Breakfast hijacked by Private Eye?

[Frances_iom]

and any understanding of polynomial population distributions in the pepsi cola marketing dept should have told them that ..actually what gets me is that their strategy to appear 'accessible' and 'capturing younger audience' is not just daft it is profoundly naff in conception and execution ..

Pepsi is the second ruuner - viewed by all as nothing more than a knockoff of the front runner - the onetime marketing man now in charge at the of R3 etc seems to be attempting to push R3 into a 'naff' knockoff of CFm - but as I've suggested R3 is probably not long for this world with such in charge.

[french frank]

short of civil disobedience

Well, the next Trust meeting seems to be 26 April. If we all jostled round the entrance to 180 Great Portland Street ...

[amateur51]

Well, the next Trust meeting seems to be 26 April. If we all jostled round the entrance to 180 Great Portland Street ...

I've sat down in the street outside Bow Street police station before now (twas after a Gay Pride march where there'd been an unecessary arrest and iIwas one of several hundred ) so just say the word french frank & I shall be there

[french frank]

so just say the word french frank & I shall be there

Well, that looks like a start, then

[amateur51]

Well, that looks like a start, then

Do you want me to work on my Patricia Hughes impersonation over the weekend?

[Carmen]

I've sat down in the street outside Bow Street police station before now (twas after a Gay Pride march where there'd been an unecessary arrest and iIwas one of several hundred ) so just say the word french frank & I shall be there

Ditto!

[french frank]

Watch this space (or one very like it).

[amateur51]

Watch this space (or one very like it).

How thrilling!

[kernelbogey]

Do you want me to work on my Patricia Hughes impersonation over the weekend?

Here's the original.

"As long as Radio Three goes on, the country's saved."

[hackneyvi]

Dear, dear me, hackneyvi! Sub-human? Defensive or what?! And, please, don't get me started on the state of womanhood today! I'll have you know I'm an unashamed feminist (not many of those around these days) and am all for female presenters, but several of the current crop are as far removed from the great Patricia Hughes as they can get - with their gushing, giggly little girl voices, glottal stops, a hint of the 'street' ever present in their delivery. The very first time I heard Sarah Mohr-Pietsch on the breakfast programme, I couldn't believe my ears and nearly threw the radio across the room when I heard her remark, while noting that Charlie Chaplin had composed the music for all his films, that that made him "a bit of a control freak"! Until that day, Petroc Trelawny had had, in my book, the honour of being most irritating R3 presenter, but now that we have Sarah M-P, Katie and Clemency, I find Petroc almost bearable, and when not required to be 'tweety' and 'streety' himself (e.g. when presenting live concerts, not Breakfast), he's okay, and clearly is a knowledgeable man.

As for my need to have radio broaden my musical knowledge, why ever not? That's one of the joys of radio, to my mind much preferable to trawling through the internet to try and find stuff that might be of interest. Too much sitting down for a start!!!

You can't comprehend what Bax-of-Delights says about wanting the presenter to be talking to him/her alone, calling it a delusion. Of course we know that they aren't really talking to us personally! But again, I suggest it's one of the joys of radio that a good presenter can give the illusion of talking to the individual listener, and the listener can happily give in to that rather lovely illusion. Too bad for you that you can't, but, hey, we're all different!

I think you just wrote the book on Defensive, Carmen.

Too much sitting down = too much work? There's not alot of effort goes into switching on and listening to a radio, is there?

You may experience the two-fold illusion that a presenter is talking to an individual listener but that listener isn't you.

Is it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=NKDXuCE7LeQ#!

Come on, Carmen. This might cheer you up.

[UNSUITABLE LINK REMOVED]

[kernelbogey]

[...] You can't comprehend what Bax-of-Delights says about wanting the presenter to be talking to him/her alone, calling it a delusion. Of course we know that they aren't really talking to us personally! But again, I suggest it's one of the joys of radio that a good presenter can give the illusion of talking to the individual listener, and the listener can happily give in to that rather lovely illusion. Too bad for you that you can't, but, hey, we're all different!

There are a few presenters that have the skill of creating this illusion - the three TTN presenters Susan Sharpe, John Shea and especially Jonathan Swain - while Martin Handley is the best of the Breakfast team at this. It doesn't matter to me that it's an illusion ('Think when we speak of horses', etc): as soon as SMP or anyone says 'some of you out there', she's lost me because she's expressing the presenter's position, rather than that of the voice in my ear.

[Carmen]

You may experience the two-fold illusion that a presenter is talking to an individual listener but that listener isn't you.

Is it?

Kernelbogey puts it very well. It's strange that you're so intent on negating the illusion.

[ahinton]

Sheds? SHEDS?? Perhaps the headline "Radio 3 sheds some of its presenters" might illustrate an answer to this problem.

Seriously, though, what I most fear about the present state of some of Radio 3 (NOT all of it!) is that it has an unfortunate and uncomfortable tendency to relect, rather than challenge, a far wider current phenomenon that music is being devalued to the extent that far too many people have develpoed what appears to come across as a kind of divine right to consume anything and everything, for free, just when it suits them and regardless of the interests of anyone else, especially including those who produce and present it. I hve no inherent objection to presenters talking about the music that they present, or indeed of the performers or composers, provided that the information given is correct, informative, interesting, pertinent and, above all, a mere handmaiden to the music itself which it is their job to present. Obviously, certain programmes presume the need for a good deal more talk than others - Discovering Music, for example, or indeed its long-ago quasi-progenitor Talking about Music - but, in these, the talk never descends to the level of mere inconsequential and distracting chatter.

Since any fair surmises about a particular presenter's manner and content must take due account of the programme producer's brief and the extent to which said presenter might fulfil it, I cannot help but wonder to what extent both Sara and Sarah (for example) - who do know a thing or two about their subject - present as they do out of solely personal choice or whether they're seeking to respond to a producer's aspirations and intention for the relaying of his/her programme; only they could tell us, I suppose but, until and unless they do, I'd be somewhat loath to fire off diatribes at presenters in case I'd be risking hitting the wrong targets.

As I've said before, were Radio 3 to inaugurate the Andrew McGregor School of Music Presentation, it would be no bad thing; no stuffiness, no undue reticence about enthusiasms, ample relevant information and, above all, a palpable desire to draw the listener into the music; I wish I knew what he kept in his garden shed but, recalling a remark that he made on a CD Review survey of the symphonies of Allan Pettersson, I can only assume that its contents must include a dustbin with a lid and some 4×2 timber...

[Carmen]

.......far too many people have develpoed what appears to come across as a kind of divine right to consume anything and everything, for free, just when it suits them and regardless of the interests of anyone else, especially including those who produce and present it.

Not quite sure, ahinton, what you're trying to say here, but your points about the talk in programmes are certainly valid.

Since any fair surmises about a particular presenter's manner and content must take due account of the programme producer's brief and the extent to which said presenter might fulfil it, I cannot help but wonder to what extent both Sara and Sarah (for example) - who do know a thing or two about their subject - present as they do out of solely personal choice or whether they're seeking to respond to a producer's aspirations and intention for the relaying of his/her programme; only they could tell us, I suppose but, until and unless they do, I'd be somewhat loath to fire off diatribes at presenters in case I'd be risking hitting the wrong targets.

If you look over these posts, I think you'll find we haven't simply criticised the presenters but are only too aware of those operating the puppets. I doubt the presenters in question would choose to read out the drivel that comes in via text, email and tweets or news headlines every quarter hour), but a voice is a voice, whatever the brief - the voice being of utmost importance in radio, I'm sure you'll agree - and some voices carp to the extent that one can only cry out in pain!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

the voice being of utmost importance in radio, I'm sure you'll agree - and some voices carp to the extent that one can only cry out in pain!

Well, yes; but I suspect that there wouldn't be the consensus (such as it is) on these 'Boards about which voices grate as there is about the presentation style these voices adopt. Patricia Hughes was the only voice on R3 that I heard as a teenager that made me feel as if I wasn't really welcome as a listener, and yet Bamber Gascoigne and others have put her forward as the model of civilized broadcasting. You are very critical of SM-P's voice, yet, when she uses it intelligently (on Hear & Now, for example) I find it as warm and communicative as I could wish.