An open letter to Justin Frankel and Cockos

[SamuelBeckett]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ld_K6gRccU

[Magicbuss]

As someone who never spent any real time in the Pro tools world... what the hell are these playlists that he and others are talking about? How would they make my workflow better? I'm not trolling. I honestly don't know what playlists are or why I need them.

Also You can totally group edit tracks. There are any number of videos on group editing drums for instance. I guess pro-tools might do it differently but I dont know what pro-tools has that could be missing from group editing in Reaper.

[Edit] Ok so playlists appear to be the protools take system. So the main gripe in the video is with Reapers take system. Well... join the club. That's been a sore topic of discussion for years. Good luck with that. I'm sure Kenny Gioia has a great video of making the best of reapers admittedly clunky take system. Still no idea what he's missing with Reapers group editing unless he talking about that whole protools area selection thingy which I never did understand.[/edit]

[Win Conway]

Go and look in the script forum.

[Jae.Thomas]

yes!!!!

[inertia]

I looked up this PT playlist and don't get it.

I can work a million times faster with the Reaper take system and assigning shortcuts. It's easy.

And honestly, how many takes can you work with anyway before it's actually more of a problem deciding which segments to use from each take?

I've seen people compain about the takes splitting but for me that fact I can split them means I can very quickly assemble a complete take in real time or quickly select other parts of different takes to compare. Then I just glue up the takes to a single track.

[Elevate Audio]

The poor excuse for PDC is a bigger problem.

[ivansc]

Funny. He will likely get far more views from people on this forum than anywhere else, which means he is unlikely to make much headway.

Wondering what he is really hoping to achieve. Let us hope it isnt just instant fame/notoriety.

[tdc]

Playlists +1

(and a thumb-piano synth)

[Pink Wool]

"Probably not gonna renew my licence, Pro Tools can do it, I think WE can do it, a million people have been asking for it..etc"

Just beautiful!

[Meo-Ada Mespotine]

As this thread has been moved in here, I strongly suggest to improve it as feature request:
https://forum.cockos.com/showpost.ph...07&postcount=2

[ivansc]

Agreed. Would make a lot more sense that way.

[Jae.Thomas]

this video was fucking gold

[heda]

After years of ignored feature requests it seems we need to invent new ways to try to get developers attention. Instill prefer the recommended way but you never know LOL

[poetnprophet]

I don't understand why people make a big deal about things other programs have, if you like that feature then go use that other program. You must be one of those people who go to a steakhouse and complain about their chicken selection.

[heda]

because we all love REAPER and we want it to be the perfect DAW

[JRTaylorMusic]

Here's a more coherent appeal:
https://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=210747

I very much would like to see this more fully realized. It's what keeps me from tracking in Reaper – particularly drum sessions.

[SamuelBeckett]

Hello and thanks for the responses everyone!

First of all, I just want to say that I didn't really think this video through thoroughly. I just started ranting and my friend recorded it. It wasn't really planned. We thought it was funny. It's supposed to be funny. But I'm also bringing up points that I actually believe in.

People have been asking for some of these features for years, and I saw recently that Justin doesn't seem to have interest in implementing playlists/track versions, which is frustrating.

I know it's a small team. I know it's not Pro Tools. I know there are takes. I know that there is a script that emulates PT-style playlists (I literally reference this in the video and speak a bit to why it is inadequate). People constantly respond to these things with fallacious or silly arguments. A lot of them are a simple as "it's cheap, so stop whining". So constructive!

I, and especially others, have made more coherent, well thought-out requests for these features in the pasts, but they don't seem to gain traction. I thought maybe making a memey joke video about it could bring more attention to the cause. I know it's rude, that's the joke, I don't actually have any hard feelings against the developers, and have a lot of respect and admiration for them, although I am sincerely disappointed that some of the features that I think ham-string the program aren't really being prioritized.

Maybe someday I will make a more detailed breakdown video of why the current Reaper options are inadequate (in my opinion) to do the things I want to do (and that several other DAWs do).

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter that much. I'm eye-balling other software, maybe Reaper will get these features someday, maybe not. The world is burning, this isn't all that critical.

[poetnprophet]

Originally Posted by heda

because we all love REAPER and we want it to be the perfect DAW

Yes I understand that WE want a lot of things collectively. But most of the rants...I mean, requests sound like this:

"[I] am sincerely disappointed that some of the features that [I think}"
"Reaper options are inadequate (in [my] opinion) to do the things [I] want to do"

I want, I wish, me, my opinion, my workflow....and then continue with ...."several other DAWs do" this or that so why can't Reaper.

Why do those feel so entitled to all their wishes coming true? Rather than, say, contribute something useful to the community by way of action/development instead of rants and words? Instead the OP is bashing those developments by others who have tried to help because it's not good enough for him personally. Entitlement? Who tf are you? (not you, Heda...the OP)

[Jae.Thomas]

Originally Posted by SamuelBeckett

Hello and thanks for the responses everyone!

First of all, I just want to say that I didn't really think this video through thoroughly. I just started ranting and my friend recorded it. It wasn't really planned. We thought it was funny. It's supposed to be funny. But I'm also bringing up points that I actually believe in.

People have been asking for some of these features for years, and I saw recently that Justin doesn't seem to have interest in implementing playlists/track versions, which is frustrating.

I know it's a small team. I know it's not Pro Tools. I know there are takes. I know that there is a script that emulates PT-style playlists (I literally reference this in the video and speak a bit to why it is inadequate). People constantly respond to these things with fallacious or silly arguments. A lot of them are a simple as "it's cheap, so stop whining". So constructive!

I, and especially others, have made more coherent, well thought-out requests for these features in the pasts, but they don't seem to gain traction. I thought maybe making a memey joke video about it could bring more attention to the cause. I know it's rude, that's the joke, I don't actually have any hard feelings against the developers, and have a lot of respect and admiration for them, although I am sincerely disappointed that some of the features that I think ham-string the program aren't really being prioritized.

Maybe someday I will make a more detailed breakdown video of why the current Reaper options are inadequate (in my opinion) to do the things I want to do (and that several other DAWs do).

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter that much. I'm eye-balling other software, maybe Reaper will get these features someday, maybe not. The world is burning, this isn't all that critical.

Dude, I think your video was clearly a bit exaggerated purposely and humorous. But you clearly do want these features and I think it was a unique and cool way to put it across.

[Jae.Thomas]

BTW I am not bemoaning anyone who wants these features natively, we can see the difference between some features right now that are in development vs. scripts.

however, could anyone point me to how playlists and group edit tracks are implemented via scripts?

[SamuelBeckett]

Originally Posted by poetnprophet

Yes I understand that WE want a lot of things collectively. But most of the rants...I mean, requests sound like this:

"[I] am sincerely disappointed that some of the features that [I think}"
"Reaper options are inadequate (in [my] opinion) to do the things [I] want to do"

I want, I wish, me, my opinion, my workflow....and then continue with ...."several other DAWs do" this or that so why can't Reaper.

Why do those feel so entitled to all their wishes coming true? Rather than, say, contribute something useful to the community by way of action/development instead of rants and words? Instead the OP is bashing those developments by others who have tried to help because it's not good enough for him personally. Entitlement? Who tf are you? (not you, Heda...the OP)

Maybe because we like to speak from our own perspective, and not for other people. What's wrong with saying you want something personally?

Anyhow, lots of people (myself included) have requested these things politely, thoroughly, etc... years ago... and very little has happened for it.

Like I said in my last post, the video is supposed to be a humorous thing. Seems like a lot of people aren't really getting that, haha. Or maybe they don't find it funny. That's fine!

[SamuelBeckett]

Originally Posted by Jae.Thomas

Dude, I think your video was clearly a bit exaggerated purposely and humorous. But you clearly do want these features and I think it was a unique and cool way to put it across.

Thanks man. It's sincerely comforting to know that some people get it, haha. I'm amazed at how many people are responding to it as if it's totally earnest, like I'm actually that big of a dickhead. Thanks : 0 )

[SamuelBeckett]

Originally Posted by Jae.Thomas

BTW I am not bemoaning anyone who wants these features natively, we can see the difference between some features right now that are in development vs. scripts.

however, could anyone point me to how playlists and group edit tracks are implemented via scripts?

I can't answer the group edit tracks thing (would be interested to know if there is a good script for that), but for playlists, look into Sexan's script. It works pretty well, but there are several drawbacks, and it's kind of a righteous pain to get installed properly (or at least it was for me). Not intuitive. Should be packaged with the program I think, baked-in. Sexan did a great job with it but it really should be woven into the software itself.

[redddog]

Originally Posted by SamuelBeckett

Hello and thanks for the responses everyone!

First of all, I just want to say that I didn't really think this video through thoroughly. I just started ranting and my friend recorded it. It wasn't really planned. We thought it was funny. It's supposed to be funny. But I'm also bringing up points that I actually believe in.

People have been asking for some of these features for years, and I saw recently that Justin doesn't seem to have interest in implementing playlists/track versions, which is frustrating.

I know it's a small team. I know it's not Pro Tools. I know there are takes. I know that there is a script that emulates PT-style playlists (I literally reference this in the video and speak a bit to why it is inadequate). People constantly respond to these things with fallacious or silly arguments. A lot of them are a simple as "it's cheap, so stop whining". So constructive!

I, and especially others, have made more coherent, well thought-out requests for these features in the pasts, but they don't seem to gain traction. I thought maybe making a memey joke video about it could bring more attention to the cause. I know it's rude, that's the joke, I don't actually have any hard feelings against the developers, and have a lot of respect and admiration for them, although I am sincerely disappointed that some of the features that I think ham-string the program aren't really being prioritized.

Maybe someday I will make a more detailed breakdown video of why the current Reaper options are inadequate (in my opinion) to do the things I want to do (and that several other DAWs do).

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter that much. I'm eye-balling other software, maybe Reaper will get these features someday, maybe not. The world is burning, this isn't all that critical.

Nice. Well said, Sam.

[Meo-Ada Mespotine]

Originally Posted by Jae.Thomas

BTW I am not bemoaning anyone who wants these features natively, we can see the difference between some features right now that are in development vs. scripts.

however, could anyone point me to how playlists and group edit tracks are implemented via scripts?

Sexan made something:

https://forum.cockos.com/showthread....light=playlist

[_Stevie_]

That's not updated anymore and that's basically the script Samuel was referring to, when he said he would like to have native play lists.

[fladd]

Never used Protools, but just watched two videos explaining what Playlists are, and my first reaction is that using the REAPER take system in combination with folder tracks seems much faster and more flexible. I assume those videos just covered the basics of playlists, so if anyone could point me to a more comprehensive description, that would be great. I got quite curious now to see what we are missing in REAPER.

[SamuelBeckett]

Originally Posted by fladd

Never used Protools, but just watched two videos explaining what Playlists are, and my first reaction is that using the REAPER take system in combination with folder tracks seems much faster and more flexible. I assume those videos just covered the basics of playlists, so if anyone could point me to a more comprehensive description, that would be great. I got quite curious now to see what we are missing in REAPER.

What would your imagined workflow look like for that? I'm curious.

Basically the idea with playlists/track versions/etc is that you can instantly create a new version of a track, either with or without what was previously on it, and store the previous version for recall later. This means that you can do 50 takes and keep them all if you want to. (Please, no comments on whether or not that is a good idea. I work with some real novices sometimes who take a lot of tries, and it's nice to be able to go back and grab the fourth take from the fifty if needed.)

Other situations it can be useful in are, say, if you wanted to try some crazy effects on one version, hit a button, make a new version, try different effects, etc. And then maybe comp them. Etc, etc.

It's a really useful tool that is far more elegant than the Reaper take system in some ways. And I'm not trying to dunk on the Reaper take system, I like it, but I think it could be seamlessly integrated with a track version system and then be really amazing.

Hope that explains it.

Also, just wanna say that playlists/track versions are not the only thing I talk about in the video. There are a few other features that I personally think are extremely helpful which aren't present in Reaper, like PT's Quickpunch feature (a bit like using pre-roll recording in Reaper, but it's always doing its thing, once the play button has been hit, rather than being relegated to a specific pre-roll function).

Also track-based edit groups.

And I didn't mention it in the video, but area selection (a la Sexan's Area 51 extension) would be very nice to have natively.

[karbomusic]

Just a quick 2 cents. The portion of PTPLs that matter here are the "track versions" which there really is no way to do with the same fidelity in Reaper. Thusly, it's probably better to include/use the term track versions because it will make more sense to devs et al.

What's easy to conflate is many PT users use PLs as their take system, but in Reaper it needs to be Track Versions as an addition to the take system that already exists. There really is no other path to accomplish this best I can tell, from what I've gleaned from the ad nauseam discussions here. I'm explaining this way because details matter and we often degrade into take system trashing (I don't see that here!) instead of keeping our eyes on the most successful path.

So my suggestion is that if you don't quite understand the value of PTPLs as an experienced Reaper user, take the time to find some videos explaining the portion that matters, that's what I did and you can trust that most of those asking are asking for something useful that Reaper doesn't do instead of cluttering the thread with the 1000th iteration - just go study them yourself.

If you do understand and are asking for them, always remember to consider the track version verbiage and to look at them as an addition to our current comp/take system, not an overhaul of it. Also, take the time to truly understand what takes can do - not to take away from PTPLs but at least 1/2 the time someone complains, I can tell by the complaints they don't really understand that much about Reaper's takes and they just start clicking and expecting it to be PT which is the worst possible plan of attack - so both sides could use some edumacation to keep from repeating the same explanations over and over and over.

[SamuelBeckett]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

Just a quick 2 cents. The portion of PTPLs that matter here are the "track versions" which there really is no way to do with the same fidelity in Reaper. Thusly, it's probably better to include/use the term track versions because it will make more sense to devs et al.

What's easy to conflate is many PT users use PLs as their take system, but in Reaper it needs to be Track Versions as an addition to the take system that already exists. There really is no other path to accomplish this best I can tell, from what I've gleaned from the ad nauseam discussions here. I'm explaining this way because details matter and we often degrade into take system trashing (I don't see that here!) instead of keeping our eyes on the most successful path.

So my suggestion is that if you don't quite understand the value of PTPLs as an experienced Reaper user, take the time to find some videos explaining the portion that matters, that's what I did and you can trust that 'most' of those asking are asking for something Reaper doesn't do instead of cluttering the thread with the 1000th iteration - just go study them yourself.

If you do understand and are asking for them, always remember to consider the track version verbiage and to look at them as an addition to our current comp/take system, not an overhaul of it. Also, take the time to truly understand what takes can do - not to take away from PTPLs but at least 1/2 the time someone complains, I can tell by the complaints they don't really understand that much about Reaper's takes - so both sides could use some edumacation much of the time.

Totally agree. I am not in favor of getting rid of the take system entirely. It's actually quite elegant and useful, even if it could use improvement in itself IMO. I think a lot of people recoil nastily to this request because they imagine that we want to get rid of the take system.

And yeah, I agree, the term "playlists" is really weird and I don't know why PT chose it. Not very illustrative of the concept. That's why I try to say "playlists/track versions" when I remember. Perhaps it would be more effective to just stick to "track versions". Especially since that's the term Sexan used, and he got a lot of the way there already with his script.

[oneammonday]

Awesome, Karbo. You're like the cool referee at a high school basketball game. Cheers, man.

[nofish]

Originally Posted by Magicbuss

Also You can totally group edit tracks.

Er no, you can only group edit items in Reaper currently.
That's quite a difference imo, e.g. for newly recorded multi-tracked items you have to group them first (and again and again for all newly recorded items) to be edited at once.

Track group editing is engaged once and that's it.
I've screwed up at times in a heated multi-track recording session editing something and forgotten to group first.

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by nofish

Er no, you can only group edit items in Reaper currently.

Correct and there are some scenarios where you are constantly splitting/breaking items in and out of the group for certain edits that becomes overly fiddly and time-consuming. I've hit that a time or two myself.

[n997]

Originally Posted by SamuelBeckett

Anyhow, lots of people (myself included) have requested these things politely, thoroughly, etc... years ago... and very little has happened for it.

A suggestion for your next video: "Waiting for Cockos"

[vitalker]

Originally Posted by n997

A suggestion for your next video: "Waiting for Cockos"

[Magicbuss]

Originally Posted by karbomusic

Just a quick 2 cents. The portion of PTPLs that matter here are the "track versions" which there really is no way to do with the same fidelity in Reaper. Thusly, it's probably better to include/use the term track versions because it will make more sense to devs et al.

What's easy to conflate is many PT users use PLs as their take system, but in Reaper it needs to be Track Versions as an addition to the take system that already exists. There really is no other path to accomplish this best I can tell, from what I've gleaned from the ad nauseam discussions here. I'm explaining this way because details matter and we often degrade into take system trashing (I don't see that here!) instead of keeping our eyes on the most successful path.

So my suggestion is that if you don't quite understand the value of PTPLs as an experienced Reaper user, take the time to find some videos explaining the portion that matters, that's what I did and you can trust that most of those asking are asking for something useful that Reaper doesn't do instead of cluttering the thread with the 1000th iteration - just go study them yourself.

If you do understand and are asking for them, always remember to consider the track version verbiage and to look at them as an addition to our current comp/take system, not an overhaul of it. Also, take the time to truly understand what takes can do - not to take away from PTPLs but at least 1/2 the time someone complains, I can tell by the complaints they don't really understand that much about Reaper's takes and they just start clicking and expecting it to be PT which is the worst possible plan of attack - so both sides could use some edumacation to keep from repeating the same explanations over and over and over.

Thanks for that Karbo. Between you and Sam Beckett I now understand what he is asking for. Track versions sound cool and would be a useful addition to Reaper.

Also, apparently I have been schooled on group editing in Reaper. LOL. I dont use it often enough for it to have become an issue. But I'm only a musician/hobbyist not a pro engineer.

[The-Zeronaut]

I feel your pain....there´s like +15 threads in the last decade asking for subdivisions for the metronome with another one popping up every few weeks....100% ignored.

I personally feel like the drum editing workflow can use a little bit of work (the fact that you cant really use dynamic split in grouped multitracks or individually move/add/delete any transient hit/point detection)and the answer is always "then use pro tools", "here use this 3 scripts that dont quite match what you want", "I can do it with XXX or XXX technique that is totally different that what you are asking so I dont see the problem"...ignored.

Other daws like studio one or pro tools have a MUCH better integration and work flow of the ARA2 functions for Vocalign/Revoice that at this point is an industry standard plugin for any modern vocal recording...again ignored.

There are many FRs with a LOT of votes that has been ignored for years or close to a decade...

For me the thing about Reaper is that it manages to do and implement amazing out of the box things like spectral peaks, spectral editing, subprojects, etc...but then fail at "basic" stuff.

[daniellumertz]

please track versions!
My tracks are all messy with muted items if I want to use other "versions", it is really confusing

[SamuelBeckett]

Originally Posted by The-Zeronaut

the answer is always "then use pro tools", "here use this 3 scripts that dont quite match what you want", "I can do it with XXX or XXX technique that is totally different that what you are asking so I dont see the problem"...ignored.

For me the thing about Reaper is that it manages to do and implement amazing out of the box things like spectral peaks, spectral editing, subprojects, etc...but then fail at "basic" stuff.

I'm so tired of this kind of response. It's so strange to me. People can get very "nationalistic" and defensive of their DAW of choice. Just try to go into a Pro Tools facebook group or something and make some very reasonable complaints. You won't go far without getting some dickhead shouting you down and telling you to pack up your bags. Reaper seems a lot better with that but it's still there.

Of course some of those responses are somewhat helpful, like the scripts, but a lot of the time people will just REFUSE to acknowledge that the script may not do exactly what you're talking about, or recognize that scripts can have definite shortcomings. My biggest example of this is how you can't assign hotkeys to Sexan's track version script, great as it may be.

Very much agree about some of the fancy/basic problem. Since Reaper seems like more of a passion project than some other software, I can certainly imagine that it might be less exciting to do some of these less flashy things. But I'm just ponderin! No hate to the devs. Just a little bit of disappointment and sometimes frustration on a couple of points.

[_Stevie_]

Originally Posted by SamuelBeckett

I'm so tired of this kind of response. It's so strange to me. People can get very "nationalistic" and defensive of their DAW of choice. Just try to go into a Pro Tools facebook group or something and make some very reasonable complaints. You won't go far without getting some dickhead shouting you down and telling you to pack up your bags. Reaper seems a lot better with that but it's still there.

Of course some of those responses are somewhat helpful, like the scripts, but a lot of the time people will just REFUSE to acknowledge that the script may not do exactly what you're talking about, or recognize that scripts can have definite shortcomings. My biggest example of this is how you can't assign hotkeys to Sexan's track version script, great as it may be.

Very much agree about some of the fancy/basic problem. Since Reaper seems like more of a passion project than some other software, I can certainly imagine that it might be less exciting to do some of these less flashy things. But I'm just ponderin! No hate to the devs. Just a little bit of disappointment and sometimes frustration on a couple of points.

Completely signing this, Samuel.