Delete unused patterns = chaos!

After years I used the Delete Unused Patterns tool today. Not only did it delet unused patterns, it also rearranged the remaining patterns to new pattern numbers. I did NOT ask for that. Can’t it just delete the patterns??

It reminds me of the Keep Sequence Sorted-feature which still makes me teethgrindingly angry

The whole point of this feature is to completely delete the unused content and then pack the song sequence down into a more efficient form.

Let’s say you have the following sequence:
4726 renoise-delete-unused-patterns.png

Patterns 0 and 2 contain something useful you want to keep, while pattern 1 is no longer used in the sequence and can therefore be deleted. But here’s the problem: We cannot truly delete pattern 1 without actually reordering the other patterns. We cannot have an empty void in-between patterns 0 and 2 — there must be something occupying that space. Hypothetically speaking, pattern 1 could just be cleared instead (ie. having all notes and commands removed), but if the pattern itself still exists then it sort of defeats the purpose of the feature, doesn’t it?

The real question here (for me, anyway) is why do you rely so much on the actual pattern numbers? Is there a specific purpose for maintaining them, or is it simply a habit formed over the years? Just curious to know more about your workflow.

It’s already possible to name your patterns and create named sections in the sequencer, allowing you to organize your song into more meaningful and logical chunks. If you’re not taking full advantage of these features, then I think you might be missing out on some useful stuff, and perhaps making your composing life a bit more difficult than it really needs to be.

This tool just clears them for you (without touching the sequencer.)
4727 com.vvoois.Clearunusedpatterns_V1.xrnx

But dBlue has a point:you can supply each pattern with a title and you can even add titled sections to keep track of what you are doing, is a much easier way to keep track of what is where than just relying on numbers only.
But you can use the tool, it’s your choice.

I rely on pattern numbers because that is the FAST (!!!) and easy way to navigate and keep track of patterns. Lets say I know that pattern 8,9,4,13 is the chorus sequence of my track, I will recognize that in a second and know where the hook is. If this all of a sudden changes to 1,2,3,4 along with the rest of the pattern numbering, it’s all chaos. The point of numbering the patterns is gone! The numbers of the patterns ARE the names of the patterns. Yes, I could name the patterns with elaborate titles and call this sequence that or the other way around, but that will take longer. Muuuuch longer. I want to make beats! I want to make music happen, not fiddle around with numbers and titles.

Is this so hard to understand? I stressed this point during the sequence-sorting-discussion as well. I feel that I got support for it from the users, but not the moderators :(

Off course it’s possible to delete patterns without rearranging my songs!! Just wipe the unused patterns clean! I mean, an empty pattern is just a clean pattern sheet. There is no need to rearrange numbers at all. “There must be something occupying that space”; Yes! Empty patterns! At least make it an option or something.

Compared to other sequencers, Renoise has a LOT of numers and codes going on. I’m used to it so it doesn,t scare me away, but if you keep adding confusing features to Renoise I am certain that you’ll scare away newcomers.

I do get where you’re coming from, and no, it’s not hard to understand your points. I completely understand how certain habits and workflows can form, how even a small change in behaviour can feel like a huge hurdle, and so on.

I’m not saying that you should work one way or the other — you should of course do whatever the heck you want as long as it works for you — I’m just trying to learn more about how you work, to explain why the Renoise feature works the way it does, and to perhaps offer some friendly suggestions for getting the most out of Renoise. So, with that in mind, let me respond to the rest of your post…

I understand this will work just fine when you’re in the zone right there and then, but what about when you come to load your song again a week later, or a month later, or next year… will you still have that particular chorus sequence 8,9,4,13 memorized? What if you happen to share the song with a friend who wants to remix it, and he wants to quickly locate the important sections within the song?

When browsing through a potentially huge list of random/unorganized numbers in your song sequence, will that particular sequence of four random numbers actually retain any meaning whatsoever? I somehow doubt it. However, by placing a clearly named “Chorus” section in the sequence, you ensure that the chorus can easily be found time and time again, without having to remember anything but your ability to read. Surely you can appreciate the value in this?

I feel that you’re exaggerating a bit here. You don’t have to spend a lot of time on it, using elaborate or complex section names — you can simply use “Intro”, “Chorus”, “Verse 1”, and so on. I’m pretty sure you already have the names of these sections stored mentally in your head anyway, so why not spend a few seconds to actually write it into the song itself in order to improve its structure?

For me personally, the time it takes from pressing the “new section” button and then typing in the word “Chorus” is perhaps 3 seconds at most, and then it’s done and I never have to worry about it again. If I’m working on a song for a while and I need to jump back and forth between different sections, the time this saves me in the long run is far more valuable than the 3 seconds I spent actually typing in the section name.

Assuming that “keep sequence sorted” is disabled, then we could indeed consider simply wiping the patterns, rather than physically deleting them and reorganizing the sequence list. If it’s important to you and others, then we’ll of course consider it.

If you’re talking about the “delete unused patterns” feature (or the way it works, specifically), then I doubt that too many newcomers will be diving into that stuff during their early Renoise sessions. On top of that, a fresh installation of Renoise has “keep sequence sorted” enabled by default, so newcomers are probably not even aware that the pattern sequence can potentially be out of order in the first place. It’s very likely that they don’t know or care that “deleted unused patterns” will also reorganize the sequence list, because the end result will be completely transparent to them anyway.

If you’re talking about pattern names and section names specifically, then on the contrary, such features were added exactly with new users in mind. They clearly help to improve the overall structure of the song, the ease of use while navigating the sequence, and so on. I’d imagine that any new user would welcome such features quite happily, and would prefer using those logical methods rather than the oldschool ways.

These things are intended as time-saving devices, not brick walls to stand between you and your creative flow. I’m an old fart who has been using trackers exclusively since around 1987 (since childhood, basically), so I’m definitely no stranger to a screen full of hex. Nevertheless, I openly welcome any feature which can improve my workflow and make things easier to manage. I welcome the pattern and section names and have very quickly grown to rely on them, so much so that the pattern numbers are essentially meaningless to me now.

I bet you name your samples, don’t you? Your instruments? Probably even your tracks and track groups? So why not your patterns and sections, too? :]

You got explained why the “delete” function is called that way and were given tips for support. Nobody was trying to force you to use other methods here, on the contrary, i hoped i gave you exactly what you wished for along with the other tips.

I can understand this situation: If patterns above the highest used patterns are the only one to be erased should not change anything in the existing order, but indeed in that case some strange rearrangements are done that do not feel correct.
However in any other case where you use pattern numbers above the maximum available patterns after applying the delete option:rearranging will be inevitable at least for the top pattern numbers.

Would prefer that too. You can always use the Sort Pattern Sequence feature afterwards - if you want that.
But it’s not a big deal for me.

Well I can’t work the way I want if the software-changes makes it impossible. I thought that was what this forum was all about. -Giving feedback and changing Renoise for the better. Not just argue till the users get tired and give up.

Youre right. I dont care about next year. I’m talking about workflow. But for the sake of the argument; Yes I remember the pattern sequence for a long time. The pattern numbers aren’t random numbers, they are the patterns names. For me anyway. And I’ve never had anybody remix my songs so that is a completely unlikely scenario for me. For as long as I’ve used Renoise I’ve never been able to pursuade anyone to convert to Renoise.

So, it takes 3 seconds to write Chorus. My argument is that if you make pattern numbers obsolete, I’ll have to write names for all the little bits and pieces. And that takes time. Agreed?

Hurray! Problem solved! I’ve downloaded the Clearunusedpatterns tool now and provided it works like I want it to I’ll just use
that. Thanx vV!!

I use Renoise because it is what I’m used to. I’ve also been a “Trackie” since the eighties, I know how it works. That makes me focus on the music rather than the techniques of making it. I fear that necomers will shy away if the confusing features pile up. And that is the point of it. Not just this little thing, but all of them adding up. If I were new to this I’d definitly use ableton or something similar.

I name tracks sometimes. Thats it. Don’t name samples or instruments. They often allready have a name or a samplenumber (wich doesn’t change) and thats enough for me.

Well I can’t work the way I want if the software-changes makes it impossible. I thought that was what this forum was all about. -Giving feedback and changing Renoise for the better. Not just argue till the users get tired and give up.

What you consider “giving feedback and changing Renoise for the better” is just stupid, do you think you’re the only person in the world using Renoise? You can’t just expect a software to change to exactly what you want if it’s an unpopular request.

You also first complain about a feature that has changed in the software and that it must be confusing for newcomers with all these changes. Now you want to change it back to confuse newcomers even more?

For me it’s a matter of one quick look at the pattern matrix and i immediately spot the patterns that contains the chorus or whatever, the numbers don’t mean much to me, but i like keeping it sorted because i hate duplicates/aliases because of the danger of editing something i didn’t want to edit. I rarely number or name anything because i remember the visual view of everything and i have no problem navigating this way.

If you know the numbers for the chorus patterns, then sort the sequence, it gets new numbers you can remember, i can’t see what the big deal is?

When reading through this (old) thread, it seems like the the ability to work with numbers is lost. But it’s entirely intact - OP was complaining not about the fundamental implementation, but only a secondary feature which allows you to delete unused patterns in the song.

To me, this is “spring cleaning”, something you would only do if really needed as it has no audible impact on the song. And then vV even provided an alternative solution :smiley:

just keep in mind that there is this feature, ‘Keep Sequence Sorted’ in the pattern sequence.