Add new comment

That's interesting but I still think a single pulldown menu would be more efficient due to the potential for long track names. You'd want to reference things by track names and not have to burden yourself with having to know about clips. I tend to believe most people's "bass clips" live on a track named "the bestest bass track ever" or whatever. Remember, a clip is just a management tool that exists solely for the purpose of copying or moving a subset of data more easily. When you want to work on that bass line, you intuitively want to shift your attention to the bass track. It's unnatural to have to "go and locate the specific clip I'm interested so I can tweak the notes I want to"

Of course, I understand that PR being a clip editor, needs a clip. That said, a functional way to attack this might be to add some kind of abstract meta clip that can be used by PR instead. That higher level meta clip would be responsible for managing the "real" clips that are displayed in the Arranger view. Maybe the work flow would go something like this...

1. In arranger, user clicks on a clip
2. PR does the following
* Save or register the starting location of the targeted clip
* Create (or uses from cache) a new meta clip containing a merge of all clips from the source track
* Drop user into start time of new meta clip as determined by step 1

Of course, I realize I'm not giving any consideration here for how involved things may need to become in order to sync this meta clip with the real clips or if that overhead is really needed. It's potentially very complex....... or not? I don't know. I'm simply pointing out that a PR becomes much more useful when it is not tied, and therefore limited to, the scope of a clip.

All the best