The Eternal Breakfast Debate in a New Place

[Flosshilde]

... how acceptable is it for an R3 presenter to read out part of an article, word for word without attribution to Wiki? No copyright problem but ... ? Does it give a superficial (false) impression that presenters are 'well-informed'?

It could very well give the opposite impression

[french frank]

It could very well give the opposite impression

It certainly does if you think, " 'Ere, I've just read that on Wickerpedial..."

[doversoul1]

ff’s post quoted from the Rameau Expert thread on the EMS board

Wikipedia: "It received 26 performances, mainly because of the support from Rameau's followers in the dispute between the styles of Rameau and Lully.

"Critics accused Rameau's original opera of lacking a coherent plot. The inclusion of the sea monster also violated the French operatic convention of having a clear purpose for encounters with supernatural beings."

R3: "Critics accused it of lacking a coherent plot and were apparently very vexed by the inclusion of a sea monster which violated the French operatic convention of having a clear purpose for encounters with supernatural beings. It only ran for 26 performances."

The presenter began this comment by telling us that ‘the opera caused uproar when it was first performed’. This is a proof of the presenter’s lack of professionalism beyond any excuse.

The wiki article (I think) should be read as ‘whilst it was criticised by critics, the general popularity of Rameau’s opera at the time ensured 26 performances in the first season’.

My guess is that the presenter was given the script and read it (or she might have read the wiki article herself), saw the words, ‘critics’ and ’26 performances’ and thought ‘oh dear, poor thing…’ The presenter obviously didn’t bother to check about Rameau’s other operas, and to me worse, she didn’t bother to give any thoughts as to what the relevance of this comment was to the music played. It was just something to say. Appalling whichever you look at it.

[french frank]

A bit of a vexed question. I remember a case where a student was set an essay and the lecturer noticed that the essay when it arrived contained considerable chunks from one of the works on the reading list. The question was whether this was deliberate plagiarism or whether, being fairly dim (which he was) the student simply felt he'd been set a topic to write on and, oh, joy! he found the 'answer' in one of the books.

I think it's rather a different case when someone is presented as being 'authoritative' (which a student isn't usually) and critical comments are presented as their own when they've been cribbed from someone else. If you listen carefully you can sometimes hear a phrase which you think isn't quite in the usual style.

Charles Hazlewood was a great one for not acknowledging that he was quoting from elsewhere, and he really was held to know what he was talking about (some of the time).

[ahinton]

It certainly does if you think, " 'Ere, I've just read that on Wickerpedial..."

But one would not do that unless one hails from - er - um...

As you say, though, it doesn't matter who did the "research" if it's faulty, although I somehow suspect that more listeners who notice such faults will be likely to blame the presenter rather than the producer or productipon team.

[Roehre]

A nice one is not being acknowledged and being able to point out that the quote and the source of the material quoted comes from elsewhere. I published work in which there is a (for insiders) very obvious mistake (caused by dead line pressure and hence badly done proof reading): 1769 where 1679 was meant.

Approximately a year later my eye caught a text in which this mistake was repeated - without acknowledgement though my work was listed in the bibliography. And that happened a second time quite recently

[french frank]

As you say, though, it doesn't matter who did the "research" if it's faulty, although I somehow suspect that more listeners who notice such faults will be likely to blame the presenter rather than the producer or productipon team.

Up to a point - though we're constantly reminded that presenters write their own scripts, so there shouldn't be chunks of copied text w/o the presenter knowing ...

I have made the point before, but if Breakfast has 20-odd (25 today) separate pieces, that will be 20-odd composers/works to bone up on per day. Bit wasteful of off air effort, though if they leave the playlist choices so late that they can't post them in advance they're probably doing the 'research' for one track while the previous one is playing. (To say nothing of it being barely 5 mins per piece on average, allowing for the chat between pieces. I tried listening to it one day and it seems as if every time the music ended there was some sort of irrelevant speech content. I now leave the gym radio station on Kiss FM or Heart and don't bother to switch to R3.

[Serial_Apologist]

A nice one is not being acknowledged and being able to point out that the quote and the source of the material quoted comes from elsewhere. I published work in which there is a (for insiders) very obvious mistake (caused by dead line pressure and hence badly done proof reading): 1769 where 1679 was meant.

Approximately a year later my eye caught a text in which this mistake was repeated - without acknowledgement though my work was listed in the bibliography. And that happened a second time quite recently

The same thing's happened to me, btw.

[doversoul1]

Up to a point - though we're constantly reminded that presenters write their own scripts, so there shouldn't be chunks of copied text w/o the presenter knowing ...

A presenter is not necessarily a commentator or a reviewer. I don’t expect a presenter on a programme like Breakfast or of a concert to be an expert on the music s/he is presenting but I do expect him/her to have good knowledge of classical music to be able to quote from the source correctly and appropriately, as well as knowing when and how to acknowledge the source.

This may not be as much fun as hearing about uproar at the first performance or a poor girl’s shock when she found out that her young man had just popped out from a lamp, but personally, I don’t need this sort of flippancy on Radio 3.

they're probably doing the 'research' for one track while the previous one is playing.

I thought they were too busy texting and tweeting between the music.

[Stanfordian]

I thought I was at Fleetwood fish market the other day when the Radio 3 presenter said COD-EYE meaning Hungarian composer Kodály. It may well be the correct pronunciation but it certainly sounded strange.

[mercia]

let us just suppose/pretend, that miraculously overnight Radio 3 suddenly turned into your ideal, longed for, radio station. How many hours daily would you be able (or want) to commit to listening to this perfect station? all twenty-four ? or does it only need to be perfect at certain hours of the day according to one's particular lifestyle ?

[french frank]

let us just suppose/pretend, that miraculously overnight Radio 3 suddenly turned into your ideal, longed for, radio station. How many hours daily would you be able (or want) to commit to listening to this perfect station? all twenty-four ? or does it only need to be perfect at certain hours of the day according to one's particular lifestyle ?

For me, the early morning programme does need to be distinct from what is broadcast at other times of day. Out of interest, would anyone disagree with that?

Again for me, it would become listenable if it had fewer pieces of music than at present, everything played to be complete (long symphonies ruled out), no listener contributions at all (that doesn't stop people texting, tweeting, emailing if their reason for doing so is to suggest music which perhaps the R3 production team would not think of), the news would be read on the hour only and no further reference to what is currently happening. Presenter would talk briefly about the music and its context - that doesn't prevent the Skellerses of this world being a bit artful now and again - if that's a natural part of their personality.

Emphasis on playing interesting pieces, not well-known pieces. And care taken not to play any one piece too often.

It should be a music programme, not a breakfast programme. But not excluding announcement of, say, a death, with a tribute piece to composer/performer.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

I thought I was at Fleetwood fish market the other day when the Radio 3 presenter said COD-EYE meaning Hungarian composer Kodály. It may well be the correct pronunciation but it certainly sounded strange.

are you sure it was not a Kiwi saying hello?

[JFLL]

Again for me, it would become listenable if it had fewer pieces of music than at present, everything played to be complete (long symphonies ruled out), no listener contributions at all (that doesn't stop people texting, tweeting, emailing if their reason for doing so is to suggest music which perhaps the R3 production team would not think of), the news would be read on the hour only and no further reference to what is currently happening. Presenter would talk briefly about the music and its context - that doesn't prevent the Skellerses of this world being a bit artful now and again - if that's a natural part of their personality.

Emphasis on playing interesting pieces, not well-known pieces. And care taken not to play any one piece too often.

It should be a music programme, not a breakfast programme. But not excluding announcement of, say, a death, with a tribute piece to composer/performer.

Perhaps as it was exactly thirty years ago?
(Courtesy of the Genome project http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/ Now we can see what we're missing)


Monday 7 January 1985
7.05 : Morning Concert

Locke Music for his Majesties Sagbutts and Cornetts
LONDON CORNETT AND SACKBUTT ENSEMBLE
7.15* Purcell 0 sing unto the Lord
DAVID THOMAS (bass)
CHOIR OF CHRIST CHURCH CATHEDRAL, OXFORD
THE ENGLISH CONCERT/ SIMON PRESTON
7.28* Babell Solo No 1 in B flat
PAUL DOMBRECHT (oboe) WIELAND KUIJKEN (cello)
ROBERT KOHNEN (harpsichord)
7.33* Mozart Symphony No 35 in D (Haffner) (K 385)
ACADEMY OF ANCIENT MUSIC directed by JAAP SCHRODER and CHRISTOPHER HOGWOOD
8.0 News
8.5 Gershwin Catfish Row ALEXIS WEISSENBERG (piano) BERLIN PO/OZAWA
8.29* Ravel Introduction and Allegro
MELOS ENSEMBLE OF LONDON
8.39* Tchaikovsky Italian Caprice
BERLIN PO/ROSTROPOVICH

[doversoul1]

With absolutely no disrespect to JFLL, I don’t really think it is very helpful to compare a playlist from 30 years ago and one of current programme. Firstly, we can’t know if these works were not played very often (although I expect the selection of music was far more varied). Secondly, we can’t tell what went on between the music, i.e., how the programme was presented, which, to me, is more immediate issue now.

ff

It should be a music programme, not a breakfast programme. But not excluding announcement of, say, a death, with a tribute piece to composer/performer

.

I’d put it, ‘it should be a music programme, not a personality programme’.