In response to clip length and the need for long automation clips to stick to a parent pattern: Why not follow the traditional route and have 1) Pattern automation (the current implementation) and 2) Song automation, editable in the arrange view?
I hope you guys come to your senses and stop this madness…
You don’t listen to music with your eyes, you shouldn’t make it with them…
You know Skale’s starting to look pretty damn appealing again now.
I think a nice big mixer is one thing we could pinch from DAW multitrackers - Imagine it popping up on the bottom half of the screen as a menu option - Full row of sliders, aux sends, pans, etc… now that would be useful…
But pattern sequencing is the magic of trackers - Makes you listen… Just having a graphical arrange page as an option would alienate many serious users… The only people you’ll attract will be the 30-day fad Floops, Reason, SX crowd…
^^^ people who don’t even bother to register… Not digging that arranger at all…
But how about something like this:
They’ve got visualization plug-ins too - Something I’ve been dreaming of for ages in Renoise… I’d love to get rid of that erratic line graph thing we have at the moment…
i agree. imho a real flexible pattern-loop command;
programmable breaks inside the pattern (like IT)
would be more useful (actual: not this fbxx cmd.) → look at http://tutorials.renoise.com/?n=Renoise.EffectCommands
I don’t understand the logic behind what you’re saying here. How can having more options and providing more flexiblity for the way you make music possibly be a bad thing?
I’m not a fan of piano roll style composing myself, I absolutely love trackers to death and have used them exclusively since I first tried SoundTracker as a child. However, there have been more than a few occasions when a clip-based arrangement view in a tracker would have been incredibly useful to me. Simply being able to overview the entire song and move things around, quickly testing out new ideas without having to deal with the cumbersome copy/change pattern/paste/change pattern/copy/change pattern/paste routine would be very helpful to the creative flow sometimes.
How would any of this alienate people? I have countless friends who use Cubase and similar programs who simply can’t get comfortable with trackers. That’s no fault of theirs, they’re just using what they know, but I would love to collaborate with them more often on songs. Collaborations are rare simply due to the problems involved when working across multiple sequencers. Having an arranger view and possibly a piano roll would only serve to make it easier for my friends to work with me in Renoise, inevitably getting them hooked on Renoise and leaving their old methods behind.
Is there seriously anybody here who would abandon Renoise purely because it offered both a traditional tracker interface AND a piano roll / clip arrangement interface?
And then, after saying “You don’t listen to music with your eyes, you shouldn’t make it with them…” you mention visualisation plugins? You’re arguing against some potentially immensely useful features and calling people mad, but you’re arguing for pretty graphics plugins to go with the sound?
I’m not saying graphic plugins are a bad idea either, I’m just a bit confused about what you’re saying. If we’re talking about prioritising what features should or shouldn’t be added to Renoise, I would imagine that graphic plugins would be pretty close to the bottom of the list.
</2cents>
On a slightly different tip, I’m with you on the mixer view. I don’t personally find it essential to have one, but I would certainly make use of it if there was one. Anything that can streamline the creation process is a good thing in my opinion.
.
This is a bit like the Castlevania-on-the-DS-couldnt-have-been-done-on-the-PSP argument, which goes somewhat along the lines that brilliant 2d graphics CAN be replicated on a 3d platform, but chances are the more limiting platform inspires greater 2d artistry than the platform that can go to town on 3d models.
The argument is that the DS imposes limits on the developers that forces them to get creative and take alternate routes rather than go for the cheap right-away solution.
This is also the argument against CDs and downloadable music over cassette tapes: Tapes enforce an order and a sequence by making listening out of sequence awkward for the user, and thus gives the artist more power when it comes to presenting their work, putting each song on an album into a greater whole, rather than just letting their users squander that art by hitting random and repeat on their CD deck or winamp or whatever.
The album as an artform is dead today. This is an example of user convenience being directly detrimental to the product.
Quick thoughts off the top of my head. Havent thought it through so it’s probably not brilliant, but what the hell:
-
This, the arranger, to me, sounds 100% superfluous. Much like having four different designed screwdrivers with the same head type and size. At a point i thought i might like it, but the more i think about it the more it sounds like i’d be better off just using Cubase (which is similar and better realized). And i don’t want to use Cubase, i use trackers with their boxy crosseyed linearity for a reason, and it’s not because i like inconvenience, it’s because they force me to consider the moment rather than where i put the chorus, where i put the intro and where i put the end, aka pop production.
-
Renoise is at its best as a puristic production tool, doing what it does best, which is sequence. It is not, by any means, a mastering tool. The final overview and edit is best done in a dedicated package, and dreaming of an all-in-one reason-style solution is going to be detrimental to the quality of the stuff that matters, being more sequencing tools. Some might argue that the arranger is a sequencing tool, i disagree. I argue it’s a tool for seeing the entirety of the track and plotting its flow, and i’m sure Martinal agrees on this.
From a purely aesthetic point of view, it’s fine.
From a philosophic point of view, it promotes nonlinear ascending production, which brings down the artistry and personality of the piece.
Renoise, with all the inconvenience of its exploratory production process, promotes artistry. This is something to consider.
For what it is worth here is my short opinion. I hate the way you edit notes in cubase and logic. But I love they way you can arrange the song. I love the way I can edit into detail the notes within Renoise but the arranger should also be made graphical visual. It’s sculpting the song in a different way. I see the song in my head and need a more global reference on the screen more visually then just some numbers that represents a full pattern. I need to see a sperate track kicking in visually bass, drums or vocals etc… I sincerely hope that this will be already in the upcoming 1.6…
That’s also my point of view Rick,
but before we go to 1.6 fist a bugfix version 1.5.2
that will come shortly I think, because tiktak stated with new bugs I’ve found ‘‘Fixed, but not for 1.5.2’’
but the bugs I saw around in that topic aren’t a big deal.
so Renoise is becoming a pretty solid piece of software.
I hope next month we will see new info here:
http://tutorials.renoise.com/
hey, 200 posts, jee
This theme of “options vs creative restrictions” comes up here every now and then. I have to say I’m siding on the restrictions side, slightly, because I like how it forces you to be creative. I used to be so inventive with my sound before VST came along… now I’m much lazier.
But, I think the new options should go into Renoise development. That way, us lunatics can take the old hard way of linear sequencing, and everyone else can enjoy the fluidity of an arranger.
On the other side of the coin I don’t think the arranger is a mission critical thing that will make or break Renoise’s future. I feel there’s little more to proove because it’s so good already! Everything else is a bonus from now on.
As for the debate about “is the album dead?” I would say it’s just gone underground again. Just like vinyl.
Well dude, final scratch and serato has kind of murdered vinyl in the underground as well… 
The more options the merrier (sort of). And I say this on Christmas Eve, so it MUST be true! 
Being more creative under confinement and wanting back to the day is a bit weird (not to say downright FISHY) sounding to me.
If you’re not working effectively, or feel you’re not ‘tweaking it to the max’ and being creative, then why not look to have a more clean, coherent process of working?
By that I mean, to look more into the host application/Renoise and plugins you use, and how they relate to one another.
Finding out what has most priority and what has least priority, instead of jumping from the big picture to the details and back at first.
If you want to impose some type of restraint, then what’s the problem with imposing them mentally. Don’t touch the options. They’re optional.
Unless you have a serious problem with self-discipline (I have, but not on this so much), this should go really well.
If you get bewildered because you have a ton of plugins and you don’t really know any of them all that well, or how they interface with the host, then learn it.
Not everything at once, but one after the other.
This is not to say that having loads and loads of USELESS options cluttered around the app is good, but if there is an option that just a marginal percentage of the users find usable, then implement it, but not so that it gets in the way of those who don’t.
If you can’t do that, then that’s a serious problem to have, because this is where we’re going as a whole.
Into the jungle of options!
screams at the top of his lungs
Merry xmas!
I’ve read this thread quite a few times now, and I think the proposed pattern/clip arranger is too complex and doesn’t seem like it would integrate well with Renoise. I’ve come up with a similar idea that I think is simpler and would integrate well, but I’m just wondering if it’s worth suggesting it. Have the devs decided on a design for the arranger yet?
Is this arranger going to be manditory, or will we still be able to play through the patterns in sequential order? If we can still do things the old way, I see no problem introducing this new feature. If you feel the need to use the old method than do so… and if you feel you can’t help but use the new feature, then obviously your creativity is already being stifled by your self discipline issues
davar, take the plunge and present your idea. 
I’m sure they’ll consider it, and if it does make sense, you could be saving them some work.
Let’s hear it then Davar?
there’s also an a in arranger , can’t wait for Renoise to have this option…
please devs, look at how fruityloops has implemented their ‘sequences’ idea into their ‘playlist editor’.
You could make a few patterns with just the melody, another pattern with only a beat, and mix these patterns in the aranger (fruityloops: playlisteditor)
I guess this prolly been mentioned here before, but I didn’t bother reading through the complete thread
i ve asked myself, why would every “new” tracker still working in that old behaviour,
since the real 3rd generation tracker [buzz] showed us a nice multipattern arranger back in Dec. 1997.
Fl studio does it (a bit) easier. its more a kind of pattern- layering.
floops: layering of pattern
buzz: pattern per generator or effect
renoise: screen by pysj (maybe a futuristic solution)
(martinal’s pic isnt there anymore)
i know its damn- fu*king hard to implement into the actual structure due to vst- handling, but that would make renoise a real 3rd gen.- tracker.
keep on that good work.
Synapse release Orion Platinum 7.0 with good sequencer!!!
http://www.synapse-audio.com/zoompic.php?name=seq
When Renoise have it?
Here’s my arranger idea.
I think the automation data could be stored in the pattern itself.I was posting some ideas in “A question of speed” Thread. and i think they go hand in hand. I think renoise is good as it is, and there shouldnt be too much messing around with the “tracking-feel” of it. I hope it doesnt become another program. It should still feel like tracker.
Imagine an arranger like Cubase / Reason or whatever. Double click on a block and you open a pattern.
In conjuction with the line and resolution issue, people were posting about in the “A question of speed” Thread. I wanted to sum up my idea here.
Since people wanted to increase the resolution of a line wich i think is good it’s not necessary to change the whole feel of Renoise. Instead of adding a zoom and “inbetweens” in a ‘line’ just add more lines as usual and play the track at a different speed. 6, 3, 1 or whatever.
The “speed” indicator could still be within the program but bound specifically a pattern rather than a global value if an arranger is used.
I would be more comfortable making smaller patterns with less tracks, ONLY for 1 or a couple of instruments. Then add this Pattern to an arranger. This means you will be allowed to play many patterns simultaneously. They are smaller and hold less information … they can be seen as group of tracks… Some of these patterns have a high resolution and some have lower. Depending on how accurate you want to be for that particular part. Some patterns play at speed 1 some at 3, some at 6. This way people can have both an arranger and improved accuracy for some parts.
This would certanly change the way people track. But it would still be the same. You track in the same way. You just make patterns with specific inforamtion “drums” “bassline” “appregio” “Synths” “Piano Melody”. you can stack em and play them all simultaneously in the arranger.
Automation Data could be stored within the pattern, A mixer would be a fine addition. or “Global Patterns” wich consist of the Master and Send Channels, and maybe some more. I think tracking is and should always be the same, and an arranger should just be used to manage grouop of tracks or “patterns” as we call it. Playing many patterns simultaneously shouldnt be a problem. It would be like “Grouping” tracks in the interface that’s used now. Some of these groups could have different accuracy.
—> It could be like playing 1 Drum track at 140 BPM, Speed 6. and playing maybe a nice melody at high line-resolution 140BPM, SPeed 1 in the same time.
-
You could open up the Drum Group(pattern) and see a pattern of maybe 5 tracks with 64 lines.
-
You could upen up the high line resolution melody group and see a pattern with 2 tracks but with 64 x 256 lines or whatever. depending on what resolution you want to use.
It doesnt have to be much more advanced than that really. =)
Though… no conclusions what so ever have been made, I can try to sum up a few things for you and point a direction for all this.
Initially there was this discussion about a multipattern setup vs a clip arranger setup.
This pretty much ended up with that too many ppl would just hate to separate instruments from each other into single patterns.
We want them side by side as they are now.
So instead the focus went on to a clip based arranger.
The reason for this can be a bit complicated to grasp initially.
Think of clips as blocks of pattern data that you save as a clip.
So instead of copy/paste blocks in the pattern editor as you do now, you can ‘save’/make them into clips. Then you arrange these clips both in a the standard pattern editor and also in a separate arranger window. A clip can contain note data, other clips have fx data/automation etc. Or everything into the same clip (group). This depends on how you choose to view the clips (optional).
Now… don’t be mad if you really want to arrange entire patterns.
If you have a look in the RNI future thread.
There you can see som talk about ‘instrument-patterns’.
Now this means that you can track your instruments as separate patterns that you trigger inside the instrument.
So all you would have to do to arrange patternwise is to track your patterns inside the instruments. Then just insert a single note from this instrument into the clip arranger. Then this clip will behave like a independent pattern. Just the way you suggest.
IMO this is a much more flexible system that will please everyone
About the zoom. I don’t see any problems with it. Don’t use it if you don’t need it.
Hope this helped to explain a few things.
I know it’s a lot of information in those threads. But they really have been discussed thorough.
cheers