New-look Gramophone Magazine

They say one shouldn't buy a book on the basis of its cover, but in the real world many do - so some initial comments on the cover.  First, I have problems with the 'blocky' title of the magazine.  The fancier and more refined fonts used in previous titles have gone: we have the rather bleak, basic and very 'white' letters of the new version, spread across the very top of the page.  Second, there is the dominant picture of the admittedly very photogenic Ms DiDonato, with the 'headlines' on either side giving a very cluttered appearance to the cover.

Otherwise, I like what lies inside it.  I am glad to see the balance shifting back to reviews: over the years, issues less central to the recording industry  such as articles/notices on festivals, concerts etc, and profiles of performers, have taken up more and more space in the magazine.   

"I really like the new look of Gramophone magazine. As
far as the review pages go though, you really need to list the finest
comparable available recordings to each review rather than a selective
one or two which seems to happen nowadays."

THANK YOU.

I agree wholeheartedly with the above. There are only a handful of reviews (OK, I haven't counted, but definitely a minority) that include "reference recordings" at the head of the review. Some reviewers will refer to a reference recording in the course of a review, which is reasonable, but it seems like most reviews are content to evaluate the recording in question on its own merit alone. This is a reasonable perspective considering how quickly some recordings go out of print, and how "odious" comparisons are. But Gramophone is a magazine dedicated to the evaluation of recordings - for casual listeners, for collectors, and for institutions. To this end, an acknowledgement of the reviewer's preferences would be helpful to gauge their response to the performance being reviewed - to say nothing of acknowledging the fact that consumers are comparing many versions of a piece.

This is not to advocate placing older recordings on a pedestal, nor to undermine the purpose of the Gramophone Good CD Guide. However most reviews, particularly of works that have been reviewed before, are written with a background of previous experience and preferences. Listing these at the head of all reviews where comparison versions are available will definitely increase the credibility of Gramophone among current and potential readers.

On a different note, it was surprising to see the North American section now placed before the table of contents. Clearly North America is peripheral to Gramophone's main intended audience, but this seems like an absurd way to organize the magazine.

The "Trial" concept is clever, though the first round seems a bit contrived. Hopefully it will seem less so as the format becomes more familiar to the writers.

Other than these three criticisms - one of which has nothing to do with the new format per se - I like the new Gramophone so far.

Dear all,

I thought I might weigh in on this one if I may, not to take issue with anyone's opinions, but just to correct a couple of misconceptions raised above.

Firstly, I'm a bit surprised to see a comment that Gramophone treats its North American readers as peripheral. This isn't true at all. North America is not only one of Gramophone's biggest-selling territories, it also seems to me that the recordings and musicians we write about travel freely between Europe, the US and many other places for that matter. We also have quite a few North American writers (you will often find the likes of Alex Ross, Jed Distler and of course our monthly columnist Philip Kennicott in our pages; indeed the May issue's cover story is by the eminent Chicago-based writer John von Rhein) and we often report stories from those shores. So even without the extra 'Sounds Of America' section Gramophone, I would say, is pretty trans-Atlantic. But the idea of having this extra, bespoke mini-magazine right at the front in our North America edition is to make it as conspicuous as possible with its guide to classical events around the region, special feature and so on.

The other point I just wanted to make is that many, if not most of our reviews are indeed comparative. In many cases, however, we list the date of the Gramophone issue in which the disc selected for comparison was last reviewed rather than giving the full list at the top, simply to save space so that we can include as many reviews as possible. We do continue to review our reviews section though and are always grateful for any suggestions.

I'm delighted that the redesign has elicited such a largely positive response and, as I say, we will take all suggestions on board as it continues to evolve.

I do hope that you all continue to enjoy Gramophone.

All
the best,

James

I have to agree with James. The magazine does not treat its North American readers as peripheral at all. I for one particularly appreciate its extensive coverage of the North American classical music landscape because I often time my travel to distant cities with the concerts/recitals covered in the magazine. Not to mention its extensive listing of US music festivals! In the US, one often has to travel to enjoy music. It is a great help to those of us looking to hear lesser-known and new works.

I have just seen the new issue of Gramophone, the volcanic ash cloud prevented me from seeing it earlier, and sadly I have to admit that I won't be buying it, and if it's a sign of things to come, I won't be buying it again.

First of all I find the cover horribly dull and plain, the, by now, useless covermount CD, in now way redeems this. How much time or combined editorial gray matter was expended in its conception?

More importantly however is this nonsense about the 250 greatest recordings of all time. This obsession with lists of superlatives in modern media is something that drives me demented. For one thing it stinks of extremely lazy journalism, are you really that defunct of new ideas? The mania for lists and canons is something I have never understood, and the concept of the best or the greatest is at best vacuous and at worst deeply displeasing with its subtext of superiority. A majority of people can share the same subjective opinions, but that's as far as it goes. When these opinions come from experts in the field, people like me take note, and that's why I have always valued Gramophone, and why I started buying it in the first place because of its sense of gimmick free authority exemplified by its best reviewers.

For me though the latest issue smacks of gimmicry. If this is to attract a new audience, I can fully appreciate the necessity to do so, but when you do this, you must be careful not to alienate the people who buy Gramophone consistently. I can understand that this balancing act is not easy. I used to buy Songlines until the day they fronted their magazine with the utterly innane title of The 20 sexiest world music tracks. Is Gramophone going to start having articles on the 20 sexiest sopranos of all time? I shudder to think.

I fully endorse new ideas, so for what it's worth, how about more writing on the margins of the standard repertoitre. For example about 15 years ago you released two publications called Gramophone Explorations, I found them fascinating and extremely helpful, so how about incorporating these ideas in the main body of the magazine, or why is Gramophone Collection always centred on old works, why can't we have we have something on more recent masterpieces.

Having said this I wish Gramophone all the best, and hope your future is as successful as your past.