Man it would be great if there was a utility to convert a cool loop to a real track instrument. For instance Native Instruments just released George Duke loop collection. Wouldn't it be fantastic to be able to convert one of those loops to work as a real track instrument and thereby use it in Real Band or BIAB?
Now I realize I could take one of those loops and cut and paste and end up using it, in much the same way but so much easier to be able to use it as a real track!
Of course this goes back to opening up the real track system to third party development, I attend a college with some dynamite musicians that I could record and there by use them in my BIAB or Real Band studio setting.
I'm afraid that a feature like that, while theoretically fantastic, wouldn't be very useful: you would need a library containing several loops (different patterns, different lengths) for every chord supported by the program. To my knowledge there's not such a library.
However I'm agree in that opening up the RT system to external developers / users would be a great addition.
Peace
I would like to see looping in the same way that GROOVE CLIPS loop
You record a short passage, hilight it and declare it to be a groove clip, then drag it across the track, and it fits to the tempo of the song. An awful lot of music is built around recurring passages, and its a lot faster to record a short segment and paint with it than it is to play the same thing over and over again without making mistakes or getting out of time. In that sense, groove clips would not be identical to real tracks, but they would be a useful alternative that fills a similar need. They are particularly useful for rhythm instruments playing repeating chord patterns, and also for decorative instruments playing recurring motifs
The other advantage of a groove clip is that you can play whatever you want for the recurring pattern, so you have some creative control (unlike real tracks where you have to accept what somebody else played). Providing this feature would give users a tool for those times when they want a specific pattern, but without opening up any trade secrets about how real tracks are made.
The concept of groove clips is found in many music packages (acid, FLstudio and sonar to name three) so it must not be proprietary.
Quote:
Now I realize I could take one of those loops and cut and paste and end up using it, in much the same way but so much easier to be able to use it as a real track!
as you said, cutting and pasting is already possible, but it isn't nearly as flexible as groove clips because groove clips can adapt to the tempo and key of a song, much like real tracks. If you tried to cut and paste 50 bars of a recurring passage, chances are that there would be enough mismatch of one kind or another to make the huge effort unusable.
I have to believe that whatever PGMusic does to make real tracks adapt to tempo and key could be reused to make groove clips (short recorded passages) do the same thing, so there may not even be a lot of programming to write. But it would be a HUGE feature in terms of opening up creative opportunities for the products users.
Buy a copy of Acid Pro, and you can make the cleanest clips around. They have a feature that is called "render looped region only". You strum a guitar for example for a few measures, and then set the loop region to loop perfectly for a bar. Then hit the render command and a prefect loop is made. Export that and import in RB, copy and paste to taste. Make one in each chord and you have the makings of a full pattern track.
It is good to have a full tool box of tools.
Quote:
Buy a copy of Acid Pro, and you can make the cleanest clips around. They have a feature that is called "render looped region only". You strum a guitar for example for a few measures, and then set the loop region to loop perfectly for a bar. Then hit the render command and a prefect loop is made. Export that and import in RB, copy and paste to taste. Make one in each chord and you have the makings of a full pattern track.
It is good to have a full tool box of tools.
Quite true...
Even better if the full toolbox comes in one application. The point of the wish list forum is to express ideas for the future development of PGMusic products. Hopefully someday I won't have to maintain multiple software licenses that duplicate the same feature set except for one or two features I can't live without.
When the smoke clears, I hope PGMusic's suite is the only music making product I need to do all the things I want to do. Therefore, I keep pointing out the features that keep me bound to other products... groove clips being one of them.
I agree to a point Pat, but one thing i have learned is that multifunction devices are often time less adept any any one thing than individual ones are, to name a few, ShopSmith, it does everything, but not as good as individual tools do, Swiss army knife is neat but the individual tools are inferior to separates. A Cresent wrench does a good job at tightening bolts, but a good set of box wrenches is far better. Probably bad examples, but it makes the point.
Having every imaginable process in one package sounds great, and i hope development continues to enhance the current features, and slowly add others, but this is where programs begin to bloat and become buggy. Look at Sonar for instance. Argueably a very solid product, but in that same arguement is the fact that at the cost of stability it has grown in the last few years. I quick glance at the forums there show that many issues remain un resolved through many updates. Look here at PTPA and RB, they are about 3 versions in regarding VST and VSTi implementation, and yet still the VSTi issues continues, not quite finished. I have to asume that this is inpart due to the difficulty in meshing VSTi in the existing scheme of timing code that came from before VSTi was an issue.
You also have to believe that some of this is due to the rapid development of RT's, and some due to the fact that having so many features comes at a risk of some of them overlapping for resources, and functionability.
I agree though that there are a few that should be here.
1. True track, and effect automation, like other programs.
2. Full VSTi implementation including timing issue control
3. Maybe you are right, looping tools that allow clips and looped region rendering is one of those go to features that makes this a front runner program someday.
Good points and good dialog. I love RB myself, i hope with a little bit more refinement it can take over about 90% of my process. But i do not want that if it become feature rich, and stability poor.
Rob,
as always, you state your position well. I think we're on the same page.
I'm not really looking for an "everything" app. Like you, I use whatever music program that can get me the results I need.
But I find that my needs are really pretty simple, pretty recurring, and pretty well-met by BIAB and RB already. Knowing PGMusic's dedication to product improvement , and their record of providing most of what the users ask for, it seems reasonable to open a dialog about functionality that is a good match for the products core strengths.
You can use loops to make Real Tracks !
http://www.pgmusic.com/tutorial_realdrums_stylemaking.htmHave you ever tried the piano roll icon in RB for automation Robh ? It maybe not like some other programs ,but it's still there .
Tommy, yes i have i have used both the piano roll, and fader recording as automation. Yes they work, but have you ever used Autoamtion in either Sonar, Reaper, MTS, Cubade, ..... any other program it is so simple and easy.
Whenm you use the piano roll, you have to draw the automation in in the lower pane, and it is very difficult to get exactly what you want. Where as in say Sonar for instance, all one does is click and add notes, and drag them up down sideways, right click and remove, and add more it is smooth and easy. In MTS you click and knob, effect, or device, and a window pops up, you add nodes and automate that process. This is very easy and solid to use.
Have used Sonor since version 1 and Cubase version 4 , never had a problem with using RB's piano roll it's just different .
You missed the point there Tommyc, the piano roll is fine, but the automation using the piano roll is very clunkey. If you have used Sonar automation you know what i mean.
Sure you can "draw" in the automation in the PR, but it is hard and slow to make adjustments. In a node based Automation system, it is simple easy and fast.
Lastly it is there is nothing wrong with wanting PG to step up and upgrade systems like this to a more user friendly process.
Quote:
Lastly it is there is nothing wrong with wanting PG to step up and upgrade systems like this to a more user friendly process.
I'd have to agree with Robh on this. Even though it doesn't make sense to ask developers to waste updates making software duplicate FEATURES that already exist in other programs, it DOES make sense to make the interface work in an industry standard and intuitive way.
Assuming two programs offer approximately the same core features, but one of them has an interface that works like 50 other interfaces so you intuitivelt understand how it works... people tend to gravitate toward the program with intuitive interface.
Node based envelopes are the perfect example of such an intuitive interface for an existing feature.