Ableton Forum

forge wrote:I'm more inclined to take a more global view of it and instead imagine that you show session and arrange on 2 monitors and allow full arrangements to be accessed from clips, so you double click a clip and the full arangement appears in arrange view

what would be the use of having a full arrangement popping out of one clip?
these clips are about arranging itself, not about storing a whole set..

if these clips can hold a bit more than just one loop, just small parts of the song, then Session would be alot more then clip storage..

forge wrote:I can see that being Live 13 on 32 core 2 TB RAM machines in 5-10 years, a full Live set in one clip that you double click

so maybe the small interim steps in between are giving us dual monitor support and linked/a;lias clips so we can start seeing arrange and session more closely integrated

I just cant help thinking the solution will be bigger, or broader than something like a micro arranger

dual monitoring session/arrange does not change anything about Session's abilities..

also, alias clips mean nothing to me if they're still 'just clips', as they are now..
i.m.o. it's all about what these clips can hold, not about how they relate to Arrange in terms of alias behaviour per se..

really; my biggest grief with Live is that Session is merely a clip holder,
and sketching and try-outs in Arrange is pain, and not unique or powerful at all..

What about Scene draw we talked about earlier?
Man, if I could just draw scenes in a dedicated lane in Arrange..
Together with meta clips I would be settled..

perhaps someone from Ableton will come on this thread and tell us what they are planning to do?

*waits*

I have time..

*schwopp* < beer..

*lays back to watch the pigs flying over the slowly freezing hell*

since the competition also slowly moves into clip matrix territory, now will be a good moment to finally bring some true power to Session..

this is really the last thing I need from Live; arrangeable clip content..

oh yes, I think about this daily.

I can only hope that The Abletons have a magnificent solution up their sleeves, as I know that they don't like the metaclip / groupclip approach.

I don't agree with their reasoning on this, though I can (sort of) understand it.

watching that KJ Sawka video, for his free livepack.
interesting to see that he chops beats the same way I do, on the timeline - because you can get immediate control over them. Lots of precise edits and the ability to make different hits use different stretches and warps.

KJ, tell them we want to do this in Session please.

http://www.ableton.com/madbeatz

Angstrom wrote:oh yes, I think about this daily.

I can only hope that The Abletons have a magnificent solution up their sleeves, as I know that they don't like the metaclip / groupclip approach.

I don't agree with their reasoning on this, though I can (sort of) understand it.

can I ask more about the reasoning, please?

from implementation point of view, it's kinda Composite design pattern: a clip is a metaclip (group of clips)

no need in micro-arranger as well - the actions might be performed in arrangement view, but I'd like to keep the result in session view

and... why consolidate (read: "destructive editing")?

breakphreak wrote:

Angstrom wrote: can I ask more about the reasoning, please?
from implementation point of view, it's kinda Composite design pattern: a clip is a metaclip (group of clips)

no need in micro-arranger as well - the actions might be performed in arrangement view, but I'd like to keep the result in session view

I'm not sure how much I can say, you understand how secretive they are. Any disclosures from them are secured with voodoo.

That said- I'll paraphrase: they dislike the potential nesting intensely. So if a metaclip remained editable, then you record it to arrange plonk something in the middle of it, then take it back to session then record to arrange again. Just imagine how those inter-clip dependencies nest down and divide! How the hell could it be edited? Very hard to solve with any simplicity.

I mentioned that they could take a look at AfterEffects and the way it handles nested compositions. But I don't think they were in any way persuaded, as I was crying at the time. Oh and they mentioned that also many users dislike that nesting complexity as they choose Live for its immediacy and simplicity. <irony>Hence the development of M4L eh? </irony>

Ah well, bear in mind this entire conversation took place in a dream. So you never heard nothing, right? Damn, I can hear a thunderbolt coming my way.
Rest assured they almost definitely, probably, maybe, do have some kind of ingenious non-linear composition solution up their sleeves. the secretive wizards that they are. We can only hope that they let it loose soon.

I'm wondering if a new warp mode might be one idea - "edit" mode where the warp markers move the slices in the same way as you would move clips without stretching the audio

maybe different coloured warp markers

Angstrom wrote:

breakphreak wrote:

Angstrom wrote: can I ask more about the reasoning, please?
from implementation point of view, it's kinda Composite design pattern: a clip is a metaclip (group of clips)

no need in micro-arranger as well - the actions might be performed in arrangement view, but I'd like to keep the result in session view

That said- I'll paraphrase: they dislike the potential nesting intensely. So if a metaclip remained editable, then you record it to arrange plonk something in the middle of it, then take it back to session then record to arrange again. Just imagine how those inter-clip dependencies nest down and divide! How the hell could it be edited? Very hard to solve with any simplicity.

Eh, never forget that Alan Turing was a real man

I agree that at some extent deep nesting might create performance problems. I also understand that nested clips support has some GUI implications. However, there are lots of programs (like powerpoint, for example) that allow grooping of elements (and sub-grouping as well), and it's for real-time presentations as well

We don't need a 200% full-fledged nesting that can be editable at any moment. I assume that at least at the first stage we would be more then happy with 1-level nesting only. Am I right? This is how it works in other kind of software we are familiar with. It's simpler to implement and it serves 99% of needs.

Any thoughts, gentlemen?

it would be great if we could "arrange" within a clip without having to cut-up and consolidate in arrange.
The basic groundwork is already there in the warp engine, which is basically telling live which parts of an audio file to play at which time. But now it can only work in a linear fashion, or a simple loop. You cannot jump from measure 4 to measure 2 to measure 32. Basically what they need to do is figure out a way to be able to jump around within a clip completely freely.

not to forget that destructive editing (inline editing especially) has enough drawbacks/cons

there are moves in other software domains toward the non-destructive editing as well - layers in photoshop and lightroom settings for example, why not in Ableton then?

why do I need to have 10 modifications of the same clip when I can have it all encapsulated 10 times but stuffed a bit differently, editable and reusable

after all, a clip has lots of things inside just for a clear reuse, while tweaking it in different ways. having audio/midi subclips in it would make the pie complete

alex.the.forge wrote:I'm wondering if a new warp mode might be one idea - "edit" mode where the warp markers move the slices in the same way as you would move clips without stretching the audio

maybe different coloured warp markers

snakedogman wrote:it would be great if we could "arrange" within a clip without having to cut-up and consolidate in arrange.
The basic groundwork is already there in the warp engine, which is basically telling live which parts of an audio file to play at which time. But now it can only work in a linear fashion, or a simple loop. You cannot jump from measure 4 to measure 2 to measure 32. Basically what they need to do is figure out a way to be able to jump around within a clip completely freely.

that'll not be the same because you're then rearranging bits of the same source..
the abillity of rearranging bits of different sources is what makes this interesting..

Poster wrote: that'll not be the same because you're then rearranging bits of the same source..
the abillity of rearranging bits of different sources is what makes this interesting..

well - the engine implementation would be kinda data structure of [wave, offsets] elements instead of a single [wave, offsets] (sorry for oversimplifying it). the prob is the proper GUI/usability if I've got it right from this thread.