The Eternal Breakfast Debate in a New Place

[cloughie]

There's quite a bit of the Resurrection that's based on material Mahler had written earlier - the First Movement a rewriting of Totenfeier, the Third based on St Anthony Preaches to the Fishes, as well as Urlicht ... it's like Berlioz's Fantastique or Ives' Fourth in that respect.

I've never done a bar-by-bar comparison of the Knaben and Resurrection "Urlichts" - and I don't know if I'd be able to tell the difference between them. (Which was why I openly pondered the trivial "philosophical" point I suggested this morning. )

...was not previous material included in his 3rd and 4th Symphonies. If a thing's worth doing it's maybe worth re-doing maybe even overdoing. Pete Townshend and ALW have found it pays - maybe Gustav was their role-model!

[Serial_Apologist]

...was not previous material included in his 3rd and 4th Symphonies. If a thing's worth doing it's maybe worth re-doing maybe even overdoing. Pete Townshend and ALW have found it pays - maybe Gustav was their role-model!

More likely Rossini!

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Martin Handley is my favourite Breakfast presenter by a long way. But it does grate when he says 'I'll see you next Saturday,' when of course that is one thing that he won't be doing.

And "Thank you for your company" (unless he was addressing the microphone or the technician). It's all so incredibly false.

[Serial_Apologist]

And "Thank you for your company" (unless he was addressing the microphone or the technician). It's all so incredibly false.

Maybe he's referring to a sponsoring company?

[french frank]

It's all so incredibly false.

I knew someone who used to be a presenter on Radio 4 and when I mentioned to him some of the points that "listeners" {who?} found irritating, his response was, "No, that's good broadcasting."

Thinking about it, broadcasters have an idea of something they're trying to achieve and they're not too bothered how annoying it is to the listeners, who have separate ideas about what they'd like to hear.

[kernelbogey]

And "Thank you for your company" (unless he was addressing the microphone or the technician). It's all so incredibly false.

Possibly counterintuitively, I find this phrase - which I believe to be an invention of Jonathan Swain on TTN - warmly comforting. I think (and have posted before) that radio is a one-to-one communication. It jars for me when presenters say 'some of you...' which comes from their perspective of broadcasting to many: as a listener, I am the only one s/he is addressing! Especially in the middle of the night.

[french frank]

Possibly counterintuitively, I find this phrase - which I believe to be an invention of Jonathan Swain on TTN - warmly comforting. I think (and have posted before) that radio is a one-to-one communication. It jars for me when presenters say 'some of you...' which comes from their perspective of broadcasting to many: as a listener, I am the only one s/he is addressing! Especially in the middle of the night.

I suppose it depends what you want/expect of radio. I find the idea of "interacting" with a radio station totally bizarre. Why would I want to interact with a radio station or presenter? I just want to focus on the music, or play, or documentary; not enter into a relationship with someone I may in fact feel I don't like very much. That won't matter if they just get on with the introductions.

[teamsaint]

I suppose it depends what you want/expect of radio. I find the idea of "interacting" with a radio station totally bizarre. Why would I want to interact with a radio station or presenter? I just want to focus on the music, or play, or documentary; not enter into a relationship with someone I may in fact feel I don't like very much. That won't matter if they just get on with the introductions.

That's you, and fair enough, but other differ, and they are part of the numbers game too. Late night local radio is an ( often , round here anyway) essentially interactive experience. And it works, performs a valuable function, is a point of difference.

As a bit of a side issue, I guess it actually provides , for some people, a justification for their payment of the fee. They may understand that voicing a point of view on national media may well not happen, but given a modicum of persistence, that view might actually make it onto the airwaves in, say, Hampshire. Which in a world of people expressing their views on a myriad of platforms, seems reasonable enough.

Anyway, back to R3, and honestly, on a 24 hour station,I can't see that having a small window for interactive listener experience is that big a deal. Just part of the mix. The people running the station might even gain something from it. But I suppose some people might reasonably see it as part of a general and undesirable direction of travel, which of course it needn't be.

( R1 fans might recall the very popular Annie Nightingale request show, one of the better things on that station at the time).

[kernelbogey]

I suppose it depends what you want/expect of radio. I find the idea of "interacting" with a radio station totally bizarre. Why would I want to interact with a radio station or presenter? I just want to focus on the music, or play, or documentary; not enter into a relationship with someone I may in fact feel I don't like very much. That won't matter if they just get on with the introductions.

I don't think that my reaction which I described is being interactive; but the demand from Breakfast et al for texts, tweets etc is a pitch for interactivity. (And on the rare occasions that I've succumbed, I recognise smartarsery on my part.)

Personally, I just find the phrase 'thank you for your company' a pleasant alternative way of saying 'thanks for listening'. My distaste for 'I'll see you next week' does probably belong in Pedants' Paradise.

[doversoul1]

.... Anyway, back to R3, and honestly, on a 24 hour station,I can't see that having a small window for interactive listener experience is that big a deal. Just part of the mix. The people running the station might even gain something from it.
....

I often have a chance (not by choice) to hear R2 and yes, I can see that interactive between the listeners and the presenter works well there in more than one sense. However, with six radio stations, having one station as a small window for the listeners who prefer their listening experience without listener interactive isn’t that big deal surely?

kernelbogey
I always thought the ‘you’ in Thank you for your company was plural.

[teamsaint]

I often have a chance (not by choice) to hear R2 and yes, I can see that interactive between the listeners and the presenter works well there in more than one sense. However, with six radio stations, having one station as a small window for the listeners who prefer their listening experience without listener interactive isn’t that big deal surely?

kernelbogey
I always thought the ‘you’ in Thank you for your company was plural.

No, I agree , not that big a deal, either way. Although I can see that in terms of image, ( if that matters, and it can ) that R3 might be thought to benefit particularly from on air interaction with those from outside the professional world of classical music.

I'd just like to mention that don't listen to a lot of late night local radio.......

[kernelbogey]

kernelbogey
I always thought the ‘you’ in Thank you for your company was plural.

How interesting... just different perceptions IMV: and the presenter might think plural audience while I think singular and personal.

[french frank]

Anyway, back to R3, and honestly, on a 24 hour station,I can't see that having a small window for interactive listener experience is that big a deal. Just part of the mix.

And I suppose I was thinking of R3 exclusively, since I haven't listened to any other station for getting on for 30 years. But, honestly, no station is really a 24-hour station if you're thinking about 'live' listening. I just rebel against any idea that 'the broadcasters' have worked out what 'people' want, and they're jolly well going to get it at peak listening times (and it's a 'big deal' if that happens to be when, like many others, you want to listen), and no matter what radio station they're listening to. It seems to me stale, lazy and clichéd programming. Texts, tweets, requests - never did new ideas pall so quickly. But this was mainly about presenters: if you want to hear your friendly 'likeable' presenters, you have to put up with the tooth grindingly annoying ones. I don't think that's what R3 should descend to but I'm quite happy to be in a minority in holding this view.

The people running the station might even gain something from it.

I'm sure they think they do, otherwise they wouldn't do it.

[teamsaint]

And I suppose I was thinking of R3 exclusively, since I haven't listened to any other station for getting on for 30 years. But, honestly, no station is really a 24-hour station if you're thinking about 'live' listening. I just rebel against any idea that 'the broadcasters' have worked out what 'people' want, and they're jolly well going to get it at peak listening times (and it's a 'big deal' if that happens to be when, like many others, you want to listen), and no matter what radio station they're listening to. It seems to me stale, lazy and clichéd programming. Texts, tweets, requests - never did new ideas pall so quickly. But this was mainly about presenters: if you want to hear your friendly 'likeable' presenters, you have to put up with the tooth grindingly annoying ones. I don't think that's what R3 should descend to but I'm quite happy to be in a minority in holding this view.


I'm sure they think they do, otherwise they wouldn't do it.

I'm sure this kind of programming is as you say. I just happen to think that it doesn't have to be. It can be better than that.

And it should be used judiciously.

[antongould]

And I suppose I was thinking of R3 exclusively, since I haven't listened to any other station for getting on for 30 years. But, honestly, no station is really a 24-hour station if you're thinking about 'live' listening. I just rebel against any idea that 'the broadcasters' have worked out what 'people' want, and they're jolly well going to get it at peak listening times (and it's a 'big deal' if that happens to be when, like many others, you want to listen), and no matter what radio station they're listening to. It seems to me stale, lazy and clichéd programming. Texts, tweets, requests - never did new ideas pall so quickly. But this was mainly about presenters: if you want to hear your friendly 'likeable' presenters, you have to put up with the tooth grindingly annoying ones. I don't think that's what R3 should descend to but I'm quite happy to be in a minority in holding this view.


I'm sure they think they do, otherwise they wouldn't do it.

I think you held the hope that Lord Stockton would roll back the tweets, texts and emails and that the RAJAR figures would prove he was right to do so ..... It has to be said it seems not to be the case .... the morning shows are now very interactive and he has “promoted” two presenters E_A’s SK and Skellers who revel in it ....