Alternating patterns in arrangemen mode - is there a better way?

VictorStar · 2014-09-15T20:30:52.000Z

So I write a lot of stuff on the OP-1 and then chop it up and import it to the OT.

The problem is that a lot of times, my patterns on the OP-1 are 8-bar patterns… so then when I need to program them in on the OT I’ll do the first 4 bars on one pattern, then the second 4 bars on the next (usually as a trigger on the first and then an empty pattern on the second so that the sample continues to play).

This means though that when I use arrangement mode, my songs look like this:

Pattern
A01
A02
A01
A02
…and so on, for 8 or 16 lines until the chorus, which might be a 4 pattern part on A03 that repeats a few times (or whereever). It’s pretty unsustainable and hard to keep track of your spot in the song.

Jump doesn’t seem right here because I can’t set it to jump a specific number of times… right?

Is there a better way to do this, either when I’m building the patterns themselves or when I’m building the songs?

coralhex · 2014-09-15T21:13:29.000Z

If you use a lot of macro samples (or generally can live with half the note resolution), try just setting time scaling to 1/2X in scale setup. That gives you 8 bars off the bat. The lowered note resolution can usually be compensated for with some clever re-triggering and micro-timing. Also, you can set only the tracks with the longer samples to 1/2X, and other tracks 1X or whatever.

rikrak · 2014-09-16T07:14:54.000Z

Scale mode at 1/2x sounds like best solution in this case - but don’t forget you can use Loop in Arrangements.

You would only need to write each section of A01,A02 once this way. Loops are set to run multiple times, unlike Jump which just runs once.

coralhex · 2014-09-16T16:50:41.000Z

""rikrak"":

Scale mode at 1/2x sounds like best solution in this case - but don’t forget you can use Loop in Arrangements.

You would only need to write each section of A01,A02 once this way. Loops are set to run multiple times, unlike Jump which just runs once.

^^^^^^^^^
Good point. The arranger has a lot of mad tricks up the sleeve, even for music that isn’t particularly “arranged”.

Allerian · 2014-09-16T17:30:51.000Z

You could also go at it without the arranger by selecting the pair of patterns to play back and forth with pattern chaining.

VictorStar · 2014-09-19T22:50:20.000Z

Ok - I think that the loop function does what I need. Thanks everybody.

But is there really no way to see how many Loops are left? That’s unfortunate!

VictorStar · 2014-09-19T22:50:59.000Z

""coralhex"":

[quote=“rikrak”]Scale mode at 1/2x sounds like best solution in this case - but don’t forget you can use Loop in Arrangements.

You would only need to write each section of A01,A02 once this way. Loops are set to run multiple times, unlike Jump which just runs once.

^^^^^^^^^
Good point. The arranger has a lot of mad tricks up the sleeve, even for music that isn’t particularly “arranged”.[/quote]
Yeah, inevitably if I try to do that I end up missing the cue to go to the chorus or back to the verse. When you’re doing pop music there’s not much room for error!

JSZ · 2014-09-20T06:17:35.000Z

""VictorStar"":

Yeah, inevitably if I try to do that I end up missing the cue to go to the chorus or back to the verse. When you’re doing pop music there’s not much room for error!

Can’t you program drum fills and such to be the cues, you know like the bands used to do

I bet it will be nicer to perform when you feel from the music that the next part is coming, instead of looking for it at a tiny screen. And it might just be better for the audience too.

VictorStar · 2014-09-22T20:38:32.000Z

""JSZ"":

[quote=“VictorStar”]Yeah, inevitably if I try to do that I end up missing the cue to go to the chorus or back to the verse. When you’re doing pop music there’s not much room for error!

Can’t you program drum fills and such to be the cues, you know like the bands used to do

I bet it will be nicer to perform when you feel from the music that the next part is coming, instead of looking for it at a tiny screen. And it might just be better for the audience too.[/quote]
Sorry - I wasn’t clear. What I’m saying is that I get caught up in the other aspects of the performance and end up failing to queue up the pattern change at the right spot. Or worse, I fat-finger it and switch to the wrong pattern.
I wouldn’t worry about it if I was just doing a DJ set on my own - but when the vocalist and drummer are depending on me to make the change at the same spot every time I am a lot more comfortable when it’s foolproof and I can focus on the other aspects of performance.