International Record Review

[Alison]

Perhaps we should all submit a review of the Rattle Resurrection using as many words
as RO for the Kleiber Fifth :)

[Alison]

It was a bit disappointing that IRR had two seperate reviewers
for the Rattle and Jansons Resurrections. It seemed an obvious opportunity
for the same reviewer to cover both issues. (This phenomenon not confined to IRR, of course.)

[pilamenon]

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)

Is this the full review or just a summary of it? Coincidentally, I am about to embark on the recent CK box set by listening to his Beethoven 5 for the first time this week.

[Panjandrum]

Is this the full review or just a summary of it? Coincidentally, I am about to embark on the recent CK box set by listening to his Beethoven 5 for the first time this week.

It's edited I'm afraid. The original is here.

[VodkaDilc]

I am delighted to see that IRR is pleasing so many people. My complete collection has now replaced Gramophone on my shelves and is proving to be a very valuable resource.

May I recommend emailing the Editor on any matters of concern. She invariably replies and frequently takes action on suggestions made to her.

One thing she has not replied to me over, but which has been resolved in recent issues, is the appointment a few months ago of a new reviewer. His name was familiar from other magazines but his reviews were appalling; he was asked to review Bach CDs, which were obviously not right for him, as a specialist in...................... I'd better not go on. I should perhaps keep his name anonymous! However his name is not included in the latest list of reviewers! People power? Perhaps others complained too. Does one of the IRR reviewers here know the full story?

Moral: write to Máire - she listens!

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

His name was familiar from other magazines but his reviews were appalling; he was asked to review Bach CDs, which were obviously not right for him, as a specialist in...................... I'd better not go on. I should perhaps keep his name anonymous! However his name is not included in the latest list of reviewers! People power? Perhaps others complained too. Does one of the IRR reviewers here know the full story?

...but I don't think it's fair to put the reviewers who post here on the spot...

[VodkaDilc]

I wasn't expecting an answer!! Just a mischievous comment!

However i've just read an earlier suggestion that many of the IRR reviewers are in some way less qualified or eminent than the old Gramophone ones. That's nonsense, in my view. The team is uniformly excellent. (Only two exceptions: one gone, the other I take with a pinch of salt if he strays from his area of expertise.)

I might add that many of the grand old names of Gramophone can be extremely general and cliché-ridden - while others are hampered by the recent restrictions on length and depth of reviews.

[makropulos]

It's great to read your very positive comments on IRR, VodkaDisc - thank you.
One of the reasons why (I hope) the reviews are generally worth reading is because the editor expects writing of a decent standard - which makes it all the more enjoyable to write for.

[VodkaDilc]

It's also apparent that the Editor does not expect the reviews to be aimed at a non-musical readership (by which I mean readers without a musical background). Many of the reviews are demanding and need concentration and a certain amount of existing knowledge of the composer or the period. (Though that knowledge can be built up by reading IRR - much like R3 when I was young.) That, in my opinion, is good - but is clearly in direct opposition to the recent philosophy of magazines like Gramophone. This month's four page review of Grainger, for example, was more detailed than any other magazine would have done.

The book reviews are also excellent; I just wish that books were included every month.

Reading IRR takes time and I always end up with a list (too long) of the discs I want to buy. That, surely, is the desired end-result of a good review!

[BBMmk2]

I must investigate this publication at some point. Looks too good to be true!

[hafod]

Reading IRR takes time and I always end up with a list (too long) of the discs I want to buy. That, surely, is the desired end-result of a good review!

Oh dear! I had almost made up my mind to take out a subscription until I read this. Will I be able to afford it?

[MickyD]

Reading IRR takes time

It does indeed, VodkaDilc, as I have discovered since subscribing three months ago. As a result, I find I take much more care to read it and much less tendency to flip through as I did with the padded-out Gramophone. I think what I like most about the mag is that it has a real "collectors" feel about it, just right for folk like us.

[VodkaDilc]

Yes, Micky. You feel it's something substantial and worth keeping for reference. That's one of the reasons i don't get mine on subscription; I can go to a shop and pick a pristine copy (often in a sealed bag) and keep it in that condition. Fortunately there is still a shop near me which stocks it. I was concerned when the Borders chain closed, since they always had copies.

[Il Grande Inquisitor]

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.

Now fixed.

http://recordreview.co.uk/oustanding2010.php

Someone must be reading...

[Bryn]

Now fixed.

http://recordreview.co.uk/oustanding2010.php

Someone must be reading...

I wonder who?