Enthusiastic presenters

[vinteuil]

per se (is that a plural?).

... yes - se as reflexive pronoun : itself, herself, himself, themselves

.

[cloughie]

There was of course Tom Crowe who became a personality through his bloopers - maybe he was the Radio 3 ‘Jack DeManio’.

[french frank]

... yes - se as reflexive pronoun : itself, herself, himself, themselves

.

Merci, couldn't be bothered to go upstairs and check. Couldn't think what the plural would be if not also se (as in French, indeed).

[oddoneout]

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.

Strange as it may seem to some in these parts, considering I listen to morning R3, I am not a fan of 'enthusiastic' presentation for other parts of the output, to which I also listen. For concerts, recitals and such like tell me what is going to be/has been played and by whom, otherwise keep quiet, suits me well enough. A certain amount of extra information may be appropriate, but does not need to be a breathlessly narrated documentary, and certainly not shouted over whatever else is going on.
But that is not what management considers I/we should like or want, so it isn't what I/we get.

[french frank]

But that is not what management considers I/we should like or want, so it isn't what I/we get.

I think, I think that this is what "radio" is like now (I haven't really listened to any radio other than R3 for decades - and not R3 for a fair number of years). But the impression I've mystically absorbed through my pores is that 'music radio', at least, is intended to be a seamless, bright, untaxing stream of chirpiness that people can dip in and out of, depending on what else they're doing at the time and whether something happens to grab their attention for a few microseconds.

The presenter's job is to keep the listeners' spirits up. So Radio 3 has to be like that for hours on end because that's what radio is now. Hence hours of magazine programming. And like that recent ad for Proms recruitment, "Radio 3 isn't just about classical music (that's Mozart and Beethoven, by the way) it's bursting with interesting things like left field rock, video games stuff, things you don't hear anywhere else and suchlike."

[teamsaint]

My work colleagues are a well informed bunch on stuff like “ left field rock”, ( i suppose, depending on what passes for such a thing at the BBC) but I am absolutely certain that they won’t be tuning in to find that sort of stuff at the Proms, unless it is a real favourite of theirs in which case they would find them elsewhere in any case.
Box ticking exercises for folks looking out for their jobs.