Video using Improvisator to Improve Scaler - Watch this

Here’s a video using Improvisator, the old-school, deceased, over-a-decade-old chord generator & MIDI trigger, in combination with a vst bridge and MIDI Translator Pro, exactly like Scaler, but much more powerful for real-time composition and experimentation, because so much more is on the screen without extra clicks, including, most importantly, playing alternate bass notes and suspensions of the last chord played, BEFORE MOVING TO THE NEXT CHORD. Read that last sentence again. With MIDI Translator PRO & Ableton, I have full control of velocities in real-time as well. Check out the video! I’d love for scaler to have all of music theory laid out like this, and bindable to the entire keyboard. This is much more powerful for writing creatively and efficiently. Although scaler has lovely attributes, having all of this on 1 page with no extra clicking creates a scenario in which theory is being accessed quickly, then created with and learned more quickly.

With a page like this, there are bonuses for the novice user as well: they’d learn music theory passively, by simply using the page to sketch ideas back to the arrangement part of Scaler: clicking through any of the chords at any time, while making music. A passive, audible memorization occurs with each chord and variation is on the keyboard while experimenting, creating and have fun. It’s really something, folks. And for pros, specifically, it would drastically increase the inspired part of writing while using the program. Much better for composition.

Scaler team, this would be the best upgrade you could make to get he pro community going on your already stellar program. I’d at least have this as a singular screen that can be accessed. Don’t focus on sounds, focus on composition and you’ll continue to knock it out of the park :slight_smile:

1 Like

I felt the comment may add something as few people here would have any knowledge of the product and I was trying to to give some context, as well as some product comparison information for their information.

However, I accept your objection fully and have deleted the comments out of respect…

I would note as an observation that, in keeping with the community spirit of the regulars, there are a great many postings here which are strictly both off topic and superfluous. Few of them are criticised.

You can be assured that I will not clutter any further posts from you with pointless replies (which certainly wasn’t intended to be a ‘lecture’)

This is a bit of a bizarre response. Did you read this post and watch the video, or are you just writing to write? This is posted in the “Features Request” section of the forum: not the “philosophy of comparing software” section, which doesn’t exist, for good reason. Naturally, it is a request for features that Improvisator has, which scaler doesn’t. So essentially, your entire first through fifth paragraphs are not only useless, they are a distraction. Please keep the pointless lectures and philosophical comments down to a minimum, so the people taking the time to make these posts don’t have them lost in a seas of unrelated opinions.

Folks, let’s keep this functional. Thanks.

Ed, I suspected I’d get some pointless replies like this, so I sent the video to you directly.


Thanks for taking the time to share this @terbano. Interesting no doubt, but my major issue with this is that when I use Scaler I am not thinking music theory, I am thinking I need this to expedite the music making I am doing on a daily basis. That’s where I have issues with that type of UX, its encouraging you to explore and expound on theory where as Scaler is designed to well, empower the composer within, no doubt there is something there and on our next major iteration we have an all new feature in mind that you will like. Until then look out for Scaler 2.7 just around the corner!


You’re missing the point, @davide. the point isn’t to ‘encourage you to explore and expound on music theory’ (?) That’s just a fun consequence of having less clicks to get to chords that I hear and want to get to - not "theory I’m thinking of’. If I hear a chord in my head that happens to be suspended, I don’t care about the the theory behind it; I just want to get to it as quickly as possible. With the current incarnation of scaler, I can’t get to it quickly.

The point is to reduce clicking if I want to get to chords that happen to be suspended or alternative chords, quickly. Right now, with scaler, it’s a click-festival. Hence the video & the quick improvisator hack. That’s it. HeeHee.

More clicks, less creativity, stiffer music. Less clicks, more creativity, better gui, more inspired music.

On a side note, I’m not sure what the point of a feature request forum is, if you’re going to respond to feature requests by explaining how prefect your software is :wink: When I’m hacking 16 year old plugins to simply play chords i hear in my head in 1 click, rather than in multiple clicks required in scaler, or not at all, then it’s a great opportunity to improve.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Looking forward to seeing what scaler cooks up next.

This is an awesome hack, @terbano !

I’d like to see scaler with a page like this too. it seems as though this would be much faster. Right now scaler is limited to patterns & suggestions of new chords, but getting to suspensions and other alternates off the current chord quickly would be huge. not being able to access any chord in 1 click doesn’t ‘unleash the composer within’. it subjects the composer to limitations.

i second the motion, strongly. get it in there, scaler!

When I first saw this post I thought we would see a composition improvised using this. But it was just clicking around. I do like that page and I assume at the bottom is where you would place your progression?
If this were incorporated I would want to see some highlighted suggestions for a progression. Do you compose right from this page yourself? How do you go about making a sketch of a progression?

Yes, the bottom of improvisator let’s you arrange chords. you can drag them directly from the blocks in the gui, just like scaler. The arrangement part of scaler is in patterns of 8, which is arbitrary and limited, so i tend to use live experimentation and midi capture to capture ideas. I find it’s more musical to capture ideas with both chords and velocities, which is what this hack allows me to do. composers don’t compose in patterns and blocks of static chords. they typically compose with harmony, melody, and dynamics all weaving throughout each other. that’s a part that scaler gets wrong. right now it’s more conducive to mechanical EDM & loops, etc. Hope it improves;)

Ha! Was that your extrapolation? I wish it was perfect but it is far from and I’ve always said scaler is about 18 years old in the context of an average lifespan. Suggestions like yours are never dismissed and always noted and placed in the right ‘section’!

Fair enough. Looking forward to seeing whats next :+1: :notes:

Ha! That’s ridiculous. I’ve used Scaler all the time since version 1 and I’ve never done EDM. I do soundtracks for short films, orchestral music and other styles but none of it is EDM and none of it is loops. Scaler is getting better with each iteration and I suspect version 3 will be quite something.
Scaler is not blocks of 8. It’s staff paper full of ideas for me.

1 Like

@jamieh i’m sure your compositions are out of this world. LMAO.

Maybe read what i wrote again before you throw all of your credentials all over the place. i wrote EDM and loops. Read that again and calm yourself. Loops. It doesn’t matter what genre you’re writing in, if it’s loopy & repetitious. when you are using software that forces you into blocks of 8, there it is.
Better yet, post your compositions. Can’t wait.

Brilliant hack @terbano! don’t be distracted by the trolls & posers here :+1::notes:

This is your quote right here -

right now it’s more conducive to mechanical EDM & loops

All I said is I use Scaler for music other the EDM. I also said I liked @terbano idea of the chord page. I welcome new ideas for Scaler as I’ve stated many times.
I will ignore your posts from now on, however. You clearly aren’t interested in conversation.

Please ignore them. I’m not interested in conversation. I’m interested in messages that contribute, like this video. Carry on with the trolling.

It’s really important that we keep the tone pleasant and respectful here please. We value our users and all contributors very much but will not tolerate any form of cantankerousness. Users and IP that we interpret as being aggressive or disparaging will be instantly barred and IPs blocked.


Agreed. when a user posts that a clear suggestion is ‘ridiculous’, it’s pretty rude. Easy folks!

nothing stops you using just 5 of 8…
and nothing stops you lassoing multiple chords to overcome the 8 limit
and nothing stops you using multiple Scaler instances to have more than 1 gazillion of combinations

I think that some users sometimes think that all the rest of the world must follow/like their workflows and it’s unreasonable, because YMMV as usual

BTW, there are masters like @jjfagot who use it (together with other plugins) to compose classical orchestra operas, and you certainly understand that this style has nothing to do with EDM and loops

You’re missing the point @ClaudioPorcellana

this isn’t a philosophical discussion on personal workflows. this is a feature request. that’s what users do here. they request features to improve a program. writing that some users want the world to follow their workflow misses the entire point of a feature request section in the first place. it’s a bit like showing up to a physics convention and complaining that everyone there wants the world to like physics :wink:

Back to the actual issue, for the folks at scaler:
the problem is patterns. using less than 8 parts of a pattern of chords doesn’t solve the problem of being constrained to patterns in the first place. there are many passages in composition that are longer than ‘patterns of 8 chords or less’. Patterns loop. They repeat. that’s why they’re called patterns. they are for loop based writing. that’s not philosophical.

Lets try to keep the discussions to feature requests, folks, it will help the guys at scaler avoid having to sift through a haze of philosophy to get to their features & development :wink:

Again, awesome video & hack, @terbano! you’re a true master! don’t be distracted by this & keep the videos & feature requests coming! :+1::+1:

What on earth did I start with this video? Haha!

I agree. If we keep the philosophical discussions to the ‘general discussion’ section of the forum, it will be a lot easier for the devs to climb through less ivy as they mull through our feature requests and do what they do best in development :wink:

Thank you @maxbowie !

Hi @terbano

Could you clarify for me specifically what features of Imprvisator you are looking to include in Scaler 2?

Having looked at some videos about Improvisator on YouTube the only advantage that I can see that Improvisator has is the ability to place a chord directly onto a stave once the user has identified the chord.

Whilst I agree that a single page GUI has merits, I am sure the dev team are considering how to improve the Scaler 2 navigation and GUI, but IMHO I am not sure that a single page is the solution.

Having said this, the idea of a chord page also has a great deal of support (see discussions on Band In A Box and “common chords”), although IMHO there is already a great deal of this functionality on the existing CHORD page on Scaler. It just takes a bit of work to learn how to use it, but once you know, then it is very versatile with more options than either Improvisator or BIAB appear to offer (although I am not very familiar with either product and am open to correction).

The issue about velocities and dynamics has been raised before. I support it and I believe has support from many members of the community, as has the issue of the limit on the number of blocks. From these discussions I hope that the dev team is working on something around this area, so hopefully we will get something in either 2.7 or 3.