I've gotten a few emails lately about what pattern chaining is and and it's advantages. So I'm going to try and explain it again and and see if some of you who aren't really familiar with it or have never even used it can have a better understanding of what it actually is.

Now some have confused pattern chaining with arrangers. Pattern chaining really doesn't apply in that respect. Arrangers have built in styles and fill ins. You can trigger these at any time by pressing the appropriate buttons. When you chain patterns you're doing just that. Chaining one pattern to the next, and so on. Here's an example of what I used to do on a synth I used to own.

This synth stored 50 user patterns. Meaning I could create up to 50 of my own custom patterns (also these don't work in any way like auto accomp). Say I wanted to create a song that used only 2 patterns. I would create my base pattern (USER PATTERN 1).. Now to get another variation of the same pattern I just copy that pattern to USER PATTERN 2. I now have the same pattern in USRER 1&2. I can now go to the second user pattern and either delete or add to it.. When I'm done I now have 2 variations. When it comes to fill ins, what I and a lot of synth users do is actually record the fill in right into the pattern (for example say it's a 4 bar pattern and the fill in occurs at the end of bar 4) I was able to do this up to 50 times.. Meaning I could have 50 different pattern variations to use for one song. Now it comes down to chaining them together.. My synth allowed you to select the pattern track, and then opened up a menu that showed all the measures the memory allowed per song. You start from measure one, and choose that pattern you want to play at measure one.. If it's a 4 bar pattern and I wanted a different variation following that pattern..., I scroll to measure 5 and select my next pattern. I keep doing this until I have my pattern laid out in the order I want them.. Also keep in mind when I say patterns I mean FULL patterns, and not just drum tracks.. I'm talking about patterns that have drums, bass, guitar and so on.. When it came to doing a pattern in a differnt key sig that was simple.. You could actually go into a menu and transpose the entire pattern without having to re-record anything... Once you got the hang of it pattern chaining is sooooo easy to do.. It makes song creation so simple.. That's also one of the reasons I bought a drum machine to use with my PSR-550.. My drum machine utilizes pattern chaining, allows me to edit the drum kits, and is sooooooooo easy to program.. When I say edit the kits I'm not talking about effects... I mean creating my own custom kit. You could reasign the instruments to any pad, adjust the velocity, level, and tune of them as well. So I could have numerous varitions of the same kit by just simple editing.. Hope this cleared up some questions.. If I confused anyone even more I apologize

[This message has been edited by squeak_D (edited 06-09-2003).]

Squeak, you mentioned that when you wanna change the key of a pattern you just transpose it... This is fine when you go from Minor to Minor. But it's not that easy to go from Major to Minor and vice versa, there are different rules apply on that. Transposing will not work - if you wanna do it properly - and you gotta change the appropriate note(s) manually and individually.

Any thoughts on that?

If you can't transpose then you just copy the pattern, do a simple step of deleting a few tracks and manually playing that in whichever key sig you want.. It takes just minute to do. Or you could even step record it if you like. I've been playing both arrangers and synth for years and I honestly think that composition is so much easier on a synth than it is on an arranger. With a synth you don't have the recording limitations as you do with an arranger.. Granted the arranger function is nice for when you don't know a particualar key sig., but when you get down to it in terms of pure song composition power, I think a synth takes the edge on this.... I do love arrangers, but if I had my choice for song writing I'd have to say a synth.

Squeak

I've been using patterns quite a lot. The great thing about it is it takes up less room when creating a song by inserting a pattern into a particular measure as opposed to copying a measure. Technically, how these differentiate from one another escapes me, but the actual file size is smaller, so it works for me.
Just my thots...L

You're right Leon.. With my old synth it used far less memory to actually insert a pattern rather than copy it.

Squeak

Here's another biggie! I don't know ANY arranger that allows this.. With the newer synths out now you have the ability to have patterns of multiple tracks, with each track having its own independent loop setting! You could have a 4 bar pattern, consisting of say 5 tracks. Your bass track could be 2 measures, your drums could be 4 and so on. That really makes it a lot easier when writing music.. And you can chain all these patterns together with different loop settings. Independent loop settings have been used for a number of years now.. The Yamaha EX series had it and the Triton Classic did as well.. (not sure about the Trinity)... If arrangers had this function it would great.

Squeak

[This message has been edited by squeak_D (edited 06-11-2003).]

Ain't technology wonderful!!
Makes me wanna go out & buy my gizmos...
just by coincidence.. I was foolin' around with "When a man loves Woman" last night.
Needed a key change (semi-tone)after the bridge. The verses were patterns, so it was just a matter of inserting the pattern after the bridge, going back after and transposing +1. That gave me the basis for building the rest of it, (orchestration...big Barry Mannilo finish...etc.)
Gotta have fun in my old age ya know!!

Leon,
I agree with you on that

Hi Squeak,
just got back from holidays, so I'm not thinking too clearly.
Do you actually want a keyboard that uses patterns in it's sequencer, or a software sequencer, that will work with patterns ( the end product being a midifile).
If it's the latter, and I've understood correctly, xgworks appears to have that ability. Won't go into detail , just in case I've misunderstood.

best wishes
Rikki

Rikki,
You're on the right track.. That's exactly what synths do.. Even those that have preset patterns built in like the Motif and Triton. However they do not work like an arranger.... I think putting a drum track together on a synth is much faster than using an arranger (when using your own patterns).... I use XG works, and I'll often do straight linear recording on the drums, but I'll copy and paste measures.... I don't use them as midi files though. One person here who can also share some input on this subject is Bluezplayer (who has a Yamaha Motif), and I think someone else here owns a Korg Triton Studio.

Hi Squeak,
I'm probably diversifying from what you're trying to say, but do you use the style blocks in your xg works.
To me even though they're based on an arranger concept, they're still blocks that can be chained together to form a song. ie if you used the styles from your psr or actually created your own, as style blocks within xg works, ie just say you did the chord progression, then the style progression ( intro variations fills etc )then when you finish that, you expand the arrangement into individual tracks and do the further editing that you require to get the song right.

The last synth I owned many years ago was the Korg o1w Workstation. Since then I've pretty much had arrangers. I haven't checked out the latest synths ie motiff etc, just in case I get tempted.
I only just got my xg works a couple of weeks ago, so I may sound a bit too enthusiastic about the program. It's just that I hated the sequencer in my 9000 pro , and this program has allowed me to create and edit backing tracks from the pro's internal styles so easily.

best wishes
Rikki

I sometimes use the pattern chaining function on the Motif, mostly for drum parts. Unless I'm doing a synth oriented tune, in which case this doesn't matter to me, I generally do the rest of the stuff I want in real time because I don't want repetitive sounds. I would rather add my realtime playing nuances. Otherwise, to get a piece to sound less mechanical, I'll need to edit the resulting files afterward, including changing and varying note lengths, velocities, timing ( placement of notes ), etc, and I find it to be faster to just play the piece, and then if I need to edit at all, the amount of editing is a lot less than I would do when trying to "humanize" a pattern produced bass line, rythym.. etc. I don't use all of the power ( features ) of the Motif, but some of the features that are helpful to me are not available on my arrangers. These include the pattern chaining function, the real time ( and fully programmable ) knobs, sliders, pedals, and mod wheel, sampling functions, access ( slots ) for plug-ins, arrpeggios ( including user ), and easy to understand / use, but deep synth editing power. The key feel here is also a big plus for me.

In the PA80, you can really "pattern chain " too, by mixing and matching various style parts and editing them in it's excellent pattern sequencer, along with adding some of your own playing if you wish. The step record function ( for the song sequencer ), finishes the job for me. Pretty much the same with the PSR2000, except that it's voice set ( internal sounds ) is the least favorite of my three boards. One nice thing that the 2k has that the PA80 doesn't are the programmable multi pads, which can be used like "arps" ). The PA80 has them, but they are limited to pressing and getting one sound at a time ( or they can be used to change controller data ), rather than having the ability to play a loop of midi data as the 2000's do. Of course the 2000 allows for user multipads too.. ( the PA80 does not )

I remember too from my M1 days, that it didn't have much internal seqeuncer memory. Using and "chaining" drum patterns allowed for the use of substantially less memory than laying each individual note.

AJ