35
28
21
14
7
Riptide :: FFR Batch Submission
VisD -
Riptide -
Trivecta, AMIDY and RØRY [7 / 10]
Easy Files
PublicEvents
Released
really really pretty song. diff ~35-40, age-appropriate bursts/jacks/rolls
This file has some wiggle room up to diff ~55, as many of the bursts are diluted. If there's a need for a file in some other difficulty up to that point, let me know and I can make the changes
PERMISSION NOTES: this is a Monstercat song BUT it is labeled as not 'creator friendly' on this: https://www.monstercat.com/catalog/?creatorfriendly=0&search=riptide . But our permission for Monstercat label is not based on that but whether a song has been released on one of their albums, which it is (Instinct vol 4 and best of 2019)
This file has some wiggle room up to diff ~55, as many of the bursts are diluted. If there's a need for a file in some other difficulty up to that point, let me know and I can make the changes
PERMISSION NOTES: this is a Monstercat song BUT it is labeled as not 'creator friendly' on this: https://www.monstercat.com/catalog/?creatorfriendly=0&search=riptide . But our permission for Monstercat label is not based on that but whether a song has been released on one of their albums, which it is (Instinct vol 4 and best of 2019)
Simfile Folder Name
Riptide (VisD)Note Count
748Chart Length
2:40Average NPS
4.7938Estimated Difficulty
32.34
First Note
0:04Ending Note Delay
0:01Hand Bias
x -2
Framers
0 - 0 1 - 0 2 - 0 3 - 0 4 - 0Jumps
x 168
Hands
x 0
Quads
x 0
Color Jumps
x 0
Color Hands
x 0
Color Quads
x 0
Most notes in:
1/3 of a Second5 - 15.00 nps 0.5 Seconds
6 - 12.00 nps 1 Second
12 - 12.00 nps 2 Seconds
20 - 10.00 nps 5 Seconds
37 - 7.40 nps 10 Seconds
64 - 6.40 nps 30 Seconds
177 - 5.90 nps 1 Minute
325 - 5.42 nps
Color Count
x 326 (43.58%)
x 147 (19.65%)
x 7 (0.94%)
x 220 (29.41%)
x 9 (1.2%)
x 25 (3.34%)
x 0 (0%)
x 14 (1.87%)
x 0 (0%)
Posted at 7:37am on October 6th, 2020
Riptide (VisD) [7.0/10]
> Permission check good.
> Sync looks good (No changes necessary).
> No issues found within simfile properties.
> No issues found within submission folder contents.
-[00:09.092] Personal preference, I would’ve pulled back a little bit on this 8th earlier to 48th or even 32nd position to bring attention to the voice raspiness here, makes for a little bit of color too.
-[00:13.217] Should be a jump, along with the [24] at 00:15.467 being a single, to be more concise with the layering in this section.
-[00:26.529] Missing 16th on vocals..?
-[00:38.529] Same missing 16th as the above note.
-[01:15.279] Not seeing the purpose of this 16th jump here. Pretty much the same in comparison to 01:18.279, 01:21.279 and other similar 16ths. Either all jumps or none.
-[01:27.279] Repeat issue as the above note.
-[01:30.279] Very confusing layering-wise that neither of the 16ths here are jumps. Could be improved upon imo to keep jumps to drums and vocals to singles, instead of them both being singles and only creating jumps on beats that both of them meet on. Especially within this section.
-[01:33.654] Missing 16th in vocals
-[01:38.529] Repeat issue from the note at 00:26.529. Happens again at 01:50.529.
-Needs some fixes in some vocals & jump layering. Lovely song regardless, and I rather like the choice of progression for chorus.
Posted at 8:46am on October 6th, 2020
-[00:09.092] Personal preference, I would’ve pulled back a little bit on this 8th earlier to 48th or even 32nd position to bring attention to the voice raspiness here, makes for a little bit of color too.
I prefer the consistency of representation in the vocals, which are designed to be snapped to the 4/4 rhythm. The raspiness isn't significant enough imo.
-[00:26.529] Missing 16th on vocals..?
-[00:38.529] Same missing 16th as the above note.
-[01:33.654] Missing 16th in vocals
-[01:38.529] Repeat issue from the note at 00:26.529. Happens again at 01:50.529.
oof good catch. For whatever reason I thought the lyrics here were "your waves pushing me under" (so the points you mentioned are just continuations on the wa-ves) but they're definitely "your waves ARE pushing me under" monkaS
-[00:13.217] Should be a jump, along with the [24] at 00:15.467 being a single, to be more concise with the layering in this section.
-[01:15.279] Not seeing the purpose of this 16th jump here. Pretty much the same in comparison to 01:18.279, 01:21.279 and other similar 16ths. Either all jumps or none.
-[01:27.279] Repeat issue as the above note.
-[01:30.279] Very confusing layering-wise that neither of the 16ths here are jumps. Could be improved upon imo to keep jumps to drums and vocals to singles, instead of them both being singles and only creating jumps on beats that both of them meet on. Especially within this section.
These notes I heavily disagree with and do not feel they constitute CQ status. The whole file is strictly addictive layering: vocals + [kick or clap] = jump. I know it's meta these days to not use additive layering in favor of direct jump layering, but additive layering is an equally valid form of layering: basically every bmah file uses this, for instance, and they tend to work well. In this case, I think additive layering is the superior option: with direct layering to percussion, the dubstep/instrumental sections become very heavily layered and they're already notably harder with the bursts compared to the choruses.
Posted at 10:34am on October 6th, 2020
If you're going towards additive layering, instead of not distinctly parting the difference between vocals and drums, then at [01:25.217], [23] Jump here goes only to drums, and not vocals. Should be a single. There may also be notes elsewhere in the song where vocal and drums are together/separated, but were missed for one reason or another (like missing vocals, or transitions similar to this for example). I would suggest giving it a once-over and make sure there's no conflict in the additive layering.
I'm not going to take the justification that it should go in because bmah's files uses this sort of layering scheme, because I cannot vouch for the majority of bmah's files and their judgments in the batch that get graded by other judges, only what I get in my set. The files I've personally seen from bmah did not run into the structural issues generated by additive layering that this particular submission does, except for one which I passed to a different judge because I gave my opinion on it prior to it being submitted to the batch, to prevent bias.
Given the circumstance, I think a good compromise would be to remove the notes pointed out that you disagree with, but add the above note in this post. It would stay in Conditional Queue because it needs a 2nd look at the file, but I think what you're looking for is not an overhaul to the additive layering that creates the ruling structure for the file.
Posted at 1:35am on October 22nd, 2020
After discussion with gold stinger, decided to go with the following:
-I took every note suggested, including upgrading kicks and claps to jumps for layering clarity. (This is why the note count has increased by quite a bit)
- The only note I didn't take was the first one about pulling the vocal ahead, because I feel the actual vocalization of the syllable sung does not happen until the 4th. There's enough color later on to go around, anyways.
----------
Note Count changed: 666 => 748
AVG NPS changed: 4.26832 => 4.79385
Hand Bias changed: -8 => -2