Reason 10 incoming

[festeringheap]

Let's take a look at some of the past releases, starting from version 5 to shorten the list:

- Reason 5 was released on 25 August 2010
- Reason 6 was released on September 30, 2011
- Reason 6.5 was released on June 14, 2012
- Reason 7 was released on April 30, 2013
- Reason 8 was released September 30, 2014
- Reason 9 was released on June 21, 2016
- Reason 9.5 was released on May 29, 2017
- Reason 10 will be released October 25, 2017

Maybe they'll release Reason 10.5 in April or May, 2018 and that version could very well be more focused on workflow issues and core features.

x.5 releases are big news: Rack Extensions, Vst support
Workflow/core fixes should be ongoing and we be should expecting improvements in x.01 or x.1 updates. Or maybe bug fixes in the x.01s and updates in the x.1s.

About your release dates...since Propellerhead merged Record and Reason to make Reason6, all the upgrades follow an alternating Spring/early summer and following autumn release.
6 autumn
7 spring
8 autumn
9 sp/sum
10 autumn

So I suppose we should see Reason 11 drop in spring of 2019.
Not sure why I bring this up. Maybe I see lots of time for Propellerhead to get stuff done. I keep hearing about how small the staff is at Propellerhead (45+ employees), what? at least 1/2 of those should be coders.
Reaper gets more stuff done with three programmers in a year, than Propellerhead since Reason 6.

...why not also just allow for the users to create their own scripts/macros for making things happen, stuff like "song position cursor go back to initial playback position" or whatever they want?

I still cannot understand why Propellerhead doesn't get somebody to bang out two or maybe three lines of code while the rest of the gang go out for a coffee and get this one done for the core program.

This probably qualifies for a x.5 update with Propellerhead.

[recursive one]

I'd certainly recommend that you wait until R10 releases and then spend some time with the demo. There's no time limit on it, and it's fully functional. You just can't open saved projects until you buy it.

I wish more demos were like that. E.g., when testing new synths I sometimes happen to make some cool patches and this is always a shame if I can't save them anyhow. Probably I would be more inclined to buy the synths I'm demoing should it allow me to unlock the patches I've made with the demos.

I'll surely demo R10 when it gets released.

[BrokenTrance]

When there is a new Reason release i always look it up. I wait for some type of session view/clip launch or pattern selector - or why not both if possible?

[Distorted Horizon]

I wait for some type of session view/clip launch or pattern selector - or why not both if possible?

Blocks?

[BrokenTrance]

I wait for some type of session view/clip launch or pattern selector - or why not both if possible?

Blocks?

Didn't click with me

[Sailor16]

I'm only saying two magic words here: "ReWire" and "Renoise".

Seriously. Renoise could be THAT next step forward if you're looking for a fresh new Reason sequencing experience while you swim around in thousands of synths, effects, modulators and samples. Try this:

1. Launch Renoise as the pattern based step sequencer with total control of everything *.
2. From Renoise, launch Reason as a ReWire slave.
3. Use Renoise's exclusive phrases and other cool features to pimp your Reason experience.
4. In Reason, arm and record everything sent from Renoise to Reason's sequencer/automation tracks.

I've enjoyed the Reason+Renoise combo for a while now, it really is an excellent and very powerful setup (certainly the most powerful step sequencer on the planet, without any competition).

*) Disclaimer: The Renoise demo version is limited when it comes to ReWire, the full version is not.

Here's a quick example of Renoise in action, playing a track from the Swedish artist she:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNJzCaybzOk

...and another one showing more of the pattern editor itself in action, here playing a track from the Swedish artist Mitch Murder:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dhWlmxkIqQ

[Distorted Horizon]

I wait for some type of session view/clip launch or pattern selector - or why not both if possible?

Blocks?

Didn't click with me

Why? It's basically a clip/loop containing all the musical data you want. Draw the blocks in timeline and make automations for variation/changes/transfer from section to another.

Same thing you do with FLS or BWS/Live when you launch a set of clips.

[Trancit]

I wait for some type of session view/clip launch or pattern selector - or why not both if possible?

Blocks?

Didn't click with me

Why? It's basically a clip/loop containing all the musical data you want. Draw the blocks in timeline and make automations for variation/changes/transfer from section to another.

Same thing you do with FLS or BWS/Live when you launch a set of clips.

That´s more about a pattern based workflow but has little in common with Live´s session view...

[Distorted Horizon]

I wait for some type of session view/clip launch or pattern selector - or why not both if possible?

Blocks?

Didn't click with me

Why? It's basically a clip/loop containing all the musical data you want. Draw the blocks in timeline and make automations for variation/changes/transfer from section to another.

Same thing you do with FLS or BWS/Live when you launch a set of clips.

That´s more about a pattern based workflow but has little in common with Live´s session view...

you wanted pattern selector, blocks gives you patterns to select

[BrokenTrance]

Blocks are probably very good, but i would like Reason on instruments to have Patterns like Redrum have.

[antic604]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNJzCaybzOk

Great tune!

[pekbro]

b e t a . . . |>

[sellyoursoul]

More of more stuff that I don't need. I find this to be true of daws and dsp suites in general. Not picking on Reason here, but I think that the marketing video in the original post reflects the general state of things in daw land, being, more of more stuff that I don't need or want. Options are good, where those options are actually useful to music makers on a personal level. But when they aren't useful, they just add more complexity and clutter.

It has been stewing in my mind for some years that what is needed in daw land is simplicity, usability, usefulness, getting to excellence in fundamentals. And I think it all points toward modular daws and modular dsp modules. Maybe on the surface that first sentence sounds counter to the second sentence.

What good are dozens of dsp modules, whether they be samplers, synths, effects, if they don't nail the fundamentals: excellent sound, high usability, lack of clutter. Piling more unsound options onto unsound fundamentals is good for marketing, but it isn't good for music makers getting things done.

In the present peak of daws and dsp, we have users being sapped of energy by endlessly selecting and tweaking staggering numbers of options, because those options are unsound. Many people say that we are all spoiled today by having so many options, but what doesn't seem to register is that too many users are lost in the muck of it all.

Thinking back through the muck, toward what we love in music and recordings, it boils down to excellence in composition, performance, and sound. Whether it be a classic jazz recording or some obscure and eccentric punk recording, the above applies. What matters is that the expression of people gets across through the speakers in a way that is interesting to listen to in some way, whether what gets across is pleasing, challenging, is beautiful or ugly. We know what grabs us when we hear it. The composition can be really complex, dead simple, or something inbetween. But it must grab us in some human way, having a fundamental character. Then it must be performed in a way that gets the composition across, further adding character of the performers to the composition. And hopefully the sound adds character to the composition and performance. And all three influence one another. Someone writing a piece of music for an orchestra of excellent performers might do equally as well writing parts that are limited in challenge of performance for an orchestra with more limited playing abilities. Similarly, a person writing drum parts for a drummer in a rock band might do good in a daw by limiting the dynamics of drum parts for a sampled drum kit with programmed MIDI parts. And knowing that a simulated synth or guitar amp isn't capable of producing a satisfying low frequency weight or high frequency harmonics will put limits on the types of expressions which can be performed and written for.

Knowing that the three above points are related, having some overlap and influence on one another, what we seem to be dealing with in daw land is multitudes of options that are limited in the same fundementals. What do present day daws provide in way of writing excellent compositions for excellent performers with excellent sound? We have many options for programming performances, providing automated performances, and for editing not so excellent performances. This reflects back into what we can do in the composition. And it reflects forward in what we can do with the sound. As popular as the idea of these fundamentals being discrete, excellence in music and sound on the whole has taken a nosedive over the last couple of decades by many listeners accounts. I hear and see comments in person and on the internet all the time, and I agree with the general notion. Even dropping down to the lower end of the stack into physics, the once novel idea that everything is connected through intertwined fields has become the accepted theory of how things work on a fundemental level and how things influence one another.

Knowing that there is some overlap and influence in fundamentals, what do our digital tools provide in way of excellence of composition, performance, and sound? And how are we limited by our tools in these fundamentals, where we otherwise have endless options within these limitations?

For myself, I'm not so interested in tools for stitching together compositions from blocks, simulating and automating performances, or providing precooked sounds. I feel that the human element and character in music tends to get lost by varying degrees through these kinds of tools. What would serve me best is tools that I can configure in ways that are highly usable for writing, performing, and mixing. For example, as a guitar player primarily, I find amp simulations to be very limiting in the sounds that I want to express, despite endless options of simulations for everything under the sun. The fundamental of excellence in sound isn't there, whether I turn to this developer or that developer, or this model or that model. The limitations aren't in the options, but rather, in the fundamentals of sound and hence what I would like to express.

Carrying the above example over into the other fundamentals in daw land, I see similar limitations in other areas, despite having every option under the sun for this and that. I find that what I can do with nothing but a guitar only becomes more complicated and mucked up by when I take it to a daw. And I should insert a note here. Useful simplicity isn't about removing options but more about removing useless options for the task at hand.

Where I feel the least mucked up when writing with only a guitar in hand, I still want to capture those ideas for further development, which is where a daw comes in. Ideally, what would be involved on the daw side of things is a personal configuration of tools for this simple task. If I am using an acoustic guitar, I only need a stark set of controls in front of me. A meter for setting the level, record and play buttons, and a visualization to use as an aid in clicking through the recording while thinking about what I might like to change. Anything else at this point is just muck that is in the way. In this hypothetical modular daw, I would add onto the blank screen these simple tools and get down to it without any other distractions in the way. Nothing is on the screen other than the tools which I choose to put there for the task at hand. After playing with the basic composition, I might decide that I would like to more easily jump around between parts by adding some marker points. Keeping it simple, I only need to add onto the screen some labels to attach to specific points in time: intro, verse, chorus, optional interlude, verse, etc... I don't need a full-blown timeline and 'marker system' in the way. I just need some labels to attach to those points in time and a quick way to jump to those parts. I might choose to assign some keys to those marker points, such as a, b, c for the verses, e, f, g, for choruses; whatever comes to mind that works for me. Present day daws don't allow for this kind of simplicity. Everything is a prebaked 'system' which more often than not tends to get in the way of the task at hand through endless options, or forces users to do things in a way which goes against the grain of how we think on a personal level.

Taking the above example further, I might decide that I would like to add a layered part to the basic composition. Again, I don't need or want a bunch of muck. Stark controls for a stark task. Excellence in design at a modular level would be required here. Should a 'track' be a fancy panel with controls for level, pan, width, mute, solo, fx, routing, record arm, monitoring; a timeline with options for bars and units or time and units, grid options, snapping options, editing tools, file menus, color options, and a transport with play, pause, record, forward, backward, speed, looping? Is the idea of what I'm getting at making it across in this simple example?

And if I want to have some of the above controls over sound for this simple task, such as volume and pan, do I need to have them all? No. But in present daw land, a fullblown mixer is often needed for such a simple task. What if I want to add a bit of reverb to my simple tracking config? Do I need to wade through endless options of reverb modules, which never quite get the sound that I'm looking for, and change views to a rack or bring up a floating window possibly covers up other elements in my setup? Why are things so mucked up, even at such a very fundamental level?

I wish I had more time to go much further on this.

[Sailor16]

Just watched the Grain demonstration video. Totally sold on this thing, just love how that toy piano ring out turns into a ghostly lead

(That lead part is here: https://youtu.be/fvJmrZRjqOg?t=2613 )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvJmrZRjqOg

[SLiC]

I am not a reason user but I have to say that was a good video on granular synthesis and a nice and easy to understand synth (although I think I pretty much have granular covered in Avenger and Halion I would still be interested in that if it was a VST)

Although I have no particular interest in Reason as I am happy with my DAW and VSTs workflow, it’s probably very good value for a new user starting with nothing going in at V10,