Don’t get me wrong. There’s a lot I like about Scaler 2. However, the two concepts put forward by the team - Naming Patterns By Section and Composition Arrangement Pads, don’t work together in reality, even for simple song arrangements.
Even at the most basic level (say a single chord each bar with no ‘performance’ applied, just a chord playing).
What’s wrong with expecting to be able to layout a full composition arrangement like that so you know you’ve nailed the full arrangement or could show the iPad/send the project, to a collaborator and they could see the full composition arrangement, sections and all the chords they need to play?
One project file, one instance, one full composition arrangement, all sections, all chords. Perfect. The Irony Is, It’s So Close To That Already.
I get you could have a project file per section or couple of sections and load multiple instances or could bind a chain of chords and trigger them individually but I could do that before Scaler 2. I’m talking about setting it apart, catering, as it does today, for those happy to have multiple instance and bind long chains AND catering for those who what to create tried and tested, complete composition arrangements, in one project with all the chords and sections in one place.
That’s about fulfilling the potential of what’s already been created. Enabling customers to build a full composition arrangement and be able to say, here’s the track. You can’t do that today with Scaler 2, without the usual workarounds.
Once that basic structure is down (and that’s all I’m talking about here) you can transfer to a DAW with the whole structure and concept in place. Then you can begin to produce the finished piece.
If you’ve got a great foundation composition in Scaler 2, you’ll hopefully end up with a great final track and no need to rethink arrangement.