The "New Look" Gramophone

Objectives of a magazine like Gramophone can be purely commercial, as I suspect has been the case since Haymarket took it over (in, what was it.. 1998??), or an artistic/hobbyist magazine as I think Compton Mackenzie intended at conception. It was not surprising that IRR was started up soon after Haymarket took over Gramophone, and not only keep a very high standard with detailed intellectual reviews and more than 80% of the magazine set to reviews, but survives on a lot less advertising. Thus I think IRR is quite content to make ends meet and be a service to art.

The Editor keeps mentioning the number of pages and length of reviews being fronzen - I thought this was one thing editors would have freedom on? Who decides this then?

As to conciseness and quality of reviews, I do not think there is a connection. One can have a very concise bland review using terms such as "fresh approach", "bright", "picture with varnish removed", as many of the reviewers mentioned in the above disscussions tend to do, or actually say something that casts new insight and analysis - after all, if I wanted the bright and fresh approach to critcism, I would buy Classic FM magazine or the Penguin Guide.

A contributor mentioned how loyal Gramophone readers are, me being one of them. However in the last few years I have every year wondered whether I should renew my subscription, and have always done so, but the reflection time gets longer and longer, and to be quite honest, I trust IRR's and the Classic Record Collector's opnion a lot more now.

There was a time if Deryck Cooke or even Richard Osborne said buy, I would. Now unfortunately even Richard Osborne's reviews are not what they used to be.