Let your musical ideas flow...

[arpado]

I won't argue neither confront against your prejudices, which seem to be many, au contraire, I invite you to visit the website, clarify your doubts to understand what it does,

Done that and all my prejudces were unfortunately confirmed as expected. There are some stuff concerning some basic chord functions and some randomizatin/generative stuff and that’s it compared to other DAWs. This is no miracle machine that is going to make anyone trained in music theory reach their dreams of life in a few steps

Next time, why not cut the crap and be honest about its features? If you want to loan feathers from people trained in music theory like Jan and me, you will have to deliver and this does not to the extent promised. Marketing strategy backfires here because it seems like a fine software for what it actually does on a non-miracle level. I’ll give you that and could even praise you for the effort even I wasn’t that easily distracted by PR nonsense

I won't try to beat you on this crusade against computer aided composition software, however, if by any means you have any positive intention or constructive attitude while having a conversation with other people on the Internet, I'd ask if you can provide a list of specific features you'd expect in a software from the perspective of the fulfilled theorist you are.

There are going to be constants updates and features improvements (the software does self-update itself) and you might do good contributions for the next version.

Thanks in advance.

[jancivil]

I cannot adhere to the idea that technology is the enemy of art or the creative process. That's far from being truth.

this crusade against music composition aid software,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[jancivil]

There is literally nothing this product does which isn't already done. I don't think any of it is a bad idea. Maybe there is some new twist to 'generative', but I can't see what it is from the web page. Personally, I am a total skeptic regarding 'humanization', I don't use it. Because I have a good sense of human time technically. That is just to say, I can't advise. Some people want that so go for it. And if it's a viable humanization for 79 bucks, you might find a market. Don't do too much, though.

As to 'why not add some harmonies to your solo performance', I was overdubbing some 45 yrs ago. I create rather large arrangements in the DAW, do a lot of sound design and detailed mixing requiring fairly advanced technology. I saw the future by the mid-90s and prepared for it and fully embraced this kind of tech as it began to solidify and mature. There is no reaction against that in the thread. But you are over-hyping something which does the usual basic stuff. People at a forum like this are on average more sophisticated than that kind of marketing will get over on.

[arpado]

There is literally nothing this product does which isn't already done. I don't think any of it is a bad idea. Maybe there is some new twist to 'generative', but I can't see what it is from the web page.

As to 'why not add some harmonies to your solo performance', I was overdubbing some 45 yrs ago. I create rather large arrangements in the DAW, do a lot of sound design and detailed mixing requiring fairly advanced technology. I saw the future by the mid-90s and prepared for it and fully embraced this kind of tech as it began to solidify and mature. There is no reaction against that in the thread. But you are over-hyping something which does the usual basic stuff. People at a forum like this are on average more sophisticated than that kind of marketing will get over on.

I am myself an animal from those times. Went thru basic tone programming, tracker software, I've seen the birth of brands like FL, Steinberg, etc.

Arpado does the usual stuff in different manner, perhaps with a more compact, performance focused interface, and it also has its own unique features (like the Progressive Sequencer) which makes it worth a try. And this post is all about promoting it so people can try and argue afterwards, with solid and empirical evidence.

[arpado]

Feel free to subscribe at the website, get your FREE copy once it's released and we'll hopefully meet in a dedicated forum here at KVR. I am eager to listen to users contribution and receive feature requests. It's all about feedback and improvement, that's how good software is made.

[IncarnateX]

I won't try to beat you on this crusade against computer aided composition software

That is a cheap strawman already tested on Jan who did not buy into it. Neither did I anywhere imply that I am a crusader against computer-aided compositions:

I need a shortcut here: What is it this software can do as far as composition concerns that I cannot do with other daws/software/hardware and my already achieved compostional skills?

Thus I ask what it can do in tech terms that I cannot do already by other technological means. If it is about to raise my level, I would expect something quite extraordinary. Critisizing it for not providing that is about your promo, not the software, or crusading against PC music in general. Both Jan and I make heavy use of DAW and sequencer technology, so the crusader argument fails by default.

As to the software. Well, it seems to have some potential, maybe even as a good entry point to some basic scale and harmony learning tool in conjunction with studies in music theory. As far as the random and generative stuff included go: Nice! Seen before, but to gather functions, that otherwise can be spread around on different software, into a single piece of software is a nice idea. I am into man-machine compositions for the time being and would appreciate such functions if I made it in software. Though I do not because my collection of hardware-units with such functions can do even more but I deffo see a point with it. I am not dissing the software, only the marketing.

I'd ask if you can provide a list of specific features you'd expect in a software from the perspective of the fulfilled theorist you are.

Such as writing polyphonic music in Palestrina or Bach style? It was you who implied that the software would take me to that level and now I have to tell you how? Well, here is a short entry to some basic rules of counterpoint, which you may be able to imply somehow for a start:

https://www.fransabsil.nl/archpdf/schvsjep.pdf

You can dig into the litterature compared after that. You can also study the fugue and see if such rules can be implemented

http://www.kunstderfuge.com/theory.htm

In sum and as already said: I like the concept and features of your software thus far, but think the promo slogan sucks. Now how about just changing the slogan and focus more on the nice cluster of features from harmony and scales on one hand, generative principles on the other? One positive impact from this could be that you took the promo advice into consideration.

[IncarnateX]

Well, if counterpoint and fugues are a little hard to implement for the time being, I have suggestions at a more appropriate level:

Your webpage says it humanizes velocity levels? Well, my Roland R8 “humanizes” (randomizes) velocity, decay and pitch on drum instruments in real time, and I guess this should be possible to implement too? However, R8 does not randomize micro timing, e.g. playing randomly a tiny bit behind or in front of the beat as well as straight on it. Would have loved such a feature. Could this be done with your software now or in the future?

Another feature if its not already onboard:

Trigger conditions like Elektron’s gear. Here you are in charge of your melodies and their possible variations by probability control, thus it is not generative in the sense that it plays variations on its own.

[rewrite history]

Feel free to subscribe at the website, get your FREE copy once it's released and we'll hopefully meet in a dedicated forum here at KVR. I am eager to listen to users contribution and receive feature requests. It's all about feedback and improvement, that's how good software is made.

Unfortunately, some people can't take opposing opinions lightly and your efforts here to convince them is probably a waste of time and energy. They seem to be more interested in disproving you then actually demoing something firsthand and giving you valid and honest feedback afterwards. I'm sure there will be plenty of musicians without all the "baggage" that will try and help your mission to bring better teaching technology to the audio community.

I applaud your efforts, because there are plenty of other companies promising "magic" from their plugins and their true intention is solely to collect more money.

[IncarnateX]

After just making the suggestions asked for, I will leave that to Jan^^^ to comment if it deserves comments at all. OP made a.very omnipotent thread title and sales speech and got the attention begged for. And since negative attention is attention too, he is really in a win-win situation. And this is still not about the software but the promo

[rewrite history]

After just making the suggestions asked for, I will leave that to Jan^^^ to comment if it deserves comments at all. OP made a.very omnipotent thread title and sales speech and got the attention begged for. And since negative attention is attention too, he is really in a win-win situation. And this is still not about the software but the promo

Maybe it's time to step down from your soapbox?

Let's all try and have a good day today, a common goal for all of us.

[IncarnateX]

Maybe it is time for you to contribute to the thread topic or bug off?

Unfortunately, some people can't take opposing opinions lightly and your efforts here to convince them is probably a waste of time and energy.

Convince us about what “opinion”? That this is really a best bet to grow for musicians and producers?

And this is not to be questioned as a computer technical matter in contrast to an artistic from its list of features?

No can do, mate. There are no failed ad hominems in my arguments in contrast to your own. They are about what is stated in the title and OP, not about the dev or the software as such. Get it right.

[arpado]

Feel free to subscribe at the website, get your FREE copy once it's released and we'll hopefully meet in a dedicated forum here at KVR. I am eager to listen to users contribution and receive feature requests. It's all about feedback and improvement, that's how good software is made.

Unfortunately, some people can't take opposing opinions lightly and your efforts here to convince them is probably a waste of time and energy. They seem to be more interested in disproving you then actually demoing something firsthand and giving you valid and honest feedback afterwards. I'm sure there will be plenty of musicians without all the "baggage" that will try and help your mission to bring better teaching technology to the audio community.

I applaud your efforts, because there are plenty of other companies promising "magic" from their plugins and their true intention is solely to collect more money.

I appreciate the support. It's not indeed collecting money the intention; if I'd want money, I'll take easier ways as I'm a Software Engineer (mainly) and opportunities present every time. Money, on this case, is just a medium to increase the potential of this product.

I'm aware that interacting with people in the Internet thru forums to promote a Software will allow the urge of criticism as well. I'm not afraid of that as long as they provide the kind of feedback I could use to generate a product that can facilitate the work of musicians and producers, or at least let them enjoy this beautiful discipline in unique and meaningful ways.

[rewrite history]

Maybe it is time for you to contribute to the thread topic or bug off?

Unfortunately, some people can't take opposing opinions lightly and your efforts here to convince them is probably a waste of time and energy.

Convince us about what “opinion”? That this is really a best bet to grow for musicians and producers?

And this is not to be questioned as a computer technical matter in contrast to an artistic from its list of features?

No can do, mate. There are no failed ad hominems in my arguments in contrast to your own. They are about what is stated in the title and OP, not about the dev or the software as such. Get it right.

Maybe it's time to move on, there are more important things in life then defending one's opinions.

[IncarnateX]

Yeah. It was you who entered with ad hominems and now you keep stirring the pot. Obviously, I am not going to take the bait or advice, so you either have to live with my presence, mute me or hit the road, Jack.

Though fyi, I am beyond destructive criticism as far as promo concerns (he can take the advice or not) and have asked to/suggested some features too. Though you would not know because it seems that you haven’t read any posts really. Or at least not close enough.

[deastman]

Reading the silly hyperbole in this advertisement, sorry, discussion topic, makes me want to entertain the prospect of an exercise in post-modern irony. What if I were to try making a track by actually using all of these tools available to help the modern producer get tracks made fast without effort or knowledge? Start by downloading a bunch of loops. Use chord detection software to figure out the progressions. Use those to drive complex aepeggiators, playing the latest sounds from preset packs for the most popular synths. Throw in some acapella vocals downloaded from the web, auto tuned to follow the chord progression. Use AI assistant tools to choose the drum sounds, to mix, and to master. Of course there is still the problem of song structure, but you could start by blocking out the structure from a popular song and copying that. The guiding principle here should be to let the tools do as much of the work as possible and for the “artist” to contribute the bare minimum.