Should BBC presenters express judgements on the performance?

[kernelbogey]

Having just posted on a Proms thread about a presenter's style I thought perhaps a more general (i.e. not ad hominem) thread about presentation might be useful.

There is an argument that a BBC presenter should not broadcast judgements about the performance s/he is presenting, that is, should avoid stating 'this was a brilliant performance' etc, since they are in the position of representing, in a sense, the promoter/broadcaster of the concert. I'd say that was particularly true of the Proms where the BBC is the promoter.

It is a different matter to describe, say, how the conductor guided the musicians, or the appearance of a soloist, for a radio audience. But some presenters go much further in using descriptive, subjective language in describing the performance (no doubt in some cases further informed by presence at a rehearsal).

There is a counter argument that the presenter has an educative role. So to say that the performance was unusually quick, slow, or whatever is informative for less experienced listeners.

Traditionally, Radio Three presentation style has been neutral and conservative in style. Some Members here obviously dislike the more personal response of some presenters.

On the whole I back the first argument that it is not the presenter's place to comment.

[Hornspieler]

Having just posted on a Proms thread about a presenter's style I thought perhaps a more general (i.e. not ad hominem) thread about presentation might be useful.

There is an argument that a BBC presenter should not broadcast judgements about the performance s/he is presenting, that is, should avoid stating 'this was a brilliant performance' etc, since they are in the position of representing, in a sense, the promoter/broadcaster of the concert. I'd say that was particularly true of the Proms where the BBC is the promoter.

It is a different matter to describe, say, how the conductor guided the musicians, or the appearance of a soloist, for a radio audience. But some presenters go much further in using descriptive, subjective language in describing the performance (no doubt in some cases further informed by presence at a rehearsal).

There is a counter argument that the presenter has an educative role. So to say that the performance was unusually quick, slow, or whatever is informative for less experienced listeners.

Traditionally, Radio Three presentation style has been neutral and conservative in style. Some Members here obviously dislike the more personal response of some presenters.

On the whole I back the first argument that it is not the presenter's place to comment.

I would expect the presenter's comment to be limited to such observations as "... well, the audience enjoyed that ..." or " ... the conductor acknowledging the applause for that performance of ..."

So, describe what is happening for those who are not there to see for themselves, but leave all personal opinions, whether pro or anti, out.

In other words, let the listener decide on the merits or otherwise of a concert for him/her self.

HS

[Don Petter]

I would expect the presenter's comment to be limited to such observations as "... well, the audience enjoyed that ..." or " ... the conductor acknowledging the applause for that performance of ..."

So, describe what is happening for those who are not there to see for themselves, but leave all personal opinions, whether pro or anti, out.

In other words, let the listener decide on the merits or otherwise of a concert for him/her self.

HS

Entirely agree. The problem with other performance comments is that they all seem to be only of a (manically) positive nature, so the whole exercise becomes entirely artificial and meaningless.

[cloughie]

Penny Gore usually gets it about right - I'll settle for her standard.

[french frank]

Radio 3's response is that "We are sharing our passion." According to BBC criteria 'enthusiastic' presenters are a plus***. And according to the BBC, listeners don't like formality and 'stuffiness', which is entirely down to presenter style.

The problem with this is that it results in an unbalanced (non) critical approach at best, and at worst it's audience manipulation. You see this on Twitter too, where Radio 3 retweets every comment it can find of the "Brill concert on Radio 3 atm", "Listening to Radio 3 on headphones in the park - superb!", "Radio 3 is wonderful" type. Criticisms don't get retweeted.

Penny Gore is a good broadcaster but without a musical background, and knows her - if I may respectfully put it - 'limitations'. Others don't.

But Radio 3 does have a difficulty in solving the problem that a general audience is not satisfied by information alone - which they apparently equate with a 'heavy' style, even with experienced presenters who have a good microphone technique and prepare their background material carefully.

In short, the BBC reply is (completely speciously, in my view), 'Sorry, chaps, but you're a tiny, tiny, tiny minority ...


***Excerpts from the BBC Trust review of Radio 3:
"Informative style – reflected by the depth of information and history about music often delivered by the presenters and the perception that a lot of research had been put into the output; [...]
Tone – evident in the intelligent and enthusiastic tone of the station. The presenters were seen as passionate and thoughtful."


"Our qualitative research sessions revealed that audiences felt that the inherent creativity and quality of the music was important, along with the emphasis that the station placed on the musical output. This is further enhanced by the passion and enthusiasm conveyed by the presenters and the production."

[Dave2002]

Entirely agree. The problem with other performance comments is that they all seem to be only of a (manically) positive nature, so the whole exercise becomes entirely artificial and meaningless.

I'm just thinking back a long way. Many years ago there were some truly dire broadcasts of concerts by orchestras which are now considered very respectable. Similar comments apply to opera, and solo recitals. Overall standards have certainly risen.

If the announcers at the time had expressed their honest opinion we might have heard comments such as " That was yet another awful performance by the NAME OF ORCHESTRA conducted by NAME OF CONDUCTOR .... etc." On the other had to have suggested that " That was a superb performance by ... AS ABOVE ..." would probably have been mendacious and risible.

Current announcers are fortunate that the quality of music making is normally at least good these days.

[Nick Armstrong]

Entirely agree. The problem with other performance comments is that they all seem to be only of a (manically) positive nature, so the whole exercise becomes entirely artificial and meaningless.

I agree with the first post coupled with that comment, Don. I used not to mind Rob Cowan, for instance, 'sharing his enthusiasm' for an off-the-beaten-track historic performance... but that sort of enthusiasm has now been caught in the flood of indiscriminate hyperbole.

I suppose there is an argument for it with playlist programmes, when one assumes they're not going to choose to play something that's bad (rather like asking a waiter about the fish: he's hardly going to say 'it's not nice' - although how refreshing when one has the confidence to say 'I don't like it - I'd have the lamb' which happened to me in a New York restaurant.)

But Frenchie's right about the excess, the manipulation via its various 'outlets' e.g. these in the past 24 hours:

BBC Radio 3 @BBCRadio3
Your @DBarenboim #Prom13 reviews: "breathtaking" @PatrickMulkern, "inspirational" @AntonioDeVecchi, "bliss" @vencut2 @BBCProms

BBC Radio 3 @BBCRadio3
More #Prom12 reviews: "delight" @zebsoanes, "redefining" @handsent, "fantastic" @elecomms, @BBCProms

24 Jul BBC Radio 3 @BBCRadio3
Reviews are in: "fabulous, ferocious" @classicpassion, "blown away" @nickiwenham, "simply devine" @barnesy29


It's almost manic, and suggests insecurity rather than enthusiasm, to me.

[hafod]

I may be old fashioned but in my view presenters are there to do just that - 'present' i.e. provide continuity, to describe, offer factual infromation (not opinions) etc in a neutral but not disengaged manner. Too frequently we are treated to an often intrusive personality augmented by gushing, a bogus familiarity and a rich harvest of superlatives.

The very few concerts that are televised sometimes have an 'expert' to provide opinion on a performance. I cannot recall one that was anything other than at least favourable. I often wonder if their fee is linked to how favourable their comments are which would give a whole new meaning to 'performance related pay'.

[aeolium]

I don't want any opinions at all from presenters, other than when the nature of the programme requires them (e.g. CD Review) and then they should be given honestly. The kind of opinions that are now routinely provided before and after concerts seem to be nothing more than an extension of the marketing trails, full of hyperbole, puff, advertising, promoting the concert as a 'radio experience'. As we saw on the thread re the Beethoven 5/6 symphony Prom, listeners will make up their own minds with a huge range of reactions - they don't need the presenter's opinion, or those of any guests.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

In general, I find gushing presenters quite embarrassing. They show themselves up. However, if a presenter is genuinely moved by a performance, it would seem reasonable to express this with appropriate professional limits. I've mentioned before a live late 1960s broadcast performance of Mozart's Clarinet Concerto given as a BBC Lunchtime Prom in Manchester Town Hall, by Janet Hilton and the BBC Northern Orchestra. The presenter was a newsreader, who always did a professional job. But as this performance was felt by the audience to be something special, he enthused as little himself. This was quite a differnt thing from the mindless flattery dished out for every performance, however mediocre, that we receive at present.

[gradus]

I don't mind presenters showing great enthusiasm for a performance eg Tom Service after the Barenboim Beethoven 7 performance last night, particularly when it mirrors my own reaction. If not, one can always turn off the radio.

[Frances_iom]

I don't mind presenters showing great enthusiasm for a performance eg Tom Service after the Barenboim Beethoven 7 performance last night, particularly when it mirrors my own reaction. If not, one can always turn off the radio.

I do - Service is manic even before the performance - just below a certain female 'presenter' in on my list of those I place somewhere in the fourth circle of Hell

[Tony Halstead]

a certain female 'presenter'

Do tell...
or at least give us some initials...
e.g. KD, SK, etc...!

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I think I can guess, and I don't suspect S.K.

[Tevot]

I'm with Gradus on this one. I think Tom Service's response to Beethoven 7 last night mirrored that of many listening 'on the wireless' and indeed those lucky enough to be there live at the RAH. Jonathan Swain thought the Albert Hall audience "possessed." I hope he meant it in a nice way;-) !

Best Wishes,

Tevot