Is there any likelihood of 1 part per pattern being implemented on the Octatrack in future?
I hope not
Probably not.
To overcome this limitation, try making use of the Sample Locks and use PART 1 for PATTERNS 1-4, PART 2 for PATTERNS 5-8 and so onā¦
the classic āpartā issue ported to the new forum as wellā¦now we need a āscratched displayā one =D
Try to use Sample Locks. Then is really not necessary more parts.
Why do you need so many parts?
I think itās really nice having multiple patterns for each part. There are 16 banks, with 4 parts and 16 patterns each = 64 parts and 256 patterns. Thatās pretty generous and being able to make variations and fills on patterns, or to chain 4 patterns to make a 16-bar pattern, seems a heck of a lot more useful. Having individual parts for every single one of the 256 patterns seems ridiculous to manage to me, especially when each part gives you 16 scenes.
There are so many tricks you can use to get more mileage out of each part, I really donāt understand why this gets requested so often.
I think thatās because the part-system as such doesnāt exactly resemble how other brands that make the same-ish typesof machinesā¦
so you have to rethink some of your ideasā¦ people donāt like thatā¦ so they want it āthe same as every other machineā
RealWorld exampleā¦
on the mc909 you donāt have kitsā¦ you have patterns with patches linked in itā¦
every pattern contains enough data to play/jam it into a songā¦ so theoreticly, I can program a few thousand songs on itā¦ (donāt know exactly how many patterns it can haveā¦ but it was really into a thousand) draw backā¦
However if I change a patch, it will change in EVERY PATTERN THAT USES IT. and with 1000 patterns, you run out of room to store every unique patchā¦ and you end up destroying patterns, cause original patch is missing.
This I just cant on my octatrackā¦ so if I want to approach it the sameā¦ it will not workā¦ howeverā¦ I approach my octatrack in a more āelektronā way. I donāt use a new kit for every pattern on my machinedrumā¦ neither do I do on my monomachineā¦ and I do not on my octatrackā¦
I did have to go through the trouble of āredefining the way I make musicā
so I had to invest time/effort/blood/sweat/tearsā¦ not everybody likes thatā¦ henceā¦ all the questionsā¦
I could be wrongā¦ its just me thinking about the whyā¦ but thatās why its a forum if somebody thinks I am wrongā¦ please discussā¦ might give me a difrent view on the matterā¦
I would like not to have to think about PARTS all together. So if having 16 PARTS (one for each pattern) is a sollution, I am all for it.
The situation described above has happened a lot to me. Iām jamming on patterns, copying them over to new ones, tweaking the settings of the sounds to make them work in the new context. And then I go back to pattern 1 and it does not make sense anymore. The sounds have changed so much the pattern sounds crap now. P-locking everything would be an option, but a very very tedious one.
Having 16 PARTS available would enable people who have used the 4 existing ones to there advantage to keep using the assignments they made, but free up other users (like me) from having to think about them. An āauto-link PART to PATTERNā option in the settings would be great in this respect.
Effectively, PARTS would merge with PATTERNS, making them invisible. Unless you choose to use them to your advantage, if you want.
Fair enoughā¦ the less you gotta think about stuffā¦ the more time you have for making musicā¦
this autolink feature you speak of, is already thereā¦ when you save a part when your in a patternā¦ it gets linked to that patternā¦
so it would be in your benefit if you did learn how to use itā¦ atleast you got 4 of themā¦ so you could make 4 patterns per bank that are āfixedā to what you programmed it toā¦
the big feature your missing out on, working the way you workā¦ be easy alternative versions of your patternā¦ I got 1 pattern + 3 alternativesā¦ and 4 of those per bank ā¦ thatās basicly how I use it.
Nope At least thats what HQ said. But its not that bad, just use 1 part for blocks of 4 patterns
I hope not, if it means loosing the ability to have 4 parts for one pattern. My latest workflow experiment uses multiple parts per pattern. As it is now, there is a lot of flexibility.
I am trying out:
1 song per project
1 main pattern per bank using up to 4 parts
another pattern or two that are variations of the main pattern and another one or two for breaks
Changing Parts to change samples, effects, and midi program changes on a given pattern, been fun so far!
I bet, that if they would really implement 1 part per patternā¦ allot less people would experiment like thisā¦ they would have no need toā¦
doesnāt have to be a bad thing per say butā¦ their is new sonic adventures to be found in new ideasā¦ its a good thing to let go of old fashioned approaches a little bitā¦
I was stuck on this 1 part per pattern thinking (since I got used to that mode from MD, MnM. and Korg Electribes) and then I read Merlinās (*) take on the whole OT thing. Yeah, basically, use the limitation creativelyā¦tear down the concept of 1 set of sounds per pattern, and work with what it is (although if Elektron changed this to 1-1, I wouldnāt kick it out of bed ).
(*) this is where referencing the E-U forum would helpā¦
Are you using all 16 scenes?
I havenāt had to yet. I stick to the numbers I can reach one handed. I really wish the B side button was more centrally located.
Personally, I donāt feel the need for more parts. Between scenes for settings and sample and start position locks, I just donāt need to switch machines on a track that often. Though at this point the kind of music might make a difference.
Can I use 4 parts per bank? Sure. Do I prefer it? No. I donāt want the current 4 part method to go away for those that like it, but count me in as someone who would love to be able to the ignore the whole parts concept completely with a 1 part per pattern option in the project preferences.
I donāt see it changing TBH. I find the parts thing mildly annoying from the standpoint that it is far too easy to fuck things up, stuff like this is not musically intuitive in my opinion and is more ātechyā thinking. I agree that it can be used creatively, but it can also be a bit rigid depending on what you are doing. Also the whole saving scheme, still never quite sure where I am with that, thankfully the Analog Four is more like the older Elektron machines but improved, the OT though sometimes feels like too many ideas were put into it so that it might be all things to all men, which ironically is part of its strength as well as weakness.
I think the personalise options on the OT are required and should be expanded, since it is capable of so many tasks, and it would be great if some solution was found for parts, like everyone else I can use them fine, but most of the time I wish it worked like the other gear.
I donāt find the 4 parts per bank thing so limiting as the 128 static sample slots, considering I run out of sample slots well before parts, even with most static slots comprised of sample chains. Still can get a lot of music in one project irregardless. Scenes are the key, and recycling samples into different tracks.