Alias / Linked / Shared / Pooled Clips - are you using them?

[apoclypse]

Yeah, maybe, so what was your point again? 🥱

That not everybody cares about alias clips. Seems be pretty cut and dry to me. Are you having issues reading?

[antic604]

Yeah, maybe, so what was your point again? 🥱

That not everybody cares about alias clips. Seems be pretty cut and dry to me. Are you having issues reading?

That's fine. But why are those people AGAINST adding them for other people that want them?

[apoclypse]

Yeah, maybe, so what was your point again? 🥱

That not everybody cares about alias clips. Seems be pretty cut and dry to me. Are you having issues reading?

That's fine. But why are those people AGAINST adding them for other people that want them?

Because like you said no one has implemented them well. It either points to a hard problem to solve in a way that users can understand properly, or it points to an issue of design. Either way it has not been implemented resolved in any meaningful way.

FLStudio is a drum sequencer with a whole bunch of stuff tacked on. It has its own issues with how patterns and instancing work. Some people want to transplant that workflow to Bitwig or Live without really thinking about what the means for the workflow of those DAWs or even why the developers decided to do it that way in the first place.

I'm all for alias clips in Bitwig and Live. It just needs to be implemented correctly.

[antic604]

...Some people want to transplant that workflow to Bitwig or Live without really thinking about what the means for the workflow of those DAWs or even why the developers decided to do it that way in the first place.

I'm all for alias clips in Bitwig and Live. It just needs to be implemented correctly.

That's completely different from saying "I don't need it because I'm a true musician and I never repeat any sequence" though, which is the prevalent negative voice in this thread and any time alias clips are brought up.

[apoclypse]

...Some people want to transplant that workflow to Bitwig or Live without really thinking about what the means for the workflow of those DAWs or even why the developers decided to do it that way in the first place.

I'm all for alias clips in Bitwig and Live. It just needs to be implemented correctly.

That's completely different from saying "I don't need it because I'm a true musician and I never repeat any sequence" though, which is the prevalent negative voice in this thread and any time alias clips are brought up.

Which is fine to criticize them for that. I mean I get what they are trying to say, who wants to hear something repeated with no changes for a whole song, but to each their own. The issue that people who want Alias clips in Bitwig or Live want it in the clip launcher and like I said it's a design decision made by the developers. Why can't people accept that too? Alias clips in the arranger, sure that would nifty, but I can copy and paste like nobodies business so it doesn't really affect me.

We've already pointed out where patterns clips can be confusing to deal with and we get the whole "FLStudio users don't have issues" spiel, slow clap for them I guess but its still a confusing workflow for people who may never have dealt with a drum sequencer and the pattern workflow those have had (for decades).

You can't blame people for not wanting something they don't understand. It's human nature.

[xbitz]

But I'm really against separate "modes". User should decide - by holding additional modfier key - that when they duplicate something a link is created (and it should be clear during performing the action, e.g. by dedicated mouse cursor) and then it should also be very clear that when you click a clip that's part of linked group, all other clips should briefly "blink" or something to let you know you're editing all of them. And the clips within linked group should have a common visual cue (e.g. a small icon + a number or name of the group).

You're against separate modes and then you list all the issues that occur with the currently common approach, or what would be needed to improve on it. That's exactly why I think editing modes might work. Less micro-management of clips – they are linked when they're identical, that's it. In FL Studio I've often made a clip unique to try out a change, only to find out that I didn't like it, so I had to manually replace it with the original pattern again. With my suggestion, simply undoing the changes would also re-establish the link.

But it's a bit of a pointless discussion about a hypothetical implementation, I'd be happy about any way to create linked clips in Bitwig, I can live with the slight downsides of current implementations.

Perhaps there's so much confusion & controversy about it becuase no one's doing it right?

I don't think there really is that much "confusion & controversy" around it outside of these forums.

although not as nice as variations in S1, but with note slipping can be created variations without new patterns in FL too

that's clip instance-based

ps. was curious yepp FLS keeps the slipped ranges in performance mode recording too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKhulEckqAE
+1 good point

[docbot]

FL is so much smarter in that way, the clip pool overview, the linked instances, the automation clips, not tied to a clip! Sometimes using other daws can feel quiet oldschool.

[Dionysos]

You can't blame people for not wanting something they don't understand. It's human nature.

Of course you can blame people for actively arguing against something that they don't understand if its presence wouldn't affect them negatively at all. I could bring up examples from current politics but I better not.

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned everything's been said about this topic, goalposts have successfully been moved from "you don't need it" to "I don't want it unless it's perfect but who knows what perfect looks like" and I'm a bit bored of the unproductive tone in here.

I'll just wait and see.

[pdxindy]

That's completely different from saying "I don't need it because I'm a true musician and I never repeat any sequence" though,

Making up a lie and putting it in quotes to make it seem like someone said something they didn't. That is low antic.

[antic604]

That's completely different from saying "I don't need it because I'm a true musician and I never repeat any sequence" though,

Making up a lie and putting it in quotes to make it seem like someone said something they didn't. That is low antic.

Sure, no one said it explicitly like that - especially the "true musician" part - but it seems to have been implied:

Even in the DAW that has them I don't use them that much because I don't make exactly repeating clips that often. If I have a clip play a bunch of times, I add some differences so they are not exact copies.

For my workflow I don’t see a situation where creating and managing alias clips would be more efficient than just copying and pasting when needed (which isn’t often).

I don't use them and won't use them! I don't like my change to be repeated in every clip! Not even drums! ... I can see why in modern dance music FL Studio is popular, for example. It's very repetitive music and they just play with modulations and sound, but the content is very repetitive. That's why they need ghost clips I think

It is possible to repeat a phrase within a song simply by going back to it with your fingers on the keys. It will not be identical,but it will give that elusive 'human' quality

[Abiah]

i will never understand why users spend free time policing against feature requests that wouldn't negatively affect their workflow in anyway.
i will go to my grave not understanding this.

i will die with no peace having never having ghost clips in my daw, and pdxindy will shrug at this. he has thousands of clips to copy and paste, and i asked for too much.

[Abiah]

tbf you have actually explained how it might exert a minor pull on your workflow

[apoclypse]

That's completely different from saying "I don't need it because I'm a true musician and I never repeat any sequence" though,

Making up a lie and putting it in quotes to make it seem like someone said something they didn't. That is low antic.

Sure, no one said it explicitly like that - especially the "true musician" part - but it seems to have been implied:

Even in the DAW that has them I don't use them that much because I don't make exactly repeating clips that often. If I have a clip play a bunch of times, I add some differences so they are not exact copies.

For my workflow I don’t see a situation where creating and managing alias clips would be more efficient than just copying and pasting when needed (which isn’t often).

I don't use them and won't use them! I don't like my change to be repeated in every clip! Not even drums! ... I can see why in modern dance music FL Studio is popular, for example. It's very repetitive music and they just play with modulations and sound, but the content is very repetitive. That's why they need ghost clips I think

It is possible to repeat a phrase within a song simply by going back to it with your fingers on the keys. It will not be identical,but it will give that elusive 'human' quality

None of that points to anything about being a "true musician". Everyone posted what their preferences are. So you basically made a whole inference about something that was never stated. None of these quotes put anyone down, and none said anything about stopping whoever from implementing the feature. All they said is that they don't need it or prefer it the way it is. So it seems like you blew up the situation way outside of what it is. To do what? Make a point? No one is fighting against alias clips as far as I'm aware. If someone can chime in about how they want/need something, why can't others that they don't see the use or point of that feature give their opinion as well? This is a public forum, right?

They are saying exactly what you and Dionysos keep saying. That these features won't affect them in anyway whether its implemented or not. I have yet to see someone say it shouldn't be implemented, its more like "I don't need this". That's not blocking, that's a statement of opinion. If dissenting voices to a feature request is now considered blocking then maybe the issue isn't with the dissenters and maybe the other need to grow a pair. Not everyone is going to like what you like.

Again it's human nature.

Edit: Just to take this one further. This is not feature request thread. This is a poll asking for people's opinion. You literally asked people if they thought alias clips plays significant role in our workflow? You got some answer and now it's considered blocking? Okay then don;t ask question you don't want the answer to. If you want to create a feature request thread, then by all means make that clear.

[antic604]

Edit: Just to take this one further. This is not feature request thread. This is a poll asking for people's opinion. You literally asked people if they thought alias clips plays significant role in our workflow? You got some answer and now it's considered blocking? Okay then don;t ask question you don't want the answer to. If you want to create a feature request thread, then by all means make that clear.

If someone can say they wouldn't want it added as it would interfere with their workflow, then I can criticise that position surely?

[apoclypse]

Edit: Just to take this one further. This is not feature request thread. This is a poll asking for people's opinion. You literally asked people if they thought alias clips plays significant role in our workflow? You got some answer and now it's considered blocking? Okay then don;t ask question you don't want the answer to. If you want to create a feature request thread, then by all means make that clear.

If someone can say they wouldn't want it added as it would interfere with their workflow, then I can criticise that position surely?

Ofcourse. This is a public forum. However you asked a question about their workflow. You even made it a poll. If this was a feature request thread you should have made that clear from the start. Why ask the question if all you wanted was to confirm your own bias of the question? That makes no sense.

Some forums have implemented things like just a thumbs up system for feature request to avoid this very issue. You know if people want to use something based on how many thumbs up you have and that's the end of it. However you are looking for a discussion, prepare for a discussion whether they agree with you or not. You can discuss back, however it's not blocking when they tell you they don't want it. If you don't want an opinion don't ask for it.