Let’s hear it then Davar?
there’s also an a in arranger 
, can’t wait for Renoise to have this option…
please devs, look at how fruityloops has implemented their ‘sequences’ idea into their ‘playlist editor’.
You could make a few patterns with just the melody, another pattern with only a beat, and mix these patterns in the aranger (fruityloops: playlisteditor)
I guess this prolly been mentioned here before, but I didn’t bother reading through the complete thread 
i ve asked myself, why would every “new” tracker still working in that old behaviour,
since the real 3rd generation tracker [buzz] showed us a nice multipattern arranger back in Dec. 1997.
Fl studio does it (a bit) easier. its more a kind of pattern- layering.
floops: layering of pattern
buzz: pattern per generator or effect
renoise: screen by pysj (maybe a futuristic solution)
(martinal’s pic isnt there anymore)
i know its damn- fu*king hard to implement into the actual structure due to vst- handling, but that would make renoise a real 3rd gen.- tracker.
keep on that good work.
Synapse release Orion Platinum 7.0 with good sequencer!!!
http://www.synapse-audio.com/zoompic.php?name=seq
When Renoise have it?
Here’s my arranger idea.
I think the automation data could be stored in the pattern itself.I was posting some ideas in “A question of speed” Thread. and i think they go hand in hand. I think renoise is good as it is, and there shouldnt be too much messing around with the “tracking-feel” of it. I hope it doesnt become another program. It should still feel like tracker.
Imagine an arranger like Cubase / Reason or whatever. Double click on a block and you open a pattern.
In conjuction with the line and resolution issue, people were posting about in the “A question of speed” Thread. I wanted to sum up my idea here.
Since people wanted to increase the resolution of a line wich i think is good it’s not necessary to change the whole feel of Renoise. Instead of adding a zoom and “inbetweens” in a ‘line’ just add more lines as usual and play the track at a different speed. 6, 3, 1 or whatever.
The “speed” indicator could still be within the program but bound specifically a pattern rather than a global value if an arranger is used.
I would be more comfortable making smaller patterns with less tracks, ONLY for 1 or a couple of instruments. Then add this Pattern to an arranger. This means you will be allowed to play many patterns simultaneously. They are smaller and hold less information … they can be seen as group of tracks… Some of these patterns have a high resolution and some have lower. Depending on how accurate you want to be for that particular part. Some patterns play at speed 1 some at 3, some at 6. This way people can have both an arranger and improved accuracy for some parts.
This would certanly change the way people track. But it would still be the same. You track in the same way. You just make patterns with specific inforamtion “drums” “bassline” “appregio” “Synths” “Piano Melody”. you can stack em and play them all simultaneously in the arranger.
Automation Data could be stored within the pattern, A mixer would be a fine addition. or “Global Patterns” wich consist of the Master and Send Channels, and maybe some more. I think tracking is and should always be the same, and an arranger should just be used to manage grouop of tracks or “patterns” as we call it. Playing many patterns simultaneously shouldnt be a problem. It would be like “Grouping” tracks in the interface that’s used now. Some of these groups could have different accuracy.
—> It could be like playing 1 Drum track at 140 BPM, Speed 6. and playing maybe a nice melody at high line-resolution 140BPM, SPeed 1 in the same time.
-
You could open up the Drum Group(pattern) and see a pattern of maybe 5 tracks with 64 lines.
-
You could upen up the high line resolution melody group and see a pattern with 2 tracks but with 64 x 256 lines or whatever. depending on what resolution you want to use.
It doesnt have to be much more advanced than that really. =)
Though… no conclusions what so ever have been made, I can try to sum up a few things for you and point a direction for all this.
Initially there was this discussion about a multipattern setup vs a clip arranger setup.
This pretty much ended up with that too many ppl would just hate to separate instruments from each other into single patterns.
We want them side by side as they are now.
So instead the focus went on to a clip based arranger.
The reason for this can be a bit complicated to grasp initially.
Think of clips as blocks of pattern data that you save as a clip.
So instead of copy/paste blocks in the pattern editor as you do now, you can ‘save’/make them into clips. Then you arrange these clips both in a the standard pattern editor and also in a separate arranger window. A clip can contain note data, other clips have fx data/automation etc. Or everything into the same clip (group). This depends on how you choose to view the clips (optional).
Now… don’t be mad if you really want to arrange entire patterns.
If you have a look in the RNI future thread.
There you can see som talk about ‘instrument-patterns’.
Now this means that you can track your instruments as separate patterns that you trigger inside the instrument.
So all you would have to do to arrange patternwise is to track your patterns inside the instruments. Then just insert a single note from this instrument into the clip arranger. Then this clip will behave like a independent pattern. Just the way you suggest.
IMO this is a much more flexible system that will please everyone
About the zoom. I don’t see any problems with it. Don’t use it if you don’t need it.
Hope this helped to explain a few things.
I know it’s a lot of information in those threads. But they really have been discussed thorough.
cheers
Well, did anybody mention track mutes as a simple way to re-use data ? Create a pattern, and repeat it over and over again, using track mutes to create the development…
I’ve used that technique in an old softsynth/tracker called AXS, where most of my tunes consisted of no more than a handful of patterns, very efficient esp. for loop-oriented stuff!
Here is a screenshot of how I imagine it could be implemented:
[edit: Also located here: http://www.irisworks.dk/temp/seq-mutes.gif]
pysj >> It could even be combined with what you have in mind :-))
That mockup looks interesting, but what if the individual patters are of different length? In your mockup, they wouldn’t allign so neatly along the horizontal … with a system that Psyj describes, we can have clips of different length and arrange them out, much like you could do in Buzz Tracker.
Sure it can. As you are just talking about muting tracks, then this would fit any scenario.
Well. I have nothing against it really. But this would just be another way of very simple and limited sequencing that you already can do in a more traditional clip sequencer.
If you just zoom out enough it would look pretty much the same. You just mute clips.
And btw, this is nothing new in Renoise.
This is how Renoise (NoiseTrekker2.1) was before:
cheers
What I liked about track mutes in AXS (and by the look of it, NoiseTrekker2.1 too 
) was that you were able to “look ahead” a number of positions, and un/mute tracks before they were actually played. And in general, finding ways to re-use the same material is very much what this arranger thread is about …
But, as sonus points out, it might be harder to achieve with the “overlapping” nature of clips.
It really should be no problem to make a function in the arranger to mute the track in current pattern.
In the arranger you would of course see many patterns coming up if you zoom out.
Anyway, If you are doing loops and stuff your arranger would look pretty straight with equal lenght of clips and no overlapping clips.
In fact the whole long discussion has been how to keep everything backwardcompatible to make patterns and clips coexis. Clips could be made automatically in the size of the pattern length. So you would never even have to open the arranger window if you want to do it oldschool.
That said, I’m sure there is lot of extra stuff and interfaces like the mute sequencer and other more Live oriented things that could come sooner or later. This discussion has been more about traditional sequencing stuff.
Thank for giving me an overview of the clip idea. Although i dont see the point of making yet another “element” that contains the same data as a pattern. It just has a different name. If the clips were a rendered area (wav) of a pattern i would understand the point of it. Opening up the clip. would bring up the intial pattern where it was created and let you edit it.
If the clip was a “rendered” representation of the area of pattern, or a whole pattern it would be understandable. Mainly becouse the arranger would play rendered wav clips and save a lot of processing power. if you’re using a lot of effects and heavy vsti’s etc. Automation could be added to these clips too of course but that should be mainly effects then i suppose.
Maybe there’s space for 2 kind of arrangers then. One arranger for rendered wav’s ( with a reference to the original pattern) , and one arranger of editable “patterns” (why call it clips if it still has the same data inside) An arranger would marely be a new overview of your created stuff, and let you move it around on a grid. An arranger for patterns would be like an extension. Letting you play patterns alongside eachoter side by side. But i still think the pattern editor is for editing… an arranger is for arranging… Automation applies to everything, even the master channel so you could still basically call these “clips” patterns.
If you just want a selection of a pattern you could make a Short Key-command like “ctrl + g” to make new group… or simply … a new pattern with a new pattern number.
a crop comand could also be implemented then… “ctrl + shft+ c” to crop away everything outside a selected area in a pattern.
The standard pattern editor should still be there but not for the purpose it does now… Use it as a fast browser to scroll your way to desired pattern. But the “Arranger” give you an overview and let’s you drag and drop “pattern” or “clips” copy & paste… and arrange your songs.
=) hope this clarifies my idea a bit.
More than one arranger seems very cluttered IMHO. When you have an arranger, you might as well have all the data present. If it’s a problem having all the data on screen, there could be a filter function (i.e. dim everything but the automation) or minimize/maximize tracks function (i.e. minimize all wave clips).
One arranger with pattern clips, waveform clips, togglable markers, togglable automation envelopes, a freeze function and whatever else would be the ultimate. Color coding or a symbols to discern between clip types, and it’d be pretty clear and readable.
Another thing that would be great, is to have something akin to Samplitude’s Object Editor for both patternclips and waveclips.
You would not need two kind of arrangers at all.
Instead you have an arranger where you can insert many type of clips.
Note clips, patternfx clips, automation clips, audio clips.
Also ‘patternclips’ like you describe.
You can do this either trough a instrument (instrumnt-pattern) or it could be a pattern list where you can drag/drop patterns on to the clip arranger.
But just belive me when I say there are LOTs of technical limitations to think of before you can do this. It has to do with routing of tracks/fx etc when you insert entire patterns.
Also, many ppl would not tolerate to arrange only patterns. As you would have to open one single patterns at a time, and thus not see your instruments/tracks side by side as you do now.
You would also be forced to arrange stuff then, as you would have to add track fx etc in the arranger and not in the pattern (you can add in patterns, but that would be like insert fx’s for that pattern(track) only, because each pattern kan have different number of tracks etc…)
More of these problems was initially discussed in the Some Pattern Ideas thread.
But, as I said a few posts ago, if the RNI will get a complex instrument-pattern system, then there will be no big deal to arrange patterns as well in the clip editor.
You can then also do a lot more with this pattern clip. Transpose it. Put all kind of fx commands on it etc, trigger patterns with midi keyboard etc.
Your are then inserting patterns into a ‘main’ pattern.
So then you decide on what level you want to arrange stuff.
As hcys says, there would be no problem to hide different kind of information in the arranger.
You can choose what to be shown, and select a zoom level and save the different setups to hotkeys.
So if you want to arrange patterns like small blocks in the arranger view like on your picture, then fine. Do it
But you could also mix different clips in the same arranger and zoom in to do detailed work
like this old painting.
Well… I’m not the one making the decisions here, but my vote goes for the most open and modular system that you can customize for your own liking… mainly because different ppl would like to arrange at different levels… thats for sure.
Actually, that’s my biggest qualm about other traditional sequencers, and why I like trackers so much! The ability to see everything going on at once, side by side, like you say, is great!
This makes me wonder…
Maybe it would be possible to logically group several “paternclips” together so that when editing one of the group, you see them all. This would make sense for creating drumtracks, for example.
I wouldnt mind an arranger like that. Although that particular painting looks a littel bit “wild”. As long as there’s a quick reference back to the pattern where you created the clip it would be awesome. Selecting the clip and choosing to edit it would open the pattern where you made the clip. After finishing the edit you could choose to Update the clip och or create a new variation of the old clip… This could work too…
But for my personal preference, Fully editable patterns arranged in the same way would be better. A clip could still be a selcted part of a pattern. The clip would then be a "Crop" from the original pattern. It creates a clipfile to be used internally. The arrangerr doesnt play full patterns so to speak but keeps a reference to where you created the clip. I’d prefer this to add some editability within the arranger, to be able to set transpose etc, as you said.
I really really don’t want a pattern side by side kind of a arranger I just can’t see why that would be better than a clip based arranger.
I want to be able to view the arranged tracks side by side and I want to easy be able to reuse just one clip or track from a pattern at several places.
And because each track can play 12 instruments it also has some of the pattern arrange ideas.
So I think the way it is intended to become is brilliant.
Wow, just five minutes ago I had the idea of combining a tracker interface and a Cubase/Reason/Logic style sequencer. And look - seven pages of discussion for something similar already. Now, I’m sorry - I didn’t read all that’s been written here, and to be honest some of the ideas depicted were a bit hard to follow from the text (English is not my first language).
I use Renoise mainly for making techno, electro house and similar genre music. I find it easiest to first create a “master” pattern or two where I more or less have “everything” going on - bassline, full-on drums, possible melodies etc. Then I begin building the structure of the song by adding empty patterns and copying and pasting from the “master” patterns, gradually adding more stuff and making fills and editing breaks as I go. A process would be much faster if after making the master I could just press a button with the function “divide pattern tracks into sequencer” where I would get a left-to-right sequencer with the pattern tracks as separate “blocks”. Then I could just quickly move, cut, copy and paste the blocks.
Once a very skeletal version of the structure of the song was laid out, I could then move onto finesse - editing in drum fills etc into the blocks I wanted to. Editing a block would not change all the similar blocks, but like in Reason, would change the colour/name of the edited block and change only that. The edited block could then be easily copied onto previous blocks to add the fill into the places I deemed suitable. “Oh, I see, I’ve got a regular 4/4 kick going on here, and I want every other pattern to have a little kick fill at the end of it… done… copypastecopypaste. OK, that’s good. Oh, but I want every eighth pattern to have a slightly different fill… edit, copypaste, ah, there we go!”
It’d be ideal for minor adjustments, whereas at the moment you have to copy and paste the entire pattern into a new one.
Now, I noticed some people want to see their tracks/instruments side by side. How about this - double clicking on a block simply brings up a screen with only the pattern data for said block and whatever you’ve decided to put in it. A kick, a filtered loop you’ve made from one-shots, a bassline, whatever. While pressing play on this screen you would only hear the instruments you have on that block, as well as only see them. HOWEVER, in the regular pattern editor view you could still see, hear and edit the song in the traditional Renoise way. I could see it working like the pattern wrap works in the current version - you just have one continuous long “pattern” - however, you could easily navigate to fixed positions, the first rows of “patterns” by clicking any block on the sequencer/arranger.
-K
“I use Renoise mainly for making techno, electro house and similar genre music. I find it easiest to first create a “master” pattern or two where I more or less have “everything” going on - bassline, full-on drums, possible melodies etc. Then I begin building the structure of the song by adding empty patterns and copying and pasting from the “master” patterns, gradually adding more stuff and making fills and editing breaks as I go. A process would be much faster if after making the master I could just press a button with the function “divide pattern tracks into sequencer” where I would get a left-to-right sequencer with the pattern tracks as separate “blocks”. Then I could just quickly move, cut, copy and paste the blocks.”
That is EXACTLY what I do too!
This new proposed feature would be great
grouping of tracks with colorcodes. mabe more information along with the “sequences”
in the arranger view with ptrn.nr on the blocks…
have a vision also of automation of volume/trck.dsp for long volume fades and
stuff like that to.