I used to look forward to arpeggios. Now I have a better idea.
Recently, I’ve been playing band in a box. Many people think it’s a toy, but it’s not. It’s a magic weapon for making music quickly. I hope scaler can become like this.
Part I: chord
This is scaler. It’s already very good. Just stick to it.
This is the key. A lot of musical styles should be established in it. At the same time, well matched phrases, even real musical instruments, also have midi. You can drag it out and modify it yourself. Band in a box found many big people to play musical instruments and edit the piano. When you input your own chords, the musical instruments will change and become your own accompaniment. I don’t know if this is black technology. This is the key to music production. As a musician, it is a very good thing to make things simple and use them directly. It does not affect his own creation, and he can also edit all kinds of melodies. However, each song has its own style, and the style also determines the timbre matching. You make it difficult for ordinary people to master it all at once. In that case, it’s better to provide style by scaler. The more types of music, the better.
The third is generation. After generation, drag it to Daw to match your own music.
As the style part, it can be sold very well. After all, it saves you time.
After generation, different styles can also be matched with new effects. The chords are the same. I put this phrase in a, I put B in a, mix it, and add my own melody solo, etc
I’ve been trying to find chords in scaler, band in box.
I don’t want such a good software as scaler. In the future, it’s just a software for selecting chords. I hope scaler will consider it carefully.
I used to look forward to arpeggios. Now I have a better idea.
“it’s just a software for selecting chords”
I just checked, and although I have lost the record of my original Band in a Box purchase, I did do an upgrade in 1999. I mention this simply as after 20 years of (albeit on and off) use, it gives me a little credibility in comparing BIAB and Scaler.
However, I see nothing to compare; their goals and functions, IMHO, are very different. I don’t plan to expand on that - @davide recently gave a wonderful one sentence description of Scaler which encapsulates Scaler better than I ever could.
Some given software product meets a user’s requirements somewhere between 0 and 100%. There may be software which better meets each individual’s particular needs or workflow. It may be that your needs can be met by a combination of products.
My entirely personal view, the bottom line on any software is that ‘it is what it does’. Today. If something meets your needs better, buy that. It’s simple.
You may wish for it to do something differently, but wishing does execute under Windows 10 - or certainly not on my machine. If you believe the vendor will move the product in your direction, great; , stick with it and work with what you have. Even if that’s not true, and there is no alternative, it may well be the best worst option.
This forum tells us that every user has a unique and individual rationale for making music, and the genres which they follow. They all have different kit and different workflow. All those users sit somewhere on the 0 -100 % match. Some will go and some will stay - but that says nothing about Scaler per se, merely that it meets a given user’s needs to a greater or lesser degree.
On a closing note, my very personal take is that if I can’t find something out of the 750,000 ish musical starting points for inspiration, I’m even more pathetic at creating music than I thought. I’ll take it for what it is today, and have some confidence that, as and when the Scale folk evolve it ( and as they do, taking some balance of wish lists into consideration), it will become - for me - even better.
@yorkeman I know I’m a little late to the party, but I knew you couldn’t stay away.
I agree with this 100 percent. Scaler can only be what it is now. As it evolves I will follow along. BIAB already exists so I can’t imagine Scaler becoming another version of it. But I like the direction it seems to be going.
True. I sort of took most of August off the board for various reasons. I have a new resolve to minimise my use of English idioms (@ClaudioPorcellana has to keep reaching for his dictionary…)
How was Italy ? Not the first time I trust ?
too late here
I don’t understand a damn thing about the concepts the OP wanted to convey
There are many styles of music. It’s impossible to master it all. I would be very happy if I could give you a few minutes to complete the paragraphs and frames. Then slowly add your own content and finally form a work. This is actually a fast learning process. Let more ordinary people have the opportunity to participate in music production. I think this is what scaler has been pursuing.
In fact, after determining the chord progression and the music style, there are a lot of work here, such as repetitive work, fixed drums and almost bass. It takes a lot of time here, which is not fun. If you find a professional person to complete it, it will make the producer spend more time and energy on melody or lyrics. In band in a box, there are a lot of real tracks, such as a guitar or bass, which are played by masters. According to the input chords, we become what we need. It must be better than playing by ourselves, because we may not be able to play it after ten years of practice. How many decades are there in life? Similarly, electronic music is the same. Many sentences are fixed and the routine is fixed. If you can input chords, select style and generate. This is the progress of science and technology. Then focus on where you like. I believe this is a general trend.
If a person knows everything, knows music, is familiar with musical instruments, and completes everything by himself. He certainly doesn’t need it. Such people don’t even need scalrr. You don’t even need a computer. I appreciate it. But most people, like me, don’t know much about music, but they like playing computer music making, so they need it very much. People like me occupy the majority. This is also a very good and big market. The key scaler is perfect for this. If you don’t move in this direction, scaler can only be limited to finding chord tools. If there are many styles for sale, it is one that will always be sought after. Band in a box has made great progress since 2019, especially in 2021. However, many people have always regarded band in a box as a toy. My experience is that band in a box is an underestimated magic weapon
A magazine article in 1990. About Band in A Box
This guy for example, doesn’t need it
I don’t know music theory and I am unable to play well anything
Nevertheless I am not interestd in sold styles, patterns etc.
I bought one of the Nico packages, but I forgot where I put it
It is like eating a precooked food compared to cooking it by yourself
Baked courgettes stuffed with chopped tuna, tomatoes, grana padano, basil, parsley and Sicilian oil
Please understand that I wasn’t criticising BIAB as such. I was commenting that the vast majority of professionally written software is not objectively bad (including BIAB or Scaler), but that because of the diversity of users and their goals, an application will have whole range of subjective assessments by these users - in fact my 0 -100 scale.
So some people will find BIAB (and Scaler) magical, and others will not, but that view is derived from the unique value to their goals, rather than a property of the product. That I think Scaler is magical, does not make it so - it’s just magical to me.
Neither does the fact that a product may not suit my way of working mean that it is doomed to failure’ 95% of product comments relate to some user’s sole perspective of how it fits them, and not through some objective lens.
So I do fire up BIAB from time to time because it has a couple of utility functions I find useful, but it now doesn’t tie in with how I now approach music - but that’s not a negative objectively for BIAB.
I made this comment because it highlights the difficulty for a software author to decide on product evolution, when there are 10,000 (or whatever) users pulling in every direction. What’s important is that the key authors have a clear vision of where they want it to go (and of course they will try and filter all the noise to get at a few trends from users); I am of the view that @davide has that clear vision.
I think the biggest problem is time. Band in a box is a decades-old music software, accumulating a large amount of material, which makes it impossible for many software to complete in a short time, which requires a lot of time and money. band in a box After joining the real track and vst, I completed my Nirvana rebirth. From my recent studies and experiments, a music production revolution has already begun. The most frightening thing is that band in a box started decades ago. The big idea is to make music production popular and simple. I don’t know who their boss is, I think this person is great