Gramophone just gets odder

[LeMartinPecheur]

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

Mine too, 1971 onwards, plus a good lot of 1940s/50s copies that I'd been given by an old Basingstokeian clearing his house out

[VodkaDilc]

Mine are still in boxes somewhere. I feel inclined to recycle the last ten years or so and keep the copies from the 1970s to about 2000. Browsing online is no substitute for the real thing, with all the possibilities for coming upon unexpected pleasures.

[Petrushka]

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.

I tried selling mine via an ad in the magazine long before the advent of the internet and I never had a reply either. They went to the skip years ago.

I haven't had the Gramophone for a year or so and on hearing reports of an improvement I've been tempted to give it another go.

[EdgeleyRob]

I too had boxes of old Gramophone magazine,all now recycled.

[Andrew Slater]

If anyone wants any copies dated between late 1988 and December 1997, speak now or forever hold your peace - they will soon be re-cycled to free up some cupboard space!

[MickyD]

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.

Me too, reviews are all I need - and IRR was just what I had been looking for when I began to get so fed up with Gramophone. I am always amazed at how long it takes me to read such a slim magazine...there is a surprising amount of material in each issue.

[Barbirollians]

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.

I cannot agree with you about that collection piece. After a paragraph of criticising Karajan for being Wagnerian - there is one line that refers to the Sawallisch and declares it the best of the standard versions and dismisses a number of others - yet there is no discussion of it at all or any explanation if it is the best of the standard versions why it does not appear in his final shortlist of Boult.Kubelik DG, Gardiner or Harnoncourt ?

[richardfinegold]

Being reminded of Gramophone just reinforces how completely it has been replaced by IRR and Fanfare - at least in this household.

Agree, completely. Haven't bought in years. Even BBC Music is better, and you get a free CD.
Fanfare is being dominated by 2 critics as of late, Jerry Dubinsky aNd Lynne Rene Bayley. The must be doing 50 percent of the reviews. They need to scale that back.