Well last year I wanted to subscribe to a Classical magazine but couldn't really decide between the two. So I subscribed to both for a year intending to decide afterwards which one to keep. Well its been a year and I'm still no wiser. I haven't really noticed much of a difference between the two. They usually cover the same things (although sometimes an issue earlier or later than the other one). I need to renew soon but I'd rather not renew both. Any opinions welcome on which magazine you prefer (or is there a better one out there)?
Fanfare ;D
If you have read both magazines for a year and haven't formed any opinion about which is better, what difference does it make which one you cancel? I also don't see how it is to you advantage to subscribe to a magazine because someone else likes it better.
Quote from: scarpia on July 17, 2008, 07:23:15 AM
If you have read both magazines for a year and haven't formed any opinion about which is better, what difference does it make which one you cancel? I also don't see how it is to you advantage to subscribe to a magazine because someone else likes it better.
True, I'm just trying to see if there's anything out there I might have missed that someone else may notice.
Quote from: Apollo on July 17, 2008, 07:19:23 AM
Fanfare ;D
Yes, Fanfare is much better than BBC or Gramophone. Concerning the latter two, I'd go with Gramophone - more pages.
Quote from: scarpia on July 17, 2008, 07:23:15 AM
If you have read both magazines for a year and haven't formed any opinion about which is better, what difference does it make which one you cancel? I also don't see how it is to you advantage to subscribe to a magazine because someone else likes it better.
Do you ever attempt to be helpful?
Quote from: Don on July 17, 2008, 09:41:06 AM
Yes, Fanfare is much better than BBC or Gramophone. Concerning the latter two, I'd go with Gramophone - more pages.
Yes, Fanfare is sort of like reading the GMG recordings board, except every poster is interesting and has something to say about the music and its background--and there are no pictures, smiley faces or f*cking around. :)
I'd take Gramophone over BBC if only because it seems less commercial.
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.
Quote from: eyeresist on July 17, 2008, 08:50:56 PM
With the BBC Music cover CD you get complete works, which I think is a distinct advantage.
Same here. Complete works give the potential for some lasting value.
Quote from: Don on July 17, 2008, 09:00:16 PM
Same here. Complete works give the potential for some lasting value.
Yeah, that's the only thing it really has going for it. I still listen to a Brahms 4 CD from BBC.
Quote from: Don on July 17, 2008, 09:00:16 PM
Same here. Complete works give the potential for some lasting value.
Thirded (err, fourthed): Gramophone's CD is utter rubbish.
Quote from: Don on July 17, 2008, 09:44:38 AM
Do you ever attempt to be helpful?
Tosca thought he was, until she realized those guns were shooting real bullets.
I was searching last week for a magazine on classical music. I'm considering to subsribe to Fanfare magazine, though the ideal magazine for me would be with sports, quality news articles (background stuff) and classical music. Wouldn't that be good? Unfortunately such a magazine doesn't exist. Must be a market for it for it to be a international magazine...
Henk
Quote from: eyeresist on July 17, 2008, 08:50:56 PM
With the BBC Music cover CD you get complete works, which I think is a distinct advantage.
That's true. The "clips" on Gramophone CDs are things I could hear on iTunes. The full performance CDs of BBC Music are much nicer.
I seem to disagree with the general consensus, but I do not buy a classical music magazine to listen. 8)
Call me old-fashioned, but I still purchase periodicals with the intend to read them. And towards that purpose, my vote goes for Gramophone, which might not have a tremendous amount of interesting articles, at least these days, but still maintains relatively high review criteria.
(Or, to be precise, it maintains high criteria when one of the numerous obsessions of its editorial staff are not triggered.)
I get the Gramophone, it frustrates me a lot these days. But between it and the BBC mag. I would stick with Gramophone. There are more in-depth reviews. Some of the BBC reviews don't even tell you what is on the disc!
I still buy the BBC mag if there is a specific work on the cover disc I want, for example, this month Walton's Viola Concerto and apart from an Ireland piece a substantial new work by Guto Puw, someone I had never heard of.
Fanfare seems excellent, hardcore and properly informed. I don't get it on a regular basis, but think I might; as Gramophone is just not hitting the spot.
Mike
Quote from: knight on July 19, 2008, 12:53:07 AM
I get the Gramophone, it frustrates me a lot these days. But between it and the BBC mag. I would stick with Gramophone. There are more in-depth reviews. Some of the BBC reviews don't even tell you what is on the disc!
As a regular reader of BBC Music I don't recall seeing a review which didn't identify what's on the disc (unless you mean an occasion when the review didn't list all the works recorded, which presumably is due to lack of space). I might have missed this, though. Was there a specific example?
Well, they have the short reviews in sidebars, often utterly useless. These frequently do not list all the works. I don't buy the idea there is no space. Reduce the size of the glossy photos and there would be plenty of space.
P81 this month's edition....."J.S Bach....Toccatas, etc" then 34 words which merely mention several works, useless as both an advert and a review.
P84 this month's edition....."Evgeny Kissin....Music by Schubert, Brahms, JS Bach, Liszt and Gluck"...Then 30 words which only mention the Brahms op116. The reviewer says they are robbed of intimacy, despite which the disc gets four stars! So, what music is on the disc? Am I going to fork out £17.99 to BBC Music Direct on the basis of such inadequate information and contradictory, casual reviewing? No!
On the same page, how about this?
Earl Wilde Liszt recital; I quote, "406 minutes (2 discs)" £29.99. The reviewer, Michael Tanner no less, does not specify any of the music....again, who will buy? Do they even know how many discs they will in fact get if they do?
Are they at all interested in being taken seriously?
I can also recall copying to the site a couple of howlers from the answers in their letter pages. It seemed like whoever was responsible for the page knew nothing about music. I note in this month's edition that apart from letter of the month, only one letter gets any editorial comment; that consists of one line and is not about music. I could delve deeper and come up with more poor copy, but Gramophone indulges in much the same post-it style note pages of news that tell you next to nothing at all.
Both Mags. do have reliable and interesting content, but as I point out above, the BBC one simply gives up much too easily.
Mike
I understand your point about the Earl Wild (a bit of careless sub-editing there, I suspect), though to the best of my memory (I don't have a copy of the latest issue to hand) those reviews you've cited are those very short items filed under 'In brief': these are usually on reissued recordings, so I suppose the idea is that they are brief notices of recordings which were presumably reviewed at length when they were first released.
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.
You are right in all respects and I really dislike that funneling of some reissues. But from the point of either publication; if the idea is to inform and then help you decide whether or not to part with your money, they fail. I remain of the opinion that G provides a larger number of in-depth reviews, thus, better coverage....but really, it is not vital stuff. Neither would get my vote in terms of sheer quality.
Mike
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...
Quote from: donwyn on July 19, 2008, 04:15:34 PM
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.
(http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/4346/blahblahblahsx8.jpg)
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 :P
Quote from: Lethe on July 19, 2008, 09:43:24 PM
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 :P
Over
a review column in a magazine, more so. :P
(Although I won't pretend I don't agree, incidentally.)
Quote from: Lethe on July 19, 2008, 09:43:24 PM
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 :P
You goforrit! 'Outraged of the West country' rools.
Mike
Quote from: Lethe on July 19, 2008, 09:43:24 PM
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...
Quote from: donwyn on July 20, 2008, 08:03:04 AM
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.
Quote from: Pierre on July 19, 2008, 06:27:28 AM
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.
Quote from: eyeresist on July 20, 2008, 06:00:48 PM
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).
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.
Quote from: Iago on July 20, 2008, 06:26:30 PM
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.
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!
Quote from: eyeresist on July 20, 2008, 10:36:08 PM
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.)
Quote from: Renfield on July 21, 2008, 12:22:26 AM
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! 8)
Quote from: eyeresist on July 21, 2008, 12:25:31 AM
Well, I am observably fascinating, after all! 8)
;D
Quote from: Iago on July 20, 2008, 06:26:30 PM
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.
Quote from: Apollo on July 21, 2008, 07:09:48 AM
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.
Quote from: Don on July 21, 2008, 10:29:49 AM
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.
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
Quote from: eyeresist on July 17, 2008, 08:50:56 PM
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 :) :)
Quote from: Dundonnell on July 23, 2008, 02:02:32 PM
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?
Quote from: Iago on July 23, 2008, 06:43:30 PM
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?
Way to keep the conversation civilised, Iago. By "populist", I think Dundonnell means that reviews and articles are much shorter because for some reason people these days find reading "hard", this at the expense of information and ideas of interest to music lovers. Also, big features on "flash in the pan" celebrity singers, musicians and conductors who don't warrant the wordage. Also, religiously avoiding all technical terms because readers might be confused and frightened (my own technical knowledge is rather limited, but because I'm interested in music I'd rather read something slightly over my head than dumbed down to the level of a "lifestyle" magazine). By "populist", I think we mean lots of pictures and no big words, something a 9-year-old would be comfortable to peruse. Since I'd prefer something better than that, I guess that makes me a mere elitist.
I've only been reading Gramophone for the past three years, but online I've read lots of reminiscing/complaining - apparently it's been going downhill consistently since the 1960s!
Quote from: Iago on July 23, 2008, 06:43:30 PM
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?
There is when a mag starts out as NOT populist but over time morphs into populist. Such a move tends to alienate its dedicated readership, one which it's so painstakingly cultivated. And in Gramophone's case it's spent
generations cultivating a readership.
So throwing the readership over for more moolah (populist = $$$) is sure to draw fire. Deservedly so. And voicing our OPINIONS on the matter isn't 'elitist'. Get it?
Sorry, my previous post was a bit exaggerated. I didn't mean to suggest BBC Music and Gramophone are at the same level as the Classic FM magazine.
Interesting! I venture out of my normal area of this site(the Composer Discussion Forum) and I get accused of being "an elitist snob'!
Heyho!
I have no difficulty with popular/'populist' magazines dealing with classical music. These magazines cater to a market. They probably help to bring more music to a wider audience. They do so in an attractive syle. The BBC Music Magazine-presumably-sells. I like it for what it is. I shall continue to buy it.
Equally, there should be at least one magazine in which the reviews of new discs go into more detail about the music on these discs, which assume a certain degree of familiarity with core repertoire and which compare and contrast-in depth-particular interpretations with others in the catalogue, or introduce new music in such a way as to give the reader a genuine insight into what it sounds like.
'Gramophone' used to do this much more effectively than it does today. The reviews have been curtailed. Space is used for the sort of purposes described by eyeresist. That is disappointing for some of the long-term readership. That is why I cherish the lengthy, detailed reviews in International Record Review. Space is not 'wasted' in that magazine so just as much music can be reviewed.
And..no..I don't have any great technical musical literacy but I appreciate music critics who don't talk down to me ;)
Does that make me 'an elitist snob'? Well...if it does...tough :)
Quote from: hornteacher on July 17, 2008, 07:17:13 AM
Well last year I wanted to subscribe to a Classical magazine but couldn't really decide between the two. So I subscribed to both for a year intending to decide afterwards which one to keep. Well its been a year and I'm still no wiser. I haven't really noticed much of a difference between the two. They usually cover the same things (although sometimes an issue earlier or later than the other one). I need to renew soon but I'd rather not renew both. Any opinions welcome on which magazine you prefer (or is there a better one out there)?
The good thing about the BBC Magazine is the CD which contains complete versions of works (ie Andrew Davis's excellent Vaughan Williams Symphony 5 from the Proms). I hardly ever play the CED of bits and pieces which comes with Gramophone. My favourite magazine was CD Review but that folded long ago. Gramophone has some good articles like the recent one by Michael Kennedy on Vaughan Williams.
Quote from: Dundonnell on July 23, 2008, 02:02:32 PM
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!).
What an excellent resource such an extensive collection of that magazine is! It gives you a great opportunity to compare "then" and "now".
Quote from: Dundonnell on July 23, 2008, 02:02:32 PMI 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.
Isn't this decline common to just about all print media? We cancelled our TV Guide subscription when they gave up the digest format, making the publication basically unusable as a "guide". "Yankee Magazine", one of my favorites, suffered greatly in appeal when they changed their format, too. "Rolling Stone" is another example that pales, in my opinion, to it's heyday. Many outstanding magazines have gone out of business completely. Most daily newspapers across the U.S. are smaller and less inclusive than in the past. I think the problems we are dealing with regarding classical music publications are probably the same for speciality magazines in other areas, and these problems are due in large part to the growth of the internet that we all use and enjoy. It's just an unfortunate trade off in the way we get our information.
Re: My previous post. I now realise that I preferred Gramophone's Karajan issue to BBC Music's, not the other way around.
Quote from: hornteacher on July 17, 2008, 07:17:13 AM
Well last year I wanted to subscribe to a Classical magazine but couldn't really decide between the two. So I subscribed to both for a year intending to decide afterwards which one to keep. Well its been a year and I'm still no wiser. I haven't really noticed much of a difference between the two. They usually cover the same things (although sometimes an issue earlier or later than the other one). I need to renew soon but I'd rather not renew both. Any opinions welcome on which magazine you prefer (or is there a better one out there)?
Like you, I subscribe to both. But if I had to lose one of them, I'd ditch Gramophone. Why? Simply because the BBC Music Magazine cover CD is the more valuable freebie. It consistently carries interesting performances from the BBC archives, whereas Gramophone has mere (and often, drastically edited) samples of current releases.
In editorial terms, I'd say that Gramophone might be considered the more intelligent. But as many who've read the title for years will know well, the quality has slipped in recent times. BBC Music Magazine takes a more beginner-to-intermediate approach in its articles, and that suits me rather nicely. So again, this is the one I'd choose. :)
Quote from: Dundonnell on July 24, 2008, 04:19:51 AM
That is why I cherish the lengthy, detailed reviews in International Record Review. Space is not 'wasted' in that magazine so just as much music can be reviewed.
My favorite magazine as well, and they have a more thorough treatment of reissues (where is where the most interesting releases often are these days) than the two other magazines. And I have more than ten volumes og Fanfares on my shelf to prove that I know that magazine, too.
To return briefly to a point made earlier in this thread about buying a magazine to read, not listen to (a sensible proposition), I think much depends on why one might want to read either title.
For me, it's not a question of reading the reviews and making informed purchasing choices thereafter - the internet and my own gut instinct are help enough for me in most cases - but simply a desire to be generally aware of what's happening in a branch of the arts which I enjoy enormously.
If some of the more mainstream media channels carried as much on classical music as they do on contemporary music (or literature, which dominates most 'culture' supplements in the Sunday papers), I might even decide not to subscribe to specialist titles at all.
Quote from: Apollo on July 17, 2008, 07:19:23 AM
Fanfare ;D
I really liked both Fanfare and American Record Guide, but Borders and Virgin no longer stock them in the UK. Sulk. :(
Quote from: erato on July 29, 2008, 01:13:22 AM
My favorite magazine as well, and they have a more thorough treatment of reissues (where is where the most interesting releases often are these days) than the two other magazines. And I have more than ten volumes og Fanfares on my shelf to prove that I know that magazine, too.
Good to find someone else who reads International Record Review! Definitely the most informative about new releases in my opinion.
Quote from: MDL on July 29, 2008, 03:38:59 AM
I really liked both Fanfare and American Record Guide, but Borders and Virgin no longer stock them in the UK. Sulk. :(
Can you subscribe?
Quote from: Apollo on July 29, 2008, 04:32:00 AM
Can you subscribe?
Dunno, actually. I've never looked into it. Probably. But I'm not really one for subscribing, mainly cos the post where I live is rather crappy and I'd worry about stuff going missing. I'd never subscribe to either Gramophone or BBC Music mag, for instance, even though I buy every issue.
While I'm noodling around on this topic, I should add that I prefer Gramophone to BBC Music, but the BBC CDs are a real bonus. Only last week, I was playing a BBC CD from the early or mid '90s which includes a Takemitsu orchestral piece, From Me Flows What You Call Time (or something like that!), which I don't think has been recorded by anybody else.
Quote from: MDL on July 29, 2008, 06:11:51 AM
Only last week, I was playing a BBC CD from the early or mid '90s which includes a Takemitsu orchestral piece, From Me Flows What You Call Time (or something like that!), which I don't think has been recorded by anybody else.
I have that disc - paired with a corking rendition of Walton's First Symphony, right?
Quote from: MDL on July 29, 2008, 03:38:59 AM
I really liked both Fanfare and American Record Guide, but Borders and Virgin no longer stock them in the UK. Sulk. :(
They don't stock it in the USA either, which was part of my frustration to begin with. An American company doesn't stock the American publication for classical music (although they do stock Gramophone and BBC Music). Go figure.
You can subscribe to Fanfare but I was really hoping to browse through an issue before shelling out a year's worth.
Quote from: Mark on July 29, 2008, 06:24:30 AM
I have that disc - paired with a corking rendition of Walton's First Symphony, right?
Yup, that's the one.
Quote from: Dundonnell on July 29, 2008, 04:30:22 AM
Good to find someone else who reads International Record Review! Definitely the most informative about new releases in my opinion.
I'm a regular IRR reader, too. It's a satisfying read without any gimmicks or rubbish. A proper grown-up mag.
Quote from: MDL on July 30, 2008, 06:08:58 AM
I'm a regular IRR reader, too. It's a satisfying read without any gimmicks or rubbish. A proper grown-up mag.
Well put :)
Quote from: Mark on July 29, 2008, 01:31:46 AM
If some of the more mainstream media channels carried as much on classical music as they do on contemporary music (or literature, which dominates most 'culture' supplements in the Sunday papers), I might even decide not to subscribe to specialist titles at all.
Exactly the same situation here in New Zealand where the newspapers, especially the weekend editions, promote how many supplements they offer but its mainly sport and pop music/Hollywood movies as far as mainstream 'culture' is concerned.
The only serious Arts coverage [which includes reviews on classical music concerts etc] is now on a Saturday buried at the back of the Lifestyle section and consists of about 4 pages. Its a disgrace really.
I've bought BBC Mag a few times but haven't tried Grammophone yet. I enjoyed the magazine and may buy another one today :)
Quote from: Dundonnell on July 30, 2008, 07:24:25 AM
Well put :)
Thank you! I'm worried that Gramophone is losing its way. I'm old enough to remember the days when Gramophone looked more like IRR than today's Gramophone. OK, it was slightly uncompromising, but people respected its integrity. When I was a student and spent all day playing X-Mal Deutschland, The Cure and Siouxsie and the Banshees (after realising that playing Stockhausen's Carré and Penderecki's The Devils of Loudun all day long was alarming the neighbours), I really got into indie mag Zig-Zag. But in the mid-late '80s, Zig-Zag shifted from indie to mainstream. People lost interest and Zig-Zag died. Then in the '90s, Classic CD magazine tried to broaden its audience. The same thing happened. People were buying the mag to read about classical music, not jazz or world music. I stopped buying it, and so did a lot of other people.
I've been reading Gramophone on and off for 30 years, and for the last 20 years I've bought every issue. If it were to dilute itself, lose its core audience and fail like so many other mags, I would be so, so, so, SO-O-O-O-O-O gutted.
Even in the four years I've been regularly reading Gramophone, I've detected a shift towards a more commercial tone and a general dumbing down. The title seems content to be in the pockets of whichever advertisers pay the most. It's as though they're gunning for a peculiar marriage between the accessibility of BBC Music Magazine and the tittle tattle of sister title, Class FM Magazine. It's disappointing, but it's just another example of a downward cultural trend, it seems to me. :-\
Well, I've just taken out a 13 issue subscription to BBC Music.
I bought an issue last year and was rereading it last night and found myself quite enjoying it so I've decided to take the plunge and subscribe.
I'm buying very few cds at the moment due to other financial priorities [renovations on the house/trip to Canada next year] so the prospect of a classical music magazine arriving in the mail each month is something to look forward to.
Quote from: Mark on July 30, 2008, 11:12:39 PM
Even in the four years I've been regularly reading Gramophone, I've detected a shift towards a more commercial tone and a general dumbing down. The title seems content to be in the pockets of whichever advertisers pay the most. It's as though they're gunning for a peculiar marriage between the accessibility of BBC Music Magazine and the tittle tattle of sister title, Class FM Magazine. It's disappointing, but it's just another example of a downward cultural trend, it seems to me. :-\
You write advertisements, don't you?
Quote from: M forever on August 15, 2008, 08:02:09 PM
You write advertisements, don't you?
The irony has not escaped me ...
Irony is not the correct word in this context. Hypocrisy is. How can you criticize a "downward cultural trend" when you contribute to it yourself?
I don't read either anymore. Having come of age with Gramophone in the 60s, I was a faithful reader until just a few years ago when I became disgusted with the direction Haymarket decided to go.
This illustrates the problem:
(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/julygmg/Gramophone%202005.jpg)
Empty, wasted space; too many pics; larger font than in the previous century; and approxiamately 35% fewer words per page than in this example from 1993:
(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/julygmg/Gramophone%201993.jpg)
I like illustrations but not at the expense of critical commentary.
Sarge
I'm only mildly surprised that by 1993 literacy standards had slipped so low that Gramophone failed to distinguish between "among" and "between."
I got an email from Gramophone last week asking me to participate in a survey. I am not a subscriber but I am a registered user of the website. Funny though, at the same time the website went down for several days. And not for the first time. They have been offline regularly and then often for extended periods of times. I have a strong feeling that whatever people manage the magazine these days are drastically incompetent. Maybe I should take the survey and say that!
The website is back up. So I went there to look up a review in Gramofile, but
Sorry, Gramofile is currently unavailable due to technical problems. We apologise for any inconvenience.
OK...
Quote from: M forever on August 15, 2008, 11:48:57 PM
How can you criticize a "downward cultural trend" when you contribute to it yourself?
I don't. All my work is non-product based. ;)
What does that mean?
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on August 16, 2008, 03:56:06 AM
I like illustrations but not at the expense of critical commentary.
So really the problem is not wasted space but lack of content. I dislike paying for a magazine I can finish off fairly thoroughly in two hours at lunchtime.
Quote from: M forever on August 17, 2008, 03:34:11 PM
What does that mean?
That he doesn't produce anything?
Quote from: M forever on August 17, 2008, 03:34:11 PM
What does that mean?
That the field of advertising in which I specialise has no impact on the general downward trend to which I referred earlier. Advertising is broken down into numerous specialisms - mine is HR communications. Therefore, what
I do specifically doesn't put me in the same bracket as those who produce adverts for the likes of BBC Music Magazine and Gramophone.
And ... we're back on topic. ;)
I's the same people.
There seems to be a 'pool' of music critics able to be called upon to review a stack of CDs on a monthly basis by the BBC Magazine as well as the Saturday CD Review (no pictures but expansive examples from the disc under review and, often, the whole record!), Gramophone and IRR. I cannot speak about Classic FM because I have never read it neither do I listen to it (there is a limit to the number of 'Great Bleeding Chunks' I can take in a sitting).
If one is so keen on reading other peoples opinion, albeit professional, then subscribe to all of them or, better still, pop down to your local WH Smiths and read them off the rack. A lot of people do this and annoy people like me who cannot reach past them for a copy of 'Asian Babes'( apparently, I'm not the only subsciber to this board that has a predilection for this artwork).
Quote from: eyeresist on August 17, 2008, 11:13:05 PM
So really the problem is not wasted space but lack of content. I dislike paying for a magazine I can finish off fairly thoroughly in two hours at lunchtime.
Exactly. Twenty, thirty years ago a new issue of Gramophone would be a three day project. The issues published this century I can usually polish off in less than an hour. If that is what a younger generation of classical music lovers want--a short read--then Gramophone is giving them what they want. But I know I'm not the only old fart who has given up on them. They have offended quite a few loyal readers, readers that had been with them for decades.
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on August 18, 2008, 06:51:10 AM
But I know I'm not the only old fart who has given up on them.
After only seriously listening for six or so years (AKA young fart), I have already gotten tired of Gramophone's non-content. Every article (especially the front page "headliners") seems to be an excercise in stretching out minimal material over multiple pages, aided by tons of graphics. A while ago I realised that I had almost never read anything other than the reviews, and am not going to spend money on it anymore... The useless CD is the final nail in the coffin, as I am paying a further premium for that rubbish. The reviews I still find to be good, but that isn't enough.
Quote from: Lethe on August 18, 2008, 07:07:35 AM
After only seriously listening for six or so years (AKA young fart), I have already gotten tired of Gramophone's non-content. Every article (especially the front page "headliners") seems to be an excercise in stretching out minimal material over multiple pages, aided by tons of graphics. A while ago I realised that I had almost never read anything other than the reviews, and am not going to spend money on it anymore... The useless CD is the final nail in the coffin, as I am paying a further premium for that rubbish. The reviews I still find to be good, but that isn't enough.
The reviews are enough for me, and my adult daughter appreciates the "useless" CD.
Quote from: Don on August 18, 2008, 07:31:05 AM
my adult daughter appreciates the "useless" CD.
Fortunate... I feel like some kind of environmental criminal throwing the CD out each issue (the cases get saved for future use).
Quote from: Lethe on August 18, 2008, 08:11:49 AM
Fortunate... I feel like some kind of environmental criminal throwing the CD out each issue (the cases get saved for future use).
I also give my daughter most of the BBC Music CDs; at least they contain complete works.
Quote from: Hector on August 18, 2008, 06:19:27 AM
I's the same people.
There seems to be a 'pool' of music critics able to be called upon to review a stack of CDs on a monthly basis by the BBC Magazine as well as the Saturday CD Review (no pictures but expansive examples from the disc under review and, often, the whole record!), Gramophone and IRR. I cannot speak about Classic FM because I have never read it neither do I listen to it (there is a limit to the number of 'Great Bleeding Chunks' I can take in a sitting).
If one is so keen on reading other peoples opinion, albeit professional, then subscribe to all of them or, better still, pop down to your local WH Smiths and read them off the rack. A lot of people do this and annoy people like me who cannot reach past them for a copy of 'Asian Babes'( apparently, I'm not the only subsciber to this board that has a predilection for this artwork).
;D
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on August 18, 2008, 06:51:10 AM
Exactly. Twenty, thirty years ago a new issue of Gramophone would be a three day project. The issues published this century I can usually polish off in less than an hour.
I just want to clarify that I probably
could finish the G in less than two hours, but as I said, it's a lunch time, and my ideal lazy Saturday or Sunday read is over a good Chinese at the Happy Chef, then waddle over the road to Kelly's Irish pub to continue with a pint (or two) of Bulmer's. The finer things take time 8)
I'm also considering a subscription to one of these. Seems Fanfare is the favorite among GMGers over BBC and Gramophone?
Quote from: ChamberNut on August 19, 2008, 04:23:21 AM
I'm also considering a subscription to one of these. Seems Fanfare is the favorite among GMGers over BBC and Gramophone?
Yes, among English-speaking review mags, Fanfare is as good as it gets - many more reviews than either BBC or Gramophone and much more detail as well. Also, unlike American Record Guide, there's no bias against period instrument performances. Further, the subscription gives you a wealth of reviews and other material on their website.
Quote from: Lethe on August 18, 2008, 08:11:49 AM
throwing the CD out each issue (the cases get saved for future use).
FREE cd jewel case with every issue!!
;D
I can't figure it out from their site - how many pages does an issue of Fanfare contain? (and how much is advertising?)
Quote from: Solitary Wanderer on August 19, 2008, 08:03:25 PM
FREE cd jewel case with every issue!!
;D
Not with the Gramophone $:)
Just recieved my first subscription issue of BBC Music in the post today.
At a very quick flip through it looks like there's many interesting things for me to read :)
Quote from: Solitary Wanderer on September 16, 2008, 05:22:09 PM
Just recieved my first subscription issue of BBC Music in the post today.
At a very quick flip through it looks like there's many interesting things for me to read :)
Yep, I renewed my BBC Music for another year.
Mine hasn't arrived yet. :'(
Quote from: eyeresist on August 20, 2008, 06:15:25 PM
I can't figure it out from their site - how many pages does an issue of Fanfare contain? (and how much is advertising?)
Not with the Gramophone $:)
Huh?! There's always a free CD with Gramophone. I've got dozens of them piled up, mostly unwrapped, on my desk at work. Has somebody been pinching yours or do you live somewhere odd? ;D
Quote from: eyeresist on August 20, 2008, 06:15:25 PM
I can't figure it out from their site - how many pages does an issue of Fanfare contain? (and how much is advertising?)
I've got the two most recent issues in my hands; each one has over 400 pages with about 15 pages of advertising. Very impressive.
Quote from: Bulldog on September 17, 2008, 05:52:24 AM
I've got the two most recent issues in my hands; each one has over 400 pages with about 15 pages of advertising. Very impressive.
Yes, very impressive.
Oh, in case anyone doesn't know, Fanfare is issued every other month. Not monthly. (Ditto American Record Guide).
Whether or not you read the magazine or throw it straight into the bin; I do urge those who enjoy vocal music to buy the BBC mag this month. The CD is a recital by a singer new to me, a mezzo, well, almost a contralto, Christianne Stotun. She sings Brahms Alto Rhapsody, Mahler Ruckert Lieder and then a large group of piano accompanied Mahler songs. It is a distinctive dark voice with a pleasant inherent tremolo, not a wobble. She colours the voice and can put a smile in it. The top of the voice is white, she is at the upper reach during the top notes of Um mitternacht.
A bit of a find.
Mike
I have been quite rude and certainly pretty dismissive of the BBC Music Magazine on this thread so it is only right and proper that I should concede that the November issue has an excellent article on Messiaen by Christopher Dingle and an extraordinarily valuable and interesting article on the composers and musicians killed in the First World War(talents like George Butterworth, Ernest Farrar and Cecil Coles from Britain but of course many from other countries too- I would like to know much more about the many young French, German, Austrian and Italian composers who must have perished between 1914 and 1918).
Roger Nichols contributes a perceptive study of Poulenc plus you do get that composer's Gloria, Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms and Messiaen's L'Ascension in its orchestral incarnation on the bonus CD. Pretty good value, I have to admit!
Quote from: Bulldog on September 17, 2008, 05:52:24 AM
I've got the two most recent issues in my hands; each one has over 400 pages with about 15 pages of advertising. Very impressive.
What do you think of Bayley, Don? (or anyone)
Quote from: Dundonnell on October 31, 2008, 05:42:19 PM
... Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms and Messiaen's L'Ascension in its orchestral incarnation on the bonus CD.
I'd never heard the Stravinsky work before this month's BBC Music Magazine plopped onto my doormat, so it was something of a treat. Likewise, the orchestral version of L'Ascension - a work I heard in its form for solo organ at this year's BBC Proms. I have to admit I prefer it with more players.
FK
Quote from: mn dave on October 31, 2008, 05:47:36 PM
What do you think of Bayley, Don? (or anyone)
Sorry - I didn't notice your post until today. I don't think very well of Bayley. She has a habit of reviewing stuff she already knows she doesn't care for. Jerry Dubins is quite a guy - how he reviews so many recordings every two months is beyond me. Of course, it's possible he only listens to a new disc one or two times. That wouldn't be acceptable to me.
Quote from: Bulldog on November 01, 2008, 11:52:13 AM
Sorry - I didn't notice your post until today. I don't think very well of Bayley. She has a habit of reviewing stuff she already knows she doesn't care for. Jerry Dubins is quite a guy - how he reviews so many recordings every two months is beyond me. Of course, it's possible he only listens to a new disc one or two times. That wouldn't be acceptable to me.
Yeah, those two are wacky. ;D
Quote from: hornteacher on July 17, 2008, 07:17:13 AM
Well last year I wanted to subscribe to a Classical magazine but couldn't really decide between the two. So I subscribed to both for a year intending to decide afterwards which one to keep. Well its been a year and I'm still no wiser. I haven't really noticed much of a difference between the two. They usually cover the same things (although sometimes an issue earlier or later than the other one). I need to renew soon but I'd rather not renew both. Any opinions welcome on which magazine you prefer (or is there a better one out there)?
Cancel Gramophon! As long as the magazines seem so similar, go with the one with the better cds. The Gramophon CD is just flotsam and jetsam put together to provide the least value. The BBC Music CD is a complete work of music that can be very, very good.
Quote from: Don on August 19, 2008, 09:02:18 AM
Yes, among English-speaking review mags, Fanfare is as good as it gets - many more reviews than either BBC or Gramophone and much more detail as well. Also, unlike American Record Guide, there's no bias against period instrument performances. Further, the subscription gives you a wealth of reviews and other material on their website.
It should be mentioned that while the editor of ARG doesn't like HIP, he's smart enough to have some good HIP reviewers on staff. I subscribe to both periodicals.
Quote from: Henk on July 18, 2008, 11:29:28 AM
I was searching last week for a magazine on classical music. I'm considering to subsribe to Fanfare magazine, though the ideal magazine for me would be with sports, quality news articles (background stuff) and classical music. Wouldn't that be good? Unfortunately such a magazine doesn't exist. Must be a market for it for it to be a international magazine...
Henk
Well, Fanfare does have the letters section (sort of like watching contact sports), a section of fluffy promotional articles, and the Bollywood column. The front part of ARG with classical music news and live music reviews is basically an abbreviated version of the old Musical America (they merged back in the 90s).
Quote from: Daverz on November 01, 2008, 08:00:32 PM
It should be mentioned that while the editor of ARG doesn't like HIP, he's smart enough to have some good HIP reviewers on staff. I subscribe to both periodicals.
I subscribe to both also. But I feel that the anti-hip attitude isn't limited to Vroon. Too often, I read a review that essentially states that the performance is excellent even though period instruments are used.
Quote from: Bulldog on November 03, 2008, 08:01:33 AM
I subscribe to both also. But I feel that the anti-hip attitude isn't limited to Vroon. Too often, I read a review that essentially states that the performance is excellent even though period instruments are used.
Yes, one or two reviewers in Fanfare are guilty of trivializing HIP as well.
Curiously, Gramophone doesn't seem to suffer from this (nor the British mags in general).
I'm enjoying my new subscription of BBC Music alot. I've received two issues thus far.
It's an easy read but there's lots of very interesting articles, reviews and information packed in there :)
So far, after looking at both the Gramophone and BBC Music magazines, I much prefer the style and format of the BBC Music magazine. I probably won't get a subscription, but this will be the one I turn to when I feel the urge to go spend $10 on a magazine. ;D
Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on November 03, 2008, 05:42:34 PM
Yes, one or two reviewers in Fanfare are guilty of trivializing HIP as well.
Curiously, Gramophone doesn't seem to suffer from this (nor the British mags in general).
I've noticed that also. The Brits evidently never felt threatened by the HIP movement.
Quote from: Bulldog on November 03, 2008, 08:01:33 AM
I subscribe to both also. But I feel that the anti-hip attitude isn't limited to Vroon. Too often, I read a review that essentially states that the performance is excellent even though period instruments are used.
I suscribed to ARG for welll over a decade but eventually dropped it because of Donald Vroon's heavy handed and opinionated style. What is ironic is that in general I share his tastes, but just had read one too many of his screeds against HIP or popular music.
Quote from: Bulldog on September 02, 2009, 09:19:37 AM
I've noticed that also. The Brits evidently never felt threatened by the HIP movement.
But vide the Penguin guide, edited by major Brit critics and (former?) regular Gramophone contributors. My '02 edition is filled with digs against the HIP movement.
This thread has been dead for a while (perhaps for a good reason). Has Gramophone or BBC Music improved over the last few years? Is it even worthwhile to read either of these magazines? I can see the attraction of the BBC monthly cd... [CDCDCD syndrome] ???
Would you recommend either or something completely different for a person that is immersing himself in classical music? It seems as if there is plenty to read or talk about as is..... Thoughts?
My father subscribes to The Strad (http://www.thestrad.com/), but it's not a general purpose magazine as its focus is string instruments - players, orchestras, luthiers, teaching, reviews (of concerts CDs, DVDs/Blu-rays, and books - and some of them are available for free on their website), and the instruments themselves.
Plenty of interviews and lots of features of early-to-mid-20th century soloists in particular.
I subscribe to Listen Magazine. I enjoy it. It's not really about cd reviews, but about the music world as a whole.
Quote from: North Star on April 02, 2014, 04:03:28 AM
My father subscribes to The Strad (http://www.thestrad.com/), but it's not a general purpose magazine as its focus is string instruments - players, orchestras, luthiers, teaching, reviews (of concerts CDs, DVDs/Blu-rays, and books - and some of them are available for free on their website), and the instruments themselves.
Plenty of interviews and lots of features of early-to-mid-20th century soloists in particular.
Thanks North Star! That does sound like an interesting magazine, but perhaps a bit specialized unless one is completely into string instruments. I definitely need to take a look at that - is it carried by major magazine retailers or is this something I need a university library for? Hmm, I will check it out. The coverage of the soloists that you mentioned interests me greatly.
Quote from: DavidW on April 02, 2014, 11:19:18 AM
I subscribe to Listen Magazine. I enjoy it. It's not really about cd reviews, but about the music world as a whole.
David,
I cannot believe I was unaware of this magazine *bonk*. I checked out its website and it comes across as a low key and interesting survey type of magazine. Very affordable too with $20 for two years of issues. Two years of Listen - here I come.......
Thanks for pointing me in that direction. What is your view of BBC Music?
http://www.listenmusicmag.com/ (http://www.listenmusicmag.com/)
I recently resubscribed to Fanfare (web only subscription for $40). I let both my Fanfare and ARG subscriptions lapse a couple years ago (too bulky). Yes, Bayley is still a nitwit, and Dubins is still prissy. Also, the practice of assigning some discs to 3 or 4 reviewers drives me nuts. OK, having two opinions is interesting, but 3 or 4 is just excessive and takes up space that could be devoted to different discs.
However, it's the perfect light reading for the listening chair, and I get introduced to lots of music and recordings I wouldn't know about otherwise.
Quote from: Moonfish on April 02, 2014, 01:01:08 PM
David,
I cannot believe I was unaware of this magazine *bonk*. I checked out its website and it comes across as a low key and interesting survey type of magazine. Very affordable too with $20 for two years of issues. Two years of Listen - here I come.......
Thanks for pointing me in that direction. What is your view of BBC Music?
http://www.listenmusicmag.com/ (http://www.listenmusicmag.com/)
Especially how funny how easy it was for both of us to nearly miss out, when Jens writes for the magazine. He is pretty low key about it. I've never read BBC Music.
Quote from: eyeresist on July 17, 2008, 08:50:56 PM
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.
Agree with this.