Skelly leaving Essential Classics

[french frank]

Thanks for posting this, I too was disheartened by monday's announcement. It's amazing how chipper he managed to sound in spite of it all, the sign of a true professional.

My thought too on the morning he announced it.

[cloughie]

My thought too on the morning he announced it.

He was seizing the moment, maybe disguising some seething!

[Serial_Apologist]

He was seizing the moment, maybe disguising some seething!

Seething the moment, then.

[Anastasius]

Mmmm...at odds here with the majority. Can't stand his style of presentation TBH.

[cloughie]

Mmmm...at odds here with the majority. Can't stand his style of presentation TBH.

Well there you go - one persons.....

[Jack Dawes]

I agree with much of what has been said on this thread. Someone mentioned that, in his way, Ian Skelly was "quietly subversive", I don't think that's quite it.
Rather, that as the cultural climate edges more and more toward a state where identity politics rule the roost, a presenter who plays music for it's own sake, and introduces it with a calm, intelligent ease, might come to appear "old fashioned" to those who are always hooked up to the latest internet / TV rolling news frenzy.
What with pandemics, lockdowns, "culture wars", crashing all around, Essential Classics seems like an island of erudite tranquility, especially when presenters like him are holding the conch. Is it too obvious to point out that great music, of which there is an abundance on Radio 3, transcends the latest fads and fashions?
To an enthusiatic and open minded listener, the good stuff always seems bang up to date, whatever it's age. And that applies to presenters too.

I sometimes wonder if there is a mischievous spirit somewhere at the BBC which delights in rocking the boat. In fact it's probably just a tendency to give too much credence to sociological theories and demographic charts, and not enough to common sense instincts and popular wisdom.

[oddoneout]

I agree with much of what has been said on this thread. Someone mentioned that, in his way, Ian Skelly was "quietly subversive", I don't think that's quite it.
Rather, that as the cultural climate edges more and more toward a state where identity politics rule the roost, a presenter who plays music for it's own sake, and introduces it with a calm, intelligent ease, might come to appear "old fashioned" to those who are always hooked up to the latest internet / TV rolling news frenzy.
What with pandemics, lockdowns, "culture wars", crashing all around, Essential Classics seems like an island of erudite tranquility, especially when presenters like him are holding the conch. Is it too obvious to point out that great music, of which there is an abundance on Radio 3, transcends the latest fads and fashions?
To an enthusiatic and open minded listener, the good stuff always seems bang up to date, whatever it's age. And that applies to presenters too.

I sometimes wonder if there is a mischievous spirit somewhere at the BBC which delights in rocking the boat. In fact it's probably just a tendency to give too much credence to sociological theories and demographic charts, and not enough to common sense instincts and popular wisdom.

Aside from his presenting of the music he would occasionally slip in quiet observations/comments that made it clear what he thought of various aspects of the BBC world around him. One I remember was a weary "I suppose I'd better play one of these" ( I paraphrase), "these" being the tiresome adverts. I've always felt that although he is part of the establishment his conformity to the corporate mindset is at times a thin veneer, the cracks in which he doesn't always hide or suppress. Being the professional he doesn't derail things though even when irritated; there was a period when the running of a competition of some kind ran into difficulties because the website was rubbish and listeners were sending entries to the wrong place. He did his best to make it clear on air each time what should be done to make a valid entry but it was clear from an email exchange I had that he was furious with the unnecessary difficulties caused to those listeners wanting to participate. I imagine he wasn't too pleased either with the amount of time and effort he needed to put in each time the subject came up to try and mitigate the mess made by those higher up the chain, which added to the disruption already caused by the promotion of the competition in the first place.

[antongould]

Aside from his presenting of the music he would occasionally slip in quiet observations/comments that made it clear what he thought of various aspects of the BBC world around him. One I remember was a weary "I suppose I'd better play one of these" ( I paraphrase), "these" being the tiresome adverts. I've always felt that although he is part of the establishment his conformity to the corporate mindset is at times a thin veneer, the cracks in which he doesn't always hide or suppress. Being the professional he doesn't derail things though even when irritated; there was a period when the running of a competition of some kind ran into difficulties because the website was rubbish and listeners were sending entries to the wrong place. He did his best to make it clear on air each time what should be done to make a valid entry but it was clear from an email exchange I had that he was furious with the unnecessary difficulties caused to those listeners wanting to participate. I imagine he wasn't too pleased either with the amount of time and effort he needed to put in each time the subject came up to try and mitigate the mess made by those higher up the chain, which added to the disruption already caused by the promotion of the competition in the first place.

IMVVHO describes him wonderfully OOO and I hope his mild, but enjoyable, insurrection didn’t contribute to his sudden removal ......

[Serial_Apologist]

Two letters in next week's Radio Times complaining about Skelly's move, with the palm-off from Davey expected. By way of a side angle from Feeback, in the same issue, Jeremy Vine makes this pertinent comment in relation to the transfer of Eggheads to Channel 5:

"The good old BBC are very aware that they need to innovate constantly and bring on a younger audience. If you're a successful show - which Eggheads is with over 2,000 editions - you're always going to be vulnerable to somebody saying, 'I think we can find something better'. It's difficult being the BBC. The thing that made Eggheads tricky for them was that research shows that it had the oldest audience on British television. I think that plays to our favour. The older viewer is so loyal. When I ring my mum, if Eggheads is on, she'll tell me off and hang up".

We have to remember Vine is still employed by the BBC (daily from 12noon to 2pm on Radio 2) - one might ask rhetorically who this "somebody" could be; nevertheless, he's telling us what forumists have been long saying about Radio 3 and its attitude to loyal listeners.

[french frank]

Two letters in next week's Radio Times complaining about Skelly's move, with the palm-off from Davey expected. By way of a side angle from Feeback, in the same issue, Jeremy Vine makes this pertinent comment in relation to the transfer of Eggheads to Channel 5:

"... The older viewer is so loyal. When I ring my mum, if Eggheads is on, she'll tell me off and hang up".

We have to remember Vine is still employed by the BBC (daily from 12noon to 2pm on Radio 2) - one might ask rhetorically who this "somebody" could be; nevertheless, he's telling us what forumists have been long saying about Radio 3 and its attitude to loyal listeners.

It's a point that can't be ignored from the BBC's point of view. Younger people have many more options available to them and the BBC wants to keep hold of them because they're the future audience - or non-audience. Their use of 'radio' isn't the same as that of older audiences.

[hmvman]

It's a point that can't be ignored from the BBC's point of view. Younger people have many more options available to them and the BBC wants to keep hold of them because they're the future audience - or non-audience. Their use of 'radio' isn't the same as that of older audiences.

I do understand that the BBC must nurture new audiences. However, I don't understand why the older (in both senses), loyal audiences should be so badly treated. The R3 listenership has probably always been mainly in the upper age group yet R3's been going for 70+ years, which implies that new listeners do come to the station, they just might not be 'young'.

[DracoM]

What do we mean by 'younger' audiences in R3 terms anyaway? Guidance needed.
And............ EC is on when I'd guess VERY few 'younger' potential audiences are around?

[cloughie]

I do understand that the BBC must nurture new audiences. However, I don't understand why the older (in both senses), loyal audiences should be so badly treated. The R3 listenership has probably always been mainly in the upper age group yet R3's been going for 70+ years, which implies that new listeners do come to the station, they just might not be 'young'.

Your sums are not quite right, but your point is very valid - Third programme has been going since 1946 but R3 only for 54 years but one or other has been a part of my life for the whole of my life as my father was a listener. For a corporation that prides itself on diversification, ageism is obviously ignored in that agenda. In their bid to attract younger audiences I think the first thing they ask is ‘what do older listeners want to listen to - OK let’s remove it and really annoy them because younger listeners can’t possibly like it and that’ll pull them in in droves.

[Serial_Apologist]

Your sums are not quite right, but your point is very valid - Third programme has been going since 1946 but R3 only for 54 years but one or other has been a part of my life for the whole of my life as my father was a listener. For a corporation that prides itself on diversification, ageism is obviously ignored in that agenda. In their bid to attract younger audiences I think the first thing they ask is ‘what do older listeners want to listen to - OK let’s remove it and really annoy them because younger listeners can’t possibly like it and that’ll pull them in in droves.

I'm trying to remember who it was who said, some 40 years ago, words to the effect that "I've found I have succeeded in putting my daughter off listening to music I disapprove of by telling her how much I enjoy the Sex Pistols". Aversion therapy.

[hmvman]

Your sums are not quite right, but your point is very valid - Third programme has been going since 1946 but R3 only for 54 years...

Yes, I should've said "Third Programme/R3".

I started listening in my teens in the 1970s. I don't know if it was unusual at that time for teenagers to be listening to R3.