International Record Review

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I've just received the February issue - my first ever. It's unbelievable. After years of witnessing Gramophone's dumbing down, I thought that a good magazine devoted to classical recordings was something I'd never see again. But my initial reaction to IRR is that it is quite superb.

I shall be forever grateful to those of you who drew my attention to this amazing publication.

[Bryn]

I wish they would take a little more care in associating covers with listings in the online "Outstanding" lists though. At least two of the June 2010 items have still not been sorted out properly. Both are Beethoven discs.

[MickyD]

I've just received the February issue - my first ever. It's unbelievable. After years of witnessing Gramophone's dumbing down, I thought that a good magazine devoted to classical recordings was something I'd never see again. But my initial reaction to IRR is that it is quite superb.

I shall be forever grateful to those of you who drew my attention to this amazing publication.

Exactly my reaction when I received my first copy in December, EA. I think Gramophone became like an old shoe that we had just got used to - IRR reminds us how good the magazine used to be. I'm just sorry I didn't discover IRR sooner.

[Barbirollians]

I am also a fan having subscribed for some years now - vastly superior reviews generally but I have some reservations about some of the reviewers.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Clearly, it's early days for me, but the more I read it, the better it gets.

[DoctorT]

I too have just received my first IRR as a subscriber, having cancelled my subscription to Gramophone. The only thing that I miss from Gramophone is 'The Gramophone Collection,' the survey of all the recordings of a given work. Does IRR ever do anything similar?

Also enjoying my free CD for new subscribers, in my case the Takacs Quartet's Death and the Maiden / Rosamunde Quartets.

[Alison]

I am also a fan having subscribed for some years now - vastly superior reviews generally but I have some reservations about some of the reviewers.

I do find Robert Matthew-Walker a very poor reviewer. He conveys his enthusiasm or otherwise for a disc but
singularly fails to give you any idea what the performance is actually like.
Try this months review of Mahler 5 LSO/Gergiev. The recent Perahia Brahms CD also comes to mind.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

The only thing that I miss from Gramophone is 'The Gramophone Collection,' the survey of all the recordings of a given work. Does IRR ever do anything similar?

Yes, I will miss that too, and it was particularly sad to miss next month's review of VW's Sinfonia Antartica. But on the plus side, there are far more comparisons within individual reviews in IRR.

[Panjandrum]

My own view is that IRR is still some way short of what the old Gramophone used to be, before the Haymarket takeover. For example, the following features of Gramophone used to be required reading before the various "makeovers":

- Collection: a useful conspectus of the recording history of a work;
- Quarterly Retrospect: a second opinion on the leading releases of the previous quarter by a seasoned reviewer;
- Sounds in retrospect: a panel of audio experts appraising the recording qualities of the leading releases. This was extremely useful as it counterbalanced the views of the initial reviewer which was often based on substandard equipment;
- Interviews: Gramophone's interviews used to have a strong musicological element before Haymarket got involved and insisted on making them more of a gossipy little chat.

For IRR to be a legitimate replacement for Gramophone it needs the equivalent of those features outlined above. Moreover, while I realise that IRR is produced on a shoestring; pace EA and Micky, I am not convinced of the credentials of some of the reviewers. Gramophone used to employ the foremost critics of the day in their specialist fields (viz Michael Kennedy on VW, Richard Osborne on Bruckner, Robert Layton on Sibelius et al). I'm afraid I haven't heard of most of the reviewers on the IRR panel; and some of the reviews do not have the necessary authoriy for one to implicitly trust the verdict reached.

[silvestrione]

Gramophone used to employ the foremost critics of the day in their specialist fields (viz Michael Kennedy on VW, Richard Osborne on Bruckner, Robert Layton on Sibelius et al. I'm afraid I haven't heard of most of the reviewers on the IRR panel; and some of the reviews do not have the necessary authoriy for one to implicitly trust the verdict reached.

I'm afraid I have to agree with this one: the problem I have found with IRR is enthusiastic reviews that are not borne out when I purchase the disc(s). The reviews of pianist Simone Dinnerstein come to mind as an example. At least Gramophone still has reliable critics, such as Richard Osborne, Rob Cowan, Peter Quantrill, etc (or critics one know well enough to know their foibles and weaknesses, e.g. Bryce Morrison)

[MickyD]

Panjandrum, I very much agree with you over what is missing from IRR, and those items would indeed be nice to see. I must say I was quite impressed with one round up they did of early music a couple of issues ago, very thorough and it highlighted some issues I would otherwise have missed. I, too, have thought that one or two of the reviewers are not exactly top-drawer, but I suppose I am enthusiastic about the mag largely because it has dispensed with so much of the fluff one finds now in Gramophone. Even so, there is room for improvement, and if IRR really does listen to its readers' comments, maybe we should take the time to let them know what we would like to see in future.

[Barbirollians]

Robert Layton did review for IRR but I do not recall seeing recent reviews by him .

The problem with Gramophone is - having to trawl through all the dross for say one review by RO and two or three by John Steane.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

...and if IRR really does listen to what its readers' comments, maybe we should take the time to let them know what we would like to see in future.

One think that really impressed me about the February IRR was the honesty of the editor on the letters page. Owing to a computer gliche, they had lost some e-mails intended for publication. When Gramophone makes a mistake, they rudely ignore you. Not so here.

[amateur51]

I'm afraid I have to agree with this one: the problem I have found with IRR is enthusiastic reviews that are not borne out when I purchase the disc(s). The reviews of pianist Simone Dinnerstein come to mind as an example. At least Gramophone still has reliable critics, such as Richard Osborne, Rob Cowan, Peter Quantrill, etc (or critics one know well enough to know their foibles and weaknesses, e.g. Bryce Morrison)

Hattogate aside, I've always found Bryce Morrison to be a pretty decent guide to piano recordings. I had occasion to say so to his face a while back & he was delightfully embarrassed at being recognised

[silvestrione]

Yes I've met Bryce too: a great talker, with a wondrously compendious knowledge of the piano repertoire. He is a good guide to the quality of what's new, sure. But I would not look to him for a balanced review of a recording by Pollini or even Michelangeli .