The "New Look" Gramophone
Thu, Jun 3 2010, 10:37PM
#2
RE: The "New Look" Gramophone
Sorry? Arrogance? Oh, you mean we're just meant to take abuse and not react? I see...
'Not reacting' does tend to go with the territory when you host a forum.
The problem, if you "reply in kind", is that all observers see are two discourteous people, rather than one.
Better to let any facts speak for themselves and let readers draw their own conclusions about who's right and wrong.
Fri, Jun 4 2010, 5:15AM
#3
RE: The "New Look" Gramophone
'Not reacting' does tend to go with the territory when you host a forum.
Thanks for the lesson, with which I am afraid I disagree completely.
Fri, Jun 4 2010, 5:32AM
#4
RE: The "New Look" Gramophone
'Not reacting' does tend to go with the territory when you host a forum.
Thanks for the lesson, with which I am afraid I disagree completely.
As is your right - but would you like to like to explain why you think "replying in kind" is a better solution? (I did, after all, provide a brief reason for why it's not a good idea. And it wasn't so much a lesson, as a practical observation.)
As an example of why not reacting is a good idea, you said of someone's post:
"You made an abusive, accusatory and insulting series of posts, and you continue to insult other forum members who dare challenge you..."
You have a set of House Rules which prohibit insulting and abusive posts, so you could - and arguably should - have removed the posts concerned.
But you chose to reply - in your own words - "in the same spirit".
Thus, as a host of the forum, you appear to condone essentially breaching your own house rules.
That doesn't seem a good approach.
Fri, Jun 4 2010, 5:45AM
#5
RE: The "New Look" Gramophone
As ever, I bow to your superior knowledge on the running of these forums. What would we do without you?
The House Rules, however, are there to protect other users from abuse and insults – I chose not to delete the comments in question, but rather reply to them, as they were directed at the magazine, and at the section over which I have control.
And do you really think deleting our ranting friend and his/her posts would have served any useful function? I am sure if we had, we'd be accused of censorship, the overbearing hand, typical of Haymarket's attitude to its readers, blah blah. So I chose to engage, rather than obliterate...
Now probably you wouldn't have done that on the forum you may just have mentioned once or twice that you run. But that's that forum, and this is this one...
Fri, Jun 4 2010, 6:16AM
#6
RE: The "New Look" Gramophone
As ever, I bow to your superior knowledge on the running of these forums. What would we do without you?
Do you intend to be gratuitously sarcastic to anyone who is - genuinely - only trying to be helpful?
Given the currently somewhat low level of posting on these forums, it might not be a good idea to alienate people who are actively using them quite so effectively.
The House Rules, however, are there to protect other users from abuse and insults
Just to clarify - you're saying the rules don't apply to staff?
Fri, Jun 4 2010, 7:16AM
#7
RE: The "New Look" Gramophone
Do you intend to be gratuitously sarcastic to anyone who is - genuinely - only trying to be helpful?
No, I'll be a bit more selective than that.
Giventhe currently somewhat low level of posting on these forums, it might not be a good idea to alienate people who are actively using them quite so effectively.
Again, thank you for the lesson.
Just to clarify - you're saying the rules don't apply to staff?
Just to clarify – no, I said nothing of the kind. As the host of a forum, you might find it a good idea to react to what is said, not what you choose to infer from what is said.
Fri, Jun 4 2010, 9:42AM
#8
RE: The "New Look" Gramophone
Just to clarify - you're saying the rules don't apply to staff?
Just to clarify – no, I said nothing of the kind. As the host of a forum, you might find it a good idea to react to what is said, not what you choose to infer from what is said.
I did react to what was said - which seemed at odds with the house rules.
That's why I asked you a question, so that you could clarify. Thanks for doing so.
Best rgds.
Fri, Jun 4 2010, 9:56AM
#9
RE: The "New Look" Gramophone
To reiterate, all I said was "The House Rules, however, are there to protect other users from abuse and insults".
However, thanks for a further display of forum tactics: the old 'by not adding anything you have confirmed my suspicions' gambit...
Anyway, got to be moving on – this is such fun, but I have things to do...
Fri, Jun 4 2010, 10:33AM
#10
RE: The "New Look" Gramophone
However, thanks for a further display of forum tactics: the old 'by not adding anything you have confirmed my suspicions' gambit...
Now who's inferring something that wasn't said, nor even implied?
Anyway, got to be moving on – this is such fun...
Perhaps it is for you - although it's rather worrying if you have found this exchange "fun" - but please don't assume it is for anyone else.
Best rgds.
Fri, Jun 4 2010, 10:38AM
#11
RE: The "New Look" Gramophone
Perhaps it is for you - although it's rather worrying if you have found this exchange "fun"
Oh, one tries to find delight in everything one does...
Fri, Jun 4 2010, 12:04PM
#12
RE: The "New Look" Gramophone
When Haymarket took over the Gramophone, I cant recall when exactly - probably 1999, a number of reviewers left as they felt Haymarket's policies were taking the publication down market.
Robert Layton was one of them, so was Hugh Canning (?? ). Many of them moved to form IRR (International Record Review). Some of the reviwers who initially left, now review for both publications. IRR started publishing in 2000.
Fri, Jun 4 2010, 12:09PM
#13
RE: The "New Look" Gramophone
Spider - Thanks - will cut out the emotional and knee jerk reactions and postings - its just that I feel very strongly about the current state of what was once a superb magazine. Trouble is, just when you think they cannot go lower, they amaze you - and what really got me this time was not the crumpet part, but on the front cover proclaiming Pappano as a "Proms hero" - and I'm like, excuse me, Henry Wood never got called that - nor would he have wished to. I expect this from Simon Bates on Classic FM or some Radio 3 flooze at 10 a.m. Not Gramophone.
Fri, Jun 4 2010, 12:10PM
#14
RE: The "New Look" Gramophone
Vaneyes
will glady accept 2000 lines and thanks for pulling me up - good to know there are more "Disgusted of Tonbridge Wells" about who feel strongly about this.
Fri, Jun 4 2010, 12:19PM
#15
RE: The "New Look" Gramophone
may i suggest you get your fahcts right first and not quote "hearsay"?
The truth is folks will pay hundreds of dollars and in some cases thousands for LP records - Mainardi, Navarra, De Vito, Martzy etc particularly doing solo Bach as the LP produces the right timbre, tone, wood etc of the instruments recorded.
The same recordings on CD will fetch a few dollars at best.
On the turntable front, there is far more variety and models come to the market in the last 5 years than at the peak of the LP era. T
No one will give you more than a few bucks for CDs, and remember that wonderful medium touted by Gramophone as LP equivalent or better - the cassette ?? You wont get a few pence today.
If your "knowledge" of LP and turntables is limited to hearsay about DJs, kindly not express it as an opnion.
Sorry? Arrogance? Oh, you mean we're just meant to take abuse and not react? I see...
And I'm afraid what you get up to in your woodshed is of questionable interest.
Audio Editor, Gramophone