The Eternal Breakfast Debate in a New Place

[AuntDaisy]

Prompted to listen this morning by trail on evening concert, petroc has told me this morning whats on the lunchtime concert. He currently playing music from dr who....will he mention all episodes now available on bbc iplayer ? Its a trail world !

Quibble: All episodes aren't on iPlayer - the first four episodes ("An Unearthly Child" etc.) have rights issues & some are lost (e.g. "Marco Polo").

Trial by Trail.

[underthecountertenor]

Good news - double Martin Handley next weekend. Not-so-good(?) news - a noticeable increase of late in the number of pieces played as trails for upcoming programmes, not all of them on Radio 3.

Good news for many here, bad news for me. I really don’t need to hear about MH’s dancing lessons with somebody called ‘Marie-Louise’ or other aspects of his private life.

[french frank]

Good news for many here, bad news for me. I really don’t need to hear about MH’s dancing lessons with somebody called ‘Marie-Louise’ or other aspects of his private life.

There's always something someone dislikes about someone, isn't there? (Bring back C. Bott). This seems to me a strong argument against inflating the importance of 'presenters' in general and their central role.

[kernelbogey]

There's always something someone dislikes about someone, isn't there? (Bring back C. Bott). This seems to me a strong argument against inflating the importance of 'presenters' in general and their central role.

Not sure if your comment is addressed more to R3 or to Forumistas, or both; but I'm settling for the last of these. If the R3 management make such a fetish of programme brands, as they do for example in the trails, and these are inevitably linked with presenters, then surely criticisms of that branding are valid? But perhaps I misunderstand.

[oddoneout]

There's always something someone dislikes about someone, isn't there? (Bring back C. Bott). This seems to me a strong argument against inflating the importance of 'presenters' in general and their central role.

I think there are 3 aspects to this. The morning schedules are(now) the radio equivalent of the the likes of This Morning, or the R3 version of the R1 and 2 presenter led shows, where presenters are a major part of the package, and personal preferences/loyalties are important.Whether this is what R3 should be doing is a different debate.
The more factual programmes may be linked to an individual(eg Tom Service) The individual might be the draw, but it could also be the content (possibly despite the presenter) that has someone listening, but the presenter may also be a turn-off despite the content. That isn't necessarily something new - my mother and her friends had their likes and dislikes in the days of Antony Hopkins, Paul Hamburger et al).
The third aspect, which for me is where things can get difficult, is when a presenter doesn't put aside that personality aspect for the likes of concerts. The minimal approach of such as Patricia Hughes, Cormac Rigby, Tom Crowe, in the days of announcers not presenters, suited me fine. They provided the necessary information and left space for listeners to enjoy their own reactions to performances. That's not to say they were emotionally uninvolved, but it wasn't felt necessary to gush and hyperventilate and impose their reactions on the listeners. Just providing information isn't the modern way though, sadly. Hyperbole and "feelings" rule.
I came across this while checking a couple of facts. It might amuse or resonate with others.

https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/october-2022/sack-the-lot-at-rotten-radio-3/

[french frank]

Not sure if your comment is addressed more to R3 or to Forumistas, or both; but I'm settling for the last of these. If the R3 management make such a fetish of programme brands, as they do for example in the trails, and these are inevitably linked with presenters, then surely criticisms of that branding are valid? But perhaps I misunderstand.

The first sentence was just a general comment/truism about presenters. The second seemed to me a rational conclusion: reduce the importance of presenters and return to informed announcers (they may be music graduates, they may just do their research conscientiously). There would probably still be announcers that Listener A likes and announcers that Listener A dislikes, but if differences in personalities/styles are veiled, I reckon listener reactions would be minimised. No adulation of Presenter A and sniping at the defects of Presenter B. But, oh dear, what would people discuss then?

People may disagree with this, and prefer Personality Plus presenters. That would indicate to me the spread of radio as light entertainment. But in the end all I can say is, 'It doesn't appeal to me' to which the response might well be, 'Well don't listen then'.

[Ein Heldenleben]

I think there are 3 aspects to this. The morning schedules are(now) the radio equivalent of the the likes of This Morning, or the R3 version of the R1 and 2 presenter led shows, where presenters are a major part of the package, and personal preferences/loyalties are important.Whether this is what R3 should be doing is a different debate.
The more factual programmes may be linked to an individual(eg Tom Service) The individual might be the draw, but it could also be the content (possibly despite the presenter) that has someone listening, but the presenter may also be a turn-off despite the content. That isn't necessarily something new - my mother and her friends had their likes and dislikes in the days of Antony Hopkins, Paul Hamburger et al).
The third aspect, which for me is where things can get difficult, is when a presenter doesn't put aside that personality aspect for the likes of concerts. The minimal approach of such as Patricia Hughes, Cormac Rigby, Tom Crowe, in the days of announcers not presenters, suited me fine. They provided the necessary information and left space for listeners to enjoy their own reactions to performances. That's not to say they were emotionally uninvolved, but it wasn't felt necessary to gush and hyperventilate and impose their reactions on the listeners. Just providing information isn't the modern way though, sadly. Hyperbole and "feelings" rule.
I came across this while checking a couple of facts. It might amuse or resonate with others.
https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/octob...otten-radio-3/

It both amused and resonated. The over use of the words “fantastic “ , “brilliant “ , and “ amazing” is all too true. Also I don’t want to hear about the presenters’ gardens (often in smart parts of London it appears ) , how they spent their leisure time , their outside interests , pets , or children.

[eighthobstruction]

.....I could have done with another couple of pages of that....I personally always imagine TService as a kind of Boris Johnson of R3 - though much more erudite....I see EA was not even mentioned (too easy perhaps)....There's a nice bit of Ed Reardon going on....

[french frank]

It both amused and resonated.

ooo posted while I was composing. Michael Henderson said it better than me. And yet, and yet - there is an audience which apparently loves, or at least tolerates, it all.

[oddoneout]

ooo posted while I was composing. Michael Henderson said it better than me. And yet, and yet - there is an audience which apparently loves, or at least tolerates, it all.

It comes down to choice - genuine choice not the kind of supermarket crisp aisle choice* which is a sad feature of modern life to my way of thinking. There is an audience for the morning schedule type R3 - but that doesn't mean it is desirable, necessary or appropriate to extend that approach across the whole of the R3 offering, but that is what has happened and continues to do so, vide Afternoon so-called Concert, and the too-often over-excited evening concert presenting.


*two long sides of crisps and assorted snacks, superficially lots of different choices. In reality probably only two manufacturers(despite what the names on the packets may say) and 90% just different "flavours" of the same thing. So not much choice at all.

[LMcD]

I think these insights into the thoughts and home lives of presenters are attributable to, and one manifestation of, the widely perceived need to do one's utmost to be, or at least try to be, 'inclusive'. Whether that's a good thing is debatable, but the BBC presumably feels that it must play its part.

[french frank]

I think these insights into the thoughts and home lives of presenters are attributable to, and one manifestation of, the widely perceived need to do one's utmost to be, or at least try to be, 'inclusive'. Whether that's a good thing is debatable, but the BBC presumably feels that it must play its part.

Inclusive of what? Everything the BBC broadcasts inclusive of everyone? Like a Radio 1 inclusive of everyone of all ages? Radio 1Xtra/the Asian Network inclusive of everyone of all ages and races? The point is that that however you describe what Radio 3 is doing, 'inclusive' is what it's not.

[oddoneout]

I think these insights into the thoughts and home lives of presenters are attributable to, and one manifestation of, the widely perceived need to do one's utmost to be, or at least try to be, 'inclusive'. Whether that's a good thing is debatable, but the BBC presumably feels that it must play its part.

I think relatable might be a better term - the idea that the person you are listening to is not that dissimilar to you in terms of their lives and concerns - rather than some distant (possibly alienating) other(like the music), a misperception from which R3 suffers.

[underthecountertenor]

It both amused and resonated. The over use of the words “fantastic “ , “brilliant “ , and “ amazing” is all too true. Also I don’t want to hear about the presenters’ gardens (often in smart parts of London it appears ) , how they spent their leisure time , their outside interests , pets , or children.

It’s a garden in East Sussex that I always seem to hear about, but I agree with you! One of the merits of PT in my book is that he keeps his personal life out of it, except perhaps when mentioning a concert or other artistic event he has attended (which is ok as far as I’m concerned, so long as kept within limits).

[Ein Heldenleben]

It’s a garden in East Sussex that I always seem to hear about, but I agree with you! One of the merits of PT in my book is that he keeps his personal life out of it, except perhaps when mentioning a concert or other artistic event he has attended (which is ok as far as I’m concerned, so long as kept within limits).

East Sussex being posher than West of course (in the eyes of its inhabitants that is ). PT is welcome to plug Cornwall as much as he likes as it needs all the boosting it can get.