International Record Review

[VodkaDilc]

I have to spend a fair amount of my working day at a computer, and the very last thing I want to do in my precious free time is to remain stuck in front of a screen and that includes a tablet! If one has to choose between formats, without question, I will go for the traditional printed version.

Very eloquently put, Micky. I wish the editors of newspapers felt the same; I fear that my much-loved Guardian is heading towards 'screen only'. It seems to see itself as a trend-setter in that area - its increasing international 'readership' (mostly digital) seems to have gone to its head.

And as you mentioned a few posts back, isn't IRR always pristine and new-looking? Last time I picked up a Gramophone in a newsagents it looked tatty while still on the shelf (where it remained!)

[MickyD]

I do understand, VodkaDilc...as I am in France, I normally have to scan my way through the day's press on the PC, but I would much prefer to have the printed copy in front of me. I guess the pristine aspect of IRR is down to the high quality paper they use...it never gets tatty. And the presentation also pleases me immensely - no huge, sensational headlines leaping from the page or gimmicks. The only complaint I have is that I wish they would reproduce the cover of the CD for each review.

[doversoul1]

I think, from the point of view of the editor, one of the main attractions of going digital must be that the journal’s articles will be quoted much more widely (save you having to get in the car and drive to the nearest university library and go through the shelves). I doubt if a journal like IRR will go completely digital, as I think digital only publications still somehow lack the air of (?) Cultural or Artistic prestige.

[amateur51]

It is much easier to have the print edition in the loo than a digital version !

Exactly, barbs

[jayne lee wilson]

Very eloquently put, Micky. I wish the editors of newspapers felt the same; I fear that my much-loved Guardian is heading towards 'screen only'. It seems to see itself as a trend-setter in that area - its increasing international 'readership' (mostly digital) seems to have gone to its head.

And as you mentioned a few posts back, isn't IRR always pristine and new-looking? Last time I picked up a Gramophone in a newsagents it looked tatty while still on the shelf (where it remained!)

Maybe that Gramophone was tatty due to all the print-dependent freeloaders snatching a read...

I subscribe to both G. and IRR and am very happy to roam about the Gramophone online archive for hours (on a laptop).
Discovering Magnard recently I couldn't have authoritatively researched all the recordings any other way (Salter, Swain, Nichols et al... the search was great fun.). Especially useful if you love tracking down 2ndhand CDs that were never transferred to files. I often wonder how those of you who swear by print find an old review** - if you want "Munch Roussel 3" say, doesn't it take ages to leaf through and dig out? With the G. online archive you find reviews of all (re)issues AND comparative discussion of same in reviews of other conductors' efforts. What more could you ask? So I do hope IRR's archive will be as good.

Wouldn't worry about The (print) Guardian too much yet. Again, it's very useful to use the web version to find older articles & reviews (especially if you've put out last week's G2s too soon in the recycyling )

**not just old ones - if I'm interested in a release from 2012 or early 2013, I often forget the month... online search - there it is.

[MickyD]

I don't doubt that the vast archive that Gramophone holds is superior and is enormous fun to use. Any archive that IRR does presumably will only concern the relatively short history of reviews that they have published in the magazine? At the moment, just for a free option, I also use the BBC Music magazine archive, but of course it comes nowhere near the Gramophone one in terms of scope and comparisons. I'll be watching out eagerly for what IRR intends to do.

[Barbirollians]

Gramophone has a really unpleasantly textured cover . IRR undoubtedly is a much better produced magazine . The IRR recommended recordings feature strikes me as worthless though - some raved about recordings do not receive it and others that arethe subject of a less laudatory review are . It is meaningless unless it attracts advertising I suppose.

[Thropplenoggin]

Gramophone has a really unpleasantly textured cover . IRR undoubtedly is a much better produced magazine . The IRR recommended recordings feature strikes me as worthless though - some raved about recordings do not receive it and others that arethe subject of a less laudatory review are . It is meaningless unless it attracts advertising I suppose.

And as for Raymond S. Tuttle...

[Parry1912]

And as for Raymond S. Tuttle...

What? Does he also have a really unpleasantly textured cover?

[Barbirollians]

What? Does he also have a really unpleasantly textured cover?

[amateur51]

And as for Raymond S. Tuttle...

Great name ... and Mortimer H. Frank

[Dave2002]

International Record Review

According to the Crotchet web site http://www.crotchet.co.uk/irrlatest1.html if you send an emall to
barry.irving@recordreview.co.uk you may be eligible for a free copy of IRR.

I have never seen a copy, so I have sent an email as suggested.

[MickyD]

If this is true, I would suggest members who don't know IRR take advantage of this - they may be pleasantly surprised. I subscribed three years ago and am very satisified with the magazine. Reviews of a decent length and very little advertising.

[Sir Velo]

Dave, you'll get a back number as I have done on the occasions I have requested a copy. Surprisingly, no one from IRR has then followed up to see if I like the magazine sufficiently to subscribe.

My main bleat about IRR, is that not all of the reviewers have the gravitas which Gramophone had in its heyday. TBH, some of the reviews ramble and one doesn't get the kind of contextual knowledge and sheer literary elan which writers like Robert Layton or Richard Osborne were able to impart. Added to that, in the editions I saw, they were short of the features one used to enjoy in the pre-Haymarket Gramophone (e.g. Sounds in Retrospect; Quarterly Retrospect; Collection; Spoken Word; news and interviews; Critics' Choice etc).

[MickyD]

I agree with those comments...it would be nice to have more feature articles in IRR, but I guess they haven't got the same sort of budget as Gramophone once had. Still, for keeping up with a full list of latest releases and reviews, I find it suits me well enough.