Enthusiastic presenters

[Bryn]

Do try and seek some support for this stuff claiming that most Pre-Prom events are broadcast. They are not, only a select few are. This is all to the good given the howlers that I have heard at recent events. Did you know, for instance, that "Honegger was French"?

[doversoul1]

I agree. Things are rapidly turning into a one party state here.

Quite why a certain person has been allowed to hijack this and other threads without a shred of evidence to support their views, and yet other posts are removed for daring to express justifiable displeasure at these antics is beyond my ken.

To begin with, this forum is a one party, or more precisely, one-man state: this forum is french frank’s. We (most of us) simply take advantage of her hard work.

The highjacks happened because we let them happen. We could have ignored the posts by the certain person and carried on with our discussion. As it is, these threads cannot physically be highjacked. It was our responses that fed the situation (I don’t claim to be not guilty). There is no point in expressing displeasure no matter how justifiable it is, as it will not be understood by the person concerned. To me, this is a lesson learned. ()

[Simon]

Yet if you look back at the opposing views, you find that initially they are both eminently reasoned and reasonable.

That's what can so easily happen on these forums. People fasten onto one point, sometimes misunderstand it, sometimes exaggerate it, sometimes misconstrue the responses to it, then some troll comes along and deliberately inflames the situation.

Even more reason, IMO, to avoid any more difficult topics.

[Ariosto]

To begin with, this forum is a one party, or more precisely, one-man state: this forum is french frank’s. We (most of us) simply take advantage of her hard work.

The highjacks happened because we let them happen. We could have ignored the posts by the certain person and carried on with our discussion. As it is, these threads cannot physically be highjacked. It was our responses that fed the situation (I don’t claim to be not guilty). There is no point in expressing displeasure no matter how justifiable it is, as it will not be understood by the person concerned. To me, this is a lesson learned. ()

I'm afraid that even if we were all angels (and I'm certainly not) it would still be a case of hijacking, because such people are obsessed and they will go on with their posts without responses - until someone in the end does respond. This is the nature of their illness. They have to be top dog. They feel enobled by punishment and insults. That is why it is not enough to attend a few well chosen events, but to experience them all, come what may, so that certain claims can be made, and a sort of nobility can be given as an example of fortitude.

I hope Simon can also find it in his heart to forgive any typos or spelling mistakes I may have made in this post ...

[Simon]

I hope Simon can also find it in his heart to forgive any typos or spelling mistakes I may have made in this post...

Be assured of that, old chap. We all need forgiving for everything we have done wrong. Even for typos. :cool2:

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

This is the nature of their illness. They have to be top dog. They feel enobled by punishment and insults...

I know this is true for a small number of posters, but please don't give them the credit that they do not deserve by allowing them to get to you in this way.

[pilamenon]

Can we get back to the topic, please? This is a thread about the role and style of the presenter, there are few more important topics for those who would like to see improvements to Radio 3, and so to close the thread because some people can't/won't control themselves would be absurd and self-defeatingly censorious. Far better, as ff has already done, to hive off the personal attacks and responses onto the diversions forum, and let the debate continue.

[Ferretfancy]

The presenters on Radio 3 in the past, who of course were called announcers, were trained to present information on the music with the prime emphasis on content. They certainly had individual personalities which came across, as anybody who listened to Cormac Rigby or Pat Hughes will remember, but they were not cultural promoters trying as it were to boost sales. We did not need to be told or shown how enthusiastic they were.
Enthusiasm can be an excellent virtue, but it must surely be secondary to the ability to tell us about the music's content. Until the dumbing down began people like Rob Cowan were able to display a deep knowledge of their material and communicate it an enthusiastic way.
This sort of communication is now in woefully short supply, especially where music on TV is concerned. Everything is subordinated to the need to promote, everything becomes a form of trailer.
We might begin to find an improvement in presentation if a few rules were observed, perhaps not slavishly, but always kept in mind.

1. Do not tell the listeners or viewers how wonderful the music is going to be before it has even been performed or played.

2. After the performance do not tell listeners or viewers how wonderful the performance was, allow them to judge for themselves.

3. If you are not musically qualified, do not appear at all for preference, but if you must, work from a script written by someone who knows the subject.

4. Remember that, even if you are trying to reach a wider audience,classical music needs dedicated listening. There is no advantage to be gained by trying to suggest that it is always easy, and can therefore be sold on personalities and hype.

The reasoning behind some recent promotion of the Proms completely escapes me. As an example, yesterday's Breakfast programme on R3 included numerous plugs for the Resurrection Symphony, culminating in a performance of the last ten minutes or so of the finale in a performance by Simon Rattle, with Rob Cowan telling us in advance how great it was going to be live at the RAH last night. Who benefits from this? Do they seriously believe that people all over Britain are going to rush out and buy non existent tickets? Surely those who were going to join the enormous queue at the RAH would have already made up their minds to go, while others would plan to listen or watch at home. Could there be anything more crass than playing the finale of a great work as a trailer?

[Stillhomewardbound]

PROMS RADIO PRESENTATION

While I've not heard every prom, I think the R3 has finally got the message that shouting and incoherency do not make for the best listening experiences, and we seem to have presentation more akin to what we were used. Tom Service doesn't seem to have been around so much. Excellent journalist though he may be, he didn't 'arf mangle his announcements last year, all stuttering and fluffing his way through his scripts.

So, an improvement methinks and important to acknowledge.

PROMS TV PRESENTATION:

Conversely (and I should know full well as my charts clearly say ''ere be dragons') I dipped twice into the Proms on TV at the weekend. One was for the film music prom and opened with Charles Hazelwood and a female co-presenter whom I don't know. It took just thirty seconds of utter drivel by them both from the floor of the RAH, down 'mongst the prommers' massive innit' before the concert was duly switched off, to be picked up later on listen again in its radio incarnation.

The other was the latter half of Prom 30 - National YOB playing Prokofiev's Romeo & Juliet suite - which I really enjoyed. I always feel invigorated when watching young musicians at play. At the time I didn't know who the orchestra was so when the bows were being taken I was all ears. Well after ten seconds or such, they cut away to some dreadul music, as if the network was so struggling with having to cover classical music of any nature, and over it some female voice literally yakked some gibberish which didn't make any sense at all - sound also seemed very distorted and very badly mixed.

At first, I thought, 'my hearing really is shot to pieces', but then I recalled that I heard every note of music - loud and soft -just played. No, it wasn't me. The tv producers simply don't have a clue. Grrr.

[vinteuil]

... I think I may have a found a solution to the K***e D****m "problem".

She has been very present this weekend...

So - I turn the radio to "mute" in the room I'm in - but keep radios on in other rooms.

I cannot hear the particular awfulness of the presenter - but can hear a general burbling.

When the burbling is about to cease and the music is about to start (my hearing is sensitive enough to detect that... ) - then I turn on the radio in the room I'm in.

Well, it works for me...

[Don Petter]

Well, it works for me...

Sort of Katie Not-in-deroom?

[ahinton]

Sort of Katie Not-in-deroom?

I'd though some time ago that my reference to not giving a dirham was bad enough, but I now feel totally eclipsed!

[vinteuil]

Sort of Katie Not-in-deroom?

boo - boom !!!

[antongould]

Like so many positions, this appears to be a closed shop/ringed fence. You need to work for the BBC and be a former newsreader, gardening expert, comedian, etc. There is some scope for others to get into presentation which is why there are some, such as Suzy Klein, with considerable musical knowledge. But she is one of a dying breed.

Still a big fan E_A ...... ?????

[french frank]

What I mourn is the passing of the era when presenters were not, per se (is that a plural?), of great importance unless they were elucidating, informing, educating about the content. The engaging manner, the warm personality, the infectious sense of humour - these create the army of devoted fans. It seems evident that presenters can detract, make trivial remarks, mangle their announcements, but to me the satisfying presenter takes a back seat, "serves the content" as Cormac Rigby put it. Why would i want the presenter to be enthusiastic? I'm not so easily influenced that that will make me enthusiastic too and brighten my day. It's as if the only alternative to 'enthusiastic' is 'unenthusiastic', bored, lifeless.

The problem is that the whole concept of what constitutes a 'programme' had changed radically, and the magazine programme brings with it a different presenter style. R3INO now, I'm afraid.