Multipattern & Sequencer suggestion

This is my suggestion:



- The possibility to show the pattern to edit with the sequencer. Of course you can have a view only with the patterns or only with the sequencer.

- The possibility to show patterns from 2 or more different instruments, coloured as the sequencer blocks, to see them and/or edit them jointly. (in the figure, we can see 2 patterns: one from SFZ and the other one from Loopazoid).

- With double click in a block in the sequencer the pattern is shown to edit.

- For each machine time-line in the sequencer, there is a header with options as mute [M], solo [S], to show the plugin interface [GUI], to choose a preset,... (I draw an horizontal sequencer, but I don't have any preferences. A vertical one would be nice too).


PD: It's only a 'personal suggestion'

__________________

Last edited by Angelus on 09.04.2005, 16:14 o'clock.

why?
this saddens me
where are the beautiful, small ideas?

asdf : the KISS rule, right? hehe..

More frequently than not, this rule just works if what you have to do has a defined and unique use. Once the application requires several uses, either you need to create a new one for that (UNIX concept), or complicate the initial one (Windows concept).

How does one not create a different application but doesn't complicate the current one? answer: contexts.


(I am going a bit too philosophical, right? )

What i want to say is: angelus idea is just unpolished, but it is in essence, Psycle. The screenshot can be misleading being just some cut&paste work.

The idea is:

1) Patterns remain as they are now
(with some small changes to add functionality).
2) There is an optional new view, where you can see different patterns together. This is what the screenshot tries to show.
(We are adding a multipattern sequencer, so it is logical that in some place, there are more than one pattern playing)
3) The single sequencer is changed by a multipattern sequencer, which in this screenshot is shown together.
(The one shown here might be misleading. I will try to do it in a way that you could use psycle as always or "upgrade" your song to multipattern).

Psycle is about friendlyness. I will try that the program continues to have that essence.

__________________
<[JAZ]> Pa pi pa pa pa pi pa.... ;·D

asdf, what I suggest is only optional. I'm not a coder, I don't know if it would be hard to code or not. In any case it's only a personal idea.

The aim of the possibility to have patterns from different machines in the same view is because it could be more easy to compose some sections like drums: I.e. you have a bassdrum generator, a snare generator and a shaker generator. When multipattern will be inplemented, you will have only the pattern from one generator and you will need to change between machine's patterns to make a rythm section. In my suggestion, you could select the patterns from different machines that performs this drum section for easy work because you have all the elements in the same view.

I suggest too the possibility to have the sequencer in a frame when you are editing the patterns, as you already have in the current psycle versions' sequencer.

__________________

Last edited by Angelus on 10.04.2005, 12:11 o'clock.

[JAZ]
> How does one not create a different application but doesn't complicate the
> current one?

there are ways to manage with information. for example, a tree-like approach, eg first program would have, say, four sub-programs of which each would have 4 sub-programs. this way one could move between 16 programs using only 5 keys (one for each sub and one up a level). that would be internally terribly complicated but controllable for user

[angelus]
> When multipattern will be inplemented, you will have only the pattern from one
> generator and you will need to change between machine's patterns to make a
> rythm section.

as [JAZ] said patterns will (probably) be "multi-machine" (as they are currently)

I like the idea of multi-machine patterns. That way drums etc would be easy to do, but also if you wanted to have own patterns for every instrument that would also be possible.

If multimachine patterns are developed, now the question is: how it would be organized? As a single list of patterns as the current one?

I think that it would be more comfortable if each machine would have its own assigned patterns for a better organization and access in order to arrange them in the sequencer.

__________________

quote:

---

Original by Angelus If multimachine patterns are developed, now the question is: how it would be organized? As a single list of patterns as the current one?

I think that it would be more comfortable if each machine would have its own assigned patterns for a better organization and access in order to arrange them in the sequencer.

---

I dissagree, for me the multipattern sequencing would mean organization of different parts of a song, and not seperating the machines, at the moment some people do it by seperating areas by columns (which is anoying when you want to see how the track's done). Of course some people do it to be able to add things later, but that counts to what I mean . Seperating by machine would be too limited imho. Anyway, I like the concept screenshot. I would like something similar in the final implementation of multipattern.

Nice idea, Angelus

__________________
Synth1 and Psycle, what more could someone ask for ?

I think DMNXS and JAZ idea is way more powerful and flexible.
I could put an example. What if have some instruments for percussion? for example some samples and some native synth (JMDrum) or any VST?? I'd like to have them grouped

__________________
Am i going to be the same next year???? Will i use Psycle next years?? :rolleyes:

Interesting point, Sampler

__________________
Synth1 and Psycle, what more could someone ask for ?

Yeah, sampler, you're right.

Then, I'll ask two more things:

1) Because the patterns will be remain near as they are now, it will be necessary to maintain the machine number column and there will be an extra column for volume / velocity data, isn't it?

2) (I repeat the question) How will be the patterns organized to find and arrange them in the sequencer? A simple list of patterns? I'm asking this one because it could be confusing to arrange a mix of patterns for different machines. I think that the patterns could be named by the user.

Thanx.

__________________

My answers:

1) I suppose yes, Psycle should need the instrument column or any other way to indicate instrument (from my point of view).

2) That's a good question. I also think the patterns should be named by the user. Maybe current seq modified should be useful to show the list of pattern (or something similar)

__________________
Am i going to be the same next year???? Will i use Psycle next years?? :rolleyes:

Be careful that it does'nt end up like this...

__________________
Synth1 and Psycle, what more could someone ask for ?

yes, i don't like that GUI much. But pattern automation in Skale is pretty good

__________________
Am i going to be the same next year???? Will i use Psycle next years?? :rolleyes:

There won't be a machine column. The machine will be the same the whole channel/track. I could replace the current "track number" for this, or maybe i will add another value side by side. Not sure yet.

aux column will remain. (Maybe hidden depending on the machine selected... who knows...)


Since the sequence will have user-defined columns, the only logical way to do this is that patterns are grouped by this user-defined groups. I have yet to think on how i will do this, but this is the idea.




Ps. The GUI of FastTracker II (Sk@le's GUI influence) wasn't that bad. The problem with that screenshot you show is that this one is not the place where you compose. And, most importantly, that the GUI is divided in two sides, top and bottom.

__________________
<[JAZ]> Pa pi pa pa pa pi pa.... ;·D

JAZ, this may not be place to do your composing, but when one is faced with this screen at start up, is it ever any wonder why I'm using Pscyle now ?

Regards.

__________________
Synth1 and Psycle, what more could someone ask for ?

quote:

---

Original by js JAZ, this may not be place to do your composing, but when one is faced with this screen at start up, is it ever any wonder why I'm using Pscyle now ?

Regards.

---

To be honest, once you see what is exactly what, the GUI isn't all THAT bad... I mean: two automation columns, gloabal song options, a small menu to get to all the GUI sections, song information, a keyboard and one oscilloscope per channel. Though it looks like chaos, yes (perhaps because there's so much text).

Last edited by DMNXS on 27.04.2005, 19:44 o'clock.

DMNXS,

You may well be right. I haven't really given it much time to determine what's really going on with FastTracker and to be quite honest I really don't care either. Psycle covers the tracking side of things very well. I was'nt trying to scrutinize FastTracker, but I was simply trying to emphasise the point of keeping the user interface simple (uncluttered). This is one of Psycles strengths. I like the idea of starting a composition with a fresh canvas

Regards

__________________
Synth1 and Psycle, what more could someone ask for ?

About multimachine patterns: Yes, we could eliminate the machine column and thus save some space if the patterns were machine-dependent.
But I still fancy the idea of being able to see different patterns side by side somehow, to make the whole composition process more visual. Often I need to create some interaction between the bass, beats and the melodies and this would be very hard to do if I could only see one track at a time.

Couldn't we even have the patterns as they are now, and only add a Buzz-like master sequencer where we could freely move them around? I could have some pattern with 4 tracks for some percussions, and some with only 1 track and some with maybe even 16 (if I'm using a lot of multisamples and chords with a sampler for example...) and they could then just be placed horizontally to make them play in conjunction... This would be also easy to visualize if we forced the pattern lengths to go in multiples of 16 or even 32...

How does this sound? Or am I missing something vital here?