Look at the pattern matrix and then honestly do you look at the pattern as a box or at the little lines, notes, that are in there? I guess the lines. Now imagine we take the block drawing out and make it just one big-zoomable-set of lines. You can put time code markers here and there or arrange a repetition in a clip. That’s how I would like to see the UI without patterns. I started this thread to highlight the structural problems/limits with the pattern approach. With the current automation bird-eye-view you see some real quirks and I reckon we hit some kind of wall for being innovative in the sequencing UI.
Don’t get me wrong, but the idea you have of patterns in the more logical sense I fully share. But 
. I don’t imagine them as a fixed set of tracks over a certain period. Patterns can occur on different levels in the music, even with different lengths. Therefore they need to become “scoped to” separate tracks: hey, this is the clips idea. In the end a clip is also some kind of pattern but on a per-track basis. Much more flexible. And if you want you can still group all your clips and cut them off at the same point to have the original pattern back (hence I bet you’ll never do that).
Even though we’re using computers with tons of RAM and processing power, there’s still a little niche, where this feature would be extremely handy. In size-restricted competitions (4 kilobytes and 64 kilobytes intros) where softsynth, note-data and various algorithms for procedurally generating audio and visuals are packed into small executable files. When doing music for such productions, having the beforementioned feature would be fantastic! Complexity/variation has to be balanced as it’s always at the cost of size. Repitions packs better than variation, obviously 
An example of what is possible (if accepting enough repetition)
That’s ofcourse a video capture. The executable requires a rather high-end graphics card
There is no structural problems/limits about patterns. You are simply trying to cram a FT/Reason/Cubase/etc sequencer paradigm into a tracker.
However, track automation does not work very well with the current approach, but I don’t think clip oriented one would be the only usable solution.
The Buzz Sequence Editor does exactly what you want - if only they would implement it in Renoise. It looks like we are going to be offered anything BUT the most simple solution (the Buzz method) and will never get a working solution.
Am I right in thinking that you’re an American?
No, he is from Netherlands.
Problem?
This is the second thread I have seen you post this in… today. Buzz Sequence Editor Vs Renoise
either way, it would be lovely to just jump inside a pattern and slap another pattern’s drum / any segment nondestructively on top of that pattern and have the original pattern’s drumpattern mute.
just like how it was in buzz tracker. it’s powerful stuff.
I don’t pretend to know all the history and details. I’m sure there’s lots more I can learn about making Renoise work for me.
There have been times when my drums fit nicely in one pattern, but my melody track spans two patterns. It would be nice if I could somehow link the bottom half of a pattern to the top half of the next…
Is there some command I am ignorant of? Some technique?
@ wubluv,
Have you tried, “merging,” patterns… It in your right click dropdown menu… 
not quite the same thing, can lead to repetitive drum patterns aka harder to make variations when you jump from a 32 row drum pattern to a 512 row drum pattern with 16 repetitions due to merging to make space for pads and melodies to fit into one pattern.
[quote=“Knetter”]
But then without pattern quantizing, so there will be no pattern borders anymore in the sequencer – it will all be lines (which can be zoomed out to birdeye’s view so you can see the whole song and all different tracks). In fact, the pattern idea will be history and perhaps only exists as indicator. Somehow this relates to the “clips” idea but then only basic functionality.
So, with my poor PS skills I created a mockup:
3253 
How do you know which of your patterns are on each track you are looking at? Your design just gives you a load of random lines (or might as well be random) to represent each pattern. Wouldn’t the Buzz Sequence Editor way be better? See my screenshots here:
And it would be really helpful if people suggesting new ways of sequencing patterns, etc. could actually try Buzz, to see how Buzz does it - you might like it.
As it is, I am endlessly frustrated by the pattern matrix in Renoise - admittedly it’s better than nothing, but it’s just so much slower than the Buzz Sequence Editor.
Reason’s Blocks concept. In Renoise.
This will allow you to combine repeated patterns arranged into a sequence with non-repeating elements of arbitrary length, by having a song layer sitting over the pattern layer (like the block and song modes in Reason), where selected parts of blocks can be overridden by notes in the song layer as needed, and song length audio tracks can sit in a layer over repeated patterns (if repetition is desired). Combine some features of the Buzz editor for keyboard entry of arrangements and your’re set.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6UFCdD4Lykhttp://
Don’t care if this is implemented horizontally or vertically (could do both with a bit of extra effort), but this would be my number one feature request for Renoise, as it would mean I no longer have to go back and forth between Sonar and Renoise to finish songs.
Working in Renoise is wonderful, until it is time to start sequencing patterns into a song, at which point it becomes an exercise in frustration. An “arrange” or “sequence” tab between “edit” and “mix” which opens up either a Buzz or Reason style arranger would suit me to a tee.