Gramophone

[MickyD]

Of course! Having read your views over a lengthy period, I am sure you would make a better job of it than the present incumbent. (And I'm sure you could direct operations from your continental paradise, without needing to go to Haymarket Towers!)

Thank you for your confidence! If given the chance, I'd also recruit quite a few of those contributors here....I think we'd end up with a highly enjoyable magazine.

[Alison]

New look Gramophone arrived today.

The editor points out that the panel of reviewers are now 'even more central'.

Editors Choice becomes Gramophone Choice while there is also a new Critics Choice badge.

Reviews can be longer if needed. The writing is now allowed 'to breathe' without 'gimmicks.'

And a' more literary feel to the features' (?)

Same editor though and it feels and reads pretty much the same too.

[VodkaDilc]

To my amazement, yet another copy of Gramophone arrived today - I thought my (final!) subscription period had expired. I noticed the same things as Alison and was also struck by the promise of 'a more literary feel'; is this an admission that things had gone wrong? Little difference though.

As for the reviews, they start earlier in the magazine, but, despite a few longer ones, there's no real improvement. I found little pleasure in reading the new-look Gramophone and do not regret my decision to give it up after nearly forty years.

Later in the day I bought the current IRR. What a contrast! Not just in the increased quality of the content, but especially in the overall impression and look. I still felt disturbed by the cluttered and over-colourful pages in Gramophone, whereas IRR is a model of clarity, restraint and order. Much like going from a noisy city-centre pub to a quiet and reflective garden.

[MickyD]

Thanks for these first impressions - they are very timely as my IRR subscription is up for renewal, my having made the switch a year ago. I was intrigued to hear about the changes at Gramophone, but knowing how discerning the taste of folk is on these boards, I'll follow your advice and stick with IRR.

[Panjandrum]

Thanks for these first impressions - they are very timely as my IRR subscription is up for renewal, my having made the switch a year ago. I was intrigued to hear about the changes at Gramophone, but knowing how discerning the taste of folk is on these boards, I'll follow your advice and stick with IRR.

What are your overall thoughts on IRR Micky, after one year? My main concern is that the calibre of reviewer may not be at the exalted level of Messrs Osborne, Steane et al.

[MickyD]

What are your overall thoughts on IRR Micky, after one year? My main concern is that the calibre of reviewer may not be at the exalted level of Messrs Osborne, Steane et al.

Well, you do raise an interesting point there, Panjandrum. I think it is certainly true to say that some of the reviewers don't come up to the same levels as those you mention...but with my tastes largely lying in baroque music, I am well catered for by the likes of Simon Heighes and Nicholas Anderson, the latter whom I am delighted to read again after he long departed Gramophone.

However, I think what really sways me to IRR is its presentation, which Vodkadilc puts so succinctly above. It has the feel of a real, sincere collectors' magazine about it.

[VodkaDilc]

What are your overall thoughts on IRR Micky, after one year? My main concern is that the calibre of reviewer may not be at the exalted level of Messrs Osborne, Steane et al.

I am fairly critical and perhaps a little too quick to voice my opinions if reviewers do not come up to scratch, but I have no qualms about the IRR review team. I would remind Panjandrum that many of the legendary figures from Gramophone's peak years are now writing reviews in higher place and I am not conscious that the newer ones are of the same calibre.

Obviously it's difficult to name names, but I'd like to know which supposedly inferior IRR reviewers s/he had in mind. (There was one example, which was referred to on these boards, when a IRR reviewer received much criticism. He "disappeared" after only a few issues!)

[VodkaDilc]

Mention of the 'golden generation' of Gramophone reviewers led me to recall the time when Gordon Reynolds, doyen of organ music reviewers, announced his retirement. Having bought so many discs on his recommendation, I wrote to Chris Pollard, expressing my disappointment. Mr Pollard wrote back, saying that he would soon be announcing an excellent replacement (Marc Rochester). He must have passed my letter to Gordon Reynolds, since, a few days later, I received a charming letter from GR himself, beautifully hand-written on Hampton Court notepaper (where he was organist, of course.)

Memories of a different age!

[Panjandrum]

I am fairly critical and perhaps a little too quick to voice my opinions if reviewers do not come up to scratch, but I have no qualms about the IRR review team. I would remind Panjandrum that many of the legendary figures from Gramophone's peak years are now writing reviews in higher place and I am not conscious that the newer ones are of the same calibre.

Obviously it's difficult to name names, but I'd like to know which supposedly inferior IRR reviewers s/he had in mind. (There was one example, which was referred to on these boards, when a IRR reviewer received much criticism. He "disappeared" after only a few issues!)

VD, that's good to know. I think it probably was this "problem reviewer" that caused me apprehension. I'm a "he" (man) btw!

[VodkaDilc]

VD, that's good to know. I think it probably was this "problem reviewer" that caused me apprehension. I'm a "he" (man) btw!

I never like to assume the gender of someone on here, so thanks for the clarification. I'm a he too! - though hardly a he-man!

The reviewer I had in mind was a piano specialist who was reviewing Bach in a very inept and verbose way. With so many Bach experts in IRR, as mentioned by Micky above, he was really not needed.

Talking of piano reviews, I do worry about reading reviews in Gramophone by the man who used to be in Crossroads!!

[Parry1912]

BTW, I notice that Calum MacDonald is no longer on the list of reviewers for IRR. Anyone know why?

[Panjandrum]

I never like to assume the gender of someone on here, so thanks for the clarification. I'm a he too! - though hardly a he-man!

The reviewer I had in mind was a piano specialist who was reviewing Bach in a very inept and verbose way. With so many Bach experts in IRR, as mentioned by Micky above, he was really not needed.

Talking of piano reviews, I do worry about reading reviews in Gramophone by the man who used to be in Crossroads!!

Ah yes. If we're thinking of the same man, he is also the President of the Jerome K Jerome society; so can't be all bad!

[barber olly]

As for the reviews, they start earlier in the magazine, but, despite a few longer ones, there's no real improvement. I found little pleasure in reading the new-look Gramophone and do not regret my decision to give it up after nearly forty years.

I gave up on the Gramophone 3 or so years ago because of its decreasing gravitas and poor value cover CDs. I have recently, with the bribe of a couple of Anne-Sophie Mutter CDs, resubscribed to BBC Music Magazine after a gap of 12 months or so. I may be mistaken, but it appears to be a better magazine than before.

[Parry1912]

I gave up on the Gramophone 3 or so years ago because of its decreasing gravitas and poor value cover CDs. I have recently, with the bribe of a couple of Anne-Sophie Mutter CDs, resubscribed to BBC Music Magazine after a gap of 12 months or so. I may be mistaken, but it appears to be a better magazine than before.

I recently took it on a 3-month trial subscription but wasn't tempted away from IRR.

[Barbirollians]

I just had a horrible thought . Is Mr Inverne about to turn up on radio 3 presenting Breakfast ?