Private Passions

[kernelbogey]

To be fair it was Private Passions, and editing a piece to fit the time slot of the interview isn't unheard of. That I can live with. What there is no excuse for is the patchworking of the daytime schedules, where there are hours and hours ( nearly 12) available to play whole items and still include the extraneous garbage.

And there are plenty of short complete works to play - baroque symphonies, to name but one category.

Producers, please note!

[Pulcinella]

And there are plenty of short complete works to play - baroque symphonies, to name but one category.

Producers, please note!

But they might not be a passion of the guest.

[oddoneout]

But they might not be a passion of the guest.

I assumed that referred to the second part of my comment, although I admit that was my thought when I first read the post.

[french frank]

But they might not be a passion of the guest.

That, to me, is the weakness of too many R3 programmes - past and present. The rationale for playing a piece of music (or part of, if timing is more important than the music) is that a guest or someone else happens to like it very much - or can hook a snippet of autobiography on to it. And in most cases no one is able to contribute any musical insight. It's Radio 4 Ground Hog Day - Desert Island Discs all over again ; another non-musical music programme. Oi Give It Moinus Foive (to adapt).

Another thought: why can't Private Passions have just two choices? Or even - Heaven forfend! - a single work?

[kernelbogey]

And there are plenty of short complete works to play - baroque symphonies, to name but one category.

Producers, please note!

Yes, I meant this in relation to R3 output in general rather than Private Passions. (Though on reflection, I suspect a PP guest's 'choices' might well be influenced by a producer: I don't think the LvB IX adagio would have made it into the former 60 minute format.)

[LMcD]

That, to me, is the weakness of too many R3 programmes - past and present. The rationale for playing a piece of music (or part of, if timing is more important than the music) is that a guest or someone else happens to like it very much - or can hook a snippet of autobiography on to it. And in most cases no one is able to contribute any musical insight. It's Radio 4 Ground Hog Day - Desert Island Discs all over again ; another non-musical music programme. Oi Give It Moinus Foive (to adapt).

Another thought: why can't Private Passions have just two choices? Or even - Heaven forfend! - a single work?

I find some of Michael Berkeley's responses to his guests' choices and their reasons for them quite informative - insightful, even - as do his guests, I would imagine,

[smittims]

I've long suspected that guests are chosen if they offer or agree to an 'entertaining mix' of music. Someone whose 'Private Passion' was for all Biber's 'Rosary' Sonatas, one after another, probably wouldn't be invited.

[Serial_Apologist]

Yes, I meant this in relation to R3 output in general rather than Private Passions. (Though on reflection, I suspect a PP guest's 'choices' might well be influenced by a producer: I don't think the LvB IX adagio would have made it into the former 60 minute format.)

Wouldn't it be hard to isolate the slow movement from Beethoven 9 in any case, given that it is linked in continuity to the orchestral recitative that leads into the finale? I can't quite see when one would switch it off!

[french frank]

I find some of Michael Berkeley's responses to his guests' choices and their reasons for them quite informative - insightful, even - as do his guests, I would imagine,

Rather in the same way that sometimes an R3 programme will be very good (if only one knew this in advance). It wouldn't amount to a radio station that was worth listening to. It's tired formula programming most of the time. Baby formula.

[oddoneout]

That, to me, is the weakness of too many R3 programmes - past and present. The rationale for playing a piece of music (or part of, if timing is more important than the music) is that a guest or someone else happens to like it very much - or can hook a snippet of autobiography on to it. And in most cases no one is able to contribute any musical insight. It's Radio 4 Ground Hog Day - Desert Island Discs all over again ; another non-musical music programme. Oi Give It Moinus Foive (to adapt).

Another thought: why can't Private Passions have just two choices? Or even - Heaven forfend! - a single work?

Given that PP has been around for a long time so I think it is a tad unfair to load it now with all the shortcomings of today's apology for R3. It isn't just about a guest liking a piece of music, it's about what it means to them, and yes that may be autobiographical(in fact it can't help but be so given the programme focuses on a person and that person's life) but the reasons for that choice or liking generally go beyond(sometimes well beyond) "I like the tune". The stories that accompany them can be funny, scurrilous, moving, and add to understanding of the interviewee. Something I appreciate is that I don't actually need to know anything about the guest in order to enjoy the conversation, and also that even when I do recognise or know something about the person, there there will be something new to find out, or a new slant on old knowledge. The choices are also often a useful reminder that a person's profession isn't a foolproof indicator of musical preferences.
The suggestions you give are perfectly good ones - but for different programmes. Picking up on smittims post, Rachel Podger could do an EMS on Biber's Rosary sonatas for instance - she is excellent on the challenges they present. When Inside Music was announced I had hoped that it would provide insight into performance and repertoire from the likes of players and conductors, but except very occasionally it didn't - it was a version of DID. Neither of those things are the fault of PP which, when it started, was broadcast against a backdrop of what we would now see as "proper" R3 or close to.
Just come across this https://www.michaelberkeley.co.uk/private-passions

[LMcD]

Given that PP has been around for a long time so I think it is a tad unfair to load it now with all the shortcomings of today's apology for R3. It isn't just about a guest liking a piece of music, it's about what it means to them, and yes that may be autobiographical(in fact it can't help but be so given the programme focuses on a person and that person's life) but the reasons for that choice or liking generally go beyond(sometimes well beyond) "I like the tune". The stories that accompany them can be funny, scurrilous, moving, and add to understanding of the interviewee. Something I appreciate is that I don't actually need to know anything about the guest in order to enjoy the conversation, and also that even when I do recognise or know something about the person, there there will be something new to find out, or a new slant on old knowledge. The choices are also often a useful reminder that a person's profession isn't a foolproof indicator of musical preferences.
The suggestions you give are perfectly good ones - but for different programmes. Picking up on smittims post, Rachel Podger could do an EMS on Biber's Rosary sonatas for instance - she is excellent on the challenges they present. When Inside Music was announced I had hoped that it would provide insight into performance and repertoire from the likes of players and conductors, but except very occasionally it didn't - it was a version of DID. Neither of those things are the fault of PP which, when it started, was broadcast against a backdrop of what we would now see as "proper" R3 or close to.
Just come across this https://www.michaelberkeley.co.uk/private-passions

[french frank]

Given that PP has been around for a long time so I think it is a tad unfair to load it now with all the shortcomings of today's apology for R3.

"To lose one parent, Mr. Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness”.

PPs may have been the first and original (though it seems to have been brought in at the outset of the 'broadening the audience' project (aka - and I was once a regular listener)), but in the context of today's R3 it has become 'same old, same old'. The best I could say is that there probably isn't a lot else on R3 that's any better. The problem is that as long as listener X quite enjoys Y, they will prioritise their own personal feeling/taste over any more general criteria, rather than admit that their personal tastes can run to the pretty mediocre and run-of the-mill, but that they shouldn't in general be wheeled out to justify such tastes/opinions. PPs was once one of the new populist ('entry level') programmes. If it's now one of the best, it shows how low Radio 3 has got.

It isn't just about a guest liking a piece of music, it's about what it means to them, and yes that may be autobiographical(in fact it can't help but be so given the programme focuses on a person and that person's life) but the reasons for that choice or liking generally go beyond(sometimes well beyond) "I like the tune". The stories that accompany them can be funny, scurrilous, moving, and add to understanding of the interviewee.

And it boils down to whether one is remotely interested in 'understanding the interviewee' no matter what there is to 'understand'. But finding it entertaining is to accept - willingly or not - that the next inevitable step will be the expansion of the 'apology for R3' NB - your words! Perhaps γνῶθι σεαυτόν and one should acknowledge one's own role in the speeding up of the, erm, 'broadening of the audience' strategy.

When Inside Music was announced I had hoped that it would provide insight into performance and repertoire from the likes of players and conductors, but except very occasionally it didn't - it was a version of DID.

As is PPs. QED.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Wouldn't it be hard to isolate the slow movement from Beethoven 9 in any case, given that it is linked in continuity to the orchestral recitative that leads into the finale? I can't quite see when one would switch it off!

Not that hard but certainly unsatisfying.
The slow movement ends with a pianissimo series of Bflat chords . The final movement starts with a massive discord : a fortissimo Bflat chord with a Dminor inverted chord played simultaneously or , if you prefer a Dminor chord with flattened sixth. It’s a key chord as much of the symphony pivots around that D minor / Bflat clash. But the third movement definitely ends. The finale is an extraordinary shock after the repose of the Adagio close . In a way one doesn’t make sense without the other but there’s no continuous musical link .

[LMcD]

"one should acknowledge one's own role in the speeding up of the, erm, 'broadening of the audience' strategy.

I wasn't aware that that was what I was doing, but I'm quite happy to plead guilty and continue to enjoy, and sometimes learn from, the programme.

[oddoneout]

I wasn't aware that that was what I was doing, but I'm quite happy to plead guilty and continue to enjoy, and sometimes learn from, the programme.

Given that the programme is now 30 years old the idea of "speeding up" the demise of R3 by listening to it is an interesting one. I had thought that it was the re-modelling of the entire daytime schedules along CFM lines that was doing that. But then, as is evident, I am a deeply shallow person(had to google that Greek quotation) so what do I know? As such I will, like you, continue to listen to such low-brow content as a composer and his space scientist guest, not least as time(the host is 76) and the apparently unstoppable 'modernisation' of R3 will combine to remove it from the airwaves before too long anyway I imagine, with or without our "help".