It'd be great to be able to divide a setlist into sets. I can see 2 ways of doing this:
1 - (simple): add a separator (similar to a place holder)
2 - add a new "Set" object type.
Cool things one should be able to do with sets:
- quickly jump from one set to the next in performance mode
- show the song number within the set, both on the list page and as an overlay on the song in performance mode (e.g. Song x/y, with X the song number in the set, and Y the total number of songs in the setlist, excluding song separators)
- re-use a set in different setlists; that'd be for option 2 above only I suppose
(01-22-2016, 01:45 AM)oz1 Wrote: It'd be great to be able to divide a setlist into sets. I can see 2 ways of doing this:
1 - (simple): add a separator (similar to a place holder)
2 - add a new "Set" object type.
Cool things one should be able to do with sets:
- quickly jump from one set to the next in performance mode
- show the song number within the set, both on the list page and as an overlay on the song in performance mode (e.g. Song x/y, with X the song number in the set, and Y the total number of songs in the setlist, excluding song separators)
- re-use a set in different setlists; that'd be for option 2 above only I suppose
Great idea.
My goal within the list would be to keep track of styles actually. I never play the list as arranged so having a check mark for already played would be nice. When I play live I am typically looking for a slow, fast or latin tune to vary the mix. For now I am going to add dummy empty songs with similar titles then group them within the list. So if I am looking for only a fast tune I can find it quickly.
This should be a relatively simple idea that would be great for many of us who perform live based on audience reaction.
(01-22-2016, 02:44 AM)jeffn1 Wrote: At a minimum, it would be nice to have some type of boundary between sets so you can see when the 1st set ends and the next one begins.
Jeff
I just insert a placeholder at the appropriate position in the setlist.
I use these all the time - to prompt naming the band members, highlighting a particular performer, etc.
Graeme
1: Samsung 12.2" SM-P900: Android 5.0.2
2: eSTAR GRAND HD Quad-Core 4G 10.2": Android 5.1
01-22-2016, 11:58 AM (This post was last modified: 01-22-2016, 11:59 AM by Zubersoft.)
Option 1 requires a fair amount of work from a UI perspective as I have to make some major design changes to the editor and I also have to introduce a concept of separators that are inserted between songs. The original song list can remain unchanged - the separator is just an entry for visualization. This is doable though, it will just take some time.
Option 2 requires a redesign of setlists that affects every section of code across the entire application that deals with them. If I think of a "Set" as an ordered list of songs, a setlist goes from having a simple list of ordered songs to having a list of sets which are each an ordered list of songs. That means I can no longer use any common code to deal with them, which impacts the database code the most. It also makes things like the alphabetic sorting odd because each set would be individually sorted, making the alphabet list unusable unless I flattened all of the songs in that sort order, dissolving the set boundaries (which I'll probably have to do with option 1 as well). I would not allow sets to contain other sets, as then you have a hierarchical mess which would be very difficult to implement from a UI perspective (you would need some sort of tree control which doesn't really fit anything I currently have implemented). Every change I make I also have to make in the companion application meaning a new design for the UI dealing with setlists there as well.
There's still plenty more I'm sure I haven't thought about with option 2 that would make it a nightmare. It would probably take me months of work to make the changes necessary for this, introducing a lot of bugs along the way. I'm going to have to say no to this idea unless there is overwhelming support for it. Option 1 is going to require a lot of UI changes for editing and displaying setlists, meaning I can no longer use shared code for that, but it's more manageable than the kind of changes option 2 would require as I'm not fundamentally changing the core design of setlists.
(01-22-2016, 02:44 AM)jeffn1 Wrote: At a minimum, it would be nice to have some type of boundary between sets so you can see when the 1st set ends and the next one begins.
Jeff
I just insert a placeholder at the appropriate position in the setlist.
I use these all the time - to prompt naming the band members, highlighting a particular performer, etc.
- show the song number within the set, both on the list page and as an overlay on the song in performance mode (e.g. Song x/y, with X the song number in the set, and Y the total number of songs in the setlist, excluding song separators)
If you had two sets, one with three songs, the other with five, wouldn't it be odd for it to go:
1/8, 2/8/3/8, 1/8, 2/8, 3/8, 4/8, 5/8?
The more sets you have, the more confusing it would be... I would think you would want to show the song number in the set over the total number of songs in the set along with some kind of indication of what set you are in.
I think we have a misunderstanding w.r.t. "sets". While usually a set means a series of songs, and a performance is two or three sets of , say, 10 songs, I think OP means two or three songs that are played immedeately one after the other, almost like a medley. Quite common in irish and folk music.
So a gig would be two or three "sets" each containing 10 "sets" of 2 or three songs.
Judging from Mike's reply, any changes made along these lines are either nearly impossible or would require an inordinate amount of work on his part to implement.
I rather suspect that some users are losing sight of what a 'setlist' is. To most musicians, a setlist is a series of charts to be played in a particular order - the 'set'. I accept that there are a few people who will use this function in a slightly different way but, in the interests of simplicity, surely it is better to keep it the way it is and for those users to implement their own workarounds for a particular situation?
I honestly believe that it is possible to accomodate almost any situation within the confines of MSP as it currently stands. As mentioned above, I use placeholders all the time as prompts. I attach a typical setlist showing these. The placeholders themselves have additional notes, where required. For instance, the INTRODUCE NICOLE page has a note telling the guitarist to play the intro chord progression under the spoken introduction of the vocalist, the INTRODUCE THE BAND page lists the names and instrment of the players, etc., etc.
Graeme
1: Samsung 12.2" SM-P900: Android 5.0.2
2: eSTAR GRAND HD Quad-Core 4G 10.2": Android 5.1
Just thinking, going from your placeholder method, one could also use a placeholder Song with a title "-------------------" or "_________" as separator (not tried yet since I haven't my tablet available).
01-22-2016, 10:56 PM (This post was last modified: 01-22-2016, 10:57 PM by GraemeJ.)
(01-22-2016, 09:28 PM)BRX Wrote: Just thinking, going from your placeholder method, one could also use a placeholder Song with a title "-------------------" or "_________" as separator (not tried yet since I haven't my tablet available).
Yes - that would work.
Graeme
1: Samsung 12.2" SM-P900: Android 5.0.2
2: eSTAR GRAND HD Quad-Core 4G 10.2": Android 5.1
- show the song number within the set, both on the list page and as an overlay on the song in performance mode (e.g. Song x/y, with X the song number in the set, and Y the total number of songs in the setlist, excluding song separators)
If you had two sets, one with three songs, the other with five, wouldn't it be odd for it to go:
1/8, 2/8/3/8, 1/8, 2/8, 3/8, 4/8, 5/8?
The more sets you have, the more confusing it would be... I would think you would want to show the song number in the set over the total number of songs in the set along with some kind of indication of what set you are in.
the idea would be to show 1/3, 2/3, 3/3 while you're in the 1st set, then 1/5, 2/5, 3/5, 4/5, 5/5 while you're in the second set, so you always know where you are in the current set. The beauty of this is that if you don't have sets (as is currently the case), you'd show the song number within the entire setlist.
(01-22-2016, 09:28 PM)BRX Wrote: Just thinking, going from your placeholder method, one could also use a placeholder Song with a title "-------------------" or "_________" as separator (not tried yet since I haven't my tablet available).
Yes - that would work.
that's exactly what I did: I created a collection called "separators", and put in 4 PDFs that only show "===== set 1=====" (set2, etc.), and called these songs the same, so I can see them in the setlist, as I flip through the songs.
It works just fine, but I thought it'd be better if that was built-in MSP. Especially when you think of the numbering (see my suggestion above to show the song number within the set).
(01-22-2016, 11:58 AM)Zuberman Wrote: Option 1 requires a fair amount of work from a UI perspective as I have to make some major design changes to the editor and I also have to introduce a concept of separators that are inserted between songs. The original song list can remain unchanged - the separator is just an entry for visualization. This is doable though, it will just take some time.
Option 2 requires a redesign of setlists that affects every section of code across the entire application that deals with them. If I think of a "Set" as an ordered list of songs, a setlist goes from having a simple list of ordered songs to having a list of sets which are each an ordered list of songs. That means I can no longer use any common code to deal with them, which impacts the database code the most. It also makes things like the alphabetic sorting odd because each set would be individually sorted, making the alphabet list unusable unless I flattened all of the songs in that sort order, dissolving the set boundaries (which I'll probably have to do with option 1 as well). I would not allow sets to contain other sets, as then you have a hierarchical mess which would be very difficult to implement from a UI perspective (you would need some sort of tree control which doesn't really fit anything I currently have implemented). Every change I make I also have to make in the companion application meaning a new design for the UI dealing with setlists there as well.
There's still plenty more I'm sure I haven't thought about with option 2 that would make it a nightmare. It would probably take me months of work to make the changes necessary for this, introducing a lot of bugs along the way. I'm going to have to say no to this idea unless there is overwhelming support for it. Option 1 is going to require a lot of UI changes for editing and displaying setlists, meaning I can no longer use shared code for that, but it's more manageable than the kind of changes option 2 would require as I'm not fundamentally changing the core design of setlists.
Mike
to be honest I threw option 2 in there for completeness, but I had an inkling that it would be more complicated.
Option 1 would work just fine, especially since, aside from the numbering issue, it is in fact pretty close to what a place holder is, in other words a song with very few capabilities. I can do sets now with place-holder songs, but, that doesn't give me sense of where I am in the set.
