Drama to be eradicated from Radio 3

[mopsus]

Yes you used to get top-quality thesps as well as world-class plays.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Indeed, welcome to the forum, Ian. This was the great disappointment for me too. When the gentle (my opinion) decline of Radio 3 was already taking place there was a brief flowering of European/world classic theatre c. 2000(?). For3 had a meeting with the then controller and the R3 head of speech/drama (Jenny Abramsky), and under her there were great productions of Racine, Calderón, Lope de Vega, Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, Goethe, Chekhov, Tennesse Williams &c &c. The irony is that we asked then why they didn't rebroadcast archive material of some of the great productions. The answer was a slightly vague 'acting styles were different then'. So now we're to get a rebroadcast of Hamlet just prior to abandoning the genre altogether. And for what?

“acting styles were different then “ …..Yep they could act for starters ….

[AuntDaisy]

“acting styles were different then “ …..Yep they could act for starters ….

.. .and the voices were easier to tell apart.

[Ianbrowne]

Welcome from me as well.

Was that the Michael Aldridge "Titus Andronicus"? And the 1998 "Divine Words"?
World Service also did a lot of "foreign" plays - sadly, there's little drama there now. There was an excellent 1992 "Blood Wedding" with Juliet Stevenson, Alan Rickman & Anna Massey.

I think the answer is yes to both. Radio 3 introduced me to the work of Conor Macpherson and David Edgar. When I was back in the north I went to see Conor Macpherson's The Weir in Liverpool (and in Buchaest where it was called Barajul). I experienced it first through Drama on 3, and without Radio 3 I probably would never have gone to the theatre to see it. Similarly it was through hearing David Edgar's Pentecost that I took the trouble to go to London to see Daughters of the Revolution.

I find it hard to get satisfaction from reading plays. It's too 'dry'. The exprience of listening is, for me, a very full one, and it allows me to think of the actors as exactly fitting the part. If it hadn't been for Radio 3 I would never have come to appreciate Jacobean drama. When I looked up the actor who played Flamineo in The White Devil, I was disappointed to see a charming attractive leading man of the old school - nothing like the picture he had created in my mind, just through the use of his voice. But that is one of the wonderful things about Radio drama - the actors look exactly how you wish them to appear.

Radio 3 drama has enriched my life immeasurably. But we live in times when a rich cultural life is of little significance. Drama on 3 may have a small initial audience, but if we add those people who listen on Youtube or the Internet Archive I suspect the figures are pretty good.

It astonishes me to hear people talking about the amount of drama still available, on Radio 4 or on TV, as though drama were some sort of indeterminate matter and as long as a lump of is available then drama lovers ( whoever they might be) will be quite content.

It never thought the philistines would overrun Radio 3, but that seems to be what has happened.

[french frank]

It astonishes me to hear people talking about the amount of drama still available, on Radio 4 or on TV, as though drama were some sort of indeterminate matter and as long as a lump of is available then drama lovers ( whoever they might be) will be quite content.

In BBC-speak, 'drama' has a very wide definition. Everything from soaps to The Archers is 'drama': most is contemporay, written for radio/television. So the rich heritage of theatre is valued on the same metric as classical music: how many people enjoy them compared with the dramatic and musical ephemera of today's here today, gone tomorrow product? It's cut-throat competition with other broadcasters because the BBC has chosen to compete for the same audience and ditch the content which no one else provides.

I feel very heartened by your comments as it gives me hope that there are many more listeners lurking silently and who feel the same way. Every morning I think of a new approach for a letter to the BBC <sigh>, laying out arguments that they will understand, still less have any influence at all.

It never thought the philistines would overrun Radio 3, but that seems to be what has happened.

Nor did I 30 years ago. To rephrase the saying about lunatics: the philistines have taken over the arts world.

[Ein Heldenleben]

In BBC-speak, 'drama' has a very wide definition. Everything from soaps to The Archers is 'drama': most is contemporay, written for radio/television. So the rich heritage of theatre is valued on the same metric as classical music: how many people enjoy them compared with the dramatic and musical ephemera of today's here today, gone tomorrow product? It's cut-throat competition with other broadcasters because the BBC has chosen to compete for the same audience and ditch the content which no one else provides.

I feel very heartened by your comments as it gives me hope that there are many more listeners lurking silently and who feel the same way. Every morning I think of a new approach for a letter to the BBC <sigh>, laying out arguments that they will understand, still less have any influence at all.



Nor did I 30 years ago. To rephrase the saying about lunatics: the philistines have taken over the arts world.

Bit harsh that : I would say that series like The Wire and The Sopranos are as good as or better than a great deal of Jacobean Tragedy and many contemporary sitcoms are both funnier and wiser than a good deal of 18th and virtually all 19th century comedy. Nothing ages faster than second rate drama.
That said there’s so little Chekhov and Shakespeare on the BBC a these days you begin to wonder what it’s for..

[french frank]

Bit harsh that : I would say that series like The Wire and The Sopranos are as good as or better than a great deal of Jacobean Tragedy and many contemporary sitcoms are both funnier and wiser than a good deal of 18th and virtually all 19th century comedy.

I wasn't writing it all off! I can't remember what the grammatical term is for the use or absence of the definite article, where the reference is to some or a substantial amount but not all within the relevant category. So not all written-for-radio drama is bad (though it may or may not be ephemeral). Sitcom, I believe, is 'comedy' rather than 'drama'...

[vinteuil]

I can't remember what the grammatical term is for the use or absence of the definite article, where the reference is to some or a substantial amount but not all within the relevant category...

... as in the Russell / Moore discourse -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSifxC_L9F0

.

[french frank]

... as in the Russell / Moore discourse -

Yes. I had a transcript bookmarked for ages, and read it quite often. I don't think I've heard it since the LP came out.

But what is the grammatical term for something which leaves the actual meaning in doubt in this particular way?

[AuntDaisy]

Yes. I had a transcript bookmarked for ages, and read it quite often. I don't think I've heard it since the LP came out.

But what is the grammatical term for something which leaves the actual meaning in doubt in this particular way?

Possibly "zero article"? (OED link)

zero

The term zero is used to indicate the absence of a grammatical feature when that feature would normally be present or is present in similar constructions. For example, a zero that-clause is a that-clause in which that has been omitted, as in ‘He said he would be late’ (instead of ‘He said that he would be late’). Similarly, a clause with zero auxiliary is one in which the auxiliary verb has been omitted, as in ‘You coming?’ (instead of ‘Are you coming?’).

[french frank]

Possibly "zero article"? (OED link)

Just remembered: I was thinking of 'bare nouns' with no determiner. So, if I ask: Moore, are there apples in your basket, he must answer Yes. But if I add 'any' or 'some', Moore can give them a nuance that allows him to say, No - just to annoy me.

[AuntDaisy]

Just remembered: I was thinking of 'bare nouns' with no determiner. So, if I ask: Moore, are there apples in your basket, he must answer Yes. But if I add 'any' or 'some', Moore can give them a nuance that allows him to say, No just to annoy me.

I live and learn, thanks French Frank.

That reminds me of one of dear old Donald Trefusis' Loose Ends talks...

[vinteuil]

Just remembered: I was thinking of 'bare nouns' with no determiner. So, if I ask: Moore, are there apples in your basket, he must answer Yes. But if I add 'any' or 'some', Moore can give them a nuance that allows him to say, No - just to annoy me.

... ah yes : bare nouns.

It's on the 'logic' end of grammar concerns.

I last looked at a linguistics text book in 1972. I last looked at a logic text book in 1974.

Eheu fugatches, chaps and chapesses

.

[Belgrove]

Sam Jackson will be avoiding answering questions on R4’s Feedback this afternoon:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0028bp9

[french frank]

Sam Jackson will be avoiding answering questions on R4’s Feedback this afternoon:

Must hear this before writing letter. Will he say (again) "Most people listen to Radio 3 for the music" - hence speech/drama gets dropped? Well, if there's a lot more music than speech/drama It's likely that people listen more to the music. As they do on CFM where there is only music ... I read that Channel 5 is reintroducing a weekly drama slot (gap in the market?) though it doesn't seem as if much is likely to be classic theatre - more of the contemporary 'plays for today' variety.