Essential Classics - The Continuing Debate

[amateur51]

I think I shall become rather worried about my sense of proportion if the phrase "a very warm welcome to essential classics" leads me to write off an entire three-hour programme. My recommendation would be to turn down the volume for the first 30 seconds of the programme.

[mercia]

I'm not entirely clear how a radio station would demonstrate a "critical perspective" of its output - by forewarning listeners that an upcoming programme will be utterly without merit and that their time would be better spent otherwise occupied?

[Richard Tarleton]

I'm not entirely clear how a radio station would demonstrate a "critical perspective" of its output - by forewarning listeners that an upcoming programme will be utterly without merit and that their time would be better spent otherwise occupied?

No - a critical perspective needs to be exercised at the planning stage, before the programme reaches the airwaves. And I for one wouldn't have minded a "very warm welcome" to CD Masters (I can't remember how they used to start the programme) - it's what happens in the next three hours that counts

Rob Cowan once again reminded us of his peculiar obsession with "Schwanda the Bagpiper" this morning. Very odd.

[Flosshilde]

I'm not entirely clear how a radio station would demonstrate a "critical perspective" of its output

I think that the phrase means rather the same as the Open University's 'reflective practitioner' - in other words, a continual process of thinking about what you are doing/producing, & how it could be improved, measured against what you are trying to achieve. Unfortunately the BBC's view of what they are trying to achieve & how what they do could be improved isn't the same as what many people here think they should be doing.

[Honoured Guest]

the BBC's view of what they are trying to achieve & how what they do could be improved isn't the same as what many people here think they should be doing.

How true!

[french frank]

I'm not entirely clear how a radio station would demonstrate a "critical perspective" of its output - by forewarning listeners that an upcoming programme will be utterly without merit and that their time would be better spent otherwise occupied?

I meant 'critical' in the more technical sense of 'judging' or 'evaluating' thoughtfully and, as far as possible, objectively; not simply presenting listeners with automatic praise for everything. It's just as bad to just say, 'This is without merit' as to say 'This is wonderful.'

[Black Swan]

I don't regularly listen to EC, however, having taken the week off to relax I tuned in while driving to do some errands. At the time a discussion was ongoing between RC and the guest a gardening expert about manure. For some reason, I see some irony to this as I wasn't impressed with the program today.

[Nick Armstrong]

I don't regularly listen to EC, however, having taken the week off to relax I tuned in while driving to do some errands. At the time a discussion was ongoing between RC and the guest a gardening expert about manure. For some reason, I see some irony to this as I wasn't impressed with the program today.

Yes it wasn't the finest hour (or half) for the 'guest spot'...

[Richard Tarleton]

It hit a new loam

[Sir Velo]

One wonders where they dig them up from?

As with that Tim Vine, presumably someone's agent begs the producers to get their client on some airtime; or are the producers so desperate that they are ringing around all the agents, asking if any of their clients have Bolero on their playlist.

[Black Swan]

One wonders, is there a Compost Pile for weekly guests.....

[Nick Armstrong]

One wonders where they dig them up from?

The ONE Show, I gathered before I tore the headphones from my ears

I suppose it all backs up frenchie's point, that even though sometimes the guest is rather good, it's the principle of having a piffling guest half-hour that is wrong. It means there's a constant danger of having these giggling idiots (have you forgotten that fat fortune teller bloke, what's his name? - Russell Watson*? No... Russell Something-Else... ) being interviewed ineptly by the miscast Cowan/Walker axis.





* Grant! (Profuse apologies to Mr Watson)...

[Frances_iom]

...(have you forgotten that fat fortune teller bloke, what's his name? - Russell Watson? No... Russell Something-Else... )

don't sneer at FT's - recall Coulson's throwaway remark that paying a £100k to a private detective(to hack phones it seems) was only half what they paid their Astrologer (says much about the intelligence of the reading public of the old NotW and that of future advisers to boy David) - at least the hacker had some hard facts to back up stories.

[Black Swan]

Considering R3's love of being on location, maybe they can do a Radio 3 I'm a celebrity tweet me out of here?

[amateur51]

The ONE Show, I gathered before I tore the headphones from my ears

I suppose it all backs up frenchie's point, that even though sometimes the guest is rather good, it's the principle of having a piffling guest half-hour that is wrong. It means there's a constant danger of having these giggling idiots (have you forgotten that fat fortune teller bloke, what's his name? - Russell Watson*? No... Russell Something-Else... ) being interviewed ineptly by the miscast Cowan/Walker axis.





* Grant! (Profuse apologies to Mr Watson)...

With memories in mind of Daily Mirror's columnist Cassandra and his expensive run-in with Liberace, I'd point out that Mr Grant didn't come across as fat on my wireless, ahem!