Post by akiralx August 1, 2008 (21 of 56)
|
|
andrewb said:
As for Rattle it is only to be expected that he will be publicised by Gramophone because they hope to sell more magazine copies in the UK by such publicity, Gramophone is a commercial venture and will endeavour to publish what it thinks will sell well. Sadly, since the take over by Haymarket Magazines it has moved towards the popular end of the marketplace with a concomitant decline in quality.
But I am sure that every review is the independent opinion of each reviewer, not a magazine conspiracy to promote a particular point of view. Certainly not all reviews of Rattle's discs in Gramophone are positive, even though his recordings and activities may get more than average publicity in other parts of the magazine as they try to sell more copies.
The strange thing is Rattle's CDs seem to be discounted here in the UK almost as soon as they are released, certainly in bricks-&-mortar stores like HMV.
I rarely buy them though I did think his Haydn symphonies twofer was very good. But the Schubert 9 was mediocre. Years ago he did a great recording of Berg's Lulu Suite in Birmingham.
|
|
|
Post by andrewb August 1, 2008 (22 of 56)
|
|
Peter said:
Andrew, do you not think G has improved in the last year since its overhaul?
In my view it has not deteriorated any further in the last year or so, but I would not say there has been any improvement. I find all these "Soundbites" items such as the columns by Iannucci, Kennicot, the diary item of an artist, the so called Gramophone debate to be tedious and worthless. There is far too little emphasis on the reviews, they are now very short and I feel the quality of the reviews is not what it was say 10 years ago.
International Record Review (IRR) is my preferred magazine, it is more like Gramophone use to be. I sometimes think of cancelling my Gramophone subscription but as it is only about £10 a quarter it hardly seems worth it. Generally it is best to have as many different views on a disc as possible, and it is amazing how contradictory reviews can be.
I use to rely on Gramophone reviews a lot: no longer. Nowadays I find my own knowledge of artists and record labels coupled with Radio 3 programs such as CD Review or In Tune to be a much better guide.
|
|
|
Post by akiralx August 1, 2008 (23 of 56)
|
|
andrewb said:
In my view it has not deteriorated any further in the last year or so, but I would not say there has been any improvement. I find all these "Soundbites" items such as the columns by Iannucci, Kennicot, the diary item of an artist, the so called Gramophone debate to be tedious and worthless. There is far too little emphasis on the reviews, they are now very short and I feel the quality of the reviews is not what it was say 10 years ago.
International Record Review (IRR) is my preferred magazine, it is more like Gramophone use to be.
I agree, I cancelled Gramophone years ago, mainly owing to the mindless drivel from Bryce Morrison in his piano reviews.
IRR is much better, with many more reviews. But at the end of the day it's possible to acquire just as many valid opinions online for free.
|
|
|
Post by andrewb August 1, 2008 (24 of 56)
|
|
akiralx said:
The strange thing is Rattle's CDs seem to be discounted here in the UK almost as soon as they are released, certainly in bricks-&-mortar stores like HMV.
I suspect that Rattle's discs are discounted because EMI are able to rely on massive sales and so can press a very large number of copies of one disc, so making discounting much easier.
As for myself I have few Rattle discs, I thought his Sibelius good and I have enjoyed several of his Mahler recordings but I have not been inclined to purchase any of his other discs. I have been disappointed with Rattle's tenure at the BPO, very little of real quality seems to have come from it. The world ascendancy that the BPO once enjoyed over all or most other orchestras now seems to have been lost and they are just one very fine orchestra among many others.
|
|
|
Post by Peter August 1, 2008 (25 of 56)
|
|
andrewb said:
In my view it has not deteriorated any further in the last year or so, but I would not say there has been any improvement. I find all these "Soundbites" items such as the columns by Iannucci, Kennicot, the diary item of an artist, the so called Gramophone debate to be tedious and worthless. There is far too little emphasis on the reviews, they are now very short and I feel the quality of the reviews is not what it was say 10 years ago.
International Record Review (IRR) is my preferred magazine, it is more like Gramophone use to be. I sometimes think of cancelling my Gramophone subscription but as it is only about £10 a quarter it hardly seems worth it. Generally it is best to have as many different views on a disc as possible, and it is amazing how contradictory reviews can be.
I use to rely on Gramophone reviews a lot: no longer. Nowadays I find my own knowledge of artists and record labels coupled with Radio 3 programs such as CD Review or In Tune to be a much better guide.
I agree with everything you say; I've noticed an improvement in G, though I've stopped reading the Soundbites. The reviews seem better - perhaps it's wishful thinking on my part - and I wouldn't like to miss Rob Cowan's column.
Like you, I find AMcG on R3 very informative and fair (even when I disagree slightly!) and has that knack of being to say a great deal using few words. However, my preferred reading is CRC which has nothing to do with SACD, and a similar journal on modern recordings would be my ideal.
Peter
PS The Tchaik/Eschenbach has been received very well in general - Edward Seckerson no doubt called it as he saw it. I don't think that's bias against a US orchestra. There's plenty of chit-chat on the web, as I'm aware some of you here know, about Eschenbach's time in Philadelphia.
PPS I did read the other day a posting which referred to issues from orchestras as being on vanity labels. I thought these recordings are issued to generate funds, presitge and advertising.
|
|
|
Post by Peter August 1, 2008 (26 of 56)
|
|
seth said:
Gramophone's bias is best seen whenever they put together lists of greatest recordings. Recordings by American ensembles and soloists are always conspicuously absent. On their list of 100 greatest recordings, I think there are only 5 recordings with American orchestras. I don't recall their being anything by Cleveland, New York, Boston or Philadelphia.
As for the recording in question, I attended one of the concerts that this recording was cured from. I thought it was pretty boring, by the recording is much more engaging. Certainly the playing is objectively excellent.
Interesting in both points. I've attended some concerts and then heard the broadcast and got two different impressions, too.
The G's list - are you referring to the little booklet which came with G? Again, apologies for not discussing SACD.
Peter
|
|
|
Post by andrewb August 1, 2008 (27 of 56)
|
|
seth said:
Gramophone's bias is best seen whenever they put together lists of greatest recordings. Recordings by American ensembles and soloists are always conspicuously absent. On their list of 100 greatest recordings, I think there are only 5 recordings with American orchestras. I don't recall their being anything by Cleveland, New York, Boston or Philadelphia.
I assume this list is the one given in the 1000th Issue of Gramophone, a very personal choice made by the then editor, James Jolly.
My count found 7 US orchestras out of 77 orchestral discs (including opera and baroque). 2 Chicago, 2 NBC, 1 Boston, 1 Cleveland, 1 Columbia SO. A reasonable representation I would have thought.
A very large number of the recordings chosen are of German/Austrian orchestras, around 26 of these. Mainly BPO and VPO of course. Also, as to be expected, there are a lot of German/Austrian conductors, Karajan, Klemperer, Kleiber, Bohm, Furtwangler.
If anything I would say this is a case of pro-bias towards Germany and Austria by Gramophone. In reality, it just reflects that many of the great recordings have come from these conductors and orchestras.
A google search for 'gramophone 100 best' will bring up the list on amazon.com, it was placed there by someone based in Colorado.
|
|
|
Post by Peter August 2, 2008 (28 of 56)
|
|
Yes, that's the list I imagined to be under discussion, and I agree with all the points you make.
BTW, I am not British born and have no axe to grind. Don't US readers get their own version of Gramophone?
Peter
|
|
|
Post by seth August 4, 2008 (29 of 56)
|
|
andrewb said:
In reality, it just reflects that many of the great recordings have come from these conductors and orchestras.
That's precisely the narrow view I'm accusing Gramophone of having.
|
|
|
Post by Peter August 4, 2008 (30 of 56)
|
|
seth said:
That's precisely the narrow view I'm accusing Gramophone of having.
Well, it was a personal choice. All of our 100 best would be largely different.
I'm really much more interested in your finding the recording here much more satisfactory than the concert you attended. Why do you think that is?
Peter
|
|
