well I have probably, as usual, got it wrong - the 08.30 calls I have heard have interested me and give a clear but short indication of why the music to be played means so much to the 'elderly' caller. i may even, to show yet again I am beyond the pale, be warming to the Essential Classics 10.30 - IMHO Simon Jenkins has been very good so far this week.
-
-
I'd say you've only 'got it wrong' in thinking in terms of right and wrong.Originally posted by antongould View Post
Once could make a series of statements, based on evidence, such as:
a certain number of people do not like the recent changes
other people like the changes
(and, perhaps, others haven't noticed any changes).
a certain number of people are mainly interested in listening to music
other people are happy to have the music broken up with episodes of speech
a certain number of people enjoyed previous morning programmes more than the new ones
other people prefer the new programmes
others again didn't hear the previous programmes and therefore cannot make a comparison
some people have a very wide knowledge of classical music and get impatient when the same well-known pieces are frequently repeated
other people do not notice the repetition
others like to hear the few pieces that they already know
and so on.It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.Comment
-
IndeedComment
-
Of course, I was only referring to your suggestion that you, antongould, were somehow 'wrong' or 'beyond the pale' in enjoying, or being interested in, those particular elements in the programmes.
When you get on to the consideration of Radio 3, what it should be, who it should cater for and how, then there are strong arguments and weak arguments. And you could say it was 'wrong' to make changes based on weak arguments; or 'wrong' not to respond to alternative points of view at all; or 'wrong' to invent evidence. And so on
It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.Comment
-
IndeedComment
-
Why does Sara Mohr-Pietsch...
... think I could care less about what listeners have to say about music? If I wanted that sh*t I'd listen to R4 or Classic FM or R1 FFS.
Am I alone in this? Do you really want to hear what some bloke in Dorset tweeted in? Does his opinion matter to you as little as it matters to me?
Just asking.Comment
-
Hello vermooten - and welcome
I'm removing your comment over to the Playlist Progs board where you'll see the other opinions which have been expressed on this subject!
To '3beebies aka Breakfast'.It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.Comment
-
Vermooten ... criticising SMP in these waters is a risky enough venture at the best of times. At least save your ire until she's actually in the chair.
Currently, most disaffected are unloading on the Trelawney.Comment
-
Trelawny! but SMP was communicating ad nauseam with the Breakfast listeners long before Petroc put the style into overdrive!Originally posted by Stillhomewardbound View PostComment
-
If you think a neutrino travelling from Cern to Gran Sasso is something special, you ain't seen my grand-kids. They frequently reply to my texts before I've sent them........it would take me about 10 minutes to text a single messageComment
-
Would you agree that those who choose not to email or text-in are not all therefore necessarily vehemently against the whole concept? i.e. it's possible simply to be indifferent to it. If 100,000 people are invited to text and as a consequence 5 texts are read out it doesn't necessarily follow that 99,995 think texting is a terrible idea.If you invite 100,000 or 150,000 listeners at a particular moment to text in or email in, some will.
Most of the emails & texts I hear being read out are from people expressing their opinions about music. Is that not what this forum consists of? or is it the amateurishness of the opinions expressed that we don't like compared to the expert, professional opinions expressed hereabouts? i.e. we wouldn't mind the emails if they were from professional musicians. Some of the emails Rob Cowan used to read out when he was presenting Breakfast seem to me to have been very similar to messages here e.g. recommending to him or discussing with him particular recordingsLast edited by mercia; 20-10-11, 08:48.Comment
-
would you say that the BBC as a whole has been incorrect in thinking there is an appetite for audience interactivity? after all, it is all-pervasive in the BBC nowadays. I would think Radio 3 was the very last part of the BBC to 'let down the barriers' in this respect.The controller's disingenuousness (putting it kindly) is in saying that there is an evident 'appetite' for listener interactivity.
do we consider the old BBC messageboards to have been a form of listener interactivity? I seem to recall 'conversations' taking place on them between presenters and listeners.Last edited by mercia; 20-10-11, 07:01.Comment
-
Good point well made but then I would say that wouldn't I!Originally posted by mercia View PostComment
-
why is it a good point - I can go to say 'The Choir' subforum expecting and looking for comments on Choral Evensong, often by those professionally involved, - however I have a choice - broadcast listener emails, at least those I've had the misfortune to hear, seldom if ever discus the music but their reactions to it - such reactions, however key to that person, are, I would argue, seldom if ever of interest to those who want to listen to the music.Originally posted by antongould View PostComment
-
so, as I said in my message, it's the amateurish content of the texting and emailing that people object to, not texting and emailing per seOriginally posted by Frances_iom View PostComment
Comment