Essential Classics - The Continuing Debate

[Pulcinella]

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'.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

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.

[Richard Tarleton]

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

[ahinton]

- 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.

[ahinton]

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...)

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

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.

[french frank]

- 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.

[Victor Meldrew II]

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.

[Pulcinella]

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!

[Black Swan]

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....

[Flosshilde]

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.

[Richard Tarleton]

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.

[antongould]

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 ....

[ahinton]

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.

& 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).

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

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.