Reason 9.5 gets rated 10/10 by MusicTech

[EnochLight]

If anything, if I had paid for the review - I would actually want it to be more formal language. But, I digress - we're getting into tin-foil hat stuff here. It's lovely to speculate, though.

It's not tin-foil hat stuff at all. Although not in music business related, but just as much a 'specialty' field, last year I joined a company of a very similar size to Propellerhead in both staff and revenue, in the automotive industry. The 'widget' the company makes is a world-first, and I directly brokered two different articles that appeared in magazines catering for people with an interest in the specific automotive field. One article was a three page spread telling everyone how fantastic our 'widgets' were, and by all accounts it reads as an unbiased overview of the products strengths. It cost us over $8,000 to have this article appear in the magazine ! I'm only sharing this in the discussion to illustrate that paid-for reviews are common practice, so what we read is often very biased, and should be marked as 'advertorial' rather than presented as a 'review'. However quite often they are not informing the reader of this. In another instance (another magazine) I actually wrote a two page 'review' myself ! That one would have cost us $4,500, and included a print advertising package as well, but I'd blown the budget so it never went ahead.

Don't get me wrong - I know very well that paid-for reviews not only exist, but happen all of the time. But your example is a great example, in that - if Propellerhead could have paid for a 10-star review to begin with, why haven't they done this before with past Reason versions? Certainly 8.0 could have used a review like that!

For all its merits, 9.x stands head and shoulders above 8.0. It didn't need to have a paid review. Just say'n...

[AttenuationHz]

If anything, if I had paid for the review - I would actually want it to be more formal language. But, I digress - we're getting into tin-foil hat stuff here. It's lovely to speculate, though.

It's not tin-foil hat stuff at all. Although not in music business related, but just as much a 'specialty' field, last year I joined a company of a very similar size to Propellerhead in both staff and revenue, in the automotive industry. The 'widget' the company makes is a world-first, and I directly brokered two different articles that appeared in magazines catering for people with an interest in the specific automotive field. One article was a three page spread telling everyone how fantastic our 'widgets' were, and by all accounts it reads as an unbiased overview of the products strengths. It cost us over $8,000 to have this article appear in the magazine ! I'm only sharing this in the discussion to illustrate that paid-for reviews are common practice, so what we read is often very biased, and should be marked as 'advertorial' rather than presented as a 'review'. However quite often they are not informing the reader of this. In another instance (another magazine) I actually wrote a two page 'review' myself ! That one would have cost us $4,500, and included a print advertising package as well, but I'd blown the budget so it never went ahead.

Don't get me wrong - I know very well that paid-for reviews not only exist, but happen all of the time. But your example is a great example, in that - if Propellerhead could have paid for a 10-star review to begin with, why haven't they done this before with past Reason versions? Certainly 8.0 could have used a review like that!

For all its merits, 9.x stands head and shoulders above 8.0. It didn't need to have a paid review. Just say'n...

Well they didn't have a big investor before!

[joeyluck]

If anything, if I had paid for the review - I would actually want it to be more formal language. But, I digress - we're getting into tin-foil hat stuff here. It's lovely to speculate, though.

It's not tin-foil hat stuff at all. Although not in music business related, but just as much a 'specialty' field, last year I joined a company of a very similar size to Propellerhead in both staff and revenue, in the automotive industry. The 'widget' the company makes is a world-first, and I directly brokered two different articles that appeared in magazines catering for people with an interest in the specific automotive field. One article was a three page spread telling everyone how fantastic our 'widgets' were, and by all accounts it reads as an unbiased overview of the products strengths. It cost us over $8,000 to have this article appear in the magazine ! I'm only sharing this in the discussion to illustrate that paid-for reviews are common practice, so what we read is often very biased, and should be marked as 'advertorial' rather than presented as a 'review'. However quite often they are not informing the reader of this. In another instance (another magazine) I actually wrote a two page 'review' myself ! That one would have cost us $4,500, and included a print advertising package as well, but I'd blown the budget so it never went ahead.

Don't get me wrong - I know very well that paid-for reviews not only exist, but happen all of the time. But your example is a great example, in that - if Propellerhead could have paid for a 10-star review to begin with, why haven't they done this before with past Reason versions? Certainly 8.0 could have used a review like that!

For all its merits, 9.x stands head and shoulders above 8.0. It didn't need to have a paid review. Just say'n...

Well they didn't have a big investor before!

You're right, they only managed a 9/10 for the initial release of Reason 9 and a 9/10 for Reason 8.

[Zac]

So many words and passion. Weird.

[jonheal]

I don't particularly want to get involved in this mayhem, but I think the term "advertorial" is being here very loosely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertorial

If Anthem Publishing's reviews were truly nothing more than paid advertisements, they'd loose all credibility and I think that would be counterproductive for them. Why would anyone buy an undependable magazine that consisted of nothing but ads?

Maybe ... possibly ... the guy just liked the new version of Reason. Is that a crime?

[EnochLight]

We already know that "advertorials" happen in the publishing world - they have been since newspapers sold advertising from day 1. That's not the issue here. The issue is the tin-foil hat assumption that Propellerhead paid for an advertorial 10-star review.

Sorry folks - this is all speculation. There is no more evidence that it was a paid advertorial than there is evidence that it's not. Can we move on, now? Lol

[AttenuationHz]

We already know that "advertorials" happen in the publishing world - they have been since newspapers sold advertising from day 1. That's not the issue here. The issue is the tin-foil hat assumption that Propellerhead paid for an advertorial 10-star review.

Sorry folks - this is all speculation. There is no more evidence that it was a paid advertorial than there is evidence that it's not. Can we move on, now? Lol

You're the only one who mentioned Propellerhead paying for it. Tin foil hat stuff alright!

[EnochLight]

We already know that "advertorials" happen in the publishing world - they have been since newspapers sold advertising from day 1. That's not the issue here. The issue is the tin-foil hat assumption that Propellerhead paid for an advertorial 10-star review.

Sorry folks - this is all speculation. There is no more evidence that it was a paid advertorial than there is evidence that it's not. Can we move on, now? Lol

You're the only one who mentioned Propellerhead paying for it. Tin foil hat stuff alright!

Um.. no? I'm the one suggesting correlation does not imply causation. Others are implying that it's a paid-for advertorial (yourself included, since you seem to have a short memory). Not me.

[scratchnsnifff]

I'd give it a 8.5 out of 10
For my needs reason 9.5 has met my expectations. However I do think that we need to have drag and drop samples from the browser, almost wish they would have waited so they could do so from the first release also, even though I haven't had any significant CPU spikes, serum has made Reason crash a few times, so I suppose I'd give o'l Reason a 10/10 when it gets optimized, working software is good software

[Redster]

I personally know Andy Jones. I know that he is an individual of unscrupulous principles, particularly when it comes to advertising influence on written reviews within magazines that he helms. I can therefore tell you with almost 100% certainty that in this instance, Andy just loves Reason 9.5. End of.

That cant be a bad thing because it will probably mean Reason will get more coverage over the coming months. Happy days.

On another note, my personal opinion is that numerical ratings of written reviews should be scrapped to avoid this kind of toing and froing.

[AttenuationHz]

We already know that "advertorials" happen in the publishing world - they have been since newspapers sold advertising from day 1. That's not the issue here. The issue is the tin-foil hat assumption that Propellerhead paid for an advertorial 10-star review.

Sorry folks - this is all speculation. There is no more evidence that it was a paid advertorial than there is evidence that it's not. Can we move on, now? Lol

You're the only one who mentioned Propellerhead paying for it. Tin foil hat stuff alright!

Um.. no? I'm the one suggesting correlation does not imply causation. Others are implying that it's a paid-for advertorial (yourself included, since you seem to have a short memory). Not me.

No! No I didn't. What I said was it is in the magazines interest not to give it a bad review because they have partners that stock and sell hardware and software that the reviews are catered towards. Key word here is implying you don't have to look at the why of things that's up to you people are entitled to their opinions here. Its the basis of discussion and debate. To suggest that its just crazy to disagree with you says it all. Let me tell you something that whole magazine is roughly 98% advertising with 2% of articles in it having some valuable information to its readers.

I personally know Andy Jones. I know that he is an individual of unscrupulous principles, particularly when it comes to advertising influence on written reviews within magazines that he helms. I can therefore tell you with almost 100% certainty that in this instance, Andy just loves Reason 9.5. End of.

That cant be a bad thing because it will probably mean Reason will get more coverage over the coming months. Happy days.

On another note, my personal opinion is that numerical ratings of written reviews should be scrapped to avoid this kind of toing and froing.

I'd completely agree with you they should be scrapped but not for the same reason. They are meaningless without pro and cons of.

[sdst]

I give

10/10 to the Rack
8/10 to the sequencer
4/10 to the big mixer

This is a better structure in which to present a review score in a direct-influence industry release, if they are to be honest about it. While I don't agree with your actual figures (I might go 9, 6, 9, and add a fourth field covering the patch browser), this provides some clarity, and how the overall review score would work out to a 7.5/10 .

I also give

9.7/10 to the browser
8.5/10 to Thor
5/10 to malstrom
9/10 to subtractor

[Kalm]

Reason 9.5 rated as 10/10 makes sense already because it melted us together with all the other VST DAWs. We are not outsiders anymore.

No, it doesn't make any sense, and it has nothing to do with being an "outsider". A 10/10 means perfect, and Reason is by no means perfect.

I'm with you on this one. By no means is it a 10. Let's not live in this fairytale. To me though the DAW is a 10 . But that's about personal acceptance and by no means judging flaws versus success. I give Reason 9 an "8" to (I did without reading your earlier post). I think you guys don't know what Reason will feel like when it hits that 10/10 mark.

[selig]

Hey Guys: SQUIRREL!
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=7501760

[deepndark]

Funny thing is that when I bought Reason 2.0. in 2002, I was having 20/10 feeling when using Reason. The nowday's people...

[AttenuationHz]

Where....

[Oquasec]

Reason 5 was an 8 for me back in the day.
Reason 8 was a huge jump from that.
Reason 9.5 has the obvious reason to upgrade from 8.

So far I'd pick Reason 5 over FL Studio 13 :/

[EnochLight]

No! No I didn't. What I said was it is in the magazines interest not to give it a bad review because they have partners that stock and sell hardware and software that the reviews are catered towards. Key word here is implying you don't have to look at the why of things that's up to you people are entitled to their opinions here. Its the basis of discussion and debate.

OK, thanks for clarifying your stance - but since you didn't seem to disagree with Kombucha's statement when he quoted you:

Yep, this is the real story we should be analysing. If its a 'cash for comment' piece (as SO MANY MAGAZINE ARE, MARK MY WORDS), then of course it's going to get an implausible score.

...it appeared as though that was what you were saying:

Just to point out also MusicTech have partners that are vendors of software and hardware so you can bet your life that is why it got a 10/10 SALES! ADVERTISING! MARKET SHARES!

It looked as though you were implying Propellerhead was a software partner of MusicTech, and "sales", "advertising", and "market shares" seemed to illustrate Kombucha's follow-up statement. Anyway, thanks for clarifying the actual meaning of your initial statement. That said, if you're implying that MusicTech wouldn't give a bad score to a Reason review because Propellerhead is a software partner... isn't that similar to a paid advertorial?

To suggest that its just crazy to disagree with you says it all.

Wait... what? I never suggested it's crazy to disagree with me - in fact, I invite debate! Isn't that the whole point of a forum? I want people to disagree. It's never fun when we're all just sitting around and agreeing on everything. So... what all does that say about me?

Let me tell you something that whole magazine is roughly 98% advertising with 2% of articles in it having some valuable information to its readers.

OK.

[AttenuationHz]

No! No I didn't. What I said was it is in the magazines interest not to give it a bad review because they have partners that stock and sell hardware and software that the reviews are catered towards. Key word here is implying you don't have to look at the why of things that's up to you people are entitled to their opinions here. Its the basis of discussion and debate.

OK, thanks for clarifying your stance - but since you didn't seem to disagree with Kombucha's statement when he quoted you:

Yep, this is the real story we should be analysing. If its a 'cash for comment' piece (as SO MANY MAGAZINE ARE, MARK MY WORDS), then of course it's going to get an implausible score.

...it appeared as though that was what you were saying:

Just to point out also MusicTech have partners that are vendors of software and hardware so you can bet your life that is why it got a 10/10 SALES! ADVERTISING! MARKET SHARES!

It looked as though you were implying Propellerhead was a software partner of MusicTech, and "sales", "advertising", and "market shares" seemed to illustrate Kombucha's follow-up statement. Anyway, thanks for clarifying the actual meaning of your initial statement. That said, if you're implying that MusicTech wouldn't give a bad score to a Reason review because Propellerhead is a software partner... isn't that similar to a paid advertorial?

To suggest that its just crazy to disagree with you says it all.

Wait... what? I never suggested it's crazy to disagree with me - in fact, I invite debate! Isn't that the whole point of a forum? I want people to disagree. It's never fun when we're all just sitting around and agreeing on everything. So... what all does that say about me?

Let me tell you something that whole magazine is roughly 98% advertising with 2% of articles in it having some valuable information to its readers.

OK.

I'll be honest with you. I've better things to be doing than getting into a pointless he said, she said argument with you I'm sure you do too. So have you got a point here or are you just derailing the thread on purpose just to get some satisfaction? No need to reply I already know the answer.

[EnochLight]

I'll be honest with you. I've better things to be doing than getting into a pointless he said, she said argument with you I'm sure you do too. So have you got a point here or are you just derailing the thread on purpose just to get some satisfaction? No need to reply I already know the answer.

facepalm.jpg (21.07 KiB) Viewed 1886 times

Wait... what? I never suggested it's crazy to disagree with me - in fact, I invite debate! Isn't that the whole point of a forum? I want people to disagree. It's never fun when we're all just sitting around and agreeing on everything.

I'm quoting this as a reminder, because healthy debate is a good thing I believe. Some people are getting a little too aggressive on this subject (not you, Enochlight) so let's keep this in the spirit of robust discussion from all points of view

Cheers mate!

[spikey]

Are there any grown ups left in the world?

No.... That said I still like Vst's in Reason!

[Redster]

For the record, none of the experiences I speak of are related to Anthem Publishing, the parent company of Musictech. In this instance, I suppose I am speculating, but feel I am doing so with a little more insight into the whole business than others.

Well, I worked on a number of UK based music technology magazines for a good number of years full time and whilst I wont deny that some less than scrupulous magazines are influenced by advertising - particularly in the USofA - I will provide my experienced insight and propose that UK based Music Tech is not one of them. That is not speculation. That is first hand experience working directly with the now editor of Music Tech Mag - and many "Euro Beers" were consumed in the process Like I said, Andy just loves R9.5.

[selig]

For the record, none of the experiences I speak of are related to Anthem Publishing, the parent company of Musictech. In this instance, I suppose I am speculating, but feel I am doing so with a little more insight into the whole business than others.

Well, I worked on a number of UK based music technology magazines for a good number of years full time and whilst I wont deny that some less than scrupulous magazines are influenced by advertising - particularly in the USofA - I will provide my experienced insight and propose that UK based Music Tech is not one of them. That is not speculation. That is first hand experience working directly with the now editor of Music tech Mag - and many "Euro Beers" were consumed in the process Like I said, Andy just loves R9.5.

While we're all sharing our industry experiences on the matter, I'll chime in with what I've seen and heard working with Recording Magazine, and having the editor as a personal friend for over 15 years now. I actually sat in on a meeting at AES with the publisher and head of sales, and their entire "pitch" to the manufacture who's booth we were sitting in was the separation of these two entities. That is to say, the review comes because the readers request things along those lines to be reviewed. You CAN purchase an add, or not. There's no delusions that ads pay the bills, but the two departments make great effort to stay independent. I've done my share of reviews for the magazine over the years (including a Reason review, woot!) and also know many of the other writers/reviewers for the magazine. There has never been any talk during reviews of anything other than reporting what I found. I never had my reviews changed for any reason other than factual inaccuracies.

Can I say it never happens anywhere else? No (though I've not personally heard of it happening either). But I can say there are magazines like Recording that rely on their professional integrity to stay in business as much as they rely on ad revenue to keep the lights on. And I also can't say it doesn't happen in other industries, but I also don't know how much stuff like that translates across different businesses.

[Redster]

That's bang on the money Selig. Advertising in niche markets needs to be separate from editorial by principle or the magazine is doomed. In my experience with music mags that has always been the case, often to the aggravation of the advertising department.

[EnochLight]

LOL! Well, I wouldn't go as far to say it's a dumb rating. I'd rate it a 10/10 as well, but my "cons" list would be much more realistic (such as, needs to improve CPU/DSP and multicore/Hyperthreading support, needs to fix/improve MIDI drag and drop, no VST 3, etc). Maybe Gorgon will be happy now.