Brainstorming: Arranger

[XG2003]

@jonas the plugexpert

XG2003 dude …

…is there morning snot covering your eyes? We’ve already established a pattern arranger is the way to go for Renoise in the future. You don’t have to convince me, or are you trying to convert me (or others here) to Buzz in the meantime?

You are obviously missing the point of my reply, maybe because of blind fanboy-ism? Which reads like a kvr, ‘my DAW is better thread’. ZZzz

There were dudes in the 50’s of the last century making master pieces with only tape-machines. It is not the tools that matter, but what you do with them!

This is the main thrust of your reply, which I was replying to:

Especially for a better (zoomable) oversight to see what is going on where, but feel like I have to counter some of your expressed criticism like it is a slower, somewhat difficult way of working.

In my experience, using any other tracker than Buzz is MUCH slower for the way I work on a song, and I would imagine this is the case for most people.

Computer software should be designed to help the user as much as possible - a few hours of a programmer’s time could save ten thousand people a hundred hours of time each, over a year of use. Or a hundred million people a hundred hours each, in the case of very popular software. (Sorry, wasn’t sure what phrase to use to describe both commercial and freeware software that is used by hundreds of millions of people.)

As far as tape machines, etc. It IS the tools that matter - why do you think software is constantly being updated? We can do things nowadays on a £200 PC that nobody on Earth could do, even with a ten million pound recording studio, just twenty years ago. Your argument seems to be that we shouldn’t bother comparing different types of user interface, just put up with whatever we have, no matter how much wasted time it costs us.

Would you be so kind as to show me screenshots of how you would edit a drum pattern, in thirty two different places, in a 128 pattern song?

i.e.
Say it looks like this: (I’m using a representation of Buzz’s Sequence Editor, because there is simply no way to display what I am talking about, in Renoise…)

00
00
00
01
00
00
00
01
etc.

and you want to amend the ‘01’ drum pattern throughout the entire song in Renoise, so that the last three beats of the pattern have a hi hat.

In Buzz, I put my cursor on any of the '01’s, then press Enter, then add the three hi hats. Finished.

In Renoise?
You have to go to all thirty two patterns and manually paste in that data… that’s THIRTY TWO OPERATIONS.

If your post was supposed to make it clear that you wanted a Sequence Editor, and that it was better than the current Renoise method (otherwise why would you want it?), you didn’t make that very clear.

ps I also wanted to say, if/when a Sequence Editor is made for Renoise, I think we should copy the Buzz one exactly, it works perfectly, and is very clear and simple to use.

[Jonas (Djeroek)]

First off:

Johan, more sunshine, less bitterness please. It is not the first time I read ‘asshole’ replies of yours, whats up with that?

@Johann

The point of your reply was, I quote, that you felt like you “have to counter some of your expressed criticism like it is a slower, somewhat difficult way of working.”

which was BS to begin with, because it actually IS a shitty way of working compared to the better one. And hey, I love Renoise, I love working in it, I don’t feel hindered at all - but that doesn’t mean anything, we never realize what we’re missing out on until we had it at least once.

You don’t feel hindered at all, but it IS a shitty way of working and this doesn’t mean anything? Contradiction selfpwn. I’ve opened up Buzz, more then once, had fun with the arranger - ‘know what we’re missing’. Even though I didn’t finish a track with it, I’ve been an advocate of a pattern sequencer in Renoise, be it Buzz or Fruity-like for years, because I do see benefits.

Jest of my reaction to XG2003, which obviously didn’t translate to well:

Compared to my current workflow I don’t see the big attraction (in seconds won) by repeating samey patterns throughout a composition (as a musical strategy).

Maybe this makes more sense in a thread about arranging and composition then a thread in suggestions and ideas?

@Johann

So he tried again, reeeeally slow this time. If you lack the imagination even when pics are posted, just go and try Buzz please.

You see what I mean by asshole?

@Johann

So who’s being a petty fanboy here, posting awkward workarounds that aren’t even workarounds, not even shadows of what could be accomplished by a proper track arranger?

No question I’m a fanboy. Even bought a renoise t-shirt last week. About your workarounds mention, not even going to waste my time on it.

@Johann

what’s with all the animosity :<

Personal life shit probably, causing to overreact on the internet.

@Johann

I can’t fucking stand it when people are a.) ungrateful and b.) dishonest.

I think you hate what you’re seeing in the mirror + Fuck you for calling me ungrateful and dishonest!

@ XG2003

@Johann

Your argument seems to be that we shouldn’t bother comparing different types of user interface, just put up with whatever we have, no matter how much wasted time it costs us.

No, my argument is that you should focus on what ‘music’ consists of instead of what tools you are using to create it. I spliced tape in the analogue studio so I understand how time consuming it is opposed to a audio cut in wavelab. You can create the direst of music in the most expensive software to masterpieces in the most basic of tools and vice versa, is it really just the tools? But this is discussion for somewhere else maybe…

@Johann

Would you be so kind as to show me screenshots of how you would edit a drum pattern, in thirty two different places, in a 128 pattern song?

I would never have a 128 pattern song. I would never have the same drum pattern in 32 different places. I would never create 32 different patterns with the same drum pattern to want to alter in a later stage.

If however I would have constructed something like you propose, I’d want to use a pattern sequencer like you can find Buzz

@Johann

If your post was supposed to make it clear that you wanted a Sequence Editor, and that it was better than the current Renoise method (otherwise why would you want it?), you didn’t make that very clear.

I agree.

I’d like a pattern arranger for the obvious benefits of being able to mix patterns (like in all your examples!)

• mixing patterns of different lengths (poly rhythems)
• mixing patterns of different speeds (polyrhythem / groove)
• being able to arrange automation clips
• experimentation in composition
• overview → if zoomable, like that wicked animation example once posted on this board.

[XG2003]

@jonas the plugexpert

Compared to my current workflow I don’t see the big attraction (in seconds won) by repeating samey patterns throughout a composition (as a musical strategy).

Most people do… (see the big attraction).
I doubt anybody produces music in a tracker that DOESN’T have tracks which are duplicated in different patterns…

I think you hate what you’re seeing in the mirror + Fuck you for calling me ungrateful and dishonest!

I think you’re unable to see how Buzz works and are making excuses for the workarounds you have to use all the time in Renoise.
I bought Renoise years and years ago. Got the original t-shirt too. But I couldn’t use it for very long because writing songs in Buzz is just SO much easier for me. And for most other tracker users, I would reckon, even if they use Renoise because it’s better in many other areas.

@ XG2003
No, my argument is that you should focus on what ‘music’ consists of instead of what tools you are using to create it.

What a stupid suggestion. If the tools hinder me, then I’d be an idiot to continue using them, when they slow down my music writing. What if Renoise made you type ‘CONFIRMED’ every time you entered a note, or changed anything? Would that be okay? Should we all just pretend it isn’t a problem and “focus on what ‘music’ consists of”?
You’re obviously making excuses for Renoise as it is, it’s laughable.
Buzz’s Sequence Editor is pretty much perfect. It’s just infinitely better than Renoise’s way of doing things. (At the moment).

I spliced tape in the analogue studio so I understand how time consuming it is opposed to a audio cut in wavelab. You can create the direst of music in the most expensive software to masterpieces in the most basic of tools and vice versa, is it really just the tools? But this is discussion for somewhere else maybe…
I would never have a 128 pattern song. I would never have the same drum pattern in 32 different places. I would never create 32 different patterns with the same drum pattern to want to alter in a later stage.

You would never have the same drum pattern in 32 different places? Really? So you have continually changing drum patterns throughout your songs? And they don’t even use the first drum pattern as a base, to copy and then edit a little? How strange!

If however I would have constructed something like you propose, I’d want to use a pattern sequencer like you can find Buzz
I agree.

I’d like a pattern arranger for the obvious benefits of being able to mix patterns (like in all your examples!)

• mixing patterns of different lengths (poly rhythems)
• mixing patterns of different speeds (polyrhythem / groove)
• being able to arrange automation clips
• experimentation in composition
• overview → if zoomable, like that wicked animation example once posted on this board.

So for most other users, who DO use several drum patterns repeatedly throughout their songs, and ditto with the melody, bass line, etc. how do you edit, say, 32 drum patterns in 128 different patterns in Renoise?

[Conner_Bw]

@XG2003

Computer software should be designed to help the user as much as possible - a few hours of a programmer’s time could save ten thousand people a hundred hours of time each, over a year of use. Or a hundred million people a hundred hours each, in the case of very popular software.

Programmers are users, just like you.

Not too sure why you are owed this because you are part of the masses, as opposed to say you putting the time into programming for me, who is also part of the masses?

If thousands of people are using a piece of software, then you’ve pretty much defined “useful” - hence why so many people use it. Saving time isn’t everyone’s primary concern. Some people enjoy fucking around. Shit, some of us use more than one music application. Maybe someone sequences using analogue tapes in a 4-track tethered to a theremin, because it’s fun. I say good! This isn’t Catholicism.

I’m not against Buzz. But I’m also not against Renoise. I can be both. Too bad if you can’t?

But I do see the attraction in narcissism, it is a convenient point of view. So wake me up when Buzz is ported to OSX. Because every argument you are making also applies to my “superior” operating system. /sardonic

[choice]

whether it be rants, sarcasm, arguments, cynicism, pro vs con, feature & usage suggestions, 395 posts, does have some merit.

here is my inclusion to usage/feature

I honestly think:

adding a pattern editor to the instrument editor and allowing layers inside the instrument would be enough to do absolutely fcking crazy shit! and make everyone happy, then the full pattern editor would be as it is, with control over the instruments pattern editor.
and OSC! ha! (had to slip[that in)

[joe2000 (fnknrk)]

Quarreling aside, it looks like the Buzz “Sequence Arranger” has everything I would want from an arranger. So +1 for Renoise cloning this.

OTOH I’m not so enchanted by the idea of “pattern zoom”. I would prefer an arranger as a separate feature. Composing the details and arranging the song are two different parts of the workflow for me, so it makes sense to have a separate view.

As maes explained, the problem with the current situation is duplication, and the need for tedious copypasting when managing a large arrangement.

Have not read all of the replies so sorry if I’m retreading old ground.

[joe2000 (fnknrk)]

OK… reading back a bit further and (particularly Taktik and others’ posts) I can see that using “clips” a la buzz might not mesh well with using “patterns” as Renoise currently does.

Details of implementation aside, I think the important thing is a) avoiding duplication and b) having an easy-to-interpret overview of the larger song arrangement.

Another priority - for me at least - would be the ability to improvise song arrangements on the fly. I realise that Renoise != Ableton, but programs like LSDJ show that it’s definitely possible to do live arrangement within a tracker paradigm, and I would consider this a massive bonus.

[Haplo]

Not gonna beat a dead horse here but I’ve used Buzz quite alot until Jeskola lost the code.
One thing I do remember being very annoying with the Buzz arranger was if you wanted to insert X lines in one track in the arranger.
There is no problem to do it, but then I have those 8, 16, 32 patterns that needs to be aligned correctly in the other tracks, again not a big problem but I often got them skewed, and then I had to figure which patterns was wrong and correct those.
The difference between the patterns may have been as little as an extra high hat hit.

With that being said, no question about it that Renoise needs a better way to deal with arranging things.
Buzz’s way is one way but can be improved as well.

[vvoois (vV)]

@Haplo

Not gonna beat a dead horse here but I’ve used Buzz quite alot until Jeskola lost the code.
One thing I do remember being very annoying with the Buzz arranger was if you wanted to insert X lines in one track in the arranger.
There is no problem to do it, but then I have those 8, 16, 32 patterns that needs to be aligned correctly in the other tracks, again not a big problem but I often got them skewed, and then I had to figure which patterns was wrong and correct those.
The difference between the patterns may have been as little as an extra high hat hit.

With that being said, no question about it that Renoise needs a better way to deal with arranging things.
Buzz’s way is one way but can be improved as well.

If it comes to arrangements regarding track-snippets, nothing still beats the good old soundmonitor or music assembler approach… (Beware!: 80’s images come up and may have shocking results)
Main references to the tracksnippets:

Track snippets in detail:

But with these you will always have to watch the sizes of your tracks that they fit right. A little more effort but if you develop a good standard workflow for it, you would save yourself a lot of pain.

[splajn]

In Renoise?
You have to go to all thirty two patterns and manually paste in that data… that’s THIRTY TWO OPERATIONS.

( Its very likley that some of those patterns will be a non unique pattern, so If you change it it would change all the other patterns.)

Anyway. An arranger has been on the top of my whishlist for Renoise since I bought it at version 1.2…

And its still on top of my whish list.

It doesn’t even have to be complicated to start with…Functionality could be added.

Just being able to arrange tracks…On a separete view. Doesn’t even have to have zoom.

Then clips/merging them etc could be added later.

[Johann]

@splajn

It doesn’t even have to be complicated to start with…Functionality could be added.

Just being able to arrange tracks…On a separete view. Doesn’t even have to have zoom.

Then clips/merging them etc could be added later.

what he said…

[XG2003]

@fnknrk

OK… reading back a bit further and (particularly Taktik and others’ posts) I can see that using “clips” a la buzz might not mesh well with using “patterns” as Renoise currently does.

Buzz doesn’t use ‘clips’. The Sequence Editor displays individual pattern numbers (or names, if you have renamed them). It works perfectly.

Details of implementation aside, I think the important thing is a) avoiding duplication and having an easy-to-interpret overview of the larger song arrangement.

Another priority - for me at least - would be the ability to improvise song arrangements on the fly. I realise that Renoise != Ableton, but programs like LSDJ show that it’s definitely possible to do live arrangement within a tracker paradigm, and I would consider this a massive bonus.

You can do this in Buzz in the Sequence Editor, by just overtyping the pattern you want to play, moving the cursor and pressing F6 (to play from cursor), etc. I do it all the time when writing a song.

Re Johann’s comments - copying the Sequence Editor from Buzz should be a piece of cake in Renoise. All we are doing is taking each track within a pattern, and giving it a number, to represent it in a sequence editor. It can’t get any simpler than that. Oskari got it right the first time, nobody else has improved on his idea.

[flip]

@XG2003

You can do this in Buzz in the Sequence Editor, by just overtyping the pattern you want to play, moving the cursor and pressing F6 (to play from cursor), etc. I do it all the time when writing a song.

No, you got it wrong. LSDJ has a real live mode.
You can arrange patterns like this:

  
 >01 -- -- --  
 -- 02 -- >03  
 -- -- >04 --  
 -- >05 -- 06  
  
.....  
  

The patterns with the > are currently playing in each channel. When you move the cursor to another pattern and press play, the cursor flashes and waits until the last pattern is finished playing and starts at the new pattern.
It is a really awesome for a live performance. I played several shows with it, it is a lot of fun and works really great. I hope renoise gets a similar feature in the future, that would be soo awesome!!

BTW, I also did some live shows with Buzz, we had to use “Live Jump Hack” with lots of crazy QWERTY-keyboard assignments. Yeah it was fun, but LSDJ Live mode is a totally different world. So much possibilities

[droog]

this is what i have thought of in regards to the pattern arranger.

keep everything the same and have 2 layers of renoise and just change instrument slots to pattern pool. you could then use the selection tool to RIGHT CLICK/CREATE PATTERN on the specified number of beats 16/32/64 etc.

you could also select pattern options for

VIEW/piano roll OR tracker
layer amount
reverse pattern
randomize pattern
copy automation settings from pattern
copy instrument slots from pattern
reverse automation settings in pattern
bounce pattern to audio clip

people may have already suggested this stuff if so kudos cant wait to see what the devs come up with anyway

[Last_amp_Least]

@delphi

+1

Yes, I think is all about reusable data too. The FL pattern arranger is IMHO a very quicker work to compose songs and it’s way more flexible. IE: I can have the same “hats” pattern that I use with and without drums.

BTW: arranger give also a visual feedback of the song and for me is not bad at all…

I love how its only people with under 50 posts who want this… I WANT IT!!

This is what happens when you start making reeeaaaaally good software! The n00bs come and want to change it all… But i reckon this is the change that i want the most!

If this happens then automation will be easy to do, you will have the automation lines follow the tracks in the block view, bit like in reaper or ableton…

not a fan of the multiple track automation in reason and in fl studio.

[Kameleontti]

@Last & Least

I love how its only people with under 50 posts who want this… I WANT IT!!

This is what happens when you start making reeeaaaaally good software! The n00bs come and want to change it all… But i reckon this is the change that i want the most!

It’s not that, but as you can see it is sixth year since this topic has been started by former developer, so its even longer since the actual discussion started.

[vvoois (vV)]

@Kameleontti

It’s not that, but as you can see it is sixth year since this topic has been started by former developer, so its even longer since the actual discussion started.

That also means that adding this stuff requires huge changes in the core functionality of the engine and this takes time and wasted hours, because concepts first have to be tried and then to finally find out it doesn’t work, which is a disappointment for the developer as well.
And yes, the programmer who started the discussion is no longer involved.
But at this moment, lots of stuff is being done in the background and i can tell you that when Christmas comes, you will show your smile again… Yet to void expectations:no don’t expect a full blown arranger

[maes]

:D/

xmasz present!1

[Last_amp_Least]

@vV

That also means that adding this stuff requires huge changes in the core functionality of the engine and this takes time and wasted hours, because concepts first have to be tried and then to finally find out it doesn’t work, which is a disappointment for the developer as well.
And yes, the programmer who started the discussion is no longer involved.
But at this moment, lots of stuff is being done in the background and i can tell you that when Christmas comes, you will show your smile again… Yet to void expectations:no don’t expect a full blown arranger

i’m excited!

[woutervanasseldonk (Skornsteen)]

Not a fan of this idea, in renoise it’s very easy to just ctrl-c ctrl v stuff, I’m used to composing the way it is done in renoise and find it very clarifying to see all the tracks in a pattern being next to each other.