International Record Review

[silvestrione]

In my original post 'weaknesses', applied to Bryce Morrison, was the wrong word.

[pilamenon]

I must say I was quite impressed with one round up they did of early music a couple of issues ago, very thorough

Yes, I enjoyed that, Micky, and became acquainted with some superb music as a result. IRR's baroque/early music reviews strike me as the mag's main strength - some might not agree with everything they write, or their fairly dogmatic stance on HIPP, but the likes of Christopher Price and Andrew O'Connor are very readable and knowledgeable. Some of their mainstream orchestral reviewers write pretty formulaic, tired, generic stuff, and I agree with Alison's comments about one in particular.

Outside of the reviews and release lists, IRR has little to offer. A few more in-depth articles would be welcome.

I don't buy recordings any more based on so-called expert recommendations - as I have never found this a good guide to what I like, and listening preferences are so personal. Therefore it doesn't bother me whether the names are high-profile or not.

[makropulos]

Yes, I enjoyed that, Micky, and became acquainted with some superb music as a result. IRR's baroque/early music reviews strike me as the mag's main strength - some might not agree with everything they write, or their fairly dogmatic stance on HIPP, but the likes of Christopher Price and Andrew O'Connor are very readable and knowledgeable. Some of their mainstream orchestral reviewers write pretty formulaic, tired, generic stuff, and I agree with Alison's comments about one in particular.

Outside of the reviews and release lists, IRR has little to offer. A few more in-depth articles would be welcome.

I don't buy recordings any more based on so-called expert recommendations - as I have never found this a good guide to what I like, and listening preferences are so personal. Therefore it doesn't bother me whether the names are high-profile or not.

Outside of the reviews and release lists, IRR has little to offer. A few more in-depth articles would be welcome.

A couple of points in response to this, speaking as someone who writes some "mainstream" reviews for IRR (under my actual name rather than my makropulos nom-de-guerre):

1. "Formulaic" is an easy word to use, but assuming a "formulaic" review might include, say, comments on performance with relevant comparisons, comments on recording quality and the notes, which bit of that do you *not* want to find in a review? I'd be intrigued to know.

2. Ditto "generic" - easy to say, but I've no idea what you actually mean. These things aren't written to a template, after all.

3. In depth articles: a nice idea, but on what? IRR has had a number of these over the last few years - I know, because I've written some of them - so I wonder what it is you would like to see that you aren't seeing? What I do know is that the editors would likely be very responsive to specific positive suggestions.

Your final point (about deciding for yourself) is one I'd largely agree with so long as the review is interesting to read and well-informed. Particularly with the instant availability of sound clips, it's very easy to hear for yourself - which is a thoroughly good thing. And yes, listening preferences are always going to be personal. As an example, I've just been listening - over the last couple of days - to a new disc that is - to my ears - quite exceptional: the greatest performance I've ever heard of a particular work that I know very well. I plan to say so, and say why, but it's always implicit in a judgement like this that others may feel differently, and it's easy for anyone to hear excerpts for themselves.

[pilamenon]

That's fair enough, makropulos, I'll try to explain.

By "some", I was more precisely thinking of a couple. One has already been mentioned further up the thread, while the other seems to have a great deal to review regularly, so that might account for why he seems to resort so often to the same phrases and adjectives that it can read a little bit like auto-pilot. I most enjoy reviews that teach me something new about the music or the composer along the way and pick out particular details to focus on rather than just give broad brush-strokes. No problem with comparisons or comments on recording quality or notes, though these might be of more interest to more assiduous collectors than myself.

By in-depth articles, I'd like to see more articles on recording or listening technology, record labels, more profiles and musicological discussions e.g. topics that divide opinion like HIPP. A bit more controversy within the magazine might generate a more interesting letters page than the current one, too!

Hope that is a bit clearer. Also, I may not perhaps be the typical IRR reader, as it labels itself a magazine for the "serious classical collector", which I am not, tending to focus more on streaming media, live concerts or the radio.

All best wishes.

[makropulos]

That's fair enough, makropulos, I'll try to explain.

By "some", I was more precisely thinking of a couple. One has already been mentioned further up the thread, while the other seems to have a great deal to review regularly, so that might account for why he seems to resort so often to the same phrases and adjectives that it can read a little bit like auto-pilot. I most enjoy reviews that teach me something new about the music or the composer along the way and pick out particular details to focus on rather than just give broad brush-strokes. No problem with comparisons or comments on recording quality or notes, though these might be of more interest to more assiduous collectors than myself.

By in-depth articles, I'd like to see more articles on recording or listening technology, record labels, more profiles and musicological discussions e.g. topics that divide opinion like HIPP. A bit more controversy within the magazine might generate a more interesting letters page than the current one, too!

Hope that is a bit clearer. Also, I may not perhaps be the typical IRR reader, as it labels itself a magazine for the "serious classical collector", which I am not, tending to focus more on streaming media, live concerts or the radio.

All best wishes.

Thanks for such an interesting answer, Pilamenon. Something like a HIPP article - for instance how HIPP relates to, say, 19th century composers, could certainly produce something potentially thought-provoking (and yes, controversial). It's an excellent idea - and I know the editor and publisher are both very responsive to this kind of suggestion, so I really would encourage you to write to them :)

As for your words and phrases comment, I have to admit that I'm likely to be guilty as charged: not making excuses, but it is a constant problem when there are a lot of reviews to do, and even more so when they are (for instance) on the same composer, or the same work. Trickiest of all, I find, are those discs that are fair-to-middling (you can imagine the difficulty, I'm sure, of finding intelligent ways of saying "quite good"). So I'd have to agree with you albeit rather shamfacedly. Your specific point about a focus on particular details of a performance in a review is spot on - it can be a very helpful way of giving an impression of what a performance is like in general (it's something I try to do, but I know I sometimes fail, especially when a review has to be written to a very tight deadline which happens occasionally). There's a possible problem related to it - which is just how much focus (for instance, referring to scores is great for some people, but not for a lot of collectors who don't have access to them and might well not read music) - but the thing is that your argument is one I agree with.

The issue with letters is getting people to write enough interesting ones! Good letters - especially if they're a bit controversial - are nearly always welcome (and it's fun responding to them too). And readers are quite right to pick up on blunders too. I know I've made a couple of hideous slips in the past (my least favourite being when I described a performance at the Edinburgh Festival as being its "English premiere", to which the only reply to and understandably peeved letter was a red-faced "ouch!").

Please keep reading the magazine, and perhaps think about writing to the editor with your suggestions (the only one that would probably be a non-starter is something on recording/listening technologies, since it's something the magazine doesn't usually discuss). I'm not sure there's such a thing as a "typical IRR reader" except that they tend to be people who expect reasonable standards from a review, may well know a lot of music, and likely have plenty of ideas of their own - in other words, readers who deserve respect and good writing. At least, I hope that's the kind of person I try to write for - and at least at IRR when reviewers think a release deserves a lot of space, it is usually able to be given it.

All good wishes, Makropulos

[MickyD]

Makropulos, it is very good to hear from someone who is directly connected to the magazine, above all that you are of the opinion that the editor would be interested to hear of any suggestions for future releases. It was the feeling that nobody at Gramophone ever took any notice of readers' comments which was so dispiriting. Now that you have reassured me about IRR's positive approach, I will indeed take the trouble to write in with a few ideas/suggestions of my own.

[Bryn]

Micky, Makropulos is not the only IRR reviewer who visits here occasionally, (no, I am not of their number), and over at r3ok.com there are a couple or so more. I'm not sure how many Gramophone reviewers, if any, post here.

[MickyD]

Interesting, Bryn. Certainly I felt that any members of the Gramophone team who looked in on the old messageboards were remarkably silent to any issues raised, and that would appear to continue on these ones, too. That's not to say they're not looking in, though!

[mikealdren]

I can't help feeling that, if the Gramophone staff cared enough to participate in discussions like this, there would not have been a problem in the first place and we would all still buy the magazine.

Mike

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Agreed

[Il Grande Inquisitor]

Micky, Makropulos is not the only IRR reviewer who visits here occasionally

Very true, Bryn.

Alison asked, back in January, what made for a good review of a recording. I gave an answer which encapsulates the approach I attempt to take when penning a review for IRR:

A good review is one which, ultimately, helps you to make an informed decision about whether you wish to buy the recording or not. It should describe the performances and the reviewer’s responses to them, setting them in context with other relevant recordings. Comment has been made about which recordings are used for comparison, but I think it’s important to remember that these are restricted as to what actually constitutes the reviewer’s own collection – there’s no access to the whole back catalogue! There’s no point in listing comparative recordings if the writer doesn’t actually refer to them in his/ her review.

If the composer or the music isn’t that well known, some background information is required; likewise, if the performer is relatively new on the scene. Responses to the ordering of the items on the programme are useful, as is value for money – particularly where the disc offers short measure.

Describing the sound achieved by the engineers is important – acoustics, placement of microphones, SACD surround sound etc.

I welcome an essence of personality from the writer and an admission that his/ her response to the disc is personal and other listeners may not like this or that aspect of the recording. You grow to trust certain reviewers and a simple recommendation from them is enough.

Sometimes, the sheer quality of writing can win one over. I wasn’t really in the market for another recording of Fauré’s Piano Quartets, yet when I read Piers Burton-Page’s IRR review (March 2010, p.47) I knew I had to exercise the itchy credit card!

You don’t necessarily have to agree with the reviewer. I know this review - http://www.opera-britannia.com/index...iews&Itemid=16 - is of an operatic performance rather than a recording, but although my editor clearly didn’t like much of the production, he described it in enough detail for me to know I had to see it for myself, which I did – twice!

I welcome the earlier response of makropulos and agree that there is a degree of the 'formulaic' when following the criteria set out above. It is important to recognise the 'personal response' element of reviewing. A letter to IRR last year suggested printing more than one review of some releases; with limited space, difficult to justify doing regularly, but for some of the more high profile/ controversial releases (Rattle's Mahler 2 perhaps ), possibly worth considering?

[makropulos]

Nice to see you here too, Il Grande Inq. I wish I'd noticed your excellent January post before writing mine, but fortunately we seem more or less to agree.

[Alison]

Great to hear from you again, IGI, and suffice to say you are completely absolved of all criticism re IRR reviews :)

My original thread on reviews arose from one particular piece in IRR which I have alluded to above and won't repeat.

I very much like your template for a good review. The ability to write interestingly about records seems a relatively rare gift.

Piers Burton-Page is one such contributor for sure.

[Mahlerei]

Think I'm going to request a free copy of IRR. Sounds like it might be a good substitute for the Gramophone of old. Good reviews are indeed hard to find these days.

[Petrushka]

It's only when you try and have a go at reviewing a CD (or concert performance) yourself, even informally on here, that you realise just how difficult it actually is to avoid stock phrases and cliches. As has been said, you also have to consider the likely musical knowledge of your reader and try and tailor your review to suit both those of who can read music and those who can't. I can sympathise, to a degree, with the dilemma faced by Gramophone in a rapidly changing world and don't think it's as bad as some make out. Yes, I too yearn for the time when Richard Osborne could pen a full page review of Beethoven's 5th (Carlos Kleiber's, June 1975 and that's from memory) but those days are gone, alas. I also take less notice of reviewers getting most of my recommendations from you lot!