# Anyone else subscribe to Gramophone magazine



## gellio (Nov 7, 2013)

I love reading reviews of recordings and for years I'd get annoyed at Gramophone for blocking me for a few days after I read a few reviews. I'd also say, "I'm not paying." I finally gave in and am kicking myself for waiting so long. It is just THE BEST. Just wondering if there are any other fans out there.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I had a subscription to the actual magazine in the 90s, before I had internet. It was a great way to expand my CD collection and my classical music horizon in general. When I moved to Singapore in 1999, I cancelled the subscription and for some reason never bothered to renew.


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

I bought the magazine from a newsstand every month in the 80s.

In the 90s I was a subscriber.

In the new century I stopped subscribing, and read news/ads and sample recordings on the internet.

In the old days, the greatest thing about Gramophone for me was the ads and the list of "new releases" at the back of the magazine. (Remember, there was no internet.) The reviews? Nice. Just another opinion, among the waves of reviews from newspapers, radios and other magazines.

Nowadays, news/ads are better served on the internet. Reviews as well. And as sampling on the internet has become possible, my reliance on professional reviews has diminished significantly. That's why I haven't been tempted to subscribe to their digital version.

For anyone who values Gramophone's reviews, a digital subscription that grants access to their whole review database should be worth the money thoguh.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I used to be an avid reader and collector of the Gramophone but it got quite expensive and also there were only a very few reviews I was really interested in. There are comparatively few releases these days so the relevance is not there as it used to be. Unfortunately an internet subscription is really expensive too


----------



## D Smith (Sep 13, 2014)

Like others I subscribed to the print edition in the 90s (along with BBC Magazine). Then bought it frequently on the newstand in the aughts, when I could find it. The current digital subscription is too high priced for me now, though I'm sure I would enjoy it and make use of it.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I bought it every month from (I think) 2005 to 2012, when I was especially interested in expanding my collection through new releases. The cover disc was always nice to have, but of course Spotify et al have taken over that function. I've changed my buying habits now, so reviews aren't of much importance, and I don't ever bother with it anymore.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

My subscription ended a few months ago. I haven't renewed and can report that I'm doing fine without the mag.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I thought Gramophone was special in the last century and subscribed. It was about the only outlet that gave readers a chance to vote on their idea of the greatest recordings of the 20th century. I don't think it aged well in the new century and I thought the content became less than the high price of the magazine was worth. I subscribed to BBC Music afterward; they give you a free CD every issue that makes it worth a little more but neither magazine holds much sway any longer.

Today I buy American Record Guide and Fanfare because they have hundreds of reviews each issue, far more than any other magazine. I haven't read reviews as a guide to buying music in years; I just like to know what's going on in the industry. These magazines are cheap compared to what Gramophone and BBC Music costs and Fanfare has a searchable online database of all its reviews going back to 1989 for subscribers. You can also subscribe to both digitally but ARG only offers a PDF and no backlot reviews.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I do. And BBC Music and American Record Guide and Fanfare. Not that I need them all, I really don't. But it's important to me to support every facet of the classical world I can. Have you ever seen a copy of Musical American from the 1950's? They were amazing. Monthly, several hundred large pages. Interviews, concert reviews, record reviews and ads that are fascinating promoting music, conductors, pianists, violinists and other performers. The magazines today are a sorry shadow of what prior generations had. So yes, I support them. And Classics Today...


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Other topics about the same subject.

https://www.talkclassical.com/62048-gramophone-magazine.html?highlight=Gramophone+magazine

https://www.talkclassical.com/4503-...ive-1923-a.html?highlight=Gramophone+magazine

https://www.talkclassical.com/31673-new-look-gramophone.html?highlight=Gramophone+magazine


----------



## Helgi (Dec 27, 2019)

I've bought individual issues and borrowed some from the library, and I really enjoy them — spend a lot of time with each issue.

I'm tempted to get a subscription with access to the digital archive, although I much prefer reading magazines on paper. Might try it out if only to see how much better it was in the old days as people keep saying.


----------



## mrdoc (Jan 3, 2020)

I was a subscriber for years and reading the reviews helped me to build my collection also subscribed to BBC classical music Mag I have shoe boxes full of the CDs that came with the Mags, it does help to get the best available recording of a particular work also does anyone remember the "Melody Maker" an English music paper, a weekly if I remember correctly, it covered classical and jazz in the late 50s - early 60s.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

From about the mid 1970s to the end of the last century I used to buy it every month. I would read all the reviews, even those of music I wouldn't normally have been interested in. Quite often a review would make me try something new and in that way it was also an educational tool. In those days major releases, especially opera, would get a very long review and sometimes even two from different reviewers. Gradually it started to "respond to market forces". Reviews were shorter, it started to look more flashy and I think it lost its way. 

I do however subsribe to its reviews database. It's not that reliable though. I often search for reviews I know they did in the past, but their search facility doesn't find them.


----------



## Joachim Raff (Jan 31, 2020)

Not a fan of Gramophones Reviews, but they do some excellent articles on composers, conductors and historical music. Do not buy Gramophone purely for reviews, its totally biased and a marketing way of influencing folk's listening. I always say just listen yourself to recordings and decide yourself. Forums like this one are excellent, as ordinary folk give their opinions and not the so called professional experts who may have financial incentives to promote music.


----------



## Hermastersvoice (Oct 15, 2018)

There’s also Diapason which is/was the French equivalent of Gramophone. Gramophone had Alan Blyth, Diapason Alain Tubeuf. Those critics were real critics, there was no hatred or Karajan-bashing, only illuminating, learned pieces on the records, their performers and how well or badly they fared compared to other versions. I stopped subscribing to Gramophone after I read yet another tirade by a chap called Peter Quantrill (I think). It was about as unhelpful as reviews by those sad old men you find on Amazon.


----------



## Helgi (Dec 27, 2019)

I now have a digital subscription and it's like the mother of all grandfather's attics.

The reading experience is pretty decent, as good as you could hope for I suppose. Main difference for me is that with the paper magazine I'm more likely to take it easy and read an issue from cover to cover, but reading on a computer I'm more easily distracted. Thinking maybe an iPad would be a good compromise.


----------



## wkasimer (Jun 5, 2017)

DavidA said:


> There are comparatively few releases these days so the relevance is not there as it used to be.


While I agree that Gramophone is no longer particularly relevant, I doubt that there are fewer new releases now than there were twenty years ago. It's just that fewer of them seem to be on so-called "major" labels. Gramophone is no longer relevant because they can no longer review even a fraction of them.

And they've never been particularly relevant for me - Gramophone reviews have always been rather superficial and excessively brief, with insufficient comparison with previous recordings. I was a subscriber for a few years back in the 90's, and found that more and more, I was reading only the occasional article discussing the discography of a particular work, and the list of new releases at the back of the magazine. I can find the former online, and rely on Presto (and the New Releases subject here) for the latter.

I do have an electronic subscription to Fanfare. Their reviews are considerably more detailed, and access to the magazine's archives is very helpful.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

gellio said:


> Anyone else subscribe to Gramophone magazine .


yes, of course, who doesn't.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Back in the '70s and '80s I used to read it every moth, along with High Fidelity and Stereo Review. I enjoyed it but did find it parochial (favoring British performers) but especially enjoyed the frequent letters to the editors complaining about the lack of respect accorded Havergal Brian -- which could have been gathered into a regular section!


----------



## Olias (Nov 18, 2010)

I prefer BBC Music Magazine, and since I often look at a computer screen all day, I actually get the hard copy and read it.  Then my wife's kindergarten students can cut up the pictures for art projects.


----------



## Helgi (Dec 27, 2019)

Well, the April issue just arrived and I'm excited to read it. Local-boy-made-good on the cover and everything!

Might be that I'm just naive about these things but I enjoy reading the features, interviews and *gasp* even the reviews. Just can't see why Gramophone is not relevant anymore — and what that even means. As far as any printed publication is relevant anymore.

Ask me in twenty years and I might be as jaded as some of you, but I hope not!

I also enjoy BBC Music magazine, btw.


----------



## THOMASA3 (Jun 26, 2021)

*Superb Magazine*



gellio said:


> I love reading reviews of recordings and for years I'd get annoyed at Gramophone for blocking me for a few days after I read a few reviews. I'd also say, "I'm not paying." I finally gave in and am kicking myself for waiting so long. It is just THE BEST. Just wondering if there are any other fans out there.


I have been a lifelong subscriber to this magazine, first in print and now in digital form. Yes, it is expensive, but the reviewers are outstanding musicians/musicologists, and they do not work for nothing. In this world you have to pay for the best, and they are the best.


----------



## Radames (Feb 27, 2013)

I used to read the copy in the book store without buying it. Fanfare also.


----------



## David Phillips (Jun 26, 2017)

I like reading the online archive of mags that go back to 1923. The first recording of Rhapsody in Blue got a very sniffy review which said the music wouldn't last. If you go back just 20 years The Gramophone is very different from today's issues: more jazzy, newsy, informative and lively.


----------



## Radames (Feb 27, 2013)

David Phillips said:


> I like reading the online archive of mags that go back to 1923. The first recording of Rhapsody in Blue got a very sniffy review which said the music wouldn't last. If you go back just 20 years The Gramophone is very different from today's issues: more jazzy, newsy, informative and lively.


I remember reading an old review in something - I think it was American Record Guide - and it criticized a new recording for being in a new totally unnatural stereophonic process. Just a passing fad.


----------

