Gramophone

[birkenshawboy]

Yes you would be well off giving up your Gramophone subscription. After reading Gramophone since the mid 70's my tolerance levels have finally cracked. It is but a pale shadow of its former self. How many of the regular featured articles have been dropped since the onset of James Inverne's editorship - Quarterley review, Soundings, virtually the entire audio section. You do get the impression that no one cares about how recordings sound any more. I've got a stack of old Gramophones which I regularly flick through. I suspect that the pressure from the publisher goes a long way to explaining the magazine's sad current state. At least Inverne has left the building so their may be hope after all. Gave up my subscription about 2 years ago and I don't regret it one jot.

[Beef Oven]

I subscribed to Gramophone for about 20 years and gave up 5 years ago.

It aint what it was!

Formulaic reviews and features and one of the best hi-fi reviews replaced with What Hi-Fi!

Hey birkenshawboy - Egg Wetter Gree!!!

The above is my earlier post, #297.

[Barbirollians]

I am wondering whether to go back to Gramophone . Despite the length of the reviews IRR is beginning to go downhill in my opinion .

They have recently added a number of reviewers that I do not rate at all . One of whom must have cloth ears to have liked the Liszt Concertos of Matsuev and the insufferable Michael Jameson - who gave a bizarre rave review to a dreary Mahler 2 from Simone Young and who as a cellist ( though his recorded catalogue seems rather slim) appears to dislike every recording that is not played as he might have played it had he had the chance - his endless railings against the late Jacqueline du Pre were no credit to BBCMM in the past and I see he is at it again in the most recent IRR .

It still has some very good reviewers - some are shared with Gramophone and indeed we have two of its very best as members on here but it is worryingly inconsistent and I find Richard Whitehouse's monopolising of Shostakovich as irritating as some do Seckerson with Mahler in Gramophone .

[jayne lee wilson]

Yes Bb., I've found that inconsistency with IRR a little worse recently after recommended purchases - one reason why I try before I buy (downloads, excerpts online etc.) I still like its reviews overall for the length and detail, but then, by now I know which reviewers I trust! As for MJ...

As one who continues to subscribe to both, I can assure you that Gramophone has improved, or recovered, considerably, since Martin Cullingford assumed editorship. But you have to factor in the superb new Gramophone archive to all of this. For about £2 extra per month, it's a great and absorbing resource of some 70 years of reviews, surveys and articles, beautifully implemented and lovely to use. It's great to go back and see what Deryck Cooke, Trevor Harvey or Richard Osborne said about the original releases, and then follow the links, or just follow your nose, through the back issues. The only problem with it is the time that goes by once you're in.
I used to mock the line "the magazine is just the beginning" - but now, with the latest archive, it's true.

[akiralx]

But you have to factor in the superb new Gramophone archive to all of this. For about £2 extra per month, it's a great and absorbing resource of some 70 years of reviews, surveys and articles, beautifully implemented and lovely to use. It's great to go back and see what Deryck Cooke, Trevor Harvey or Richard Osborne said about the original releases, and then follow the links, or just follow your nose, through the back issues.

I only recently resubscribed to Gramophone for the archive, it is very enjoyable - but my beef is I struggle to track down specific reviews.

For example I was recently looking for Haitink's early 70s Mahler 5 - so putting in 'Haitink Mahler' as the search and even narrowing by each year in the 1970s still brings up every recording by Haitink, and every recording of Mahler - quite a few of both... It took me half an hour of concerted searching to find it - even then only by spotting the right issue from a comparative review of M5. It takes me *ages* to find any specific review. What do you all do to avoid this? I've tried putting the query in quotes as I'm only interested in both elements together but that doesn't seem to work...

[Sir Velo]

What do you all do to avoid this? I've tried putting the query in quotes as I'm only interested in both elements together but that doesn't seem to work...

You have to add more words to narrow the search down further; in this instance try adding "Concertgebouw"; "symphony;" "Amsterdam"; "Adagietto" (no review will omit mention of this movement!).

It's frustrating isn't it, and amazing, considering what they're asking, that they haven't worked on this.

[VodkaDilc]

I am wondering whether to go back to Gramophone . Despite the length of the reviews IRR is beginning to go downhill in my opinion .

They have recently added a number of reviewers that I do not rate at all . One of whom must have cloth ears to have liked the Liszt Concertos of Matsuev and the insufferable Michael Jameson - who gave a bizarre rave review to a dreary Mahler 2 from Simone Young and who as a cellist ( though his recorded catalogue seems rather slim) appears to dislike every recording that is not played as he might have played it had he had the chance - his endless railings against the late Jacqueline du Pre were no credit to BBCMM in the past and I see he is at it again in the most recent IRR .

It still has some very good reviewers - some are shared with Gramophone and indeed we have two of its very best as members on here but it is worryingly inconsistent and I find Richard Whitehouse's monopolising of Shostakovich as irritating as some do Seckerson with Mahler in Gramophone .

I find IRR as stimulating as ever. If you have a problem with a specific reviewer, write to the Editor. I was one who wrote on the subject of ****** ******** (not the only one, I gather) and he didn't last long on the panel of reviewers. That was an extreme case - he was appallingly bad - but the editor really does listen.

And I've asked it before and not got an answer, but what is wrong with Ed Seckerson? He's certainly much missed on R3.

[MickyD]

I must say I share VodkaDilc's satisfaction regarding IRR. Although being more interested in the baroque side of things, I am lucky that those reviews are covered by such admirable critics as Nicholas Anderson and Simon Heighes etc, so maybe I am biased. Even so, I find the mag great value for money - despite its thin appearance, the lack of advertisements and preponderance of text means that it takes me a long time to read it each month.

[gurnemanz]

I used to be a Gramophone reader but I've just thrown out 30 years' worth of the mag which I loved. When I read postings as above I get a strange hankering to go back. However, with collection-bloat a factor, I'm trying to slow down my recorded music buying and a subscription would just encourage me, so I think I will resist. There is a lot of stuff to read online. I would pay just to subscribe to the online Archive but this doesn't seem to be possible.

[Gordon]

I used to be a Gramophone reader but I've just thrown out 30 years' worth of the mag which I loved. When I read postings as above I get a strange hankering to go back. However, with collection-bloat a factor, I'm trying to slow down my recorded music buying and a subscription would just encourage me, so I think I will resist. There is a lot of stuff to read online. I would pay just to subscribe to the online Archive but this doesn't seem to be possible.

Agreed G, I did the same as you have done and feel the odd regret which is stamped on by my wiser self!! I'd also subscribe to the back catalogue if allowed. My Gramophones, from 1950 to 1998 when I gave it up, all went out in moment of strong will about 5 years ago. Tried advertising them but no takers.