Through the Night

[french frank]

I’m sure you were a superb lecturer but delivering a radio script is very different.

Thank you for your, probably misplaced, confidence. I had an idea - probably also misplaces - than radio presenters, especiallt those for Radio 3, underwent a certain amount of (radio) training. It has seemed lately as if 'naturalness', being yourself, was rated more highly than any sort of basic qualities for doing the job.

Yes, the BBC "plonking" style is well recognised from the outside. I can't say it's also much admired.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Thank you for your, probably misplaced, confidence. I had an idea - probably also misplaces - than radio presenters, especiallt those for Radio 3, underwent a certain amount of (radio) training. It has seemed lately as if 'naturalness', being yourself, was rated more highly than any sort of basic qualities for doing the job.

Yes, the BBC "plonking" style is well recognised from the outside. I can't say it's also much admired.

I can’t speak for today but historically the BBC’s training was of the very highest quality. When I joined Radio every one was given a voice test. Some joined with the specific ambition of being an announcer / presenter - quite hotly competed for as , to be honest , it’s a dream of a job. Some announcers make the transition from news reading and continuity presenting to being full on name presenters . Others are happy to keep doing the shifts and shunning the limelight. These days I guess a lot come up through local radio which is one of the biggest training grounds around. The problem with that is that there is less structured training -its often just picking up tips on the fly.
I only worked in Radio of and on for five years but it was enough to see that radio presenting is a very demanding job - not least because you are on air for hours on end and , in the case of magazine programmes , you create the unique feel of the programme . In the case of the station , as with a continuity announcer, you help create the whole feel of the channel. And unless you’re a star it’s not that well paid..

PS plonking if anything is more of an ITN phenomenon…

[Serial_Apologist]

I’m sure you were a superb lecturer but delivering a radio script is very different. If you want to get technical it’s also different from doing a TV script. Sometimes TV presenters don’t make good radio ones particularly if they’ve had no local radio or network radio experience. In TV there’s a tendency to emphasise words more - often to cut through music and background effects . Taken to extremes it’s known as plonking. That sounds unnatural on Radio - where the delivery tends to be more modulated and even . Catriona is a very good example of this …Others include Peter Donaldson , Sue McGregor and currently Ian Skelly, Tom McKinney - to be honest there are a lot of very good radio presenters around.

Yes, that's another annoying thing about the BBC in recent cost-cutting years - namely having spokespersons for their specialist "domains" presenting or commenting on both radio and TV.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Yes, that's another annoying thing about the BBC in recent cost-cutting years - namely having spokespersons for their specialist "domains" presenting or commenting on both radio and TV.

That battle was fought and lost back in the late nineties. It’s a skill going from doing a radio script delivery to a tv commentary but luckily quite a few can do it. Alan Little springs to mind , John Humphries is another.

[smittims]

Alas! oddoneout, I think we're at cross-purposes again. I agree that having a specialist degree doesn't preclude more general knowledge; indeed, I said 'for all I know she may be an expert'. All I was saying was that there is, so far , no actual claim that she does have the broad knowledge and understanding dispayed regularly by the other three; I hope she does, and will keep listening in this hope.

Perhaps it's just that I've heard so many presenters in the past who seem to have been chosen for their looks or their reputations elsewhere, maybe in the belief that they'll attract new listeners, but who display a lack of knowledge of classical music. If we heard a new presenter of 'The World at One' who clearly knew nothing about politics, or a presenter of 'Match of the Day' who showed a lack of understanding of soccer, there'd soon be an outcry, but on Radio 3 we seem to have to put up with it.

[french frank]

As regards presenters, I think the normal rule applies: they are engaged to do a professional job and one is justified in criticising any example of their falling short in professionalism. Somewhere I read an article by Donald Macleod describing himself as something of a 'bluffer' in that he had no professional music qualification for the job - nor, I believe, do Penny Gore or Ian Skelly. Knowing how to do research properly and doing a thorough job of it is the basic necessity; supplemented by experience. And even there, production staff may vet and make suggestions. Music qualifications are a bonus.

[oddoneout]

Alas! oddoneout, I think we're at cross-purposes again. I agree that having a specialist degree doesn't preclude more general knowledge; indeed, I said 'for all I know she may be an expert'. All I was saying was that there is, so far , no actual claim that she does have the broad knowledge and understanding dispayed regularly by the other three; I hope she does, and will keep listening in this hope.

Perhaps it's just that I've heard so many presenters in the past who seem to have been chosen for their looks or their reputations elsewhere, maybe in the belief that they'll attract new listeners, but who display a lack of knowledge of classical music. If we heard a new presenter of 'The World at One' who clearly knew nothing about politics, or a presenter of 'Match of the Day' who showed a lack of understanding of soccer, there'd soon be an outcry, but on Radio 3 we seem to have to put up with it.

So far in her time with R3 I don't think she's had much opportunity to display(one way or the other) her abilities as a classical music expert - there's not much call for it when doing the news headlines...
I have the advantage over you that my music knowledge is far more limited so I'm less likely to have occasion to be annoyed!
Within the context of TTN, as I've opined previously (and EH has indicated) there is less "opportunity" for mistakes, certainly compared with the morning schedules, and I don't think it has been hit (yet!) with the importation of a presenter for the kind of reasons you mention. Having said that it is possible as we have seen in the past for someone with all the right credentials to make some... erm surprising, mistakes - obvious enough that even I noticed.

[Serial_Apologist]

If we heard a new presenter of 'The World at One' who clearly knew nothing about politics [...] there'd soon be an outcry, but on Radio 3 we seem to have to put up with it.

Hmm something of a parallel does exist there, however - how many times do we hear complaints from respected sources of broadcasting commentators' viewpoints being largely restricted and centred around the "parliamentary village"?

[Serial_Apologist]

I have the advantage over you that my music knowledge is far more limited so I'm less likely to have occasion to be annoyed!

But, just think how much more informed you could be, were the presenters to be equally, or more so!

[Ein Heldenleben]

As regards presenters, I think the normal rule applies: they are engaged to do a professional job and one is justified in criticising any example of their falling short in professionalism. Somewhere I read an article by Donald Macleod describing himself as something of a 'bluffer' in that he had no professional music qualification for the job - nor, I believe, do Penny Gore or Ian Skelly. Knowing how to do research properly and doing a thorough job of it is the basic necessity; supplemented by experience. And even there, production staff may vet and make suggestions. Music qualifications are a bonus.

I would think that Donald has his scripts written for him by a producer which he then polishes. Researching the interviews , the biography and writing the scripts for a daily programme of that complexity would be a tall order given the range of other presentation work he does. But I could be wrong. I would estimate just writing the script for one programme would take a half day perhaps more. In most of the shows I worked on I would estimate that 95 per cent of the work was done by the production team - 5 per cent by the presenter . The split will be different in Radio because the teams are smaller and shows are much more built around the presenter
Th COTW scripts are very well written…

[Serial_Apologist]

I would think that Donald has his scripts written for him by a producer which he then polishes. Researching the interviews , the biography and writing the scripts for a daily programme of that complexity would be a tall order given the range of other presentation work he does. But I could be wrong. I would estimate just writing the script for one programme would take a half day perhaps more. In most of the shows I worked on I would estimate that 95 per cent of the work was done by the production team - 5 per cent by the presenter . The split will be different in Radio because the teams are smaller and shows are much more built around the presenter
Th COTW scripts are very well written…

They are indeed, EH.

[french frank]

But, just think how much more informed you could be, were the presenters to be equally, or more so!

Agreed. One may wonder what the BBC/R3 considers Radio 3 is for. Some audiences - we may surmise that the majority of listeners - only require that Radio 3, in fact radio in general, should entertain. If there is a smidegon of informative education, that will be acceptable too. But it isn't a necessity.

For those who are very well informed about (in particular) classical music - what do you require Radio 3 to provide? Information? Education? Entertainment? Not all minorities are equal as far as BBC provision is concerned. If you don't want to bang your head against a brick wall, you'll take what you're given or switch off. Not ideal, but to avoid brain damage … And people can take offence at that opinion for whatever reason they want to. And no doubt they will.

[antongould]

Agreed. One may wonder what the BBC/R3 considers Radio 3 is for. Some audiences - we may surmise that the majority of listeners - only require that Radio 3, in fact radio in general, should entertain. If there is a smidegon of informative education, that will be acceptable too. But it isn't a necessity.

For those who are very well informed about (in particular) classical music - what do you require Radio 3 to provide? Information? Education? Entertainment? Not all minorities are equal as far as BBC provision is concerned. If you don't want to bang your head against a brick wall, you'll take what you're given or switch off. Not ideal, but to avoid brain damage … And people can take offence at that opinion for whatever reason they want to. And no doubt they will.

No offence taken here ........ but what, in your opinion, is the answer to your question "For those who are very well informed about (in particular) classical music - what do you require Radio 3 to provide?"

[french frank]

... but what, in your opinion, is the answer to your question "For those who are very well informed about (in particular) classical music - what do you require Radio 3 to provide?"

This just boils down to a minority wish to have the Radio 3 which provided an erudite (and, almost incidentally, educational) service aimed at an audience which wanted intellectual stimulation. What RW once described as "lean-forward" radio rather than his new idea of "lean-back" radio (late-night Late Junction in this particular case - RW listened to it in his bath, so he said). Radio 3 as 100% "lean-forward" radio. And if/when you need something a bit more relaxing, switch over to something else. But gone are the days, apparently.

Apologies, again. We're off the topic of TTN which is a late night programme which actually serves a double purpose of bedtime listening and satisfying daytime listening.

[Serial_Apologist]

No offence taken here ........ but what, in your opinion, is the answer to your question "For those who are very well informed about (in particular) classical music - what do you require Radio 3 to provide?"

Well in my own case I'm happy to be re-informed in the way Radio 3 did back in the day, or have my assumptions challenged by revised thinking on that or other matters. If I'm looking at an elaborate painting (which is analogous to broad cultural enlightenment) I won't be gaining much from the hard work of the artist by just staring at one little bit of the canvas. What I get from it is what I think of as a very rich inner life that hopefully provides some understanding if not solace in troubled times and circumstances. I'm the guy who rejoiced at having a great view from my front window, compared with the upstairs neighbour who, when I remarked on this, just said "What view?" John Cage tells a similar story in "Silence" about visiting a landmark, which he then describes in enviable detail, before reporting a fellow passenger turning to his wife and saying, "Well we come all this way, and when you get here, there's nothing to see"!