Brian Sewell joins the throng!

[MickyD]

More grist to the mill from one of my favourite grumpy old men in the Mail today:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2041810/BRIAN-SEWELL-Why-Radio-3-longer-music-ears.html

It's all good publicity for our cause....

[doversoul1]

MickyD
1. Well spotted.
2. I wonder if BS has been following the forum. His vocabulary is rather familiar (not a bad thing at all)
3. I didn’t know you were a Mail reader

[Suffolkcoastal]

I normally keep the Mail as far away as possible. but this is invaluable to our cause and sensibly written. It is just a pity BS kept only to Breakfast as far as R3 was concerned, as there are of course other current examples of dross on the current R3 schedule.

[Carmen]

Good old rumpus-causing Mr Sewell can always be depended on, though it's a shame the article's in that particular paper. I'm surprised, however, that he's raised no objections to Petroc's style. With his abrasive drawl, PT was the first of R3's 'upbeat', DJ-style presenters to hurt my early morning ears, followed a couple of years later by the even worse Sarah Mohr-Pietsch.

[MickyD]

MickyD
1. Well spotted.
2. I wonder if BS has been following the forum. His vocabulary is rather familiar (not a bad thing at all)
3. I didn’t know you were a Mail reader

doversoul - we all have our vices and I confess to visiting the DM site from time to time for some juicy scandal. Happily it sometimes throws up the occasional good article such as this one, but as Carmen has said, it would have been far more effective in a non-tabloid.

[Word]

I'm surprised, however, that he's raised no objections to Petroc's style. With his abrasive drawl, PT was the first of R3's 'upbeat', DJ-style presenters to hurt my early morning ears, followed a couple of years later by the even worse Sarah Mohr-Pietsch.

The whole article is "don't blame Petroc", who presumably has the misfortune of numbering Mr Sewell amongst his acquaintances, "and I'll lash out at a few other things to keep the mob on my side".
I suspect there are better ways of getting the FoR3's point across than relying on fickle Daily Mail columnists.

[french frank]

it would have been far more effective in a non-tabloid.

The Times, Sunday Times and Telegraph have printed either letters or articles - two articles in the Telegraph. I believe the S Times plans something for when RW appears on Feedback.

The Indie managed a review of which the writer was someone who listened to Radio 3 for a week but otherwise never listened to it and was quite approving; the Guardian's radio critic wrote a piece in which she quoted - so she said - this website (with a tinge a distaste), when in fact the quotes were taken from one of the Telegraph articles. And another Guardian journalist made himself 'unavailable' when I asked for a meeting (he gave the impression it was necessary to check with Roger Wright first). So, yes, it's a pity that the Indie and Guardian (in which Tom Service is the equivalent of the Telegraph's Michael White) show no interest, as yet.

[doversoul1]

Originally posted by Carmen

though it's a shame the article's in that particular paper

Originally posted by Word

I suspect there are better ways of getting the FoR3's point across than relying on fickle Daily Mail columnists

Oh, I don’t know. If MickyD can’t resist it, you never know who else might be dipping in from time to time (anyone on these boards?). Anyway the paper gets read by far more people than The G, The T and all the rest put together. Although how many of its regular readers bother to read an article about a radio station they never listen to is questionable, it is still a good thing. All besides, this might make some people curious and if they do decide to listen, they have this idea in their head that ‘this is not right, things should be much better’, which might make them want to join us. Ah well, one way of looking at it….

[amateur51]

I'm afraid that I read 'thong' for 'throng' and now have to sponge down my screen which is pebble-dashed with AllBran

[MickyD]

I'm afraid that I read 'thong' for 'throng' and now have to sponge down my screen which is pebble-dashed with AllBran

Air on a G string, amateur!

[amateur51]

Air on a G string, amateur!

[DracoM]

Well, actually, given the paranoid way politicians etc now quote the Mail at almost every turn, it is not bad thing that this 'blue-top' is carrying something like this, The Mail is a populist paper, exactly where the BBC want to take R3 and to have ti blasted by a heavyweight IN the Mail is salutary and one hopes likely to cause a fluttering in the dovecotes. Would that Rob Cowan had similar misgivings about the bilge he has to conduct.

[Don Petter]

A goodly blast, which might bring such complaints to a wider audience, which can only be a good thing.

(Amused, though, to see that BS thinks that Pacific 231 must imply an American loco.)

[french frank]

I suspect there are better ways of getting the FoR3's point across than relying on fickle Daily Mail columnists.

As I've said, it's not easy getting into the qualities. Even the writers who share the FoR3 view tend to want to present their own view. And like everyone else, their view is filtered through their own preferences.

Most of the BBC's arguments ignore the fundamental questions.

'Should the BBC offer a service which is devoted to the 'highbrow' arts (first major difficulty - how do you define the highbrow arts? - Corneille's The Comic Illusion, on Do3 last night?), with expert specialist presentation?' [Drama on 3 is a useful benchmark: it epitomises what we think Radio 3 should be (not least in being content which only a minority listens to!).]

But high, demanding standards = elitist, exclusive and claims that a small group of people wants to tailor the station to their own preferences or 'keep everyone else out'.

The BBC generally avoids the insults but says things like: 'Radio 3 offers superb, high quality content and we feel it would be a shame [sic] for it not to be shared more widely.'

The symptoms - phone-ins, twitterings, inanities, repetitious, undemanding music 'braying' or uninformed presenters - can all be superficially 'put right', but unless the arguments are won they will all creep back again in their new 'moving with the times' forms.

[BetweenTheStaves]

No-one mentioned that Brian Sewell has picked up on the phrase Radio 2.5.

Also in the same issue, Janet Street-Porter has also come out against Radio 2.5 and as she's been invited to take part at the Free Thinking Festival in November, she will be an advocate. (Note to readers. It was a toss-up in cafe nero this morning whether I read the DM or the Grauniad). Link to her piece here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...time-home.html down to the bottom