Unpopular opinion: "Players" are the worst feature of Reason

[chaosroyale]

1: They break the Rack paradigm. You cannot see what a player is controlling, or use the clever routing that Reason is famous for.

2: They mostly offer features that should be part of the MIDI toolset of the sequencer, which needs updating.

3: Every week another new player comes out including the feature set of older players, making your previous purchases redundant.

4: They are part of the fruityloopification of music - making everything generic, automated, conservative and boring.

[MrFigg]

I'll go with you on number 3.

[chimp_spanner]

Good job they’re entirely optional!

[BRIGGS]

[antic604]

1. This I agree with totally! Even if not using Players, I don't understand why there's no Note/Gate CV cables going from Mix Channel to the instrument, especially if most (all?) of the instruments actually have Note/Gate CV inputs...

2. I'd love to have those features in main sequencer (drag note out with modifier key to add chord / arp / strum, conditional triggers, etc.) but I don't mind them being added as Players - they serve a bit different purpose. I'll have problem with it if those features appear in Players INSTEAD of getting added to main sequencer...

3. Well, that's true with all technology

4. This one's ridiculous, though

[QVprod]

I’m lost how a step sequencer or other midi tool in the rack breaks the rack paradigm but would be perfectly fine in the sequencer. It’s pretty obvious what a player is controlling even without cables. MIDI is pretty straightforward, what kind of creative routing do you want to do that can’t already be done?

3. How do you complain about different developers making better products? It’s no different than the crazy amount of CV devices in the shop.

4. And this... I’m sure some artist you like has used an arpeggiator at some point. It’s a tool, the resultant music is only boring if the creator makes it that way.

[MrFigg]

As far as number 3 goes...well I think it's more that week one a device is released which is totally great so it's an insta-buy. Then the next week device two comes out and does the same as device 1 but better and with more features and then 2 days later device 3 comes out with better workflow and better features...I guess you can see where I'm going.
I've got maybe 5 chord devices now...and sure...my choice to buy them and I use them all for different stuff depending on what I'm doing...it's just that device 5 does everything devices 1-4 do. It's the speed they're being released that I find disconcerting...and of course I know that if I was to wait for the next device to come out before purchasing I'd never buy anything at all. No problem really....glad that there's development. It just hangs heavy on the finances. Should have picked a cheaper hobby...like throwing stones at bigger stones.

[Loque]

I agree a little bit. I cannot fully follow the vision of the Players. I'd rather had seen a midi and or data cable, which devices could manipulate. The Players are a bit too limited compared to full midi.

On the other hand I can understand that they try to make it simple as possible without cables, but cables ARE Reason or maybe was... I dunno anymore...

Who cares about every week a new one that superseded or outplayed the previous... Normal evolution... The first synth made beep and was big as a washing machine and today a smart watch makes better sounds...

[MrFigg]

Who cares about every week a new one that superseded or outplayed the previous... Normal evolution... The first synth made beep and was big as a washing machine and today a smart watch makes better sounds...

Yep...but technology didn't move so fast in the early days so even if you bought something you still had time to save up before the next thing came out.
That said the bleeping washing machine cost £60000 and not €39 intro price haha.

[Zac]

My view is that I have no problem with players (I like the few I have) so long as they aren't a reason to prevent the implementation of midi based VSTs.

[rcbuse]

I think the only problem with players is there are not enough of them. We currently have 8-9 in the shop that could be considered sequencers. We have a few hundred more to go before we are on par with the number of available synths.

[Luxuria]

I think points 1 and 2 go off of each other. The player devices that deal with scales and chords should be sequencer (piano roll) focused. They don't break it, they are just flexing their position.

The rack to me is modular and sound design oriented. Yes you can create a module that also takes over tasks that are done in the sequencer (old school matrix sequencer) but at the end of the day you're going to have to create an automation Lane in the sequencer to either control the pattern choice or the on/off switch.

I agree with you on 3 but not for the same reason. I applaud different companies trying to out do the others products wether it be compressors, synths or players but PHeads shouldn't be shelling out devices as hard as they are with price tags that aren't where the industry standard prices similar products at. Cthulhu is $39. PSS should not be $69 bucks even if the business model has it to where in a month it'll be 50% off. Promote good business practices, not play dirty like everyone else and out do everyone too.

I really think it's the company trying to step away from the DAW game. It looks like they want to be more known for their devices and apps then their DAW.

[jlgrimes]

1: They break the Rack paradigm. You cannot see what a player is controlling, or use the clever routing that Reason is famous for.

2: They mostly offer features that should be part of the MIDI toolset of the sequencer, which needs updating.

3: Every week another new player comes out including the feature set of older players, making your previous purchases redundant.

4: They are part of the fruityloopification of music - making everything generic, automated, conservative and boring.

I think Players in some ways are a workaround to the issue of CV being monophonic. They are midi devices and hence non routable.

I also agree the piano roll needs to be improved to accompany some player features such as drum sequencer. The thing the piano roll wont be able to give you is the live control features of the players.

So players do have some use although some of those features could have been added to the piano roll to make it more powerful.

Scales, chords, drum sequencing would all be great additions to the piano roll.

[Jmax]

I think the only problem with players is there are not enough of them. We currently have 8-9 in the shop that could be considered sequencers. We have a few hundred more to go before we are on par with the number of available synths.

Agreed, I'm more excited about Player releases then synths. It seems we've got every corner of the synth market covered.

[joeyluck]

I disagree. There are some simple things that would be great to have in the sequencer, but I certainly wouldn't want it to be bloated with the more creative things.

And one of the biggest strengths of players is...being able to play with them! Sequencer solutions would be mostly to just draw things in, edit, and move things around while listening to playback.

I like to load up a patch of chords, strums, arpeggios and then start playing around on my keyboard, using the players to explore and get inspired...and lay down a chord progression and melody more intuitively than futzing around the sequencer. Sure some players share attributes with the drawing step of the sequencer, but then with players you can play them. You can use them to perform live. You can save patches, you can load presets. They're very handy.

[motuscott]

#6 has me slightly contused.

[mjxl]

Why is Players a bad feature, should we use Scale/Chord Progression VSTs instead? VST arpeggios yes, but DualArp no ?
Also there is virtually no difference between players and some/a lot of CV devices anyways. ..

[BRIGGS]

#6 has me slightly contused.

lolz!!!

[jam-s]

The easy fix for #1 would be to have the players connect via virtual midi cables.

#2 nope
#3 early adopters usually pay more.
#4 nope

[mon]

I love some of them and like most of them. Maybe the idea is that they become a part of the devices (like expansions) and not separate devices. I guess that’s the reason they lack gate and CV. On the other hand, this makes them more straight forward and immediate to use. If we want the CV functionality, we could always use CVPT (thanks Lectric Panda ). The recent players was the missing link for me to make a real time compositional/performance tool, which is my long time goal and I tried to make it in different daw’s. For me the players are great addition to Reason and complete even more the concept of a virtual studio.

[MannequinRaces]

I think the only problem with players is there are not enough of them. We currently have 8-9 in the shop that could be considered sequencers. We have a few hundred more to go before we are on par with the number of available synths.

Heck yeah, I'm all synthed out! I've got the synth burn out. Players are opening up creative sketchpads that just weren't there before. Any tool that can help me come up with ideas faster and come up with ideas that I can build on is a welcome addition to my rack.

[djadalaide]

1. They don't break the rack paradigm, they are only for instruments and can be chained. It might be virtual connections, but you can get cv in and out using the appropriate player.
2. The sequencer has most of the features that the players provide. If they don't, you use a player which can direct record to the track. Win Win situation.
3. Not really, i've not seen two players the same; variations on themes but they aren't the same. Take chordbank and chordline, totally different products - one where you enter the notes, the other where you select chords. Sequences and PolyStep are also completely different; one designed for entering notes on a piano roll, the other entering smaller subsections of notes and using jamming tools for different variations. Midi-to-CV converter by LoveOne is not the same thing as CV Player tap By Lectric Panda - The former is polyphonic in/out, whereas the latter is for splitting each note out or adding notes from other external devices. I could go on and on, but you are just misinformed. Please give us one example? I can't see it. Even note limiter / note filter have different features even though they do almost the same thing.
4. Brian Eno was releasing generative music before i was born, and it sold well, and he continues to make generative music so i don't think we have to worry about using tools to make music, it enhances your creativity.

If i was Propellerhead, i would commission Brian Eno to design more experimental/generative players.

[mjxl]

Cool stuff, him and Panda would get along just fine I assume

[rcbuse]

Cool stuff, him and Panda would get along just fine I assume

Hah, craft up an oblique strategies RE.

[Oquasec]

The wireless utilities are basically just addons to make Reason for like other daws.
It works just like FL Studio or Cubase in that regard : /