hmm i actually think it’s good someone has the bollocks to say that they could give professional help for the renoise team on implementing sequencer stylish features - if they really have the knowhow.
I’ve been using cubase for 10 years now from the earliest VST3.6->VST5->SX1,SX2 to SX 3. (I also bought SX 4 but have not installed that on my own computer because i think it’s really not going to change anything in my world anymore.) I’ve been really → (too) ← deep in the cubase and midi stuff teaching both the novice and pro users to use sx along my way towards the light at the end of the tunnel which has been leading back to the tracker world (ohh…<3 Renoise <3 ). Anyhow… at the moment I know propably all the keyboard commands inside cubases midi editor and also know all the midi editors features.
I’d also like to tell the renoise team that that in case the help is at some stage needed - i think i could give you a good perspective on the features and editing shortcuts of a modern midiroll if they need to be compared to the more pro sequencers. On the pre-release testing level for example.
I just like to say this because many of the features that people actually use are not usually fully listed anywhere.
Just send me an email or something incase you need this kind of help.
hmm i actually think it’s good someone has the bollocks to say that they could give professional help for the renoise team on implementing sequencer stylish features - if they really have the knowhow. [/quote]
I think everyone values their own opinion more that others place value in it. In the case of the bellend, why was it so urgent to give the ideas, immediately, and not in this forum? In your case, why should you be contacted directly in order to ask an opinion you could freely give in this forum? The main developer of this app has a day job, at one point working as a developer for one of the companies that make these “big sequencers” that people buy without offering any input on. Also, “I have 10 years experience” is kind of a mute point when most of us are pushing 30… we all have over 10 years experience in something! So, unless you have 10 years experience producing music for U2 or some other huge band that would help market Renoise with your name, just voice your opinion like everyone else and let time takes it course, please.</0x0000562855846a10>
I Just wanted to state that this guy might have some really good points of view and maybe he would have helpfult tips for the developers. Now everyone is dissing him and no-one actually knows him and what kind of help he might be able to provide. Also i think maybe he would not want to register on a forum just to provide this info. Or maybe he was lazy… i don’t know
I do not want to send the developers any ideas or tips they don’t need. I never said I should be contacted - I can be contacted and am willing to provide assistance if needed and can share my experince on the midi editing environment.
Sorry this is what i really do not understand… What bad is there to say that you know something that can help the developers make this software more appealing and easier to approach as well as competitive in terms of features? I just wanted to offer my help…
And why put those offering it down? This actually just proves your point on everyone valuing their own opinions over others. …on that i totally agree… Perhaps that’s just the course of things here in the internet because we cannot communicate face to face.
Hmm, I think that would not be good for progression of midi & arrange editors… I also do not like you telling others to shut their mouths and stop helping the developers if they are not producers of U2. That is actually quite strange and i’d like to know why that is? Also, I do not know them - and now i might be underestimating their experience - but, i still don’t think being a producer of U2 would help much when developing a tracker with a midi editor…
My rant was mostly about the guy in IRC, and people who think they should magically be in charge of the Arranger based on their own perception of themselves. You were polite and courteous. I was not offended. Sorry if you felt it was directed at you.
My point was, as the forums are the so-called brain of Renoise, I don’t see why any one individual’s opinion should be valued above others, let alone overide the opinions of the core Renoise team. This kind of “please contact me, and me only, as I should be involved in the Arranger directly” attitude, bypassing the collective voice of the forum, and probably annoying the developpers, who have shitloads of experience, isn’t worth it unless you can somehow make millions of dollars in funding appear. If you are the producer for U2 and the press catches wind of that, maybe that’s added value that this thread doesn’t have? And even then, it’s of questionable value?
Sorry from my behalf too. i think this arranger is a subject that somehow gets me agitated so i think i will back off from this topic for a while now. Maybe i’ve spent alittle too much time without it or something its been like 6 months already hehh… Okay Energy XT is a brilliant substitute but it has those nasty bugggggs x) urgh
I was hoping Renoise would always stay a Tracker and true to itself, its roots, and its followers. Keep it loop based, keep it vertical (so we can see more tracks at once at same timeline), and keep things numeric. I see alot of people here keeps pushing the idea of “arranging” towards transforming Renoise into a typical sequencer. Have we forgotten WHY we’re using Renoise? Even if it’s supposed to be just an “optional feature”, i really hope the Renoise team is not considering wasting time on this. There are better directions to go to improve Renoise with easier group based editing (not to mention better use of time and resources). Please do not transform this awesome Tracker into another Lego toy. Those who need colors and bricks to understand what they’re doing are looking at the wrong tool here. There are endless of solid sequencers out there for you already, with everything you’ve asked for here.
Neighbor, I can understand you’re point of view, but I should hope you considered that renoise would never compare to a typical sequencer, even if/when they do add this feature. Keep in mind, there are plenty or useful features Renoise already added that transcends your ideas of keeping things “numeric.” Please understand, the roots of renoise is beyond classic tracking. The roots of renoise is community. That’s why we are loyal because the devs want to hear our ideas for renoise’s evolution. This is what will always make renoise true to itself.
While your opinion on classic tracker sequencing is important, there are plenty of votes via registered users that show that an arranger can help our flow of tracking. But yes, there’s more than one way to skin a cat. Nevertheless, there are plenty of way to making a sequencing arranger that doesn’t look like the blocky ones you’d expect.
I didn’t mean to sound negative to change or improvements. I understand what you’re saying, and yes i love everything Renoise is, its potential, and all the improvements so far. I’ve used trackers since the first Soundtracker showed up on Amiga, and i’ve also messed around with sequencers like Cubase, Cakewalk, Samplitude etc. But to put my point another way: If i want to ride a racing bike, i dont ask Harley Davidson to redesign a chopper.
I’m sure everyone who voted didnt mean that Renoise should become a bar sequencer clone. Was the voting done only by registered Renoise customers? or did it include all the inexperience that can access the forums?
renoise will always be a tracker…even with an arranger…if the bottom line is about quality music, and an arranger helps renoise users make better music then
the idea of a piano roll sucks. that would mean renoise is catering for people who cant be bothered to orientate themselves to the concept of tracking. So why would you then buy a tracker? I have logic for piano rolls.
Im only half keen on the idea of an arranger, not really because i want to arrange graphically but because it would be nice to duplicate a track’s grove into new patterns for easier formation of progressive dance tracks. But you can already do that, just not as ‘drag and drop’ as it could be with a fancy arranger.
The thing I would most like to see would be a bunch of vertical audio tracks.
Let me explain… I feel as though renoise has one giant flaw which screws people who still use hardware: you finish perfecting the part of your analogue synth in the song and you wanna commit that to ‘tape’ so you can pull out all the cables and make a new part. All you need to do is record onto a vertical track which runs next to the pattern sequencer. It would be independent from the patterns however and could be moved and the boundaries resized. Thats it. If it could be brought up in the sample editor that would be cool too.
But essentially just this:
The audio output of the tracks would come out on new assigned tracks in the mixer and there wouldn’t be any tracks until you added one. I am aware this can be done successfully in other ways already, but this I feel is the proper, non-bodge-job way.
So imho thats the most important feature to be added!
What do people think (or have I just described something thats already there that I didn’t know about lol?)
Yeah defo. With every update the arranger gets better. I mean, now we have colour coding, a few more copy and paste options, make selection unique etc.
I think a TOTAL rework is not in order. Just need to keep adding to the existing system and just make it much more flexible and user friendly.
I use Renoise because it’s phenomenally responsive, and feels like a realtime program should. No annoyances, period. Fluid workflow. Everything at the fingertips. Same reason I prefer Lightwave over Maya for 3D modelling.
I smell elitism. Renoise users don’t need colours and bricks. But they’re useful visual communications tools. Better “at-a-glance” comprehension of what’s going on in a track: in a Piano Roll, you can see melodic and temporal information instantly. In an improved Arranger, you can “get” the structure of the song immediately, and modify it to suit your needs in a snap. Make it 30 seconds. Make it 6 minutes. Swap out the beat across the whole track with a smoother groove, slow it down, replace the bassline with a subdued jazzy ambience. Sweeping changes like that in a few drags, drops & edits do wonders for the creative workflow.
Just because the power is easy to reach, that doesn’t make it a toy.
So, what’s the current idea of how the future arranger will look like according to the developers?
I personally would love to see the possibility to detach ‘tracks’ from ‘patterns’. I’d prefer working on singe ‘tracks’ or better call it ‘clips’ (of variable length) separately in tracker-like editor - bass, drums, synths, strings etc. Of course, clip would also be able to contain two or more tracks. There would be some kind of clipboard or pool with all the clips and their variations, which you could name, colour, organise in folders/groups, render to sample etc.
Then you’d combine the ‘clips’ on a VERTICAL time-line, adding global automations, effects etc. There would be two layers of automation - one for clips, second for tracks - if you click on a clip the lower pane shows clip automation and DSP-chain, if you click on a clip with shift (or other modifier) or click in an empty space in a track, then the lower pane would show DSP-chain & automation for the track.
The main part of the screen would consist of infinite empty pattern to which you’d drag’n’drop clips of various length. There would be at least two levels of zoom - one, where you could overview the whole song with clips represented as vertical boxes of various length & colours, possibly with automation envelopes. In second zoom-step the clips would show as regular track notes, so it would simply look like a pattern with tracks of different colours and length. You could edit clips them in that pattern and automatically they’d be updated in other parts of the song they’re used in. Also, if you were to start putting notes in an empty space you’d be able to select a block and make a ‘clip’ out of it for latter use… This also means, that if you don’t like that ‘new’ approach you’d still be able to simply enter the notes as usual and then mark all XX rows in all tracks as a clip / pattern. In fact this could be automated - then XX-row-pattern would be treated as a clip and you would organise it like you do it currently.
Has an idea like this ever been considered? I vaguely remember Martinal mentioning something like this a long ago, but I haven’t been following the forum much lately.
Me too. Personally, an arranger view was never a high priority for me, I’d much rather see some work getting done on the instrument part. That said, an arranger could improve the software in terms of accessibility (just as the mixer view has proven to).
(ohh…<3 Renoise <3 ). Anyhow… at the moment I know propably all the keyboard commands inside cubases midi editor and also know all the midi editors features.
its been like 6 months already 
hehh… 
