[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by krunkykai22

I agree with you 100%, I really do, but take a look at this:

Kommisar:
NRG (2/10)
-Basically just a very repetitive jumpstream that cuts off abruptly.

TC_Halogen:
NRG (krunkykai22)
Rating: 6/10 [+.]
- incredibly generic song
- pitch relevancy is alright but certainly could use reworking in the second half when both the melody and lower chords change
- layering is acceptable
- despite the short length, file drags quite a bit, as it's just one big 16th stream for a minute

NRG (krunkykai22) - [+.] 6/10
- Ehhhh, the song choice is lackluster and it's repetitive. Your pitch relevancy is inconsistent so, I'm only going to point out a couple errors.
- s3.47 should be an up arrow and s3.70 should be a right arrow. This error continues.
- s14.78, should be the same jump from before (a [23]). This kind of pattern continues through-out.
- The file should end with a 16th note. I'd suggest going over your pitch relevancy more discreetly.


NRG (krunkykai22) 7/10
Not very good termination of the song (need better edition), and not very variable in the structure due to the song, but overall good PR/pattern choice and replayable short file.


looking at those notes, tell me in what what his notes were argumented correctly? At least the other 3 gave proper mistakes to fix. How can I fix anything based upon what Kommi said?

How about repetetiveness? Repetetiveness is a pretty good point to make and others mentioned it as well in their reviews. Kommi is just more strict about it and honestly, I agree with kommi. I haven't played the file but if the song and file are one big repetetive jumpstream, I wouldn't want to play it.