Are ghost/instance clips in yet, or officially due in the near future ?

[pdxindy]

Nothing to do with ghost clips though... I think pdxindy might be misunderstanding the concept?

I understand the concept fine... used them before many times in various sorts of software...

[pdxindy]

You could also put all the duplicate clips on one group sub-track... super easy to select all then

In practice this is not convenient as you need a new track for each group of "similar" clips, and you have to actively remember to select all the clips each time you want to change one.

And of course, there is the Clip Launcher... I can use follow actions to loop clip A twice, go to Clip B, go to clip C which is played 4 times then go to clip D... when D finishes it goes back to the Arrangement.

I can trigger that sequence whenever I want... without any duplicate clips at all (ghost or otherwise)

I dont't think Next Actions are meant for arranging complete tracks (even if it's possible). Also, I don't think there is an option to jump to specific clips, at least I couldn't find it, but I'd like to know if this exists.

I'm all for ghost clips being added at some point... I'm not arguing against the idea, just saying that given the other tools in Bitwig, including the clip launcher, it is more of a minor workflow enhancement than in the usual linear DAW paradigm.

People have been making whole arrangements in Session view in Live for years. Bitwig is newer but I'm sure there are people doing the same. Bitwig's Clip Launcher is better than Live's Session View.

Ghost clips add a bit of non-linear capability to the linear timeline. The Launcher is a whole non-linear environment.

In the linear timeline, to play a sequence of 4 clips 4 times, you have to place 16 clips so: A, B, C, D, A, B, C, D, A, B, C, D, A, B, C, D

In the Clip Launcher I can loop A, B, C and D as a sequence 4 times before automatically moving on to the next event. Those looped iterations are already in effect ghost clips... except they don't even need to be created! They are ghost ghost clips!


You cannot jump to arbitrary specific clips via follow actions. I think that would be an interesting function to add. However, it is so easy to trigger a clip, group or scene manually via controller (Push). One can easily play ones arrangements in realtime and of course that invites a whole level of improvisational experimentation and performance.

Ableton really has not been innovative in recent years when it comes to the Session View. There is a lot of creative potential and Ableton has not pursued it. I want to see Bitwig take the Clip Launcher and run with it... see the Clip Launcher continue to evolve... not just add by rote all the things people are used to from linear DAWs.

[drakmaniso]

Ghost clips add a bit of non-linear capability to the linear timeline.

That is only a side-effect. The purpose of ghost clip is to allow a more natural workflow by adding an abstraction that match the way many musicians think about their song structure: e.g. "I have this bass line here and there in my song". Creating chains in the clip launcher doesn't help at all with that, for many it's even more convoluted than the already cumbersome repetitive copy-pasting.

So yes, you can achieve the same result with other means, but that's not the point. A clean and fluid workflow is one of the main selling point of Bitwig, so IMHO ghost clips should be among priorities (after bug fixes stability, of course).

[takaii]

Ghost clips add a bit of non-linear capability to the linear timeline.

That is only a side-effect. The purpose of ghost clip is to allow a more natural workflow by adding an abstraction that match the way many musicians think about their song structure: e.g. "I have this bass line here and there in my song". Creating chains in the clip launcher doesn't help at all with that, for many it's even more convoluted than the already cumbersome repetitive copy-pasting.

So yes, you can achieve the same result with other means, but that's not the point. A clean and fluid workflow is one of the main selling point of Bitwig, so IMHO ghost clips should be among priorities (after bug fixes stability, of course).

Clip launcher u know is not all whom uses and find arranger better for making music. I want ghostclips no matter what workaround anyone spit out. I am an enemy of them workaround. Workaround is for people to pat on their back and say" i know we dont have much money so u gotta use this in the meantime. I know its not much ..." Sry i am spoiled and i want ghostclips no matter what shit anyone throws at me about workaround. I dont need help with workarounds, i dispice them workarounds..

[xbitz]

everybody wants an official solution but nobody wants to do the same changes on 10000 clips till(?) we got it so ... lamenting " i am spoiled and i want" a bit childish and leads to nowhere

[takaii]

everybody wants an official solution but nobody wants to do the same changes on 10000 clips till(?) we got it so ... lamenting " i am spoiled and i want" a bit childish and leads to nowhere

Yes u right but" we need it" sounds better?

[tooneba]

why this dude is aggressive in every topic...

[pdxindy]

Ghost clips add a bit of non-linear capability to the linear timeline.

That is only a side-effect. The purpose of ghost clip is to allow a more natural workflow by adding an abstraction that match the way many musicians think about their song structure: e.g. "I have this bass line here and there in my song". Creating chains in the clip launcher doesn't help at all with that, for many it's even more convoluted than the already cumbersome repetitive copy-pasting.

hehe... you just repeated what I said but in a lot more words

Creating chains in the clip launcher exactly helps with that and in a number of ways is significantly more powerful. But hey, you are welcome to not like the clip launcher. But it seems to me you would be better with a DAW that didn't invest itself in a workflow that you see as convoluted. The clip launcher is a huge fundamental part of Bitwig.

I saw this a lot on the Ableton forum over the years. User buys Live, doesn't like to use Session View, then complains when Live doesn't do this or that like the linear DAWs. Live and Bitwig are a different paradigm.

Anyway, it's all good... do what you want and ask for what you want

[pdxindy]

Clip launcher u know is not all whom uses and find arranger better for making music. I want ghostclips no matter what workaround anyone spit out. I am an enemy of them workaround. Workaround is for people to pat on their back and say" i know we dont have much money so u gotta use this in the meantime. I know its not much ..." Sry i am spoiled and i want ghostclips no matter what shit anyone throws at me about workaround. I dont need help with workarounds, i dispice them workarounds..

It is entirely valid for you to want to work how you want to work. But why buy a software where the clip launcher is fundamental to its workflow if you don't like to use it? and if ghost clips are so important to you, why not use software that already has them?

Who knows when Bitwig might get around to adding ghost clips. It could be a year, two years or longer before that feature is added.

I've heard stories about monks who would whip themselves as penance. Perhaps buying software that does not do what one says is so important then complaining about it online is the new form of penance!

[takaii]

Clip launcher u know is not all whom uses and find arranger better for making music. I want ghostclips no matter what workaround anyone spit out. I am an enemy of them workaround. Workaround is for people to pat on their back and say" i know we dont have much money so u gotta use this in the meantime. I know its not much ..." Sry i am spoiled and i want ghostclips no matter what shit anyone throws at me about workaround. I dont need help with workarounds, i dispice them workarounds..

It is entirely valid for you to want to work how you want to work. But why buy a software where the clip launcher is fundamental to its workflow if you don't like to use it? and if ghost clips are so important to you, why not use software that already has them?

Who knows when Bitwig might get around to adding ghost clips. It could be a year, two years or longer before that feature is added.

I've heard stories about monks who would whip themselves as penance. Perhaps buying software that does not do what one says is so important then complaining about it online is the new form of penance!

Bro first of dont question people why they choose a software baised on a couple of sentences where i dont even fully devolope why i bought bitwig, where i only forwarded that i want ghostclips. Bitwig is an amazing software and fast and straightforward, even without a cliplauncher. the cliplauncher is more like a bonus to me. For me i have played a round with cliplauncher sometime and is for me a great scetch pad when i want to try something else, like a different bassline to my chord progression, or other loops for all other things without having to switch things out. but i use arranger to write my music in and not cliplauncher. There for ghostclip is something i really want. Just because there is cliplauncher doesnt mean everybody has to use it in same way and focus entirely on that. There is more to bitwig.

ps cliplauncher is a great asset to bitwig but its not only a cliplauncher and it is also built around arranger.

[drakmaniso]

Creating chains in the clip launcher exactly helps with that and in a number of ways is significantly more powerful. But hey, you are welcome to not like the clip launcher.

First, I don't think you read my post correctly. My argument is that a lot of us think of a song as a linear construct, containing some repeated elements. The clip launcher doesn't help with that. That doesn't mean we don't use the clip launcher; it just mean we don't use it to represent the song structure. (I use it for live experiments, and as a draft zone while composing)

Second, there are things that chains in the launcher can't do. Such as:

• Sharing a chord progression between different instruments, but only in certain parts of the song (so instrument layers are out of the equation).
• Having simple structures like: 4 bars clip A, 4 bars clip B, 8 bars clip A, 8 bars silence, 4 bars clip A.

Those are common situations where ghost clips would simplify things, and clip chains are helpless.

By the way, I love the launcher and use it all the time. It's one of the main reason behind my choice of Bitwig as my DAW. Or, to be more precise, the presence of both the launcher and a traditional arranger, tightly coupled: which is one of the things that set apart Bitwig from Live.

I think you should consider that there are other workflows than yours, and that yours is not the only legitimate way to use Bitwig.

[pdxindy]

Second, there are things that chains in the launcher can't do. Such as:

• Having simple structures like: 4 bars clip A, 4 bars clip B, 8 bars clip A, 8 bars silence, 4 bars clip A.

sure you can do that sort of thing in the Launcher, and a lot more.. and it is also easy to do in Arrange too. In your structure, Clip A has 3 iterations and one of Clip B... anytime you want to edit Clip A, you only have to select the 3 A Clips (which each loop 4,8 and 4 times) and edit the 3 as a group. It's just not hard to do.

Anyway, I'm for the future inclusion of ghost clips. Just they are not there now and may not be there for a long time to come. And there are tools to do things now.

So where we disagree is on the importance of the feature. Between the Clip Launcher and Multi-Clip Editing Bitwig is already quite capable so I would prioritize development time elsewhere first.

[takaii]

Second, there are things that chains in the launcher can't do. Such as:

• Having simple structures like: 4 bars clip A, 4 bars clip B, 8 bars clip A, 8 bars silence, 4 bars clip A.

sure you can do that sort of thing in the Launcher, and a lot more.. and it is also easy to do in Arrange too. In your structure, Clip A has 3 iterations and one of Clip B... anytime you want to edit Clip A, you only have to select the 3 A Clips (which each loop 4,8 and 4 times) and edit the 3 as a group. It's just not hard to do.

Anyway, I'm for the future inclusion of ghost clips. Just they are not there now and may not be there for a long time to come. And there are tools to do things now.

So where we disagree is on the importance of the feature. Between the Clip Launcher and Multi-Clip Editing Bitwig is already quite capable so I would prioritize development time elsewhere first.

Well since u agree it is nice to have lets end argument. I dont either think bitwig will include this feature soon. Much higher pressure on faders, comprecording, specogram eq etc. But for me fixing those bugs is most important... Many old that havent been adressed yet! anyway cheers man

[drakmaniso]

you only have to select the 3 A Clips (which each loop 4,8 and 4 times) and edit the 3 as a group. It's just not hard to do.

Except you can't enter new notes. You can't copy/paste sections. And if you already use group editing for another purpose (such as checking harmonies, or writing intertwined melodies), things start to get confusing. Add to this the fact that you still have to select all your identical clips each time, and this method becomes as cumbersome than the "copy/paste after each edit" one.

I agree that ghost clips are not the most important things right now (stability and polishing are, IMHO), but I'm also a developer, and my fear is that this feature might be difficult to implement later, if too many features are added and the right underlying code structure is not in place. So while not the most important, but it may still be urgent.

Anyway, I guess we'll see how it turns out.

[shadiradio]

you only have to select the 3 A Clips (which each loop 4,8 and 4 times) and edit the 3 as a group. It's just not hard to do.

Except you can't enter new notes. You can't copy/paste sections. And if you already use group editing for another purpose (such as checking harmonies, or writing intertwined melodies), things start to get confusing. Add to this the fact that you still have to select all your identical clips each time, and this method becomes as cumbersome than the "copy/paste after each edit" one.

I agree that ghost clips are not the most important things right now (stability and polishing are, IMHO), but I'm also a developer, and my fear is that this feature might be difficult to implement later, if too many features are added and the right underlying code structure is not in place. So while not the most important, but it may still be urgent.

Anyway, I guess we'll see how it turns out.

Agreed - it's very strange that people might suggest the clip launcher and follow actions are a workaround (even if tedious) for ghost clips. It might work out if you restrict yourself to purely EDM and also never restructure/edit your tracks arrangement, otherwise that sounds like a nightmare. Also, that prevents you from jumping to a particular spot in a track to listen to it. That seems... crazy.

"Can we listen to bar 36?"
"Well we have to listen from the start of the song."