Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Thu, 30 Dec 1999 12:13:13 +0100 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
John wrote om Gramophone:
>However, I'm not particularly thrilled by the new format: it looks like
>a web page. I also don't like the bold-print blurbs before each review--I
>don't need to know that "Beethoven's 7th is his bestest symphony after the
>5th," (an exaggeration, of course, but close), in order to be compelled to
>read on. That's what the other mags are for. The space would be far more
>useful to me if it contained comments on whose cat-gut string audibly
>popped in the latest HIP performance of VW's 5th Symphony.:)
I certanily agree. I've been an avid reader of Gramophone for a couple
of years and I feel like this new format is a bit like Gramophone is going
tabloid. Perhaps it's the new owner Haymarket who seems to know a lot
about finance but less about loving music (I'm thinking of the handling
of IPQ.)
I friend of mine gave me his complete collection of American Record Guide
and Fanfare (from 1993-1999) and I find myself liking the two magazine more
and more. They are not so constrained, freer and more consumer friendly,
not so much tied to old tradition (The average age of the Gramophone
reviewers must soon lead to many vacancies!). And Don Vroon is always
annoying and stimulating to read. The amount of CD reviewed must be bigger
espically in Fanfare. So I 'm seriously considering to start subscribing
to Fanfare or ArG instead of Gramophone
Patrik Enander
Goteborg, Sweden
http://w1.311.telia.com/~u31105335/
|
|
|