Add buzz styled sequencing to Renoise

No prob! Noticed there is still some bugging out with the attached tool, I’ll try to fix and clean things soon. But all in all, this should be doable.

I like to name each pattern for each track separately, which I can’t do in Renoise. Almost all other DAWs allow this. I will try to use the section function to help split my songs up, but it’s all really a workaround.

KMAki, just had a test of your tool and it works perfectly, saves me a LOAD of work, thank you so much again.

Glad it works! But please note that because I’m a sloppy dunce, even the v1.1 is seriously broken! Udate to v1.11 here!

This thread is far tl;dr but I have to admit I agree completely with the sentiments I’ve read from xg regarding voting on features and questioning some of the priorities that instead do tend to get addressed. Beta release time tends to get a little touchy in these forums and it’s a shame as we all are here because we care about making the product better…

This exact topic did indeed come up in january/february 2011? or whenever 2.8 beta first dropped. I recall clearly suggesting something similar that you’ve suggested XG - vote on features, then devs maintain and share a prioritized spreadsheet to-do list. AFAIR the idea got people in a tizzy and I just gave up but cheers to you for carrying the torch of democratic feature implementation. It does certainly seem that some of the great ideas that come up here in the ideas and suggestions thread fall through the cracks…


Speaking for myself - the current solution with aliases is admittedly somewhat confusing. It of course WORKS if you know how it works, but it’s not a super-obvious way of working. I use aliases frequently and they make repeating stuff easier for me. Now that some probabilistic stuff is also possible, avoiding overly repeating pieces is also easier than ever.

The main problem as I can see it is the ‘triple layering’ of sequence position/pattern/pattern track (=matrix block).

I faintly recall a forum remark at a 2.x release (whichever introduced the aliases) in which someone who had ‘inside info’ noted that it was discussed whether the “patterns” as such are needed at all. If such discussion has taken place, I can see where it’s coming from. I see the aliases as a step towards the downfall of the “pattern” as the MAIN organizing block of song structure. (Pattern = a specific combination of pattern tracks)

IMO the problems in eliminating the “pattern” from the “sequence position”/“pattern”/“pattern track” - triad are’nt tiny though. For now the “pattern” holds the line length of sequence position. As I see it, eliminating this piece logically would lead into “pattern tracks” (or “matrix blocks” or “clips”) with individual lengths. And that would lead into the requirement of line-level sequencing, as is the case with buzz.

One positive side of this is that I believe this kind of song structure would at least be fully compatible in the case of loading “old style songs” into “new style songs”.

Big stuffs of change here. I’m not expecting this level of changes anytime soon. Not that I wouldn’t be OK with it, but I recognize the amount of redesign needed in this kind of paradigm shift.

I have no interest in changing the pattern matrix, it is fine for what it is, what I want is a separate clip/pattern arranger in its own tab, separate from the pattern matrix (between edit and mix). Not replacing the pattern matrix, but extending the capabilities of Renoise. This would allow those who benefit from the features of the pattern matrix to continue to enjoy it, while those who do not have much use for it but are crying out for a better arranger/sequencer to have a workflow that suits them. I prefer the model in Reason to Buzz, but Renoise really needs a better arranger, and something like the one in Buzz would be a step up.

I don’t see why people are getting so emotional - it does not have to be a zero sum game…

This is a better place for the post I made in the audio tracks thread:

Hazardous, I think you’re completely right. In my post I suggest replacing/upgrading the pattern matrix, but I think it makes a lot more sense to keep the pattern matrix and continue its development with a focus on its strengths (live performance, simplicity). Meanwhile, introduce a new “composer” or “arranger” view that can focus on separate motives, namely allowing for more complex song structuring, more efficient pattern usage, and more comfortable high level editing.