Yet another moan about Gramophone. In the new issue the latest article in the woefully misnamed series "The Specialist's Guide To..." is Adrian Edwards' piece "The Suite revival". He briefly mentions the popularity of the orchestral suite as a baroque form, mentions its subsequent decline and then blithely writes: "Tchaikovsky revived the suite, stating that he wanted a break from symphonic music to compose one". It's well established now that Franz Lachner was the pioneer in reviving the orchestral suite, closely followed by Raff. Lachner's first two orchestral suites date from 1861 and 1862, Raff's First from 1863, and a mere 15 years later Tchaikovsky began work on his Suite No.1, by which time Lachner was up to his Sixth and Raff his fourth! What misinformed, misleading journalism. Bah!
The lack of knowledge amongst the so called experts is alarming. Perhaps he was only referring to composers that he thought would be familiar to his readers. However, that might be generous.
I suggest reading some David Mellor to compensate ;D.
Thal
I hope, Mark, that you have written in to them to put matters right!
I don't know who Adrian Edwards is, but I suspect that articles like this do not pay very well, therefore there is a temptation to dash them off without doing any serious research.
No John, I haven't written to Gramophone. I'm not the "Curmudgeonly of Tunbridge Wells" type.
Perhaps a letter to the editor would be in order........
If I get time, I shall write them a stiff letter on cardboard. I did that to the then editor of BBC Music Magazine back in 1992 when they failed to mention Cypriani Potter's bicentenary. They actually printed my letter but failed to act upon it, nor did they mention what it was written on! :)
Papyrus?
Adrian Edwards has done plenty of reviews for the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/reviewers/qxp2 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/reviewers/qxp2)
..... but they are mostly of popular music, easy listening, and the like. In venturing definitive statements about the revival of the orchestral suite I would think he's moved well beyond his area of expertise!
No surprises here. I'm amazed anyone on this forum still bothers to read The Gramophone. As far as I'm concerned it's a waste of good trees!
Yes, I know. It has got to the stage where I'd be embarrassed to be seen flicking through the thing. But I first subscribed way back in 1972 when it was a decent publication, and not the comic that it is now. But awfully hard to give it up: every time I think of cancelling I then think I might just possibly miss something interesting. I wonder if the publishers would deliver it in a plain anonymous envelope? Unfortunate fellow that I am, next time I read it I shall freeze and the skin shall prickle as I think of Gareth standing over me and shaking his head in disapproval.
I did buy their 90th anniversary issue and felt I needed to buy the current issue in order to write into them about Mr Edwarsds' faux pas. Anyway, my money wasn't completely wasted, as it includes a complete listing of the BBC Proms programmes.
I subscribed for some years back in the 60's/70s as it was a great place to discover what new releases would not be available in the US. But then I was trading LPs with a friend who worked in the HMV shop in Manchester. So it was useful. But it seemed to deteriorate or become more commonplace or something I couldn't put my finger on and I gave it up.......
Sad
Jerry
I still buy it, but I no longer archive all my copies. It's not a bad magazine, but whereas once it was replete with expert, in-depth writing, now it's just mediocre or even superficial (repeating rather than challenging received opinion) and factually inaccurate (as highlighted by Mark). The standard of English (or is it the proof reading?) has also deteriorated - but that's the case everywhere these days.
I still buy it (on subscription, so it's cheaper) but give it to a friend, so at least it gets read twice and they get paid only once.