Rename "Beat+Bassline Editor" to "Pattern Editor"

[unfa]

The titles says it all.
Let's have shorter and more universal names,

[andrewrk]

I think we had this discussion before but I don't remember the results.

👍

[coppolaemilio]

+1 to Pattern Editor

[unfa]

Yup, we had it, but the result didn't make it here. So I'm here to keep it alive. I think it's important.

[tresf]

👍

[diizy]

I don't know about this, because the patterns on the instrument tracks are also patterns, so it'd be confusing.

How about something like "loop editor"?

[tresf]

or "Pattern Group", because it's really just a bunch of Patterns grouped together.

[diizy]

On 01/24/2014 02:06 AM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote:

or "Pattern Group", because it's really just a bunch of Patterns
grouped together.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#120 (comment).

But so is pretty much everything, if you think about it... everything in
existence is just "patterns grouped together".

No but seriously though, "pattern group" sounds a bit too static, like
it's just one group of patterns, when it's actually a dynamic editor
that can have many "pattern groups"...

If we change song editor to "sequencer", then bb-editor could become
"beat sequencer". Or "loop sequencer".

Or, how about this: "Master sequencer" and "Loop sequencer". Consistent,
and clear.

[andrewrk]

Arguments in favor of pattern:

• "Pattern" does not imply that this is necessarily only for "beats".
• "Pattern" is more concise than "loop sequencer".
• "Pattern" implies repetition, which is the main idea of this particular UI

[tresf]

Combo Platter? Kitchen Sink? Buffet of Fun?

I don't have a better name than "Pattern Editor". It has a nice ring to it and seems more relevant than "Beat/Bassline Editor".

I dislike "Loop Editor" because "Loop" is generally used exclusively in reference to samples that are beatmapped.

-Tres

[unfa]

Please. Let's not make this needlessly complicated. I think FL Studio got
it right.
Patterns are for using several instruments to make a single "pattern".
I don't think "Loops" is good, because I frequently don't loop these, but
arrange them in patterns instead.
What we have in the Sequencer are "Clips" or "Regions" - these are two
industry-approved names for these things. Let's not forse the users to
learn another funky words we can find in the dictionary, just because
"Pattern" sound to plain or generic.

Following this reasoning we'd call the Mixer a "Mix editor'.

All in all - we really had this discussion before. I just think that
"Beat+Bassline" is too long, not descriptive enough and too strange. And
using "B+B" abbreviation doesn't make it any more understandable. We don't
need to tell users "Here's where you'e supposed to put your beats and
basslines" with the name, I think they can figure it out for themselves.

Shall we?

2014/1/24 Vesa V notifications@github.com

I don't know about this, because the patterns on the instrument tracks are
also patterns, so it'd be confusing.

How about something like "loop editor"?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/120#issuecomment-33183797
.

Tobiasz unfa

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GIT/MU/P d->-- s+:-(--)> a? C++(+++)>$ ULC+(++)>$ !P? L+++>++++$ E? W++>$
!N-? !o--? K-? !w-- O? !M-- V? PS++ PE++ !Y+ !PGP+? !t(+) 5? !X !R+ tv
b+>+++ DI>+ D+ G e h-->- !r y--()
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

[unfa]

Thank you Tres. This is exaclty what I felt...

2014/1/24 Tres Finocchiaro notifications@github.com

Combo Platter? Kitchen Sink? Buffet of Fun?

I don't have a better name than "Pattern Editor". It has a nice ring to it
and seems more relevant than "Beat/Bassline Editor".

I dislike "Loop Editor" because "Loop" is generally used exclusively in
reference to a samples that is beatmapped.

-Tres

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/120#issuecomment-33184542
.

Tobiasz unfa

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GIT/MU/P d->-- s+:-(--)> a? C++(+++)>$ ULC+(++)>$ !P? L+++>++++$ E? W++>$
!N-? !o--? K-? !w-- O? !M-- V? PS++ PE++ !Y+ !PGP+? !t(+) 5? !X !R+ tv
b+>+++ DI>+ D+ G e h-->- !r y--()
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

[diizy]

On 01/24/2014 02:16 AM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote:

Combo Platter? Kitchen Sink? Buffet of Fun?

I don't have a better name than "Pattern Editor". It has a nice ring
to it and seems more relevant than "Beat/Bassline Editor".

I dislike "Loop Editor" because "Loop" is generally used exclusively
in reference to a samples that is beatmapped.

-Tres

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#120 (comment).

"Loop" is a generic term and used for anything that loops. A sample can
have loop points. A sequence can have loop points. A song can have loop
points. A loop is something that loops, ie. repeats, over and over.

FL studio used to be called "FruityLoops". Where did they get that from?
Was the entire software just for making beatmapped samples?

I still say "pattern editor" doesn't work here, because the bb-patterns
aren't the only patterns - the pieces of sequence on instrument tracks,
the ones that are edited with piano roll, those are also called "patterns".

The bb-editor is used for not just any patterns but specifically
repeating patterns, hence why I think "loop editor" or "loop
sequencer" would be better.

[diizy]

On 01/24/2014 02:16 AM, unfa wrote:

Please. Let's not make this needlessly complicated. I think FL Studio got
it right.
Patterns are for using several instruments to make a single "pattern".
I don't think "Loops" is good, because I frequently don't loop these, but
arrange them in patterns instead.
What we have in the Sequencer are "Clips" or "Regions" - these are two
industry-approved names for these things. Let's not forse the users to
learn another funky words we can find in the dictionary, just because
"Pattern" sound to plain or generic.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_(music)

[tresf]

:+2: for Pattern Editor then.

[pgiblock]

Project Editor (song), Pattern Editor (bb), Automation Editor, Piano Roll Editor. Possibly drop the "Editor" for the window titles. Technically all of the above are "sequencers"

[unfa]

+1

Paul, can you make these names a reality? I think that the word "Editor" is
redundant but it differentiates the windows from "Tracks" and "Clips" that
are other objects.

We can have:

• Pattern/Automation Editor
• Pattern/Automation Track
• Pattern/Automation Clip

2014/1/24 Paul Giblock notifications@github.com

Project Editor (song), Pattern Editor (bb), Automation Editor, Piano Roll
Editor. Possibly drop the "Editor" for the window titles. Technically all
of the above are "sequencers"

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/120#issuecomment-33190036
.

Tobiasz unfa

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GIT/MU/P d->-- s+:-(--)> a? C++(+++)>$ ULC+(++)>$ !P? L+++>++++$ E? W++>$
!N-? !o--? K-? !w-- O? !M-- V? PS++ PE++ !Y+ !PGP+? !t(+) 5? !X !R+ tv
b+>+++ DI>+ D+ G e h-->- !r y--()
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

[pgiblock]

I think calling it "Foo Editor" Is important in literature and when speaking about the product. It differentiates the GUI component from the model being operated on. However, when you are sitting in front of the LMMS GUI, you already know it is an editor from context. Thus, restating "Editor" on the title bar is a waste. I agree with "Track", that is universal and already adhered to. "Clip" is nice. I generally think of "Clip" as an section of audio, but that is probably a misunderstanding on my part. The LMMS wiki instead calls them "segments". The Packt LMMS book calls them "Elements", but that name is too generic for my taste.

[unfa]

Could it be simply "Project" and "Pattern"?

Pro Tools calls these "clips", that's what I learned today in a school ;)

2014/1/24 Paul Giblock notifications@github.com

I think calling it "Foo Editor" Is important in literature and when
speaking about the product. It differentiates the GUI component from the
model being operated on. However, when you are sitting in front of the LMMS
GUI, you already know it is an editor from context. Thus, restating
"Editor" on the title bar is a waste. I agree with "Track", that is
universal and already adhered to. "Clip" is nice. I generally think of
"Clip" as an section of audio, but that is probably a misunderstanding on
my part. The LMMS wiki instead calls them "segments". The Packt LMMS book
calls them "Elements", but that name is too generic for my taste.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/120#issuecomment-33193622
.

Tobiasz unfa

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GIT/MU/P d->-- s+:-(--)> a? C++(+++)>$ ULC+(++)>$ !P? L+++>++++$ E? W++>$
!N-? !o--? K-? !w-- O? !M-- V? PS++ PE++ !Y+ !PGP+? !t(+) 5? !X !R+ tv
b+>+++ DI>+ D+ G e h-->- !r y--()
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

[pgiblock]

Right, I like that idea for the GUI window frames. But, if I was instructing someone, I'd prefer to say "now focus the pattern editor" and not "focus the pattern". It isn't clear what is meant since I could be referring to the pattern segment seen in the project editor or to double click the segment and display/reassign the pattern editor.

This reminds me. The LMMS source code has a concept of pattern. This is a "MIDI segment" or "MIDI clip" (not really MIDI, but it is an event-based note-triggering element). This pattern (a C++ class) represents both the piano-roll and BB-editor (step-based) note segments. So, there is still no name for the midi-segment as seen in either the instrument track or in a "drum track" of the newly named pattern editor?

According to the most recent suggestion(s), I think we have:

• Project Editor (labeled "Project") contains:
  • Instrument Tracks, which contain:
    • ??? Segments (Was patterns)
  • Pattern Tracks, which contain:
    • Patterns (Was BBE-Segments or something ridiculous)
  • Automation Tracks, which contain:
    • Automation Segments (Clips, Regions, whatever...)
• Pattern Editor (labeled "Pattern") contains:
  • Instrument Tracks (dunno if different name is desirable), which contain:
    • ??? Segments (Distinguish the beat-oriented segments from the note ones)
  • Automation Tracks -- as described above
• Piano Roll Editor (label "Piano Roll") contains:
  • Notes and stuff, as stored in the "WTF the Instrument Track Segments are called"

[tobydox]

I like the proposals by Paul. Anyone wants to take care of implementation? Otherwise I'll do it tomorrow.

[softrabbit]

Should we drop the "FX" from the mixer as well while we're at it? From a user POV it's just simply a mixer.

[diizy]

On 01/24/2014 05:38 AM, Paul Giblock wrote:

This reminds me. The LMMS source code has a concept of pattern. This
is a "MIDI segment" or "MIDI clip" (not really MIDI, but it is an
event-based note-triggering element). This pattern (a C++ class)
represents both the piano-roll and BB-editor (step-based) note
segments. So, there is still no name for the midi-segment as seen in
either the instrument track or in a "drum track" of the newly named
pattern editor?

According to the most recent suggestion(s), I think we have:

Project Editor (labeled "Project") contains:

  o Instrument Tracks, which contain:
      + ??? Segments (Was patterns)
  o Pattern Tracks, which contain:
      + Patterns (Was BBE-Segments or something ridiculous)
  o Automation Tracks, which contain:
      + Automation Segments (Clips, Regions, whatever...)

Pattern Editor (labeled "Pattern") contains:

  o Instrument Tracks (dunno if different name is desirable),
    which contain:
      + ??? Segments (Distinguish the beat-oriented segments from
        the note ones)
  o Automation Tracks -- as described above

Piano Roll Editor (label "Piano Roll") contains:

  o Notes and stuff, as stored in the "WTF the Instrument Track
    Segments are called"

One should remember that we already have a use for "Project": it refers
to the entire song, all the data in it, including what's in the FX
mixer, etc. Not just what's in the current song editor. We have load,
save, export project. Which again refers to the entire project, not just
the song editor. So calling the song editor "project" could be confusing.

Also, segments? Pass. If we must call the bb-tracks "patterns" (which I
still advise against) then we need a very good and descriptive name for
the instrument track sequences.

[pgiblock]

I know that project is the whole thing, but I still don't mind calling that window the project window. This is the "top level" of the project as far as sequencing is concerned, and even features play/stop/pause buttons that control playback of the project at large. Still: suggestions are welcome.

Regarding "Segments": I'm not attached to the idea. Let me know your suggestions for the different segment types. (Automation clip, versus a chunk of "midi" data, etc..)

Toby: I'll gladly implement this one, but I'd like to wait some more hours for responses.

[diizy]

On 01/24/2014 03:22 PM, Paul Giblock wrote:

I know that project is the whole thing, but I still don't mind calling
that window the project window. This is the "top level" of the project
as far as sequencing is concerned, and even features play/stop/pause
buttons that control playback of the project at large. Still:
suggestions are welcome.

Regarding "Segments": I'm not attached to the idea. Let me know your
suggestions for the different segment types. (Automation clip, versus
a chunk of "midi" data, etc..)

Toby: I'll gladly implement this one, but I'd like to wait some more
hours for responses.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#120 (comment).

I think we should just call all of them either patterns or sequences.
They have established usage and are used synonymously anyway in many
applications. "Clip" sounds too much like an audio clip, or a part of a
sample track, too confusing. Also "region" has another use, it's often
used for discrete parts of the entire song.

Then we could have: instrument sequences/patterns on instrument tracks,
automation sequences/patterns on automation tracks, and sample tracks
can just have samples or clips or something (because they don't really
contain any sequencing inside them).

[andrewrk]

I am in favor of @pgiblox's proposal.

[pgiblock]

I agree that region sounds like a rigid portion of the song, not a moveable element. I also feel that clip implies an audio snippet. However, if you use pattern to describe these, then we need a name for the Beat+beatline editor and the associated "segments" seen in the song editor.

[bhattigurjot]

@pgiblox seems like a nice proposal.
What if we use "compositions" to define the those 'segments' in the editor?
I mean people usually 'compose' them.

[tresf]

Should we discuss renaming "Sample track" in this thread as well?

I humbly propose "Recorded Track" instead.

-Tres

[diizy]

On 01/24/2014 07:07 PM, Gurjot Singh Bhatti wrote:

@pgiblox https://github.com/pgiblox seems like a nice proposal.
What if we use "compositions" to define the those 'segments' in the
editor?
I mean people usually 'compose' them.

"Composition" means a full song or arrangement. Using it to refer to a
mere part of a song/arrangement would be very confusing.

On 01/24/2014 08:51 PM, Tres Finocchiaro wrote:

Should we discuss renaming "Sample track" in this thread as well?

I humbly propose "Recorded Track" instead.

But they're not always recorded. In fact, as of now, they never are, as
LMMS doesn't support audio recording yet. Sample track or audio track
works fine IMO.

On 01/24/2014 06:54 PM, Paul Giblock wrote:

I agree that region sounds like a rigid portion of the song, not a
moveable element. I also feel that clip implies an audio snippet.
However, if you use pattern to describe these, then we need a name for
the Beat+beatline editor and the associated "segments" seen in the
song editor.

Well, there's two solutions. We can call everything patterns, and then
call bb-track patterns "beat patterns" or "loop patterns", by their
feature of being able to be easily looped over and over, or maybe "group
patterns" by their ability to group several other patterns inside them.
Then we'd have:

Instrument track <- Instrument pattern <- edited in Piano roll
Automation track <- Automation pattern <- edited in Automation editor
Sample|Audio track <- Sample|Clip <- edited in Audacity
Beat|Loop|Group track <- Beat|Loop|Group pattern <- edited in
Beat|Loop|Group editor

Another solution would be to use the word sequence for others, and
pattern for bb - and I personally am not in favour of this, because I
still think patterns are and should be synonymous with sequence, but if
others wanting to distinguish bb-sequences as "patterns", then here's
IMO the best way to do it:

Instrument track <- Instrument sequence <- Piano roll
Automation track <- Automation sequence <- Automation editor
Sample|Audio track <- Sample|Clip <- any external sample editor
Pattern track <- Pattern (sequence) <- Pattern editor

What do you think?

[tresf]

@cubician where have you been? :)

Are you interested in running it for us?

[ghost]

I know this thread is super old, but, as a newcomer to LMMS, I think this very much still needs to happen because I was at first completely unaware of the fact that you can put melodies and stuff in the BB editor via the piano roll, not just beat patterns. This was in part due to the UI not making it obvious that you can access the piano roll, but also due to the name. I second "pattern editor".

[filostrato]

Another vote for calling it "Pattern editor" from me; way more universal than the current name.

[soweliniko]

another vote from me.

[tresf]

Some technical problems with this...

• The word "Pattern" is ambiguous in the codebase. e.g. It can refer to a PianoRoll Segment, it can refer to an Automation Segment.
  • For example, the enum type PlayModes -> Mode_PlayPattern already exists so we can't rename Mode_PlayBB yet. We need to give this a better name, such as PlayModes -> Mode_PlaySegment or more accurately PlayModes -> Mode_PlayPianoRoll. Note that not all Patterns are piano rolls, however this enum seems to only control the playback of piano rolls, so perhaps it's name was just poorly picked. Case-and-point, you can't playback an automation pattern without the Song Editor, so there's no "Play Mode" for an Automation Pattern. Confusing? Yeah.
  • Pattern.h would otherwise have nothing to do with PatternEditor.h, so this is another namespace problem/confusing unless we continue to rename. We can namespace it Segment.h but that might be more confusing. Sharing thoughts is important here.
  • To that point, most editors are now PatternEditors because they edit what we've historically called a Pattern. Does this make the PianoRollEditor a PianoSegmentEditor and the AutomationEditor an AutomationSegmentEditor?

If you're nodding your head saying "Yeah, a Pattern should be renamed Segment", then Step 1 is renaming Pattern to Segment and must come before the "BB" renames or else we'll get lost.

[tresf]

Over on Discord, @lukas-w made an important observation and that's that the ambiguous use of Pattern is even more confusing because AutomationPattern is not a subclass of Pattern, but rather they're siblings that are subclasses of TrackContentObject. Refactoring TCO is now the first step.

[Spekular]

It might make sense then to call automation/instrument/bb patterns in the song editor something else. "Clip" is used in some DAWs I think? Perhaps this (or whatever other new name is decided on) could be used in the codebase as well.

[tresf]

@Spekular Clip seems to be the winner.

So.... Clip.h gives birth to NoteClip.h, AutomationClip.h, PatternClip.h, SampleClip.h. This will touch most of the source files, making syncing from stable-1.2 harder. Will see if an IDE can help with the refactoring and go from there.

Alternate proposals are MidiClip.h, AutomationClip.h, PatternClip.h, AudioClip.h

[vlad0337187]

Totally agree to rename it to "Pattern Editor" =)

[claell]

The word "Pattern" is ambiguous in the codebase. e.g. It can refer to a PianoRoll Segment, it can refer to an Automation Segment.

Will this be an issue, when only using Pattern Editor?

Refactoring TCO is now the first step.

Is there an issue for that that can be linked? Also I suggest to add a label stating that this is awaiting another issue to be fixed first.

[ryuukumar]

Sorry to be dropping on this dead issue, but I feel like even now this is a nice change to have, and it would be much more friendly for newcomers to LMMS (as Pattern Editor is a more standard name, and Beat+Bassline may seem to some as if only drums and basslines can be edited here). Judging by this conversation there's a lot of changes to be made which definitely can't happen in one PR. Can we break down this into a step-by-step rename (one PR per step), maybe like so:

1. Rename AutomationPattern -> AutomationClip
2. Rename Pattern -> Clip (or whatever else may be decided)
3. Rename BBPattern -> Pattern
4. Rename editors

List needs refinement, and this one is probably bs, but something like this so that this change can actually be executed finally.

Or if this change is not going to happen, maybe close the issue along with an explanation why it won't be?

[tresf]

Or if this change is not going to happen

It'll happen and we welcome the change. Previous attempts were mostly superficial making the code a bit harder to read, but your breakdown of it is exactly it needs to be done.

Feel free to open a brand new bug report and have this one closed if needed. If you're going to refactor many components, it will probably serve as a better bug report than simply "The titles says it all." like this one. 🤣

Furthemore, thanks for offering. The project can't survive without the hard work from people like you. 👏

Last, this will be a sweeping change, so it has the tendency to break other PRs, so thanks in advance for the patience.

[ryuukumar]

Feel free to open a brand new bug report and have this one closed if needed.

Nah, I think I'll stick to this one. There's a satisfying feeling closing a six year old issue when it's already solved rather than just renewing it. Don't know, just my preference honestly xD. Though if you prefer convenience, I can open a new bug report.

it has the tendency to break other PRs

Oh I can see the wave of disappointed developers coming my way for this :D
I think active PRs need to be finalised and merged before this, and we need to warn developers that a major change is coming. Or we can make a new branch and rename everything there. That seems like a nice way to do it, although the merge conflict mess will be a headache.

Anyways, glad to be helping!

[Veratil]

If we're going to rename files, let's please organize them better, too.

[tresf]

I think active PRs need to be finalised and merged before this, and we need to warn developers that a major change is coming. Or we can make a new branch and rename everything there.

There's a style one that @JohannesLorenz was waiting to merge. That's the first that comes to mind. Also, your very nice color PR (thanks!). Anything stale gets punished for going stale. At some point, people have to rebase and rewrite stuff. To quote my mother cleaning a room...

"it's going to get worse before it gets better"

To reference a time when a large sweeping change occurred: #1353

The conversations that occurred then will occur again for eternity. ❤️

[ryuukumar]

@Veratil, any suggestions? I’ve got no idea on how to go about reorganising myself.

@tresf,

Anything stale gets punished for going stale.

Well said. Cuts off some nice features (like that Toolbar PR) but then again not like they were going to merge soon.

I guess we’ll let my color PRs and Johannes’ PR merge (and any other non-stale ones), and then start working on this. I suppose that nobody will be able to make a stable PR at this time, as everything will be moving around and getting renamed.

Also, rough plan which we can elaborate on:

1. Reorganise everything to better places
2. Rename files themselves and update everything that broke (#include, cmake etc)
3. Rename classes and variables and etc one by one
4. Rename the editors

[tresf]

Cuts off some nice features

Exactly. Most PRs are great btw, some just aren't as obviously great. I'm an offender of stale PRs as are many other devs. It's just part of the job and most devs are sympathetic to this.

[Veratil]

@Veratil, any suggestions? I’ve got no idea on how to go about reorganising myself.

I'll have a look around and come back with one. 👍

[ryuukumar]

You know what, I think a new issue would be better for this. Not exactly easy navigating through this huge discussion. In case somebody has something to say later on, we could point them back here I guess. Will create a new issue soon for better organisation.

[ryuukumar]

Closing this in favor of #5592.