I can’t copy broken selections, but I have never, ever wanted to do that - if you used Buzz I doubt you would want to, it’s probably much quicker to just move the cursor keys and type the number of the pattern that you want, where you want it.
I can’t use the content from any track in any other track, and after struggling with the pattern matrix yesterday, I found I could do that, (by accident), and then I thought, why would I want my lead track in my pads track? I would never, ever want to do it personally.
I’m sorry, but I couldn’t understand this part, can you elaborate?
I didn’t understand what you meant by ‘implies to me probably not from within the arranger itself.’
I’m not ‘demanding’, I’m asking. And I’m asking because I want to stop using Buzz, and start using Renoise! I’m asking people HOW do you do what I do in Buzz, using the pattern matrix, so that I can SEE how it’s done, and then I can move to Renoise! That’s ALL my original post asked. Some people took it as an attack and then set about defending the pattern matrix at all costs. I just wanted to know HOW - some people kindly posted up very helpful and detailed instructions.
he is stating that, from what he understood of what you wrote, the pattern matrix (=arranger) cannot do it.
anyway, the more i think about this, it would be possible to
take a 0pattern with, say, 8 tracks worth of notes in it
make an identical copy to, say, pattern255
read pattern editor effect columns per each track and when a specific pattern effect is read (BZ01 for instance, or something, on track 1)
copy the contents of Track1 in Pattern 255 to Track 1 in Pattern 00 right after BZ01 effect command.
this would enable you to restart a track in a pattern by using “clip space” (pattern 255 content).
this does not solve what you want to do with renoise, if you want to have a 32 row pattern with 2048 rows of melodies or pads, but in theory it could, if you were to make LPB1 BPM 32 pads, copy them to pattern255 and then spread them across multiple patterns (the script would have to read the pattern order-list on the left). this would be extremely destructive, but it is not impossible.
I’ve already gone into great detail in another thread
about the reasons why I thought (before the pattern matrix was made) the Buzz sequence editor was the best model. Many other people said the same thing before and after I did.
I don’t have the time to learn LUA scripting. I am just a customer who bought Renoise, but unfortunately can’t get the most out of it because of the pattern matrix - everything else is fantastic and I really want to use it, but the pattern matrix stops my workflow and I can’t write music with it.
I don’t remember berating, cursing or ‘hating’ the devs. I said that the pattern matrix is badly designed - it is. If you’re a Buzz user and then you come to the pattern matrix, you look at it and think ‘why do I have to do ALL that just to do what took one keypress in Buzz’? I don’t even know how it came into being - what options were given to customers to vote on it, versus alternative arrangers? Were there any alternatives, or was it ‘pattern matrix or nothing’? I don’t know, my copy of Renoise didn’t qualify me for a free upgrade at the time, and I wasn’t going to buy Renoise again until it was as easy to arrange songs in it as it is in Buzz - but then I thought there were so many other improvements, it was time to buy it again (i.e. I bought it originally so long ago that my (incredibly long) licence had expired, as far as free updates go.)
Fair enough, and with use of multiple Sends there is really very little reason to want to (unless you are going to change Instrument number after copying it across, which IS something done very often, but then you would probably not do it from within the Matrix in Renoise either, but use Track In Song from within Advanced Edit.) There have been times where I’ve wonder what tracks would sound like with the effects from a different track and it is nice to be able to check it quickly and easily, plus happy accidents have been known to happen.
I think the key part was this: “Can you use the content from any track in any other track?”
Already above you’ve said you’re unlikely to want to (although still for track/instrument doubling reasons maybe sometimes…) And I meant as Buzz seems to have clips for each track called 1 you can’t tell clip 1 from track Bass to be played in track Pads. “Probably not from the Arranger” means I would be very surprised if you can’t do it from somewhere else, and in fact a lot of the time the Arranger is far from the most obvious place anyway.
As Esaruoho (I still struggle with your name!) has said this would be a perfect job for a Tool. I don’t know how far the Poor Man’s Clip came along… But all the operations in your video would be very easily coded and you might be better either putting some time into LUA or very kindly trying to layout what you would like in functionality in a easy to follow way for one of the more experienced coders to see if they consider it worth their time.
The Renoise Matrix/Sequence/Arranger is never going to be like the one from Buzz and personally, from all I’ve seen (including your video and my brief plays with it) I really wouldn’t want it to be!
Yes, that would be useful. The only thing you can do in Buzz (as far as I know, but I’m by no means an expert) is copy the notes over to the other instrument’s pattern.
As far as I know, you can’t do it. When I dragged a pattern from track 1 to track 2 in Renoise, it kept the original instrument number, and thus played instrument one, so I presume you have to manually change the instrument number. Or do I use ‘Track in Song’? I haven’t seen that before.
I’ll see if I can explain it as clearly as possible, maybe I can learn LUA even.
that’s why i wrote the BZ01 effect-column-suggestion. for track1 to get content from pattern255’s track01.
it would mean that if you are on track7, and have 8 tracks worth of data in pattern255, if you write on track7, BZ03, the track3 from pattern255 content is copied to track7 of pattern 00, and the instrument is changed to the instrument-it-is-set-to-be-on-track7. it would require you to have some sort of sensible setting (say, only one instrument used per track), but it is definitely doable. the track7 of pattern 00’s “current instrument content” could be read, and the track3 of pattern255, during pasting to track7-pattern-00, could be made to match the track7-pattern00-current-instrument.
you’d be stuck with 1 instrument per track for it to make any sense, but it is definitely something that can be done. this is definitely not impossible with renoise lua scripting, and it has potential to be quite powerful.
Since this thread is at least approaching getting back on topic, I’ll start reading again.
XG2003,
I’m going to set aside all the opinions stated in this thread to date and try to stick to facts.
In Renoise, there is not a pattern pool for each track. Thus you cannot arrange patterns in an arranger in this way.
However, some people prefer this way of working as it keeps associated patterns together - e.g. my ‘breakdown’ pattern has the breakdown drums, bass and lead tracks all together.
The pattern matrix can also do some things that the Buzz arranger appears not to (e.g. broken selection copy and paste, broken selection drag (with optional modifiers) to copy, clone, and use patterns from one track on another. These are also valid features as people use them). Note I have never used Buzz, so any of these may be possible. The point is that there will be something that cannot be done in Buzz, which can be done in Renoise.
The above points are not meant to prove that Buzz is better than Renoise or Renoise is better than Buzz, but to show that they are different, and do different things. I’m sure you could make a list of points of things that you can do in Buzz arranger and not in the pattern matrix and people on this forum could do the likewise with the pattern arranger.
So that’s really the conclusion. No you cannot type in patterns into the pattern matrix as Renoise doesn’t have a pattern pool. The workflows are different.
For this thread to continue sensibly, I suggest people start making constructive criticisms about ways of developing what is already implemented.
well, considering you’re the resident lua thinker, maybe only matched or equalled or trumped by dblue, i’d love your thoughts re: pattern255 & other proposals aired in this thread by me & others related to scripting our way out of this difference.
yeah, obviously this would be a case where renoise’s re-numbering/re-ordering would play complete 100% havoc on everything. oh, and toggling that re-ordering on/off isn’t available as an api function, yet
the pattern00 would be copied to pattern255 at the start of the “re-sequencing”. the user would specify 00=255. this would only really work in certain cases, so if you want to have dozens and dozens of different patterns (say, 00-10 being copied to 255-266 or sommat), things would get really hairy really fast. hence why i suggested the BZ01 and a 8track limitation for the first iteration. things would need to be heavily re-written to allow for multiple “store-patterns” and for it to make any sense if one were to go over 0F amount of tracks, while still being able to call specific pattern-stores.
Microsoft Visual Studio Express free to use, if you feel that Renoise doesn’t do what you want to, then you are free to start rolling your own tracker or what not.
Come on… Let’s try and get past the name-calling and try to focus on the potential this thread has.
I like the fluidity of buzz arranging that was present in the video. Fluid action can be present with the matrix too, but I agree that in comparison the usage can be clunky. It’s not an issue to just ignore that the keyboard shortcuts for editing are (again) in comparison harder to use than just typing in pattern numbers.
I can work with the matrix, but it’s still a learning process, especially with the new aliasing system. I’m not constantly arranging (or composing at all for that matter) due to being a full time working father of three, but when I do, my approach is that I try to use the matrix as much as possible. When I face something that I cannot do with the keyboard (as I’m a keyboard person too), I independently try to find a way to do it. Usually I find a way to do things by opening keyboard shortcuts and looking in (this case) Pattern Matrix section.
I’d also welcome a more convenient use of non-timeline-based, per track patterns. Hey, I’m an open minded guy. But as I see it, this would require some pretty thorough redesign of the sequencing section as a whole. Because I haven’t yet thought about it thoroughly, and because I don’t have a working alternative to present, I cannot say that it absolutely should be done.
Its all so existential… Pattern event, or moment? Time, or happening? When the bass drops, or when a Princess is Rescued? The software provides the flexibility but the strategy will differ depending on the task.
Its like, “making a video on the arranger.” Is totally going to be a different video… If you are making classical, or trance, or finishing off those sounds for a computer game. Somebody making the soundscape to a computer game, might have 2000 or more words in the song comments. Somebody making banging club tunes, might have, “A Minor.”
… And the usage of the Pattern Matrix will be totally different.
I see fluidity and logic in the Renoise Matrix. From a music theory point of view, the Matrix excels. That said… “non-timeline-based,” per track patterns… That is pretty cool. It would be a lot of fun, that is fer sure!
The tool idea you had sounded interesting (TL;DR), but would require lots of work. It would be nice to test some ideas, like a ‘hands on mock-up’. Something as fundamental as arranging should of course have the best native implementation possible, and not be something that HAS to be worked around with tools. If a lua-tool can present a consistently better way of arranging over the native solution, at least then it would be time to start considering changes on the native sequencing system.
But really, the way of buzz is fundamentally different to the way of renoise. It’s not something that can be ‘copied’ as such without serious consideration over the other stuff it changes.
Haha, kidding.