Enthusiastic presenters

[ahinton]

I agree! Katie is an excellent presenter and is very easy on the eye for red-blooded males, though not sure of her appeal to lesbians

How can she be such a thing on Radio 3? Furthermore, when she is visible, on what grounds do you make such a claim in respect of ALL "red-blooded males"? I, for example, am male and my blood certainly ran red when last I had a minor accident with a kitchen knife, but she doesn't do anything for me - not that I expect her to do so if I were to be watching her presenting a Prom on TV in any case. Who cares what he appeal or otherwise to lesbians might be? - and why in any case might anyone assume that she would appeal identically to all lesbians?

This thread is supposed to be about the enthusiasm of presenters, not what they look like, still less the effect of their appearance on anyone!

[ahinton]

Is it time this thread was amputated - or at least for certain contributors to be politely asked to put a sock in it?

Or maybe it should be kicked into touch?

[Norfolk Born]

Are you suggesting that the Proms coverage should be fronted by socker pundits?
'Granted, Midori may have misdirected the odd pass, but the big lads in the cellos and double basses backed her up and made sure the side kept a clean sheet. As for the way the boy Schiff recovered from those missed tackles .......now it's over to that Welsh bird for the half-time interviews in the dressing room'

[cavatina]

Ofcachap
Is it time this thread was amputated - or at least for certain contributors to be politely asked to put a sock in it?

Well if you ask me, this entire thread got off on the wrong foot and ought to be given the boot.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Is it time this thread was amputated - or at least for certain contributors to be politely asked to put a sock in it?

I can only agree that the nature of some comments is reminiscent of some of the crassness of other internet comment forums and is not worthy of Radio 3 listeners. I sincerely hope that those who sexualise presenters would have the guts to say the same in the presence of those individuals; on the other hand, I hope that they would show human dignity and refrain from doing so.

In other words, please desist.

[cavatina]

I can only agree that the nature of some comments is reminiscent of some of the crassness of other internet comment forums and is not worthy of Radio 3 listeners.

Devoting an entire thread to bashing presenters for being enthusiastic is unworthy of Radio 3 listeners, and Mandryka's comments are so infuriating they don't deserve the serious consideration Ahinton gave them.

[Dave2002]

Oh dear, perhaps I shouldn't have started it! I think it was Petroc Trelawney who used the word "literally" when referring to the water music. I agree with the contributor who said that mostly he's OK, but it was a rather glaring error.

Literalism reminds me of the joke about the toilets - "These urinals are broken. Please use the floor below."

[amateur51]

For what it's worth I think that Katie Derham's performances on the televised Proms that I have seen have been pretty good this season, and I write as someone who has found her earlier radio work pretty gushing. Well done Katie!

And I think, in fact I'm pretty damn sure, that Mandryka was being deliberately provocative in his remarks that run counter to the 'phwooooaaarrrr-phwwwooooaaarr' tendency around here where artists such as Alison Balsom are concerned (you know who you are!). Nice one, Mandryka - you little minx!

[french frank]

My attention has been drawn to this thread

Given some disapproval towards certain comments here, I would say that, as this is a Radio 3 forum, it is perfectly in order to express opinions about presenters (favourable or critical) as long as you stick to opinions about their professional performance. That is in line with what anyone might say about a piece of music or its performance, or the performers.

Msg #10 does not come into that category and I think is prurient and out of order. Please don't continue it here. There are other forums which welcome that kind of discussion without any form of moderation.

[cavatina]

Oh dear, perhaps I shouldn't have started it! I think it was Petroc Trelawney who used the word "literally" when referring to the water music. I agree with the contributor who said that mostly he's OK, but it was a rather glaring error.

I think we all need to ease up and get a sense of perspective. Could anyone here claim they never slip up and are spontaneously accurate about everything 100% of the time? Reality check, please! He's a knowledgeable professional, and anyone here who thinks he could do better ought to do a demo tape for a community radio show and try it-- it's harder than it looks, and I daresay you're in for a rude awakening.

I'm certain a great deal of our niggling criticism and eagerness to cackle over tiny flaws is motivated by envy, pure and simple. And I know firsthand that the happier I am with myself, the less I feel the need to put down others. You find it bothersome and annoying? Be the better person and rise above it.

[french frank]

I'm certain a great deal of our niggling criticism and eagerness to cackle over tiny flaws is motivated by envy, pure and simple.

Well, presentation is quite clearly something which irritates audiences - not just Radio 3 audiences - to the extent of finding some programmes unlistenable.

I don't think criticisms should descend to unpleasant personal attacks, but standards of presentation on Radio 3 have deteriorated and this thread reflects a comment made by John Tusa a few years ago that enthusiasm has taken over from knowledge. As a listener I find that practice deeply patronising in that it suggest that people can be cajoled into thinking something is good because the presenter raves about it.

I won't bring any particular names into the discussion, but not all R3 presenters are knowledgeable, and they aren't made so by declaring that they are.

[Ariosto]

Perhaps the beeb should do away with presenters and just give us the musak. * Then "experts" like cavatina won't have anything to write about and we can all go to sleep.

Does anyone listen to R3 these days?



* It would save a lot of money and then the beeb would not have to make redundant all those journalists ...

[Paul Sherratt]

>>Be the better person and rise above it.

Piece of cake for this forum's members, cavatina

http://www.classicmontgomery.com/blog-files/rql/rql-levitate.jpg

[aeolium]

It's not good enough to say that the flaws are 'tiny' - they are basic errors of fact and are numerous and egregious, as has been documented time and again on this forum. It is a key responsibility of the presenters to ensure that the information they provide is factually accurate, as I presume they write their own scripts (that has I think been the case ever since John Drummond was controller). If they are not doing that, then they are not doing their job.

It might be easier to ignore an irritating presenter if it had not been a policy objective of the BBC over recent years to make the presenter the focal point of the programme - and this is abundantly evident in TV programmes where it is hard to avoid seeing the presenter at any point in the programme, even though the subject of the programme is usually far more interesting (e.g. impressionism). So, on the R3 magazine programmes, there is increasing content which involves the presenter and less time for the music. You can't have it both ways as an organisation - you can't increase the focus on the presenter and then say that people are being fussy and over-critical if they don't like what s/he is doing. It's an inevitable consequence of the BBC's own policy.

[cavatina]

Well, presentation is quite clearly something which irritates audiences - not just Radio 3 audiences - to the extent of finding some programmes unlistenable.

Oh, absolutely. I'm probably more guilty of that than anyone here. It's just that I have the self-insight to think that maybe it's not them, it's me being unreasonably irritable. Which is fine too: whenever I start gnashing my teeth and can't stand it anymore, I switch off; problem solved. Or more to the point, I never switch on.

I don't think criticisms should descend to unpleasant personal attacks, but standards of presentation on Radio 3 have deteriorated and this thread reflects a comment made by John Tusa a few years ago that enthusiasm has taken over from knowledge. As a listener I find that practice deeply patronising in that it suggest that people can be cajoled into thinking something is good because the presenter raves about it.

Well, that's probably true. I loathe being talked down to like I'm completely insensible-- but on the other hand, what do you want them to say, and where's the balance? And how can we be so certain their enthusiasm is faked just because we find their manner annoying? Perhaps it's yet another case of the inability of introverts and extroverts to see eye-to-eye when it comes to communication styles. TV is an extroverted medium suited to extroverts, and nobody's done "introvert TV" since the 1950s.

I won't bring any particular names into the discussion, but not all R3 presenters are knowledgeable, and they aren't made so by declaring that they are.