New Pattern editor, New Track Arranger

Ideas & suggestions
1

There’s one thing that is keeping Renoise from becoming the best Pro music tracker.

And thats the Pattern editor

The Pattern editor is too Linear.

Has anyone used Buzz before? Buzz’s track editor is the best right now.

I would luv to see these features implemented in the upcoming versions.

LAYERED TRACKS - ability to layer instrument/effect patterns on top of other patterns.

  1. EACH instruments, VSTi, Samplers, Effects will have their OWN Pattern editors.

  2. Ability to Save EACH Intruments/Effects Pattern for later use.
    For example, I could save an effect pattern, and then layer it on top of an Instrument Pattern.

  3. A Master Pattern editor, the place to arrange the tracks.

2

:blink: i love the linear way of trackers started in soundtracker etc. years ago - and it’s one reason for the success.
the non linear way is a little bit more complicated for beginners and the big disadvantage of this trackers is the overview: It’s not possible to view notes of the single tracks next to each other - and this is really necessary for song-editing …
i think this tracker style - non-linear - is a totally other concept and i don’t like to see it in Renoise. <_<

3

AND @ the moment & in future … RENOISE is the best! B)

4

…not to mention that having an instrument-divided pattern list would make impossible to compose anything but annoying trance stuff (which indeed is what 90% of BUZZ users compose).

Use cut&copy instead. <_<

5

You really must hate trance. Not a day goes by without you lashing out on the poor trance composers. :)

But I agree… Working with Buzz was unbelivably frustrating and I hope we’ll never see that pattern editor in renoise.

6

You will not see a buzz-like patterneditor, but something better IMHO is planned.

I’m talking about the arranger, where blocks of a track (called “clips”) can be linked and repeated at will across tracks and patterns. In other words, completely compatible with the current patternstructure (current tracks can be said to have only one unlinked clip, filling the whole timerange of the pattern).

The old discussion about the arranger is pinned. Please check out at least all pinned posts and search the forum before making more requests.

The link is:
[http://www.dachiphop.com/~renoise/index.ph...f=6&t=1206&st=0](http:// this-link-is-no-more-valid?act=ST&f=6&t=1206&st=0)

7

…wich really will help when laying down repetative trance tracks, don’t you think IT-Alien? :)

Hahaha, I’m killing myself… :)

8

The big difference from Buzz’s way is that we will only add functionality and flexibility to the patternstructure, without removing anything from the old way. B)

9

flexible and repetitive trance stuff is on the way :lol: :rolleyes:

10

That takes too long, and it slows down an artists ability to focus and compose a track.

For example im creating a drum n bass track in Buzz…
I want the drums to be really complicated, 1st pattern will be normal, 2nd it gets more complicated, 3rd even more complicated, 4th add some effects, etc…i could create 10+ different drum tracks, without getting lost. I know what pattern 1 does, Pattern 2 does, I do not have to Cut and Paste and search for those Patterns like in a regular Renoise pattern editor. All i have to do is put 0 or 1 , 2 in the Main pattern arranger, I can mix and match, No cut and paste. You also have the ability to mix in real time, by just changing the pattern numbers in the Main arranger.

The pattern editor in Buzz is very EASY, it looks complicated, but once you learn it, it is so much easier compared to the old pattern editors.

In Renoise you spend time looking for that certain pattern to Copy and paste in the new track, in Buzz, all you have to put in the Main arranger is 0 1 2 3 4 5 for your pattern. EASY!!!

The Buzz Pattern editor is the FUTURE, don’t stick with the old pattern style! Theres already FT2! Create something new for the NEW GENERATION OF PROFESSIONAL TRACKERS!!!

:yeah: :drummer: :guitar:

11

assuming that your ideas about BUZZ editor are personal opinions, I kindly ask you to reduce you avatar’s filesize. thanks.

12

please explain creating a classical-like song with buzz … :P

13

I’m actually quite fed-up with reading your sarcastic posts about electronical music and how annoying it is. If you don’t like music other people like, keep it to yourself.

Trackers have always been used to compose more electronic-style music rather than, for an example, rock. I assume that most users of trackers have realised that the tracker interface is the easiest way to get precise timing on samples and loops with only a few basic touchs. This concept is one that fits most composers of Trance, synth and the like, since those kinds of music is oftenly supposed to be dance-friendly and rhythmical. This goes for all different kinds of tracker-interfaces.

A tracker can indeed be used for more than composing that sort of music though. As can any interface an user is comfortable with. Just because some people prefer a certain kind of interface for producing dance-music it doesn’t necessarily mean that the interface is a “crappy trance-producing interface”. I imagine the problems that could arise if someone was to compose a classical arrangement in Buzz or Psycle. Still, I’m quite sure it could be done if someone wanted to do it.

The ideas & suggestions-board is for presenting ideas they’d like to see in Renoise. I think it is discriminating of you to leave a blunt comment about the music other people enjoy to make and listen to; no one is forcing their musical preferences onto you.

14

… and to actually say something about the topic:

I like the idea of multi-linked patterns, especially if it works seamlessly with the current pattern-system. I posted a suggestion for something similar to this a while back, so this is something like what I had in mind.
Also, so much better if people can choose if they want to use those features or not. :)

A few versions of Aodix – created by Arguru if you don’t have the slightest idea what I’m talking about – had a similar pattern-system, and I found it to work smoothly. It would be neat if you could place long automation-like envelopes spanning over several patterns using this method.
Anyhow, I’m curious about the turns this will take!

15

hm? linked patterns? what do you mean?
it’s the contents of the tracks that can be linked.

Agreed.

Automationclips and noteclips spanning multiple patterns have not been planned. I don’t see quite how that would fit into the system. However, the same result can be obtained by using a long pattern (the patternlength limit will be removed / much larger) and linked clips in all the tracks that should be repeating stuff.

If you have any (detailed) ideas on how spanning clips can be done, now is the time to say so, since we’ve yet not started this work.

16

I was referring to Phazze’s idea (in the topic you referred to a few posts up) about having a layout similar to:

[pattern 1][pattern 2][pattern 3]
[pattern 4][pattern 5…]
[pattern 6…]

a kind of pattern-sequencer…
vertically, pattern 1, 4 and 6 would be “linked”, ie played at the same time.

Let’s see if I understood things correctly now; this would be presented in a left-to-righ way, instead of the usual top-to-bottom one-column pattern arranger we have now.

Taktik’s idea was that instead of having whole patterns, a track-view would be built in a similar fashion:

…|…pattern 1…||…pattern 2…|
track 1: […sequence 1…][…sequence 2…]
track 2: […sequence 3…][.seq 4.][.seq 4.]
track 3: [.seq 5.][.seq 5.][…sequence 6…]
track 4: […sequence 7…][…sequence 8…]

  • a similar solution, graphical wise, but without grouping tracks together like in the pattern-example above.

I find both the top and the bottom idea to be interesting, but have my own ideas as well.

the bottom idea alone seems to be just what we have now, presented in a cubase-like fashion with patterns added.

however, I can see its usefulness when it comes to arranging sequences quickly.

what I was thinking was that maybe the top and the bottom solution can be combined.

the way I was thinking of an alternative combination of the two above could be like this:

… -sequence-view-

[pattern 1…][…
[pattern 2][pattern 3][…
[pattern 4…][pattern 5][…

  • in this view, you can rearrange pattern-sequences

double-clicking on an pattern (pattern 1 for an example) would result in the following:

… -pattern 1- … -following pattern-

track 1: [b-drum seq. 1.][b-drum seq. 1.]
track 2: [hat 1.][hat 1.][hat 1.][hat 2.]
track 3: [snare seq. 1…][snare seq. 2…]
track 4: …
track 5: …

… -underlying pattern- … -following pattern-
track 1:…

  • a view where you can scroll around and arrange the order of the sequences inside the pattern. the view would be focused on the pattern you had double-clicked in the sequence-view, but you could easily reach the other patterns by scrolling sideways and up-/downwards.

since there would, effectively, be no “patterns” as of today’s meaning of the word, a new-style pattern could be twice as long as another one, but still played at the same time.

automation could be co-existent with both patterns AND tracks, integrated in the GUI as such:

pattern sequence 1: [pattern 1][pattern 2][pattern 3]
pattern sequence 1: [automation, vol. ramp 1 to 100]
pattern sequence 2: [pattern 4][pattern 5…]
pattern sequence 3: [pattern 6…]

and

track 1: [b-drum seq. 1.][b-drum seq. 1.]
track 2: [hat 1.][hat 1.][hat 1.][hat 2.]
track 2: [automation…]…
track 3: [snare seq. 1…][snare seq. 2…]

perhaps this is way too cumbersome to even consider, but it is something I have been thinking of…