Pro-tip for all whiny bitches.
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!
GODDAMN YOU ALL
EITHER YOU’RE FIGHTING ABOUT BULLSHIT OR GETTING ALL FUCKING TRIPPED OUT ON ACID EXISTENTIAL BULLSHIT
FUCK THIS GODDAMN FORUM
U american? 
Haha, kidding.
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.
Carry on.
Lol that pretty much sums it up for about anything else in life:)
You don’t have to yell.
is there anybody here thats employed by the buzz devs??? or maybe one of their sisters or something???..
Haha, how did nobody reply to you? This is brilliant!
ok i’ll bite, looks so lonely without music…
Somebody on the forum said that it was possible to put names on the pattern matrix patterns (or clips, or whatever they are called) - is this possible?
You can give names to patterns, yes, but not to the matrix blocks. To get an overview, reference this section of the user manual.
Ah, I thought so. That was another major problem for me with the pattern matrix.
From this thread:
post #524,
joule said:
This is the sort of thing I was talking about in that thread - a Buzz Sequence Editor would just be an alternative front end (and nobody would have to use it, you could leave it turned off and never even know it existed, if you prefer the pattern matrix), and would pull pattern data out of the patterns, and play whatever tracks and patterns you had put into the Buzz Sequence Editor. I’m going to try to create some simple graphics to explain what I mean, as I’m not a programmer I’m afraid I can’t help in that regard.
Here is what I have in mind:
The BSE (Buzz Sequence Editor) would use normal patterns to store its data, except that only one track would be used in the Renoise pattern, as shown above. It could, of course, display multiple tracks side by side on the pattern, by copying and pasting (behind the scenes) the pattern data from patterns 1 and 2 in the example above, and displaying it on the screen, and copying it back as you edited it.
Like this:
Pattern 1 and Pattern 2 at the bottom are the real patterns, the upper patterns in the image above are just displayed by Renoise so that you can edit them.
In other words, nothing has to change with regard to the way the patterns are stored by Renoise, it would just be presenting the patterns to you in a different way, so that you can use the BSE. So in the image above, all the BSE is doing is telling Renoise to play pattern 1 and pattern 2 simultaneously - or it could just use a temporary pattern to shove the data into.
I think it would be such a boon to Renoise if somebody could implement this - I am still finding it impossible to write anything with Renoise without it, and end up going back to Buzz.
==============================================================================
ps This is all totally OPTIONAL, of course - if you wanted to use the BSE tool, then you would, and if you didn’t, you don’t install it, or turn it off. I’m only writing this bit because some people here seem to take anything new as a ‘threat’ to the precious pattern matrix.
the best thread ever! 
Interesting, but I think there is an easier way, that makes more sense… Correct me if I am wrong but what you want can be put into these basic ideas:
-
The ability to name patterns.
-
The ability to have a Matrix reference the named patterns by inputting an identifying number, “for eg, Pattern CF.”
-
A way to manage patterns that are not in the Matrix, but exist, where they are easy to be found. A way to create a pattern in one project, have it available in another project.
The answer is, “Pattern Management.” Patterns could be treated like samples and go here, in the, “pattern management window.”
Now you can, "create a pattern once. give it a name, a description, and an identifying number. The Matrix could alias patterns from the Matrix, (just like it does now.) The or the Matrix can alias patterns from, “pattern management.”
Edit = my bad… 
, i trim next time fer sure… 
@ the last image in your post:
So you don’t like seeing all the notes of different tracks side by side?
Why it’s a good idea to have those other tracks displayed at all when there’s no data present?
I’m sorry, I should have made another diagram to explain that - I made the four tracks side by side to show how Renoise would store the pattern data, i.e. in the same way it does now. You would only see one track at a time normally, but could view multiple patterns side by side if you wished.
I think one of the reasons Buzz showed only one track’s pattern at a time (but this is just my take on it, Oskari will know whether I’m correct or not) is because a lot of Buzz machines have a huge number of parameters which you can adjust in the pattern editor, so there can be thirty or more columns for a machine’s parameters.
Anyway - is my idea possible with LUA scripting? Bear in mind that it involves a great deal less programming than the Pattern Matrix must have taken, I would imagine.
Well I’d imagine this could be scripted up to a point but somehow it feels it could get really messy. I cannot visualize how such tool would work. I see there could be sort of an sequencer grid gui, in which you could swiftly type in numbers…, but my vision does not carry on further. I mean, the playback is from the actual renoise sequencer no matter what. What would happen there? I think this would be complicated to realize as a tool.