yes, automation over multiple patterns would be the bombdissle.
amen!
If we get a simple arranger there is something that every body does when creating tracks. Mute and Unmute the channels to get an idea what works when building up the song. Wouldn’t it be cool that you can record those actions and see them visually in the arrange? The same way you can sort of do in Ableton Live.
1 vote against arranger…sorry… i think it’s been tried and makes for lazy music making. 
No, lazyness makes for lazy music making. If you can quickly and easily do certain things you can spent the time saved on tweaking something else or on creative arrangement. Seeing all automation envelopes at once… hmm… no, that would definately not make me lazy, it just would make me realize how monotonous large parts of my tunes are 
My main problem right now is that I loose track… the first few days of creating a song are very fun, after that it too often fizzles out. Of course, the problem might be my approach or that I’m just not inspired, but let’s ignore that option for a second 
The way I “work” involves a lot of copy and paste and putting in variations afterwards, like making a rough sketch first and then fleshing that out afterwards. What would really rock (for me) would be a way of seeing that I used the same unchanged bass line in 3 patterns but changed it the 4th one. Don’t get me wrong, I love the pattern sequencer, but in the long run I inevitably end up with a different pattern at each position anyway… but that doesn’t mean that there are not a lot of repeated tracks! Being able to repeat and reuse tracks would rock. Tracks could still be bound to that “slot” and they wouldn’t need to be retriggerable or anything fancy to still make the whole task a lot more logical. Fade in - Repeat - Repeat - Fade out… that happens on a track basis much more often than on a “whole pattern” basis.
What would be needed is:
-
a toggle so that when you edit a track, you can a.) edit all instances of it (like when you edit a pattern), or b.) a clone of that track gets created for that specific pattern. Just leave that toggle on and Renoise behaves like it always did - you don’t even ever need to know that you can reuse tracks.
-
an expandable pattern sequencer, that shows a matrix of the tracks used in each pattern. Yes, to powerfully use that the GUI would need to be kinda slick and use pop-up menus extensively… but it could start could start simple and with just numbers and would still rule.
Renoise could also scan for tracks that are identical and merge them (two different instances that have the same content would become one and all references get updated - this could be useful for patterns too, by the way). So you just happily compose away (always creating clones of tracks when you edit them), and then you let Renoise optimize that when you’re done.
I think none of this would actually affect an eventual arranger by the way…?
I used FastTracker2 for years and then tried Cubase… Then I started to miss the tracking apporach. I found out about Renoise and loved it at first sight but after using it for a while I really miss the arranger in Cubase.
In Cubase the sequncing is done via a PianoRoll-view and boy how I dreamt of being able to switch to a tracker-view instead.
I absolutely do not think that it would be a problem if the patterns were represented vertically and the Arranger horisontally.
Of all the Ideas in this thread I like the possibility to layer multiple patterns best. The biggest pro with Renoise is that I think the music becomes so very visual when several tracks can be seen at the same time while editing. With the pianoroll in Cubase you can only see f.e the midi for the SynthPad while editing.
If patterns were layerable then I guess you could make simpler patterns with f.e only drums and then quickly test different patterns.
The automation data should only be stored within patterns.
I hope I have not said to much that has allready been said but it was so many posts 
Ditto. This, to me, is seriously one of the biggest benefits that an arranger would (should) bring. It’s got nothing to do with being lazy, it’s simply about having more power and control over my goddamn songs!
In the days of FT2 it was pretty simple to manage everything by hand because there was hardly anything going on there, just simple note data and some commands. These days in Renoise things are a lot different, because we have to mentally keep track of much more data - some of which is not even visible from the pattern view! You might be using a handful of VSTs which have hundreds of parameters each, and you’ve got automation curves on certain parameters which are changing every pattern, etc. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve accidentally wiped out complex automations, just because the note data looked the same when I was copy/pasting stuff in the pattern. Argh!
Or maybe I’m working on a track with a friend, and I make a lot of similar patterns which have identical notes but contain very subtle pattern command changes. When it’s his turn to work on the track he sees that every pattern is using the same notes and accidentally thinks they’re identical, so he does his thing, makes some changes, copy/pastes, etc., and when I get the song back all my lovely subtle work has been destroyed! Argh!
As the complexity and power of the tracker increases, it becomes more difficult to manage all of its abilities. Therefore intelligent and efficient methods of managing our pattern data are, in my opinion, absolutely crucial to the future survival and usability of Renoise!
An arranger view would not be evil, it would not turn Renoise into Cubase, nor would it do any of the other ridiculous things people are suggesting. It would simply be a different way of looking at the exact same thing, a different perspective, and in many situations a better perspective.
I still want to edit my notes and data with the pattern view… it’s the best damn editor there is! But jesus christ… sometimes when I’ve finished creating my perfect sequence of notes, I desperately wish for an easier way to arrange all of that into something useful and musical, not just another uninspired 4-pattern loop.
Sometimes so much time is wasted working against the interface, straining your eyes looking carefully through all your patterns to check for those tiny changes that you don’t want to accidentally overwrite, making sure that your weird sequence of automation curves which spans 8 patterns doesn’t get destroyed, etc… especially when working on songs you haven’t even loaded for several weeks.
Renoise is f*cking great… but it’s just on the threshold of becoming something absolutely amazing… so close!
Word!
I’ve been playing a bit with Ableton Live, mostly because I need something that work in a live setting. I’m not too fond of working in it though, I like the tracker view too much, and besides that many other things are also better in Renoise.
The thing I need for my live setup is the clip triggering of course, and I was thinking, the way it’s set up in Ableton, clip view/arranger, could work very well in Renoise. And it’s not very far from the ideas already presented.
The Clips in Ableton would translate to patterns in Renoise. Patterns would be triggered in the arranger timeline instead of the pattern sequencer, this could optionally be automatic. That way old-schoolers could just add patterns after eachother in the sequencer like today, and not looking at the arranger at all, but the patterns would still be triggered on the arranger timeline. A pattern that is triggered, by pressing a key or from the sequencer, will play once and stop or loop until the next pattern is triggered… in the same column. If a pattern in another column of the pattern sequencer is triggered it would be layered on the first. Users could choose to work with multi-track patterns and few layering, or single/just a few tracks and a lot of patterns layered instead. A very flexible enviroment but easy to grasp structure where every tracker could work the way that best suit them.
that would be… well…, REALLY REALLY AWESOME
i dont know about this one.
i remember what i do. i am a tracker. this is what i do.
if i was not a tracker, i would use cubase. or live. or sonar. or logic. or reason.
i track. f**** the arranger.
different tools, different possibilites.
Yes different possibilities but Renoise is currently writing history and taking tracking to a new level.
The great thing about trackers has never been the way you stack up patterns in a row and in that way building up a song. This is at least my oppinion.
The great thing is the way you edit individual patterns so If I may…
YES!! an arranger please!
I really don’t understand the negative reactions like this which have been appearing in this thread. Why do people feel so threatened by this idea? Why do you have this impression that an arranger would be the death of Renoise, or that it would somehow destroy the element of tracking which we all love?
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that Renoise should be changed into something completely different here, certainly not me anyway. I’ve been using trackers exclusively since the days of SoundTracker on the Amiga and NoiseTracker on the Atari ST. I have literally never used any other type of music software in a serious capacity. So do you really think that I am advocating some horrendous change to the way I’ve loved to make music for so many years? Hell no! Tracking should always remain as tracking, end of story!
But at the same time I feel very strongly that we can also have some extra tools to make aspects of the process easier. There is nothing wrong with tools to make things easier for yourself, and nothing to be ashamed of! Damn. People are talking about lazy this, lazy that, blah blah blah. It’s got nothing to do with that for me.
Fair enough, you can say “I don’t like this idea”, that’s your opinion and I am more than willing to hear it. But to say “I track. f**** the arranger.”… it just feels like you are ridiculing me for even thinking about this idea? Or that I’m somehow not a “real” tracker because of it? “I’m a real tracker, and real trackers don’t need a f****ing arranger!”. That’s pretty silly, don’t you think?
(No hard feelings either way, I know this is just a damn internet forum 
)
In my mind, this arranger concept would exist in harmony with Renoise’s current features, it would simply provide an alternative method to achieve the same end results. Just like automation envelopes vs pattern commands, which at their basic level are just 2 different ways to achieve the same result. Some people prefer one method, some prefer the other, but both can exist together no problem. The arranger should be a totally optional thing that can be ignored if you never want to use it… that’s how I see things anyway.
Word to the dblue man!
The creators of this lovely app will never be so stupid to transform renoise in something weaksauce with the implementation of a pattern arranger. The negative purists need to STFU and conform to my middlefinger lol
[offtopic]
Speaking of, does Renoise calculate automation curves in greater accuary? I mean you are limited to 1 command value per line in tracker commands but automation has more accurate timing, no? At least when rendering?
[/offtopic]
when would such a wonderful feature be implemented?
sorry if this has already been asked (didn’t want to read 9 pages)
There’s no knowing when it will appear.
It’s not an easy feat to make. Especially not if you go past just having clips of pattern data.
A lot of the changes Renoise underwent in this time was, in part it seems, done to allow for an arranger but, since it’s pretty much in contact with and is supposed to envelope and control large parts of the data, it could take some time, and that’s if it happens at all.
This guy wants an arranger in renoise. I think!
[22:38] * truelight (~dfssd@86.121.147.107) has joined #renoise
[22:39] <truelight> Hi, I have ideas about a new tracker combined with seq, I want to talk or email the developers of Renoise<br>
[22:39] * TMAnna sets mode: +v truelight<br>
[22:42] so<br>
[22:42] you're for the arranger view then?<br>
[22:43] IS there anybody here who knows the mail of the developers of Renoise? I don't have too much time it to spend here, it is urgent<br>
[22:44] you can register on the renoise forums and post your ideas whenever you have time<br>
[22:44] taktik, the maindeveloperguy, reads the forum regularly<br>
[22:44] http://www.renoise.com/board/<br>
[22:45] we have a board for ideas and suggestions<br>
[22:46] I hope that helps :)<br>
[22:49] i cannot post anything in the forums as i am not registered<br>
[22:49] uhhhhhhhhh<br>
[22:49] good point!<br>
[22:49] this is ideas that can advantage the developers not me<br>
[22:49] though you can register for the forums...<br>
[22:49] I don't know taktik's email though :[<br>
[22:49] so if i lose my time with communication, maybe i can get an email<br>
[22:49] * Looking up truelight user info...<br>
[22:50] is any dev on this channel?<br>
[22:50] not right now, no<br>
[22:50] can you please contact them an tell them my e-mail and messenger id is musickontakt@yahoo.com<br>
[22:50] the message is this:<br>
[22:51] Ideas for a new sequencer combined with tracker<br>
[22:51] Hi, I am musician and computer science student and I have some interesting (I hope so) ideas <br>
[22:51] about a new sequencer, mainly the user interface, maybe you can build it based on your <br>
[22:51] experience with your programs.<br>
[22:51] The ideea is simple: to have vertical piano rolls and tracks (instead of horizontal, but this can <br>
[22:51] be switched) and for each instrument (vsti) the mixer at the bottom (or top of screen) attached to <br>
[22:51] each track and some kind of virtual rack on the side of the monitor or on another monitor. This <br>
[22:51] will look like a Reason rack with vsti. Is like Aodix with piano rolls that can be shown more or <br>
[22:51] less compact and the synth and effects associated on the left (we don't need the full Reason <br>
[22:51] rack, just the current instrument, the fx and modulations for the parameters, synced with tempo, <br>
[22:51] etc like <br>
[22:51] aaaaa<br>
[22:51] okay<br>
[22:51] And some important thing, the connections (midi/ audio inputs and outputs) should be done <br>
[22:51] more simple, like in the new energy xt 2. <br>
[22:51] There are many other things, like improvements in editing, and combination of features from <br>
[22:51] different sequencers that i have in mind. I know all programs on the market (sequencers and <br>
[22:51] synths) from a musician perspective and I can help you develop something better. And also the <br>
[22:51] editing is bad in all programs, it would be nice to edit notes like we edit text.<br>
[22:51] Please answer if you want to start working on this thing. I don't need any money for this ideeas, <br>
[22:51] but for the time I spend with the communication etc, please tell me if you are enthusiastic about <br>
[22:51] it and if you have the time and know how to do it, and we all will be richer if we have a better <br>
[22:51] program.<br>
[22:51] Please send me your messenger id for comunication, mine is same as mail.<br>
[22:51] maybe you can send them,<br>
[22:51] i want to speak only to developers to create a better program, that will be one of the best sequencers on the market<br>
[22:52] ok :P<br>
[22:52] the best thing you can do is register on the forums and post in the piano roll sticky<br>
[22:53] and you're not about to die or something [are you?] so you can post that idea whenever<br>
[22:53] :)<br>
[22:54] no, man, f **** you, I am going to go and collaborate with some other developers out there, this is what i mean<br>
[22:55] hahahaha<br>```
<br>
<br>
He [i]really[/i] wanted taktik to see his idea</truelight>Hahah, what a bellend.
“<+soc> you’re for the arranger view then?”
Hmm… what about having everything on the editing side as is (for now), but adding an “overview” sceen?
Something that marks tracks with the same content in the same color (or just numbered), displays notes and effects as 1x1 pixel thingies…
Maybe even calculation of approximate volume levels on each track (something like sound forge building peaks… and whenever something is changed, that and everything after it (in that track) gets recalculated with 4khz and 8 bits or something? In a background thread that stops when the song is playing of course.
That maybe overkill, my main point simply is to keep the editor and the “viewer” separate. That doesn’t mean the editor needs too look unintuitive, just that it wouldn’t need all the bells and whistles that are good to have, but unnecessary most of the time.
Or just something that makes navigating the song positions easier: e.g. a little overview pane visualizing the song with colored blocks that scale (lots of tracks, note and effect columns = tiny pixels). Just a toggle for displaying pattern names or a an approximate graphical representation of them, and being able to resize it vertically (“zoom”) and not just horizontally. Ohh yeah.