Personality and Trivia in The Morning

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I don't understand why you persist in listening to a programme you so dislike.

Well, if we don't listen to it, some smarmy Beeb apologist will then whinge "Well, if you don't listen, what right have you to criticize it?"

[ahinton]

"Only following orders guv" eh? Now where have we heard that one before? If they're really being forced to do something they dislike then they must have a terrible time looking at themselves in the mirror. Trouble is, they both sound remarkably happy in their work, so either they're damned good actors, or they've fully bought in to this woeful approach.

By the way, many of these producers that you're so sure they're petrified of, are young guys and girls in their 20s or 30s who wouldn't say boo to a goose, let alone advise grizzled old veterans such as Cowan or Walker on how to present.

I didn't suggest that they're "petrified" of the producers and would be loath to believe that they are; it's not even just producers per se, as I wrote - it's the policymakers who decide that this is how R3 in the morning should be. The problem here is that, if those presenters were prepared to sacrifice their BBC salaries for the sake of adhering to their pricniples and better judgement, we'd have foisted upon us some new Katie Burton Someone-or-others in their place and I cannot imagine that this would represent any improvement.

I hope that Sarah Walker doesn't get to read your description of her as a "grizzled old veteran"...

[antongould]

I don't know about the Grizzled Old Walker but young Master Cowan certainly talks (and talks) as if he has a very big say in what is played each morning.........

[french frank]

I don't know about the Grizzled Old Walker but young Master Cowan certainly talks (and talks) as if he has a very big say in what is played each morning.........

But so much of the dissatisfaction is about the accompanying content, not the choice of music. It's not a question of What Piece of Music Gets Played Backwards …

[ahinton]

But so much of the dissatisfaction is about the accompanying content, not the choice of music. It's not a question of What Piece of Music Gets Played Backwards …

Although I've yet to have the honour of getting anything of mine played backwards on this feature in the programme, I have a horrible suspicion that, if ever I do, PRS will accordingly stick a minus sign behind its royalty payment for it - and, if it's done when Sarah's presenting, I might just consider suing BBC for haraS-sment.

[alycidon]

But so much of the dissatisfaction is about the accompanying content, not the choice of music. It's not a question of What Piece of Music Gets Played Backwards …

j

This is perfectly true, of course. It has been asked why we listen to programmes if we are so critical of them, but surely to goodness I am entitled to listen to a music channel (aka R3) in the expectation of receiving a reasonable spread of music, and not all the puerile nonsense that we get fed at present.

I could put on a CD each morning, of course I could, but I expect R3 to provide me with music that I don't myself possess, and without all the other rubbish we have to suffer.

[Stanfordian]

Dear Forumistas,

Why do people (eg aka Calum Da Jazbo) persist in listening to a radio programme they so dislike?

Is it because they share living space with someone who likes the programme and insists on listening to it?

If so, could their hateful complaining be a transference of their dislike of this other person?

Your humble servant, etc.

I complain as I believe that with a few grown-up alterations it could be a wonderful daily programme as could be Radio 3 in general.

[ahinton]

I complain as I believe that with a few grown-up alterations it could be a wonderful daily programme as could be Radio 3 in general.

Hear, hear! It would indeed take very little to excise the unnecessary stuff from it and inject a little more of the necessary.

[subcontrabass]

But so much of the dissatisfaction is about the accompanying content, not the choice of music. It's not a question of What Piece of Music Gets Played Backwards …

Hmmm. This morning I seemed to notice a Dvořák Slavonic Dance (not listed in the playlist, as far as I can see), coupled with a promise for a future week of "Five reasons to love Dvořák's Slavonic Dances". The frequent appearance of these works on Breakfast used to be commented on.

[french frank]

Hmmm. This morning I seemed to notice a Dvořák Slavonic Dance (not listed in the playlist, as far as I can see), coupled with a promise for a future week of "Five reasons to love Dvořák's Slavonic Dances". The frequent appearance of these works on Breakfast used to be commented on.

Yes, I'm not saying there aren't problems with the music too. I told RW that one year there had been 80 plays of the SDs - more than once a week. He said, 'Yes, but not always the same one'

But the whole concept of Five Reasons to Love is so naff .

[antongould]

Hmmm. This morning I seemed to notice a Dvořák Slavonic Dance (not listed in the playlist, as far as I can see), coupled with a promise for a future week of "Five reasons to love Dvořák's Slavonic Dances". The frequent appearance of these works on Breakfast used to be commented on.

I agree sub - the choice of music is hardly inspiring and used to generate a fair degree of comment and/or comparison with CD Masters.

......we cross posted ff

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

imv the problems are editorial and presentational

i would welcome a return to whole works, not parts for example

[french frank]

i would welcome a return to whole works, not parts for example

I recall that Lord Gould compiled a considerable list of works deemed suitable to be played in full on a Breakfast programme - without having to resort to Mahler or Bruckner symphonies.

[ahinton]

But the whole concept of Five Reasons to Love is so naff .

Oh, mon Dieu, isn't it just! For starters (but only for that!), why five in particular?

[David-G]

I am in full agreement with all of you (except HG).