Dark Side (XtraFestive) - 5.5/10
Hey there. This is your first submission, and you’ve told me personally to be as thorough as I can on this chart. A lot of these suggestions are subjective and align closer to how I would go about charting this, so take some of these with a grain of salt, but there are still technical errors here and there to iron out.

The review is extremely long, and I hope that the review doesn’t come as harsh. Overall I think that this chart has an interesting foundation to it, and I think it would be a nice snug fit with the 100+ minijacky tech charts present in the game. That said, I feel that the chart needs a lot more polish for the foundation to really shine, and there are a couple of bursts and minijack patterns that I felt were a bit overboard and should be ironed out in some way. There are also a fair number of inconsistencies, but those can be more easily cleaned up.

However, despite all of my reservations with the chart as is, the chart is still intriguing and I think it’s a decent first submission, and I hope the notes here help with either organising the chart structure or making it cleaner in general. And as always, feel free to DM me through the appropriate mediums for any further clarification.

- 0.794 - missing double ([34]) while 0.915 probably should be a single. the main emphasis in this section is the piano
- 1.155 - minor point, but this is probably better as a 13[124][124] to avoid too much right hand bias since most of the patterns already are biased towards the right hand
- 2.835 - missing note, should be on column 3 similar to what you currently have
- 2.955 - would move this to [12], but this sound also feels like there should be some grace note at all. I'd suggest a 48th grace note like 12
- 3.075 - feels like this 4-note 64th burst can be cut short a bit by removing the last note.
* 3.195 - The 32nd stream here doesn't sound right at all. I can hear a 32nd triplet from 3.195 to 3.315, but most of the other 32nds don't make much sense since there are only 3 discrete sounds here. One suggestion would be to do something like https://i.imgur.com/3FEc2jG.png to emphasise the discrete sounds present here, and 3.795 can have a 4-note 48th burst as well because of the buzz. The pattern needs some smoothing out, but the general idea is there.
- 4.274 - maybe use a 32nd minijack here on column 1 instead?
- 5.115/5.234 - can be [12] jumps if you wish
- 5.595 - would move this jump to [23] to differentiate it from 5.354, since 5.595 has a vocal sample
- 5.955 - should be a double, probably [13]?
- 6.075 - feel that this grace note should be different from a [34] to give the buzz more emphasis, maybe [23]?
* 6.435 - that's kinda mean. you can probably compromise by making the 32nd before it (6.375) a double ([34]), but as is I think the minijack is a little too much
- 6.675 - should be a triple, 6.795 can probably be a double?
- 7.515 - missing double, ideally [14]
- 7.635 - minor suggestion but I'd move this to column 3 to make this pattern a tiny bit easier. you'd have to move the 32nd pattern after it to make the chart more ergonomic though
- 9.195/17.115/20.955/etc - if you want to be cute, you can make this a 3-note 48th burst like 242 for some emphasis on the vocal sample
- 9.675 - really minor point, but I'd personally like it if the 32nds started on column 2 instead of 1 because of the minor column 1 bias caused by the 8th hand. 9.915 would be a [14] if you were to do this though
- 10.395 to 10.635 - 10.515 should be the same note as 10.155 because of PR, so I'd suggest making 10.395 to 10.515 [23][34]. 10.635 can potentially be a [12] because of the dissonant piano laid on top of the sample as well to avoid a 6-note anchor while still maintaining the 4-note anchor for the sample
- 12.075 and 12.435 - I'd make these 32nds minijacks, seems like you've built a motif of using consecutive bass kicks like these as minijacks. something like this can work? https://i.imgur.com/QQlNjFg.png -- 12.195 is a non-[34] jump because it's a notably different sound from 11.955
- 13.955 - should be a hand/triple
- 14.475 to 14.955 - would probably make this disconnected from the existing 2-note jack because that's kinda mean in general. that said, I'm a bit unsure about this part, because while I get why you used a continuous 32nd jumpstream here, the main 32nd triplet rhythms here feel muddled in doing so. one solution would be to remove the 32nds at 14.535 or 14.775, or you can have some minitrill patterns for the main rhythms like https://i.imgur.com/LDLYzvr.png (notice the [12]3[12] and [14]2[14] for the main rhythms) instead. I'd prefer the first option, but it's up to you
- 14.955 - should be a triple, song sample here
- 15.615 - might make this a single, I don't think that the bass kicks here are that much louder than the other bass kicks that are patterned as minijacks, would also fit since 15.675 could be a triple (really hard bass kicks). 15.435 might not be loud enough to be a triple in comparison.
- 15.915/16.395 - personal preference, but I think a minijack by connecting these chords with the 16th after would give this section a bit more gravity to it. you can do the same for the 8ths too, but it's lower priority. I personally would, thuogh
- 17.654/17.775 - missing 32nds, you can potentially make 17.355 a 48th burst instead to make the transition into the 32nds a bit more lenient
* 18.075 - kind of a mean pattern, I'd suggest using a 64th split roll or straight roll instead if you were to make 17.355 a 48th burst
- 19.634 to 19.695 - should be singles, similar to what you've done for the minijacks before
- 20.055/20.175 - missing 32nds, 19.995 might be better as a double?
- 20.654 - kinda mean, I'd make this a single personally but the difficulty decrease isn't that much
- 22.515 - pattern is likely fine, though I personally would do something like [34]3[124] instead - it's a bit too much strain on the left hand even though it makes sense for you to do so, but keeping it as is is perfectly fine
- 23.115 to 25.275 - technically there isn't anything stopping you from making the 8th doubles triples instead, and I think you can make this section a bit heavier too by having 16th minijacks all over by connecting each chord to a 16th right after each time (e.g. [134]3[124]2[134]4[123]1), similar to what you're doing in 26.955 but more uniform
- 25.995 - should be a triple
- 26.385 - missing 16th
- 26.955 to 29.155 - curious about the left hand bias here and the specific jack pattern that you used here, which has sets of 3 instead of sets of 2, nothing wrong with it per se, just a bit of a unique configuration
- 30.675 to 38.155 - you're technically missing 16ths here, but you can omit them if you want to. I'd personally try to make some minijack patterns here, but it's a bit awkward since you're using the same chords for several seconds throughout
- 38.714/38.955/39.195 - these can be jumps creating minijacks! it'd be cute
- 39.435/39.675 - would make these doubles, maybe also change the jack at 39.675 to column 2 to make it a bit more generously patterned
- 43.755 to 44.115 - I think an ascending jumpglut might be a bit better here since the chart is pretty difficult as is, something like [12][13][24][34]
- 44.235 to 46.515 - similar to above, I think having 16th minijacks here would create some appropriate tension for the chart given how hard it is at the moment. you can also do ascending minijacks this way too which helps with the buildup section too
- 45.915 - should be a jump I think?
* 46.755/46.955 - these don't seem loud enough to justify minijumpjacks. I think minijacks would be fine, but what you currently have might be a bit much. would suggest changing the jacks to singles.
- 48.075 to 57.435 - I personally would love to see the bass kicks being layered as hands here. It does need some room to manuever, especially if you want to emphasise the main melody as well (I'd place minijacks for consecutive notes like 48.555 to 48.675 for the main melody), but given how high-energy this section is, I think having hands for the bass kicks here would be most appropriate. and again, I think having 16th minijacks would fit the section nicely too
- 50.415 - missing 32nd
- 50.475 - personal preference (?), but I feel that the minijack is better off starting at at 50.475 instead of 50.535. feel that 50.595 is different enough of a sound to differentiate itself from the rest
- 50.715/50.835 - should arguably be jumps
- 51.075 - 3-note jack doesn't seem right here; 51.195 seems better off as a jump separated from the minijack in some way. 33[24]?
- 52.995 to 53.115 - I'd personally try to avoid making longer anchors connecte to chords layered to percussion like this, since the chords here go to the main melody and involve two different timbres overall. so something like [34]2[134][24][23]
- 53.235 - not sure if this should be a jump, single might be more appropriate
- 53.355 - sound isn't harsh enough to justify a hand I feel
* 53.595 - 64th burst here is really mean. you can keep the 64th (the note after the [34] chord) but move it to column 1, but I think it's better to shorten the burst into a gallop instead
- 54.195 - should be a jump
- 54.135 - should be a single, maybe a jump, but this doesn't seem heavy enough
- 54.975 - missing 32nd
- 55.755/55.995 - would suggest changing this to [234] or something similar to contrast these chords from 55.395
- 56.415 - missing 32nd
* 56.475 - this felt pretty egregious overall. this is very similar to 3.195, so maybe use a 32nd triplet but with the 2nd note of the triplet as a 64th instead as suggested in the image at 3.195?
- 56.995 - missing double, should be a jumpjack/anchor connected to 57.075. also I'm not sure if 57.075 should be a hand
- 58.275/58.395 - should be doubles
- 58.875 - could make this a 32nd minijack if you're cheeky
* 59.115/59.355 - these sounds are actually really weird to layer because the attacks seem like they're a 32nd later (59.175/59.415) than where they're currently placed at the moment... I did something like https://i.imgur.com/XEiRQch.png -- which is basically a 48th burst (you can do this by changing the snap to 96ths and making 2 96th gaps between each note) starting on 32nds. I kept the 4th because timing is a bit weird otherwise, but it's up to you to figure out what to do, but as is I feel that the bursts are a bit too fast and start far too early
- 59.955 - don't think this is loud enough to justify a jump
- 1:00.675 to 1:01.135 - minor suggestion, but I'd try to emphasise the louder hi-hats from 1:00.795 to 1:00.975 in some way by using a 4-note 2h minitrill or even a 4-note one hand minitrill. I had something like [13]2[34]1[34]1[234] and moved 1:00.555 to [34], but there might be better alternatives to do it.
- 1:03.075/1:03.315 - this should actually be a 48th later (1:03.115/1:03.355). you can also be a bit silly and force minijacks as well, so something like 2[24] and 3[123] to take advantage of the swing rhythm
- 1:03.555 - missing note
- 1:06.555/1:06.795 - you've used 32nd minijacks for these rhythms before I believe, so feel free to experiment with this if need be
- 1:08.235 - same with 1:06.555, you can do minijacks on alternating hands like [34]3[12]2[14] (1:08.475 should be a double)
- 1:09.015 - should be a single
- 1:09.435/1:09.675 - should be hands
- 1:11.115/1:11.355 - should be jumps, 1:11.115 and 1:11.235 should ideally be the same jump as well
- 1:12.195 - missing note
* 1:12.915 - feel that this would be a lot more approachable and fitting if this were a 2-note gallop instead of a 4-note one. 3-note 192nd burst (431) maybe, but I feel that it's a touch excessive. up to you though
- 1:13.395/1:14.115 - should technically be doubles, but admittedly I'm not sure how you'd want to organise these chords to begin with. I did something like https://i.imgur.com/EviFhOf.png but I don't really know if this even works. the minijacks are separated based on the type of sample the doubles are going to
- 1:15.195 - feel that a gallop would be more appropriate than a 3-note burst. preferably 21?
- 1:15.915 to 1:16.275 - personal preference, but I think the handjacks would have more impact if it were arranged in sets of 2 like [134][134][123][123], but it's up to you
* 1:16.635 - burst here seems unnecessary
- 1:18.435 - should have a 32nd instead of 96th. not sure if minijacks would work since the sounds are a bit light though
- 1:19.275/1:19.755 - feel that these could work as hands, and you can have more 16th minijacks to give this section a heavy feel just like the other sections previously mentioned too
- 1:20.955 - should not be [134] since the main melody note here is different from the other chords, maybe [123]?
- 1:21.555 - would personally prefer this to be a jump ([23]) to avoid the hidden 2[12] minijack
- 1:21.675 - should be a double
- 1:21.795 - technically correct... but goodness I would really prefer this to be on the other hand lol
- 1:22.035 - could be a 32nd minijack, 1:22.155 should be a double though
- 1:22.395 - probably better suited as a triple, also the 3[34] minijack pattern :(
- 1:22.755 - should be a double, could also call for a minijack but probably not
* 1:23.235/1:23.355 - feel that these could just be doubles, the flams seen unnecessary here
* 1:23.475 - the hand bias in this is pretty rough. I'd also probably make 1:25.535 a single, I'm not sure if this hi-hat is loud enough to justify a jump here
* 1:24.075 to 1:24.555 - goodness this is really really hard and probably way too spiky. I really don't agree with the jumps to the 32nds here, especially since it makes for a pattern so difficult... I would suggest something like https://i.imgur.com/1L52uzU.png, but honestly I don't think that this is a particularly good configuration at all becaue I don't think it gives enough emphasis to the main melody, but this might suffice? I'm not sure
- 1:25.035 - feel that this 64th burst can be cut down to just a gallop (2 notes)
- 1:26.535 - conversely, you can probably extend this burst to 5-6 notes. that said, I'd probably have the burst on the left hand because of the existing right hand bias as is
- 1:26.715/1:26.955/1:27.675/1:29.595 - can be minijacks for sure
- 1:27.195 - 64th wall is definitely correct, though I'm a bit concerned about the transition into the hand. you can do something like this: https://i.imgur.com/fqQlVVb.png -- where the last 64th is omitted, and players can still feel the impact of the hand while hitting it
* 1:28.635/1:28.875 - existing structure for this rhythm is something like jump-minijack-jump (e.g. [24]2[14]), but this is completely different from what you have before. you can do something like [34]4[13] [24]2[34] here if you wish, 1:28.755 definitely shouldn't be a 64th burst given how you've layered the chart so far
- 1:30.055/1:31.055 - same as 1:28.635, minijack structure randomly changed here
- 1:31.395/1:31.635/1:31.875/1:32.115 - similar to the above two points (though maybe with the first jumps removed since the hi-hat/snare rhythm is a bit muted), but since the minijacks are so frequent I'm not sure if it'd be a good idea to have 4 minijacks like that. I'm leaning towards the fact that it's fine though, but feel free to experiment.
- 1:32.055 - ghost 32nd
- 1:33.675 - missing note
- 1:33.975 - ghost 32nd
- 1:34.155 to 1:35.155 - would suggest using hands for the bass kicks here and 16th minijacks as usual
* 1:37.515 to 1:37.755 - this is a 24th rhythm. you can do something cute like a 3-note jack starting with [12] if you want here
- 1:38.955 - would make this a [12] to break away from the anchor that's being continued through the chord before it
- 1:41.415 - ghost 32nd
- 1:43.515 - a jumptrill is fine, though I think something like [12]1[34]4[124] would be more appropriate given the bulk of the difficulty in the chart, and it'd make going into the hand much more approachable
* 1:44.895 - minijack idea is fine, but I don't think these sounds are heavy enough to justify doubles. also feel that it'd be a bit of a difficulty spike, but I'm not sure
- 1:45.135/1:45.495 - missing notes
- 1:47.355 - would make a minijack here connected to the [23] before it
- 1:48.555 to 1:49.035 - same as 14.475 to 14.955
- 1:50.295 to 1:50.415 - missing 32nds
- 1:50.655/1:51.135 - missing 32nds
- 1:51.495/1:51.735/1:51.855/1:52.095 - missing 32nds
- 1:53.115 - could create a 32nd minijack if you want to be cute
- 1:57.375 - ghost 32nd and I don't think the bass kick at 1:57.195 justifies it. you can maybe make 1:57.255 a 48th instead though
- 1:57.455/1:57.555 - should be doubles
- 1:58.275 - potentially a 32nd minijack, 1:58.395 should be a double though
- 1:58.515 - I think a 3-note 64th burst can work because it aligns with some of the bursts from before, but a 4-note 96th burst might be a bit too much
- 1:59.475 - would move this to column 4 to contrast 1:59.355 from 1:59.115 (different pitch)
- 1:59.655 - would make this a single, same reasoning as 1:28.635
- 1:59.835 - could do a 48th burst if you want, I don't think the buzz is that shrill
- 2:00.195 - could make this a [24] instead (and the note after would be a 3, hand would be a [134])
- 2:00.435 - would make this a single, not loud enough to be a double I think
- 2:01.275 - timbre isn't full enough to justify a hand, I'd make 2:01.395/2:01.515 hands instead
- 2:01.635 - would make this a minijack
* 2:01.995 - this seems a bit excessive, I think a gallop here would be more appropriate given that the 4th chord is already so heavy as is.
- 2:02.355 - might be better as a 3-note 64th burst instead of a chord, buzz is too prominent
- 2:02.895 - the 4[34] minijack makes me :(, I'd personally have the minijack start at 2:02.835 instead of what you have regardless, I don't think 2:02.955 is dissonant enough to create a minijack collision like that
- 2:03.195 - minijack would be nice
- 2:03.675/2:03.795 - don't really hear anything that would justify flams here, doubles would be fine
- 2:04.395 - should be a triple, you can do this by making 2:04.335 a single
- 2:04.635 - buzz is not very shrill, would use 48ths here instead
- 2:04.995 - might be better as a double? 2:05.115 should also be a different hand from 2:04.875
- 2:06.315 to 2:06.555 - the 64th flams seem a bit much, you can probably do something like make the jumps descending ([34][23][124], [124] because there's a bass kick there and would justify a hand) and make the jumps grace notes/flams instead
- 2:07.035/2:07.395 - should be doubles, same as the rhythm before it
- 2:09.675 to 2:09.914 - would probably mirror this because of the left hand bias before this
- 2:12.225 - this burst can be a tad bit longer
- 2:13.635 - should be a triple
* 2:13.995 to 2:14.475 - don't hear any of the 32nds here, would suggest removing
- 2:14.715 - would highly suggest making this a single to avoid a 6-note anchor, but it's up to you
- 2:15.915 to 2:16.035 - I'd mirror this for ergonomics sake, but it's a very minor thing
- 2:16.395/2:16.775 - should be hands
- 2:17.235 - should probably be a single
- 2:17.835/2:17.955 - should be hands given 2:17.475
- 2:18.795 - should be a double, probably not a 64th burst
* 2:19.515 - don't think a 64th burst should be there, can't really hear anything that would justify it
- 2:20.175 - would make this a single, the minijack into the hand is pretty mean, but nothing extremely out of line
- 2:21.075 - might be better as a single?
- 2:21.795/2:22.035 - should be hands
- 2:22.395 - I'd argue that you can make this a single given what you're layering doubles to (primarily bass kicks), and there's a distinct lack of bass kick here -- I'd do it to break up the anchors present here. it's pretty subjective though
- 2:23.355/2:23.595 - these don't seem loud enough to be hands, so I think doubles are fine
- 2:24.075/2:24.195/2:24.435/2:24.555 - should be doubles, percussion + vocals
- 2:25.035/2:25.155 - should be doubles? 2:25.035 certainly should be, at least
- 2:25.395/2:25.455 - should be singles I think?
- 2:26.155/2:26.475 - could be triples, but I'm very unsure since this is kinda airy
- 2:29.295 - missing 32nd
- 2:35.055 - ghost 32nd?
- 2:35.295 - missing 32nd, 32nd in 2:35.415 shouldn't be there

did you know that wowee backwards is momee

wowee backwards is mom66 though