[EzExZeRo7497]

- 15.588/etc: situations like this where the jack patterns break off (15.910) are a bit unclear given that the foundation of jacks typically follows the guitar chugging + bass drum; in this circumstance, all five notes would be viable as the same -- if the deviation happens as a result of the lower melody shifting, then you can’t defend having all the jacks there, and if the deviation happens as a result of the higher note hit that happens at 15.910 (similar to 16.553), then what dictates the changes at 17.195/24.053, etc? Food for thought.

I charted Floating Point about 2.5 years ago, so my memory of this is pretty foggy. I believe that the general idea I had in mind was that I broke longer jack-chains whenever a player can hear prominent notes of the primary melody of the song. I didn't want to use 5-chord jumpjacks for these particular sections because it would fail to follow a very prominent part of the song. Following just the main melody would be similarly bad (imo far worse) because it fails to follow a very salient part of the song. What I did, as a result, was some sort of compromise which is similar to how you would accent certain rhythms in a stream or jumpstream.

The prominent notes, in this case, would be (that are also layered as doubles): 14.088, 15.374, 15.910, 16.553, 17.195-17.303, 19.445-19.553, 20.195, 20.945, along with other sounds in repeated sections. I consider these sounds prominent because they're salient enough (generally significantly higher-pitched or lower-pitched than the sounds surrounding it, though it doesn't have to be as shrill as say, 15.910). This includes 24.053. I don't know to what degree my logic is solid here because I'm not good at picking up tonal instrumentation, but I hope that this makes some sense.

Looking at the chart now, the accenting is very sloppily executed (a lot of the notes that I've mentioned above aren't even accented), and it's my fault for being as sloppy as I was here. I might've been a bit too prudent or just unsure of how to work out the accenting in that section. That said, I think I have a better way of using chords for the bass chugs for this section and the main sections of the chart (more mechanical). I'll rework this and get back to you, but the general idea is the same for this specific section: using certain chords to deviate from specific jumpjacks before it to emphasise specific parts of the song.

- 16.445: non-isolated overtoned note that likely should be a 192nd

I didn't accent this note because I thought it was too low-pitched and inaudible, but given that these overtones are way more different from hi-hats than other notes with overtones... I wouldn't be able to defend using 16ths here anyway. Added.

- 25.883: while this is an overtone/buzz - given the fullness and separation and earlier notes, wouldn’t this effectively be a triple as well?

I thought that this note was softer, which was why I used a double for this. The difference between earlier triples and this is insignificant though, so I'll use a triple here. Fixed (along with other iterations of this).

- 30.695/30.803: some more notes here that likely should be 192nds given their general overtoning

Same reason as 16.445: I felt that the other two notes were a bit too low-pitched. Not a strong justification to make them non-192nds for the reason above though.

----- missing note for guitar at 44.731 for continuity purposes, since that’s what you accent

I think I was just being too prude here in general -- I didn't think that the notes were salient enough to layer doubles there. Fixed.

----- 46.338/etc: because the guitar is no longer accompanied by the bass kicks, you now have a tonal element and having them repeat looks a bit strange, given that they are very clearly two different notes; additionally, having these detracts from the actual repeated percussion accents that happen at 47.838/etc.

You're right there, my mistake. Changed how doubles are used here. Snares are distinguished based on the double that was not used for the guitar.

1:07.660: missing jump for kicks here; gives a bit more abrasion to the termination of that section

I didn't layer this because I felt that the kick here is a bit soft relative to the other sounds in this section, but I can do that regardless since there is indeed a bass kick there.

- 1:33.160: that snare is accompanied by an overtone that clearly continues from earlier, so this note likely should be a 192nd as well

I couldn't really hear the buzz sound until I slowed it down to about 70%, which was why I made this a regular 16th. I'm not sure if the overtone is noticeable on normal speed, but I'll change this to a 192nd either way. The fact that the double is a [34] is enough to show that there is a snare present.

- 1:50.195: move this [UR] to a [DR] to better accent the separation in the guitar chugging (your current pattern creates a very noticeable four-note anchor)

Snares are always [34] or [12] outside of the choruses. There were two exceptions in the intro of the chart, and that was because I was trying to avoid 6+ note anchors. I found a way of avoiding the 4-note anchor regardless (and there aren't any 4-note anchors in the rest of this section based on what I did).

- follow through with keeping a check on your mini-jacks and make sure they’re clearly working in the way you want them to in terms of representation of the percussion/guitar/bass/etc.

I don't exactly know what you mean by this, but I redid how specific doubles are used for this section along with the intro. I don't think that I can follow the melody in any capacity here, so I'm focusing almost entirely on percussion in this section.

- 2:54.374: percussion changes slightly here; missing jump for kick to help separate things out a bit

Added jump. My mistake.

- 3:01.981: given that you can’t use a hold here or anything, it’d be nice to have something here to accent that buzz (a few notes for the attacks of the overtones would likely work well here

Added a 32nd burst here along with another 32nd burst (2:30.481) based on similar logic.

Changed a few miscellaneous things (missing notes and accents primarily) that weren't mentioned in the notes because I overlooked them since I'm very dumb.

Thanks for the notes as usual -- I've sent fixes based on your feedback and some structural changes. I'd like further feedback on the intro of the chart particularly since that's the primary section that we disagree on.