Feature Suggestion: Ability to disable play of any segment in an Arrangement

[Sridhar Raghavan]

This would prevent destructive remove of a segment while trying sequencing of segments in an arrangement.

Would be great productivity feature for trying out arrangements - more productively than creating a new Arrangement altogether.

Also when an Arrangement is close and your are experimenting with addition of different segments at different points in an arrangements.

This will be a great support for the way I do my musical pieces.

Thanks in Advance.

br Sri.

 

[Amberwolf]

You can't just mute the clip?   

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to do. 

[Sridhar Raghavan]

Amberwolf

 

That does not solve the problem.

 

Consider the following arrangement

A

B

C

B

D

B

E

I want to disable the play of only the Second B for my next test.

I am not muting B per se, the first and third instances will play.

Hope this clarifies.

 

Let me know if I can mute a segment in an arrangement.

I have not seen it, unless I missed it some how.

 

br Sri.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sridhar Raghavan]

Also in some other DAWs

I can specify properties for each of the element instances in the arrangement.

So for example, one can repeat a Table Interlude Segment 0,1, 2 or 3 times etc. before moving to the melody segment.

Lot more simple and clearer than duplicating that segment a few times in the arrangement.

The properties may include Tempo, Octave, Volume etc.. etc

You get the idea...

These are natural progression from the current Arrangement feature in Cakewalk.

br Sri.

 

[msmcleod]

You can create as many arrangements as you want.

Just create an arrangement without the section you don't want played, then play that arrangement.
 

[Sridhar Raghavan]

msmcleod

 

Read my earlier note. That does not address the usage need. It will only lead to, sorry for using a mathematical apt term "combinatorial proliferation" of arrangements.

In simple words too many arrangements for every sequence one wants to try - fleeting and tentative combinations. 

 

br Sri.

 

[Sridhar Raghavan]

Wookie

Sorry. But be assured that I am writing this with only Goodwill.

Please do not second guess or question the wisdom/needs/ideas of any user in general, especially who may be sophisticated.   Try to understand them well, as almost always they would be working beyond the basic stuff. 

 Also, by all means, avoid condescension. It will keep you in good stead.  To do so is not courteous and goes against professionalism.

br Sri.

[Terry Kelley]

On 12/1/2024 at 10:24 AM, Wookiee said:

Sorry a what a "combinatorial proliferation" but that is kind of the point of being able to have multiple arrangements. How many different arrangements do you think you are going to need? 

Some arrangements have all sections some don't, seems you want to complicate something that works fine as is. Do you know the acronym KISS. 

If you need more than 5 or 6 I suggest you start a new tune, obviously you didn't have idea of what you wanted when you started.

You write sections, you then try different arrangements of sections, until you get one you like.

Moved  as it is more a feature request.

This is a bit uncalled for Wookie.

If I understand his request he wants to temporarily disable a section, not create a whole new arrangement. I wouldn’t mind this either. 

 

 

[Wookiee]

1 hour ago, Terry Kelley said:

This is a bit uncalled for Wookie.

If I understand his request he wants to temporarily disable a section, not create a whole new arrangement. I wouldn’t mind this either. 

 

 

Then you need to make a feature request, not tell me I am wrong for pointing out that Arrangements in CbB and Sonar don't work that way.

There are many things in this software world that don't work how I want them to. Why because they haven't written the algorithm to do it that way simples. Telling people they are wrong for pointing it out is unacceptable? 

Make a valid feature request, give good reasons why you should be able to mute a section, they might consider it. But is really that hard to just make an alternative arrangement with the section removed, I mean making arrangements is so hard and so brain taxing, isn't it?

[Terry Kelley]

Wookie, that's over the top. You don't  need to do that. Hopefully he moved it.

[msmcleod]

On 12/1/2024 at 6:12 PM, Sridhar Raghavan said:

msmcleod

 

Read my earlier note. That does not address the usage need. It will only lead to, sorry for using a mathematical apt term "combinatorial proliferation" of arrangements.

In simple words too many arrangements for every sequence one wants to try - fleeting and tentative combinations. 

 

br Sri.

 

You don't need to keep every arrangement, and I suspect you're not going to try every single possible combination of sections.

What I'm suggesting:

1. Duplicate the existing arrangement
2. Delete the section(s) you want to mute

At this point you could Undo to get the section(s) back, and remove another section... or you could delete the arrangement and duplicate your original again.

It might be worth you posting a video of what your existing workflow is here...

[Starship Krupa]

On 12/1/2024 at 10:24 AM, Wookiee said:

obviously you didn't have idea of what you wanted when you started

Not everyone always does. I certainly don't. Some people never work things out in their head before starting to get it down. I usually compose my music on the fly, section by section, move sections around, etc. That's why using a DAW is so awesome. To me, it can be like playing in a sandbox.

My last (and so far only) single came out of auditioning patches on a synth plug-in. I wasn't even trying to come up with a song in the first place.

Sri's request is a good one. Selective muting, repeating or skipping of Arranger sections sounds to me like a great idea that if it were possible to implement, would make the Arranger Track even more useful.

"Combinatorial proliferation" in this scenario....I think he means (correct me if I'm wrong) that you'd risk creating too many permutations of your arrangement if you have to duplicate the arrangement when you want to try something slightly different. I get it, my ADHD brain doesn't like project clutter.

Getting a quick answer to the question "what would happen if I play the next section twice instead of only once?" without having to duplicate the entire section and create another arrangement, would be pretty slick indeed.

Or, in the specific case of his request, "what would happen if I skipped that section the first time?"

Some DAW's have a feature called the "scratch pad" for checking out alternate ideas without cluttering the main project. I don't know how they work, but this sounds like it would be in the same spirit of that.

I also appreciate Mark's hints for how to accomplish similar things within the confines of the existing feature.

[Amberwolf]

13 hours ago, Starship Krupa said:

On 12/1/2024 at 11:24 AM, Wookiee said:

obviously you didn't have idea of what you wanted when you started

Not everyone always does. I certainly don't. Some people never work things out in their head before starting to get it down. I usually compose my music on the fly, section by section, move sections around, etc. That's why using a DAW is so awesome. To me, it can be like playing in a sandbox.

Exactly. 

Everything I do is improvisation, playing around, letting what I hear influence what I do next, etc.

I love the complete freedom it gives me to be able to do this.

 

I can also keep every version of everything I do, by saving as a new file everytime I save.  So I can experiment with anything, and always go back if a line of creativity I pursue doesn't work out. (which *never* happens, of course  )

[Glenn Stanton]

i find using HookPad for composition rapidly moving things, trying out various instrumentation, etc and then exporting as MIDI, score / lead sheet / tab etc let's me focus in the DAW environment to refine the instrumentation, patterns, etc as well as in the individual instruments (riffer, chord structures etc). it becomes interative as well as flexible. and as things get more cohesion, the more time i'll invest in "finalizing" the arrangement, instruments, and mix details. (ala agile process 😉 )

the arranger, the articulations, etc all play a role in create the final set of outputs as well as the export settings: v1 arrangement w & w/o vox; arragement 2 w & w/o drums + vox, etc for sound libraries, versus listener friendly, extended verses radio length...

Edited December 14 by Glenn Stanton

[Wookiee]

On 12/10/2024 at 10:03 PM, Terry Kelley said:

Wookie, that's over the top. You don't  need to do that. Hopefully he moved it.

Your contribution to this post has been noted.

[Terry Kelley]

Is my name on a wall somewhere now or did I get another tick next to it?

Edited December 14 by Terry Kelley