Timmy Crowne wrote: ↑02 Sep 2019I’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?
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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.”
Announcing Reason 11
-
- Posts: 983
- Joined: 31 Aug 2015
- Location: Houston TX
- Contact:
It’s mostly C hidden behind A that I’ve seen since the old PH forum. When you shoot down a long azz workaround they are quick to tell you to use something else.
I think you’ve nailed it. intentions aside, suggesting an un-requested workaround can come off as being dismissive. and when someone takes it a step further and suggests the feature request is superfluous, that’s even more dismissive—at that point, you have to start to wonder if the person falls into the “c” camp in your scenarios.Timmy Crowne wrote: ↑02 Sep 2019I’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?
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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.”
Ok, so if I apparently "conveniently" or "deliberately" misunderstand something or don't correctly identify whether or not somebody is receptive to hearing a workaround then that's my fault for not interpreting them correctly, but if you don't understand my intentions then that's also my fault for not being clear enough. Good to know!Goriila Texas wrote: ↑02 Sep 2019You 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.
-
- Posts: 64
- Joined: 24 Aug 2015
- Location: NJ USA
We use Reason as a slave because that's all we have right now. Unfortunately. And from the radio silence from Reason Studios on possible aax development we're still going to be stuck with a workaround of hosting R11 Rack in Blue Cat Patchwork.miscend wrote: ↑02 Sep 2019From reading discussions over at both GS and the Avid forums about the new announcement. It seems many Pro Tools users are still using Reason as a rewire slave. So not having an AAX version of the Reason Rack seems like a missed opportunity to make serious money. Pro Tools has a large market share over in the US.
I wish Mattias would come on here and tell at least whether aax is on a path to development or if it's even being considered.
Jack
MacPro mid-2012 3.46 GHz hexcore Westmere 48 gig ram
OSX 10.13.6
PT2021.6, Reason 8.3
QAPLA!
MacPro mid-2012 3.46 GHz hexcore Westmere 48 gig ram
OSX 10.13.6
PT2021.6, Reason 8.3
QAPLA!
-
- Posts: 728
- Joined: 05 Sep 2017
Whenever a version or feature update doesn't quite hit the mark, there is always a lot of excuse-making and deflection, dressed up as fortune cookie wisdom.
"It's not the features, it's how the music sounds!" no shit, Einstein. Why even type something so obvious.
"You can make good music with Reason V.2!" Yes, of course you can make music on a 4-track and an Atari ST, but there's a good fucking reason that most professionals use the latest versions of tools such as Logic and Live these days.
I love using lots of different tools to make music, starting with actual, y'know, instruments.
I love Reason, too. But I wish it was better. It could be so much better and still be Reason.
"It's not the features, it's how the music sounds!" no shit, Einstein. Why even type something so obvious.
"You can make good music with Reason V.2!" Yes, of course you can make music on a 4-track and an Atari ST, but there's a good fucking reason that most professionals use the latest versions of tools such as Logic and Live these days.
I love using lots of different tools to make music, starting with actual, y'know, instruments.
I love Reason, too. But I wish it was better. It could be so much better and still be Reason.
-
- Posts: 193
- Joined: 31 Jul 2019
Deleted
Last edited by DougalDarkly on 09 Jan 2020, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 64
- Joined: 24 Aug 2015
- Location: NJ USA
Agreed. Take a look at Junky XL's studio - hardware as far as the eye can see. Huuuge Moog Modular, a whole lot of Eurorack modules and setups, at least a dozen or so old school drum machines. Yeah he records on Cubase but still uses all that hardware as well.DougalDarkly wrote: ↑02 Sep 2019First - heads up, I'm going to disagree with you - please note that this doesn't mean I think you're an idiot in any way, I just see things differently.
Hopefully my post will be taken in the spirit of 'discussion' that it's meant to be and not as an insult to your intelligence!
I make Techno/Electro and in my 'world' the push is increasingly to go 'DAWless' altogether and get back to hardware.chaosroyale wrote: ↑02 Sep 2019there's a good fucking reason that most professionals use the latest versions of tools such as Logic and Live these days.
Every time I watch one of those 'look round the studio of 'x' famous artist' I see a shit-load of 'old' stuff!
Again, I'd like to emphasise that I just thought you made a good point for discussion and I was putting forward my view to add to that discussion. If you disagree, please let me know! If, of course, you think my stupid point is worth any further discussion anyway...
Jack
MacPro mid-2012 3.46 GHz hexcore Westmere 48 gig ram
OSX 10.13.6
PT2021.6, Reason 8.3
QAPLA!
MacPro mid-2012 3.46 GHz hexcore Westmere 48 gig ram
OSX 10.13.6
PT2021.6, Reason 8.3
QAPLA!
-
- Posts: 193
- Joined: 31 Jul 2019
Deleted
Last edited by DougalDarkly on 09 Jan 2020, edited 1 time in total.
- diminished
- Competition Winner
- Posts: 1880
- Joined: 15 Dec 2018
Most recent track: resentment (synthwave) || Others: on my YouTube channel •ᴗ•
“AND ALSO YOU CAN DO THAT IN THOR”
made my day!
made my day!
From the FAQ:musicman691 wrote: ↑02 Sep 2019
I wish Mattias would come on here and tell at least whether aax is on a path to development or if it's even being considered.
---
Is Reason Rack Plugin available as an AAX plugin?
No, Reason Rack Plugin is not yet available as an AAX plugin as of now. We are looking at the AAX format but no decisions have been made yet.
---
So it's being considered but it's hard to say how much! I have no use for AAX but I think they absolutely must support it if they want to be taken seriously.
- Raveshaper
- Posts: 1089
- Joined: 16 Jan 2015
You forgot an option.Timmy Crowne wrote: ↑02 Sep 2019I’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?
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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.”
d: a blind and deaf hegemony of User 2's ego that gleefully stomps around rejoicing with intoxication over hearing its own bellowing voice, echoing endlessly within a shrinking enclave of increasingly esoteric and fruitless knowledge. User 1 risks this empire of self appointed knighthood and the threat of identity crisis reverberates in the recesses of the regent's mind.
Enhanced by DataBridge v5
-
- Posts: 728
- Joined: 05 Sep 2017
Hey no problem, I don't think we are "arguing" are we?
The problem isn't old vs. new or hardware vs. software. It's about a tool being the best it can be. Even in the case of analog synths, modern ones have all kinds of "convenience" upgrades from their 70's forerunners.
Likewise, the comment right below yours talks about using a studio full of Modular synths and then says "he still records on Cubase" which kind of makes my point. Why doesn't he use a 4-track cassette, hell, why not a wax cylinder?
Every tool has its own vision and a purpose, and the best tools fulfill that vision. Reason's vision is not exactly the same as a hardware synth. It has some of those elements certainly, but with the conveniences of a modern DAW.
For example, that's why I don't buy excuses like "the original hardware SSL doesn't have wet/dry knobs" - sure, but the original hardware also has saturation which Reason doesn't, so it's obviously not a "purist" decision. If they said "we didn't want to do it that way", fair enough. In my opinion, an option for realistic saturation OR the clean Reason sound, plus wet/dry would be a more useful, time-saving, and attractive/competitive feature than either a slavishly perfect recreation or the half-assed thing we have now.
quote edited for simplicity:
The problem isn't old vs. new or hardware vs. software. It's about a tool being the best it can be. Even in the case of analog synths, modern ones have all kinds of "convenience" upgrades from their 70's forerunners.
Likewise, the comment right below yours talks about using a studio full of Modular synths and then says "he still records on Cubase" which kind of makes my point. Why doesn't he use a 4-track cassette, hell, why not a wax cylinder?
Every tool has its own vision and a purpose, and the best tools fulfill that vision. Reason's vision is not exactly the same as a hardware synth. It has some of those elements certainly, but with the conveniences of a modern DAW.
For example, that's why I don't buy excuses like "the original hardware SSL doesn't have wet/dry knobs" - sure, but the original hardware also has saturation which Reason doesn't, so it's obviously not a "purist" decision. If they said "we didn't want to do it that way", fair enough. In my opinion, an option for realistic saturation OR the clean Reason sound, plus wet/dry would be a more useful, time-saving, and attractive/competitive feature than either a slavishly perfect recreation or the half-assed thing we have now.
quote edited for simplicity:
DougalDarkly wrote: ↑02 Sep 2019First - heads up, I'm going to disagree with you - please note that this doesn't mean I think you're an idiot in any way, I just see things differently.
Hopefully my post will be taken in the spirit of 'discussion' that it's meant to be and not as an insult to your intelligence!
I make Techno/Electro and in my 'world' the push is increasingly to go 'DAWless' altogether and get back to hardware.
To try to cool this down a bit... The arguments are kind of going around each other. I'll admit my bias, but here goes;chaosroyale wrote: ↑02 Sep 2019Who 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.
1. I think there's a huge disparity on this forum about what "investing" means. I personally don't believe that buying software counts as an investment into that software or company as far as dictionary definitions go. However many here do, and that belief of that a purchase = an investment does seem to cause a bit of frustration for those who believe it.
2. What kind of features are being asked for. Asking for something like auto-punch for example is one thing. While there is a workaround in the meantime, I don't believe anyone is saying we don't need it. However, if a person is quite literally asking for a Session view, it does beg the (imo logical) question of why that person doesn't want to use Ableton or Bitwig which are clearly built around that sort of workflow, whereas Reason is not. For the record though, I do think being able to launch Blocks would be cool if there were a smooth way of implementing it.
Essentially there are the "common sense upgrades" mentioned for improvements such as Reason Studios finally adding proper crossfading in this version, and then there are the I want Reason to have the workflow of 'X' DAW requests. I think this is where the break down in communication is really happening. The responses people have to both of those requests are very different. And both sides responses to each other are a bit over generalized.
3. There are the people who feel the sequencer needs some improvements and then there are the folks who seem to feel it's completely inadequate compared to "X" DAW to the point that their professional careers are being held back. To which yes, the response is why aren't you using something that suits your needs then? The Reason rack plugin seems the perfect solution for these kinds of users yet they're against the idea of it.
*Puts mod hat on;
Now disagreement is fine, but some (not all) of these posts are border lining personal attacks. Lets keep it civil, thanks!
*takes mod hat back off.
-
- Posts: 728
- Joined: 05 Sep 2017
Not sure why you chose my comment to reply to, but I agree with you 100% on both these points.
Buy a tool if it works for you. You're a customer not a shareholder, no developer "owes" you any future development. It's just a brute fact that those who don't stay competitive will fall by the wayside. I hope that doesn't happen to Reason.
And anyone who wishes Reason had the core concept of Ableton (live loops, session view), should already be using Ableton, Reason is obviously the wrong tool for that job.
Buy a tool if it works for you. You're a customer not a shareholder, no developer "owes" you any future development. It's just a brute fact that those who don't stay competitive will fall by the wayside. I hope that doesn't happen to Reason.
And anyone who wishes Reason had the core concept of Ableton (live loops, session view), should already be using Ableton, Reason is obviously the wrong tool for that job.
QVprod wrote: ↑02 Sep 2019
1. I think there's a huge disparity on this forum about what "investing" means.
2. What kind of features are being asked for. Asking for something like auto-punch for example is one thing. While there is a workaround in the meantime, I don't believe anyone is saying we don't need it. However, if a person is quite literally asking for a Session view, it does beg the (imo logical) question of why that person doesn't want to use Ableton or Bitwig
Yes, they have the Reasontalk logo on them!
Point is this, I’m a user first. A mod when I have to be. Hence the noted separation between my general comment and my mod comment that was aimed at everyone regardless of stance.
Was more so the “who’s asking for Reason to be Bitwig” statement I was referencing. Hence my session view example. Post was simply noting the viewpoints.chaosroyale wrote: ↑02 Sep 2019Not sure why you chose my comment to reply to, but I agree with you 100% on both these points.
Buy a tool if it works for you. You're a customer not a shareholder, no developer "owes" you any future development. It's just a brute fact that those who don't stay competitive will fall by the wayside. I hope that doesn't happen to Reason.
And anyone who wishes Reason had the core concept of Ableton (live loops, session view), should already be using Ableton, Reason is obviously the wrong tool for that job.
QVprod wrote: ↑02 Sep 2019
1. I think there's a huge disparity on this forum about what "investing" means.
2. What kind of features are being asked for. Asking for something like auto-punch for example is one thing. While there is a workaround in the meantime, I don't believe anyone is saying we don't need it. However, if a person is quite literally asking for a Session view, it does beg the (imo logical) question of why that person doesn't want to use Ableton or Bitwig
understood. I was just trying to lighten the mood a bit. I know I’m not guiltless in thickening it in the first place.
- Timmy Crowne
- Competition Winner
- Posts: 357
- Joined: 06 Apr 2017
- Location: California, United States
You're right, I stopped short of that one. That would be a much deeper and darker motivation: the desire to intentionally keep parts of Reason arcane and unintuitive, purely to secure one's own place of authority on the subject. In that case, I would analogize User 2 not to a regent, but to a self-appointed high priest: 'Don't ask for progress; only through our teachings can you grow.'Raveshaper wrote: ↑02 Sep 2019You forgot an option.
d: a blind and deaf hegemony of User 2's ego that gleefully stomps around rejoicing with intoxication over hearing its own bellowing voice, echoing endlessly within a shrinking enclave of increasingly esoteric and fruitless knowledge. User 1 risks this empire of self appointed knighthood and the threat of identity crisis reverberates in the recesses of the regent's mind.
To someone with that perspective, User 1's little feature-request would amount to heresy, and thus would warrant a visceral reaction. I might be naive, but I sincerely hope that's not true of most of us here.
EDIT: 2 more replies and we're at 1000!
hello,
i like reaper, been watching a lot of videos
and reaper has mpe support
that would be the feature i'd like to see added
(i've read other posts that takes a lot of retooling)
but to use linnstrument with RE...the bomb
and the bonzai video in the kitchen section is very peaceful
cheers,
j
i like reaper, been watching a lot of videos
and reaper has mpe support
that would be the feature i'd like to see added
(i've read other posts that takes a lot of retooling)
but to use linnstrument with RE...the bomb
and the bonzai video in the kitchen section is very peaceful
cheers,
j
littlejamaicastudios
i7 2.8ghz / 24GB ddr3 / Quadro 4000 x 2 / ProFire 610
reason 10 / reaper / acidpro /akai mpk mini / korg padkontrol / axiom 25 / radium 49
'i get by with a lot of help from my friends'
i7 2.8ghz / 24GB ddr3 / Quadro 4000 x 2 / ProFire 610
reason 10 / reaper / acidpro /akai mpk mini / korg padkontrol / axiom 25 / radium 49
'i get by with a lot of help from my friends'
heyhey,
oooops,
just wanted to say thanks to everyone
cheers,
j
oooops,
just wanted to say thanks to everyone
cheers,
j
littlejamaicastudios
i7 2.8ghz / 24GB ddr3 / Quadro 4000 x 2 / ProFire 610
reason 10 / reaper / acidpro /akai mpk mini / korg padkontrol / axiom 25 / radium 49
'i get by with a lot of help from my friends'
i7 2.8ghz / 24GB ddr3 / Quadro 4000 x 2 / ProFire 610
reason 10 / reaper / acidpro /akai mpk mini / korg padkontrol / axiom 25 / radium 49
'i get by with a lot of help from my friends'
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 105 guests