Ableton Forum

Angstrom wrote:

3dot... wrote:

Angstrom wrote:I was in L9 and had made some drum clips for later use, so decided to drag them into my library. So, I guess I just drag them onto the entry marked "Clips"? Uh, apparently no. I got the "no go" icon there. Weird. Cant save clips?

So I open up the "user basement" where they allow us to keep our stuff, navigate to my old trusty live-songs/clips/drums folder. Boom. Saved. So NOW I guess my clips will show in the dedicated clips dept.
Nope. Nothing. VIP clips only I guess, or perhaps I need to wait half an hour? Who knows.

Quality, quality work.

that's weird.. saving clips to my user library here..
they come up quickly under 'clips' if I search for them

Well, it doesn't work here. At least a day later, the clip is in my /Live 9 songs/clips folder. It does not show up in the dedicated Clips section.




The same thing happens with samples. None of my samples show up in their part of the browser

H20nly wrote:^ this is the part where someone comes in and starts talking about Reaper or some other DAW... since everyone seems so exhausted i'll do it.


but Reaper is so dope and it's cheap. Reaper yeah... Reaper.

Pro-tools had that one feature since 1979

fuck Live.


/public service

Angstrom wrote:This is why the answers such as " look in the folder / do it their way " annoy me. There is no their way, they seem to have specified a grey fog of indecision. They have no definite system. It's all hacks, workarounds and imprecision. There is nothing solid to conform to. Classification boudaries are blurred, and functional inconsistency abounds.
The database itself derives its taxonomic tags such as "ambient and evolving" from the file trees which it pretends to replace, and then does nothing good or usefully non-hierarchic with them. So why bother?

Angstrom wrote:It seems very odd to me that a browser which inists on scanning everything can't even use that gathered data to recognise an .alc or a wav ... unless it's in a very specific folder. One named "clips" for example.

So, Is this a database driven system, or a folder driven system?
The mandatory scanning in order to add user folders implies the contents are scanned ( and they are in the database, I looked). But why are these folders scanned at all if they don't even show as results on simple "category" queries?

I think your underscore hack shows that even a "satisfied" user needs to do odd hacky things in order to merely prioritise the display of his own content. A database driven system ought to be able to "show author=me, type= clip, date = previous month" quite easilly. Because that's the whole point of databases, you can query them with complex custom queries and save your favourite queries.

Usually.


This is why the answers such as " look in the folder / do it their way " annoy me. There is no their way, they seem to have specified a grey fog of indecision. They have no definite system. It's all hacks, workarounds and imprecision. There is nothing solid to conform to. Classification boudaries are blurred, and functional inconsistency abounds.
The database itself derives its taxonomic tags such as "ambient and evolving" from the file trees which it pretends to replace, and then does nothing good or usefully non-hierarchic with them. So why bother?

chapelier fou wrote:i am so pissed off that i decide to bring my voice to this topic and tell how stupid and useless the browser is. L8's was so much better. Able to browse at least, navigate in you hardrive. Not with a pointless classification, locked places and unability to drag'n'drop things in it.