BBC Music vs Gramophone

[Dancing Divertimentian]

What saddens me about Gramophone is how they "cheat" nowadays by spacing out the text of their reviews to give them a nice, distended look. But in actuality the reviews are far shorter than they were in the past, while still filling up equal space. It's an attempt to keep up airs while lopping off content. I guess they figure their readers have shorter attention spans these days, or sumpthin'.....

Fanƒare is a very generous read. American Record Guide, too. But Fanfare gets my vote. And with Dubins and that new Lynn René Bayley gal they certainly don't lack for mouthpieces...

[Lethevich]

What saddens me about Gramophone is how they "cheat" nowadays by spacing out the text of their reviews to give them a nice, distended look.

One of their latest reviews was a joke in that respect - they managed to lop off the need to write 100 more words to, God forbid, better inform the reader. Maybe the reviewer ran out of cliches and digressions.



I don't need gigantic f*cking quotes to decide whether I will read a review, you morons. I will read it if I am interested in the CD, EXPECTING the review to be good, not requiring it to be "proven" to me by some bullshit "sassy"/"clever" snippet. A lot of the time it's not even sassy or clever, it's just a verbatim copypaste of the intro or conclusion -_- They could've fitted another review into all the wasted space there.

Edit: In hindsight I might've edited some of the obscenities out of this, but it looks funny seeing someone get their nipples in a twist over a stupid magazine, so they shall remain

[Renfield]

Edit: In hindsight I might've edited some of the obscenities out of this, but it looks funny seeing someone get their nipples in a twist over a stupid magazine, so they shall remain

Over a review column in a magazine, more so.

(Although I won't pretend I don't agree, incidentally.)

[knight66]

Edit: In hindsight I might've edited some of the obscenities out of this, but it looks funny seeing someone get their nipples in a twist over a stupid magazine, so they shall remain

You goforrit! 'Outraged of the West country' rools.

Mike

[Dancing Divertimentian]

One of their latest reviews was a joke in that respect - they managed to lop off the need to write 100 more words to, God forbid, better inform the reader. Maybe the reviewer ran out of cliches and digressions.

Ironically, Gramophone's opera reviews used to be some of the most extensive in the entire mag. Sometimes running an entire page and then some, without all the double-spacing of the text and gala trappings.

The good old days...

[Lethevich]

Ironically, Gramophone's opera reviews used to be some of the most extensive in the entire mag. Sometimes running an entire page and then some, without all the double-spacing of the text and gala trappings.

The good old days...

Fortunately Opera magazine doesn't look like it's going to turn rubbish anytime soon I am going to let my Gramophone sub lapse and just keep getting that one.

[eyeresist]

It's been a while since I've looked at Gramophone more than a casual flip-through at my local station's newsagents (btw the latest Vaughan Williams issue looks quite poor compared to BBC Music's effort), but my impression is they are similarly brief with historic and reissued recordings, only this time presenting the reviews as a continuous flow of text where you had to hunt for the bits concerning the relevant recording, and again - certainly judging from issues published five years ago (when, IMO, the magazine was rather better quality) - they didn't always list what was on the disc.

I've been waiting for the Vaughan Williams issues to reach Australian news agents since this forum perked my interest. Interesting you place BBC over Gram in this. I'd say the same for their Karajan issues earlier this year. Gramophone allowed several pages for some rather bizarre vitriol, whereas I found BBC more historically informative.

[hornteacher]

I've been waiting for the Vaughan Williams issues to reach Australian news agents since this forum perked by interest. Interesting you place BBC over Gram in this. I'd say the same for their Karajan issues earlier this year. Gramophone allowed several pages for some rather bizarre vitriol, whereas I found BBC more historically informative.

Yes, I enjoyed the BBC feature on RVW better than Gramophone's.  I wonder why both publications feel like they have to cover the exact same thing all the time (at least it seems like it).

[Iago]

I enjoy Gramophone Magazine very much.
They have developed the touch of the "common man" without exuding elitist snobbery. I enjoy their reviews, their pictures and even their advertisements.
Although I have never allowed a review of theirs to influence my purchase decision.
Yet, I must admit that I would rather accept their estimation of a recording/performance than I would one arising from any member of this forum.
There are very few "elitist snobs" at Gramophone Mag. But there sure are lots of them on this forum.

[PSmith08]

There are very few "elitist snobs" at Gramophone Mag. But there sure are lots of them on this forum.

I fail to see what the number of "elitist snobs" present at either the Gramophone or GMG has to do with anything, but I'll just assume that you had to take the opening with which you were presented to make your sort-of-irrelevant point. Fair enough.

Digressions aside, I ultimately go with Gramophone simply because it gives me more or less what I want when I read a review. I generally know what recordings seem interesting to me before they're released, so it's nice to get a critical opinion on them before I buy, which I do, usually, regardless of the review. Since I'm operating on that level, it's a matter of choice, and I simply prefer Gramophone.

[eyeresist]

Iago, a certain number of, erm, "impatient" types are to be found in any internet forum. Just don't let them provoke you, and you may find their ramblings occasionally useful.

But I suppose one lasting advantage of the "old media" is that it won't insult you by name!

[Renfield]

But I suppose one lasting advantage of the "old media" is that it won't insult you by name!

Pardon my being off-topic, but that is a very interesting statement!

(Not "interesting" in the sense of being ambiguous, interesting in the sense of being a fascinating observation.)

[eyeresist]

Pardon my being off-topic, but that is a very interesting statement!

(Not "interesting" in the sense of being ambiguous, interesting in the sense of being a fascinating observation.)

Well, I am observably fascinating, after all! 

[Renfield]

Well, I am observably fascinating, after all! 

[mn dave]

There are very few "elitist snobs" at Gramophone Mag. But there sure are lots of them on this forum.

I don't think we're comparing Gramophone to this forum.

[Don]

I don't think we're comparing Gramophone to this forum.

Iago did just that, and I have to say that the Gramophone and BBC reviewers are much less fussy than many on this forum.  Actually, I find those magazine reviewers too easy on recorded performances.

[PSmith08]

Iago did just that, and I have to say that the Gramophone and BBC reviewers are much less fussy than many on this forum.  Actually, I find those magazine reviewers too easy on recorded performances.

That's ultimately the problem with the magazines that pay the bills, so to speak, with advertising revenues. There's a balance to be struck between complete critical honesty and uniformly happy advertisers.

[DanielFullard]

I have subscribed to BBC Music for 3 years or so and bought about 12-15 issues of Gramaphone in that time and I much prefer BBC. A big plus point is the CD you get with BBC Music which is always high quality plus all the regular features in the Mag, really good honest reviews and a thorogholly good read every month

[Dundonnell]

Apparently in its golden age Gramophone was great, but I've only read it and BBC Music in the last two years, and if anything I would say Gramophone is on a slightly lower level in terms of dumbed-downness and gimmicky articles. With the BBC Music cover CD you get complete works, which I think is a distinct advantage.

I don't suppose that by "golden age" you necessarily meant as 'recently' as the 60s and 70s but I started collecting the Gramophone magazine in 1963(I think! My older copies are in my attic!). I was at school at the time I have a complete set up from then through to 1984 and then again from 1989(I lost interest in classical music for a time in the 80s-don't ask!).

I certainly agree that the quality of the magazine has declined over the decades. Reviews of new discs thirty/forty years ago were far lengthier, better written and much more informative. There was obviously less of the appeal to the 'populist' and I suppose some would say that in appearance and content the magazine might be regarded as 'dull' compared to the glossy current makeup. Admittedly, back then, there were fewer versions of many works to compare and contrast but that too was an excellent feature which has faded with the present magazine.

I still subscribe but out of loyalty as much as any other reason. I do also buy the BBC Music Magazine-partly, I must admit, for the cover disc of complete works-though the coverage of new releases is poorer than in the Gramophone.

The best British music magazine inmo is International Record Review(which no-one appears to have mentioned). The reviews are much lengthier than those in the Gramophone and are clearly a conscious effort to return to the standard the latter magazine used to maintain. There are no articles on music festivals, music awards, quizzes or indeed anything at all apart from three or four serious general articles on recorded music and reviews of new discs.
It is definitely the magazine for the serious record buyer. Check it out! And NO I don't work for them

[Iago]

There was obviously less of the appeal to the 'populist' and I suppose some would say that in appearance and content the magazine might be regarded as 'dull' compared to the glossy current makeup.

As I mentioned previously, YOU are apparently one of the elitist snobs that populate this forum. Is there something wrong with being a "populist" magazine?