Originally posted by french frank
View Post
Essential Classics - The Continuing Debate
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Padraig View PostThe 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.
It seems to me there are (at least) three reasons for the criticism presenters get:
1. Instructions imposed on them from above
2. Incompetence/lack of professionalism
3. Aspects of personality which some listeners 'don't like', or 'find annoying'.
They are not all equally blameworthyIt 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
-
-
Originally posted by Brassbandmaestro View PostProbably the programme's title should be changed to Coffee Classics, with chat, classical music, chat and a quiz?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
-
-
Originally posted by french frank View PostAnd I'll repeat something said to me by a Radio 3 presenter, which I have also reported before: "It's not much fun getting the flak for decisions taken far above our humble station in life." No question that presenters 'perform' as they do with the approval of the managers. Nor that they are the ones to, unfairly (ooh, split infinitive!), get the flak because they're in the front line.
It seems to me there are (at least) three reasons for the criticism presenters get:
1. Instructions imposed on them from above
2. Incompetence/lack of professionalism
3. Aspects of personality which some listeners 'don't like', or 'find annoying'.
They are not all equally blameworthy
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Eine Alpensinfonie View PostI had a great deal of sympathy with that viewpoint, until I saw SK doing the same cringeworthy performance in the live Twelfth Night screening last week. She was not under instructions from the BBC. There was no change whatever in her style of presentation.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
-
-
Originally posted by Padraig View PostMake that oddTWOout oddoneout I get a lot of enjoyment over the week from the programme through those short pieces that are frequently complained about. I don't understand why 'short is bad' - Bach wrote plenty of short pieces, to name but one composer. I won't say 'long is bad', but in the mornings I have not always got time to spend, and I can't imagine that there are many who have. There's nothing sad about my mornings, musically speaking, so enough of this sadness - let's have a(very)short piece of Mahler.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Padraig View PostI don't understand why 'short is bad' - Bach wrote plenty of short pieces, to name but one composer. I won't say 'long is bad', but in the mornings I have not always got time to spend, and I can't imagine that there are many who have.
The argument seems to be that one doesn't want to switch off in the middle of a piece of music, but one doesn't mind the BBC switching it off in the middle and going on to something else.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
-
-
Originally posted by french frank View PostDo we have any support for Radio 3's apparent view that 'long IS bad (so we don't do long)'? If they play a long piece and you/anyone doesn't have time to listen to the whole piece, why not just switch off, at the end of a movement if you wish, and go and do what else you have to do? Why is that worse than being given no choice because only one movement is being played? Why not give those who want longer pieces the chance to listen to them, and let those who don't have time in the mornings switch off at whatever point they want to?
The argument seems to be that one doesn't want to switch off in the middle of a piece of music, but one doesn't mind the BBC switching it off in the middle and going on to something else.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by vinteuil View Post.
... 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?
.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by oddoneout View PostThe other side to that is 'some people won't like it - is that justification for not doing it'?
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by french frank View PostDo we have any support for Radio 3's apparent view that 'long IS bad (so we don't do long)'? If they play a long piece and you/anyone doesn't have time to listen to the whole piece, why not just switch off, at the end of a movement if you wish, and go and do what else you have to do? Why is that worse than being given no choice because only one movement is being played? Why not give those who want longer pieces the chance to listen to them, and let those who don't have time in the mornings switch off at whatever point they want to?
The argument seems to be that one doesn't want to switch off in the middle of a piece of music, but one doesn't mind the BBC switching it off in the middle and going on to something else.
But what is being discussed here surely is the morning schedule(since Breakfast has the same format to all intents and purposes). Once again can I state my position that I don't think the current format should occupy the whole morning, and that there is much that could be done to improve the 2 programmes without doing away with them entirely - making one shorter programme being the obvious to my way of thinking.
I like the short bits approach in the morning because if something comes on that I don't like then I can go and do something else for a few minutes, instead of being stuck with it or switching off,having to work out how long it'll last(not easy without listings) and remember to switch on again. I can't be the only one....
I would be mildly interested to know how many forumites do actually listen(as opposed to drop in briefly now and then to have their fears(prejuduces?!) confirmed) but either don't get involved in this discussion or are not wanting to admit to their downmarket/sad listening habit?
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by doversoul1 View PostI think we should stick to the question ‘what should Radio3 be doing?’ Should Radio3 be providing listeners with three-hour easy listening programmes every weekday morning?
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Gasteiner View PostEven if they resumed their former practice, it would not encourage me to resume listening to the programme live in view of the short pieces and excessive chat and other paraphernalia that they now incorporate into the schedules.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
-
Comment