Saturday Classics/Inside Music

[french frank]

Leaving aside the voice (she sounds about 10 years younger than she is) and the fact that one could guess she was a musician, there is really nothing much "inside the music". Surely, there should be a more analytical perspective about the comment - something that a musician doesn't necessarily have.

I listened to the Billie Holiday track, because seeing that would normally be enough for me to decide I wasn't going to listen to a programme. I was told nothing to explain why I should appreciate it, and I didn't. As for Beethoven's Op 74 (the 'slow movement' - it was quite long, though) it was so all embracing and I didn't have to understand how he did it to fall in love with it (it says here).

I would want more rigour than this, but quite understand that others don't want much speech, they just want the music. Well, this is it.

[Cockney Sparrow]

She has a considerable intellectual as well as musical hinterland, lovely speaking voice, engagng personality, plenty to say - the very opposite of "untrained voice and presentation skills" (is that what you meant, dover??)

This morning, I didn't switch off as soon as I realised Elizabeth Alker was the presenter - there had been a run of pieces and I wanted to find out the name of the latter piece played (Torke: Everglades, under the stars). It was then followed by some chatty information, but it was a babble and couldn't be made out "untrained voice and presentation skills" - indeed. In common with many members here, whole swathes of R3 are no-go areas now.

[Richard Tarleton]

Leaving aside the voice (she sounds about 10 years younger than she is) and the fact that one could guess she was a musician, there is really nothing much "inside the music". Surely, there should be a more analytical perspective about the comment - something that a musician doesn't necessarily have.

We're back to TW-C here? I'm afraid I didn't give her that long, not getting past the unappealing voice. By comparison (to look no further) with the other two violinist/Saturday Classics hosts I mentioned - Rachel Podger talked most interestingly about her musical "journey", and Jack Liebeck (a while ago now) was both entertaining and insightful about virtuoso fiddle pieces, inter alia. What I'm drawing from this is that Saturday Classics is a wildly variable and erratic format, depending on the presenter, some of whom are very poor choices.

[french frank]

We're back to TW-C here?

Sorry, yes. Not EMT.

[doversoul1]

She has a considerable intellectual as well as musical hinterland, lovely speaking voice, engagng personality, plenty to say - the very opposite of "untrained voice and presentation skills" (is that what you meant, dover??)

Yes. Voice production, speech technique along with the knowledge of the subject with its background are the minimum requirements for a radio broadcaster. As you say, what are they (the BBC and R3) they thinking giving two hours on Saturday afternoon to complete armatures? Do they have no respect for their audience?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Yes. Voice production, speech technique along with the knowledge of the subject with its background are the minimum requirements for a radio broadcaster. As you say, what are they (the BBC and R3) they thinking giving two hours on Saturday afternoon to complete armatures? Do they have no respect for their audience?

But why pick on Saturday Classics? The amateurish dismissal of the audience is apparent on more than 50% of Radio 3's output.

[french frank]

But why pick on Saturday Classics?

Because this is the Saturday Classics/ "Inside Music" thread?

[doversoul1]

But why pick on Saturday Classics? The amateurish dismissal of the audience is apparent on more than 50% of Radio 3's output.

Most (if not all) R3 presenters we complain about are professional broadcasters but given wrong jobs (Katie Derham is a confident TV presenter). Or as you often said about Essential Classics, it’s the format that is the problem. Whereas the two presenters we’ve had on this new programme are professional musicians but no experience or knowledge of radio presentation.

(ed.) Host, as Bryn suggested, how about starting a new thread for this new programme?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Most (if not all) R3 presenters we complain about are professional broadcasters but given wrong jobs (Katie Derham is a confident TV presenter). Or as you often said about Essential Classics, it’s the format that is the problem. Whereas the two presenters we’ve had on this new programme are professional musicians but no experience or knowledge of radio presentation.

(ed.) Host, as Bryn suggested, how about starting a new thread for this new programme?

I can either start a brand-new "Inside Music" Thread (but I'll have to be told which posts here would need to be moved across to the new Thread), or, if preferred, I can rename this Thread "Saturday Classics/Inside Music". I am a man of many parts (some of them still working) and shall be moved by the wishes of the Forum in this matter.

[Cockney Sparrow]

............................ or, if preferred, I can rename this Thread "Saturday Classics/Inside Music".

That would be my preference. I wasn't an assiduous listener to the previous programme and have only listened with attention to the first of Inside Music. My impression is that there is only a slight difference. OK, we won't, I presume, get more programmes by Roderick Williams or Katherine Tickell, and each programme will be a new presenter with pot luck on their presentation voice and skills. But other than that, and the rise in the superlative count, I don't detect a significant difference.

So why not let the thread morph into the new programme? As to the programme itself - on Saturday afternoon there are plenty of other things to do if the chosen presenter grates........

(BTW I too heard Rachel Podger few months back and enjoyed it - informative - a good voice and adequate presentation skills).

[Stanfordian]

That would be my preference. I wasn't an assiduous listener to the previous programme and have only listened with attention to the first of Inside Music. My impression is that there is only a slight difference. OK, we won't, I presume, get more programmes by Roderick Williams or Katherine Tickell, and each programme will be a new presenter with pot luck on their presentation voice and skills. But other than that, and the rise in the superlative count, I don't detect a significant difference.

So why not let the thread morph into the new programme? As to the programme itself - on Saturday afternoon there are plenty of other things to do if the chosen presenter grates........

(BTW I too heard Rachel Podger few months back and enjoyed it - informative - a good voice and adequate presentation skills).

I consider it very important, if not crucial, that presentation skills should be more than adequate.

[french frank]

or, if preferred, I can rename this Thread "Saturday Classics/Inside Music".

That seems the most logical at the moment, given that listeners aren't detecting a lot of difference between the two (an enlightening "unbelievably gorgeous" adorned the last edition).

[LMcD]

Yes. Voice production, speech technique along with the knowledge of the subject with its background are the minimum requirements for a radio broadcaster. As you say, what are they (the BBC and R3) they thinking giving two hours on Saturday afternoon to complete armatures? Do they have no respect for their audience?

Complete armatures - how wholly fitting.

[Richard Tarleton]

That seems the most logical at the moment, given that listeners aren't detecting a lot of difference between the two (an enlightening "unbelievably gorgeous" adorned the last edition).

Well I for one hadn't even realised the title or the format had changed, which either shows how much attention I've been paying, or that the content hasn't changed, or both.

[LMcD]

Well I for one hadn't even realised the title or the format had changed, which either shows how much attention I've been paying, or that the content hasn't changed, or both.

IMHO it's no less 'bitty', and no more informative, than it's always been.