Youtuber uses RRP as a groovebox

This forum is for discussing the Reason Rack Plugin, the version of the Reason rack that runs as a VST3, AU, AAX in other DAWs.
User avatar
MrFigg
Posts: 7231
Joined: 20 Apr 2018

Post 23 Oct 2021

guitfnky wrote:
23 Oct 2021
MrFigg wrote:
23 Oct 2021


My friend had an mc-303. It was cool.
nice—I probably would’ve loved to play around with something like that in my younger days. closest I ever got was an Alesis SR-16 drum programmer. sounded like shit (well, maybe not for the time), but wrote a good deal of demos for the band with that thing accompanying me.
I’ve still got my SR-16. Guy in the shop persuaded me it was more useful than an 808. FFS. That and my MT-120.
Thing still looks like new with all the original manuals. Yeah. Rubbish but lots of demos made with it. :)
丰2ॐ

User avatar
Benedict
Posts: 2616
Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Location: Gold Coast, Australia

Post 24 Oct 2021

Oh it's funny how so many have to assume I am too silly to recall the MC-303 Groovebox. I poked one when they were about a month old. It is a marketing term, not a technical term (and personally I thought it was a demeaning name back then). Sure, some marketing terms become the used term and that can be ok. Sometimes it is just silly, especially when a real term is better for the task.

It seems here that rather than considering the broader point being made y'all want to merely make people look silly by picking on little things :clap:

Pass me the petrolnium powered autoperambulaing machine as this many-yeared melodic music-maker is blowing this popsicle stand.
:cry:

PhillipOrdonez
Posts: 2607
Joined: 20 Oct 2017
Location: Norway

Post 24 Oct 2021

What should be the correct term, then? And what should actually be the broader point of this thread instead of having people pick on little things to make others look silly?


RT Warning level: 1

🏁

User avatar
guitfnky
Posts: 4019
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

Post 24 Oct 2021

Benedict wrote:
24 Oct 2021
It seems here that rather than considering the broader point being made y'all want to merely make people look silly by picking on little things :clap:
I think that's backward. the pushback you're receiving seems (to me) to have been 100% related to the insistence on harping on about terminology (a little thing) rather than the content of the video (the broader point). no?
I write bad music for good people

latest release—The Lake Door:
bit.ly/TheLakeDoor-Soundcloud
https://slowrobot.bandcamp.com/track/the-lake-door

PhillipOrdonez
Posts: 2607
Joined: 20 Oct 2017
Location: Norway

Post 24 Oct 2021

And I hope you don't say the right term is a 'sequencer" like hinted at in the first post you made cause that would just be silly. You can't make a song with a sequencer alone. You can make a song with a groovebox alone. So you can't possibly mean sequencer is the right term for grooveboxes... Grooveboxes have sequencers and they can sequence other things, but they are more than just a sequencer cause they were, they would not be able to make an entire song on their own, whereas you can write an entire song with a groovebox.

What's the new, fancy term he's using instead of sequencer then? And what's the proper, non modern, flashy term for groovebox then?????


RT Warning level: 1

🏁

User avatar
MrFigg
Posts: 7231
Joined: 20 Apr 2018

Post 24 Oct 2021

PhillipOrdonez wrote:
24 Oct 2021
And I hope you don't say the right term is a 'sequencer" like hinted at in the first post you made cause that would just be silly. You can't make a song with a sequencer alone. You can make a song with a groovebox alone. So you can't possibly mean sequencer is the right term for grooveboxes... Grooveboxes have sequencers and they can sequence other things, but they are more than just a sequencer cause they were, they would not be able to make an entire song on their own, whereas you can write an entire song with a groovebox.

What's the new, fancy term he's using instead of sequencer then? And what's the proper, non modern, flashy term for groovebox then?????
🏁
丰2ॐ

User avatar
mcatalao
Posts: 1565
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 24 Oct 2021

Benedict wrote:
21 Oct 2021
Ummm, it's called a Sequencer. If you'd rather give it a childish name instead, go for it.
Printing a sequence is not new, Tangerine Dream did this to tape since the '70s. Others did it long before.

This fella just realized this - or more likely saw an opportunity to promo his courses - so great. But it is not new, just a fella putting his thumbprint on it with new terms to make it seem modern and clever.

:-)
Groovebox is not a childish name. It's actually a Roland product line name:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... MC505a.jpg

But I agree with you, though he points out some important stuff regarding committing and not being able to finish songs, there are not new to the audio world!

That being said, I didn't dislike the video completely, and past but currently applicable concepts have to be shown to people that are getting to audio/music now, so I'm ok with this! That's why there are still mixing courses, and compression tutorials, and so on.

User avatar
mcatalao
Posts: 1565
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 24 Oct 2021

You know what still amuses me? Is that this "printing method" in Ableton is as archaic (actually even more) than rec source in reason, and using bounce in place, these "printing devices" aren't even necessary.

Another fine example of how using reason in the RRP form is 3x clumsier than using reason standalone.

Oh well...

User avatar
avasopht
Posts: 2865
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Post 24 Oct 2021

mcatalao wrote:
24 Oct 2021
You know what still amuses me? Is that this "printing method" in Ableton is as archaic (actually even more) than rec source in reason, and using bounce in place, these "printing devices" aren't even necessary.

Another fine example of how using reason in the RRP form is 3x clumsier than using reason standalone.

Oh well...
Pretty sure Ableton has a similar feature to rec in.

But I think this contention needs to be settled with a mighty forum poll to settle this debate once and for all.

In generations to come all will remember the thread where we decided whether a groove box is just a sequencer 🙏🎉👌
---

User avatar
mcatalao
Posts: 1565
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 24 Oct 2021

avasopht wrote:
24 Oct 2021

But I think this contention needs to be settled with a mighty forum poll to settle this debate once and for all.

In generations to come all will remember the thread where we decided whether a groove box is just a sequencer 🙏🎉👌
Let me pull rank here, to say I've had the 2 things. Roland historically has the Sequencer/arranger/groovebox under the same umbrella of MC.
MC because they called them Micro Composer's, and the first iteration of those things were step sequencers, where you would punch in the notes you want it to play. Pretty much as you'd do with pattern mutator without the mutating part.

My first MC was the MC500 I think, that already had 8 midi tracks, and was at the same time a step and score sequencer, which meant you could use it exactly as you would pattern mutator (you can punch in stuff in 1/nth steps, and you can record in time while tempo goes on). These would record midi, and you could have song sections and etc. So without the visual part you could have what you have today with reason's sequencer but without audio or the visual part.

The grooveboxes (I had a second hand MC-303 in the late 90's) were a different kind of thing, and while the sequencer in the MC-500 allowed you to work in a pattern method, it was not the sequencer default method. Their default method was the step and tempo sync'ed (score) method. So the grooveboxes, though they have a sequencer, this sequencer was pattern based. The other thing is with a groovebox at that time, you could create complete songs, because they not only had the pattern sequencing part, but they also had sound sources (drums, bass, leads, etc) which a pure sequencer like the MC500 didn't have.

You also had arrangers and sequencers with keyboards. But the groovebox was intended for a different group of users, I guess. I had them all ( I would compose stuff with things from the groovebox, and my D10 and then XP10 with the MC as the head).

Roland had a different kind of arrangers, their E line which was a bit different (I had the yamaha counterpart, a PSR-400) and a friend of mine had an E96 - amazing keyboard, though very plastic sounding. An arranger (the different brands coined different line names) is a keyboard with a pattern based sequencer, that has intelligence to "understand" a chord pressed by the player. Then it creates a background arrangement, and the player can control what the keyboard is doing, inputting the chord with the left hand, define what variation of the pattern the keyboard plays and so on (usually they would have intro, verse 1, 2 3, several breaks, 1 or 2 choruses, bridge and ending). Again a different way to work, to play music but a good tool for composing and fairly used in wedding and parties. :) There were versions without the keybed, midi controlled, most times used by accordionists that had a midi device in the instrument (the accordion would be played closed, but sensors in the keys would send midi data to the arranger).

IMHO, these all evolved from basic sequencers but are more than that.

User avatar
chimp_spanner
Posts: 2695
Joined: 06 Mar 2015

Post 24 Oct 2021

mcatalao wrote:
24 Oct 2021
You know what still amuses me? Is that this "printing method" in Ableton is as archaic (actually even more) than rec source in reason, and using bounce in place, these "printing devices" aren't even necessary.

Another fine example of how using reason in the RRP form is 3x clumsier than using reason standalone.

Oh well...
“Printing” and bouncing in place aren’t the same though. Biggest difference is that with printing, you can capture a performance while you mix down to audio. That’s how I like to do it. I mean yeah if I just wanna turn stuff into audio, I can do that offline and use BIP. If I want to try to be more spontaneous and creative though, I might record the output of a device and while it’s making the recording pass, twiddle some knobs and then that becomes baked into the file, part of its character. So there’s definitely a reason you’d wanna do it that way IMO!

In both cases though, yeah I’d argue it’s easier/more fluid in Reason standalone than in Live. And easier in both than in something like Cubase, where you have to set up a send effect to appear as an internal sampling source. It’s just not built with that in mind I guess.

User avatar
mcatalao
Posts: 1565
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 25 Oct 2021

chimp_spanner wrote:
24 Oct 2021


“Printing” and bouncing in place aren’t the same though. Biggest difference is that with printing, you can capture a performance while you mix down to audio. That’s how I like to do it. I mean yeah if I just wanna turn stuff into audio, I can do that offline and use BIP. If I want to try to be more spontaneous and creative though, I might record the output of a device and while it’s making the recording pass, twiddle some knobs and then that becomes baked into the file, part of its character. So there’s definitely a reason you’d wanna do it that way IMO!

In both cases though, yeah I’d argue it’s easier/more fluid in Reason standalone than in Live. And easier in both than in something like Cubase, where you have to set up a send effect to appear as an internal sampling source. It’s just not built with that in mind I guess.
We say things in context and every thing I'm saying here is on the context of the video's example, wich is using reason as a groovebox and print to audio.

That Being said, in your performance example I prefer to work with midi recording and automation because we're prone to err and midi is great for correcting a section of a bad perdormance. Same for automation, specially in instruments it's very easy to overdo it.

I've never had bad committing issues, maybe because I like to separate processes. I still think a great song hast to sound great with a piano and vocals or full produced.

A though I've had groove boxes in the past I prefer to play everything on my controllers.

Anyway we're circling around workflow and the destiny is what's more important. If groovboxes and printing are good workflows for someone that's great. I'm not too keen of these and don't use it much (I almost don't use pattern devices appart of drums), I'm more into using audio and midi in the sequencer, inputting notes and audio with a piano keyboard and ewi and a bunch of real instruments and vocals. And I almost only use the midi sequencer correctively, so I don't input midi with the mouse appart from rectifying stuff. Basically I always perform while recording.

Danilo Villanova
Posts: 13
Joined: 07 Apr 2019

Post 30 Oct 2021

New video from the same guy using the RRP again, this time using players.


PhillipOrdonez
Posts: 2607
Joined: 20 Oct 2017
Location: Norway

Post 31 Oct 2021

Nice one, Danilo. Gracias.


RT Warning level: 1

🏁

User avatar
MrFigg
Posts: 7231
Joined: 20 Apr 2018

Post 31 Oct 2021

GroovePlayer
丰2ॐ

User avatar
EnochLight
Moderator
Posts: 7433
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: Useless Moderator

Post 07 Nov 2021

I know I'm late to the party but... That moment at 6:22 in the original video where he says "Reason is a lot less precise than Ableton, in many ways - it doesn't give you good tools to really see for instance your signal level, do any analytics, worry about EQ'ing stuff, like none of that." :shock: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Image


Still, the video was cool - I totally get the message he was going for. You can just tell that he's a total Reason noob, though. And weirdly, he keeps thanking "Reason" for sponsoring the videos. Even Propellerhead changing their company name to Reason Studios, people still can't get it right. :lol:
Win 10 | Abelton Live 11 Suite |  Reason 12 | i7 3770k @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | Sumsung 870 QVO 2 TB SSD | RME Babyface Pro | Akai MPC Live 2 & Akai Force | Roland System 8, TR-8 7x7, MX1, TB3 | Dreadbox Typhon | Korg Minilogue XD

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests