Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Gramophone to 'retire' free online archive
270 views
Skip to first unread message
Oscar
Oct 31, 2012, 6:43:08 AM10/31/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
It was just a tease, after all. New Gramophone app launches next
Tuesday, November 6. Digital subscription to magazine/archive, annual
£39.99. Print subscribers get the digital archive edition for
'discounted' £25 on top of the current print subscription fee, which I
think is now $75 (£46) in USA.
<< Gramophone launches new digital archive app
Every issue since 1923 available as digital magazine – watch video
here! http://tiny.cc/01g1mw
A year or so ago we launched our digital issue, with each edition of
the magazine available as digital magazine for iPad, desktop or tablet
(and in every new issue, disc sleeves now click straight through to
iTunes so that you can sample and buy the music).
We’ve now taken that principle, and stretched it back over more than
1000 issues, to 1923, creating digital magazines of every single issue
of Gramophone and made them available through an app.
It’s been a vast undertaking. Magazines, pages and covers which had
not been included in our original online archive (which is shortly to
be retired) had to be rescanned, and all the text was then fed into a
search engine database so that you can search the archive by composer,
ensemble, artist – or in fact any keyword. Throughout, we've worked
closely with the external company, Exact Editions, which has created
the app for us to make it as user-friendly and intuitive to use as
possible.
The process, months long, was far from just a long logistical task.
All those working on it were regularly struck by the sheer breadth and
depth of the articles, interviews, reviews, photographs, illustrations
and evocative advertisements, covering almost the entire history of
classical music recording. It is,we believe, quite unique in digital
music publishing. Over the next few days, leading up to the launch on
Tuesday (11/6), we’ll be publishing some of the most exciting finds to
offer as a taster, including:
-Stravinsky reflecting on his life as a composer, from 1934
-Rachmaninov writing about the future of the wireless in 1931
-Sir John Barbirolli looking back over his early life and career in
1936 (written as he was preparing to move to New York)
-An interview with Michael Tippett from 1971
How to order:
Subscribers to our digital edition now have automatic access to the
entire Gramophone archive included as part of their annual £39.99 fee.
Print magazine subscribers, meanwhile, can get the digital archive and
edition for a discounted price of £25 (in addition to their current
magazine subscription fee). Print subscribers in the UK should call
08448 488 823 to place their order while readers in the rest of the
world can order by calling +44 (0)1784 592 980.
New readers who would like to receive the digital magazine and archive
can order online here and those of you who like to receive the print
and digital version of the magazine should go here and enter promo
code BUNDLE12.
We hope our new archive will offer many, many hours of happy,
informative and entertaining reading.
Martin
Editor, Gramophone >>
Tuesday, November 6. Digital subscription to magazine/archive, annual
£39.99. Print subscribers get the digital archive edition for
'discounted' £25 on top of the current print subscription fee, which I
think is now $75 (£46) in USA.
<< Gramophone launches new digital archive app
Every issue since 1923 available as digital magazine – watch video
here! http://tiny.cc/01g1mw
A year or so ago we launched our digital issue, with each edition of
the magazine available as digital magazine for iPad, desktop or tablet
(and in every new issue, disc sleeves now click straight through to
iTunes so that you can sample and buy the music).
We’ve now taken that principle, and stretched it back over more than
1000 issues, to 1923, creating digital magazines of every single issue
of Gramophone and made them available through an app.
It’s been a vast undertaking. Magazines, pages and covers which had
not been included in our original online archive (which is shortly to
be retired) had to be rescanned, and all the text was then fed into a
search engine database so that you can search the archive by composer,
ensemble, artist – or in fact any keyword. Throughout, we've worked
closely with the external company, Exact Editions, which has created
the app for us to make it as user-friendly and intuitive to use as
possible.
The process, months long, was far from just a long logistical task.
All those working on it were regularly struck by the sheer breadth and
depth of the articles, interviews, reviews, photographs, illustrations
and evocative advertisements, covering almost the entire history of
classical music recording. It is,we believe, quite unique in digital
music publishing. Over the next few days, leading up to the launch on
Tuesday (11/6), we’ll be publishing some of the most exciting finds to
offer as a taster, including:
-Stravinsky reflecting on his life as a composer, from 1934
-Rachmaninov writing about the future of the wireless in 1931
-Sir John Barbirolli looking back over his early life and career in
1936 (written as he was preparing to move to New York)
-An interview with Michael Tippett from 1971
How to order:
Subscribers to our digital edition now have automatic access to the
entire Gramophone archive included as part of their annual £39.99 fee.
Print magazine subscribers, meanwhile, can get the digital archive and
edition for a discounted price of £25 (in addition to their current
magazine subscription fee). Print subscribers in the UK should call
08448 488 823 to place their order while readers in the rest of the
world can order by calling +44 (0)1784 592 980.
New readers who would like to receive the digital magazine and archive
can order online here and those of you who like to receive the print
and digital version of the magazine should go here and enter promo
code BUNDLE12.
We hope our new archive will offer many, many hours of happy,
informative and entertaining reading.
Martin
Editor, Gramophone >>
Message has been deleted
J.Martin
Oct 31, 2012, 2:12:00 PM10/31/12
to
>
> Less free content, a trend perhaps?
Definitely. There are paywalls going up everywhere these days.
Understandable, I suppose--it does cost money to put that content
online--but I wish they were more savvy about marketing. And pricing.
It seems to me quite wrong-headed to first offer content for free,
then charge a rather hefty fee, and expect people to pay it. Probably
it would have been more effective to do it the other way around:
start the service by announcing that it costs, say $89 per year, and
then offer a special introductory rate of, say, $29 per year. And
make available a free trial period. That way, the consumer feels like
he's getting a bargain. If you offer something for free, and turn
around and say "now it costs 40 pounds per year" people feel like it's
not worth the money. Add to that that the prices are just too high.
> Less free content, a trend perhaps?
Definitely. There are paywalls going up everywhere these days.
Understandable, I suppose--it does cost money to put that content
online--but I wish they were more savvy about marketing. And pricing.
It seems to me quite wrong-headed to first offer content for free,
then charge a rather hefty fee, and expect people to pay it. Probably
it would have been more effective to do it the other way around:
start the service by announcing that it costs, say $89 per year, and
then offer a special introductory rate of, say, $29 per year. And
make available a free trial period. That way, the consumer feels like
he's getting a bargain. If you offer something for free, and turn
around and say "now it costs 40 pounds per year" people feel like it's
not worth the money. Add to that that the prices are just too high.
Gerard
Oct 31, 2012, 2:24:05 PM10/31/12
to
J.Martin <mista...@yahoo.com> typed:
The example ClassicsToday is even worse. For a lot of *old* reviews - that
always have been free - you have to pay now. In some (or all?) cases temporarily
only (but of course exactly when you want to reread it).
always have been free - you have to pay now. In some (or all?) cases temporarily
only (but of course exactly when you want to reread it).
wade
Oct 31, 2012, 2:52:54 PM10/31/12
to
laraine
Oct 31, 2012, 3:47:12 PM10/31/12
to
On Oct 31, 5:43 am, Oscar <oscaredwardwilliam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It was just a tease, after all. New Gramophone app launches next
> Tuesday, November 6. Digital subscription to magazine/archive, annual
> £39.99. Print subscribers get the digital archive edition for
> 'discounted' £25 on top of the current print subscription fee, which I
> think is now $75 (£46) in USA.
Is this the free app that is going away?
> It was just a tease, after all. New Gramophone app launches next
> Tuesday, November 6. Digital subscription to magazine/archive, annual
> £39.99. Print subscribers get the digital archive edition for
> 'discounted' £25 on top of the current print subscription fee, which I
> think is now $75 (£46) in USA.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid273411329001
I rather like it.
C.
Matthew B. Tepper
Oct 31, 2012, 4:07:56 PM10/31/12
to
wade <wade...@hotmail.com> appears to have caused the following letters
to be typed in news:42834ad3-0c55-4499...@googlegroups.com:
Just as bad is JSTOR, which has not a paywall per se, but what I call a
"Nyah-wall." "Nyah, nyah, nyah, you can't have it, because you're not one
of us librarians with the secret handshake." It's juvenile antics such as
these that make me proud to describe myself as an "escaped academic."
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers.
to be typed in news:42834ad3-0c55-4499...@googlegroups.com:
"Nyah-wall." "Nyah, nyah, nyah, you can't have it, because you're not one
of us librarians with the secret handshake." It's juvenile antics such as
these that make me proud to describe myself as an "escaped academic."
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!!
Read about "Proty" here: http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers.
Dana John Hill
Oct 31, 2012, 5:23:50 PM10/31/12
to
"Matthew B. Tepper" <oy兀earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA0FD85971BA...@216.196.121.131...
of material through JSTOR, I cannot get what our library doesn't get, and
after a decade of consistent budget cuts, it seems like the library is
getting less and less.
Dana John Hill
Gainesville, Florida
Christopher Webber
Oct 31, 2012, 6:48:37 PM10/31/12
to
The surprise is that it was ever free in the first place. Though if the
extended freebie period has been a "teaser" they've hardly done better
than an impotent gelding might have done at a provincial stud.
Judging from the video demo on the website, Gramophone have *not*
rescanned the poor OCR on the archive editions. This work was done with
deplorable lack of care and/or accuracy; but presumably it is too
expensive a process to do again, properly, prior to this relaunch.
People have taken the very considerable rough with the smooth as long as
the Gramophone Archive has been a free resource, but I wonder whether
paying subscribers will stand such a badly implemented mess. As it is,
they've alienated most members of their customer flock before they've
even started to try to fleece them.
extended freebie period has been a "teaser" they've hardly done better
than an impotent gelding might have done at a provincial stud.
Judging from the video demo on the website, Gramophone have *not*
rescanned the poor OCR on the archive editions. This work was done with
deplorable lack of care and/or accuracy; but presumably it is too
expensive a process to do again, properly, prior to this relaunch.
People have taken the very considerable rough with the smooth as long as
the Gramophone Archive has been a free resource, but I wonder whether
paying subscribers will stand such a badly implemented mess. As it is,
they've alienated most members of their customer flock before they've
even started to try to fleece them.
graham
Oct 31, 2012, 6:59:03 PM10/31/12
to
"Dana John Hill" <da...@danajohnhill.com> wrote in message
news:k6s4t7$ubq$1...@usenet.osg.ufl.edu...
personal subscription now. One that I used to peruse when I got the chance,
probably now costs ~$1000 p/a for generally 2 issues, and there may not be
one article that is of any use to me.
Graham
Gerard
Nov 1, 2012, 4:47:45 AM11/1/12
to
Christopher Webber <zarz...@zarzuela.invalid.net> typed:
Agreed. Mess is the right word.
If they use those old scans, they have something to offer nobody likes to pay
for.
Sometimes I spend a few hours to find some reviews (because I need the URLs for
a site). And I have learned to search always (for example) for 'Neeme' and never
for 'J�rvi'. In many reviews the names of musicians are completely
unrecognizable. Many reviews have no proper titles. Etcetera.
The older "Gramofile" site was much easier to use. But contained only reviews of
course - which worked perfect for me.
If they use those old scans, they have something to offer nobody likes to pay
for.
Sometimes I spend a few hours to find some reviews (because I need the URLs for
a site). And I have learned to search always (for example) for 'Neeme' and never
for 'J�rvi'. In many reviews the names of musicians are completely
unrecognizable. Many reviews have no proper titles. Etcetera.
The older "Gramofile" site was much easier to use. But contained only reviews of
course - which worked perfect for me.
wade
Nov 1, 2012, 10:36:50 AM11/1/12
to
On Thursday, November 1, 2012 1:47:45 AM UTC-7, Gerard wrote:
> Christopher Webber <zarz...@zarzuela.invalid.net> typed:
>
> > The surprise is that it was ever free in the first place. Though if
>
> > the extended freebie period has been a "teaser" they've hardly done
>
> > better than an impotent gelding might have done at a provincial stud.
>
> >
>
> > Judging from the video demo on the website, Gramophone have *not*
>
> > rescanned the poor OCR on the archive editions. This work was done
>
> > with deplorable lack of care and/or accuracy; but presumably it is too
>
> > expensive a process to do again, properly, prior to this relaunch.
>
> >
>
> > People have taken the very considerable rough with the smooth as long
>
> > as the Gramophone Archive has been a free resource, but I wonder
>
> > whether paying subscribers will stand such a badly implemented mess.
>
> > As it is, they've alienated most members of their customer flock
>
> > before they've even started to try to fleece them.
>
>
>
> Agreed. Mess is the right word.
>
> If they use those old scans, they have something to offer nobody likes to pay
>
> for.
>
> Sometimes I spend a few hours to find some reviews (because I need the URLs for
>
> a site). And I have learned to search always (for example) for 'Neeme' and never
>
> for 'Järvi'. In many reviews the names of musicians are completely
> Christopher Webber <zarz...@zarzuela.invalid.net> typed:
>
> > The surprise is that it was ever free in the first place. Though if
>
> > the extended freebie period has been a "teaser" they've hardly done
>
> > better than an impotent gelding might have done at a provincial stud.
>
> >
>
> > Judging from the video demo on the website, Gramophone have *not*
>
> > rescanned the poor OCR on the archive editions. This work was done
>
> > with deplorable lack of care and/or accuracy; but presumably it is too
>
> > expensive a process to do again, properly, prior to this relaunch.
>
> >
>
> > People have taken the very considerable rough with the smooth as long
>
> > as the Gramophone Archive has been a free resource, but I wonder
>
> > whether paying subscribers will stand such a badly implemented mess.
>
> > As it is, they've alienated most members of their customer flock
>
> > before they've even started to try to fleece them.
>
>
>
> Agreed. Mess is the right word.
>
> If they use those old scans, they have something to offer nobody likes to pay
>
> for.
>
> Sometimes I spend a few hours to find some reviews (because I need the URLs for
>
> a site). And I have learned to search always (for example) for 'Neeme' and never
>
>
> unrecognizable. Many reviews have no proper titles. Etcetera.
>
>
>
> The older "Gramofile" site was much easier to use. But contained only reviews of
>
> course - which worked perfect for me.
Personally, what I want the site for is to read the articles and the reviews from the beginning and follow the path of style/information growth as the recording industry grew and matured.
> unrecognizable. Many reviews have no proper titles. Etcetera.
>
>
>
> The older "Gramofile" site was much easier to use. But contained only reviews of
>
> course - which worked perfect for me.
J.Martin
Nov 1, 2012, 11:40:47 AM11/1/12
to
> Personally, what I want the site for is to read the articles and the reviews from the beginning and follow the path of style/information growth as the recording industry grew and matured. - Hide quoted text -
>
It can be interesting to read contemporary reviews of recordings now
considered to be unassailable classics. Or reviews of performances of
then-new compositions. But it's not worth (checking the exchange
rate) $62 to me.
I wonder how they set these prices? I'm sure they figured in their
cost of set-up and operation, but I wonder if they did anything to
gauge what consumers might be willing to pay? Like virtually all of
these online publications, the price seems much too high.
>
It can be interesting to read contemporary reviews of recordings now
considered to be unassailable classics. Or reviews of performances of
then-new compositions. But it's not worth (checking the exchange
rate) $62 to me.
I wonder how they set these prices? I'm sure they figured in their
cost of set-up and operation, but I wonder if they did anything to
gauge what consumers might be willing to pay? Like virtually all of
these online publications, the price seems much too high.
wkasimer
Nov 1, 2012, 1:23:19 PM11/1/12
to
On Nov 1, 11:40 am, "J.Martin" <mistalu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I wonder how they set these prices? I'm sure they figured in their
> cost of set-up and operation, but I wonder if they did anything to
> gauge what consumers might be willing to pay?
I doubt it.
> I wonder how they set these prices? I'm sure they figured in their
> cost of set-up and operation, but I wonder if they did anything to
> gauge what consumers might be willing to pay?
> Like virtually all of these online publications, the price seems much too high.
years ago, when I could no longer buy it locally, and I haven't missed
it a bit. If it were $20 for digital access, I'd consider it. At
$60, it's ridiculous. And charging print customers extra for the
digital archive edition strikes me as price gouging.
Bill
laraine
Nov 1, 2012, 2:49:17 PM11/1/12
to
You know, I don't think we should
assume that the free basic app wlil
go away. It just might not have all
the goodies.
We shouldn't be naive either, of
course.
C.
assume that the free basic app wlil
go away. It just might not have all
the goodies.
We shouldn't be naive either, of
course.
C.
Oscar
Nov 1, 2012, 4:42:04 PM11/1/12
to
Well, as of today, Gramophone.net is no more: all traffic being re-
routed to Gramophone.co.uk http://tiny.cc/ur33mw
routed to Gramophone.co.uk http://tiny.cc/ur33mw
Gerard
Nov 1, 2012, 5:36:25 PM11/1/12
to
Oscar <oscaredwar...@gmail.com> typed:
"Page not found".
> Well, as of today, Gramophone.net is no more: all traffic being re-
> routed to Gramophone.co.uk http://tiny.cc/ur33mw
Links to specific reviews will result in a page with
> routed to Gramophone.co.uk http://tiny.cc/ur33mw
"Page not found".
wade
Nov 1, 2012, 6:12:53 PM11/1/12
to
Don Petter
Nov 3, 2012, 11:25:51 AM11/3/12
to
On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:47:45 +0100, "Gerard"
<ghendrik-...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Christopher Webber <zarz...@zarzuela.invalid.net> typed:
>> The surprise is that it was ever free in the first place. Though if
>> the extended freebie period has been a "teaser" they've hardly done
>> better than an impotent gelding might have done at a provincial stud.
>>
>> Judging from the video demo on the website, Gramophone have *not*
>> rescanned the poor OCR on the archive editions. This work was done
>> with deplorable lack of care and/or accuracy; but presumably it is too
>> expensive a process to do again, properly, prior to this relaunch.
>>
>> People have taken the very considerable rough with the smooth as long
>> as the Gramophone Archive has been a free resource, but I wonder
>> whether paying subscribers will stand such a badly implemented mess.
>> As it is, they've alienated most members of their customer flock
>> before they've even started to try to fleece them.
>
>Agreed. Mess is the right word.
>If they use those old scans, they have something to offer nobody likes to pay
>for.
>Sometimes I spend a few hours to find some reviews (because I need the URLs for
>a site). And I have learned to search always (for example) for 'Neeme' and never
>for 'J�rvi'. In many reviews the names of musicians are completely
<ghendrik-...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Christopher Webber <zarz...@zarzuela.invalid.net> typed:
>> The surprise is that it was ever free in the first place. Though if
>> the extended freebie period has been a "teaser" they've hardly done
>> better than an impotent gelding might have done at a provincial stud.
>>
>> Judging from the video demo on the website, Gramophone have *not*
>> rescanned the poor OCR on the archive editions. This work was done
>> with deplorable lack of care and/or accuracy; but presumably it is too
>> expensive a process to do again, properly, prior to this relaunch.
>>
>> People have taken the very considerable rough with the smooth as long
>> as the Gramophone Archive has been a free resource, but I wonder
>> whether paying subscribers will stand such a badly implemented mess.
>> As it is, they've alienated most members of their customer flock
>> before they've even started to try to fleece them.
>
>Agreed. Mess is the right word.
>If they use those old scans, they have something to offer nobody likes to pay
>for.
>Sometimes I spend a few hours to find some reviews (because I need the URLs for
>a site). And I have learned to search always (for example) for 'Neeme' and never
>unrecognizable. Many reviews have no proper titles. Etcetera.
>
>The older "Gramofile" site was much easier to use. But contained only reviews of
>course - which worked perfect for me.
>
I hear from a subscriber that the content *has* been completely
>
>The older "Gramofile" site was much easier to use. But contained only reviews of
>course - which worked perfect for me.
>
rescanned, and the searching now works very much better.
Whether it's worth the fee demanded is another question. I'm glad
lethargy has resulted in my not throwing out my run of issues from
June 1945 to date, even though the shelf (and floor) space is
enormous.
Don.
Gerard
Nov 3, 2012, 12:32:36 PM11/3/12
to
Don Petter <longrifle...@yahoo.co.uk> typed:
forum of Gramophone. With a picture of the screen (probably on a tablet pc).
I also found in that forum a promise by Gramophone in 2011 that a database based
site (of whatever) would be restored. That promise was made because of the
dozens of complaints about searching in the Archive: people want "their
*Gramofile* back!
Do you know when Gramofile started?
I think that must have been around 2000. At that time it was available on CD-Rom
too.
> On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 09:47:45 +0100, "Gerard"
> <ghendrik-...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Christopher Webber <zarz...@zarzuela.invalid.net> typed:
> > > The surprise is that it was ever free in the first place. Though
> > > if the extended freebie period has been a "teaser" they've hardly
> > > done better than an impotent gelding might have done at a
> > > provincial stud.
> > >
> > > Judging from the video demo on the website, Gramophone have *not*
> > > rescanned the poor OCR on the archive editions. This work was
> > > done with deplorable lack of care and/or accuracy; but presumably
> > > it is too expensive a process to do again, properly, prior to
> > > this relaunch.
> > >
> > > People have taken the very considerable rough with the smooth as
> > > long as the Gramophone Archive has been a free resource, but I
> > > wonder whether paying subscribers will stand such a badly
> > > implemented mess. As it is, they've alienated most members of
> > > their customer flock before they've even started to try to fleece
> > > them.
> >
> > Agreed. Mess is the right word.
> > If they use those old scans, they have something to offer nobody
> > likes to pay for.
> > Sometimes I spend a few hours to find some reviews (because I need
> > the URLs for a site). And I have learned to search always (for
> > example) for 'Neeme' and never for 'Järvi'. In many reviews the
> <ghendrik-...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Christopher Webber <zarz...@zarzuela.invalid.net> typed:
> > > The surprise is that it was ever free in the first place. Though
> > > if the extended freebie period has been a "teaser" they've hardly
> > > done better than an impotent gelding might have done at a
> > > provincial stud.
> > >
> > > Judging from the video demo on the website, Gramophone have *not*
> > > rescanned the poor OCR on the archive editions. This work was
> > > done with deplorable lack of care and/or accuracy; but presumably
> > > it is too expensive a process to do again, properly, prior to
> > > this relaunch.
> > >
> > > People have taken the very considerable rough with the smooth as
> > > long as the Gramophone Archive has been a free resource, but I
> > > wonder whether paying subscribers will stand such a badly
> > > implemented mess. As it is, they've alienated most members of
> > > their customer flock before they've even started to try to fleece
> > > them.
> >
> > Agreed. Mess is the right word.
> > If they use those old scans, they have something to offer nobody
> > likes to pay for.
> > Sometimes I spend a few hours to find some reviews (because I need
> > the URLs for a site). And I have learned to search always (for
> > names of musicians are completely unrecognizable. Many reviews have
> > no proper titles. Etcetera.
> >
> > The older "Gramofile" site was much easier to use. But contained
> > only reviews of course - which worked perfect for me.
> >
>
> I hear from a subscriber that the content *has* been completely
> rescanned, and the searching now works very much better.
I've read something like that too, somewhere else - I'm quite sure it was on the
> > no proper titles. Etcetera.
> >
> > The older "Gramofile" site was much easier to use. But contained
> > only reviews of course - which worked perfect for me.
> >
>
> I hear from a subscriber that the content *has* been completely
> rescanned, and the searching now works very much better.
forum of Gramophone. With a picture of the screen (probably on a tablet pc).
I also found in that forum a promise by Gramophone in 2011 that a database based
site (of whatever) would be restored. That promise was made because of the
dozens of complaints about searching in the Archive: people want "their
*Gramofile* back!
Do you know when Gramofile started?
I think that must have been around 2000. At that time it was available on CD-Rom
too.
Don Petter
Nov 3, 2012, 4:11:59 PM11/3/12
to
>> > names of musicians are completely unrecognizable. Many reviews have
>> > no proper titles. Etcetera.
>> >
>> > The older "Gramofile" site was much easier to use. But contained
>> > only reviews of course - which worked perfect for me.
>> >
>>
>> I hear from a subscriber that the content *has* been completely
>> rescanned, and the searching now works very much better.
>
>I've read something like that too, somewhere else - I'm quite sure it was on the
>forum of Gramophone. With a picture of the screen (probably on a tablet pc).
>I also found in that forum a promise by Gramophone in 2011 that a database based
>site (of whatever) would be restored. That promise was made because of the
>dozens of complaints about searching in the Archive: people want "their
>*Gramofile* back!
>
>Do you know when Gramofile started?
>I think that must have been around 2000. At that time it was available on CD-Rom
>too.
>
>
>
>
I can't remember. My Favourites entry is dated 23/1/2008, but It was
>> > no proper titles. Etcetera.
>> >
>> > The older "Gramofile" site was much easier to use. But contained
>> > only reviews of course - which worked perfect for me.
>> >
>>
>> I hear from a subscriber that the content *has* been completely
>> rescanned, and the searching now works very much better.
>
>I've read something like that too, somewhere else - I'm quite sure it was on the
>forum of Gramophone. With a picture of the screen (probably on a tablet pc).
>I also found in that forum a promise by Gramophone in 2011 that a database based
>site (of whatever) would be restored. That promise was made because of the
>dozens of complaints about searching in the Archive: people want "their
>*Gramofile* back!
>
>Do you know when Gramofile started?
>I think that must have been around 2000. At that time it was available on CD-Rom
>too.
>
>
>
>
probably much earlier?
Don.
Matthew B. Tepper
Nov 3, 2012, 4:34:25 PM11/3/12
to
longrifle...@yahoo.co.uk (Don Petter) appears to have caused the
> Whether it's worth the fee demanded is another question. I'm glad
> lethargy has resulted in my not throwing out my run of issues from June
> 1945 to date, even though the shelf (and floor) space is enormous.
Yi! And here I thought I was hot stuff with my complete run of Fanfare.
following letters to be typed in
news:50953693....@news.individual.de:
> Whether it's worth the fee demanded is another question. I'm glad
> lethargy has resulted in my not throwing out my run of issues from June
> 1945 to date, even though the shelf (and floor) space is enormous.
Don Petter
Nov 3, 2012, 4:47:09 PM11/3/12
to
was December 1957, but I bought a quantity of bound volumes some years
ago which took my run back to that date.
You have me on Fanfare, though - I'm missing Vol 1, No,1 and Vol 1,
No.4 from my otherwise complete run.
Don.
Aage Johansen
Nov 3, 2012, 4:59:06 PM11/3/12
to
On 03.11.2012 17:32, Gerard wrote:
>...
--
Aage J.
>...
> Do you know when Gramofile started?
> I think that must have been around 2000. At that time it was available on CD-Rom
> too.
>
I have a Gramofile CD with a �1996 on it.
> I think that must have been around 2000. At that time it was available on CD-Rom
> too.
>
--
Aage J.
Gerard
Nov 3, 2012, 5:27:19 PM11/3/12
to
Aage Johansen <aagj...@offline.no> typed:
But I don't think that it was on the internet at that time.
Although I'm not sure. I didn't find information about it. For Wikipedia
Gramofile doesn't exist.
Although I'm not sure. I didn't find information about it. For Wikipedia
Gramofile doesn't exist.
wade
Nov 3, 2012, 11:20:38 PM11/3/12
to
On Saturday, November 3, 2012 2:28:55 PM UTC-7, Gerard wrote:
> Aage Johansen <aagj...@offline.no> typed:
>
> > On 03.11.2012 17:32, Gerard wrote:
>
> > > ...
>
> > > Do you know when Gramofile started?
>
> > > I think that must have been around 2000. At that time it was
>
> > > available on CD-Rom too.
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > I have a Gramofile CD with a ©1996 on it.
> Aage Johansen <aagj...@offline.no> typed:
>
> > On 03.11.2012 17:32, Gerard wrote:
>
> > > ...
>
> > > Do you know when Gramofile started?
>
> > > I think that must have been around 2000. At that time it was
>
> > > available on CD-Rom too.
>
> > >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
> But I don't think that it was on the internet at that time.
>
> Although I'm not sure. I didn't find information about it. For Wikipedia
>
> Gramofile doesn't exist.
did gramofile go back to 1922(?)
>
>
> But I don't think that it was on the internet at that time.
>
> Although I'm not sure. I didn't find information about it. For Wikipedia
>
> Gramofile doesn't exist.
Gerard
Nov 4, 2012, 2:41:31 AM11/4/12
to
wade <wade...@hotmail.com> typed:
No. It contained the reviews since 1983. (The most recent - a few months - ones
excluded.)
excluded.)
Library
Nov 5, 2012, 5:29:54 AM11/5/12
to
On Wednesday, 31 October 2012 21:23:51 UTC, Dana John Hill wrote:
> "Matthew B. Tepper" wrote in message
>
> news:XnsA0FD85971BA...@216.196.121.131...
>
> > wade appears to have caused the following letters
Hi Dana,
An annual academic institutional subscription to Gramophone magazine is £250.00/$400.00. This includes access to the entire archive and is fully searchable and IP authenticated. Perhaps this may be something that your library would be interested in subscribing to? For more information please visit https://www.exacteditions.com/library/gramophoneus or email lib...@exacteditions.com.
Exact Editions
> "Matthew B. Tepper" wrote in message
>
> news:XnsA0FD85971BA...@216.196.121.131...
>
> > wade appears to have caused the following letters
>
> > to be typed in news:42834ad3-0c55-4499...@googlegroups.com:
>
> >
>
> >> On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 11:24:07 AM UTC-7, Gerard wrote:
>
> >>> J.Martin typed:
> > to be typed in news:42834ad3-0c55-4499...@googlegroups.com:
>
> >
>
> >> On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 11:24:07 AM UTC-7, Gerard wrote:
>
An annual academic institutional subscription to Gramophone magazine is £250.00/$400.00. This includes access to the entire archive and is fully searchable and IP authenticated. Perhaps this may be something that your library would be interested in subscribing to? For more information please visit https://www.exacteditions.com/library/gramophoneus or email lib...@exacteditions.com.
Exact Editions
Matthew B. Tepper
Nov 5, 2012, 9:58:45 AM11/5/12
to
Library <sarah...@gmail.com> appears to have caused the following
> Hi Dana,
>
> An annual academic institutional subscription to Gramophone magazine is
> £250.00/$400.00. This includes access to the entire archive and is fully
> searchable and IP authenticated. Perhaps this may be something that your
> library would be interested in subscribing to? For more information
> please visit https://www.exacteditions.com/library/gramophoneus or email
> lib...@exacteditions.com.
>
> Exact Editions
And of course we all know that libraries always have plenty of money to burn.
letters to be typed in
news:f0380f48-958f-4341...@googlegroups.com:
> Hi Dana,
>
> An annual academic institutional subscription to Gramophone magazine is
> £250.00/$400.00. This includes access to the entire archive and is fully
> searchable and IP authenticated. Perhaps this may be something that your
> library would be interested in subscribing to? For more information
> please visit https://www.exacteditions.com/library/gramophoneus or email
> lib...@exacteditions.com.
>
> Exact Editions
Message has been deleted
Gerard
Nov 10, 2012, 5:46:38 PM11/10/12
to
EM <emmemmme...@gnail.com> typed:
> "Gerard" <ghendrik-...@hotmail.com> - Sat, 3 Nov 2012 22:27:19
> +0100:
>
> EM
With what?
> "Gerard" <ghendrik-...@hotmail.com> - Sat, 3 Nov 2012 22:27:19
> +0100:
>
> > > I have a Gramofile CD with a �1996 on it.
>
> > But I don't think that it was on the internet at that time.
>
> It was online in 1997, maybe even earlier.
> > > I have a Gramofile CD with a �1996 on it.
>
> > But I don't think that it was on the internet at that time.
>
>
> > Although I'm not sure. I didn't find information about it. For
> > Wikipedia Gramofile doesn't exist.
>
> Well, if that bothers you, feel free to write a Gramofile entry.
> > Although I'm not sure. I didn't find information about it. For
> > Wikipedia Gramofile doesn't exist.
>
>
> EM
With what?
Message has been deleted
Steve de Mena
Nov 12, 2012, 6:59:48 AM11/12/12
to
On 11/11/12 5:28 AM, EM wrote:
> "Gerard" <ghendriks...@hotmail.com> - Sat, 10 Nov 2012 23:46:38
> +0100:
>
> A computer and a text editor perhaps?
>
> EM
>
You two are made for each other. Why don't you get a room?
Steve
> "Gerard" <ghendriks...@hotmail.com> - Sat, 10 Nov 2012 23:46:38
> +0100:
>
>>>> Although I'm not sure. I didn't find information about it. For
>>>> Wikipedia Gramofile doesn't exist.
>
>>> Well, if that bothers you, feel free to write a Gramofile entry.
>
>> With what?
>>>> Although I'm not sure. I didn't find information about it. For
>>>> Wikipedia Gramofile doesn't exist.
>
>>> Well, if that bothers you, feel free to write a Gramofile entry.
>
>
> A computer and a text editor perhaps?
>
> EM
>
You two are made for each other. Why don't you get a room?
Steve
Gerard
Nov 12, 2012, 7:39:58 AM11/12/12
to
Matthew B. Tepper
Nov 12, 2012, 10:08:13 AM11/12/12
to
Steve de Mena <st...@demena.com> appears to have caused the following
letters to be typed in news:Qd-dnWOmgfIpeT3N...@giganews.com:
Considering my theory that "EM" is really Gerard pretending to be Eltjo,
they already have.
And while I'm at it, I'm going to assume that John Wiser never accepted his
lumps for having confused Rachmaninoff PC #3 ("he wrote it for elephants")
with Stravinsky's "Circus Polka" (written "for a young elephant").
letters to be typed in news:Qd-dnWOmgfIpeT3N...@giganews.com:
they already have.
And while I'm at it, I'm going to assume that John Wiser never accepted his
lumps for having confused Rachmaninoff PC #3 ("he wrote it for elephants")
with Stravinsky's "Circus Polka" (written "for a young elephant").
Gerard
Nov 12, 2012, 10:23:38 AM11/12/12
to
Matthew B. Tepper <oyþ@earthlink.net> typed:
because you know very well that it is not true.
> Steve de Mena <st...@demena.com> appears to have caused the following
> letters to be typed in
> news:Qd-dnWOmgfIpeT3N...@giganews.com:
>
> > On 11/11/12 5:28 AM, EM wrote:
> > > "Gerard" <ghendriks...@hotmail.com> - Sat, 10 Nov 2012
> > > 23:46:38 +0100:
> > >
> > > > > > Although I'm not sure. I didn't find information about it.
> > > > > > For Wikipedia Gramofile doesn't exist.
> > >
> > > > > Well, if that bothers you, feel free to write a Gramofile
> > > > > entry.
> > >
> > > > With what?
> > >
> > > A computer and a text editor perhaps?
> > >
> > > EM
> >
> > You two are made for each other. Why don't you get a room?
> >
> > Steve
>
> Considering my theory that "EM" is really Gerard pretending to be
> Eltjo, they already have.
That is a very stupid "theory" - not only because it is your's. But specially
> letters to be typed in
> news:Qd-dnWOmgfIpeT3N...@giganews.com:
>
> > On 11/11/12 5:28 AM, EM wrote:
> > > "Gerard" <ghendriks...@hotmail.com> - Sat, 10 Nov 2012
> > > 23:46:38 +0100:
> > >
> > > > > > Although I'm not sure. I didn't find information about it.
> > > > > > For Wikipedia Gramofile doesn't exist.
> > >
> > > > > Well, if that bothers you, feel free to write a Gramofile
> > > > > entry.
> > >
> > > > With what?
> > >
> > > A computer and a text editor perhaps?
> > >
> > > EM
> >
> > You two are made for each other. Why don't you get a room?
> >
> > Steve
>
> Considering my theory that "EM" is really Gerard pretending to be
> Eltjo, they already have.
because you know very well that it is not true.
0 new messages