Is there a reason ?

[ardcarp]

The message I take is that many of the folks who consider themselves to be "music lovers" really don't give a sh*t about those who actually make the music they listen to as long as they can keep consuming it.

I care about them. Example. Some of the very finest singers in our well-known consorts (many of them sing in more than one BTW) are really at the top of their tree musically and exhibit a level of professionalism that is sans pareil. It may be thought of by some as a glamorous career, i.e. giving concerts in some of the finest venues here and abroad. Yet they are not paid buckets of money; the touring life is hum-drum (trains, airports, hotels, living out of a suitcase) and is often not compatible with family stability. So I care about them as much as the fabulous music they make [and I 'consume']. Nuff said.

[MrGongGong]

I care about them. Example. Some of the very finest singers in our well-known consorts (many of them sing in more than one BTW) are really at the top of their tree musically and exhibit a level of professionalism that is sans pareil. It may be thought of by some as a glamorous career, i.e. giving concerts in some of the finest venues here and abroad. Yet they are not paid buckets of money; the touring life is hum-drum (trains, airports, hotels, living out of a suitcase) and is often not compatible with family stability. So I care about them as much as the fabulous music they make [and I 'consume']. Nuff said.

Sadly, I don't think your care is shared by many other so-called "music lovers"

[Master Jacques]

Loads of Gramophone pieces like this (for some years now)...:

https://www.gramophone.co.uk/blog/gramophone-guest-blog/dont-knock-the-proms-events-such-as-this-keep-alive-the-idea-that-music

https://www.gramophone.co.uk/blog/gr...to-the-margins

Thank you very much, Jayne, for these examples of what is going wrong with specialist, "classical music" journals. Both blogs crave our sentimental indulgence by coming from "a young writer", or "a 17yo head boy" (c.f. also ENO's current idea that illiterate impressions from teenagers make better marketing tools than professional reviews!) Both opinion pieces justify "classical music" as some vague sort of social good (healthy for us, you see, like fruit and veg). All's lovely in the garden, or would be if the government, or the newspapers (or whoever else) weren't so nasty and/or tight-fisted.

Neither challenges us with "difficult" or controversial areas. Neither present ideas which might encourage self-reflection (e.g. the realities of the huge hardship to musicians caused by cheap/free/subscription downloading, or file sharing.) Both hark back to a better world, where there was equal opportunity and everyone loved the arts. It's always "somebody else's fault". Such mom-and-apple pie pieces are cheap space-fillers, that's all. And you are right, there are "loads of Gramophone pieces like this (for some years now)"!

[jayne lee wilson]

Thank you very much, Jayne, for these examples of what is going wrong with specialist, "classical music" journals. Both blogs crave our sentimental indulgence by coming from "a young writer", or "a 17yo head boy" (c.f. also ENO's current idea that illiterate impressions from teenagers make better marketing tools than professional reviews!) Both opinion pieces justify "classical music" as some vague sort of social good (healthy for us, you see, like fruit and veg). All's lovely in the garden, or would be if the government, or the newspapers (or whoever else) weren't so nasty and/or tight-fisted.

Neither challenges us with "difficult" or controversial areas. Neither present ideas which might encourage self-reflection (e.g. the realities of the huge hardship to musicians caused by cheap/free/subscription downloading, or file sharing.) Both hark back to a better world, where there was equal opportunity and everyone loved the arts. It's always "somebody else's fault". Such mom-and-apple pie pieces are cheap space-fillers, that's all. And you are right, there are "loads of Gramophone pieces like this (for some years now)"!

Well I think that is far too severe (as many other Gramophone articles would show)...."cheap space-fillers" "somebody else's fault"? In what way? Oh come on, what would you have them do? They are not telling us that "all's right with the world..."...
If you think many musicians are shortchanged by streaming, OK, lobby for that (like Taylor Swift, from the strength of her financial & cultural power)....but give the G. some credit for its reports surely.... it is a difficult balance to draw, especially in the present political conditions...

Realpolitik is always gradual, difficult, compromising ...hard for a supposedly "mainstream publication" that gets little support and many complaints around here (!) yet is still trying its best....

Supposing the G. did go under....would you miss it much? I for one would, terribly....
What would you want (practically!) in its place?

[Dave2002]

I care about them. Example. Some of the very finest singers in our well-known consorts (many of them sing in more than one BTW) are really at the top of their tree musically and exhibit a level of professionalism that is sans pareil. It may be thought of by some as a glamorous career, i.e. giving concerts in some of the finest venues here and abroad. Yet they are not paid buckets of money; the touring life is hum-drum (trains, airports, hotels, living out of a suitcase) and is often not compatible with family stability. So I care about them as much as the fabulous music they make [and I 'consume']. Nuff said.

Indeed. I met Sebastian Bell on a bus once after a concert, and indeed he described life as being mostly flying, waiting in airports, travelling on buses, trains etc. A very fine player, who sadly died a year or two later. Afterwards I realised that he almost certainly was being paid less than I was at the time, and I didn't think of myself as being highly paid - or anything like as talented, at least in the musical field.

[DracoM]

I care about them. Example. Some of the very finest singers in our well-known consorts (many of them sing in more than one BTW) are really at the top of their tree musically and exhibit a level of professionalism that is sans pareil. It may be thought of by some as a glamorous career, i.e. giving concerts in some of the finest venues here and abroad. Yet they are not paid buckets of money; the touring life is hum-drum (trains, airports, hotels, living out of a suitcase) and is often not compatible with family stability. So I care about them as much as the fabulous music they make [and I 'consume']. Nuff said.

Top, top posting. So agree with every word.

[Master Jacques]

Supposing the G. did go under....would you miss it much? I for one would, terribly....
What would you want (practically!) in its place?

No I wouldn't miss it, Jayne, as I never buy it. My observations are based on occasional free hand-me-downs, two or three times a year! If the archive were better scanned and organised, I might miss that: before 2010 or so, articulate writers were given reasonable space to say something worth reading. In those days I was sad not to be able to afford it regularly. 250 words is the standard length now, I understand, and I yearn for it no longer. Too many glossy pictures and cover designs, not enough text.

Perhaps you are right, and all Gramophone readers want nowadays is the warm, rosy glow of familiarity. If it were "trying its best" to engage in the way that its founder Compton Mackenzie demanded of it in the early days, it wouldn't take quite so many sentimental, glamorous-looking, easy 'lifestyle' options. With all the Amazon reviews out there to check out, the list of new releases at the back is its main attraction. Perhaps it should be allowed to die gracefully.

[teamsaint]

Sadly, I don't think your care is shared by many other so-called "music lovers"

I’d love to know who this group is, because when I go out to hear live music, which is often, (across a range of genres, and both full time, semi pro, and amateur,) I see lots of people who spend a great deal of time and money supprting the musicians they love to hear. At classical concerts, this usually involves the greatest number being in the most expensive seats, and at rock or folk gigs, sees lots of folk supporting the musicians by buying CDs and merch as well as the ticket.

The commercial world can be crowded and insecure. This doesnt just apply to music, it applies elsewhere in creative industries . We have just published a couple of brilliant books that are struggling in a very busy market, not because the audience don’t care but because they just don’t know about them. I could blame the Guardian for its Bloomsbury - centric reviewing policy, but I’m not going to blame the public for not buying a book that is hard to find, despite, in one case, having won a very prestigious translation grant. And then again, sometimes a person gets a big break, as we did on a book about 10 days ago, and sales boom. But the audience for our books about movies isn’t qualititively better than the one for Women’s History ......they just happened to hear a 20 minute interview with the author on a huge national radio show.
So it goes.

[MrGongGong]

I’d love to know who this group is, because when I go out to hear live music, which is often, (across a range of genres, and both full time, semi pro, and amateur,) I see lots of people who spend a great deal of time and money supprting the musicians they love to hear. At classical concerts, this usually involves the greatest number being in .

I'm sure they do

BUT my point is that when, as has been happening in the last few years, there is an overwhelming expression of concern and unhappiness at the way things seem to be heading from the same musicians the response from many (and NOT ALL) of those who listen to music has often been to dismiss or ignore. Many of the musicians I know who work all over the EU all the time are extremely concerned that their livelihood is being wilfully destroyed by ignorance.

[jayne lee wilson]

No I wouldn't miss it, Jayne, as I never buy it. My observations are based on occasional free hand-me-downs, two or three times a year! If the archive were better scanned and organised, I might miss that: before 2010 or so, articulate writers were given reasonable space to say something worth reading. In those days I was sad not to be able to afford it regularly. 250 words is the standard length now, I understand, and I yearn for it no longer. Too many glossy pictures and cover designs, not enough text.

Perhaps you are right, and all Gramophone readers want nowadays is the warm, rosy glow of familiarity. If it were "trying its best" to engage in the way that its founder Compton Mackenzie demanded of it in the early days, it wouldn't take quite so many sentimental, glamorous-looking, easy 'lifestyle' options. With all the Amazon reviews out there to check out, the list of new releases at the back is its main attraction. Perhaps it should be allowed to die gracefully.

Better scanned?! Every issue is there, perfectly reproduced & instantly located, back to April 1923.
"Organised"? I find most of what I want, quickly, in the archive even if some don't and - yes, the search could be improved (most searches can be improved on most websites). I frequently lose myself to serendipity in there...

As for "250 words"...?!!? What?!
The current edition has a 2-page piece on Christopher Rouse, ca, 1000 words (I'm not going to sit here counting exactly...)...one of a monthly Contemporary Composers Series (recently David Sawer, Laurence Crane, Poul Ruders, Julia Wolfe.......) many features are far longer than that, EVERY month....
MJ - I think of you as a friend but you seem very ill-informed here.... no-one who subscribes to it (Print &/or digital) could recognise it as "glamorous" or "rosy" or "lifestyle"....

Amazon reviews?! Really?!
Often appalling, inaccurate, ill-heard, pretentious, a little learning is a dangerous thing etc., and often very misleading (I say this on the grounds of knowing many of the recordings they describe...). Many are attached to the wrong album too.
(Online reviews? Try ClassicalSource, some of MusicWeb (once you figure out whose ears to trust...as with all other reviews...)...

Yes, I love Gramophone, sometimes too well rather than wisely. I almost gave up a few years ago, under that editor.....(JI) ..
With Cullingford, in the last few years it has recovered its principles, breadth, depth and quality. Do I like every issue? Of course not, any more than I find similar levels of interest every month in my other subs, New Scientist, HiFiNews, Your Cat.....

I've read & subscribed since the 70s. You don't remember some of the dull, worthy & often ad-dominated issues back then? (Even worse in the 50s, as the archive shows - although I do love reading ads (pages & pages before the editorial begins ) about the vintage hifi back then...) How odd & sad it is I find myself defending the magazine, so often, on simple grounds of accusatory inaccuracy.....

But - it survived. It is still there. Still good. Partnerships with Qobuz etc..
"The Magazine is just the beginning"... it says each month with digital links...........for once it is not just guff.

[Master Jacques]

Better scanned?! Every issue is there, perfectly reproduced & instantly located, back to April 1923.
"Organised"? I find most of what I want, quickly, in the archive even if some don't and - yes, the search could be improved (most searches can be improved on most websites). I frequently lose myself to serendipity in there...

A happy thought! However, for those us wanting to do a quick and simple job of work, the search engine (which is of course where the scanning comes in, as a necessity) is utterly hopeless, as there are too many uncorrected mistakes, misspellings and complete nonsenses in OCR to catch even basics. The page reproductions may indeed be lovely for "serendipity" but as a research tool they are worse than useless.

250 words is the official length of bog-standard reviews. Fact. Writers have to apply to the editor for extensions to that, unless previously asked to provide more. Obviously I'm not talking about the features, chat and bants sections.

(I'm taking a few days out of circulation now, by the way, so don't think I'm rude not to continue with this one!)

[MrGongGong]

From FB

Yesterday I went to a government organised event called Get Ready For Brexit. Some of my musician colleagues asked me to report back so here is what I have learnt so far if you tour Europe as many of my colleagues do.

Here are the changes that will happen in a no deal situation. However check details yourself too if you can. I am not an expert so don’t just rely on this information but this is what I gleaned from the experts there.

You will need a work visa for each country. You can’t have one that covers the whole EU. So if you play a gig in France and then pop over to Germany and/or Spain you will need separate work visas for each country. The cost of the visa will depend on each country’s rules. As you know work visas can be quite expensive so check first before discussing fees.

You will need a carnet. That is an official form stamped before you go listing everything you are taking with you such as musical instruments, any equipment such as leads mics etc. They think this will cover the whole of the EU so just one needed. This will also cost money but no one was sure how much.

If you take CDs or other merchandise you will need to pay an import tax and VAT or that country’s equivalent of VAT. Cost will depend on each country. So there will be something to pay for each country you visit.

If you are supplying a service over the phone or by internet from this country this makes no difference. There will still be tariffs to pay. How this will work who knows. So if you are a UK based agent for example dealing with people in the EU over the phone or by internet you are supplying a service. So there will be tariffs to pay. It doesn’t matter that you are based in the UK.

Also many of the deals that have been made are between the EU and other countries through out the world. So if there is an EU deal for example between the EU and the USA or Australia the UK are no longer part of that deal so the UK have to start again. Hope that makes sense.

Also you will need a driving permit

I was advised to go to the government site dealing with Brexit so you can look up each individual country and examine what the rules would be.

and this

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50044659?fbclid=IwAR1JNLyrVi47WpryzS6eNfBHTto-0Qce4oswv00M-O4zQnomvHjg-lfvCDg

[Dave2002]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-e...nomvHjg-lfvCDg

It is known that some science, engineering, and related projects have had no UK participation with the EU since 2016. This is definitely because the EU has blocked UK partnerships - nothing to do with the quality of the science/work, or the people involved - in anticipation of B related "issues". No new projects involving UK based participants have been set up - AFAIK. That will be one factor in the reduced funding for UK researchers etc.

[jayne lee wilson]

A happy thought! However, for those us wanting to do a quick and simple job of work, the search engine (which is of course where the scanning comes in, as a necessity) is utterly hopeless, as there are too many uncorrected mistakes, misspellings and complete nonsenses in OCR to catch even basics. The page reproductions may indeed be lovely for "serendipity" but as a research tool they are worse than useless.

250 words is the official length of bog-standard reviews. Fact. Writers have to apply to the editor for extensions to that, unless previously asked to provide more. Obviously I'm not talking about the features, chat and bants sections.

(I'm taking a few days out of circulation now, by the way, so don't think I'm rude not to continue with this one!)

You must be looking at completely different archive to the one I have on subscription & use several times a week.....misspellings, uncorrected mistakes?
Not in the one I use, as I say a word- and image-perfect repro of every single issue .....all issues quickly found, rapid paging through... yours sounds like the alpha version of many years ago........is yours in a parallel universe...?
...Well, God only knows....and there are frequently longer, full-page/2-page reviews on Record of the Month, Cycles, reissues or round-ups of a given genre. So what if the standard size is 250 words? It is a magazine....there have to be some editorial constraints.

But take a look at - Amazon (!), Music web etc.... some of their reviews are far longer than their substance can possibly bear, and well below bog-standard. Concision is a very good thing, limited-word discipline focuses the mind wonderfully - especially if you know what you are talking about..... wordiness tends to result from the opposite.

[MrGongGong]

It is known that some science, engineering, and related projects have had no UK participation with the EU since 2016. This is definitely because the EU has blocked UK partnerships - nothing to do with the quality of the science/work, or the people involved - in anticipation of B related "issues". No new projects involving UK based participants have been set up - AFAIK. That will be one factor in the reduced funding for UK researchers etc.

"the EU has blocked UK partnerships "

OR (maybe more accurately) the UK has decided to opt out of future collaborations
why would anyone start a collaboration with a partner who is likely to renege on agreements and leave in the middle ?

This is entirely a result of the UK deciding that a policy of self-harm is a good idea