XG2003,
I haven’t used Buzz (no OSX) but the clips idea is great. However, there is another pinned thread in this very forum for that. If you must, troll there, but no one will like it.
XG post some of your music, I want to hear what the Buzz arranger is capable off, curious!
On the note of Buzz:
Nice to see Oskari is picking up Buzz again and constantly updating, but I tried to install the latest version yesterday and it can’t event start up, am getting an error! It is dependent on some Microsoft library net blah, an additional 40 mb dl for a quick try-out…no thank you. Maybe when it is out of beta and stable.
I have made a suggestion…
Did I say I wanted a buzz clone?
Seriously, this is ridiculous- all I have done is explained why I think the Buzz Sequence Editor is the best way to write songs with a tracker. Nobody here has been able to explain why the Renoise is better (because quite obviously it isn’t, it’s a right pain in the butt).
It would be one of the easiest things in the world for the Renoise team to modify the Pattern Matrix so that it ALSO offers the same functionality as the Buzz Sequence Editor. Then I would give up using Buzz and use Renoise, as would plenty of other Buzz users, I imagine.
Yes, that must be it.
No rational discussion of the simple facts of the user interface are allowed, I see.
I’m happy with Buzz, but obviously Renoise does a LOT more. Your pathetic “you are looking for a way out, and Renoise is somehow to blame” is just beyond belief. Good grief, as Charlie Brown would say.
Go back a few pages in this thread and read where I explained exactly WHY the Buzz Sequence Editor method is the best method, and my chief detractor there couldn’t even explain why he preferred the Renoise method…
I’ve explained simply and logically my reasoning, and it would be a piece of cake for the Renoise team to finally implement a decent Sequence Editor in Renoise - they are 90% of the way there already, but they decided to make up a ‘new’ way of doing things that isn’t very good - i.e. they didn’t copy the Buzz Sequence Editor.
Why would I be asking for this feature to be implemented in Renoise if I somehow disliked Renoise in any way? I WANT to use Renoise, because it’s way ahead of Buzz in every regard EXCEPT for the most important one of all - the way it helps me to organise my patterns.
Why are there so many people who use music software who are incapable of objectively and rationally looking at the shortcomings of the software they use?
Sorry, what do you mean by “troll”? Do you mean - “Ask questions which I don’t want people to be able to talk about”? I’m missing something here. Renoise isn’t finished yet, is it? I take it the developers will continue to improve it? And presumably want to implement things which their users actually want? So we aren’t allowed to discuss what it hasn’t got already, precisely because it hasn’t got those functions, and therefore to ask about them or discuss them is ‘bad’? Are you serious? Once again, good grief. It’s only a piece of software. I would LOVE to use Renoise, but the lack of a proper sequence editor prevents me. So I shouldn’t ask for one? I shouldn’t even discuss it, because YOU have a problem with that? Blimey.
I’ve read the clips thread, the idea is fantastic, but to implement what Buzz has in its Sequence Editor doesn’t require anything like that amount of work. Renoise is almost there right now, it just needs a few more tiny adjustments and then it will have a Pattern Matrix that can be used just like Buzz’s Sequence Editor.
And I repeat:
Please correct me if I’m wrong - if it’s possible to do this in Renoise, then I’ll update my licence right now and give up on Buzz immediately.
Nobody is suggesting that YOU use Buzz… Nobody said that Renoise wasn’t any good. The Buzz Sequence Editor can only produce the same end results as Renoise’s pattern arranger can, the difference being that it’s a hell of a lot easier getting there the Buzz way.
I want to use Renoise rather than Buzz, for precisely the reasons you mention, but I can’t because it still doesn’t have a proper sequence editor. The Buzz way is the ONLY way to do it. Unless you know of a better way. No Renoise user here can even explain how doing the things I outlined a few pages back in this thread, in Renoise, could ever be as fast as in Buzz.
yeah team, make a buzz sequence editor, and people will shut up. my music would benefit, and so would everyone else’s.
- I use ReWire occasionally
- The key-tracker device rocks
- The delay column is great for ninja-tracking
- multi-out VST support is great for Reaktor 5
just don’t let renoise become ableton.
XG2003, I’ve reread your posts and I don’t see it.
I see a semi-hostile attitude, a high word-count that talks more about your personal frustrations/opinions than any feature, and it ends up reading something along the lines of “Do it like buzz. It’s superior. Morons”.
Well, for those of use who don’t use this software, (OSX, Linux, it doesn’t start because it’s unstable, whatever the reason) that’s not a suggestion at all. I have no idea what you are talking about.
If you could instead describe what you want minus the drama, then that’s a feature suggestion.
So, you want to be able to number the blocks in the pattern matrix? Is that your suggestion?
Really, if you could just start a new thread with a specification and some screenshots that make sense for Renoise users who don’t use Buzz, and what your ideas would look like integrated into Renoise as opposed to posting screenshots of other apps, you’ll go a lot further in getting support for your idea.
I get the impression this is about a non-linear pattern sequencer.
Seems complicated, especially on the back end, but the general idea sounds interesting.
In the future when Taktik realizes a way to let scripting into controlling the player, this would surely be do-able as a tool or script.
or well non-linear pattern block sequencer.
Actually think about that. To give Renoise clip based type arranging within patterns would in no way be an easy task to do in an economical manner. Most sensible way would maybe mean a rewrite of the .xrns song structure. This would then break every tool that has been written and every single new script that has been developed for the new 2.6 version. Alternatively you could use some kind of look up table that links echoed tracks within different patterns, so each time you edit one Renoise then has to check through this list and change the data in the pattern for all the linked tracks automatically (possibly giving option to Make Unique.) Neither of which are very elegant. For now you will just have to be happy in the knowledge that the Devs are considering their options for a full blown sequencer of some point and just celebrate the other awesome powers that have been added to the program all ready. Also; although the Matrix may be a bit clunky it really is more powerful than you seen to be giving it credit for.
Could be English is not his native language, like many of us here and all subtlety and/or nuance is lost in the translation?
Do you have insight under Renoises hood? How can you make such a claim?
Seriously, anyone that is basing a Renoise registration on something Renoise doesn’t have currently, or doesn’t ‘seem’ to have currently.
Is missing out,
and depraving them selves.
We can’t cater to wishy washys.
It is so much, we can do right now with 2.6 b+, it’s mind boggling.
09XX, sample pointer offset, one of my most favorite things in tracking:
After reading the current topic of this thread the other night,
I just had the idea to start finding a way to do Pattern Offsets.
We can make songs that use internal loopback scripts to make music.
My self does not have the base skills or aptitude yet, to fully see what we can do but,
I can see some of what we can do now, and even though I have no idea how to actually do it yet,
it’s so fucking deep and vivid.
It’s just ONE part of Buzz that I am talking about. It IS ‘superior’, if you want to use that word, i.e. it’s the best way to do it.
Go back a few pages in this thread, I included screenshots and clearly outlined exactly what I am talking about, I couldn’t have made it any clearer.
If you could just go back and read the thread a few pages back, you’ll see the screenshots of Buzz which I posted up, and the numerous posts I made where I went to great lengths to explain exactly what I am suggesting. I WANT to use Renoise, but I can’t stand the lack of a proper Sequence Editor. I was one of the first people to buy a licence of Renoise, I got the t-shirt, I am not anti-Renoise in any way.
You don’t understand what I am suggesting, please go back a few pages in this very thread and look for the screenshots of Buzz I have posted, with the explanation of what I am talking about.
I don’t think the Matrix is not powerful, just that the few basic aspects of its user interface that are missing are the most important.
What I am suggesting is not difficult at all to implement.
At the moment, Renoise uses tracks within a pattern. Say you have four tracks in your song, so four tracks in each pattern. At the moment, you have almost the functionality of the Buzz sequence editor, in that you can see individual tracks within a pattern in the Matrix, and move them around. What you don’t have is the option (and I emphasise OPTION, so that those who like the current images of the tracks can keep them if they like) to use a word or number to describe the sequence (or ‘track within a pattern’) in each block, and the ability to use the keyboard (numbers from 1 to 0, and letters from a to z if you have more than 10 sequences) to enter them in the Matrix. And that is IT. That is all Renoise needs to have the same functionality as the Buzz Sequence Editor, as well as far MORE power than Buzz.
A pattern contains data for several tracks. That data is stored somewhere as separate tracks - obviously - otherwise Renoise would be unusable. So somewhere there is data which says “Pattern 1 Track 1”, and it holds that track’s data. The patterns are presumably not ‘set in stone’, otherwise the Matrix wouldn’t work. Therefore, as I said, it should be easy to implement the Buzz Sequence Editor in Renoise.
When you say a ‘full blown sequencer’, what do you mean? I haven’t read about this yet, I wonder what it could be.
I think that those who are against my suggestion just don’t understand what I am asking for - it is only a minor adjustment to what already exists in the Matrix. The ‘Buzz way’ is simply the best way to do it - unless you enjoy cutting and pasting entire tracks from patterns, just to change where a hi-hat appears throughout the song. The ‘Buzz way’ just saves so much time, and makes writing a song so much easier.
And best of all, nobody HAS to use it, just as nobody has to use the Matrix (I believe), which is how software should be written - give us new functions, but don’t force us to use them if we don’t want to. Renoise is light years ahead of Buzz in just about everything apart from this one, tiny part - but it’s the most important part for me, and I simply can’t use Renoise without it - and many people feel the same. (And doubtless many people who don’t yet understand how the Buzz Sequence Editor works, and currently use Renoise, would have a Eureka moment the first time they used it.)
To sum up - please read my posts on page 16 of this thread, they explain exactly what I am talking about. Renoise is almost there - almost.
Bloody pattern matrix! It’s completely derailed a perfectly good thread about the arranger!
Man, just take a look here - the discussion about what you’re after is had for couple of years already, and I hope one day it’s going to happen.
Me too! It would make Renoise complete!
Wow, I’m hoping this flame war is over. I’ve had enough.
Ability to give Blocks within the Matrix a title could be nice. You do know you can give each one an individual colour if you want yeah? It doesn’t have to be the same colour for the whole track. I know what you’re suggesting it more than that and I come to it below.
I thought, from your earlier posts, that you want to be able to edit multiple tracks within patterns at once. Say (for basic example) you have the same hi hat pattern for every pattern in your song. Now obviously many other tracks are going to change throughout the song. I got it as you would like to be able to flag these as being copies/paired/twined/whatever-term so you edit one and all are edited. As Renoise stores Tracks with the Pattern, not separately with a Track Index. Hope that makes sense. To do this would either mean a rewrite of the Song structure or working with massive lookup tables. Possible but either a lot of work or messy to implement.
Well the above would be a big step towards what I mean. Plus the ability to have tracks of different lengths, making it easy to use different measures within the same song (3/4 bassline on a 4/4 drums for eg.)
Would speed it up if you could copy one, paste into many. This would break the copying many, especially the non-continuous selection (currently only possible with mouse) but may be something that you could get to at least usable with your personal workflow using the scripting in 2.6.
Minor edits on re-reading, hope it makes sense.
Thanks for explaining that, Bantai.
Of course it would still be Renoise if it got this additional functionality. It is an option, not compulsory. Those who want to use the current way of arranging patterns would just ignore the Matrix.
Thanks for your input, Kazakore, just one bit:
No need for either.
For example - I can solo any track within a pattern, and it plays on its own (obviously).
I can play pattern 1, solo track 1, and then play pattern 5, solo track 2, by manually selecting the track I want to solo.
If I can do it, Renoise can it a million times more easily.
So the individual track data exists within a pattern. Using the current pattern structure, I am sure that Renoise can be made to play, for example:
Pattern 1 Track 1 == Pattern 5 Track 2 == Pattern 6 Track 3 == Pattern 2 Track 4
all at the same time. And I’m also sure this can be represented within the current pattern display - instead of displaying
Pattern 1 Track 1 == Pattern 1 Track 2 == Pattern 1 Track 3 == Pattern 1 Track 4
Renoise would just look at the Matrix, and find that you have set the Matrix to play
Pattern 1 Track 1 == Pattern 5 Track 2 == Pattern 6 Track 3 == Pattern 2 Track 4
at the same time, and would just ‘cut and paste’ in the background, those tracks, into the ‘current’ pattern.
In other words, the Matrix can be used to cut and paste, (or copy and paste) whatever tracks you want, into the ‘current’ pattern.
(I say ‘current’ because it doesn’t have to really be the current pattern - you can keep the conventional way of storing patterns and just use the Matrix to pull out the tracks that you want, and put them into a ‘temporary’ pattern, (or rather, set of patterns which make a song) so that you can see them side by side. In actuality, they can be stored in exactly the same way as they are now, all that will change is that another level of the program will work on top of it, and pull out the tracks you want.)
It’s as simple as that.
I’ve been having plenty of trouble getting Buzz to work properly on my PC of late, I would LOVE to change over to Renoise, I would do it tomorrow if this functionality was implemented.
I’m going to play with the latest demo some more and see exactly what the Matrix can do.
Oh, and the colours are pretty much useless, as are the pattern icons (or whatever you call them) in the Matrix - nobody is going to remember that the drum fill for the chorus of their song was a light blue, as opposed to a dark blue, pink, green, whatever. It’s just so the wrong way to represent it. Simple numbers, which you can edit to say anything you want, is the way to do it, just like Buzz does.