Gramophone getting bland...
Fri, Apr 13 2012, 4:20PM
It was bad enough having the Editor's Choice replaced by Gramophone Choice - a blander selection with two pages of editorial wasted by doing no more than quoting much of the reviews; but now I've noticed that those little two line introductions to each review have become entirely pointless. These are the things that used to say "Don't touch with a bargepole" or maybe "A shoo-in for Record of the Year" and sometimes something between these two extremes. Personally, I didn't find them all that useful because I actually read the real review, but at least I could see they had a purpose.
Now, however, we get (picked at random from the May issue):-
"Haydn Complete Symphonies Vol 16, Symphonies No 90 and 92
Heidelberg Symphony Orchestra/Thomas Fey
Vol 16 in Fey's Haydn edition with the Heidelberg SO"
The two-liner is the bit in italics, and as you can see adds nothing whatever to the information above it. What's the point of it, Mr Cullingford? Including it is just a complete waste of space!
Paul Graber
Sat, May 12 2012, 9:34PM
#2
RE: Gramophone getting bland... RE: Gramophone getting bland...
I need to confess that there have been many occasions when I have not read the full review if the top line has suggested that a recording may not be particularly excting, revealing or competitive. That's a bit naughty of and it is right that you have made this adjustment to stop me (and others like me) from being a bit lazy. I feel suitably chastened!
Scott
Hello Paul - I take full responsibility for the change in the tone of the 'two line' header at the top of reviews. I appreciate your comments - entirely accurate - but there was a reason behind the change.
You're right in that we've altered the top lines to provide context and the 'top line news' (to use inadequate jargon) of a particular release. I feel this is more useful as it anchors these often loose, swimming single discs in some sort of context and pulls-out the most pertinent information (OK, sometimes in the case of a 'Vol.16' the information might not seem THAT pertinent, but it is contextually relevant.
The reason for taking opinion/verdict out of those top lines was simple: it felt like we were trying to do the job of a star-rating without using a star-rating. We also want people to read our reviews, not just rely on an editor-added summation (often inaccurate) of what we think the reviewer was trying to say. At the end of the day, things often aren't as black-and-white as those opinion top-lines used to try and make-out; we'd rather the review was digested by YOU the reader, so you can reflect on its nuances (and, hopefully, it's strength of opinion).
I'm grateful for your feedback and even more pleased that you noted the shift in the tone of these lines - though I'm sorry that you don't appreciate that shift. Keep the feedback coming.
Andrew, reviews editor