BTW, I always believed in that music chords are irrelevant, but exotic instrument textures and the absence of solos are decisive … 
1 Like
Nice, Thank you. I would love to hear it
Will this new genre be add to Scaler later on? I would love to see that feature.
Thank you
PR
Hi
I am very new to music scene. When requesting a new Genre is that mean including Chords, Scales ?
Thank you
PR
I hope to remember to do it tomorrow
I completely forgot to upload something
I think anyway that many other forumians here do music of that kind
Listen this for now
Then let me know if you like to see 1 or 2 workflows
I’d definitely use Scaler as a standalone - I appreciate other platforms are available but the convenience factor would take away one more barrier.
There has been much discussion on the board about future directions for Scaler, and views seem to me to fall into main categories, namely increasing ‘depth’ and increasing ‘breadth’. As well as requirements for additional function, many requests also centre around what might be called ‘workflow’ i.e. easier and more efficient operation of existing function.
Some requests, like ‘Standalone scaler’ are probably relatively tractable (several other companies offer just this), but others, at the extreme end of the ‘breadth’ route, seek to move to a full blown DAW, synth and sample engine.
I am of the (personal) view that theses ideas are perfectly valid, but they are surely at the level of overall corporate strategy (“what business are we in?”) as much as simply broadening the functional spectrum.
FWIW, my perspective on these things is that the decision driver has to be “what will make money for the Scaler owners?” That may seem odd, but unless any developments have an economic return, sooner or later bankruptcy beckons. The better car Davide drives, the better Scaler will be, because it means they have the R+D monies.
These considerations are all beyond my paygrade, as they say, but think of a DAW with a range of the sort of functions which have been floated here from time to time. Then think of Ableton; bottom line is they employ 350 people, which I suspect is somewhat more than the Scaler team could field right now.
To quote Jimmy Cliff, that’s a “Hard Road to Travel”
There is, IMHO, an analog (or analogue ?? @Bernd 
) in the evolution of business software over the years. Packaged products tended to evolve in a monolithic format and have a huge range of business functionality (more was better) but the reality is that complexity (in the widest sense) in software grows exponentially, with function, and that direction was unsustainable.
Distributed computing, Object Orientation and the use of standards based interchanges ushered in a new age of interoperability and with it the capability to build largely seamless arrays of functions which have the virtual coherence that the old monoliths aspired to.
My own take therefore (entirely personal and driven by my own workflow) on breadth vs depth is to opt for more depth, and find ways to make the interoperability with other ‘breadth’ functions as painless, invisible and efficient as possible rather than trying to be another Ableton. My 2 tuppence worth, as a (geriatric) Brit would say.
Please don’t burn me … it’s just my view.
6 Likes
Love these wordings
I agree - the idea of a Scaler DAW doesn’t really play to its strengths. There’s no point trying to make a VST that does everything. I don’t use any VIs as standalones but I would with Scaler because it is a very good sketch pad for musical ideas, and therefore accessing it quickly would make it more useful to me.
And I might be wrong, but I think it might be a relatively simple job to take a VST/AU and make it a standalone app. And doing that might also be part of making an iOS app which would open up another revenue stream. But all of that’s speculation on my part and I have no idea how much resource is available to do the work (edit: or how much work would be involved). I can only say that there is an appetite among some people to have a standalone Scaler. There are plenty of other things that would probably be more pressing though.
Great discussion and very important to hear all of your thoughts. Bottom line for me personally is that Scaler should do exactly what it does now, but in a more obvious way that takes less time. Sure that may mean incorporating elements of a DAW or being standalone but if you as a user don’t get it by looking at it - then it’s a lost cause. It’s a wonderful journey because mainly it’s one that’s primarily new to Ed, myself and the rest of the team. But we dearly love scaler and believe it is still in an adolescent phase.
PS - Obviously there are many great new features we want to introduce which make creating music easier! Stay tuned…
7 Likes
I’m curious why you would think that. Are you a coder?
From this reply, I see a lot.
A great change in music production is about to take place
If you wanted to know the strength of Scaler in less than a dozen words, this is it. Strategy in a sentence - wonderful!
2 Likes
No, not at all - as I said, I might be wrong and it’s just speculation - it could be a much bigger task to create a standalone than I imagine.
In my case (in the present tense), no. I did carve a lot of code 45 years ago, and computing is a bit like riding a bike (?). You don’t really forget the underlying principles.
Most standalone modules hosting VSTs are ‘wrappers’ in that they just provide a framework for the VST to execute in. They normally link back to the VST itself, as can be readily seen from the size - a standalone instrument is in the main is much smaller than the VST itself - it’s just an interface. Example with Omnisphere : VST3 is 64.1 Mb, standalone 3.9Mb, so it doesn’t have the VST code in it.
In fact, you can just create a (pseudo) Scaler.exe using nanohost, which might satisfy the people who want a standalone without having to run nanohost or cantabile.
There is some vague relationships between lines of code and development time, so it’s reasonable to assume that creating the wrapper is a small fraction of a product development time, especially since much of this has already been done to meet the Steinberg specification for DAW embedding.
Super funny, but I am not sure how it works. Whenever I work (yes, I am developer), I never drink. OK, I rarely drink at all. Maybe I should try. 
I second this
At the moment, my workaround is using Broomstick Bass whose metronome sounds as a basic drums, always matching the bass style, something that is very comfortable for jamming
Only when some interesting vibe comes out I switch to EZbass and EZdrummer
Stay tuned Claudio and team. We have some exciting stuff in development. Working really well but will be implemented 2022.
3 Likes