Smarter Arranger

[Sydney Pais]

I'm using the Arranger/Arrangements for composing and structuring new songs. I've created all kind of "pieces" (Sections through Markers) and by itself it works fine through the Arrangement. 

But I'm quite annoyed by two things, and hopefully they will be addressed in the next version (CbB, Next and or Sonar).

1. Adding an editable number which indicates how many times you want a certain Section to be played (instead of duplicating as many times).

 The result now is having a huge (and sometimes unfathomable) list of the same Sections.

In this example 4x 'E (Running)' is not such a big deal, but 12 times (or is it 11 or 13?) the same Section is.

Especially with more complex or extended pieces (like long, repetitive solo's / instrumentals) this is now unworkable.

2. As playing the Arrangement, the list also doesn't scroll automatically as the playing moment reaches the bottom of what is visible. It disappears into the void, and the playing can't be monitored anymore without using the scroll bar, which is a distraction from the workflow. Maybe the Now moment should be centered (Preferences?).

I don't really consider this one an upgrade, rather fixing a bug.

Thank you for your consideration.

Warm greetings from Amsterdam.

 

Edited July 19, 2023 by Sydney Pais
Needed to clarify text.

[sjoens]

Good points.

[Mark Morgon-Shaw]

On 7/18/2023 at 6:33 AM, Sydney Pais said:

1. Adding an editable number which indicates how many times you want a certain Section to be played (instead of duplicating as many times).

It's a fine idea but the issue with that idea is that Cakewalk/Sonar is at it's heart is based on a traditional studio paradigm with a linear timeline running left to right and playing it as one would a hardware tape machine.   It doesn't run from a playlist like some other DAWs do and it would be pretty seismic shift to move to that world at this stage. 

I would also argue that in a typical song most folks wouldn't want the exact same section played 12x over as it could get boring. But eventually you're going to want to commit to new arrangement and write it back to the linear track view in any case. 

Maybe there is a better solution like a floating arranger page so you can make more eloborate arrangements full screen, which would also make it fully visible and avoid it scrolling off the screen.  

Or maybe they are willing to change the whole ethos of how we play tracks and make it a more non-linear DAW. 

Edited July 21, 2023 by Mark Morgon-Shaw

[msmcleod]

I think both of these suggestions are good ones and can be considered.

Repeats for arranger sections was discussed at one point, but proved difficult at the time and was largely seen as a "nice to have" - after all, you can easily duplicate the section as many times as you want.

However, it shouldn't be difficult to do this now - essentially it would build a temporary "play" arrangement with the current arrangement + repeats rolled out (which it actually already does in other places).  The only tricky part would be the UI - i.e. actually providing the repeats editor, and also giving the correct position feedback with relation to the arrangement in the inspector.

The lack of scrolling I see more of a bug, and should definitely be fixed.

Given our workload regarding Next / Sonar however, I can't give any ETA on this.

[Sydney Pais]

On 7/20/2023 at 11:16 PM, Mark Morgon-Shaw said:

It's a fine idea but the issue with that idea is that Cakewalk/Sonar is at it's heart is based on a traditional studio paradigm with a linear timeline running left to right and playing it as one would a hardware tape machine.   It doesn't run from a playlist like some other DAWs do and it would be pretty seismic shift to move to that world at this stage. 

I would also argue that in a typical song most folks wouldn't want the exact same section played 12x over as it could get boring. But eventually you're going to want to commit to new arrangement and write it back to the linear track view in any case. 

Maybe there is a better solution like a floating arranger page so you can make more eloborate arrangements full screen, which would also make it fully visible and avoid it scrolling off the screen.  

Or maybe they are willing to change the whole ethos of how we play tracks and make it a more non-linear DAW. 

Thank you for your remarks, Mark, but I don't come with this suggestion as a Folk song musician.

I'm into Rock and Metal where extensive solos over the same pattern are more kinda rule than exception.

All I'm asking is a (controlled) Loop function per Section.

[Sydney Pais]

On 7/21/2023 at 2:19 AM, msmcleod said:

I think both of these suggestions are good ones and can be considered.

Repeats for arranger sections was discussed at one point, but proved difficult at the time and was largely seen as a "nice to have" - after all, you can easily duplicate the section as many times as you want.

However, it shouldn't be difficult to do this now - essentially it would build a temporary "play" arrangement with the current arrangement + repeats rolled out (which it actually already does in other places).  The only tricky part would be the UI - i.e. actually providing the repeats editor, and also giving the correct position feedback with relation to the arrangement in the inspector.

The lack of scrolling I see more of a bug, and should definitely be fixed.

Given our workload regarding Next / Sonar however, I can't give any ETA on this.

Hi Mark. Thank you for your reply.

I can appreciate the UI issue. It indeed leaves little room. On the other hand, a pop-up might work. If I see how this program was built, I feel this could not be a very hard nut to crack (as that even English?...).

"...after all, you can easily duplicate the section as many times as you want." True in my example of only 4-in-a-row, but with extensive solo's it's a different thing.

Now I'm in no way a composer like the great John Fogerty, but imaging "I heard it through the grapevine" first being constructed in the Cakewalk Arranger with a planned solo of about 7 minutes (with quite some chord changes in a turnaround).

And then having to make a change somewhere in between, scrolling and counting lines...

I hope Next or Sonar will make this possible, for Bandlab it might be too late.

[Mark Morgon-Shaw]

1 hour ago, Sydney Pais said:

I'm into Rock and Metal where extensive solos over the same pattern are more kinda rule than exception.

Thanks Sydney, I understand some genres can have long solos ( including folk )

I guess for now you could make your sections that go under the solo longer, i.e. 2x 12 bars instead of 6 x 4 bars then they would fit on the screen

[msmcleod]

I think it's important to remember that Cakewalk is very much a linear DAW, rather than a pattern based DAW.

I actually started using Cakewalk (CWPA 7) in 1997 coming from 10 + years using a pattern based sequencer (mainly MusicX on the Amiga), and it did take a while to change my writing workflow.

Using the arranger to try to emulate a pattern based workflow can work to an extent, but isn't going to result in a very satisfying experience, and you'll start hitting issues. This is especially true if you have tempo/meter/key changes and use any generative VSTi's.

In saying that, it there are things that might help:

Bear in mind you can have both multiple arrangements and multiple arranger tracks, so there's nothing stopping you using smaller sections at the start, committing your arrangement (or inserting it later in the timeline), then creating an additional arranger track with longer sections. You can then base your new arrangement on a combination of the longer/shorter sections.

Committing your arrangement using Linked Clips can also help here if you want to changes to one clip to affect the other clips you've repeated.

Also, don't restrict yourself to creating an arrangement.  The editing features of the arranger track essentially allow you to arrange as you go along, rather than relying on creating an arrangement and committing it.

[Sydney Pais]

4 hours ago, Mark Morgon-Shaw said:

Thanks Sydney, I understand some genres can have long solos ( including folk )

I guess for now you could make your sections that go under the solo longer, i.e. 2x 12 bars instead of 6 x 4 bars then they would fit on the screen

That would mean that I need to copy the same Section that I use for vocals, create a new one copied 11 times.

One change, e.g. a 7th i.o. a 6th in the chord means 12 extra changes i.o. 1.

No, I really prefer the suggested upgrade.

[Bruno de Souza Lino]

On 7/22/2023 at 6:14 AM, msmcleod said:

Bear in mind you can have both multiple arrangements and multiple arranger tracks, so there's nothing stopping you using smaller sections at the start, committing your arrangement (or inserting it later in the timeline), then creating an additional arranger track with longer sections. You can then base your new arrangement on a combination of the longer/shorter sections.

It's a bit difficult to navigate by arranger sections when you have multiple arranger tracks, as there's no way to switch between them and the keyboard shortcut will only follow the one which is selected.

[Sydney Pais]

On 7/23/2023 at 10:03 PM, Bruno de Souza Lino said:

It's a bit difficult to navigate by arranger sections when you have multiple arranger tracks, as there's no way to switch between them and the keyboard shortcut will only follow the one which is selected.

Addition:

As a former (data) programmer working in a modular build-up is so much more efficient than just writing out everything unprepared.

From that perspective the point is that I use smaller sections (e.g. 2 or 4 bars) for verse/chorus, and I want a solo based on this x12. One change in the original makes me have another change copied 11 times.

The more I extend the original Version to multiple, the more I can throw away and do over again, if I change my mind.

I find it hard to believe (or is it accept?) that a great product like Cakewalk has not included this controlled loop option in the Sections. It seems to me programming wise hardly different from the loop in Transport. Although there you can't set a certain number either, but that makes sense for its purpose.

---

Or if a NEW Arrangement, created from e.g. 12x etc., could be used in the current one you're working on, could be "called" and entered as a module.

Unfortunately,  as you mentioned, you're stuck with the current Arrangement and the result is a sheer endless list of Sections running of the screen - without overview.

E.g. 

Arr 2 : 'Extended Solo' (built up of Sections 'Verse/Solo' x12 - 'Chorus' x2 - 'Verse/Solo' x4 )

Arr 1:  'Intro' - 'Verse 1' - 'Chorus' - (call) 'Extended Solo' or (call) 'Arr 2' - 'Verse 1' etc.

Edited August 2, 2023 by Sydney Pais
Addition because of a another tryout / wish

[Mark Morgon-Shaw]

On 7/22/2023 at 2:08 PM, Sydney Pais said:

That would mean that I need to copy the same Section that I use for vocals, create a new one copied 11 times.

Yes but it's very quick. Just select your section and  hit CTRL D to duplicate - You can do this multiple times

 

[Bruno de Souza Lino]

Also, you can only display 8 arranger tracks at most, even if you have more of them.

[msmcleod]

On 7/23/2023 at 9:03 PM, Bruno de Souza Lino said:

It's a bit difficult to navigate by arranger sections when you have multiple arranger tracks, as there's no way to switch between them and the keyboard shortcut will only follow the one which is selected.

You make an arranger track the active one by clicking its header.   Right clicking on the inspector "A"  tab icon will list all of the sections in the active arrangement allowing you to jump directly to it.

 

[rfssongs]

Only problem I have with arranger is losing other arranger tracks when I commit to an arrangement. I do use the trick that M. McLelod, gave me (Thank you again) when I remember. But when I forget (too often) it gets messy.

 

BTW the (McCleod) tip above works as well.

[Bruno de Souza Lino]

2 hours ago, msmcleod said:

You make an arranger track the active one by clicking its header.   Right clicking on the inspector "A"  tab icon will list all of the sections in the active arrangement allowing you to jump directly to it.

 

I know about that. I was talking about a way to switch between them without using the mouse.

[Mark Morgon-Shaw]

On 8/1/2023 at 12:38 PM, Sydney Pais said:

 

I see your screenshot but I don't understand how you are working ? 

What are the letters for ? Are those labels for chords ?  Do you make an Arranger Section for each chord of the song ?  That would seem a bit overkill ? No wonder it's going off the screen. 

I always imagined it was designed for typical song sections - this is one of mine. I was able to try it with and without the Pre-Chorus ( PC ) but in the end the only change I made was adding a little gap at the end of Chorus 1 and the start of Verse 2.

 

[Sydney Pais]

4 hours ago, Mark Morgon-Shaw said:

I see your screenshot but I don't understand how you are working ? 

What are the letters for ? Are those labels for chords ?  Do you make an Arranger Section for each chord of the song ?  That would seem a bit overkill ? No wonder it's going off the screen. 

I always imagined it was designed for typical song sections - this is one of mine. I was able to try it with and without the Pre-Chorus ( PC ) but in the end the only change I made was adding a little gap at the end of Chorus 1 and the start of Verse 2.

 

No, it just tells me what the MAIN key is in this Section. I could have named it "Staccato E-D-E-D-D-E" if I would strictly follow the real (and quickly changing) chord sequence. That name would be a violation of clever use, I guess....

There are multiple, alternating, chords in it, and two measures 4/4.

In your example it seems there is no extended solo section necessary, so it doesn't apply.

That's why I'd mentioned the example of CCR's "I heard it through the grapevine". John Fogerty's extended solo is played in D-G a million times as a turnaround.

This is also how my verses (3x4 measures) is built, while my chorus (2x2 measures, 1x3 measures overflow) is the same yet in B.

Also a transposed section in A and even C for additional guitar changes in the solo's.

It's not a masterpiece or rocket science and it will never hit the charts, by all means (), but it's metal as I like it.

[Mark Morgon-Shaw]

2 hours ago, Sydney Pais said:

In your example it seems there is no extended solo section necessary, so it doesn't apply.

They're not a thing in music for TV.  Little to no intro's - no solos, single tempo, no keys changes,  no fadeouts and always end on the tonic.

But if I did have a solo I would just have it as one long arranger section spanning 12 bars or whatever..not  repeating 4 bars x 3....for one thing I wouldn't want the backing track to repeat exactly the same thing 3 times, it would need slight changes every 4 bars at least just to keep it fresh and interesting even if it's just introducing some new percussion or a little drum fill.       

[Sydney Pais]

On 8/6/2023 at 1:27 AM, Mark Morgon-Shaw said:

They're not a thing in music for TV.  Little to no intro's - no solos, single tempo, no keys changes,  no fadeouts and always end on the tonic.

But if I did have a solo I would just have it as one long arranger section spanning 12 bars or whatever..not  repeating 4 bars x 3....for one thing I wouldn't want the backing track to repeat exactly the same thing 3 times, it would need slight changes every 4 bars at least just to keep it fresh and interesting even if it's just introducing some new percussion or a little drum fill.       

I got that, but there is the difference in approach.

I'm using samples (whether "borrowed" or just played myself) to STRUCTURE the song. The rough version.

That I will use as a blueprint to record live guitars, bass, drums and occasionally keyboards. Preferrable all parts in one take, so no robotic stuff. And eventually the vocals.

So it's (definitely) not the final product, it's a setup.

Maybe that's where the confusion is.