The Eternal Breakfast Debate in a New Place

[smittims]

The difference I've noticed is in accuracy . The old-school announcers were always , in my memory , accurate in the information they gave about the music ; this may have been because they were reading a script written by a professional researcher. Today, however, I often hear things which just aren't true, and I think this stems from the trend towards spontanaeity: for instance, explaining that Mozart didn't call his last symphony the Jupiter one of two people whom I won't name, as I can't remember which one, said 'instead he just called it 'symphony number forty-one' (he didn't , as any Mozart scholar will tell you).

[LMcD]

The difference I've noticed is in accuracy . The old-school announcers were always , in my memory , accurate in the information they gave about the music ; this may have been because they were reading a script written by a professional researcher. Today, however, I often hear things which just aren't true, and I think this stems from the trend towards spontanaeity: for instance, explaining that Mozart didn't call his last symphony the Jupiter one of two people whom I won't name, as I can't remember which one, said 'instead he just called it 'symphony number forty-one' (he didn't , as any Mozart scholar will tell you).

On the other hand, I don't think any of the current presenters has played the movements of a Haydn symphony in the wrong order, then apologized and suggest that it didn't really matter!

[Serial_Apologist]

The difference I've noticed is in accuracy . The old-school announcers were always , in my memory , accurate in the information they gave about the music ; this may have been because they were reading a script written by a professional researcher. Today, however, I often hear things which just aren't true, and I think this stems from the trend towards spontanaeity: for instance, explaining that Mozart didn't call his last symphony the Jupiter one of two people whom I won't name, as I can't remember which one, said 'instead he just called it 'symphony number forty-one' (he didn't , as any Mozart scholar will tell you).

There's nowt wrong with spontaneity, as long as it is informed spontaneity.

[oddoneout]

My first listen today since PT's departure. Was warming to T McK's style when he announced, I believe, 'a Haydn string quartet later'. Oh good, I thought, a change of policy....but no, just the first movement.

I wish presenters would not say 'a symphony' or 'a quartet' when talking up a later work but acknowledge that we're going to hear one movement.

Would that approach be approved by management though?

[Serial_Apologist]

Would that approach be approved by management though?

You mean the movement on their shoulders?

[french frank]

The old-school announcers were always , in my memory , accurate in the information they gave about the music ; this may have been because they were reading a script written by a professional researcher.

If I remember, it was John Drummond who decided that 'announcers' who simply read the script placed in front of them should be replaced by 'presenters' who prepared and read their own scripts. Why? Newsreaders don't go out and discover what the news is and write up their own news scripts. Bulletins are written by the professional news teams.

It's the raising of the profile of station announcers that has been a major change, starting at the popular music stations and seeped through finally to R3 (which had always had a greater educational remit), where listeners now discover the delights of presenter personalities. If you've ever, ever expressed a liking for a particular presenter you should never, never comment on the ones you think are terrible. The coin has two sides.

Contrary to what EH thinks, I don't think Tom McKinney, Andrew MacGregor or Hannah French would claim to be 'experts' on everything they have to introduce. The target audience is now the listener who knows little and doesn't want to know much as long as they like the presenter.

[Serial_Apologist]

The target audience is now the listener who knows little and doesn't want to know much as long as they like the presenter.

As in "Trump", or "Boris" or "Farage". It seems a very strange world of so-called adulthood we're now living in.

[LMcD]

If I remember, it was John Drummond who decided that 'announcers' who simply read the script placed in front of them should be replaced by 'presenters' who prepared and read their own scripts. Why? Newsreaders don't go out and discover what the news is and write up their own news scripts. Bulletins are written by the professional news teams.

It's the raising of the profile of station announcers that has been a major change, starting at the popular music stations and seeped through finally to R3 (which had always had a greater educational remit), where listeners now discover the delights of presenter personalities. If you've ever, ever expressed a liking for a particular presenter you should never, never comment on the ones you think are terrible. The coin has two sides.

Contrary to what EH thinks, I don't think Tom McKinney, Andrew MacGregor or Hannah French would claim to be 'experts' on everything they have to introduce. The target audience is now the listener who knows little and doesn't want to know much as long as they like the presenter.

Ouch!

[french frank]

Ouch!

Not directed at you unless you don't know much and don't want to know much. But the stated 'target' audience IS a general audience who is not particularly well-informed, and I only have to hear the criticisms here to know that the informative/educational element of the programmes doesn't amount to much these days. If you disagree, please take me up on my lack of first-hand experience of R3!

[smittims]

Yes, I too have found that R3 is increasingly for young , impressionable , uninformed listeners apparently incapable of making up their own minds. Thus Sarah Walker has to tell us that the piece we've just listened to was 'deeply moving' and 'brilliant' in case we hadn't noticed (I found it very dull ).

[kernelbogey]

...If you disagree, please take me up on my lack of first-hand experience of R3.

I think you're spot on - as was Alpie in his spoof.

[LMcD]

Yes, I too have found that R3 is increasingly for young , impressionable , uninformed listeners apparently incapable of making up their own minds. Thus Sarah Walker has to tell us that the piece we've just listened to was 'deeply moving' and 'brilliant' in case we hadn't noticed (I found it very dull ).

I think some presenters - Tom McKinney and Mark Forrest for example - have a somewhat higher opinion of their listeners.

[AuntDaisy]

Caught a Breakfast snippet - Monty Don & dog Ned design a Chelsea garden... What does this have to do with Classical Music?
Was even the "Bark before 8" pun relevant?

The Beethoven Mandolin Sonatina was worth hearing (it used to be the theme to World Service's "Good Books")

[french frank]

I think some presenters - Tom McKinney and Mark Forrest for example - have a somewhat higher opinion of their listeners.

And I think the opinion which presenters have of their listeners (what - all their listeners? How would that be possible?) is irrelevant . Listener A may say: this is dumbed down, meaning I, Listener A, am capable of dealing with material more intellectually demanding and informative and that's what I need; but Listener B will say, I find the level just right for this time of day. If R3/BBC says Listener A is wrong and Listener B is right, then R3/BBC is either a fool or a knave. R3/BBC decides which type of listener R3 it will cater for. The clear answer at the moment is that Radio 3 is predominantly easy listening. Like Classic FM. In that respect (easy listening) the two stations are the same, regardless of whether Radio 3 sometimes plays a work that 'would never be played on CFM'.

Presenter-focused music stations are dumbed down by definition because the focus is on the presenter rather than the content and people judge the programme by how much they like the presenter. Discuss.

[Pulcinella]

And I think the opinion which presenters have of their listeners (what - all their listeners? How would that be possible?) is irrelevant . Listener A may say: this is dumbed down, meaning I, Listener A, am capable of dealing with material more intellectually demanding and informative and that's what I need; but Listener B will say, I find the level just right for this time of day. If R3/BBC says Listener A is wrong and Listener B is right, then R3/BBC is either a fool or a knave. R3/BBC decides which type of listener R3 it will cater for. The clear answer at the moment is that Radio 3 is predominantly easy listening. Like Classic FM. In that respect (easy listening) the two stations are the same, regardless of whether Radio 3 sometimes plays a work that 'would never be played on CFM'.

Presenter-focused music stations are dumbed down by definition because the focus is on the presenter rather than the content and people judge the programme by how much they like the presenter. Discuss.

Nothing to discuss (imho); irrefutable.