The "New Look" Gramophone

POST MODERATED – House Rule 11

Hi Spiderjon, any chance you could translate the Bartok quote please?

Hello SpiderJon.

A fair point, though the moderated post should always direct you to the appropriate rule in each case. But from memory, one of the rules was discussion of the moderator's decision - which is a rule shared by other forums here, though you'll see that the house rules instead invite you to contact us directly by email if you disagree with the moderation. Otherwise, given that the moderated post is removed, having such a conversation on the forum itself would be a little one-sided for other users, and break any flow of debate. I hope that helps - and as I say, do contact us through the link in the house rules if not.

There really isn't anything I can say at this point that would escape moderation.

Well credit where credit's due ... the latest issue has an article on Boulez that is light years better in content and quality than any other recent article. Perhaps the gods at Gramophone, moderators or no moderators, may be finally listening ....

On a negative note, the declining number of reviews raises a major concern.

In the newest issue, less than 40 pages were really CD/DVD reviews. This is really poor value for the readers who buy the magazine specifically for reviews. Also poor is the comparatives - the real reason for buying an umpteenth Beethoven 5 is simply if it brings something to complement the existing collection must-haves - not simply those recorded in the last 3 years, or with the latest scholarships... of course if you lower the bar and only compare versions by Zinman, Vanska and Gardiner, you will stand comparison. Now bring in the Kleibers, Giulinis, selected Karajans, Klemperers, and suddenly the Norringtons of this world sound what they really are - passing fades and attempts by record companies to boost sales by convincing the public that all else is gas light.

Comparatives with the greatest from the past are essential reading and the magazine that claims to be the "best" must reflect the best.

I agree that the lack of reviews pages, and moreso comparative recordings is worrying. For me it´s all part of the modern cultural disease called political correctness whereby it´s not nice to criticise or say something is rubbish because somebody´s feelings may get hurt, even when not to do so is completely dishonest. I also suspect, and I hope I´m wrong in this, that there is a much closer connection between record companies and their musicians, with the critics and journalists of the music world than there was in the past. Too often I get the feeling of people patting each other on the back, almost to Oscar proportions. I often feel that journalists seem to have their hands tied, are afraid to rubbish anything, I can´t remember the last time I read something vitriolic or negative in a Gramophone editorial. Having said that, I completely understand andsympathise with the desire to recognise great work, it´s commendable, but by the law of averages if 100 CDs are recorded some of them have to be truly awful.

On the other hand I also think the people who go on about the Furtwangler´s, Kleiber´s, Karajan´s of this world are just as blinkered by the weight of tradition and accepted wisdom, as they think listeners today are by modern fades and record company hype. I´m sure there are a lot of people who are completely closed to the possibility that they could hear anything better than their sacred cows. This is highly unfair, and more importantly deeply unmusical.

A musical score is incredibly open to a range of interpretations, it´s for this reason I don´t really understand the idea of better or worse interpretations, it´s not the Olympics. Of course anyone who plays wrong notes, or speeds, or can´t hold the ensemble or musical argument together, or recording engineers who don´t get the balance right, or give a sense of depth and atmosphere, should by duly criticised.

I think a problem today is that there are just so many more recordings, and I would hazard than on average orchestras today are better than they were. The sparsity of truly excellent orchestras in the past, matched by the financial fact that seeing them was less affordable than now, made them seem magical.

I have no doubt that a lot of this is also conditioning. If we had been brought up on Beethoven played by Norrington, Harnoncourt, or Gardiner, and were told by everyone who knew more than we did, that these men were the prophets, and then were suddenly exposed to a recording by Furtwangler or Karajan we may well find it horribly lurid, bombastic, self indulgent and vulgar.

To see how I think journalists should interview musicians I would direct anyone interested to a clip recommended by Philip Clark on this forum of Hans Keller interviewing Roger Waters and Syd Barrett in 1967. Three intelligent and musical men talking to each other in a spirit of frankness, openness, desire to understand and express their views, mutual respect with not a moment´s thought as to whether somebody´s feelings may get hurt, or a question might be a bit awkward. Marvellous stuff.

If what you say is true, I think it´s absolutely despicable, unless of course Signore Abbado wanted it so, which I can´t imagine knowing the calibre of the man. This kind of infantile marketing idiocy, like the way, I can´t remember who, airbrushed out a cigarette from a picture of Maurizio Pollini, I find highly patronising. We are adults who live wth life´s harsh realities everyday of our lives, any attempts to portray things other than as they really are is as I said idiotic, imfantile and despicable.