# Best Music Magazine -- BBC, Gramophone or Classical FM?



## GrosseFugue

Well, I'm thinking to subscribe to a music mag. 
But wondering which one? Which do TC-ers like?

I know Gramophone's been around the longest.
BBC Music seems to be its hipper, younger cousin.
Classical FM seems the least flashiest maybe?

I like that BBC Music (and Classical FM) come with free CD's. 
But I don't like how BBC devotes space to Jazz and some of
its articles seem a little flimsy. It's a cool layout, but seems
like some meat is missing. It's got like a People Magazine vibe
to it.

Is there anything like the New Yorker of Classical Music? Like full
of in-depth articles and no fluff? Or am I asking for too much?


----------



## Polednice

If BBC Music Magazine is like People Magazine, then Classic FM is the Sun newspaper. Seriously, don't touch it - it's as bad as the radio station; a load of crap. I haven't read Gramophone, but I think the BBC one is all right. To be honest, I only bought it for the extensive reviews section.


----------



## Delicious Manager

_Classic fM_ magazine is discontinuing (thank goodness - it, like the radio station, is lowest-common-denominator rubbish!), so that is removed from the equation. _The Gramophone_ is the granddaddy of recorded music review magazines and is a lot less 'stuffy' than it used to be and sometimes seems more 'informed' in its reviews. I get both publications, although I could probably live with only one as _Gramophone_ and _BBC Music Magazine_ often seem to duplicate their artist features (WHY?). I suppose, if pushed, I'd choose _BBC Music Magazine_. I find it a more 'friendly' read and is more broadly based (eg its jazz, 'world' music and DVD/book features. And the cover CD occasionally reveals a real gem, either by way of an unjustly neglected work or a superb old recording from the vast BBC archives.


----------



## tgtr0660

BBC Music is the way to go. They give you some decent articles and good reviews with good emphasis on composers. Grammophone sometimes is too "star-oriented" for me, and I dislike their review system (I like ratings, what can I say). ClassicFM leaves a lot to be desired though they has the occasional good issue. BBC is all around the best.


----------



## Vesteralen

I subscribe to BBC Music Magazine. I look for Gramophone at the book stores I frequent, but only buy it when it contains articles that peak my interest. I agree that the review methods of Gramophone can be a bit frustrating, but then ALL reviews - including those in BBC - have to be taken with several large tablespoonsful of salt.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

I've read _Gramophone _continuously since 1971 and I am sad that it has gone downhill in the past ten or more years, to the point where I am seriously considering discontinuing my subscription.

For me, the best CD review magazines are_ International Record Review_ and _Fanfare_. _IRR _is UK based, _Fanfare _US based. I must declare an interest: I write for _Fanfare_. Both magazines are heavy on content and avoid extraneous illustration, _Fanfare _particularly so. It is in paperback book format and recent editions have topped 600 pages. Although reviewers are given a notional limit of 600 words per review, this doesn't seem to be adhered to when the writer has something to say.

_IRR _is in a more conventional magazine format and seems to be what _Gramophone _used to aspire to. Reviews are longer than in _Gramophone _and the BBC magazine, and often more thoughtful and intelligent. That is not to disparage all the _Gramophone _reviewers, of all course (only some of them).


----------



## Rangstrom

I also find Fanfare very useful (unless you like Brahms, in which case you are stuck with too much Dubins). I just wish more of the older reviews were included in the website archives.

I gave up on Gramophone a few years back, but that was more of a customer service issue and I liked the BBC mag more for the cds than the reviews. I haven't tried International Record Review, yet.

Over the years I used to get Records and Recordings, American Record Guide, Stereo Review and High-Fidelity. Before the internet it was the best way to learn about what recordings were available.


----------



## GrosseFugue

Jeremy Marchant said:


> For me, the best CD review magazines are_ International Record Review_ and _Fanfare_. _IRR _is UK based, _Fanfare _US based. I must declare an interest: I write for _Fanfare_. Both magazines are heavy on content and avoid extraneous illustration, _Fanfare _particularly so. It is in paperback book format and recent editions have topped 600 pages. Although reviewers are given a notional limit of 600 words per review, this doesn't seem to be adhered to when the writer has something to say.
> 
> _IRR _is in a more conventional magazine format and seems to be what _Gramophone _used to aspire to. Reviews are longer than in _Gramophone _and the BBC magazine, and often more thoughtful and intelligent. That is not to disparage all the _Gramophone _reviewers, of all course (only some of them).


Jeremy, thanks so much for that! Yes, indeed, IRR and Fanfare seem much more like the New Yorker of music mags.  I've seen them occasionally at the newsstand, but always assumed they were mainly for vinyl lovers. . But that doesn't seem to be the case.

I saw on IRR's website they give out free sample issues, so I'll definitely take advantage of that!

BTW, is Fanfare composed entirely of reviews? Or do they also have articles and interviews, etc?

PS -- Look forward to reading your articles in Fanfare. :tiphat:


----------



## Guest

I would like_ IRR_ more if it de-emphasized reissues and vocal music. I do like that the reviews are well written and that the magazine doesn't pander to the lowest common denominator. It's a bit pricey, too. For all that, I might renew my subscription! I also subscribe to _Gramophone, American Record Guide_, and _Fanfare_. I lament Gramophone's descent into mediocrity, but it's still a good source for new releases. The two US magazines are OK--I like reading the concert reviews in _ARG_ (as well as the CD reviews), and _Fanfare_ often has interesting interviews with musicians, producers, engineers, etc. So, each brings something unique to the table.


----------



## Conor71

Out of those 3 magazines I like Gramophone the best though the BBC magazine is quite good too - I dont really buy many music magazines nowadays and prefer to get my information from Amazon, GMG and TC all of whom have good Classical Music forums!.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

GrosseFugue said:


> BTW, is Fanfare composed entirely of reviews? Or do they also have articles and interviews, etc?


The Jan/Feb 2012 iasue is 608 pages of which approx 200 pages are articles and interviews. These are mostly interviews but are very varied. My speciality in the magazine is contemporary music so I get to interview composers as well as performers.

There's absolutely no bias in favour of vinyl in either _Fanfare _or _IRR_.


----------



## MechPebbles

*Fanfare - Pros & Cons*

I used to subscribe to Fanfare and I think it's the best magazine you can possibly get if it's reviews of recordings you want. I was introduced to lots of obscure record labels and newly formed ensembles through the magazine. But there's something about Fanfare I just can't stand - some of the (senior) contributors are extremely allergic to historically informed performances. Since HIP recordings are all I buy and listen to, I was quite relieved when my subscription came to an end.

Strangely, though, since then I've been itching to get back to subscribing - the allure of listening to never-previously heard-of bands is a bit much to resist. But it's possible to get an online subscription, and better still, there's even a one month online subscription. I can plan it carefully - subscribe for one month, take my accumulated leave from work, cram in all the reviews, avoid all the barbed remarks from the jaundiced reviewers about the use of period instruments, list down all the new HIP bands and then go on a shopping spree!


----------



## mariuscmorar

Jeremy Marchant said:


> I've read _Gramophone _continuously since 1971 and I am sad that it has gone downhill in the past ten or more years, to the point where I am seriously considering discontinuing my subscription.
> 
> Hi Jeremy,
> 
> What do you mean when you say Gramophone has gone downhill? I'm asking since you have the 4 decades experience. Do you refer to the articles getting shorter? poorer quality? the tendency of the magazine to focus on stars? How has the magazine changed over the years that you think makes it now worse.
> 
> I've been subscribing to Gramophone for almost a year now. I'm buying about 5 records every month and I'm looking for the best releases. I don't have the time to read 600 reviews to find the 5 to buy so I relly on the judgement of critics. At the end of the day that's why we have critics.
> 
> If you would recomend a magazine that would scout the record world and pick the very few best, what would it be? I also like articles on composers and intreview with musicians that gives additional insight into the music.
> 
> Thanks,
> Marius


----------



## Centropolis

I am reviving this thread from 2012 to ask a couple of related questions. Didn't think I need to start a new thread.

I am looking to start a digital subscription of either BBC Music or Gramophone. I live in Canada so regular real-paper subscription will be too much money.

A lot of the stuff on the internet compares these two magazines in terms of the quantity and quality of album and CD reviews. My main reason for reading these magazines is to learn about different composers and performers/conductors etc. I enjoy reading articles on specific composer's works....learn about them. The reviews are secondary for me.

In that case, would BBC Music or Gramophone be a better bet for me?


----------



## Vaneyes

Centropolis said:


> I am reviving this thread from 2012 to ask a couple of related questions. Didn't think I need to start a new thread.
> 
> I am looking to start a digital subscription of either BBC Music or Gramophone. I live in Canada so regular real-paper subscription will be too much money.
> 
> A lot of the stuff on the internet compares these two magazines in terms of the quantity and quality of album and CD reviews. My main reason for reading these magazines is to learn about different composers and performers/conductors etc. I enjoy reading articles on specific composer's works....learn about them. The reviews are secondary for me.
> 
> In that case, would BBC Music or Gramophone be a better bet for me?


Out of curiosity, I just looked at both websites. BBC Music Magazine doesn't offer a digital subscription service, so that leaves you one option, Gramophone...which I think (peruse yourself, to confirm) at 50 GBP provides you the digital magazine and archives. Further reductions for 2 and 3 year subscriptions. :tiphat:


----------



## Centropolis

Vaneyes said:


> Out of curiosity, I just looked at both websites. BBC Music Magazine doesn't offer a digital subscription service, so that leaves you one option, Gramophone...which I think (peruse yourself, to confirm) at 50 GBP provides you the digital magazine and archives. Further reductions for 2 and 3 year subscriptions. :tiphat:


I am using strictly Zinio.com for this and they have BBC Music. Both magazine costs the same. Any suggestions on which one though for articles and knowledge learning rather than reviews?


----------



## Vaneyes

Centropolis said:


> I am using strictly Zinio.com for this and they have BBC Music. Both magazine costs the same. Any suggestions on which one though for articles and knowledge learning rather than reviews?


With 90 years of archives, I'd say Gramophone. But, BBC Music Magazine now outsells Gramophone, so that might say they are doing a better job with current. Your choice. :tiphat:


----------



## Bulldog

From top to bottom:

Fanfare - Excellent reviews and articles. The only thing I don't care for are the "feature" reviews/interviews where only positive reviews are allowed.

ARG - Just as fine as Fanfare except for rather hostile attitude concerning HIP; that's based on the Editor's obsession against it.

IRR - Basic but very good.

Gramophone - Reviews are getting shorter and more superficial. Also, many of the reviews don't really have a strong opinion.

BBC - Even shorter reviews than Gramophone.

Overall, I find each of the above to be worthy of my money.


----------



## GioCar

Centropolis said:


> I am reviving this thread from 2012 to ask a couple of related questions. Didn't think I need to start a new thread.
> 
> I am looking to start a digital subscription of either BBC Music or Gramophone. I live in Canada so regular real-paper subscription will be too much money.
> 
> A lot of the stuff on the internet compares these two magazines in terms of the quantity and quality of album and CD reviews. My main reason for reading these magazines is to learn about different composers and performers/conductors etc. I enjoy reading articles on specific composer's works....learn about them. The reviews are secondary for me.
> 
> In that case, would BBC Music or Gramophone be a better bet for me?


I have the digital subscription of Gramophone and I am quite happy with it. As quoted by Vaneyes it's great you can also access to their past issues...
Being in Canada maybe you are French reading as well, in that case I'd suggest you give a try to Diapason and Classica (issued in France). They have both digital issues, you can subscribe or just download a single issue.
I think they are both quite good, with a slight preference for Classica as it is more "internation" (a little less "France-biased").


----------



## maestro267

BBC. You get a 'free' CD with complete work(s), so you can build up a music collection as well as reading a magazine.

And if you think about how much you pay for a CD by itself, it's worth it.


----------



## Centropolis

maestro267 said:


> BBC. You get a 'free' CD with complete work(s), so you can build up a music collection as well as reading a magazine.
> 
> And if you think about how much you pay for a CD by itself, it's worth it.


I would love that but too bad their international subscription prices are so high.


----------



## gHeadphone

maestro267 said:


> BBC. You get a 'free' CD with complete work(s), so you can build up a music collection as well as reading a magazine.
> 
> And if you think about how much you pay for a CD by itself, it's worth it.


Are the Cds any good.

Ive only ever listened to one and the quality was pretty poor in my opinion.


----------



## Nereffid

Most of the cover discs are live performances recorded by the BBC, usually recent ones. The orchestras are usually the BBC orchestras, and the soloists generally aren't "star names". They probably wouldn't be a first-choice performance of any mainstream repertoire given the available recorded competition, but I think they're always worth taking a punt on if you don't know the music. Plus - and it is a big plus - there's a magazine attached.
BBC Music and the long-defunct Classic CD were an essential part of my introduction to classical.


----------



## DavidA

I gave up my subscription to Gramophone as I was tired of my order being messed up by their sales department. For the number of important releases now coming on to the market I don't think it's worth a regular magazine. Most reviews are now of minor labels.


----------



## Kelt

I'm not certain any of the hard publications are any good any more. Fanfare's website has good content, but is antiquated. ArchivMusic is excellent for all around info about recordings, and I like Classics Today as well. I used to love Gramophone, but magazines are suffering tremendously because of the internet. I don't they'll be around much longer, a lot of print publications don't even have editors any more, and neither do most web publications. It's a sad fact of our age.


----------



## Triplets

Kelt said:


> I'm not certain any of the hard publications are any good any more. Fanfare's website has good content, but is antiquated. ArchivMusic is excellent for all around info about recordings, and I like Classics Today as well. I used to love Gramophone, but magazines are suffering tremendously because of the internet. I don't they'll be around much longer, a lot of print publications don't even have editors any more, and neither do most web publications. It's a sad fact of our age.


Both IRR and Classic Records Quarterly bit the dust this month


----------



## Figleaf

Triplets said:


> Both IRR and Classic Records Quarterly bit the dust this month


Told you all about CRQ's demise months ago, as soon as I learned about it myself.  The good news is that The Record Collector is still going strong after nearly 70 years. It's more niche than others- only vocal recordings from the 78 rpm era- but it's very heavy on content (mainly discographies and singer chronologies as well as CD reviews and other detailed articles) and has minimal illustrations and zero filler material or irrelevant adverts. It's run on a shoestring budget and, while its contributors are incredibly knowledgeable, it's amateur in the best sense of the word: nobody gets paid, people research and contribute articles purely for the love of the subject. Occasionally the writing is of variable quality when judged from a purely literary standpoint, and compared to more general interest magazines it may seem rather dry. The only criticism besides the occasionally undistinguished prose is that contributors are overwhelmingly male and elderly, so some more diverse voices might do it good. At any rate it's a peerless magazine. The editor is a lovely approachable man and the CDs they produce (which cost extra) are the best transfers I've heard, and produced to thoroughly professional standards. I can't recommend this magazine enough.

http://www.therecordcollector.org/


----------



## Albert7

Even though I don't like the critical reviews all the time in Gramophone, I do enjoy the wonderful photos and ads for new recordings that they feature so that I know what is being released.


----------

