Thanks for posting over on VI-Control. How about a cinematic template based on VG music?
Hi @eakwarren - I’m so sorry for the system flagging you as spam, I’ll have to change that setting!!
Thanks for the template / requests.
When making ArrangerKing, it was on a basis of “If we focus on certain music”, there’s rules, and then we can make a system that will help people arrange music following these rules.
As you can see on About ArrangerKing
“If we set aside Classical music, Avant-garde, Film scores, and sound montages, if we focus on what we typically call “music made in a DAW,” (Radio Edits, 12” edits, pop, rock, disco, EDM, House etc) – Then understanding how this music is arranged becomes straightforward—it all adheres to rules:"
Now, of course the issue here is that the music you ask for is exactly what’s not following the rules, so I cannot “rip” those two scores for you, unfortubnately.
When that being said: May be there’s also rules for this type of music, and I just don’t know them? If you can help me with that, it’d be super cool to make a version of ArangerKing, or a “mode” where it would adhere to those rules, so music like this can be supported.
I don’t know any better way to categorize the music that I’m referring to - but perhaps you can help make it more transparent, that would also be nice!
I have no background or knowledge in / about movei scores, game music etc, sorry…
In fact, also cinematic music follows certain guidelines. Trailer music for example follows a very strict three act structure.
Movie scores tend to follow one of the many available forms such as strophic (repeating A section but with a developing orchestratoin), ternary (A-B-A) or rondo (AA-BB-CC-AA) as an example. While in pop music you’d name the sections, verse, chorus, bridge etc. in film scores, you’d name the section A, B C etc. I’ve simplified the idea above, but my point was just to clarify that scores, production music and trailers do follow similar guidelines.
Your customer base would become quite a bit wider if you successfully integrate these somehow to your product.
Hi, also answering here, in shorter version 
I am simply not able to create an overview over what the structure is for cinematic music, as I am for “radio-and-dance-edits”.
If you are able to produce this structure for me, I would be happy to look at implementing it into ArrangerKing. The original structure is here:
About ArrangerKing (The chapter about rules)
Really, the only thing needed is the ability to add custom parts (for example, the user could add A, A1, B, B1, etc. to intro, verse chorus, etc.) That way the community could make their own. Musical form - Wikipedia and What Is Form In Music? provide examples of additional parts. For example to use Sonata form one would add Exposition, Development, Recapitulation, Theme 1, Theme 2, Closing Theme, Episode, and Coda.
A single submenu would get long really quick, so perhaps third-level menus per style?
Could become:
Then maybe add a Custom or User entry to allow users to create their own sub and third-level parts.
Anyway, here’s a quick example of Far Horizons (piano version) as an AK arrangement. The parts are simply using the first letter for A, B, C etc. alphabetically.
Cinematic_Test$ArrangerKing$1xsR17JwcNfOf5Zc$
Finally, I’m curious if there’s a limit to the number of AK instances in a project. Orchestral works may have a track for each instrument, or multiple tracks for each instrument if different playing styles (legato vs. staccato) are broken out. How does AK scale?
Thanks! 
Hi again,
Thank you for taking the time to illustrate and explain 
Starting with the easy part: AK scales without any issues, and it’s almost 100% transparent for the DAW.
I’m thrilled that you were able to do Far Horizons (piano version).
On that note, I’m happy to announce that a soon-to-be-released version will at least enable user naming of the 8 parts (though it will still be limited to the 8 parts). The ability to re-draw shapes so that one “Chorus” doesn’t have to look like another “Chorus” is also on the way.
What you mentioned about “the only thing needed is the ability to add custom parts” is painful!
At its core, AK is built to help users “avoid making a mess” by providing tools designed within a system, as you know.
Having only the tools without the system, as I see it, would open a can of worms. We’d basically end up back where the DAWs are.
I understand that you want to use the “one selected = all selected” tools in AK but with an “open-ended array of part types.” However, there’s a lot more to unpack here than just “a couple of sub-menus.”
If I share my arrangement with you, you’d need my part types. Then, the sharing codes would have to support a potentially unlimited array of custom part types. You wouldn’t be able to just switch naming conventions (e.g., Rock to EDM) because there’d be no data indicating what A1 is in EDM.
More importantly, I wouldn’t be able to assure users, “If you make music with this, it will be FASTER, and you’ll always create music that FEELS RIGHT,” because the system would lose its structure and be just like a DAW.
Lastly, I assume you’ve noticed that in AK, the lengths of part types are always measured in bars and can only be: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 24, or 32 bars. This works for any “Radio and Dance edit,” and it’s interesting how no one else seems to have built a system based on this. But this is a defining feature of ArrangerKing, along with the “only 8 part types.”
I presume you’d also want to allow for parts of 5 bars in length or even 4 1/2 bars?
If so, then I believe we’re just returning to the same “total openness” offered by DAWs, which, as you know, I believe leads to people getting stuck.
So, I’m really not in favor of an “open array of parts” or “any length of part types.”
I think it’s a fundamental discovery that, for example, “there are 12 tones,” and the same goes for the rules AK is built on. It would be powerful if you could actually define rules for the music you want to make. In that case, we’d be building something meaningful. But making it open-ended feels like “throwing in the towel,” just as DAWs do, and I don’t think that helps users much.
Again thank you so very much for your input, and don’t get me wrong: This is just my opinion, I am very interested in yours and everyone elses, I don’t see myself dictating something if you want something else, I’m just stating my opinion
Thanks!!
I understand the design choices you made now. Thank you for the additional info. I agree that too much complexity would be detrimental and you’re right, if that’s what one is after, just use the DAW’s tools.
User-naming of the 8 parts and shape re-draw sounds great! Looking forward to the update. 
Not really. I think 4+1 would work fine. Anything more granular would likely fall under step 3 Refine.
Awesome, thank you!!