Robert Gray:

>Kevin Sutton wrote:
>
>>I find the lack of advertising most refreshing, and I find it neither
>>striking nor sorrowful.
>
>Then you're obviously not the publisher of said magazine. IRR is not an
>inexpensive publication, despite its glorious lack of graphics.
>Production costs must be high, and substantial advertising will be
>required to keepthe magazine running.

I'm with Kevin on this.  To my inexpert eye, the change to the appearance
of Gramophone is at least unfortunate and sometimes jarring.  Apart from
this, the little headlines preceding each of the reviews add nothing and
take up space that could be more effectively used, and most irritating of
all are those virtually useless capsule reviews.  I like IRR's more spartan
layout, for whatever reason it's been designed that way, and as others have
observed, the lists of such things as new releases and websites are easy to
find.  And, of course, the reviews are longer.  However, the reviews in
Fanfare are, IMHO, even better.  I like the little anecdotes, the extra
information the reviewer wants to pass on, and so on.  I feel somewhat like
those worthy people who used to insist - and possibly still do - that they
bought Playboy to read the articles...

Just yesterday, I got a brochure from Gramophone which began, "As one of
our valued previous subscribers..." and offered me 13 issues for about 86
pounds.  Given the strong pound and the weak Australian dollar, it's not
economical because I can buy it more cheaply from my friendly CD store,
which was the main reason I let my subscription lapse last year after over
30 years.  But what interested me more was the fact that Gramophone is
touting for business.  Whether it's because of the general malaise in CM
recording, or because IRR has made some inroads into its readership, or for
some other reason, is unclear.  I might be reading something into this
unfairly, but I still wonder.

Richard Pennycuick
[log in to unmask]