Thinking about buying FL 6

[play]

I just wish the actual sequencing of MIDI patterns could be less dependant on the playlist-style form of sequencing that it currently uses. Great for *unk-tish*-*unk-tish*-*unk-tish*-*unk-tish*-*unk-tish* x 1,000,000 measures. Not for more varied music, at least without taking up 4 scrolling pages of pattern playlist.

Me too. I keep thinking, that there's some clever way to work around this problem when creating more complex arrangements. But a look at other peoples tracks shows that there still is no way around it. For every break or beat variation you need a new pattern lane. And if you seperate your drum intruments into individual patterns (which makes a lot of sense eg. for house and techno tracks) then every break takes up as many new pattern vertical lanes. Also, you can't see the notes of more than one pattern at a time which makes programming drums with seperated patterns a major PITA.

It's just funny, that most users don't seem to have any problems with that aspect. Could someone please explain, why?

[summer2000]

I'm currently using Guru in Live as my main drum machine. Is the drum sampler in FL just as good? Or is the FL and Guru combo a better idea?
I find Guru to be the only software drum machine that comes closest at emulating an MPC.

[Wopelka]

I just wish the actual sequencing of MIDI patterns could be less dependant on the playlist-style form of sequencing that it currently uses. Great for *unk-tish*-*unk-tish*-*unk-tish*-*unk-tish*-*unk-tish* x 1,000,000 measures. Not for more varied music, at least without taking up 4 scrolling pages of pattern playlist.

Me too. I keep thinking, that there's some clever way to work around this problem when creating more complex arrangements. But a look at other peoples tracks shows that there still is no way around it. For every break or beat variation you need a new pattern lane. And if you seperate your drum intruments into individual patterns (which makes a lot of sense eg. for house and techno tracks) then every break takes up as many new pattern vertical lanes. Also, you can't see the notes of more than one pattern at a time which makes programming drums with seperated patterns a major PITA.

It's just funny, that most users don't seem to have any problems with that aspect. Could someone please explain, why?

to avoid this real problem, i tend to make longer patterns, 16, 32 or even more bars, already including some variations of shorter motives. this way, i don't need to have more than a couple of pattern per instrument (depending on the length of the track and its genre, of course).

[summer2000]

I just wish the actual sequencing of MIDI patterns could be less dependant on the playlist-style form of sequencing that it currently uses. Great for *unk-tish*-*unk-tish*-*unk-tish*-*unk-tish*-*unk-tish* x 1,000,000 measures. Not for more varied music, at least without taking up 4 scrolling pages of pattern playlist.

Me too. I keep thinking, that there's some clever way to work around this problem when creating more complex arrangements. But a look at other peoples tracks shows that there still is no way around it. For every break or beat variation you need a new pattern lane. And if you seperate your drum intruments into individual patterns (which makes a lot of sense eg. for house and techno tracks) then every break takes up as many new pattern vertical lanes. Also, you can't see the notes of more than one pattern at a time which makes programming drums with seperated patterns a major PITA.

It's just funny, that most users don't seem to have any problems with that aspect. Could someone please explain, why?

And this is supposed to be easier than Live or Reason? I don't think so.

[experimental.crow]

I just wish the actual sequencing of MIDI patterns could be less dependant on the playlist-style form of sequencing that it currently uses. Great for *unk-tish*-*unk-tish*-*unk-tish*-*unk-tish*-*unk-tish* x 1,000,000 measures. Not for more varied music, at least without taking up 4 scrolling pages of pattern playlist.

Me too. I keep thinking, that there's some clever way to work around this problem when creating more complex arrangements. But a look at other peoples tracks shows that there still is no way around it. For every break or beat variation you need a new pattern lane. And if you seperate your drum intruments into individual patterns (which makes a lot of sense eg. for house and techno tracks) then every break takes up as many new pattern vertical lanes. Also, you can't see the notes of more than one pattern at a time which makes programming drums with seperated patterns a major PITA.

It's just funny, that most users don't seem to have any problems with that aspect. Could someone please explain, why?

to avoid this real problem, i tend to make longer patterns, 16, 32 or even more bars, already including some variations of shorter motives. this way, i don't need to have more than a couple of pattern per instrument (depending on the length of the track and its genre, of course).

i , for one , never use the pattern playlist ...
all my comps are written in the piano roll ...
the piano roll improvements in 6 are something i'm looking forward to ...

[Shane Sanders]

I just wish the actual sequencing of MIDI patterns could be less dependant on the playlist-style form of sequencing that it currently uses. Great for *unk-tish*-*unk-tish*-*unk-tish*-*unk-tish*-*unk-tish* x 1,000,000 measures. Not for more varied music, at least without taking up 4 scrolling pages of pattern playlist.

Me too. I keep thinking, that there's some clever way to work around this problem when creating more complex arrangements. But a look at other peoples tracks shows that there still is no way around it. For every break or beat variation you need a new pattern lane. And if you seperate your drum intruments into individual patterns (which makes a lot of sense eg. for house and techno tracks) then every break takes up as many new pattern vertical lanes. Also, you can't see the notes of more than one pattern at a time which makes programming drums with seperated patterns a major PITA.

It's just funny, that most users don't seem to have any problems with that aspect. Could someone please explain, why?

to avoid this real problem, i tend to make longer patterns, 16, 32 or even more bars, already including some variations of shorter motives. this way, i don't need to have more than a couple of pattern per instrument (depending on the length of the track and its genre, of course).

Same here except that I don't make individual patterns for a single instrument at any time. I think in terms of sections of music and its entire orchestra, as in a whole verse or an entire chorus, etc. Just conceptualize it that way and it may lead to a better composing method anyway because you'll be thinking in terms of the function of a section rather than a bunch of little patterns that don't really support a musical result. That's my take on it. An entire complex song for me is usually 8 to 10 playlist patterns.

With the new pattern slicing in FL6, my method will become even more logical (for me), since it will be much easier to slice off a section that is similar to what I want to start with, then make the variations and whatnot.

[Wormhelmet]

Interesting. I use Live 5 and prefer the midi in Live to that of FL. I also like to freeze tracks. I also experienced crashes in the FL demo with VSTi's that work fine in Live. As far as the crashing of Guitar Rig, I think they made an update to fix that. I think FL is a fantastic program with a very easy learning curve, but thought Live was easier. I really like the step sequencer in FL and the dropdown piano thing. Awesome for drums and basslines. If they put that in Live, I would have perfection. that or Freeze in FL might make me switch hosts. Sure comes with a lot of goodies too. How can you beat the price per feature in FL? My system is very modest and I want people to know that Live is rock solid stable on it with many VST's in my folder. it has a lot of new features too. Audio and Midi FX, simpler (works as good as the FL sampler) and a great FM synth too.

[diverdee]

Personally I could never really get my head around FL for some reason, I have a mate who uses it almost exclusively (he moved from logic p.c.) & makes great music with it.
I also mainly use Live & reason & find them almost perfect, although I am sorely tempted by GURU myself after playing with it, fun easy way to get beats going & I hear it integrates very well with live.
As others have said download the fruity demo (maybe wait until there's a demo of 6) & give it a good play.
At Fl's price point (if you have the spare cash) it's probably worth buying anyway if you believe you may like it, as it loads as a vsti & rewires etc.

[zircon]

It's just funny, that most users don't seem to have any problems with that aspect. Could someone please explain, why?

I just don't find it problematic. I don't even name my patterns, even though I often end up using over 100 of them. I don't see it as a big deal.. I've used Cubase, Reason, Logic, Sonar, Tracktion, and several others and I keep coming back to FL because it's light years beyond anything else.

[Muff Wiggler]

hey, just saw this thread...

interesting as I am also thinking of buying FLStudio... and also thinking I shouldn't buy it. anyone want to help?

here's my thoughts: I'm a cubase SX user, very happy with it, not gonna change. cubase for life

BUT, i'm a Sytrus owner. Just for fun I went to IL's online shop to look at pricing for FLStudio. Turns out I still had a login cookie with my Sytrus ownership, so the shop 'knew' I was a Sytrus owner.

For this fact, the shop automatically discounted FL Studio XXL by around $150. HOW COOL IS THAT? Good job Image Line. I think this is very cool and very customer-centric. How many other developers offer upgrade options like that? And then you add 'free updates for life'? It makes me think what a great company IL must be. I know they take a *LOT* of bashing, but when I see that they have policies like this, I have to ask, what's is there to dislike? This is amazing in the industry, seriously, kudos to IL.

Anyway... so i'm thinking FL6 is around the corner.. i get get $150 off... i get free updates for life....this software is growing and getting better all the time. I used to think FruityLoops was a 'toy' but it really seems to have evolved into a serious, next-generation production tool. I like this.

Now let's bear in mind i've never in my life even bothered to try the demo of FL. Never used it ever, only seen some screenshots.

Am i getting sucked in by the marketing ploys? Should I be considering FL? I have Cubase, ERA and EnergyXT, and loads of instruments and FX. Can anyone offer me a compelling reason to add FL to my setup?

If I can be convinced I'll probably buy it. If I cannot, I definately wont. So FL fanboys, the onus is on YOU!

thanks in advance and of course the obligatory 'cheers'

[Rucafest]

Mate i also use Cubase but the SL version and often use FL rewired in Cubase as a Multi out VST and its the Match made in heaven!!! Beeing able to use FL's Beat Slicer in Cubase allows me to create some really wicked beats and so, also FL's workflow is so quick and easy that i get a lot of ideas by just messing about, then complete or use both Cubase and FL for the end product. As i mentioned before, for drum programming, FL is one if not the best tool out there, add all the other functions, Efx and possabilities of this app and you have one serious music studio!!!
Its a no brainer, just the lifetime FREE upgrades should be reason enough to convince anyone, and i can honestly tell you that all the upgrades that i have received since i first brouhgt FL (since V3 or 2.something) have been not only great improvements on the program itself, but also great new VSTs, inclusion of new Effects units, allways good.
Now FL6, what can we say but wow, Computer Music certainly did!

[Omnivox]

Me too. I keep thinking, that there's some clever way to work around this problem when creating more complex arrangements. But a look at other peoples tracks shows that there still is no way around it. For every break or beat variation you need a new pattern lane. And if you seperate your drum intruments into individual patterns (which makes a lot of sense eg. for house and techno tracks) then every break takes up as many new pattern vertical lanes. Also, you can't see the notes of more than one pattern at a time which makes programming drums with seperated patterns a major PITA.

well, that's the reason i switched from fruity to cubase three years ago. my music ain't too complicated, but i still had two screenfuls of patterns ..... that was real bad. but some of the people i know really like the workflow in fruity, so it all depends on how certain application and certain people's ways of work combine. dunno.

[play]

Thanks for all the interesting comments so far. The solutions to the problem seem to boil down to this:

(a) Don't separate drum instruments into individual patterns, rather try to think of a pattern as a section of a whole rhythm group playing (i.e. drums). This reduces the number of pattern lanes in the play list and makes programming breaks easier.

(b) Make long patterns. That way many subtle variations to the beat can be made in one pattern, also reducing the pattern lane number in the playlist. Keeping track of 500 or more drum notes in one clip (typically in 32 bars) seems like a challenge, though.

While I agree that these ideas do help to keep the playlist tidy, there's still the slight awkwardness of arranging breaks or bridges or simultaneous variations on a number of channels:

xxxx------
----xxxx--
--------xx
xxxx------
----xxxx--
--------xx
xxxx------
----xxxx--
--------xx

The whole static pattern grid just seems a little backward to me. Being able to have parts of different patterns on one lane instead really would help (like this):

aaaabbbbcc
ddddeeeeff
gggghhhhii

[Hink]

I just wish the actual sequencing of MIDI patterns could be less dependant on the playlist-style form of sequencing that it currently uses. Great for *unk-tish*-*unk-tish*-*unk-tish*-*unk-tish*-*unk-tish* x 1,000,000 measures. Not for more varied music, at least without taking up 4 scrolling pages of pattern playlist.

Me too. I keep thinking, that there's some clever way to work around this problem when creating more complex arrangements. But a look at other peoples tracks shows that there still is no way around it. For every break or beat variation you need a new pattern lane. And if you seperate your drum intruments into individual patterns (which makes a lot of sense eg. for house and techno tracks) then every break takes up as many new pattern vertical lanes. Also, you can't see the notes of more than one pattern at a time which makes programming drums with seperated patterns a major PITA.

It's just funny, that most users don't seem to have any problems with that aspect. Could someone please explain, why?

to avoid this real problem, i tend to make longer patterns, 16, 32 or even more bars, already including some variations of shorter motives. this way, i don't need to have more than a couple of pattern per instrument (depending on the length of the track and its genre, of course).

I do the same thing, I don't loop patterns often...like say for a verse it will be all one pattern...most are quite long, but I like it better that way...I'm not sure I've used more then 15 patterns very often...

[M'Snah]

btw if u choose to buy it - pm me and i tell u how to get 10% off from IL

no no PM me, i can have you 10%, too.

That's 20%