Blood From A Stone (Storn42) [7.5/10]
>Permission good (Rise Records)
>Folder contents, metadata good. Seems like this band can’t decide on whether to ALL CAPS their name so this is fine lol
>Also good folder name
>Sync good

Playtest Impression, 1.0x Rate - Might have nitpicks but a pretty solid file overall. Fun.

10.635 - ghost
27.778 - 35.778 - lol
54.778 / 59.350 / 1:01.635 - (subjective) I would argue to include this note
1:31.207 - seems missing
1:58.778 / 1:59.921 / 2:01.064 - (subjective) seems missing

Most of my notes are landing in the endlessly subjective area of “did the guitarist actually hit a string there” nonsense. The file plays perfectly fine so I’m not hugely bothered by any of the possible interpretation shenanigans.

Blood From A Stone (storn42) [8/10]

PERMS OK
SYNC OK

10.635: Not consistent with 11.778, 12.921, 16.350, etc. When you look at 19.778 though, it seems like you're layering both the cymbal and the higher pitched guitar. Bit inconsistent unless I'm misunderstanding the layering.

17.207: Missing note, there's a kick here.

27.064: Would move to 2 to emphasize the sustained note. Preference though.

44.778 & 45.207 & 45.492: A few places in the song where dominant percussions aren't repeated on the same column. While it's totally fine as is, I feel like it's a missed opportunity to have these hard percs really feel solid to play.

49.064 & 49.350: Another more striking example of the above point. You do it for 53.635 & 53.921 for example.

58.492: You do the repetition on this one too, so might wanna start the triplet at 51.635 on column 3 too for the repetition with 51.350 & 50.921. It's not that bad to not have perfect consistency on those, but I do feel like as is it feels slightly arbitrary at times even if there's some vague PR focus that seems to follow the vocals' tone (?).

1:05.492: Could be a (123), suggestion.

1:39.992: Missing 32nd, do consider. Quiet enough to not matter much, your call.

1:44.349: This is just too jarring of a note to omit, same for 1:48.921, 2:11.778 & 2:16.349.

2:23.492: Missing single. (matches the intro at 5.207)

Overall really fun theme with the minijack jumps, gives it a lot of oomph. Consistency on the percussions could be improved a fair bit without sacrificing much at all, but it's nbd. Solid approach.

A new chart file was uploaded with the following changes:
----------
Note Count changed: 979 => 983
AVG NPS changed: 6.69173 => 6.71907

@Tru

10.635 - ghost
- fixed

54.778 / 59.350 / 1:01.635 - (subjective) I would argue to include this note
1:58.778 / 1:59.921 / 2:01.064 - (subjective) seems missing
- Its a bit hard to hear some of these, but i'll add in notes to make 0:54.064-0:56.350 a continuous stream since that seems pretty clear. Other sections have a strong percussion break where the gaps make more sense.

1:31.207 - seems missing
- It would seem that way but there isn't a kick or guitar note here. Just a pause in the song. There *might* be a note here but it sounds pretty soft. could be bass or something.

@op

10.635: Not consistent with 11.778, 12.921, 16.350, etc. When you look at 19.778 though, it seems like you're layering both the cymbal and the higher pitched guitar. Bit inconsistent unless I'm misunderstanding the layering.
- Fixed

17.207: Missing note, there's a kick here.
- this kick here is barely audible. Especially when compared the all of the other punchy kicks surrounding it, i think its best to ignore the note.

27.064: Would move to 2 to emphasize the sustained note. Preference though.
- hmm, I can understand where you're coming from, and i do enjoy patterns rhythms like this that way, but in this scenario it would create a 12.212.. going into a long 1 anchor, which i think i'd like to avoid.

44.778 & 45.207 & 45.492: A few places in the song where dominant percussions aren't repeated on the same column. While it's totally fine as is, I feel like it's a missed opportunity to have these hard percs really feel solid to play.
- Its an easy enough thing to sneak into the chart, so i'll do it.

49.064 & 49.350: Another more striking example of the above point. You do it for 53.635 & 53.921 for example.
58.492: You do the repetition on this one too, so might wanna start the triplet at 51.635 on column 3 too for the repetition with 51.350 & 50.921. It's not that bad to not have perfect consistency on those, but I do feel like as is it feels slightly arbitrary at times even if there's some vague PR focus that seems to follow the vocals' tone (?).
- I'll try to place these where it makes sense and is easy to fit in.

1:05.492: Could be a (123), suggestion.
- sure

1:39.992: Missing 32nd, do consider. Quiet enough to not matter much, your call.
- Think i'll leave this one out. less so because its quiet, or moreso because its in a section that is already pretty difficult.

1:44.349: This is just too jarring of a note to omit, same for 1:48.921, 2:11.778 & 2:16.349.
- I understand how you feel, but i much prefer the implied note here rather than an actual one. Charting the cymbals here turns the chart into a 4th metronome and i feel takes away from the impact and feel of the other notes in the section.

2:23.492: Missing single. (matches the intro at 5.207)
- Purposely omitted for difficulty, just like 2:18.635