River of Music: 12 hrs Non-stop Music: Sunday 30 October

[ahinton]

No - I've mostly just been enjoying the pantomime of the Thread: the project didn't appeal, so I did other things instead (including listening to the completed Bruckner Ninth ... in Dee minor).

I do think twelve hours was a little excessive - I'd've thought severn would've been enough (to prevent it becoming a Bore). But what do I know - the Thames they are a changing, and Wear just going to have to adapt to them. Ure never going to get consensus on this: Ouse station is it, anyway; ours not to reason Wye ... we'll all be Calder order in the end, thank Avons for small Merseys. But I do think we need to meet Medway and not insult other Forumistas, even if we don't agree Witham, as I was only saying to my exe.

(You had to open the locked door in the cellar didn't you! Stand back! The floodgates have been opened .... )

Very good indeed, except that so virtuosic an Airing of your thoughts could have encouraged you to mention Exe-cessive (even though that would have given rise to repetition); you even managed to exceed Nine Rivers! I'm sure that there are more tha Tweed like to see and no Council of Trent will be required for their river-lation. The Tynes they are a-changing too. That said, any member who's already Eden ough of them would probably feel inClyde to plead with FF to have further ones Banned, Don-cha know? At least the programme wasn't broadcast in Monnow (although I think that I might have observed that previously), but it might get repeated in that format Wensum idiot thinks that so Tame an idea is also actually a good one; personally, I'm not Itchen for that to happen, but Wissey, I guess.

[doversoul1]

Over the years there has been much posting about too much chatter and listener involvement, and here is an idea for a regular slot of music uninterrupted by talk.

I think this is, in theory, not possible because the River was, as I understand it, a means to an end which was to celebrate a special occasion, i.e. Radio3’s 70th anniversary etc..

However, in practice, since listener interactive and the presenters as personality seem to have been the major elements, the River method should be perfect for Breakfast and may be for Essential Classic. The listeners who want to tell the world what their cats brought in or the presenter who wants to notch up the number of superlatives s/he uses can do so off air to his/her heart’s content while those who prefer to listen to music without all that can leave the radio on without having to think about off switch ever three minutes, thus pleasing everybody. Or won’t it….?

(sorry to have interrupted the flow but please row on merrily...)

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

The way I see it, the project corresponds to the story of Epaninondas. It's a response to concerns many of have expressed, but interpreting them in an over-simplistic way.

http://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/68/fairy-tales-and-other-traditional-stories/5079/epaminondas/

[french frank]

It was a good idea, and although I thought some aspects could have beeen better handled, and said so, I think it a sufficiently interesting concept to be adapted for regular broadcasts, as others have said. Over the years there has been much posting about too much chatter and listener involvement, and here is an idea for a regular slot of music uninterrupted by talk.

Yeo, kb! Well, ditching the puns, I think that's a good résumé and, thinking about it, the impression of general negativity here may have arisen from the fact that a lot of people popped in with one comment to say they quite liked it, whereas the people who were dissatisfied posted more often. I was counting one vote per person .

[ahinton]

I think this is, in theory, not possible because the River was, as I understand it, a means to an end which was to celebrate a special occasion, i.e. Radio3’s 70th anniversary etc..

However, since listener interactive and the presenters as personality seem to have been the major elements, the River method should be perfect for Breakfast and may be for Essential Classic. The listeners who want to tell the world what their cats brought in or the presenter who wants to notch up the number of superlatives s/he uses can do so off air to his/her heart’s content while those who prefer to listen to music without all that can leave the radio on without having to think about off switch ever three minutes, thus pleasing everybody. Or won’t it….?

(sorry to have interrupted the flow but please row on merrily...)

That's as I see it too, the problem being that it was hatched and broadcast - and will doubtless continue to be regarded - as a one-off rather than an experiment to see what improvements might be made to R3's music presentation in the future; in other words, it wll be remembered simply as a special R3@70 broadcast following which the station river-ts to normal service (or even Service), tweets, emails, faxes, phone calls, chatter, opinionated presenters' supererogatory superlatives 'n' all...

[ahinton]

Yeo, kb! Well, ditching the puns

Apart, presumably (since you're in Dorset) from being up a creek without a Piddle (that's a very upper-class paddle, in case you wondered)...

[Beef Oven!]

More positive - what percentage would be right? I said it broke about 50:50 but you keep mentioning only the negative - almost as if you didn't notice any positive comments. Which provoked my remark that people are inclined to notice (even inflate the importance of?) the comments that they disagree with.

I’m talking about the negative attitude that comes across, the overall tone - the sort of thing that gets us ridiculed as a forum, on social media, not a simple headcount of the people for and against. You know, the repetitive snipes.

Negativity towards a programme one didn't enjoy very much isn't necessarily a sign of narrowmindedness, any more than enjoying lots of things is a sign of open-mindedness. It just indicates personal taste, doesn't it?

Straw man. And, in this context repeated sniping about a programme you don’t like does indicate narrow-mindedness; and enjoying various things, is an indication of an open mind, in this context i.e. a discussion about music/music broadcasting between knowledgable interested people.

Some people were constantly attacking other people's comments on the programme without at any point showing any sign at all that they listened to it themselves. Now that mindset certainly seemed to lack open-mindedness, curiosity and positivity.

As a forum, we are very conservative and unwelcoming of change, or things that are a bit different, so my pleading about open-mindedness, curiosity and positivity were a bit naive.

[Beef Oven!]

I recognise that I'm apt to criticise BBC activities here without necessarily saying what I like, and perhaps could be more balanced, nuanced. I liked the river sufficiently to become hooked on listening for about the last five hours, dipping in and out of playlist and blog as I went. It was a good idea, and although I thought some aspects could have beeen better handled, and said so, I think it a sufficiently interesting concept to be adapted for regular broadcasts, as others have said. Over the years there has been much posting about too much chatter and listener involvement, and here is an idea for a regular slot of music uninterrupted by talk.

Interestingly, we could kill two birds with one stone here! A regular gob-free broadcast, with audience interaction by way of Facebook, Twitter etc. Times change and we change with them!

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

There's flexibility and gullibility.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

That's as I see it too, the problem being that it was hatched and broadcast - and will doubtless continue to be regarded - as a one-off rather than an experiment to see what improvements might be made to R3's music presentation in the future; in other words, it wll be remembered simply as a special R3@70 broadcast following which the station river-ts to normal service (or even Service), tweets, emails, faxes, phone calls, chatter, opinionated presenters' supererogatory superlatives 'n' all...

[Beef Oven!]

There's flexibility and gullibility.

If you live in a monochrome world

[kernelbogey]

Apart, presumably (since you're in Dorset) from being up a creek without a Piddle (that's a very upper-class paddle, in case you wondered)...

Ah no, AH, not in Dorset - though I see from your location that you might be wondering wye - indeed wey in avon not - and possibly seek wai I chose my nom de forum. I find being in Dorset something of a test and I am usually itchen to return, I meon to where I feel more at home.

[french frank]

Apart, presumably (since you're in Dorset)

I am not in Dorset - what are you Parretting on about? D'ye Kenn no better than that? You've some Axe to grind, Isle be thinking, or be on some strange Brue. That altogether lowers the Tone of the discussion. So put that in your pipe and Chew it!

[Nick Armstrong]

... me, I'm in de Nile - it's the only thing that stops me going in Seine.

Puns from vindetable!! I never thought I'd see the day!

The River of Music was truly worthwhile then!

.

And frenchie's at it too!

My work here is done!

[french frank]

I’m talking about the negative attitude that comes across, the overall tone - the sort of thing that gets us ridiculed as a forum, on social media, not a simple headcount of the people for and against. You know, the repetitive snipes.

Taking that point, and speaking from a neutral view:

I'm not so sure that it's as simple as positivity = good, negativity = bad. I see the importance of the forum as being the exchange of (different) views. Ideally reasons should go somewhat beyond personal preference, but personal preference should not be discounted.

Being uncritical is not 'better' than being overly critical. There seemed to be a fair number of people here who thought that this was a good idea, imperfectly realised - a balanced view.

What gets us ridiculed is the insults and aggressiveness which some people bring to what should be intellectual debate. Isn't it?