Essential Classics - The Continuing Debate

[peterthekeys]

I don't understand why 'short is bad'

Of course short isn't bad per se. What's "bad" (in my humble opinion) is a sequence of short pieces by different composers in different styles, with no apparent connection between them, and with lots of chatter from the presenter in between. On me, the impression is of a kind of musical "fruit salad" - all mixed up and jumbled, with nothing on which to focus.

And the other thing which I find "bad" (or at least highly annoying) is hearing the same short piece which I've already heard broadcast at least five times this month.

Bach wrote plenty of short pieces, to name but one composer.

Agreed. And if they played e.g. all 15 of Bach's two-part inventions, then I for one would be delighted. What irritates me is when they play only one.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

At that time, the breakfast-time offering consisted of complete works, introduced by presenters who just said what the last work was, and what the next work would be, and then got out of the way.

... which is all you need.

In fact it's perfection.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Don't forget, the programme has a very large audience, so some people like it.

Well, yes. And Radio 2 has a much bigger audience, so some people like that too.

I listen to EC too sometimes, and there are some good moments. But I don't like it overall.

[oddoneout]

Would you be sadder if the tweets etc were removed and if works longer than 15minutes were included in the playlists, odd1? (In other words, is your enjoyment of the programme dependent on the present format of short pieces with lots of presenter/listener "interchange"?)

No to both those but,a) I wouldn't be particularly happy to have it go to the other extreme in terms of number of items and length and, b) some of the listener input recently has at least been of relevance or interest(after all some contributions have been from forum members....), and the 'this was played at my wedding element' has just about disappeared now.
What irritates me far more now, to the extent of turning the radio off, is the trailertrash - endlessly repeated crass, loud, mood destroying intrusions. At least the tweemails are different each time....
I do think the current set-up can be improved - there is no need for 6-30 to 12 to be all this format; giving more, genuine, information wouldn't I believe frighten the horses; familiar items need to be well spaced out and varied in performers/versions; the connections/links between pieces(which I think has been improving recently) needs to be a constant and of good quality - it is a chance to provide more information.

[oddoneout]

Sorry - I do try to remember that my tastes may not necessarily be the same as those of others, but occasionally I forget. .

My comment wasn't along the lines of 'offended of Orpington', but just a point about this not being an either/or situation. Just because people listen to the R3 morning schedule doesn't necessarily mean they don't listen to anything else, or that they think it's wonderful and incapable of improvement.
I too have listened to Third Programme/R3 all my life, and am saddened at changes that have occurred over the years. However my need to hear music, like my need to read, is such that I will tolerate less than ideal, rather than go without altogether, although as mentioned on another thread even I have my limits.
At such time as my audio equipment is up-dated and I have a choice I may consider cutting myself adrift more often if the downward slide continues, but for now it's R3 warts and all for much of the day when I'm at home. I haven't yet reached the stage where there isn't at least one thing each day that I'm glad to have heard(for whatever reason) - and that is just as likely to be in the morning as in the 'proper' programmes later in the day.

[french frank]

No to both those but,a) I wouldn't be particularly happy to have it go to the other extreme in terms of number of items and length

I don't think anyone is suggesting 'going to the other extreme' and having eight 40-minute symphonies between 6.30 and noon. But surely there would be room for two. Or three? Preferably with advance notice of time and work (as they used to do for ONE full-length work on Essential Classics).

[vinteuil]

.

... in a way, I really don't mind at all what they put on. Or rather, I wouldn't mind - provided they gave us advance notice of what they were going to broadcast - whether by means of the Radio Times or by the R3 website.

It can't, surely, be that difficult for them to provide the information in advance - and then we would know whether we wanted to listen.

Or am I being more than usually obtuse?

.

[Padraig]

If people are listening for an hour anyway, I'm genuinely interested to know whether they prefer the music to change totally every 6-10 minutes, rather than listening/having on a complete longer work.

Cross purposes here, maybe?

1 Essential Classics "is as it is" - i.e. a morning magazine programme of short pieces and chat (plus...plus..) That is the description of the programme that I have in mind for discussion here.

2 Another concept is that the programme "is not as it should be" - i.e. it should be a different programme altogether along the lines of the good old days when presenters were readers of announcements (and no plusses)

I'm saying, therefore, that Essential Classics caters for a morning audience that is happy enough with short pieces - even if some of them are movements from long pieces. Time to listen is a factor here; few, even the retired, can spare long periods listening to music.
There is News, local radio, the paper, conversation, visitors, appointments, shopping, reading a chapter (short piece), wondering whether
this sentence should have started with ''There are", and so on.
Wishing that it was presented in another format is another discussion, which would have to address problems of time as outlined above.

Finally, Peter, I think Bach's short pieces - like the Inventions and The 48 - can all stand alone. See All of Bach every Friday - they don't mind playing just one of a set - and a good job too.

Having said all that, in what I intend to be pro the programme, I will add, what I have always maintained, that the trails and ads which have increased in number and frequency, ruin this and other programmes. I'll just repeat what I reported a long time ago when Alan Keith said after one of his broadcasts: "The BBC has asked me to say this: 'You are listening to Your Hundred Best Tunes on BBC Radio 2 with me, Alan Keith'". Little did we guess then what was coming.

[Padraig]

If people are listening for an hour anyway, I'm genuinely interested to know whether they prefer the music to change totally every 6-10 minutes, rather than listening/having on a complete longer work.

Cross purposes here, maybe?

1 Essential Classics "is as it is" - i.e. a morning magazine programme of short pieces and chat (plus...plus..) That is the description of the programme that I have in mind for discussion here.

2 Another concept is that the programme "is not as it should be" - i.e. it should be a different programme altogether along the lines of the good old days when presenters were readers of announcements (and no plusses)

I'm saying, therefore, that Essential Classics caters for a morning audience that is happy enough with short pieces - even if some of them are movements from long pieces. Time to listen is a factor here; few, even the retired, can spare long periods listening to music.
There is News, local radio, the paper, conversation, visitors, appointments, shopping, reading a chapter (short piece), wondering whether
this sentence should have started with ''There are", and so on.
Wishing that it was presented in another format is another discussion, which would have to address problems of time as outlined above.

Finally, Peter, I think Bach's short pieces - like the Inventions and The 48 - can all stand alone. See All of Bach every Friday - they don't mind playing just one of a set - and a good job too.

Having said all that, in what I intend to be pro the programme, I will add, what I have always maintained, that the trails and ads which have increased in number and frequency, ruin this and other programmes. I'll just repeat what I reported a long time ago when Alan Keith said after one of his broadcasts: "The BBC has asked me to say this: 'You are listening to Your Hundred Best Tunes on BBC Radio 2 with me, Alan Keith'". Little did we guess then what was coming.

[DracoM]

<< In a way, I really don't mind at all what they put on. Or rather, I wouldn't mind - provided they gave us advance notice of what they were going to broadcast - whether by means of the Radio Times or by the R3 website.

It can't, surely, be that difficult for them to provide the information in advance - and then we would know whether we wanted to listen.

Or am I being more than usually obtuse? >>


Aha, but then they might think that in publishing the 'tracks list' they had given away so many urgent reasons as to why you aren't listening, and why won't want to turn ON again!!

The less documented it is, the more you might hang in case ....in case.....something you like to hear comes on..........?

[french frank]

Cross purposes here, maybe?

1 Essential Classics "is as it is" - i.e. a morning magazine programme of short pieces and chat (plus...plus..) That is the description of the programme that I have in mind for discussion here.

That is a strong arguments against having changed barbs's original thread title: Essential Classics - surely a programme on the wrong station? In other words, the gist of the 'continuing debate' is what is wrong with the programme, isn't it? It used to feature one full-length work, eg Dvorak's 40-minute Cello concerto, giving the title and time it would be played in Radio Times. Nothing gets changed if one always takes the view that 'it is what it is', though you are - of course - quite entitled to say that you like it as it is. I merely posed some questions. about it.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Cross purposes here, maybe?

1 Essential Classics "is as it is" - i.e. a morning magazine programme of short pieces and chat (plus...plus..) That is the description of the programme that I have in mind for discussion here.

2 Another concept is that the programme "is not as it should be" - i.e. it should be a different programme altogether along the lines of the good old days when presenters were readers of announcements (and no plusses)

I'm saying, therefore, that Essential Classics caters for a morning audience that is happy enough with short pieces - even if some of them are movements from long pieces. Time to listen is a factor here; few, even the retired, can spare long periods listening to music.
There is News, local radio, the paper, conversation, visitors, appointments, shopping, reading a chapter (short piece), wondering whether
this sentence should have started with ''There are", and so on.
Wishing that it was presented in another format is another discussion, which would have to address problems of time as outlined above.



Finally, Peter, I think Bach's short pieces - like the Inventions and The 48 - can all stand alone. See All of Bach every Friday - they don't mind playing just one of a set - and a good job too.

Having said all that, in what I intend to be pro the programme, I will add, what I have always maintained, that the trails and ads which have increased in number and frequency, ruin this and other programmes. I'll just repeat what I reported a long time ago when Alan Keith said after one of his broadcasts: "The BBC has asked me to say this: 'You are listening to Your Hundred Best Tunes on BBC Radio 2 with me, Alan Keith'". Little did we guess then what was coming.

The Alan Keith reference is interesting. He was a man who could bring it off, because he was always sincere. He may have played single movements, but he never jabbered on like the current crop of presenters, he wasn't falling over himself to compete with CFM, by which time Alan himself was very old with slurred speech.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

<< In a way, I really don't mind at all what they put on. Or rather, I wouldn't mind - provided they gave us advance notice of what they were going to broadcast - whether by means of the Radio Times or by the R3 website.

It can't, surely, be that difficult for them to provide the information in advance - and then we would know whether we wanted to listen...

... The less documented it is, the more you might hang in case ....in case.....something you like to hear comes on..........?

I used to listen to Children's Favourites with that in mind. It shows just how far Radio 3 has sunk.

[cloughie]

I used to listen to Children's Favourites with that in mind. It shows just how far Radio 3 has sunk.

But at least no Laughing Policeman as yet, or do you know something I don't?

[Padraig]

The Alan Keith reference is interesting.

The Alan Keith reference was intended to illustrate the change that was being imposed in the presentation of programmes. You could have heard in his tone of voice that he did not like what he was being asked to do. I'm sorry, E A, but it was not intended for having a go at current presenters, which has been a feature of this thread and others.