…lol ,looking forward to the Bikkjefløyte 12" release party at Lille Lajlas.
Keep looking 
If this does happen, I do hope there’ll also be a 1.2, hardware style, pattern sequencer in there…
If I wanted to arrange things on a time ruler I’d render everything into SX or Pro Tools… I find those arrangers an absolute pain in the arse - In fact, they’re the main reason I got back into tracker software - Bloody “Cubase syndrome”… The only way 'round it is to work stoned all the time - Otherwise you start sequencing with your eyes, and not your ears.
If Renoise starts turning into bloody Ableton or Cubase, then I’m going back to MED Studio.
Gargh! What’s all this `H0r120nt4l’ business? One of the main reasons I like Renoise over others is the vertical pattern sequencer. True, there can be some improvements- I like the idea of a ‘macro’ sequencer someone mentioned. I’m wondering if that could be used well in a live situation, i.e. have a screen full of recognisable patterns, and click/select the one you want to use (1) currently or (2) at the start of the next pattern/phrase like a drumming machine (both options would make it much more flexible).
And using Renoise live… what a nice thought. Situation running through my mind goes something like this:
Noob: Hey, whatchya using?
Tracker dude: Renoise. Here, check it out.
Noob: Arrgh! Too much for my puny brain! How do you get music out of that thing?!
Tracker dude: Go back to preschool and play with Live, noob.
This might seem obvious, but you get more information across the width of the screen. Especially those fortunate enough to have widescreens. Less you have to do about moving the view and stuff, the better probably. When I use the pattern editor, I look on it as being sometimes more, sometimes less, and sometimes just as horizontal as it is vertical. Depending on what I’m concerned with, I might not be concerned with the vertical aspect at all. Say if it’s just dynamics for that one row, or finding the quality of a chord or something. A sample editor isn’t horizontal, though I guess you could say it’s primarily horizontal. To loop, you have to find the better point for that along both axes. Starting with X and getting closer to that one point you want to locate with Y. I’m just waiting for the 9-dimensional VR version of Renoise.
Just a couple of thoughts on an arranger in general, which truly imho:
As far as i can understand the whole “arranger” idea is a pseudo-progress for the music making, especially for trackers. It smells like “editable loops”; no, i’m not agianst loops in general, sometimes it fit into the music, or whole the track comes out of a loop. I.e. I want to say that “make the music faster” isn’t a progress in my view. Music making software should be comfortable and bug-less, no more no less. And the future of the music making software is in the providing features that would let a musician make his music unique, flexible, and even alive. “Arranger” is a very primitive feature, which probably would be useful for club genre of the music, but it won’t add any art to the music.
prologue:
and I don’t think that Tracker technology is a such empty bowl that needs filling with a bunch of taken_from_toilet_paper_label ideas…
Maybe it’s a step, but very small and i doubt you’ll get a comfort from the chaos of arranger’s elements. Pattern system is dated, i agree, but I believe there is more appropriate system than arranger, maybe such system could be closer to programming ever, where you could macro commands, where you could get and use any value and property of instrument, where an instrument could be a separate sequenced/programmed organism which could dynamically react to events. Of course it’s just a couple of seconds of my mad imagination, but hell, i don’t think you’ll get a really high score with the arranger. You can’t put an arranger to a tracker and dance jig.
ok, if you like speed, i wish you to find music conveyor, but then don’t put “fast” and “art” together, they ain’t compatible.
but it ain’t. it’s closer to a meccano.
ha… it’s easy to say “don’t use it”. i’m not diehard fan of standart pattern sequencer, i’m not old farter, i got a lot of ideas, i had a chance to share them and I did. Everything else is up to you.
I think the idea of the arranger in Renoise is really great. I don’t agree with Zed here. The pattern system really pisses me off sometimes.
Don’t get me wrong, very basically arranger is possibly great, but as basis, as a start for building something deeply smart. But the fact of having 2 different edit modes shows that none of them is perfectly realized, it’s just like you’re trying to catch a couple of hares at once. Of course I’d like to have Renoise with arranger, sample accurate automation, without command limitations, but it’s a dream, we have to find most effective and most natural way of evolution to avoid creating a mutant with one big leg, one big hand and stinky ass…
Zed might have a point with the mutant analogy. It’s interesting to have more than one interface, but will they all be developed equally? I have a feeling that one would wither and die in favour of the other, and that would most likely be the easiest to use triumphing over the more complex.
I like the idea of having tracks separate from the patterns. It is close to the way I write music myself, because I rarely use a pattern twice. These aren’t the days of limited disk space and so on, and even if that was a concern, it would be more efficient to have externally linked instruments (some of my sample based instruments are huge, like strings).
I’m getting side-tracked here. Where was I… ah, separatable tracks. Yes, nice idea, but I think personally it could be pulled off in a pattern editor-like interface. Something like the idea of the automation curves- it’s easy enough to write a new one, and that is the default, but one can aslo use a track that was written in a previous pattern. This might save a bit of the old copy/paste when you only want to build up one or two tracks amongst 10 say. This may not be the Venetian Snares way if you want everything changing all the time, but not every type of music is that chaotic. I do ambient a lot, for instance.
Structurally, what I suggested above implies that a pattern is no longer note sequencing information, but rather track sequencing info where the tracks are concerned with note sequencing. I hope that makes sense. It’s like an extra layer of removal for structuring a song, although it could be implemented in such a way as to keep the ‘old’ style of tracking, and just adding this cool new feature of interchangeable tracks. Of course, the song file structure may have to be changed, but we’re only being hypothetical here and it is 5am and I’m just brain-dumping after a long day.
The beauty of the discussed arranger is that it is 100% compatible with todays pattern sequencer and will not force you in any way to change your way of tracking. The point of an arranger is to arrange in a macro (bigger) scale, or zoom in to some more detailed work(who knows… even in-arranger-note-editing pianorollstyle?).
You can choose how big your clips are gonna be. If you track very complex and end up with 10 000 small clips, then there is no use for an arranger. Just use the pattern editor directly as today. You probably dont use copy/paste a lot anyway. However. If you are an organized person that make longer clips, or especially if you are a good musician and do alot of recordings (midi and wave), then you will instantly see the ease of use with drop/drag move/split/merge clips etc. Also if you do a lot of ‘repeated genres’, this will be heaven.
An arranger can also give you better graphic overview like automation. Copy/paste/drag/drop automation clips from one track to another etc.
And finally if clips will be stored in a clip list you can very easily to a lot of experiments.
You could clean your arranger(song) and start drag/drop your clips from the beginning. Even load/save clips etc etc.
Many times you accidentally copy/paste something, transport a block, changing pattern etc… and hey… something cool happend… and new ideas are born 
Well… we are all different. But I know lots of ppl will appreciate a good arranger.
-pysj
Look, almost all suggested ways of a new arranger is comatible with the current way, just add the new arranger and keep the old, this way there can be 4 ways of arranging stuff if you want!
Hum… did I say anything wrong? 
It seems good to me. If the arranger will be based around moving around clips of track pattern data then it’s fortunate side effect will solve a problem I’ve been having with every sequencer I’ve ever used. All I’ve ever wanted was to store a track’s sequence of notes for later reuse in other tracks and/or patterns. I know it’s possible now with copy/paste, but if I wanted to change a certain groove or melody then I would have to change every instance of it throughout the whole song.
A little menu at the top of each track showing a list of possible stored sequences of notes, as well as a “new” option a the top, would be ideal. Would that fit well into the idea of the arranger’s structure?
I hope I’m right in interpreting this. 
No, I think I qoted the wrong guy. Sorry bout that…
Hey all
Well, it’s way too late for me to be thinking about this stuff, but i will chime in with some more stuff later… but, i’m sure most people here realize that all of the ‘big’ sequencers have a pattern system. They are all called different things though, Logic calls them ‘folders’ (you can make aliases of the folders), Cubase calls them ‘chunks’ i think (from which you can make ‘ghosts’) and studio vision in the old days had ‘segments’ which were awesome.
The model for this is out there, all renoise would have to do is make it so that when you double click on a ‘clip’ that it takes you to the pattern (tracker) editor for that clip.
What would be awesome about this (as i’m sure people have already noted) is that you could just track some individual beats, and then individual bass lines and mix and match them with ease. This is the main draw (to me) of a true ‘arrange’/ tracker hybrid. Honeslty something I have dreamed about for a long time.
Another great use is if you have a 1 bar beat but a 16 bar evolving pad over it you can see this visually in the arrange. Then you can replace beat segments as you go to add variety.
To me, this implementation of an arrange with the ability to make new instances (copies) of clips AS WELL AS making references (aliases) would put renoise over the top for me and I don’t think i’d ever need another sequencer again.
regardless, I am certainly going to buy renoise the first chance I get. Shit, even if I didn’t use it, the developers deserve the money just for creating such a work of art.
Oh, and one other thing I’d like to ask. Please don’t lose the ‘one screen’ nature of the interface. This is what I always liked about MED and disliked about Octamed Soundstudio. I prefer a nicely arranged FULL SCREEN layout to scattered windows around.
This design forces everything to be well thought out and efficient. ANd most importantly, less mouse driven.
Thanks!
Please consider the following suggestion for the Arranger:
The one (and possibly only) thing I find encumbering about Renoise is the difficulty to use automation envelopes over several patterns. So if I want to do a 16 pattern tweak, i have to make 16 different automatons, and if I clone, delete, new, or forget about one of these patterns it becomes harder for me to find out where the automation loses it’s flow.
The arranger, using the advantage of the horizontal display could lay out the envelopes so that it would be easier to make (and correct) long sequences.
Thank you.
Oh, and one other thing I’d like to ask. Please don’t lose the ‘one screen’ nature of the interface. This is what I always liked about MED and disliked about Octamed Soundstudio. I prefer a nicely arranged FULL SCREEN layout to scattered windows around.
YES. I second this.
Whatever you do, please don’t make a copy of FL Studio style “playlist”. I hate that thing, and I love pattern sequencer in Renoise 1.5! Yes it is more limited because patterns are monolithic and you can’t see how long each of them is, but I like it this way! It forces me to memorize my song, and still give me good enough representation of it’s structure, so I know where I am and what to change, copy or whatever. Believe me, having a bunch of smaller patterns scattered all around the arranger/playlist, combining the whole, does NOT make things easier to read, neither easier to manage - I’m talking from experience with FL Studio and various similiar programs. For true flexibility there’s nothing like true linear sequencer like the one in Reason, everything in between is just a big compromise.
So even if you make some sort of advanced arranger, please, please, don’t lose the one we have now, that is always visible right next to pattern view and easy + fast to use! Just look how limited e.g. Akai MPC2000 sampler/drum machines is, and for some reason it is still the most used instrument in hiphop production… yes it’s limited, but it’s also easy and quick to use, and creative! My opinion is - don’t copy other sequencers and try to implement every feature everybody else has. Improve what you already have and add only those new features that will make Renoise better tracker with greater workflow, not more complicated and alike to FL Studio and similiar products.
Btw., just one thing I like about FL Studio playlist are audio tracks, which are totally independent from patterns and have their own space and even some limited edit functions (cut, copy, paste, split, i think even volume and pan automation). Now, if you could put something like that next to the tracker sequencer, vertically of course, mmmmm 
But this has nothing to do with the arranger that is the theme of this topic, and I’m using energyXT VST for audio tracks anyway, so don’t sweat it 
i know what a bikkjefløyte is! 
bikkjefløyte = dog whistle. 