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 keep
the magazine running.

>This is a typical modern reaction.  If we can't see it in pictures, then
>it must not be valuable.  If it is not in glitzy typefaces with fancy
>graphics, then it isn't interesting.  This is typical laziness on the part
>of a spoon fed society.  Gaining knowledge takes some effort, and in the
>case of IRR, the effort has a just reward!

Kevin, what allows you to jump to such a conclusion? Were medieval
illuminators guilty of that "modern reaction"? Shall LP collectors toss
out their gorgeous Blue Note album covers, and place their records in plain
cardboard wrappers? What is your moral objection to the aesthetic enjoyment
of an image (or to making my life flipping through store racks easier)? If
effort is the criterion by which knowledge is to be judged, then why not
dispense with listings of catalogue number and record labels, and make us
search for that information? Hell, if you like, have your issues sent to my
place and I'll black out all references to composer, opus, and musicians.
The effort required to make sense of the review will doubtless ensure that
you'll really learn a lot!

>We in the US don't get the cover cd on Gramophone.

You in the US can subscribe to receive the monthly CD. (Or is having the
magazine delivered to one's home or office a sign of moral degeneracy?)

Robert Gray <[log in to unmask]>