(This question is about timing, while playing piano] help.

[Stromkraft]

Of course this is all assuming one is writing within the context of traditional rhythm and meter in the first place (which seems like a good assumptions based on the OP's descriptions). If that's the case then there are established fundamentals of how rhythm works and how it can be organized. It doesn't have to be a mystery.

There you go again. I never said anything about a mystery. I only stressed the gain of giving ideas time and room to breathe and evolve. I'm not discounting using your methods at all, but they are not the only possible ones. I use them myself when organizing ideas and evolving phrases and progressions.

I'm adamant in the importance of protecting musical ideas from preconceived assumptions. Especially if you're new to music it's important to protect your "voice" as it's likely evolving. Learning too much can be harmful for keeping your own "voice" intact. Some of the best music people do is when they don't necessarily know what they're doing and don't try and fit ideas that they have into existing frameworks (which is not always true of course, but I've seen this many times). If you can keep your integrity as a composer/musician/producer then knowledge is likely good. I'm not against knowledge or analysis or using a meter or whatever. Just don't over-analyze. Express your ideas! That's all.

[stringtapper]

Of course this is all assuming one is writing within the context of traditional rhythm and meter in the first place (which seems like a good assumptions based on the OP's descriptions). If that's the case then there are established fundamentals of how rhythm works and how it can be organized. It doesn't have to be a mystery.

There you go again. I never said anything about a mystery. I only stressed the gain of giving ideas time and room to breathe and evolve. I'm not discounting using your methods at all, but they are not the only possible ones. I use them myself when organizing ideas and evolving phrases and progressions.

I'm adamant in the importance of protecting musical ideas from preconceived assumptions. Especially if you're new to music it's important to protect your "voice" as it's likely evolving. Learning too much can be harmful for keeping your own "voice" intact. Some of the best music people do is when they don't necessarily know what they're doing and don't try and fit ideas that they have into existing frameworks (which is not always true of course, but I've seen this many times). If you can keep your integrity as a composer/musician/producer then knowledge is likely good. I'm not against knowledge or analysis or using a meter or whatever. Just don't over-analyze. Express your ideas! That's all.

I wasn't even talking to you or to anything you said at that point in my post.

Please get over this bizarre beef you have with me.

And "over-analyzing" is in the eye of the beholder. I'll analyze as much as I want, thanks (it's one of my jobs after all).

[stringtapper]

When improvising — which is a great way to eveolve an idea — you may just play without analyzing what you do exactly. Even if you record that, different phrases can be applied in different ways depending on choices you make as a composer. Melodies can be offset even if the phrasing is the same and so on.

If I applied preconceived "knowledge" at that stage the very life of many musical ideas would have been killed already when conceiving them. Of course with time and experience you will hear better and faster, but maybe that's not as important as capturing the finer nuances and protecting their complexity from the assumptions from people that think they know how it should be played, when in fact they are full of their own false assumptions about music (barring they are real talents that understand your ideas better than you. ONly met one such multi-talented composer)). Enough of that.

I never said anything about "applying preconceived knowledge" but only using the knowledge one does have to organize things within their work.

It really does seem that you don't even know what it is you're actually arguing against here.

It's very typical of you, as a really low person (by choice), to assume that people "don't know" because they don't agree with your way of describing things or because they prefer to work in another way. Stressing perceived deficiencies in others is a seemingly effective way to pretend you're in the know.

More base insults. I'm not the one calling people "idiots" here.

None of this is about "agreeing" about anything at all. Again, it's like you understand so little of what I've said that you've inadvertently turned it into something to argue against. If you truly understood what I've been saying then you wouldn't be claiming that I'm telling people that there's "one true way." It's total bullshit. I've never said anything like this.

I know that all truly talented people within the musical field that I have met — quite a few too — are not like you. They don't need to expose their ego at the cost of other people. Rather they share their knowledge, if they choose to, without imposing. They may be full of themselves, but they don't have to put other people down.

Again, you're making shit up about me. I never put anyone down until you started calling me names, and then, yes, I put you down and I will keep doing it if you keep up this weird obsession with me.

[stringtapper]

That might very well be true and what you believe, but what I meant is that sometimes for some people it's not clear at the spur of the moment where the idea in question wants to go as it's not necessarily a complete idea. It may just be a phrase that needs to be evolved and possibly without being shackled by too much analysis too early. It's about expressing something. Analysis has its place. I usually do not apply that until I'm stuck.

That's why being trained in music fundamentals allows you to perform the analysis as quickly as possible, so that it's not so much analysis in the clinical sense that you seem to be using, but rather something more like instinct.

I can't put too fine a point on that last part. What I'm talking about are the kind of skills that can be applied on the spot in the midst of improvisation or quickly in the process of getting material down.

Again, it doesn't seem that you do actually know what I'm talking about with regard to having an ingrained understanding of how meter, beat divisions and subdivisions work. Because if you do then it sounds like you're acting as if you don't just for the sake of arguing with me.

[Stromkraft]

That might very well be true and what you believe, but what I meant is that sometimes for some people it's not clear at the spur of the moment where the idea in question wants to go as it's not necessarily a complete idea. It may just be a phrase that needs to be evolved and possibly without being shackled by too much analysis too early. It's about expressing something. Analysis has its place. I usually do not apply that until I'm stuck.

That's why being trained in music fundamentals allows you to perform the analysis as quickly as possible, so that it's not so much analysis in the clinical sense that you seem to be using, but rather something more like instinct.

I can't put too fine a point on that last part. What I'm talking about are the kind of skills that can be applied on the spot in the midst of improvisation or quickly in the process of getting material down.

Yeah, we got that the first time. Not everyone may have those skills and if not they may be in the process of developing these, doing their 10.000 hours. They might also have other skills like being great producers and knowing what's good or not and don't care at all about your superhuman skill set nor your grandiose view of your own talent.

Again, it doesn't seem that you do actually know what I'm talking about with regard to having an ingrained understanding of how meter, beat divisions and subdivisions work. Because if you do then it sounds like you're acting as if you don't just for the sake of arguing with me.

No, it's more than clear that you're so full of yourself that you totally lack the ability to see other people's perspective, mixing up your own views with an objective reality valid for everyone. You don't get it because your process doesn't involve some of the issues that were raised in this discussion, that's all. Instead of accepting the process of other people you choose to behave like an elephant in a porcelain store, disrespecting the composition process of other people.

You seem to have an endless need to pretend others can't have certain knowledge as your own as well as your imagination would seem to be limited, judging from how you write things. No-one that has really deep knowledge acts like you do anywhere. I work with extremely talented people so I think I'd know. Some of them are pricks, but not even those must raise their ego above everyone else all the time. They just get the job done on their terms and are content with that.

That said I don't think your posts lack value, far from it. I welcome your perspective in all discussions. I should be free to disagree on the facts though. You ought to be able to accept that your own view isn't the only possible view and that even if so your view still has value for others. Why that isn't enough for you is not my concern really, but I refuse to take shit because you can' handle it. That's all.

I respect you with all your knowledge and all your deficiencies even if you don't acknowledge these yourself. Now, stop the negativeness and let's make music!

[Emanresu0891]

I think you are using the wrong Sequencer. There are other sequencers that have more advanced tempo operations than Live.

In this video ( https://youtu.be/8EnLrLLIrn8 ) they go in to detail about Cubase and its Automatic tempo detection. It not only detects fluctuating tempo's it also detects time signatures. This is a huge time saver that no other daw currently has.

Logic has an easy to use tempo mapping feature but its not as fast as Cubase.

Live was made for electronic musicians back in the early 2000's. The makers of Live ( Monolake ) don't play real instruments so I don't think they focussed much on Live as a Sequencer for everyone. Of course musicians from all genres now use Live, but it is still not up to par as a complete studio sequencer for all genres of music.