Originally posted by Old Grumpy
View Post
The Eternal Breakfast Debate in a New Place
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by cloughie View PostThis filibuster is working towards the 10000 nicely!
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Old Grumpy View PostThe debate is whether Breakfast is a Good programme or a Bad programme, and is potentially eternal, in the sense that it may never be resolved (or indeed revolved, much like the discussion!)
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Ein Heldenleben View PostIt’s essentially irresolvable. However, to borrow a cancel-culture phrase, the excellence of Petroc is not “up for debate “ surely ?
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by antongould View PostPetroc has been criticised on this thread for his manner of breathing IIRC …. but to me at least he is a national treasure …… always MVVHO of course …
Does anyone know what reaction, if any, there has been to the 25th Dec programme? I thought I heard Petroc on (?)Monday quoting from a listener's message along the lines of classical music free zone.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by antongould View PostPetroc has been criticised on this thread for his manner of breathing IIRC …. but to me at least he is a national treasure …… always MVVHO of course …
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Eine Alpensinfonie View PostNot just Petroc. I think it must have been a directive to not leave any silences between sentences. Other presenters developed the same habit, so perhaps pointing the finger at one individual was wrong. However, National Treasure or not, Breakfast on Radio 3 remains a bleeding chunk jabbering disaster.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by seabright View PostI find myself increasingly reaching for the 'off' switch when something ghastly comes on, which it usually does most mornings.
For me, a presenter can make a programme unlistenable by ruining the content: s/he/they can't make it listenable because listening to a programme isn't about the presenter. I'd amend that: it can't make a 'playlist' programme listenable. A feature/documentary is substantially about what the presenter has to say.It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by french frank View Post
For me, a presenter can make a programme unlistenable by ruining the content: s/he/they can't make it listenable because listening to a programme isn't about the presenter. I'd amend that: it can't make a 'playlist' programme listenable. A feature/documentary is substantially about what the presenter has to say.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Eine Alpensinfonie View PostIt’s a pity the Radio 3 management team can’t understand that basic concept.It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Eine Alpensinfonie View PostNot just Petroc. I think it must have been a directive to not leave any silences between sentences. Other presenters developed the same habit, so perhaps pointing the finger at one individual was wrong. However, National Treasure or not, Breakfast on Radio 3 remains a bleeding chunk jabbering disaster.
Comment
-
Comment