Sure it would solve some things. And is better then nothing. But will it be flexible enough in the end?
I think only a real linear type clip arranger on top of, or directly merged into the current pattern system, can completely solve this once and for all?
That together with instrument-patterns can make you sequence any way you want.
Sorry for another long post with lots of repeated stuff, I’ll try to only mention the essential things:
EDIT: I hope the following text don’t deserve a “f*** you” in advanced from Conner_Bw But really, its very relevant in telling why the pattern matrix can hardly be “finetuned” to a better arranger without some clear changes/additions.
Let me know if you want me to delete this…
Taktik is way more on topic, coming up with ideas that is within the current limitations.
Another small suggestion could be an optional view of the pattern sequencer/pattern matrix. Toggle to show real length of patterns there. As now it is a fixed size for all patterns in the PM. It probably wont help you arrange any faster, but could be easier on the eye and understanding the structure even better, visually.
[details=“Click to view contents”] What I find useful about clips in other sequencers is how to keep order of all the clips, easier to do retakes/variations etc. Be able to rename properly. And be able to add the clips where ever you want, sample accurate. Like mentioned before, I have a sound/clip, i want it to be “there and there”, while its not quantized to an entire pattern length, not have to go into pattern editor to move the sound, not have to destructively edit the sample, or add offset commands etc. Just grab the clip and place it where you think it fits. Or be surprised when you offset it a beat, or finetune it just a few ms to get the extra precise punch or whatever.
After countless discussion about this, I only see two really fully flexible systems.
Can’t we just add a clip pool that works independent of the current pattern system.
Perhaps the only technical change to the current pattern system is that there will be a hidden reference to all the clips and position/range of the clip that is used in each pattern.
A pattern is still just all the data on all lines within the pattern boundaries, no matter how large each clip is. When copying/delete/changing a pattern that contains clips that cross the pattern boundaries, it does not matter. This will just crop the clips to within pattern boundaries. But then the user can optionally resize the clips back to original sizes. In other words, the default behavior of pattern sequence editing is to nondestructively chop of the ends/beginnins of clips that cross pattern boundaries.
Seen from the clip point of view, resizing the clip in the pattern editor is nondestructive. Seen from the pattern view, the same operation is destructive.
Clips have properties, like original size and content and is stored separate in a clip pool. And can also optionally be edited separate in a clip editor (but you don’t have to! Any content changed directly in pattern editor is destructive for the clip, but the resize of the clip in the pattern editor is not destructive for the original clip). Patterns ignore all this, what you see is what you get within the pattern boundaries.
Overlapping clips are not allowed. Unless you actively merge them to separate note/fx columns in same track (this is optional, and will not happen automagically).
To sequence more freely with overlapping clips or clips with different tempo etc, just use instrument-patterns instead.
If you use very small patterns, chances are that you work very “block oriented” anyway?
If you want to do things more freely/unquantized , chances are that you use some larger patterns to begin with?
To better navigate vertically in huge patterns, it could be useful to have markers you can insert anywhere in a pattern. Then a function to jump to next/previous marker, and to mark block of data within two markers etc, and a marker list implanted in the pattern sequencer as well. So in theory you could just as well skip the entire pattern system if you want to, and only use one huge pattern for the entire song, and then use markers list for easier navigation (jump between markers instead of jumping between patterns in the pattern sequencer.
Another entirely different solution to all this is to let the current pattern system only be an optional sub-framework that you add to a classic DAW like linear system.
You can even have multible pattern sequences to exist side by side, totally independent.
-If you wanna sequence traditionally DAW like, just never add the pattern framework. Just use clips in a linear way. Rely on markers for better navigation. The “pattern editor” looks like just one huge pattern. But it is not a pattern really, just linear endless tracks side by side. Each clip can be edited in a clip editor.
-To sequence old school tracker style, then only use one pattern framework, and forget about the rest.
-To sequence advanced, add several parallel pattern sequences (that can have different sized patterns, independent tempo etc).
You will see this sequences side by side in the main arranger window and the pattern sequencer window. Each pattern sequencer having its separate matrix system etc.
And you can also use clips outside the pattern framework at the same time.
A pattern sequence is just a section of one or several tracks, ordered and sequenced in traditional pattern style way.
In the main sequencer/arranger window, a pattern sequence framework/section will just look like any other clip, either collapsed to one clip, or extracted to individual tracks and clips that exist inside each pattern sequence.
This might seem messy, especially without any pictures to back up all the words, but I think it’s not. It’s just flexible. You make it just as easy or advanced that you would like it to be…