The 2 artical page ‘How do I choose a DAW’ … they’ve mentioned the usual 4 or 5. but there’s absoloutly no mention of renoise, even in the ‘breaking the tradition’ column it only mentions ass’olton live and failloops.
not even sure Im gonna keep on buying this mag now. In the underground scene renoise is BIG! they should represent it and do some tutorials for it, CM are behind the times imo.
it’s not like renoise isn’t good enough for the job, it’s got the fasted workflow and that’s no lie.
Would be nice to see the options other than the usual daws, it’s not like a secret club is it? ‘we’ want more people get into renoise right?
maybe CM editors think it’s a secret club.
Or maybe the CM editors don’t feel mainstream users would be able to understand how to do things like record vocals in Renoise. Perhaps the CM editors themselves don’t understand it. You have to consider that Renoise, although freaking amazing, isn’t a standard interface by any means, and as a result, will throw almost ANY standard DAW user for a loop if they try it out without handholding. For a magazine to be making software suggestions, they have to feel that the majority of their readers will be receptive to what they’re suggesting… if they suggest Renoise, and a bunch of their users dole out cash on it, only to find out that they’re too stupid to use it, it makes the mag look bad.
So, as I was saying: We should ask them WHY they haven’t included Renoise in that article. Their feedback may be important to the marketability and usability of Renoise.
… on the other hand, their feedback may be utterly useless, but you never know till you ask.
It does suck that Renoise is not getting properly represented in major publications, since a lot of them have actually mentioned Renoise in the past in the form of reviews or other smaller articles, but does anyone really give a shit about what Computer Music - or Future Music, for that matter - says in their magazine any more? They’ve been re-hashing the same garbage for years now, and as far as I’m concerned they haven’t had any genuinely interesting or original content for a long, long time. And this is coming from a guy who used to buy both magazines religiously, both of them from issue #1.
Ah the good old rant , You better spend your money elsewhere cause C.M. is scheisse ,crap , every issue is like an exact copy of the one before , usseles subjective info , what do you expect from a magazine with topics like ’ how do I make idm ?’ ’ how to get that fat prodigy bass sound ’ etc …usseless .
Save your money and buy some good plugins instead !
As a matter of fact, it was an enthusiastic report in the tiny tracker-and-demoscene part of CM, on the 2.5 update, that was the final push I needed to go ahead and actually buy Renoise. Someone working for CM obviously knows about Renoise, but it’s probably not someone calling any kind of shots.
That said, I’ve pretty much stopped buying these mags myself, although I do browse through them in the store sometimes. If there is an especially interesting-looking sample pack or a review of some intriguing piece of kit, I may still take them home from time to time.
Yeah, CM have done more for Renoise’s mainstream profile than any other print publication. They run a regular demoscene column and the aforementioned tracker tutorial - which has recently switched to Psycle but will probably return to Renoise to cover 2.5’s new features. They occasionally have multi-page spread features on tracking in general (every 18 months or so) and this is all despite the fact that magazines like CM aren’t exclusively intended as evangelism platforms, for selling people DAW-lifestyles on an ideological basis. They’re not just about telling you that Ableton is the DAW for you; I think it’s the suspicion of many fans of ‘underground’ software packages that this is the case. I’d actually argue that, in terms of word-count, more inches have been spent on tracking than on the entire subject of Linux use in audio production (and even then, whenever Linux is mentioned, Renoise is mentioned!).
Remember that probably 99.9% of CM’s large readership have already paid for, learnt and come to work exclusively in Cubase, Sonar, Pro Tools and Ableton, so it’d be ridiculous to expect equal attention to be given to Renoise (or Reaper, or whatever). I still subscribe to CM and, yeah, when it arrives, I scan through it cover to cover for mentions of Renoise. But deep down, all my life, it’s been a little thrill that I use a type of music production software that a] most people haven’t heard of, b] people who’ve heard of don’t know how to use and c] I believe to be much better than what everyone else is using. So your choices are to be a tedious fanboy about your software choice OR to knuckle down and get some music done instead. I try to do the latter.
As Oscar said…the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about…and most publications don’t talk about Renoise at all. So go easy on them!
Let’s face it, Renoise is still not very mainstream. Sure they could have mentionend Renoise as an alternative DAW, but they don’t deserve any negative sentiment from us just because they didn’t.
I have more than 20 Computer Music magazines from the past few years, and they have been giving Renoise a lot of attention, I’m pleasantly surprised of how much really, Renoise is discussed about in almost every issue and sometimes a lot!
Besides for the whole lots of reponses ratifying your expressions a bit: Renoise still has some road ahead to follow before it will become a good solid item in such magazines.
Audio tracks and a good arranger are two of them.
Better MIDI support and better instrument facilities are two others.
When those four options are there or improved, Renoise will probably be considered a worthy mentionable mainstream aspect.