Essential Classics - The Continuing Debate

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Pulcinella
    Host
    • Feb 2014
    • 10892

    Originally posted by french frank View Post
    Erm, Michael Berkeley?
    I find that he tends to dominate the conversation with his own opinions, and he reminds us that Britten was his godfather rather a lot too.
    That said, I'd far rather listen to him than to many other 'presenters'.

    Comment

    • ferneyhoughgeliebte
      Gone fishin'
      • Sep 2011
      • 30163

      Originally posted by french frank View Post
      Erm, Michael Berkeley?
      - or Kirsty Young? This gets to the nub of what I see as the main problem - why have these interchats on EC at all? They're seldom interesting, even more rarely good, and are a very poor version of Private Passions or Desert Island Discs. Like the "Challenge" (only more expensive, I would presume) it just wastes time (and money) that could be far better spent.
      [FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]

      Comment

      • Richard Tarleton

        Originally posted by Pulcinella View Post
        I find that he tends to dominate the conversation with his own opinions
        MB does manage, skilfully and helpfully in my view, to suggest technical or musical reasons why a particular piece which a interviewee has chosen works or achieves its ends - often with non-classical pieces. And he's good at empathetic interviewing of subjects who have gone through difficult times without simpering, over-emoting or generally giving you the creeps. And he enters into a conversation, rather than ploughing through his list of clunkingly prepared questions. In fact I think he's the nearest thing to Kirsty Young on R3.

        PS snap, ferney

        Comment

        • ahinton
          Full Member
          • Nov 2010
          • 16122

          Originally posted by ferneyhoughgeliebte View Post
          - or Kirsty Young? This gets to the nub of what I see as the main problem - why have these interchats on EC at all? They're seldom interesting, even more rarely good, and are a very poor version of Private Passions or Desert Island Discs. Like the "Challenge" (only more expensive, I would presume) it just wastes time (and money) that could be far better spent.
          I have no idea what Kirsty Young's knowledge of music is like so am in no position to comment on her possible suitability or otherwise to present any R3 programmes (although, since settling in some years ago, I think that she's done pretty well with DID), but DID and PP are at least supposed to be programmes in which people are interviewed and so chat and some personal stuff are only to be expected, but that's not what's needed on other types of R3 programme.

          Comment

          • ahinton
            Full Member
            • Nov 2010
            • 16122

            Originally posted by Richard Tarleton View Post
            MB does manage, skilfully and helpfully in my view, to suggest technical or musical reasons why a particular piece which a interviewee has chosen works or achieves its ends - often with non-classical pieces. And he's good at empathetic interviewing of subjects who have gone through difficult times without simpering, over-emoting or generally giving you the creeps. And he enters into a conversation, rather than ploughing through his list of clunkingly prepared questions. In fact I think he's the nearest thing to Kirsty Young on R3.

            PS snap, ferney
            Agreed on both Michael Young and Kirsty Berkeley (and although one's arguably better looking than the other, that hardly matters on radio...)

            Comment

            • ferneyhoughgeliebte
              Gone fishin'
              • Sep 2011
              • 30163

              Originally posted by ahinton View Post
              I have no idea what Kirsty Young's knowledge of music is like so am in no position to comment on her possible suitability or otherwise to present any R3 programmes (although, since settling in some years ago, I think that she's done pretty well with DID), but DID and PP are at least supposed to be programmes in which people are interviewed and so chat and some personal stuff are only to be expected, but that's not what's needed on other types of R3 programme.
              [FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]

              Comment

              • french frank
                Administrator/Moderator
                • Feb 2007
                • 30250

                Originally posted by ferneyhoughgeliebte View Post
                - or Kirsty Young? This gets to the nub of what I see as the main problem - why have these interchats on EC at all? They're seldom interesting, even more rarely good, and are a very poor version of Private Passions or Desert Island Discs. Like the "Challenge" (only more expensive, I would presume) it just wastes time (and money) that could be far better spent.
                Yes, mentioning Michael Berkeley was intended to indicate that, in my opinion, Private Passions provides enough opportunity to talk with guests/celebrities without having them on EC too. But it was a Radio 3 suggestion when the programme was first commissioned. I think we've moved on from that particular mindset.
                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

                • Victor Meldrew II

                  Originally posted by Black Swan View Post
                  I totally agree. I have never been a fan of RC. I find he is in love with his own voice and programs he presents could have more music if he gave less of his overly wordy comments pre and post playing.
                  Thank you, thank you! I'm really cheesed off with listeners saying RC is forced into doing what he is told........i'm sure he's happy to do it and it doesn't stop him from gushing over a piece of music or a performance with as much verbal diarrhoea as he can muster! He is the most insincere presenter on R3 and that's saying a lot! Sorry if i've upset the RC fans but I really don't care. He blights my enjoyment of Radio 3.

                  Comment

                  • Pulcinella
                    Host
                    • Feb 2014
                    • 10892

                    Originally posted by Richard Tarleton View Post
                    MB does manage, skilfully and helpfully in my view, to suggest technical or musical reasons why a particular piece which a interviewee has chosen works or achieves its ends - often with non-classical pieces. And he's good at empathetic interviewing of subjects who have gone through difficult times without simpering, over-emoting or generally giving you the creeps. And he enters into a conversation, rather than ploughing through his list of clunkingly prepared questions. In fact I think he's the nearest thing to Kirsty Young on R3.

                    PS snap, ferney
                    True!

                    Comment

                    • Black Swan

                      Originally posted by Victor Meldrew II View Post
                      Thank you, thank you! I'm really cheesed off with listeners saying RC is forced into doing what he is told........i'm sure he's happy to do it and it doesn't stop him from gushing over a piece of music or a performance with as much verbal diarrhoea as he can muster! He is the most insincere presenter on R3 and that's saying a lot! Sorry if i've upset the RC fans but I really don't care. He blights my enjoyment of Radio 3.
                      I totally agree and could not have put it any better....

                      Comment

                      • Flosshilde
                        Full Member
                        • Nov 2010
                        • 7988

                        Originally posted by ardcarp View Post
                        Both Rob and Sarah are hugely knowledgeable. I am certain that the BBC popularising machine has forced them into styles which do not come naturally to them.
                        Being hugely knowledgable doesn't neccessrily mak a good presenter, & RC isn't a good presenter. He chunters on (with his weird delivery) about how wonderful or marvellous things are (which doesn't even demonstrate that he is especially knowledgable). His indescriminate enthusiasm is meaningless. I do wonder how the same people (here) can worship RC yet decry Sean Rafferty - who's a much better interviewer & presenter (just think how difficult it is to manage a show with live performances, live guests - rather than the pre-recorded snippets RC has - recorded music, & all the other stuff going on, compared with pressing a button to bring up the next recorded item), just as enthusiastic and actually knows quite a bit about what he's presenting.

                        Comment

                        • Richard Tarleton

                          Originally posted by Flosshilde View Post
                          I do wonder how the same people (here) can worship RC yet decry Sean Rafferty - who's a much better interviewer & presenter (just think how difficult it is to manage a show with live performances, live guests - rather than the pre-recorded snippets RC has - recorded music, & all the other stuff going on, compared with pressing a button to bring up the next recorded item), just as enthusiastic and actually knows quite a bit about what he's presenting.
                          Well said. SR wears his knowledge lightly, but it is considerable - and he's a witty conversationalist who actually listens and responds to what his guests say.

                          Comment

                          • antongould
                            Full Member
                            • Nov 2010
                            • 8780

                            Originally posted by Flosshilde View Post
                            Being hugely knowledgable doesn't neccessrily mak a good presenter, & RC isn't a good presenter. He chunters on (with his weird delivery) about how wonderful or marvellous things are (which doesn't even demonstrate that he is especially knowledgable). His indescriminate enthusiasm is meaningless. I do wonder how the same people (here) can worship RC yet decry Sean Rafferty - who's a much better interviewer & presenter (just think how difficult it is to manage a show with live performances, live guests - rather than the pre-recorded snippets RC has - recorded music, & all the other stuff going on, compared with pressing a button to bring up the next recorded item), just as enthusiastic and actually knows quite a bit about what he's presenting.
                            I'm with you floss ....

                            Comment

                            • ahinton
                              Full Member
                              • Nov 2010
                              • 16122

                              Originally posted by Flosshilde View Post
                              Being hugely knowledgable doesn't neccessrily mak a good presenter
                              No, of course it doesn't, although it might help to minimise the risk of gaffes such as certain other R3 presenters have in these pages been upbraided for committing.

                              Originally posted by Flosshilde View Post
                              & RC isn't a good presenter. He chunters on (with his weird delivery) about how wonderful or marvellous things are (which doesn't even demonstrate that he is especially knowledgable). His indescriminate enthusiasm is meaningless. I do wonder how the same people (here) can worship RC yet decry Sean Rafferty - who's a much better interviewer & presenter (just think how difficult it is to manage a show with live performances, live guests - rather than the pre-recorded snippets RC has - recorded music, & all the other stuff going on, compared with pressing a button to bring up the next recorded item), just as enthusiastic and actually knows quite a bit about what he's presenting.
                              Well, you can count me out as one of those, since I tend to find each of them overly gushing. That said, just as I pointed out that DID and PP are supposed to involve interviews as their principal substance, it could perhaps reasonably be argued that In Tune is intended to do something similar albeit to a lesser extent, whereas EC just isn't - or at least shouldn't be; too many R3 programmes veering that direction wil likely result in turning some people away on the perceived grounds that, in too many cases, it seems to be believed by the powers that be that music won't always stand on its own merits without having to be interrupted with interviews (not to mention other often idle chattering, tweets, faxes, phone calls et al) and tales of "human interest" (which seem often to be told without due regard for the matter of which humans might be interested to hear them).

                              Comment

                              • Eine Alpensinfonie
                                Host
                                • Nov 2010
                                • 20570

                                I switched on at 9.40.
                                A tune was then played backwards.
                                We were invited to e-mail/tweet the name of the piece.
                                It was sickening.
                                I switched off.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X