The Eternal Breakfast Debate in a New Place

[french frank]

He did seem to have trouble getting his words out, on occasion, though!

OG

Don't we all! :-)

[underthecountertenor]

All in all, I rebut any accusation of 'double standards' or 'prejudice' in saying IS is very good in this particular slot.

'Rebut' in what sense? You certainly claim that the accusation is wrong. I don't accept that you've proved it.

[french frank]

'Rebut' in what sense? You certainly claim that the accusation is wrong. I don't accept that you've proved it.

I provided quite a full demonstration. You are free to reject it. I believe I illustrated that IS's presentation in no way resembles requests to listeners to contact the programme and say whether they have ever lied to their children, whether they prefer Jane Eyre to Wuthering Heights, whether they have garden sheds and if so what they do in them. The vast majority of the speech in that particular programme was music related. In that sense 'rebut'.

[antongould]

I cannot be sure but as u_t_c brought up double standards following my post - if I can explain my position - I have not the problem almost everyone else has with tweets, phone ins, trails and news. My comment was made because I find IS more to my taste than RC, PT, MH, SMP or the Radio64's sweetheart.
Primarily he has IMHO a lovely sense of humour sadly missing in the aforementioned.
FF's summary of an IS breakfast was very fair and I have noticed a move to more obscure composers which no doubt SC's annual figures will refute.
I'm afraid I have to report that Mr. Handley played a birthday request on Saturday.........

[french frank]

You were quoted but I'm not sure you were being targeted any more than any of the others who expressed the same view. It wasn't quite clear which individuals were in the dock.

[James Wonnacott]

I don't miss any presenters. I only miss hearing full-length pieces of music without the constant irritation of inane chit-chat.

+1

[muzzer]

I think IS is mostly great and I agree about humour but the whole mood is spoiled by his reading the headlines on the quarter hour, more so than possibly with other presenters. Certain news items do not lend themselves to jauntiness, one in particular this morning. You end up with an atmos that is bordering on the irreverent, in a bad way. I cannot understand how no-one at R3 is cringeing at these moments. It's like W1A. But IS generally I think is a breath of fresh air.

[AndyJW]

I agree with all the comments about IS and I'm sure it's not his fault but twice this week they have played a middle movement from a 'Georgian Gem' and certainly yesterday (Handel Concerto Grosso) they stopped it on a chord (7th) leading in to the next movement and left the listener hanging! I'm sure they did the same thing the other day with a John Stanley concerto. For goodness' sake these concertos take a the most 10 minutes PLAY THE WHOLE THING!!!!

[cloughie]

I agree with all the comments about IS and I'm sure it's not his fault but twice this week they have played a middle movement from a 'Georgian Gem' and certainly yesterday (Handel Concerto Grosso) they stopped it on a chord (7th) leading in to the next movement and left the listener hanging! I'm sure they did the same thing the other day with a John Stanley concerto. For goodness' sake these concertos take a the most 10 minutes PLAY THE WHOLE THING!!!!

Should we have a Mayday call to officially launch the R3F Campaign for Full Works!

[french frank]

the whole mood is spoiled by his reading the headlines on the quarter hour, more so than possibly with other presenters.

The quarter hour headlines and/or press headlines are now regular features. This point was raised some while ago and PT was also reading them.

[Old Grumpy]

The quarter hour headlines and/or press headlines are now regular features.

I took muzzer's comment (as highlighted by FF in the quote balloon) to relate more to the manner in which IS read the headlines, than the fact that they were being read.

OG

[underthecountertenor]

I provided quite a full demonstration. You are free to reject it. I believe I illustrated that IS's presentation in no way resembles requests to listeners to contact the programme and say whether they have ever lied to their children, whether they prefer Jane Eyre to Wuthering Heights, whether they have garden sheds and if so what they do in them. The vast majority of the speech in that particular programme was music related. In that sense 'rebut'.

You last timed a programme 'about two years ago.' Who was presenting? Have you listened to PT recently? I don't think any of your barbs above accurately portray his presentation style as it has been for at least the last year.
Incidentally, IS (whose presentation I greatly enjoy) is by no means beyond criticism. On Tuesday he clearly referred to Yo Yo Ma as a 'she'!

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Incidentally, IS (whose presentation I greatly enjoy) is by no means beyond criticism. On Tuesday he clearly referred to Yo Yo Ma as a 'she'!

No-one is beyond criticism and everyone makes mistakes. It's just that some (one in particular) R3 presenters makes errors an idee fixe.

[french frank]

I don't think any of your barbs above accurately portray his presentation style as it has been for at least the last year.

I don't recall having having criticised Petroc as a presenter. None of the 'barbs' (they were genuine Breakfast examples, so why 'barbs'?) were directed at Petroc, neither were they topics which he introduced in his programmes.

In fact, my criticism is of the programme and the policy which lies behind it - and behind an increasing number of the Radio 3 programmes - not the presenters. You like the programme: I have no problem with that. I try to remember to mention no names if saying I don't 'like' a presenter: it merely feeds those who agree and angers those who don't.

[underthecountertenor]

I don't recall having having criticised Petroc as a presenter. None of the 'barbs' (they were genuine Breakfast examples, so why 'barbs'?) were directed at Petroc, neither were they topics which he introduced in his programmes.

In fact, my criticism is of the programme and the policy which lies behind it - and behind an increasing number of the Radio 3 programmes - not the presenters. You like the programme: I have no problem with that. I try to remember to mention no names if saying I don't 'like' a presenter: it merely feeds those who agree and angers those who don't.

Your analysis comment was in reply to (and quoted) mine, which raised the issue of double standards with particular reference to PT (who is routinely abused on these pages). It was therefore reasonable to infer that a comparison with PT was intended in your post, albeit you didn't mention his name.

And I note that IS's egregious Yo Yo Ma error has been met with silence or indulgence. I'm guessing that, if it had fallen from PT's lips, the reaction would have been different.