Disclaimer: I'm not good at judging structure yet. It's likely that some or most my suggestions for rhythm and flow are biased towards my own mapping style and generally inconsistent. Also, as I can't play or pass the map, my judgements concerning movement and emphasis may be off.
Whenever I feel that's the case, I'll try to bracket the suggestion. Feel free to disregard those.
( 00:14:635 (1) - I don't really like the shape of this. The theme doesn't change and merely increases in volume, so I'd try to relate them somewhat with the upcoming sliders and simplify it. Also let it start at 00:16:235 - , I don't hear any relevant sounds before. )
This is where the marimba comes in. This shape also mimics the bg, and moves in time with the phrases of said marimba( 00:21:035 (1,1,1,1) - steadily increase in volume, so an idea to represent that would be to increase the sv from object to object. Could do the reverse of this at the end of the song )
Done( 00:27:235 (1,2) - I think mapping this with circles only would be a good way to distinguish the voice from the intro, also would make 00:28:235 - clickable, which is good i think )
Circles there don't feel as clean as it should. I want this to be a relatively chill section that doesn't have too many 1/2 rhythms between circles.( 00:29:435 (3,4) - I think not stacking these takes away emphasis from 00:30:435 (1) - as it doesn't break the established movement (emphasis of no voice/voice is same rn) )
This doesn't really make sense. 4 is stationary for so long that the jump from 3 is ok, and 5>1 is longer than 4>5 so 1 is emphasised? But instead you're finding a problem with 3-4 that makes 1 not emphasised when it's half a measure away.00:33:435 (4,5,6) - I think the spacing of this is inappropriatly high, volume/tension of music doesn't increase and pitch even decreases from 00:32:035 (1,2,3) - . I'd just arrange them in a stream
Most certainly not. 00:32:035 (1,2,3) - Minimal movement, less intense rhythms > 00:33:435 (4,5,6) - More movement, more intense rhythms.( 00:42:435 - I'd like to see this be clickable. Also movement of 00:41:835 (1,2,3) - again takes away emphasis from 00:43:235 (1) - , so I'd use a different rhythm )
Debatable upon the stress on leaving a slider end.00:43:835 (2,3,4) - movement here is so much more than 00:31:035 (2,3) - and I don't see a reason to increase it
00:45:535 (2) - delete this imo, there's no sound
These have been changedmake spacing from 00:45:635 (3,4) - bigger than 00:45:835 (4,5) - because lower volume → less emphasis
From a gameplay perspective these use little movement so a large jump is expected( 00:46:635 (1,2) - I think I'd reduce the spacing with this, because you don't really want to have that much movement in breaks )
No thanks.( 00:48:835 (7,1) - same )
( 00:53:035 (1,2) - I don't like the emphasis of this, I think something like
https://drive.google.com/uc?id=0BzAUOW6 ... XJlbmh1R00 would do a better job to create a difference in movement towards incoming voice )
Hell no that looks disgusting lol( 00:55:435 (5,6) - decrease spacing here, increase at 00:56:035 (8,1) - , because voice is very continuous at 00:55:635 (6,7,8) - and changes at 00:56:235 (1) - )
Or I could just increase 8 > 1( 00:56:135 - is very loud, I'd turn 00:56:035 (8) - into circles and do something like
https://drive.google.com/uc?id=0BzAUOW6 ... 25HOGJIQXM , (of course that doesn't make sense structurally…) )
At least you know why I'm denying this one.From 01:18:235 - on I had to check things at 50% playback to understand anything, so my judgements are biased.
( 01:18:635 (1,2,3) - angle (
https://drive.google.com/uc?id=0BzAUOW6 ... UZ6aXZlaWM ) and 01:20:035 (4,5,1) - angle (
https://drive.google.com/uc?id=0BzAUOW6 ... W9McElfQnc ) play very differently even though its the same motive, same for 01:21:635 (4,5,1) - , like 01:23:735 (2,3,4,1) - are sharper again )
Yes... It's because they're different things.01:28:935 (4,1,2,3) - why stop movement here, I don't hear any change
Turn off fx volume and you might hear it more clearly.01:30:035 - the stream starts here, I'd also increase movement towards 01:30:035 (3) - for better emphasis
Doesn't make sense from a gameplay perspective.( 01:36:835 (4,1) - I'd increase spacing, also you could increase spacing of 01:37:035 (1,2,3) - compared to 01:37:235 (3,4,5) - to account for lower pitch )
The shape and trajectory of these streams follow the bass synth, not the kick. This would feel lopsided to suddenly cater to the kick.couldn't find anything in the upcoming part
02:42:635 (1) - that's a very wide angle of entry compared to 02:45:835 (1) -
The distance is pretty low so it's fine. ( 04:03:435 (1) - Probably silly, but I think increasing the sv of this and do something like
https://drive.google.com/uc?id=0BzAUOW6 ... DlNR3VUOWc may create more emphasis of the scratching sound that causes increased rhythm desity and movement at 04:04:335 - )
Not my thingI feel bad for not finding anything… This is all pretty flawless
( 05:33:635 - not quite sure why you ignore the tire sound that has been emphasized before )
I thought I couldn't fit it in previously but I found a way( 05:37:035 (3,1) - and 05:40:235 (3,1) - I personally think stacking these would create better emphasis but preference )