Gramophone Archive

[Barbirollians]

Now IRR is no more I am considering returning to Gramophone . Just wondered about the archive . Its original archive appeared , albeit in a very rough scan and pdf way to cover the whole history of the magazine . The free version around now only appears to go back 30 years . If you subscribe do you get access to the complete archive going back to the 1920s or is only the last 30 years now covered ?

[makropulos]

Now IRR is no more I am considering returning to Gramophone . Just wondered about the archive . Its original archive appeared , albeit in a very rough scan and pdf way to cover the whole history of the magazine . The free version around now only appears to go back 30 years . If you subscribe do you get access to the complete archive going back to the 1920s or is only the last 30 years now covered ?

The subscription I have (online only) through exacteditions.com provides links to PDFs of the latest issues as they appear and the complete archives back to the beginning. It's extremely useful. I have a three-month recurring subscription (14.00 per three months) which I find money very well spent since I use the archives quite a bit.

[richardfinegold]

I know that jlw has extensively praised the archive. I have a regular subscription and was surprised that it doesn't extend to the archive.
Barbs, you may want to investigate Fanfare Magazine. Not only are the reviews more extensive than Gramophone, but your subscription buys you free access to the archive, which goes back to the inception of the magazine in the mid 1970s

[MickyD]

I too am thinking of going back to Gramophone after the loss of IRR. I tried to get a sample copy of it whilst travelling via the UK a couple of weeks ago, but couldn't find one single copy in the large, well-stocked branches of WH Smith in both Stansted and Luton airports, which I thought very strange.

[umslopogaas]

I have subscribed to Gramophone for about forty years and wouldnt be without it. I use it primarily to alert me to recordings of works that I dont know, but which it recommends. This sometimes leads me to buy CDs of music that I play once, heave a sigh of relief and file away never to be played again, but usually I'm glad I investigated.

[jayne lee wilson]

It's worth looking closely at subscription choices, as there is now a "Reviews Database", additional to the archive. I imagine this makes searching for reviews easier, free of references to articles, Collection, letters etc - and adverts! Personally I enjoy the serendipity of browsing all of that, but the newer database is probably worth having.

Seeking out reviews of Blomstedt's Nielsen recently, it was very useful to whizz about checking exactly when a given reviewer had written - before or after they've heard a given remaster or reissue, or whether they've heard it at all. You quickly grasp why a given recording has an assumed superiority for too long, and the supposed vagaries of critical opinion can soon become clearer!

It can be chastening too... reading the original review of Bernstein's Espansiva from the mid-60s (EG, 10/65), I was surprised how many pages of adverts I had to page past to get to the end!

[VodkaDilc]

I too am thinking of going back to Gramophone after the loss of IRR. I tried to get a sample copy of it whilst travelling via the UK a couple of weeks ago, but couldn't find one single copy in the large, well-stocked branches of WH Smith in both Stansted and Luton airports, which I thought very strange.

Micky: I remember we shared an enthusiasm for IRR and I am really feeling its loss. I have bought the last two Gramophones. Perhaps a slight improvement since its lowest days, but there are still features like "10 works inspired by royalty", in reverse order - ending with Walton Henry V Suite, if you are interested. And Gramophone Hall of Fame, a couple of paragraphs on people like Hogwood, Hotter and Hamelin.

The reviews are OK, but so brief compared with the detail of IRR. I'll continue to buy a copy occasionally, but won't subscribe, as I did from about 1972 until 2002. I'll treat each copy I buy as a throwaway item - unlike my complete set of IRR, from 2000 to 2015, which has pride of place on my bookshelves.

We must be thankful for Barry Irving's contribution to the world of recordings. He is greatly missed.

[pastoralguy]

Mrs. PG knows that, if she wants some piece and quiet, the best way to achieve it is to send me out with some pound coins to Stockbridge where I'll be likely to find some charity shop CDs. She knows that upon my triumphant return I'll then spend a quiet hour or two looking up the original reviews on the Gramophone's online archive.

Worth a small outlay to keep me quiet!

[jayne lee wilson]

Micky: I remember we shared an enthusiasm for IRR and I am really feeling its loss. I have bought the last two Gramophones. Perhaps a slight improvement since its lowest days, but there are still features like "10 works inspired by royalty", in reverse order - ending with Walton Henry V Suite, if you are interested. And Gramophone Hall of Fame, a couple of paragraphs on people like Hogwood, Hotter and Hamelin.

The reviews are OK, but so brief compared with the detail of IRR. I'll continue to buy a copy occasionally, but won't subscribe, as I did from about 1972 until 2002. I'll treat each copy I buy as a throwaway item - unlike my complete set of IRR, from 2000 to 2015, which has pride of place on my bookshelves.

We must be thankful for Barry Irving's contribution to the world of recordings. He is greatly missed.

Barry Irving had a vision of what an ideal classical review magazine might be - and realised it; but in its low-ad-count, long-review, unarchived form, it couldn't sell enough copies to survive...not enough listeners wanted it. Could they have adapted the IRR to survive? What might it have looked like?

I realise many here won't have the stomach for this discussion, but with Classical Music Quarterly disappearing too, you have to ask yourself if you want a classical review magazine at all, and take the rough (Royals Top Ten, Hall of Fame) with the smooth (in the last few issues of Gram - Boulez, Minimalism, New Music Beyond the ConcertHall, Jennifer Higdon, Handel & Milton...). Gramophone looked badly damaged after the Inverne years, but with so much online data, choice and readability, Cullingford's trying his damnedest to produce this great overstuffed fruitcake of a publication, trying to keep everyone happy, whatever the depth of their interest. There are now about 70 pages of (mainly new-release) reviews per 130 in print, none of them written by complete idiots. )

As I've said before, Gramophone is now a digital and print compendium - you can pick and choose from it each month. No magazine is free of irritants - have a look at October 1965!. Change or die - adapt and survive...
(And if you take a digital edition, you'll never have to throw one away!)

[Barbirollians]

I do buy the print Gramophone from time to time and it is much improved from the terrible Inverne years and IRR had its faults two or three dire reviewers for a start but I do wish Gramophone allowed its reviewers a little more space.

[VodkaDilc]

Barry Irving had a vision of what an ideal classical review magazine might be - and realised it; but in its low-ad-count, long-review, unarchived form, it couldn't sell enough copies to survive...not enough listeners wanted it. Could they have adapted the IRR to survive? What might it have looked like?:)

It is inaccurate to suggest that low circulation led to IRR's demise. Barry's premature death caused its abrupt closure.

[jayne lee wilson]

It is inaccurate to suggest that low circulation led to IRR's demise. Barry's premature death caused its abrupt closure.

That still begs a lot of questions... but it's OK - I guess no-one wants to pursue them...