Step record + advance mode

I just cant… I had to buy a KeyStep just to be able to have the classic SH-101 style of sequencer. Same as the Grandmother or the Mother 32 or the 303 or so many other great sequencers…

Is there people who like to press a step and press a key and then press another step and another key? To me it is just so utterly unmusical and convoluted. Playing in REC mode gives completely different results because the ongoing tempo influences your choices as to what you can play or what you cant play. Editing steps afterwards with the mini screen also makes no sense.

Say you want to be spontaneous with a sequence over three octaves… doing it in STEP mode by pressing each step and pressing each key is a nightmare.

Pressing rec and advancing the steps just by pressing keys or rest is a natural thing for most of us I would say…

I know we cant do any other feature requests, but has this been discussed in more depth? Can I read up on the reasons why the most common sequencing style is not supported by pyramid?

yeah, ive seen it raised a few times here on the ‘wish lists’, not sure its been discussed in depth… I guess because its unlikely to happen :wink:

personally, it’s not a mode I would use , but I can see why others like it.
(i like recording/looping, and then editing specific steps, so current features are fine for that)

I guess also squarp might find it a little tricky to integrate with other features which are not common on other ‘step sequencers’ , due to its time based nature rather than step (*)

e.g.
we have multiple tracks, should these playback at the same time, so we can have ‘context’?
if so, then we have different time signatures on different tracks, so they are ‘stepping at different rates’

the other big issue (related to this polyryhtm nature) is that there is no concept of ‘stepping’ the clock,
so it’d probably be very difficult for squarp to implement. (again time based rather than step based, see (*) )

as for it being the most common sequencing style…
Im not sure thats true, rather its a sequence programming method, often found on simpler sequencers e.g. it doesn’t exist on the Electron Octatrack (or I believe (?) any other Electron)

as i said, not to say it couldn’t be done… and for sure, I see why others might like it.


(*) I view hermod and pyramid as time based sequencer, not step based sequencer
i.e. the BPM/clock drive a high resolution clock, and events are then replayed from a time line. this is why we can zoom in and out on a timeline, and also how different tracks ‘interact’.
this is different from a step sequencer, where its advancing steps… rather than thinking about time, this is why they can easily be run in reverse, or ping pong or select random steps… since everything is tight to a ‘grid’ … it’s also why you can do things like advance a step from a manual ‘clock input’ (on eurorack)

(note: above is a simplistic description… as implementation and features of step sequencers vary alot :wink: )

3 Likes

i get it, good points.

good call on the elektrons, after I bought pyramid i went to the elektron manuals, although i dont have those machines, and realised they also dont implement it. thats a good reason to not buy them, I just cant program bass lines without this feature.

i actually think that most of the happy accidents ive ever done were with this style of programming…
just makes me very sad to not have this style of programming in my fav sequencer ever.
sorry that I vented.

one semi replacement i found is to put a harmonizer effect and try to play in rec mode as if i could play complex stuff in speed and then i just render the channel to free up the effect slot once i get something im happy with

i didn’t read as ‘venting’ - I think it’s a very fair request, and can understand why others like you, may like/enjoy it.

I just quite enjoy thinking about reasons why squarp add certain things, and not others, they are bright developers … so I think often they have good reasons, or it it might not ‘fit’ with their vision (this can then be considered ‘feature creep’)

It’s implemented on the Monomachine but not on other Elektron instruments.

1 Like

Interesting, I know little of the mono, it does sound cool!

Whilst I’d likely not use step input on pyramid.

I think I possibly would use it on the Hermod.
because:
it’s only got 8 small pads which makes entry fiddly.
A small screen, so editing live recordings is a bit cumbersome.

( hence I mostly use pyramid, and Hermod is more a processor :slight_smile: )

Hermod goes well beyond that mode of sequencing. It is a sequencer that caters very much to ppl who play, who also don’t want to be stuck to some kind of mechanistic grid, which was a hallmark feature of early seq in the last century.
But implementing what you describe is a low hangig fruit and has its uses from time to time. I support your request. Hermod as a “brain” (and not a seq) should have this no-brainer feature.

1 Like