BaL 6.04.19 - Mahler: Symphony no. 4 in G

[jayne lee wilson]

Yes you do need a subscription. What I find frustrating is that the Gramophone website search doesn't seem to find older reviews. We really need a better search or, as Gurnemanz says, the return of the old comprehensive Gramophone catalogue and we certainly need a catalogue or search of the Gramophone Collection.

Please do try writing to the editorial team about this (we all need to make our discontents clear, or...) - as a longtime campaigner on many issues it is always worth a try!

Or, just try (repeatedly ) modifying your search terms.... I don't, personally, find older reviews generally harder to find than newer ones... the puzzling non-results are puzzling whatever the date!

If you search for, say, "Sibelius Philharmonia Karajan" don't forget to check the "oldest" box.... it may help....

[Goon525]

I agree with Jane that there’s no more difficulty finding older reviews than newer ones. But if I put “Sibelius Philharmonia Karajan” into search, it will bring up every reference to any one of those words, and thus be useless. I’m doing something wrong, but what?

[cloughie]

I agree with Jane that there’s no more difficulty finding older reviews than newer ones. But if I put “Sibelius Philharmonia Karajan” into search, it will bring up every reference to any one of those words, and thus be useless. I’m doing something wrong, but what?

Try Sibelius + Philharmonia + Karajan

[jayne lee wilson]

I agree with Jane that there’s no more difficulty finding older reviews than newer ones. But if I put “Sibelius Philharmonia Karajan” into search, it will bring up every reference to any one of those words, and thus be useless. I’m doing something wrong, but what?

Can't you flash through the thumbnails until you recognise review-editorial from the typeface...?

[Goon525]

I’m not looking at thumbnails, and this might be the issue. I’m using the complete 96 year searchable set of copies on my iPad, the same App which gives me the latest issue. Sounds like you’re getting there a different way. If I search say Nelsons, it’ll give me every reference to Andris (and maybe the odd Haydn mass) going back however many years. But I’ve had no joy just putting multiple search terms in, or using AND between them. But I haven’t tried the + sign suggested above so I’ll buzz off and give that a go.

[Goon525]

I’m not looking at thumbnails, and this might be the issue. I’m using the complete 96 year searchable set of copies on my iPad, the same App which gives me the latest issue. Sounds like you’re getting there a different way. If I search say Nelsons, it’ll give me every reference to Andris (and maybe the odd Haydn mass) going back however many years. But I’ve had no joy just putting multiple search terms in, or using AND between them. But I haven’t tried the + sign suggested above so I’ll buzz off and give that a go.

Nah, that didn’t work. Tried just Sibelius + Karajan and it’s giving me every reference to either.

[Goon525]

Sorry to be taking up so much off-topic space, but I’ve just tried that same search on the G website reviews section, and somewhat to my amazement, it seems to have worked! So while I’d rather see the reviews in their original G position, this is a lot better than nothing. Thanks for the suggestion.

[Barbirollians]

The problem is they only go back to mid 1980s - Gramophone’s search function on its archive is a shockingly out of date embarrassment .

[jayne lee wilson]

"Only go back to the mid-1980s" ?!?
Sorry but that is simply wrong in point of fact. So please don't hurl insults at it.

For the record - I search the Gramophone archive (every issue back to the 1920s) using a 2016 Macbook Air (a Laptop - for those who have left such relics behind...) running Safari or Firefox. OS - not always regularly updated - this one is El Capitan....

If I bring up Gramophone in my Exact Editions account, I see large thumbnails of all the years/decades back to the 1920s, represented by the last December issue. Back to 2000 you see the individual years; pre-2000, each decade.
Hit that, I get the individual years per decade > thumbnails of all 12 Months for that year....etc.

The search results for individual references present as thumbnails of each page running down the left margin, and full size clips centre/right. Very easy to check/navigate swiftly.
Apart from aforementioned (minor) shortcomings, I have no other problems finding back issues/reviews dating back to the start, yes - right back to April 1923, in which I've just read Compton Mackenzie's Prologue.....

If I search for "Sibelius Karajan" (the + makes no difference on my OS) I get every article/ad etc in which both terms occur, (terms highlighted in blue). Of course I do. Computer does what you tell it to. "Sibelius Symphony No.5 Philharmonia Karajan" - there the reviews are, instantly....the ads are there too but easy distinguished by eye; and in the case of those from the 1950s and earlier, pleasurable and instructive to peruse in themselves!

If you want more specific refs, you need to include more terms....
And yes - of course it will be different (usually harder) on an iPad etc...

[mikealdren]

Its fine showing examples that work but what about those that don't? In the 'search' tab under reviews I have typed in "oistrakh sibelius violin concerto ormandy" and it didn't find a review, it did return many pages containing some of the words.

I have had the same issues with many searches for older recordings.

[cloughie]

I am currently on a space saving mission with CDs, removing from Jewel cases and ‘findability indexing’ and in sorting my Mahler and realising how few recordings there were pre 1960s. Decca, for example, had in their catalogue, unless I’ve missed something, only two symphonies 1 VPO Kubelik and 4 CAO Beinum.

[gurnemanz]

A quick search on Discogs for the 50s finds only four Decca Mahler issues. The only symphony is no 4 from Eduard Van Beinum, Concertgebouw with Margaret Ritchie.

[gurnemanz]

"Only go back to the mid-1980s" ?!?
Sorry but that is simply wrong in point of fact. So please don't hurl insults at it.

Rather harsh to accuse Barbs of "hurling insults". He is presumably merely referring to the facts as stated on Gramophone's own website: "Access to the world’s most authoritative classical reviews online database, with more than 45,000 reviews since 1983." link. This is distinct from general access to the digitised archive which goes back much further. I enjoyed browsing this when they first brought it out - with free access - eg finding a couple of letters I wrote to the mag several decades ago. I didn't subscribe when they started charging, not out tightfistedness but because I wouldn't use it enough to justify the fee. I find it is perfectly possible, as I posted above, to occasionally read reviews on the up-to-1983 archive without logging in.

[jayne lee wilson]

Rather harsh to accuse Barbs of "hurling insults". He is presumably merely referring to the facts as stated on Gramophone's own website: "Access to the world’s most authoritative classical reviews online database, with more than 45,000 reviews since 1983." link. This is distinct from general access to the digitised archive which goes back much further. I enjoyed browsing this when they first brought it out - with free access - eg finding a couple of letters I wrote to the mag several decades ago. I didn't subscribe when they started charging, not out tightfistedness but because I wouldn't use it enough to justify the fee. I find it is perfectly possible, as I posted above, to occasionally read reviews on the up-to-1983 archive without logging in.

Barbirollians said "Gramophone’s search function on its archive is a shockingly out of date embarrassment" .

Which I simply don't find it to be.... so I answered accordingly. A lot of this is down to the efficiency of different browsers and OSs (with a degree of ingenuity and patience re. your search terms, as per amazon, qobuz or google itself...) , but never mind, I've been as clear as I can re. my own experience..

The "online reviews database...since 1983" is a separate & distinct facility from the archive of all issues, which you can subscribe to or not, according to choice of subscription package. I tried it but found it redundant alongside the archive access.

My own experience of the original archive was... sort-of-OK, but spoiled by inefficient searching and the appalling frequency of typos. TOTALLY different from the Complete Archive via subscription now. I love it and can get lost in it for hours searching for something else...

[Goon525]

"Only go back to the mid-1980s" ?!?
Sorry but that is simply wrong in point of fact. So please don't hurl insults at it.

For the record - I search the Gramophone archive (every issue back to the 1920s) using a 2016 Macbook Air (a Laptop - for those who have left such relics behind...) running Safari or Firefox. OS - not always regularly updated - this one is El Capitan....

If I bring up Gramophone in my Exact Editions account, I see large thumbnails of all the years/decades back to the 1920s, represented by the last December issue. Back to 2000 you see the individual years; pre-2000, each decade.
Hit that, I get the individual years per decade > thumbnails of all 12 Months for that year....etc.

The search results for individual references present as thumbnails of each page running down the left margin, and full size clips centre/right. Very easy to check/navigate swiftly.
Apart from aforementioned (minor) shortcomings, I have no other problems finding back issues/reviews dating back to the start, yes - right back to April 1923, in which I've just read Compton Mackenzie's Prologue.....

If I search for "Sibelius Karajan" (the + makes no difference on my OS) I get every article/ad etc in which both terms occur, (terms highlighted in blue). Of course I do. Computer does what you tell it to. "Sibelius Symphony No.5 Philharmonia Karajan" - there the reviews are, instantly....the ads are there too but easy distinguished by eye; and in the case of those from the 1950s and earlier, pleasurable and instructive to peruse in themselves!

If you want more specific refs, you need to include more terms....
And yes - of course it will be different (usually harder) on an iPad etc...

Ah, Jayne, you have provided a solution. I can log into Exact Editions, even via Safari on my iPad, and get the same results as you did. I hadn’t thought of doing that before, assuming using the Gramophone App or website should provide at least equal functionality. They don’t, so thank you, Jayne.