Enthusiastic presenters

[cavatina]

True, cavatina - frustrated by incompetence becoming the norm and unhappy that the incompetent people don't get shuffled off somewhere but instead continue to harass us & are well-paid for it too.

Is that so hard to understand?

I can think of many presenters I don't like, but "incompetent" is an awfully strong word I simply wouldn't feel justified in using. Especially when the subject at hand is something as slight as misusing the word "literally" in the heat of the moment.

Whatever else you might think of the man, Petroc Trelawny is not incompetent.

One anonymous BBC source (described, if I remember, as an 'enraged BBC insider"!) once in one Guardian article.

I remember it being mentioned in other articles in a way that was subtly prejudiced. Every time you get press, there's almost always something about it that paints you and your arguments in a light that's not fully giving you credit for your sincerity and commitment to these issues. In some contexts, even referring to you as a "traditionalist" seems dismissive.

My point with all of that was not to insult you-- it was to say that even if you don't feel like you're part of "a separate caste" i.e. at odds with the majority of society, the majority of society feels at odds with people like you. People aren't getting what you're saying and writing you off as an elitist, and I'm not sure why you aren't more concerned about trying to figure out where the disconnect between what you believe and how you're perceived comes from.

It might indeed be irrelevant to the issues, but it's far from irrelevant to what kind of impact any given individual can have on influencing them.

Now, can we get the discussion back to the issues instead of personalising it?

Absolutely. If you've taken anything I've said amiss, I apologise.

[french frank]

Absolutely. If you've taken anything I've said amiss, I apologise.

I didn't at all take it amiss. I welcome it when the 'opposition' resorts to smear tactics . That refers to the BBC, not you - the response of Private Eye to that particularly disgraceful article was hilarious - but unfortunately is not online (and I knew nothing about it until the stream of supportive emails started arriving).

My view is perfectly simply: that Radio 3 should carry a range of programming which is essentially for people who take music and the arts seriously. It should have challenging analytical programmes at one end and good unvarnished presentation of the artistic content at the other. It should be for the people who are interested in listening and no consideration should be given to people who might be persuaded if it was made 'accessible' enough (i.e. 'dumbed down'). That's it. Why the BBC can't just engage in a reasonable debate instead of trying to smear and ridicule I don't know. As the years pass the tactics seem quite funny ...

[cavatina]

More youthful people brought up on pop music stations expect DJs to be the centre of any music programme. Ergo, that's what R3 has to do. This is, like, 2011. (I've just deleted what I was going to add: 'and stupid' )

Well when I was a teenager, I was listening to Bartok and Mahler off a thrift-store recordplayer--which has absolutely nothing to do with my view that a Third Programme-style R3 (or even the R3 of the 1970s) isn't a realistic or viable option given the audiences of today.

[cavatina]

Why the BBC can't just engage in a reasonable debate instead of trying to smear and ridicule I don't know.

Perhaps there's something about the way you're coming across that strikes them as not being worth taken seriously; that is, it's not what you say, but how you're saying it. Maybe they just can't get past that. Or it could be a matter of "industry insider" credentialism (i.e. "who the hell does this broad think she is?") And if that's what it boils down to, it might be worth reframing your central problem as being one of communication and image management.

I still think you could exert pressure on the BBC via the media entirely independently of anything they're doing with you if only you knew how to work it. To my mind, getting your message out there might be worth being regularly painted as a batty old fussbudget. Like that great old Andy Warhol quote: "Don't pay any attention to what they write about you. Just measure it in inches."

[french frank]

Well when I was a teenager, I was listening to Bartok and Mahler off a thrift-store recordplayer--which has absolutely nothing to do with my view that a Third Programme-style R3 (or even the R3 of the 1970s) isn't a realistic or viable option given the audiences of today.

It's the double standard where, for example, BBC Three and Radio 1 have their target audience and programmes are tailored to what that audience wants. As James Corden memorably said of the BBC Three critics: "It's not for them. They shouldn't even be watching.' (Well that excludes the majority of TV viewers)

What I ask for is the evidence that the kind of R3 I would advocate (much of it, incidentally, not to my personal taste - that is not the issue) would not be realistic or viable. Define 'realistic' and 'viable' in this context and provide the evidence for the assertion. You won't have it, but if the BBC has, why can they not provide it? If you're market-oriented, you'll think the answer is obvious; if you're content oriented, you won't.

I saw no evidence of a loss of audience except at various time when R3 changed its strategy. It then appeared to lose listeners which suggests to me a move in the wrong direction.

I think the problem with your arguments is that you have no facts to back them up; and, apparently, no statement of principles.

[aeolium]

Well when I was a teenager, I was listening to Bartok and Mahler off a thrift-store recordplayer--which has absolutely nothing to do with my view that a Third Programme-style R3 (or even the R3 of the 1970s) isn't a realistic or viable option given the audiences of today.

I don't think any of us knows anything about what the R3 audience of today thinks about R3 programmes except where members of that audience offer an opinion publicly (e.g. on this forum, or if they volunteer opinions to the BBC or some independent organisation). A key question is whether the increased focus on the presenter in many of these programmes, combined with other policy changes such as a greater number of shorter pieces, and increased repetition of popular pieces, has improved R3. If one looks purely at audience size and reach - which admittedly is a very limited measure - it's hard to argue that increased popularisation has led to an increase in listener numbers. After a decline during the first part of the noughties to a trough in 2007 of around 1.7m they have only just recovered to where they were about 12 years ago at 2.2m (the latest rise at a time when all radio listening is on the increase).

All I can say is that as a result of those BBC policies on radio and television, there are a number of programmes that I no longer listen to on R3 and a number of programmes on TV that I do not watch even though the subject is interesting to me because of the crassness of the presentational style. I have no idea whether I am unusual in that but I doubt it as I have seen quite a few complaints about presenters in TV programmes in the RT.

It is an interesting point as to the extent to which a public service broadcaster can influence or merely follow changes in taste. Do viewers/listeners get more inured or resigned to unchallenging and banal programmes as more of those are broadcast or do the BBC decide that that is what the viewers/listeners want? As someone who can easily recall a period in which the BBC broadcast every Shakespeare play on primetime TV, and there were TV productions of the Oedipus trilogy, Beckett plays, Conrad serialisations etc, I wonder where has that audience gone - because it was certainly there. What's changed is that the BBC is afraid at taking a risk about anything these days, and especially a risk with challenging drama.

[doversoul1]

Well when I was a teenager, I was listening to Bartok and Mahler off a thrift-store recordplayer--which has absolutely nothing to do with my view that a Third Programme-style R3 (or even the R3 of the 1970s) isn't a realistic or viable option given the audiences of today.

and

And if that's what it boils down to, it might be worth reframing your central problem as being one of communication and image management.

You seem to have understood nothing of what french frank has been so patiently explaining to you all this time, in fact since the R3MB days. If you intend to continue your contribution to this thread, how about listing ten, or even five, Radio3 programmes you have actually listened to in the last week and comment on the presenters. Some of us are trying to get back to the topic.

pilamenon

Donald McLeod epitomises the approach which R3 producers should adopt as general policy for their presenters

Couldn’t agree more. His spontaneous announcement referring to the tragedy in Norway after Verdi’s Requiem was more than perfect.

Dave, totally agree about slips/minor errors. They can be amusing, and Radio 3 presenters were always good at acknowledging them but making light of them and enhancing our enjoyment in the process.

Remember Rob and his ‘insect’? He covered up very well without drawing attention to either the slip or to himself. Radio3 definitely has very good presenters but so many of them seem to be wasted at the moment.

[rank_and_file]

An interesting thread to come back to from an overseas holiday, on which I took a number of cassettes containing R3 off air concert recordings. One example was Schoenberg’s Gurrelieder with Simon Rattle conducting the CBSO and Hans Hotter as the Speaker. In impeccable English the announcer informed us of the venue and performers adding that Hans Hotter had just celebrated his 80th birthday. The performance was quite splendid and the applause at the end went on for over a minute before the announcer smoothly intervened and returned us to the studio.

Working back from when Hotter died, the broadcast would have been in 1989. Then announcers let the music do the talking, compared to the verbal diarrhoea most presenters spout if not plugging another BBC programme, playing trails, opining on how they enjoyed the “fabulous” performance: (no work now performed on R3 does not warrant a superlative adjective), pleading with us to listen to the programme again, or imploring us to email them, or vote on this or that, or asking for a piece of music to be played.

Whilst I agree with most of the views expressed in the thread, with the notable exception of cavatina - surely employed by the BBC - I think the change from announcer to presenter has been a vast mistake.

[Serial_Apologist]

cavatina - surely employed by the BBC

Not unless there's something she hasn't told me!

[Ariosto]

x

[Ariosto]

x

[pilamenon]

Can't you make your own points in a less offensive manner, Ariosto?

[Ariosto]

x

[french frank]

No.

It would be much appreciated if you would.

[Suffolkcoastal]

Seems from the discussion so far that there are three kinds of problems - though I'll wait for the Spanish Inquisition to add more.

1. Slips or minor errors, such as the one mentioned ab initio. They can even be funny and entertaining, and in the TV world resulted in more programming. I think such errors sometimes went under the name Colemanballs.

2. Opinions - possibly not genuine. I don't mind an announcer/presenter telling us a performance was "wonderful" if it indeed was, or he/she felt it to be. Often everything these days is hyped up, and saying a performance is going to be wonderful in advance might be tempting fate. Removing all opinions might be a step too far though, and I guess back announcements of the form "that was a really awful performance of Beethoven's 6th, the worst since X's RFH 1997 performance ..." would be totally out of order. There was a time when we would have had something like " That was Beethoven's 6th Symphony, the Pastoral, played by the BBC SO conducted by Norman del Mar, before an audience in the BBC Studios at Maida Vale. Goodnight."

3. Factual errors. These may creep in from time to time, but apparently some people think the number of these has been increasing recently. Many are really not too serious, and often corrected later.

I think 3 kinds of problems sums it up and agree with you about point one, as these little slip ups can be very amusing. Opinion's from announcers should be kept to a minimum, unless of course they are presenting 'review' type programmes. As for factual errors, yes they have multiplied in the last couple of years, and this IMO is the most serious 'problem' of the three. Sometimes they are corrected but not always and with the old boards, it often took one of the boarders to mention the error before it was corrected. I think R3 management do read these boards as I've noticed the occasional correction after its been mentioned on here. I would like to know who does the research for the presenters, I've never seen any posts advertised, as I would be applying as fast as I could complete an application.