In terms of future Renoise features, I am thinking more long term. I like the idea of treating Renoise like a commercial product, treating all decisions with commercial emphasis. Commercial success can create more development options. We’re not talking corporate fat cats in limos, we’re talking about expanding and diversifying the Renoise usership to create options in the future.
In short, I feel new features should be considered based on the missing features which are stopping users from using Renoise entirely.
For example I would imagine the lack of Mac AU support was a deal breaker. Rewire could be a deal breaker too. Perhaps a piano roll “track type” will make people feel more at home. A “wav” and “midi” track type would appear more logical to people used to Cubase. From a mainstream point of view a scripting language is obscure and esoteric - sure, it scores high on the cool factor, but isn’t accessible. (I personally would love scripting).
A secondary product called “Renoise Live” could be considered - as an additional purchase for a token amount. This would be a glorified xrns player application with various realtime manipulation features built in. (The actual functionality of this deserves a new topic and a lot of discussion). This idea serves as a type of cross-promotion, also to diversify Renoise away from the ‘trackerGeek’ demographic. “Renoise Live” could be used as an entry point for DJs to discover Renoise. (lets not forget about useful a player with realtime manipulation features would be!)
So yeah, I propose we think commercially whilst preserving the charm that makes Renoise so cool - easier said that done. but that’s my 2c.
You are completely misunderstanding the point of scripting.
Sure scripting is esoteric, and most people can’t do it. But this isn’t what I was suggesting. Not the ability to write scripts should be advertised. But the ability to freely pick and download Extensions which add functionality should be advertised. This is one of main selling points of Firefox browser.
So basically someone want’s to have Beatslicer. Many other people don’t feel the need for it. The user goes to http://extensions.renoise.com searches for beatslicer and clicks “Install”. And he has beatslicer. Same for time stretcher, live tools, etc.
“Hundreds of Freely Available Extensions - Adding completely new features and functionality to the Software” IS a good selling point.
Pretty much, but not only. API is a method to access renoise internal functions. Extensions are more than just API, it’s a complete framework containing API, Extension installation/unistallation/upgrading (version checking, extension dependencies, OS dependencies), and Extension portal for Renoise site.
Basically, extension is .ZIP file with .XRNE suffix containing XML file describing Extension name, version, access URL, Renoise compatibility (Ex 2.5 - 2.7), and Script entry point. This is unpacked to renoise directory under Extensions folder (Ex: Extensions/LiveScript). And renoise runs the Extensions/LiveScript/init.js (or whatever) on startup. This sets up new menu entries and buttons or shortcut keys and stuff.
Renoise also checks the access URL from time to time, and if there are updates on original access URL then it offers users to download the updates on startup.
I like the idea of JavaScript because in my testing the google new V8 Javascript Engine is Pretty Damn Fast[TM], even for audio oriented applications and also pretty easily embeddable. The licence is also compatible with Renoise. And let’s not forget that Javascript is pretty simple language to write.
Scripts are esoteric? But a ‘tracker’ is also considered esoteric by many, remember?
Yes, but on the other hand, it allowed for truly awesome plugin ideas to be implemented by users, which resulted in, say, the peer controllers (the lack of which in other apps seems more like an unwashable stain of outward dumbness).
Imagine that you can freeze as many setups from a VST instrument as you want, and select\morph between those presets on the fly, by pressing an assigned shorcut\MIDI message? Or changing chords\arp in a note progression? Or jumping\looping\muting\unmuting. Seriously, after years of using peer control in a live gig, i looked at ableton, and saw an elephant on peg legs.
So, i’d say, giving users some of the tools to expand the product the way they like i think is a very cool and humane thing to do in this globalized circus.
Well, maybe it’s an interesting idea from commercial side of things. I’d gladly vote for such new product just to help Renoise expand its market base and motivate its awesome team.
I would appreciate pianoroll aswell, as long as it’s optional feature. It might be even fun to switch between both views for better visual view vs. direct access.
With new high-resolution pattern editor I don’t miss piano roll at all. I see Renoise mostly as a powerful sampler/sequencer (especially since it can actually sample directly into wav editor - that was major feature for me). That’s why I think developers should work on the sampler part. Multisample support, some slicer functionality (I see markers are already on the way ) etc.
So improved RNI structure (and all the goodies that comes with it) gets my vote.
I like how the functional update that is 2.0 has spawned some pretty high-flying ideas. I have nothing to add, except my personal opinion
The “extension” idea would really take not just Renoise, but music making in general, to the next level. But it would be hard to pull off, and possibly delay features that we would like to see before a 3.0, or whatever future release. I mean, we would then be expected to create those features ourselves, right?
Also, the “Live” idea…I personally feel that the “clip” based sequencer is the next evolutionary step for Renoise, and have put a lot of effort into making a feature design for that part (the “zoomable editor” draft). To see Renoise being split into two different programs would make me feel like each one was limited in it’s feature-set, instead of being better.
As for piano-troll As Taktik says, he has now created the foundation for it, in terms of precise timing. IMHO it’s so such an obviously useful feature that I would almost be surprised to see it become part of the vote, when you consider the number of people it would attract to the Renoise Way
I’d say that thinking of really smart tools for live musicians’ performances has in itself a WAY more huge marketing prospect than just ‘another app with a piano roll’. I mean, look around, there have been like a hundred apps with a piano roll, but how many truly smart tools do you know for a computer musician to use in a live gig? Look how ironic it now turns out with ableton: the supposedly best tool for live computer music has had to be HACKED just to get it do the job it was DESIGNED to do! Is it not hilarious? I mean, wasn’t it crystal clear from the start that a live musician needs to attach his\her own strings to the puppet, the way it would be most natural for him\her? Wasn’t it clear that scripting was inevitable?
Now, i wanna stress an interesting note here.
You see, Renoise is a razor-sharp tool. A very smart tool. And i think that in order break it to even bigger communities you don’t necessarily have to pursue the already trodden, familiar paths - like conventional pianorolls and stuff like that.
I’d say you just have to stick with tracker vision, continue to pursue the Renoise path, adding just things only a tracker can adopt most efficiently.
Live performances with a PC is one of the major gaps it can fill. A vast gap, really. Filling this gap can bring Renoise to people who still may not be aware of the simple fact that a tracker - however ‘esoteric’ it may appear at first glance - actually allows you to do stuff way faster and more convenient than anything else.
This is where Buzz failed because of unstable core engine and too geeky setup methods (although i know a heap of people who use it exactly for live gigs, thanks to its freedom of peer control - funnily, i saw some hide buzz behind a cubase screenshot, to ward off stupid questions))), but this is where Renoise can totally win, even over seemingly friendlier tools like ableton.
The piano roll solves “multiple grids, single representation.” Look at the following garageband screenshots. The notes don’t move, the but the grid adjusts itself accordingly. Look at the little gray squares:
Renoise’s “pattern zooming” will have to emulate something similar.
Is it the need to visualize things? I mean, visually grasp the span of music pieces on the screen?
i can only add what i’ve already mentioned some time before: instances within instances. it’s the only truly innovative concept in the way software is made to work - as seen from a user side. Other than that - a tracker concept cuts the most cheese for me.
Personally i have nothing against a piano roll as extra. I like the visualization for long notes / chords, which can be implemented in a tracker view too. On the other hand, say i have an arp of 4 notes and i want to quickly move every third note 2 notes down, i can just mark a square around them and put them at the right position. For me a piano roll would be a quick way to move notes around.
) etc.
As Taktik says, he has now created the foundation for it, in terms of precise timing. IMHO it’s so such an obviously useful feature that I would almost be surprised to see it become part of the vote, when you consider the number of people it would attract to the Renoise Way