BBC Young Musician 2024

[Dave2002]

Sorry about the spoiler BTW - re Brass and Percussion.

[kernelbogey]

I fell across this last night pretty much by accident. The performances I saw were joyously inspiring. (I realise we were seeing the creme de la creme, and that the wider picture is less rosy.)

[french frank]

Threads merged (I think). I'm sure I did it differently last time. It would be helpful if people checked whether a topic already exists before starting a new one. Many thanks.

[Serial_Apologist]

Threads merged (I think). I'm sure I did it differently last time. It would be helpful if people checked whether a topic already exists before starting a new one. Many thanks.

[LMcD]

I'm not sure what this actually means, but: 'For 2024, the grand final will be broadcast on BBC2 for the first time since 2012 in the form of highlights from the concerto performances, whilst the full concert programme is to be carried on BBC Four and Radio 3'.
I notice than instrument categories have been replaced with regions.

[Dave2002]

Threads merged (I think). I'm sure I did it differently last time. It would be helpful if people checked whether a topic already exists before starting a new one. Many thanks.

Sorry - but like the TV programme and the Competition itself, it seemed to have a very low profile. I didn't spot it before.

I had no idea the programme was on until we spotted it in a list on iPlayer.

[jonfan]

These incredible performers succeed not because of music education in this country but in spite of it. I wasn’t sure about the new format of the competition to start with but I warmed to it as those with that special something could be from the same instrument section rather than accepting players from a discipline that didn’t have that extra something this year. I’m sure in the past we’ve heard full recitals of at least 20 minutes from each performer on Sounds and IPlayer? Just 10 minutes each and seldom a full piece broadcast.
A derisory coverage of a competition the BBC seems ashamed of as though more than 2 minutes of continuous music is more than the listener can take. Previous organisers would be ashamed of the state it’s in.

[Dave2002]

These incredible performers succeed not because of music education in this country but in spite of it. I wasn’t sure about the new format of the competition to start with but I warmed to it as those with that special something could be from the same instrument section rather than accepting players from a discipline that didn’t have that extra something this year. I’m sure in the past we’ve heard full recitals of at least 20 minutes from each performer on Sounds and IPlayer? Just 10 minutes each and seldom a full piece broadcast.
A derisory coverage of a competition the BBC seems ashamed of as though more than 2 minutes of continuous music is more than the listener can take. Previous organisers would be ashamed of the state it’s in.

The new format is cosy, but even though the judges are good and sympathetic, note that there is limited specialist knowledge. Ironically the judge who was perhaps most able to comment on the brass players ended up with the others eliminating all the brass contestants. Surely that doesn't make sense. Given also that nobody knows how players are going to respond to the final challenges, it seems wrong not to allow some players in the different instrument categories reach the final stages.

Also, where is the education for viewers in this? The BBC has missed an opportunity to explain some of the intricacies of individual instruments for viewers in general, so maybe they are assuming either that all viewers who are interested enough know it all already, or are simply treating this as entertainment, or a tribal "team sport".

There are many things which could be explained, such as:

Woodwinds - different timbres in different registers, circular breathing, transposition, the need to breathe (!!), double and triple tonguing.

Brass - very wide dynamic range - and very loud at fortissimo levels, very distinctly different timbres at different volume levels, transposition, sheer air power and the need to breathe, double and triple tonguing.

Strings - vast range of different effects - some due to bowing, double stopping, harmonics etc.

Harps - pedals - tuning affects strings differently and some notes have to be set on more than one string, special effects

Percussion - I'm sure there's a very wide range of possible effects.

Keyboards - different kinds of touch, playing complex chords, repeated notes.

There are just so many things which could be explained for interested viewers - but it seems that the BBC doesn't really want to do that.

[jonfan]

You are so right on all these points Dave. I suspect the present set up is a cost saving measure. I would understand that there must have been category finals that we haven’t seen?. It’s always seemed to me to be unfair that keyboards in the past meant piano, I don’t recall a harpsichord or organ in that group. The woodwind class has many instruments to consider for example, recorders won two consecutive contests. Great for them.

[french frank]

Also, where is the education for viewers in this? The BBC has missed an opportunity to explain some of the intricacies of individual instruments for viewers in general, so maybe they are assuming either that all viewers who are interested enough know it all already, or are simply treating this as entertainment, or a tribal "team sport".

Today's BBC 'informs' (news) and 'entertains'. Anything educational must be presented as entertainment if at all possible.

[LMcD]

Today's BBC 'informs' (news) and 'entertains'. Anything educational must be presented as entertainment if at all possible.

The term 'infotainment' was first used in September 1980.

[Dave2002]

Actually post 23 is slightly unfair, as the TV companies are generally negligent about education and informing. Consider sports - and I'm not a great sports fan, but how many people really understand the rules of football, or cricket, or the strategies which teams and players must [maybe] use in order to win a game

Another "show" I steadfastly avoid is Strictly - but presumably there is a lot of skill and technique for some of the actions.

Obviously for events which are shown on TV there will be some people who are really knowledgeable, but many will watch possibly without any insight into how games are played, won or lost.

As noted above infotainment seems to be the current approach, but with very little attempt to seriously inform or educate. So why should a music compeition be treated any differently?

The media companies seem to work on the assumption - which may be correct - that most people don't want to understand anything in any great depth.

[LMcD]

Actually post 23 is slightly unfair, as the TV companies are generally negligent about education and informing. Consider sports - and I'm not a great sports fan, but how many people really understand the rules of football, or cricket, or the strategies which teams and players must [maybe] use in order to win a game

Another "show" I steadfastly avoid is Strictly - but presumably there is a lot of skill and technique for some of the actions.

Obviously for events which are shown on TV there will be some people who are really knowledgeable, but many will watch possibly without any insight into how games are played, won or lost.

As noted above infotainment seems to be the current approach, but with very little attempt to seriously inform or educate. So why should a music compeition be treated any differently?

The media companies seem to work on the assumption - which may be correct - that most people don't want to understand anything in any great depth.

Because - unlike soccer - rugby is not played continuously, commentators have several opportunities during a match to explain what's going on. This may give them an unfair advantage over soccer commentators, but very few of the latter can compare with rugby commentators/analysts past and present such as Mill MacLaren, Andrew Cotter and Brian Moore. Most tennis commentators are also pretty informative. That said, I broadly agree with your comment about media companies.

[oddoneout]

Actually post 23 is slightly unfair, as the TV companies are generally negligent about education and informing. Consider sports - and I'm not a great sports fan, but how many people really understand the rules of football, or cricket, or the strategies which teams and players must [maybe] use in order to win a game

Another "show" I steadfastly avoid is Strictly - but presumably there is a lot of skill and technique for some of the actions.

Obviously for events which are shown on TV there will be some people who are really knowledgeable, but many will watch possibly without any insight into how games are played, won or lost.

As noted above infotainment seems to be the current approach, but with very little attempt to seriously inform or educate. So why should a music compeition be treated any differently?

The media companies seem to work on the assumption - which may be correct - that most people don't want to understand anything in any great depth.

It certainly suits them to hang on to that assumption - factual content adds cost - but it reminds me of the Grotneys Red Barrel assumption, that because people drank it then there was nothing wrong with it. Conveniently overlooking that if people want a drink and that is all that is available then it is quite likely that is what they will drink, as it is preferable to doing without.
That physicists, historians, archaeologists, naturalists can continue to draw TV audiences suggests it isn't a justified assumption, but presumably the fact that people will watch programmes which are superficial is all the "evidence" that is needed.

[french frank]

The media companies seem to work on the assumption - which may be correct - that most people don't want to understand anything in any great depth.

The assumption probably is correct. But the natural corollary is deemed to be that they should provide only what 'most people' want and not bother too much about what an admitted minority wants, even if it's the exact opposite.