The "New Look" Gramophone

Noorjirav, you're either a wind-up artist or you've got some serious psychological issues. Everything you say is a fact, everything anybody else says is an opinion, yet you offer no support for your views. This is my first, and last engagement with you because frankly, you're not worth it and I'm sure other forum members are as tired of your drivelling as I am. What could have been an interesting topic has become a platform for your rather disturbing rants.

Andrew, I have to agree with Spider Jon. These cyber warriors are an unfortunate fact of life on the internet. People who would never take on a face to face debate for fear of having to retrieve pieces of their dentures off the floor, will run riot from the safety of a keyboard and not having any kind of life, have all the time in the world to do so. It's absolutely your call, but if you let this forum to sink to the level of a primary school playground there'll be nobody in it but kids. I'm not lecturing you, man, I've just seen it happen on so many forums.

In the hope that we can get this thread back on track, I'd like to return to a point addressed, pro and con, by dubrob and av106: is there too much sex in the marketing of classical music today and has the new Gramophone fallen prey?

We all know sex sells, and has for centuries. It isn't new in classical music - I have a 1972 vinyl of the Previn/Walton Belshazzar's Feast whose cover would get your heart started - and it isn't new in the Gramophone. Too bad I had to junk all my old Gramophones for lack of space. I recall an ad., in the '80s I think, that included a particularly memorable photo of Carol Vaness. Has it gone overboard? I wouldn't say so. There's far risque-er (is there such a word?) stuff on the opera stage and that isn't new either. The Flower Maidens in the 1962 Bayreuth Parsifal were a pretty immodest bunch even by today's standards.

But really, are us grown men taken in by all this? I hope not. Netrebko may look great in her recent Boheme dvd, surgical enhancements and all, but that doesn't blind me to the serious shortcomings of the performance. On the other hand Ciofi can look anything but attractive when she sings but what a voice, what an actress!

No, there's nothing wrong with pics of attractive women as far as I'm concerned. Even so I'm with dubrob when it comes to photos of the artist on cd covers. They aren't my preference and regardless of the physical attributes of the performer, it's the performance I'm buying. Honestly!

Point One is ongoing, as previously reported.

Point Two. Nothing would please me more than to charge these dullards for my sales and marketing expertise. No freebies.

Point Three. I thought we were friends! LOL

I hope you didn't think I was writing off Bennedetti or any other classical musician for that matter. If you did, my post has sadly missed its mark. The points I was trying to make were:

1. "Sex sells" is an axiom in the advertising business. Marketers apply it to classical music in the same way as any product or service they're selling. And have done for eons. It is not a new phenomenon in the Gramophone or anywhere else.

2. I believe we, the classical music buying public, male or female, are mature enough to distinguish between form and content. After we've agreed that so-and-so looks nice, our focus turns to his or her performance and that's the way we choose who we like and who we don't.

So I believe that it's rather pointless to get upset over photos of attractive-looking musicians. If they look good and they want to promote themselves, surely they're going to project themselves to their best, not worst, advantage. But in the end its their talent that's going to make or break them.

Having said all that, I don't think there is any doubt that in the world of opera there is increasing emphasis on a singing artist's appearance and ability to act. As my wife says, and I can't disagree, it's too bad that emphasis is being applied mainly to the ladies at this point.

Only a lunatic could criticise anyone for being born physically attractive and or musically talented. The problem, and the worry I have, is in the presentation of these artists, when the former supersedes the latter. This is to the detriment of classical music in general and more importantly to the artists in question in particular.

How much time is spent in make up and doing photo shoots that could be spent in study, practice, rehearsal and recording? There's nothing new in this, as Tagalie rightly says, I just feel that it has increased lately. Maybe the women we are talking about are perfectly and maturely accepting of this, but I wonder. It must be infuriating to be having to constantly prove that your talent is equal and superior to your public image, or to be answering questions about your dress rather than your recording plans, especially when your male counterparts don't have to do the same. 

We all know sex sells, but does it really sell classical music? I can't believe that anyone would buy a CD of Bach Violin Concertos just because Julia Fischer is a stunningly beautiful young lady. No doubt the people in marketing who know a lot more about these things than I do would strongly disagree. A DVD with its obvious visual element I am more inclined to believe. 

All I would say is that people in the forefront of the presentation of classical music such as Gramophone have to be careful in this balancing act, and always let their ears be the boss of their eyes, and bear in mind what Compton MacKenzie would make of it all. 

Thanks for the quotes Spiderjon, very funny. By the way are you familiar with what Zappa said about rock journalism?