me).
also maybe it will be better if you use 70bpm then increase thye sv, example : https://osu.ppy.sh/b/850729
just letting out my useless opinion
also maybe it will be better if you use 70bpm then increase thye sv, example : https://osu.ppy.sh/b/850729
just letting out my useless opinion
Yeah I'm for 70bpm as well. The reason would be just same as others mentioned, can't say more than that.
It's not abusing anything. It's just that we need to use the correct bpm for the song no matter how the mapper has interpreted/mapped it. As you can see on the RC,Gaia wrote:
https://osu.ppy.sh/forum/p/3918657
nothing is being abused here either, please just let the mapper express his map the way he wants to
(I am not authorized to read that thread lol)Ranking Criteria wrote:
Uninherited (red) Timing Sections should be used to accurately map the song's timing. They should synchronize to the beats of the song as accurately as possible and use the correct time signature whenever possible. If an incorrect time signature would last for more than 2 bars, add another timing section to fix it. Please see this thread for more information on downbeats.
Topic Starter
I've already heard all the arguments about 70 bpm, this is now becoming a stale discussion, people aren't bringing anything new. My stance is still on 140 bpm.Monstrata wrote:
Well, I'm 100% sure its 140 bpm. I'm aware it can also be interpreted as 70 bpm, but for me, that doesn't capture the song, only a layer of the song. I'm sure we can agree that the actual timing of the song (snapping, whether its 35/70/140/280/560 bpm) is accurate. We disagree on what number to give it, and what subsequent snapping to give all objects in the map (whether they should be 1/4 or 1/8 etc...). The only differences between 70 and 140 bpm is the kiai flashes, Nightcore, and the main menu pulse, and while some people believes it's too fast, I think it's just right.
I haven't heard a single argument for 140 bpm except 'it feels right' and 'I trust other people' though, while there have been raised quite a lot of arguments for 70, be it the redundancy of most current 2s and 4s, the vocal structure, the harmonic rhythm (dunno if that has actually been mentioned yet),.. seems a bit imbalanced to me. Can you actually provide a single technical argument for 140?
Topic Starter
I've provided a lot. Please read through the thread xD.
I have. I got: 'GoldenWolf said so', 'I've mapped it like that', 'I think it fits better', and then just those arguments repeating. I don't think I overlooked anything after reading through everything five times now, was there anything not related to your map and your feeling and other people's feeling? If so, I'd appreciate it a lot if you could summarize it again xD.
Topic Starter
Well you've clearly overlooked a lot xD. I mentioned goldenwolf not as a source but simply as a referrent to show that 140bpm is interpretable. You say there is no case for 140, but I've already established that there is a strong case for 140. You've completely over generalized all my arguments, that's rather disappointing.
I feel like we need more time to discuss this than what qualified currently provides this mapset with.
I do agree that inside the choruses 70 or 140 can both work but outside of them everything more or less suggests 70 to me mainly following the arguments Evening provided. Please discuss this properly, I think it's pretty obvious that the 70 bpm side has pretty valid arguments as well (besides Monstrata: your points were often worded in a way I couldn't get them fully and sometimes even mocking people who push forward arguments saying otherwise so maybe that's why some others didn't really take all your arguments to heart)
I think it'd be best for both views to summarize their opinion in this case
Also idk why ppl still take past ranked maps to support either side of the argument, we're talking about this map, not any other previously ranked map or things that were said 2 years ago o.o
I do agree that inside the choruses 70 or 140 can both work but outside of them everything more or less suggests 70 to me mainly following the arguments Evening provided. Please discuss this properly, I think it's pretty obvious that the 70 bpm side has pretty valid arguments as well (besides Monstrata: your points were often worded in a way I couldn't get them fully and sometimes even mocking people who push forward arguments saying otherwise so maybe that's why some others didn't really take all your arguments to heart)
I think it'd be best for both views to summarize their opinion in this case
Also idk why ppl still take past ranked maps to support either side of the argument, we're talking about this map, not any other previously ranked map or things that were said 2 years ago o.o
Topic Starter
I already gave a detailed explanation for why I thought it was 140 bpm. It's sad people have to overgeneralize it as 'GoldenWolf said so', 'I've mapped it like that', 'I think it fits better' xD. That's clearly not the case.Monstrata wrote:
Structure first of all; as in the type of rhythms I employ, and their associated spacing, the sounds and rhythm choices that I follow, all of which suggest a 140 bpm style of mapping. This is the map's aspect, which is potentially artificial, as I could have mapped this to a 280 bpm style too. So let's consider the song now.
Structure too, in how the instruments and vocals interact, as well as the specific rhythms that are contained in each measure. Halving the NC rhythm in this map would be a good indicator of why the rhythm, and the density of the notes suggests 140 bpm. Of course, musically, all of for example 03:02:562 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,1) - can be one measure on 70 bpm. But you would halve the NC. Your motivation for NC'ing may be because the combo's are too long, but probably, your motivation for NC'ing is because notes like 03:04:276 - are downbeats where an NC would fit. Consider where the vocals are stressed too, and how dense much of the map is, in terms of drums, and other instruments. This is the song's aspect.
Put them together, with the song itself suggesting 140 bpm, and the mapping reflecting this through rhythm choices, and mapping, and you see why this is 140 bpm.
I'm all for fixing stuff if It's worth fixing. I mean, I requested a DQ on my Inferno map even after alacat said the concerns brought up by the modder were valid, but not important enough to absolutely require a disqualification: p/5390054. I maintain the same stance with all my maps, because requalifying is simple for me, and i'm not in a position where I'm having trouble ranking my maps. But I genuinely believe this is 140 bpm.
Topic Starter
Also @ Okorin. Gaia brought up the example not for the map itself, but for how people have handled things in the past. It's very useful to see how other people have discussed similar situations, and how their discussion has concluded. It's quite clear that using previous discussions has proved insightful to BN's in the past: p/5263051.
Ayyri
Topic Starter
Ayyri wrote:
I think that 70 bpm would really compliment the shine in Monstrata's light blue eyes.
But I also think that the 140 bpm would really capture the essence that is, Monstrata's golden blonde hair.
Ahh, I never thought about it that way! Well, the eye is the window to the soul, so I guess 70 bpm does fit better.
Topic Starter
The bpm is 140. But it can also be 70 bpm. Since both of them follow the song accurately, I'll just reduce the bpm to 70 to avoid more salt.
apart from the bpm (and SV, STR multiplied with 2) nothing else was changed so here's the flame back.
Isn't the BPM 35?
loljk
loljk
grats~Irreversible wrote:
Isn't the BPM 35?
loljk