Why 4 bar limitation again and again?

[VAU]

does any of you have reasonable arguments, why  still so many sequencer etc are limited to a few bars?

there are so many musicians out there, who compose in long melodies or movements,

but it seems that hardware wise, there is only the MPC and the DELUGE for this.


why is this so?

[VAU]

come on, there must be a reason

is it technically more practical to build 4 bar sequencers?
is the software easier to program?

i really want to know..

[johndoe]

good question, for instance on the Keystep Pro I find it pretty limiting, and going up to 128 or 256 notes instead of 64 shouldn't be an issue memory wise?? so why not just extend these buttons on the keyboard I wonder :/

[VAU]

maybe somebody from ARTURIA can explain it to us?

[megamarkd]

Depending on what timing division you use, you can make longer patterns.  Running at 16ths, then yes 4 bars is the length, but running on semiquavers (8ths) your pattern is 8 bars.  Crotchets (quarter-notes), make 64 steps run for a length of 16 bars and if you are going to use steps the length of a breathe (1/1, achievable by running the sequencer on a clock signal at a quarter speed of the actual BPM you are working in), you get a maximum pattern length of 64 bars!
Now I realise how ridiculous it sounds to have notes that sound for an entire bar (of 4/4 timing) but it actually isn't that silly, especially if you are running chords.

The KSP is actually a different beast again, with the way it can play a variation of the pattern for each round up to four round.  If you want, you can create completely different patterns for each time the pattern runs through, which running at 1/16 per step is 16 bars; perfect for chord progressions.

Be creative and remember that limitations don't need to be shackles.  Look at your options and see how you can make them work for you in ways that aren't obvious.

[knasser]

The term "sequencer" has been hijacked to mean "step sequencer". I always wondered why people got so worked up over a 64-step sequencer, or a big WOW to a 512 step sequencer, when a 1990s synth can hold 20,000 steps or more. So the traditional sequencer is nowhere to be found unless you buy an arranger. I myself own a MatrixBrute and a Wavestate (Great combination by the way), and planning on buying an Akai MPC Live II (or something similar) to record my songs.

[megamarkd]

The term "sequencer" has been hijacked to mean "step sequencer". I always wondered why people got so worked up over a 64-step sequencer, or a big WOW to a 512 step sequencer, when a 1990s synth can hold 20,000 steps or more. So the traditional sequencer is nowhere to be found unless you buy an arranger. I myself own a MatrixBrute and a Wavestate (Great combination by the way), and planning on buying an Akai MPC Live II (or something similar) to record my songs.

Ah but technically a step-sequencer is a traditional sequencer, and the 20,000 event linear digital MIDI sequencer is the new comer!

Pedantics aside, the big hardware stand alone MIDI song sequencer is a sorely missed product in my view.  But Arturia's sequencers are more on the performance tool side of thing, I feel, and that is the way I have used mine.  It would be wonderful if a company was to make a nice affordable stand-alone MIDI song sequencer which is just that; nothing fancy, just a screen with a piano-roll, a note input, numeric keypad and two-in two-out MIDI interface.  Oh hang-on, I'm describing a QY700