I hesitated to weigh in on this thread because of my ambivalent feelings
about IRR.  While I certainly agree that their articles and reviews are
superb, I wonder if they are correct in positioning the magazine as what
Gramophone used to be.  Surely there must be another way of creating an
identity and look (though I have no suggestions as to what that might be)
and ensuring the magazine's usefulness.

Following up on Don's observation, I wonder if the striking and sorrowful
lack of advertising in IRR isn't a reflection of similar concern on the
part of record labels.

Personally I wish they included images of the CD covers, and find the
layout monotonous (perhaps due to the absence of advertising) and hard to
consult, since limiting the use of type faces and sizes makes it harder to
quickly identify the information I'm looking for.  (Yes, I read most record
magazines cover to cover, but I tend to skim through an issue first,
eagerly seeking out new treasures.)

Finally, I have been spoiled by the CD excerpts that are now an integral
part of Gramophone (and Diapason in France), and which regularly allow me
to discover music I might otherwise have overlooked.

Of course, these improvements (and the addition of a website) require
sizeable investments that are likely beyond the reach of a fledgling
publication.

Again, I'm sorry to voice these reservations, given how grateful I am to
the magazine, and that I wishes it every success.

Robert Gray
Kinograph, Montreal