Last night, I went through most of the night with Through the Night. In reality, of course, all six hours of it were in the morning. There are not huge numbers of threads about this programme. I thought it might therefore be useful to give you my thoughts.
1. I have the impression that while TTN would never enjoy a big fan club, it doesn't create the same amount of upset as the other morning programmes. Is this right? I am guessing that this is because there hasn't always been 24 hour broadcasting on R3. There is perhaps not a standard from the past that it is seen as failing to meet. It is also very much outside core listening hours.
2. It would seem though that it does fall into a broadcasting style which reflects changes elsewhere. For example, there are a lot of short pieces of music. As with Breakfast, I could see the argument for having longer ones - that average of 11 minutes rather than 7 minutes that french frank has suggested. In fact, given the length of the programme, and the slower pace of that time of day, this would seem to be entirely sensible.
3. Similarly, there is a lot of chop and change that doesn't seem very rational. Haydn, Weill, Schoenberg, Jary, Kodaly, Weill, Weill, Weill, Weill in that order. Actually, I found the sheer amount of Weill in the first two hours not at all to my tastes - one or two would have been fine - and wondered whether it would be considered by many to be classical music at all.
4. I found Susan Sharpe to be a warm, authoritative, announcer. I liked her. I thought she had exactly the right voice and manner for that time of the day. I found her descriptions both nicely illuminating and succinct. However, it seemed to me that she was having to cater for several audiences at the same time. While it was helpful to hear that Turina was a friend of de Falla, even I didn't need to be told about the subject of Debussy's Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune. This is a difficult square to circle.
5. Musically, she was also catering for all. Much as I love them, I was surprised to find the Prélude and La Mer in the same programme. Nevertheless, I welcomed selections from composers with whom I was not so familar - yes Turina but also Moyzes, Milhaud and Respighi among others. And the Kodaly was terrific. I see that it is to feature in one of the next proms so I will probably be tuning in for that one.
6. In fact, I very much enjoyed the sequence Sibelius, Glinka, Milhaud, Debussy, Turina, Respighi, even then the Corelli. If it hadn't been for the lively Milhaud which seemed to be positioned entirely irrationally, they would have made for a coherent order with an emphasis on the quietly evocative. For a while I wondered whether some programmes might benefit from more concentration on atmospheric continuity. However, on balance, the open minded part of me thought not because I welcomed the opportunity to hear a little Beethoven etc too.
7. Whether as a whole it was a programme of "dark humour" as it was described I somewhat doubt.
I hope that this feedback is interesting and helpful in stimulating further debate among experts.
1. I have the impression that while TTN would never enjoy a big fan club, it doesn't create the same amount of upset as the other morning programmes. Is this right? I am guessing that this is because there hasn't always been 24 hour broadcasting on R3. There is perhaps not a standard from the past that it is seen as failing to meet. It is also very much outside core listening hours.
2. It would seem though that it does fall into a broadcasting style which reflects changes elsewhere. For example, there are a lot of short pieces of music. As with Breakfast, I could see the argument for having longer ones - that average of 11 minutes rather than 7 minutes that french frank has suggested. In fact, given the length of the programme, and the slower pace of that time of day, this would seem to be entirely sensible.
3. Similarly, there is a lot of chop and change that doesn't seem very rational. Haydn, Weill, Schoenberg, Jary, Kodaly, Weill, Weill, Weill, Weill in that order. Actually, I found the sheer amount of Weill in the first two hours not at all to my tastes - one or two would have been fine - and wondered whether it would be considered by many to be classical music at all.
4. I found Susan Sharpe to be a warm, authoritative, announcer. I liked her. I thought she had exactly the right voice and manner for that time of the day. I found her descriptions both nicely illuminating and succinct. However, it seemed to me that she was having to cater for several audiences at the same time. While it was helpful to hear that Turina was a friend of de Falla, even I didn't need to be told about the subject of Debussy's Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune. This is a difficult square to circle.
5. Musically, she was also catering for all. Much as I love them, I was surprised to find the Prélude and La Mer in the same programme. Nevertheless, I welcomed selections from composers with whom I was not so familar - yes Turina but also Moyzes, Milhaud and Respighi among others. And the Kodaly was terrific. I see that it is to feature in one of the next proms so I will probably be tuning in for that one.
6. In fact, I very much enjoyed the sequence Sibelius, Glinka, Milhaud, Debussy, Turina, Respighi, even then the Corelli. If it hadn't been for the lively Milhaud which seemed to be positioned entirely irrationally, they would have made for a coherent order with an emphasis on the quietly evocative. For a while I wondered whether some programmes might benefit from more concentration on atmospheric continuity. However, on balance, the open minded part of me thought not because I welcomed the opportunity to hear a little Beethoven etc too.
7. Whether as a whole it was a programme of "dark humour" as it was described I somewhat doubt.
I hope that this feedback is interesting and helpful in stimulating further debate among experts.