Gramophone just gets odder

[mathias broucek]

So, Gramo has announced its award winners but hasn't produced a list of them all. No. You have to click category by category. Seriously?

They've also added a bizarre new "piano" category which should not be confused with the instrumental award which was won by, err, a piano disc.

And they've added a "Special Historic" award which should not be confused with the "Historic" award. Clear?

What's WRONG with these people?

If anyone's still interested then the list can be found at the Europadisc website (see below).

http://www.europadisc.co.uk/information/269/Gramophone_Award_Winners_2012.htm

[VodkaDilc]

Being reminded of Gramophone just reinforces how completely it has been replaced by IRR and Fanfare - at least in this household.

[gurnemanz]

Being reminded of Gramophone just reinforces how completely it has been replaced by IRR and Fanfare - at least in this household.

I gave up Gramophone after about 30 years (copies still in garage), partly disappointed with the way it went after the Haymarket takeover but also because of the availability of a diversity of material online (not least from the contributions of fellow board members around here). Gramophone back numbers are now also accessible on their website. I therefore no longer feel the need to subscribe to any magazine but occasionally buy the BBC Music mag if it catches my eye in the newsagent's. I cannot really comment on Fanfare and IRR because newsagents down here in the sticks don't stock them, so I just never see them, and unlike Gramophone they do not appear to make their reviews freely available online.

[VodkaDilc]

I cannot really comment on Fanfare and IRR because newsagents down here in the sticks don't stock them, so I just never see them, and unlike Gramophone they do not appear to make their reviews freely available online.

Which strikes me as fair enough! There's an article in today's Spectator on that subject as applied to daily papers.

(Both IRR and Fanfare are readily available by mail order subscription.)

[jayne lee wilson]

Gramophone Magazine is resurgent under the new editor (formerly reviews editor) Martin Cullingford - it has a far greater range and depth to its features now than Inverne ever managed. Recent issues have included seriously weighty articles on Cage, Glenn Gould, Rattle in Berlin with detailed comments on Bruckner 9 not published elsewhere, further back we had Whitehouse at scholarly length and depth on Schubert's last years, and a fine essay by Morrison on the 1812 overture with a seriousness and wit the rather attention-seeking cover belied. Collection has covered Haydn 92, Sea Drift, Albeniz Iberia, Brahms 3, Schumann 3... all very well done!

I get IRR and G., have done for years, and whilst IRR's lengthier reviews are (usually) invaluable the Gramophone is once again a more enjoyable read. In recent months the reviews have been more extensive and comparative too. It is a confusing situation, so if you don't subscribe I would urge you to have a look at each month's as it comes. But it's Gramophone resurgit (sorry, small latin and less greek) just now...

[french frank]

But it's Gramophone resurgit (sorry, small latin and less greek) just now...

G. Redux?

Only fair to check this. Could this be the power of the consumer at work?

[Barbirollians]

It is improved but there is still too much guff . I was not so impressed with the Rhenish collection piece it seemed like some sub editor had cut the paragraph about the Sawallisch recording - it gets one complimentary line .

[jayne lee wilson]

It is improved but there is still too much guff . I was not so impressed with the Rhenish collection piece it seemed like some sub editor had cut the paragraph about the Sawallisch recording - it gets one complimentary line .

What more do we need to know about such a garlanded, endlessly recommended, 3-star famous and familiar recording? Especially given Sawallisch' conducting style, which never draws attention to itself. Choosing Harnoncourt was inspired, since it's often overlooked, hasn't always been easy to find (I got mind 2ndhand from USA) is remarkably fresh and gorgeously played, with subtlety and brilliance. Pity Hans Vonk's more MOR Cologne cycle was forgotten (again).

For me BBCMM is overloaded with ads, has a bitty, fussy page layout and little depth to features or reviews; IIR is very good for reviews, with the most depth and breadth (or length at least...) but little else save Too Many Records. I think it's a shame that the damaging Inverne regime has turned so many against G., seemingly for ever - depending on what you want, it's as good or bad as any, and is certainly streets ahead of BBCMM or IRR for features.

[Don Petter]

It is improved but there is still too much guff . I was not so impressed with the Rhenish collection piece it seemed like some sub editor had cut the paragraph about the Sawallisch recording - it gets one complimentary line .

Do they have sub editors? I dipped into the September issue and notice that a 'Three vintage recordings' article in fact refers to four.

[VodkaDilc]

I think it's a shame that the damaging Inverne regime has turned so many against G., seemingly for ever - depending on what you want, it's as good or bad as any, and is certainly streets ahead of BBCMM or IRR for features.

The problems with Gramophone go back much further than that; the rot set in when the Pollard family sold it and Chris Pollard gave up as editor. As regards features, I don't want them - just reviews.

[kernelbogey]

OFF TOPIC WARNING (and not an ad )
I have two or three bound volumes of Gramophone from the 1960s, of no interest to me. Now that the entire archive is on line I wonder if these have a market? I would appreciate any suggestions before I cart them off to Oxfam.

[umslopogaas]

I have subscribed to Gramophone for many years and like others on this thread, had a garage full of back copies. Needing space, and realising that I never, ever referred back to them, I advertised the approx. forty year run in a small ad in the back of the magazine, for £17, buyer collects (effectively free, the £17 was the cost of the advert). I didnt get a single bite, so they all went in the recycle skip. Good luck with attempts to sell, but I dont think Oxfam would thank you.

[gurnemanz]

I have subscribed to Gramophone for many years and like others on this thread, had a garage full of back copies. Needing space, and realising that I never, ever referred back to them, I advertised the approx. forty year run in a small ad in the back of the magazine, for £17, buyer collects (effectively free, the £17 was the cost of the advert). I didnt get a single bite, so they all went in the recycle skip. Good luck with attempts to sell, but I dont think Oxfam would thank you.

Thanks for posting that. I had considered going down the same road, not just for mercenary reasons but because I thought they might genuinely be of use to someone....The skip beckons.

[kernelbogey]

I have subscribed to Gramophone for many years and like others on this thread, had a garage full of back copies. Needing space, and realising that I never, ever referred back to them, I advertised the approx. forty year run in a small ad in the back of the magazine, for £17, buyer collects (effectively free, the £17 was the cost of the advert). I didnt get a single bite, so they all went in the recycle skip. Good luck with attempts to sell, but I dont think Oxfam would thank you.

Many thanks - I thought so. My loose back numbers went in the skip too.

[mathias broucek]

I think it's a shame that the damaging Inverne regime has turned so many against G., seemingly for ever - depending on what you want, it's as good or bad as any, and is certainly streets ahead of BBCMM or IRR for features.

I agree that the mag has improved but I did have a sense-of-humour failure with the bizarre way the awards results were presented online and the multiplication of bogus categories.