What's Your PR.Ice?
-------------------
- Perms, sync, metadata good.

* 6.453: This is a hefty column 4 jack, and the sound you're following changes twice in the middle of it. Recommend breaking it up at 6.620 and 9.453.
- 12.120: I really like how you separate the jumps to bass and the notes to the melody in this section. Very explicitly done, but plays nicely nonetheless.
- 21.953: Kick here, could use a jump. (It's not present in previous instances, e.g. 16.620.)
- 22.620: There's synth here, but no kick, hence this might be better as a jump than a hand. This would also give you room to follow the 16th triplet here if so inclined.
- 27.453: Suggest [134] to give more focus to the PR on the melody--the anchor continuing beyond the two repeated notes obscures what's going on a bit here.
- 35.787: PR here is more interesting than a half-jumptrill. Also, not a fan of the minijacks forced at 35.620 and 36.620.
- 46.453: Why do you use a jack & all jumps here, but not at 49.120?
- 53.787: Pretty prominent synth, suggest a jump.
- 60.120: Thank you for being nice with this patterning <3
- 70.287: Recommend making this not part of a 4-note jack. Could perhaps move the next hand to [123], or do a 3[124] type pattern. Similar note at 78.287, 80.953.
- 82.787: Pretty prominent synth here that sounds similar to the previous 8th, could use another [234] hand.
- 83.953: Lower than next hand, suggest [124].
* 85.620, 85.953: No percussion here, so these should be singles. Conversely 86.287 should be a hand.
- 89.620, 89.95, 91.120, etc.: Shouldn't be minijacks.
- 98.370: Ghost note.
- 102.203: Missing note.
- 107.287: Surprised not to see a 32nd run here. It would be consistent with earlier ones like 96.620.
- 124.953: Minor comment, but may suggest column 2 instead as this sequence is fairly right hand biased.
- A lot of the 16ths you followed in the ending were present in the first half of the song too, but weren't followed. Not sure if that's just for climax theory or what, but do consider adding them in the first half for consistency.

- Seems to be charted pretty rigidly. Sometimes it works well, other times you get a little starved for space and it results in weird minijack collisions. Overall I do think the file works fine, but I also think it would benefit from a look through to mitigate these because some of them are definitely avoidable. No CQ, but highly recommend fixing the *'d notes in particular. [7.5/10]