Coming in the same size and on the same six times a year production schedule as its peer, American Record Guide, Fanfare magazine gives American classical music buyers another perspective on new releases. It also provides interviews with musicians and others in the industry, another complement to ARG's coverage of musical America.
Calling itself the magazine for serious record collectors, Fanfare's reviews are almost always longer than ARG's. Some people think the reviews tell them more; sometimes they do and sometimes they tell you more about the reviewer. It's a certainty that, with at least some Fanfare reviewers, the lengthy reviews are more about the reviewer than the music under discussion.
I think there are a number of things this magazine does well and I would say those things are these:
1. As a subscriber, you gain access to Fanfare's electronic warehouse of reviews going back to the 1980s. This is the most outstanding benefit since more than half of all "new" classical music releases are re-releases of music that's been recorded and released previously. And since only about 1 percent of new releases are an improvement on existing recordings, the ability to go back in time and see what else is out there -which is what made the Penguin Guide famous -is critical to collectors making sound purchasing judgments.
2. Fanfare gives its critics all the space they need for their reviews. This can -when the critic is incisive and direct -result in a penetrating and searching review. When one of the lesser writers is at work, it is kindly to say the literary concepts of directness and conciseness are abandoned. These reviews tend to become personal observatins and not subjective reports on the product.
3. Fanfare uses an unusual format in its opening pages that merge interviews with reviews of spotlighted recordings. This provides more in-depth coverage and opinion on these pieces -usually including lengthy direct quotes from the composer or playre -than any other publication provides.
Not everything at Fanfare is plum pudding and there are equal and corresponding negative aspects to this magazine. They include:
1. Long-winded reviewers with an agenda and, sometimes, little to say about the music. Some reviewers write about the CD in the first and last paragraph and expound on their musical knowledge (or their opinions) everywhere else. Even one of their own critics once published an epistle on how to write a review, saying many reviews seemingly act like liner notes for the music.
2. They publish a lot of letters, which is a positive and a big improvement over ARG. However, in the letters section the reviewers are given space to respond to all criticism. This tells me their work cannot stand up to criticism and the magazine does not value reader input that varies from its expert opinion. They also publish a section where the reviewers get to critique each other. For me, this is no help whatsoever and little more than a personal bashing ground.
3. Fanfare's wide one column format can be difficult for the eye to follow and may exhast the reader. Going to a two column format, like that used by ARG, would improve matters and allow the magazine to put more text into fewer pages since you get more text on the page in multiple columns than in a single column.
Another plaudit -the writing used to be pretty bad in this magazine, with flowery prose regularly substituted for informatio. I am pleased to say this has improved over the years. One reason for this, I think, is that -unlike ARG, which recruits its reviewers from universities and the musical establishment -Fanfare often recruits its reviewers from its subscription base. While a number of its critics are famous, long term music writers, a surprising number are self-taught in the art of music and/or music criticism and/or have been community practitioners.
However, in the comparison with American Record Guide, my assessment is that ARG employs some of the best music critics in the USA and Fanfare, for the most part, does not. I consistently find ARG's best reviewers include more reference recordings in their comparative reviews than Fanfare, even though Fanfare's reviews are sometimes twice as long. Also, much of Fanfare's "front end" product -the interviews with performers and recording company executives that runs through the first 100 pages of each issue -paves the way for the plentiful pages of color advertising in the magazine. Stated another way, it is the crossover from a critical guide to one that is in bed with the music industry. Advertising pays the freight, I know, and there is a price to pay for that -one ARG will not pay.
Another plaudit, especially for the Fanfare editor, is his habit of offering more than one review of an item. I once read two reviews of the Dohnanyi violin concertos that followed back to back. They could not have been more different; one praised the recording to the skies, the second recommended other recordings of both pieces. Because some of Fanfare's critics simply overdo it with enthusiasm a bit too often, in my view, this editorial device is very helpful for me.
As subscriber to both Fanfare and ARG, I find each has merit and complements the other. Each is published six times annually and they arrive at my house about the same time. Both are also available online to subscribers. I often read one, then refer to the other for elucidation. Fanfare making available its database or reviews going back to 1989 to subscribers is a big advantage over ARG, which does nothing of the sort and, instead, suggests subscribers keep all their old copies and refer to them when they want to know something. In this way, Fanfare is in the 21st century and ARG is in the 20th century.
While no critical journal is perfect, I don't think there is any question Fanfare has moved ahead of the British magazine Gramophone, whose level of criticism has declined, its level of poor writing has increased, and it has put more emphasis on world musical development and download technology than reviewing music available to readers. I would recommend this magazine over Gramophone for anyone wanting recommendations on new recordings.
The founders picked their tagline well. This magazine truly is for those of us who own, upgrade and maintain boats. Loads of information and tips to help you with chores you have to deal with, and ideas on how to add neat features you'd never have thought of until you saw them here. Even the letters to the editors are content-rich. In addition to 'projects' the magazine includes a fair share of seamanship and techniques articles, and instruction on boat design & trade-offs. It is all very informative, useful, readable and relevant. There is a lot of content that applies equally well to power boaters.
