Announcing Reason 11

[guitfnky]

1: Except I didn't, did I. I responded to each point in the first paragraph I was quoting in separate parts. I didn't omit anything at all from your first paragraph. I don't know why you would assert that I did when it is plainly obvious that I didn't.

2: Nice try attributing intentions to me by stating that I have missed a point purposefully. Just because you didn't get the answer you wanted doesn't mean you get to state what my intentions were when I gave the answer.

3: Feature-creep is a well documented phenomenon, particularly in software development. I don't know why you would think this is not a concern to software developers. All software developers have to balance feature requests from current and potential customers with their own vision for their software and the current feature set. This is obvious to anybody who is a software developer.

4: Did you consider that some people might actually be grateful to be offered a workaround? Of course they can still hope for the feature to be implemented, but in the mean time a workaround might be helpful. If it isn't, that's fine.

5 - Again, nice try asserting my intentions. I assume nothing about the knowledge of the poster. If they already know and have chosen not to use a workaround, that's up to them. It is precisely because I don't know what they already know that I make the suggestion.

1 - my apologies, I missed the rest of your non-answer.

2 - you're right, I am now making assumptions, as it seems quite clear you are being purposefully selective in some of your responses, and purposefully daft in others. if you aren't, I'm all ears. yes, here I am assuming your intent--it's not a far leap.

3 - you can justify away a fallacious argument all you like, but that doesn't stop it from being a fallacious argument.

4 - sure, some people might, but others clearly take it as an insult to their intelligence. better to err on the side of not insulting one's intelligence, I think, unless you're doing it intentionally.

5 - saying you're making assumptions isn't the same thing as asserting your intentions. your intent may well be helpful, but it's still based on the assumption that the OP hasn't already arrived at a workaround.

[mashers]

Oh, by the way:

NOT EVERYONE WANTS TO SPEND ANOTHER $100-$800 FOR ANOTHER DAW, JUST TO USE A WORKFLOW THEY DON'T LIKE BECAUSE IT HAS A NUMBER OF FEATURES THAT SHOULD ALREADY BE IN REASON.

That's tough. As I have said previously to somebody else, you pay the money for the feature set of the software at the point in time when you buy it. If you do that as an "investment" on the hope that the features you want the software to have will one day be implemented, that's your problem. The only people who get to decide what "should" be in Reason is the people who are developing it. You can say all day long that it should function like another piece of software, but it doesn't. And if you're not happy with that, you're just going to have to accept it or move on to another piece of software. I could say "not everyone wants to spend money on Photoshop because it has a number of features that SHOULD ALREADY BE IN MICROSOFT PAINT". But this is a pretty weak argument against people just buying Photoshop because they need the features it provides.

[guitfnky]

wow...this is just about the most short-sighted comment I've ever read in these forums. every new feature turns software into something that it wasn't before--it's the very definition of a new feature. maybe you'd suggest we all go back to Reason 1, for the purest experience?

That doesn't appear to be short-sighted at all - from where I'm sitting, the short-sighted one is you for not realising other software exists in the first place.

People use different software for different tasks - spreadsheet software for spreadsheets, word processing software for word processing etc - I can't believe this needs to be explained, but here we are! Why don't Microsoft just combine the two types of software into one? After all, in my business I need spreadsheets AND documents right? Because that would lead to 'Bloatware' - a term that exists to explain why too many features is too many.

In that context, people who like the workflow of Ableton tend to buy Ableton (IKR, weird!) - they don't USUALLY buy some other software that they don't like the workflow of and lobby incessantly for it to be more like Ableton.

ALL THE FEATURES being requested exist in another DAW right? So what's so controversial about using Pro-Tools for the tasks it's most suited for, and using 'other' software to do other things? Apparently it's only controversial if one of the bits of software you use is Reason?

There are lots of different software solutions for your music-making needs - anything you could hope to ask for in fact, it's just that ALL those features don't exist in the same program and you may be forced to accept using more than one.

pretty sure I explained why in my first response to you. taking out the important contextual parts of what I said doesn't erase the fact that I said them.

[boingy]

Multiquotes on forums are my favourite thing in the whole world. Well, except for pretty much everything else.
Page 39. Do we thing that generating even more pages of this stuff will make any difference at all to, well, anything?

[guitfnky]

Oh, by the way:

NOT EVERYONE WANTS TO SPEND ANOTHER $100-$800 FOR ANOTHER DAW, JUST TO USE A WORKFLOW THEY DON'T LIKE BECAUSE IT HAS A NUMBER OF FEATURES THAT SHOULD ALREADY BE IN REASON.

That's tough. As I have said previously to somebody else, you pay the money for the feature set of the software at the point in time when you buy it. If you do that as an "investment" on the hope that the features you want the software to have will one day be implemented, that's your problem. The only people who get to decide what "should" be in Reason is the people who are developing it. You can say all day long that it should function like another piece of software, but it doesn't. And if you're not happy with that, you're just going to have to accept it or move on to another piece of software. I could say "not everyone wants to spend money on Photoshop because it has a number of features that SHOULD ALREADY BE IN MICROSOFT PAINT". But this is a pretty weak argument against people just buying Photoshop because they need the features it provides.

thank you so much, Admiral Obvious.

[mashers]

1 - my apologies, I missed the rest of your non-answer.

I accept the apology, but the latter part of that sentence was completely unnecessary. If you're just going to write off my responses to you as "non-answers" just because it wasn't the answer you wanted, then I'm not really interested in further conversation with you.

2 - you're right, I am now making assumptions, as it seems quite clear you are being purposefully selective in some of your responses, and purposefully daft in others. if you aren't, I'm all ears. yes, here I am assuming your intent--it's not a far leap.

How have I been purposefully selective? I have quoted pretty thoroughly and responded to each point in turn. That's not selective by any definition of the word of which I am aware. As for assuming the intent of a stranger on the internet about whom you know basically nothing on the basis of a few postings on a forum: I think that actually is somewhat of an epistemological leap.

3 - you can justify away a fallacious argument all you like, but that doesn't stop it from being a fallacious argument.

If you think that feature creep is fallacious as a concern when implementing new features in software, then I think perhaps you have either misunderstood the meaning of "feature creep" or have not understood why I have used it in this context. If I'm wrong then please correct me.

4 - sure, some people might, but others clearly take it as an insult to their intelligence. better to err on the side of not insulting one's intelligence, I think, unless you're doing it intentionally.

If somebody takes a suggestion as an insult to their intelligence then that says more about them than about the person making the suggestion. If somebody wants to feel offended because another person has tried to help them then that's up to them and I don't really care.

5 - saying you're making assumptions isn't the same thing as asserting your intentions. your intent may well be helpful, but it's still based on the assumption that the OP hasn't already arrived at a workaround.

No, it is based on the fact that I don't know whether or not they have found a workaround. You can argue all you like about this, but only I know what my intention is in that situation. You can either believe me or not, I don't care. If you want to assume an intent based on assumption of ignorance then that is entirely up to you.

Oh, by the way:
That's tough. As I have said previously to somebody else, you pay the money for the feature set of the software at the point in time when you buy it. If you do that as an "investment" on the hope that the features you want the software to have will one day be implemented, that's your problem. The only people who get to decide what "should" be in Reason is the people who are developing it. You can say all day long that it should function like another piece of software, but it doesn't. And if you're not happy with that, you're just going to have to accept it or move on to another piece of software. I could say "not everyone wants to spend money on Photoshop because it has a number of features that SHOULD ALREADY BE IN MICROSOFT PAINT". But this is a pretty weak argument against people just buying Photoshop because they need the features it provides.

thank you so much, Admiral Obvious.

If it's so obvious to you, then I'm not sure why you used it as an argument in the first place.

[chaosroyale]

"If another DAW has a feature, then Reason doesn't need it."
"Reason is a different paradigm"

If this is your way of thinking, just take one popular request - 4K support.

How would adding 4k support ruin the Reason "paradigm"?

Does not having 4k support give Reason a unique advantage over any other DAW?

If a user wants 4k support, but they also like the instruments and FX in Reason, should they "just use another DAW"? Or is it at least understandable to want to keep using Reason, but wish that Reason also had 4k support?

I dunno...I give up. Seems like people just want to make excuses for a lack of development, in a tool that was originally known for being innovative and advanced.

[Goriila Texas]

The part you're not comprehending on purpose I think is WE JUST WANT MODERN SHEIT IN reason,it's has nothing to do with copying other DAWs. You are completely wrong about having to accept it or move on when we've gotten many things like vst support. Your whole argument is shutdown with that Fact!!

Oh, by the way:

NOT EVERYONE WANTS TO SPEND ANOTHER $100-$800 FOR ANOTHER DAW, JUST TO USE A WORKFLOW THEY DON'T LIKE BECAUSE IT HAS A NUMBER OF FEATURES THAT SHOULD ALREADY BE IN REASON.

That's tough. As I have said previously to somebody else, you pay the money for the feature set of the software at the point in time when you buy it. If you do that as an "investment" on the hope that the features you want the software to have will one day be implemented, that's your problem. The only people who get to decide what "should" be in Reason is the people who are developing it. You can say all day long that it should function like another piece of software, but it doesn't. And if you're not happy with that, you're just going to have to accept it or move on to another piece of software. I could say "not everyone wants to spend money on Photoshop because it has a number of features that SHOULD ALREADY BE IN MICROSOFT PAINT". But this is a pretty weak argument against people just buying Photoshop because they need the features it provides.

[mashers]

"If another DAW has a feature, then Reason doesn't need it."
"Reason is a different paradigm"

If this is your way of thinking, just take one popular request - 4K support.

How would adding 4k support ruin the Reason "paradigm"?

I don't necessarily think that any of those features are contrary to Reason's paradigm. But they're also not the kind of features to which people would suggest a workaround. There is no workaround to any of those suggested features, so obviously you're not going to get one. And a lot of them are great suggestions for sure. But a wet/dry knob on a compressor is just so easy to work around that if somebody asks why there isn't one and requests that one is added, the obvious response is "there isn't one, but you could use a VST compressor with one, or rig one up in a Combinator". The distinction being that one type of "missing" feature can be worked around, and the other can't. This dichotomy is the reason why you might receive workaround suggestions for one particular request but not another.

[Goriila Texas]

I'm starting believe some of these are Reason studios burner accounts

"If another DAW has a feature, then Reason doesn't need it."
"Reason is a different paradigm"

If this is your way of thinking, just take one popular request - 4K support.

How would adding 4k support ruin the Reason "paradigm"?

Does not having 4k support give Reason a unique advantage over any other DAW?

If a user wants 4k support, but they also like the instruments and FX in Reason, should they "just use another DAW"? Or is it at least understandable to want to keep using Reason, but wish that Reason also had 4k support?

I dunno...I give up. Seems like people just want to make excuses for a lack of development, in a tool that was originally known for being innovative and advanced.

[gaclab]

This thread has grown rather toxic and it's understandable. I'd like to apologize for my part in that though and just say that I appreciate you guys and this community and I still love Reason.

TBH I spend almost all of time in the Reason General section on here. I needed to take a break from the R11 threads so I started venturing into other sections. There is so much here to read and learn from. Thank you all!

[mashers]

The part you're not comprehending on purpose I think

Besides the fact that "not comprehending on purpose" is somewhat of a contradiction, you are wrong in your assumption that this is what is happening. As I said to the other guy, you will have to take my word for that unless you have some ability I am not aware of to directly read my intentions from my mind. In the absence of that, you can either believe what I have stated my intentions to be or not. I don't care either way.

WE JUST WANT MODERN SHEIT IN reason,it's has nothing to do with copying other DAWs. You are completely wrong about having to accept it or move on when we've gotten many things like vst support. Your whole argument is shutdown with that Fact!!

You can want whatever you want. The developers don't have to do anything that is suggested to them. I fail to see how VST support "shuts down" my "argument", unless you believe that because this feature was requested and subsequently incorporated, that this means that all requested features should be incorporated whether or not they fit in with the developers' vision for the software. Because if you actually do believe that, then you're going to be really disappointed.

[guitfnky]

--------------------------------the point----------------------->

[DougalDarkly]

Deleted

[mashers]

@guitfnky
If you don't have anything further to add to the discussion you can just say so. You don't have to post passive aggressive emoticons and play ASCII games.

[chaosroyale]

Jesus christ you are pedantic.

ok, all arguments the same, but replace "4k" with the Mclass general purpose/surgical EQ > i.e. why no updated version with more bands in the last 14 years?

By your arguments, why did Reason even bother adding the MCLass 4 band at all? They already had a 2 band EQ. According to you, a *work around* should be good enough, right?

"If another DAW has a feature, then Reason doesn't need it."
"Reason is a different paradigm"

If this is your way of thinking, just take one popular request - 4K support.

How would adding 4k support ruin the Reason "paradigm"?

I don't necessarily think that any of those features are contrary to Reason's paradigm. But they're also not the kind of features to which people would suggest a workaround. There is no workaround to any of those suggested features, so obviously you're not going to get one. And a lot of them are great suggestions for sure. But a wet/dry knob on a compressor is just so easy to work around that if somebody asks why there isn't one and requests that one is added, the obvious response is "there isn't one, but you could use a VST compressor with one, or rig one up in a Combinator". The distinction being that one type of "missing" feature can be worked around, and the other can't. This dichotomy is the reason why you might receive workaround suggestions for one particular request but not another.

[guitfnky]

When people keep banging on in other threads about why Reason isn't Ableton or Bitwig, some forum members (like me) will inevitably ask the quite reasonable question 'why not use Ableton or Bitwig?'

again, I've already explained why.

[guitfnky]

Jesus christ you are pedantic.

ok, all arguments the same, but replace "4k" with the Mclass general purpose/surgical EQ > i.e. why no updated version with more bands in the last 14 years?

By your arguments, why did Reason even bother adding the MCLass 4 band at all? They already had a 2 band EQ. According to you, a *work around* should be good enough, right?

I think this is just how some people 'win' arguments. wear you down by throwing as many words around as possible, and being too cute by half all the while, until people just give up.

[mashers]

Jesus christ you are pedantic.

ok, all arguments the same, but replace "4k" with the Mclass general purpose/surgical EQ > i.e. why no updated version with more bands in the last 14 years?

By your arguments, why did Reason even bother adding the MCLass 4 band at all? They already had a 2 band EQ. According to you, a *work around* should be good enough, right?

I had hoped it was obvious I wasn't talking only about that specific feature. Of course there are other things which are desirable as features. I'm not suggesting development should just stop here. I'm just drawing a distinction between things which can be worked around (and which could therefore justifiable receive in response a suggestion of such a workaround) and ones which can't.

[chaosroyale]

Who is asking for Reason to be the same as bitwig? It seems like the opposite to me. They LIKE the Reason rack, the hardware look, etc, but they don't understand why the updates are so slow and underwhelming.

In 2019, expecting -for example- the standard EQ to have more than 2 shelf and 2 para bands is not exactly a big request, and it is absolutely nothing to do with "I wish it was more like Bitwig". It is simply that in 2001 there was a rudimentary 2 band EQ, then in 2004 a 4-band (kinda) EQ, at this time, those were fairly typical, state of the art features. Then in 2011 (or 13?) there was a 4-band SSL EQ with a (janky) Spectrum analyser which was ...ok... but not really very impressive even by the standards of 2011. And since then...no improvements.

This is nothing to do with Reasons "unique rack paradigm", in my case that's the part I actually like.

quote edited for length -

When people keep banging on in other threads about why Reason isn't Ableton or Bitwig, some forum members (like me) will inevitably ask the quite reasonable question 'why not use Ableton or Bitwig?'

I assure you I don't mean to offend - I really don't care which DAW you use.

[Goriila Texas]

You keep saying we’re not understanding your intentions correctly so what you to do is be more clear because all we can go on is what you write. That’s a you problem that only you can fix. Please be more clear when commenting. We all know you’re just using that as an excuse because you have no argument period.

The part you're not comprehending on purpose I think

Besides the fact that "not comprehending on purpose" is somewhat of a contradiction, you are wrong in your assumption that this is what is happening. As I said to the other guy, you will have to take my word for that unless you have some ability I am not aware of to directly read my intentions from my mind. In the absence of that, you can either believe what I have stated my intentions to be or not. I don't care either way.

WE JUST WANT MODERN SHEIT IN reason,it's has nothing to do with copying other DAWs. You are completely wrong about having to accept it or move on when we've gotten many things like vst support. Your whole argument is shutdown with that Fact!!

You can want whatever you want. The developers don't have to do anything that is suggested to them. I fail to see how VST support "shuts down" my "argument", unless you believe that because this feature was requested and subsequently incorporated, that this means that all requested features should be incorporated whether or not they fit in with the developers' vision for the software. Because if you actually do believe that, then you're going to be really disappointed.

[BonsaiMacKay]

So Reason Studios had a little problem today:

F5807CD9-7D9B-47B5-86FC-931D51A02E65.jpeg (67.92 KiB) Viewed 2138 times

[DougalDarkly]

Deleted

[Timmy Crowne]

I’m sure it’s going to seem like I’m oversimplifying the issue, but maybe this will be useful. Here's what I see happening:

User 1 posts a request in the Feature Suggestion forum because he wants his call for improvement to be heard by the devs clearly and urgently, and he also wants other like-minded users to chime in with their “signatures” to build the pressure of the petition, hoping that if the stink gets big enough to reach Sweden the devs will do something about it.

A few minutes later User 2 comes along and replies to User 1’s request by offering a workaround. Why does he do this?

1. Because he genuinely wants to help User 1 navigate the problem that he’s encountered. He sympathizes with User 1 and remembers when he himself struggled to make sense of Reason, so he’s simply motivated out of a kind heart to give back.
2. Because he wants to show off his own expertise in Reason and draw praise from other users in the community for offering such an ingenious workaround. He sees an opportunity to boost his stock among his peers, and doesn’t mind helping someone else to do it.
3. Because he secretly strongly disagrees with User 1’s request and doesn’t want that particular feature to be added to Reason, or at least not before his own prized-request gets added first. However, instead of simply voicing his disagreement directly, he offers a workaround as a thinly-guised pacifier to placate User 1, hoping to have a chilling effect on the petition.

I think most of us would agree there's nothing wrong with motivation a, or even b. But the sinister c seems to be more pernicious and disingenuous. Workaround-replies are unwelcome to some of us because we can’t ever know User 2's motivations. It can be especially frustrating because the workarounds seem to take the pressure and urgency off the original petition, letting the devs off the hook and putting the onus back on us to fix or put up with the issues that we perceive in Reason.

A similar phenomenon can be seen in online gaming communities:
User 1 says, “The Bluurg pistol is WAY overpowered! Nerf it!”
User 2, who always uses that gun, replies, “You just have to learn how to dodge it."
User 3 adds the eternal gem, "git gud n00b.”

[diminished]

I’m sure it’s going to seem like I’m oversimplifying the issue, but maybe this will be useful. Here's what I see happening:

User 1 posts a request in the Feature Suggestion forum because he wants his call for improvement to be heard by the devs clearly and urgently, and he also wants other like-minded users to chime in with their “signatures” to build the pressure of the petition, hoping that if the stink gets big enough to reach Sweden the devs will do something about it.

A few minutes later User 2 comes along and replies to User 1’s request by offering a workaround. Why does he do this?

1. Because he genuinely wants to help User 1 navigate the problem that he’s encountered. He sympathizes with User 1 and remembers when he himself struggled to make sense of Reason, so he’s simply motivated out of a kind heart to give back.
2. Because he wants to show off his own expertise in Reason and draw praise from other users in the community for offering such an ingenious workaround. He sees an opportunity to boost his stock among his peers, and doesn’t mind helping someone else to do it.
3. Because he secretly strongly disagrees with User 1’s request and doesn’t want that particular feature to be added to Reason, or at least not before his own prized-request gets added first. However, instead of simply voicing his disagreement directly, he offers a workaround as a thinly-guised pacifier to placate User 1, hoping to have a chilling effect on the petition.

I think most of us would agree there's nothing wrong with motivation a, or even b. But the sinister c seems to be more pernicious and disingenuous. Workaround-replies are unwelcome to some of us because we can’t ever know User 2's motivations. It can be especially frustrating because the workarounds seem to take the pressure and urgency off the original petition, letting the devs off the hook and putting the onus back on us to fix or put up with the issues that we perceive in Reason.

A similar phenomenon can be seen in online gaming communities:
User 1 says, “The Bluurg pistol is WAY overpowered! Nerf it!”
User 2, who always uses that gun, replies, “You just have to learn how to dodge it."
User 3 adds the eternal gem, "git gud n00b.”

THIS. So much. Thank you for the abstraction/analysis of what's going on right now.