Brainstorming: Arranger

Ideas & suggestions
141

Well, did anybody mention track mutes as a simple way to re-use data ? Create a pattern, and repeat it over and over again, using track mutes to create the development…

I’ve used that technique in an old softsynth/tracker called AXS, where most of my tunes consisted of no more than a handful of patterns, very efficient esp. for loop-oriented stuff!

Here is a screenshot of how I imagine it could be implemented:

[edit: Also located here: http://www.irisworks.dk/temp/seq-mutes.gif]

pysj >> It could even be combined with what you have in mind :-))

142

That mockup looks interesting, but what if the individual patters are of different length? In your mockup, they wouldn’t allign so neatly along the horizontal … with a system that Psyj describes, we can have clips of different length and arrange them out, much like you could do in Buzz Tracker.

143

Sure it can. As you are just talking about muting tracks, then this would fit any scenario.
Well. I have nothing against it really. But this would just be another way of very simple and limited sequencing that you already can do in a more traditional clip sequencer.
If you just zoom out enough it would look pretty much the same. You just mute clips.

And btw, this is nothing new in Renoise.
This is how Renoise (NoiseTrekker2.1) was before:

:o

:)
cheers

144

What I liked about track mutes in AXS (and by the look of it, NoiseTrekker2.1 too :blink: ) was that you were able to “look ahead” a number of positions, and un/mute tracks before they were actually played. And in general, finding ways to re-use the same material is very much what this arranger thread is about …

But, as sonus points out, it might be harder to achieve with the “overlapping” nature of clips.

145

It really should be no problem to make a function in the arranger to mute the track in current pattern.
In the arranger you would of course see many patterns coming up if you zoom out.
Anyway, If you are doing loops and stuff your arranger would look pretty straight with equal lenght of clips and no overlapping clips.
In fact the whole long discussion has been how to keep everything backwardcompatible to make patterns and clips coexis. Clips could be made automatically in the size of the pattern length. So you would never even have to open the arranger window if you want to do it oldschool.
That said, I’m sure there is lot of extra stuff and interfaces like the mute sequencer and other more Live oriented things that could come sooner or later. This discussion has been more about traditional sequencing stuff.

146

Thank for giving me an overview of the clip idea. Although i dont see the point of making yet another “element” that contains the same data as a pattern. It just has a different name. If the clips were a rendered area (wav) of a pattern i would understand the point of it. Opening up the clip. would bring up the intial pattern where it was created and let you edit it.

If the clip was a “rendered” representation of the area of pattern, or a whole pattern it would be understandable. Mainly becouse the arranger would play rendered wav clips and save a lot of processing power. if you’re using a lot of effects and heavy vsti’s etc. Automation could be added to these clips too of course but that should be mainly effects then i suppose.

Maybe there’s space for 2 kind of arrangers then. One arranger for rendered wav’s ( with a reference to the original pattern) , and one arranger of editable “patterns” (why call it clips if it still has the same data inside) An arranger would marely be a new overview of your created stuff, and let you move it around on a grid. An arranger for patterns would be like an extension. Letting you play patterns alongside eachoter side by side. But i still think the pattern editor is for editing… an arranger is for arranging… Automation applies to everything, even the master channel so you could still basically call these “clips” patterns.

If you just want a selection of a pattern you could make a Short Key-command like “ctrl + g” to make new group… or simply … a new pattern with a new pattern number.
a crop comand could also be implemented then… “ctrl + shft+ c” to crop away everything outside a selected area in a pattern.

The standard pattern editor should still be there but not for the purpose it does now… Use it as a fast browser to scroll your way to desired pattern. But the “Arranger” give you an overview and let’s you drag and drop “pattern” or “clips” copy & paste… and arrange your songs.

=) hope this clarifies my idea a bit.

147

More than one arranger seems very cluttered IMHO. When you have an arranger, you might as well have all the data present. If it’s a problem having all the data on screen, there could be a filter function (i.e. dim everything but the automation) or minimize/maximize tracks function (i.e. minimize all wave clips).

One arranger with pattern clips, waveform clips, togglable markers, togglable automation envelopes, a freeze function and whatever else would be the ultimate. Color coding or a symbols to discern between clip types, and it’d be pretty clear and readable.
Another thing that would be great, is to have something akin to Samplitude’s Object Editor for both patternclips and waveclips.

148

You would not need two kind of arrangers at all.
Instead you have an arranger where you can insert many type of clips.
Note clips, patternfx clips, automation clips, audio clips.
Also ‘patternclips’ like you describe.
You can do this either trough a instrument (instrumnt-pattern) or it could be a pattern list where you can drag/drop patterns on to the clip arranger.
But just belive me when I say there are LOTs of technical limitations to think of before you can do this. It has to do with routing of tracks/fx etc when you insert entire patterns.

Also, many ppl would not tolerate to arrange only patterns. As you would have to open one single patterns at a time, and thus not see your instruments/tracks side by side as you do now.
You would also be forced to arrange stuff then, as you would have to add track fx etc in the arranger and not in the pattern (you can add in patterns, but that would be like insert fx’s for that pattern(track) only, because each pattern kan have different number of tracks etc…)
More of these problems was initially discussed in the Some Pattern Ideas thread.
But, as I said a few posts ago, if the RNI will get a complex instrument-pattern system, then there will be no big deal to arrange patterns as well in the clip editor.
You can then also do a lot more with this pattern clip. Transpose it. Put all kind of fx commands on it etc, trigger patterns with midi keyboard etc.
Your are then inserting patterns into a ‘main’ pattern.
So then you decide on what level you want to arrange stuff.
As hcys says, there would be no problem to hide different kind of information in the arranger.
You can choose what to be shown, and select a zoom level and save the different setups to hotkeys.
So if you want to arrange patterns like small blocks in the arranger view like on your picture, then fine. Do it :)
But you could also mix different clips in the same arranger and zoom in to do detailed work
like this old painting.
Well… I’m not the one making the decisions here, but my vote goes for the most open and modular system that you can customize for your own liking… mainly because different ppl would like to arrange at different levels… thats for sure.

149

Actually, that’s my biggest qualm about other traditional sequencers, and why I like trackers so much! The ability to see everything going on at once, side by side, like you say, is great!

This makes me wonder…

Maybe it would be possible to logically group several “paternclips” together so that when editing one of the group, you see them all. This would make sense for creating drumtracks, for example.

150

I wouldnt mind an arranger like that. Although that particular painting looks a littel bit “wild”. As long as there’s a quick reference back to the pattern where you created the clip it would be awesome. Selecting the clip and choosing to edit it would open the pattern where you made the clip. After finishing the edit you could choose to Update the clip och or create a new variation of the old clip… This could work too…

But for my personal preference, Fully editable patterns arranged in the same way would be better. A clip could still be a selcted part of a pattern. The clip would then be a "Crop" from the original pattern. It creates a clipfile to be used internally. The arrangerr doesnt play full patterns so to speak but keeps a reference to where you created the clip. I’d prefer this to add some editability within the arranger, to be able to set transpose etc, as you said.

151

I really really don’t want a pattern side by side kind of a arranger I just can’t see why that would be better than a clip based arranger.

I want to be able to view the arranged tracks side by side and I want to easy be able to reuse just one clip or track from a pattern at several places.

And because each track can play 12 instruments it also has some of the pattern arrange ideas.

So I think the way it is intended to become is brilliant.

152

Wow, just five minutes ago I had the idea of combining a tracker interface and a Cubase/Reason/Logic style sequencer. And look - seven pages of discussion for something similar already. Now, I’m sorry - I didn’t read all that’s been written here, and to be honest some of the ideas depicted were a bit hard to follow from the text (English is not my first language).

I use Renoise mainly for making techno, electro house and similar genre music. I find it easiest to first create a “master” pattern or two where I more or less have “everything” going on - bassline, full-on drums, possible melodies etc. Then I begin building the structure of the song by adding empty patterns and copying and pasting from the “master” patterns, gradually adding more stuff and making fills and editing breaks as I go. A process would be much faster if after making the master I could just press a button with the function “divide pattern tracks into sequencer” where I would get a left-to-right sequencer with the pattern tracks as separate “blocks”. Then I could just quickly move, cut, copy and paste the blocks.

Once a very skeletal version of the structure of the song was laid out, I could then move onto finesse - editing in drum fills etc into the blocks I wanted to. Editing a block would not change all the similar blocks, but like in Reason, would change the colour/name of the edited block and change only that. The edited block could then be easily copied onto previous blocks to add the fill into the places I deemed suitable. “Oh, I see, I’ve got a regular 4/4 kick going on here, and I want every other pattern to have a little kick fill at the end of it… done… copypastecopypaste. OK, that’s good. Oh, but I want every eighth pattern to have a slightly different fill… edit, copypaste, ah, there we go!”
It’d be ideal for minor adjustments, whereas at the moment you have to copy and paste the entire pattern into a new one.

Now, I noticed some people want to see their tracks/instruments side by side. How about this - double clicking on a block simply brings up a screen with only the pattern data for said block and whatever you’ve decided to put in it. A kick, a filtered loop you’ve made from one-shots, a bassline, whatever. While pressing play on this screen you would only hear the instruments you have on that block, as well as only see them. HOWEVER, in the regular pattern editor view you could still see, hear and edit the song in the traditional Renoise way. I could see it working like the pattern wrap works in the current version - you just have one continuous long “pattern” - however, you could easily navigate to fixed positions, the first rows of “patterns” by clicking any block on the sequencer/arranger.

-K

153

“I use Renoise mainly for making techno, electro house and similar genre music. I find it easiest to first create a “master” pattern or two where I more or less have “everything” going on - bassline, full-on drums, possible melodies etc. Then I begin building the structure of the song by adding empty patterns and copying and pasting from the “master” patterns, gradually adding more stuff and making fills and editing breaks as I go. A process would be much faster if after making the master I could just press a button with the function “divide pattern tracks into sequencer” where I would get a left-to-right sequencer with the pattern tracks as separate “blocks”. Then I could just quickly move, cut, copy and paste the blocks.”

That is EXACTLY what I do too!

This new proposed feature would be great

154


grouping of tracks with colorcodes. mabe more information along with the “sequences”
in the arranger view with ptrn.nr on the blocks…

have a vision also of automation of volume/trck.dsp for long volume fades and
stuff like that to.

155

:D

156

why put the colour on the right side? why not have the colouring in the same box as the pattern number or the loop markers?

It would take less space and it would be vissible even when the pattern arranger is shrinked.

Its not really similar but one thing that still sticks in me as something that would be nice is a solution that was suggested a long time ago. It was a solution for having several pattern loops By several loopmarkers next to eachother and then selecting which loop you wanted to play.

To make that idea even better it would be nice if you could select pattern loops with loopmarkers that would not have to lie next to eachother.

I´ll make a when I have time.

157

everything is possible, i just hope that someone with a fast and inteligent brain sometime sits down and figures out the best solution for
a arranger, that is appealing enough for the dev’s to start on this
monster task.

158

Old version:

This is my concept for an arranger to end them all. I’ve been thinking alot about this lately, and learning of the different ways other programs handle arrangements. I studied the workflows of Ableton Live, Cubase (Playlist), FL Studio, Machinedrum and MPC arrangers and contemplated on how I work myself, and what would be most flexible. I’ve also tried hard to take into consideration difficulty of implementation and where Renoise is now, so as to not complicate things too much.

Firstly, the biggest obstacle with a “new” arranger, and the clip-style presented here earlier, is that it implies pattern “polyphony” - being able to play multiple patterns in parallel. I also don’t think this is optimal, since it creates the problem of what to do when you want a pattern to cut a preceding one.

Mostly, it looks like the FL studio playlist, except with some important improvements that makes it more powerful.

A quick run-down of my concept:

  • The horizontal grid is strictly line/tick based. This makes visualizing pattern lengths easy, and keeps with the tracker tradition of time. Also, a “true” timeline would be complex and harder to implement.
  • Each object in the arranger is a pattern, as defined today.
  • Vertically, the arranger is split in lanes. For non-overlapping objects which lane it’s on is irrelevant. Essentially like FL Studio.
  • An object can overlap another on the same lane, cutting it short. This is really useful for making breaks and getting creative with arrangements.
  • Overlapping objects on separate lanes play in parallel - except if they contain events on the same track(s). If two objects play on the same track, whichever is on a lower lane in the arranger, gets precedence - like a monophonic synth, basically. Conceptually, this is like comping multiple takes in Cubase. FL studio will always play in parallel, which I believe is a poor idea.
  • Doing it this way makes it easy to write a bass line pattern and a “place holder” drum beat, then focus on a separate beat pattern later.
  • Changing a bass part for the last quarter of a pattern means simply making a new bridge pattern and put it in a lane below at the right time. Easy as pie, and creatively valuable.
  • If you do want something to play in parallel, just put it on different tracks (like now).

Objects indicate in the arrange what tracks are overridden by another (higher priority) object. That’s what the red “tags” are, showing which track number is “muted” and where.
Showing of “overlap tags” could be togglable, simplifying the view even more (although reducing the level of information communicated).
The yellow lines indicate pattern truncation.
All available patterns are listed to the left. Simple drag’n’drop into the arranger to place patterns.
A transport marker indicates song play position, with line resolution.
Loop range markers allow looping a section of the arrangement.
Vertical zoom should be possible in the arrange, to allow listing more “track mute stripes” etc.
Objects should be mutable to disable playback. This makes testing new ideas easy.
Automation is preceded like other tracks. One very cool thing this lets us do, is use patterns as “automation clips” like in FL Studio. (Possibly, it could be a good idea to add global automation tracks, separate from pattern/object arrangement, at some point).
Multiple arrangements per song allows remixing and rearranging without losing info and previous work.
For this concept to work, only two new concepts need to be added to the renoise core. Muting of individual tracks during playback in the arrangement and cutting patterns short (skipping to the next). Importantly, no parallel pattern or track playback is necessary.

To me, the most important factors are creativity, a free-form workflow and simplicity, and IMHO this will kick so much ass it’ll wipe the floor with both Ableton and energyXT for exploring arrangements. Now, imagine a “live mode” where you can trigger whole arrangements, and you’ve got live sequencer nirvana.

So, whatcha think? Just plain stupid, or a useful concept?

159

Really, great concept :)

One thing I would add,mutes per pattern as in MachineDrum songlist and NoiseTrekker.

160

Why patterns and not tracks within a pattern? We have sub note columns in tracks to get polyphony. This also has the huge bad sideeffect that, when navigating in the pattern editor only, you only see one small segment of the arrangement (only the “Bass” pattern for example).
This reminds me of the Buzz sequencer which I never got fammiliar with because I always missed an overview there…

When I think of an arranger, I think of a visual aid to easily arrange/cut/copy paste patter track segments. This solves IMHO the now biggest problem: That you have to Control F4/F5, Shift F3/F4/F5 all the time to arrange stuff. Everything else would maybe be cool, but is not really essential and would on the other side make things a LOT more complicated.