The 'oh no not another thread' thread

[Panjandrum]

Oh dear, Panjandrum, descending to personal insults - nice.

I do accept that it's clinically impossible for Panjandrum to post without trolling

Hoist on your petard again.

One of the dregs of the site has registered another account to post the same old complaints around which we get the usual noise

What a charming expression! Pray, enlighten us as to whom you mean.


I see you have failed to address any of the points made to you by jlw or myself. Says it all really.

[cloughie]

The 'KD problem' is sadly indicitive of R3 and also partly of the BBC's current obsession with the 'cult of celebrity', people like KD shouldn't really be thrust into these positions, it doesn't do anything to enhance either the station or the celebrity in question's standing. Her knowledge of classical music seems very shaky and it is made worse in that she is supported by a pretty awful script writing/advisory team whose knowledge is as shaky as her's. The number of errors creeping in thoughout the station in recent years is alarming and it is quite clear that many of the background research team have little interest in the job they are supposed to be doing professionally. The website situation is appalling, playlists half completed or doubled, or as yesterday somebody was clearly supposed to update Monday's 'Inessential classics' but couldn't be bothered and left it without a list altogether overnight. The new updates are horrendous, and the presentation cluttered and unhelpful. The presenter is often listed first now on programmes as if they are more important than the composer and performers. Lazy programming, and the obsession with 'bleeding chunks' etc etc etc.

There are still of course some areas and programmes that have managed to maintain their standing, but for how long?

R3 needs the folllowing improvements:

replace the controller
remove certain presenters
get rid of the current of the majority of the current research/script writing staff and replace them with those with knowledge and professional integrity
replace the website designers and those who update it
overhaul the current programming policy.

If not I fear the future of the station is as shaky as KD's musical knowledge!

[Bryn]

... get rid of the current of the majority of the current research/script writing staff and replace them with those with knowledge and professional integrity ... .

I don't know if an exception is made re. Ms. Derham, but those presenters of my acquaintance all do their own research and write their own scripts. That is standard practice (part of the job) as a Radio 3 presenter.

[Norfolk Born]

The 'KD problem' is sadly indicitive of R3 and also partly of the BBC's current obsession with the 'cult of celebrity', people like KD shouldn't really be thrust into these positions, it doesn't do anything to enhance either the station or the celebrity in question's standing. Her knowledge of classical music seems very shaky and it is made worse in that she is supported by a pretty awful script writing/advisory team whose knowledge is as shaky as her's. The number of errors creeping in thoughout the station in recent years is alarming and it is quite clear that many of the background research team have little interest in the job they are supposed to be doing professionally. The website situation is appalling, playlists half completed or doubled, or as yesterday somebody was clearly supposed to update Monday's 'Inessential classics' but couldn't be bothered and left it without a list altogether overnight. The new updates are horrendous, and the presentation cluttered and unhelpful. The presenter is often listed first now on programmes as if they are more important than the composer and performers. Lazy programming, and the obsession with 'bleeding chunks' etc etc etc.

There are still of course some areas and programmes that have managed to maintain their standing, but for how long?

R3 needs the folllowing improvements:

replace the controller
remove certain presenters
get rid of the current of the majority of the current research/script writing staff and replace them with those with knowledge and professional integrity
replace the website designers and those who update it
overhaul the current programming policy.

If not I fear the future of the station is as shaky as KD's musical knowledge!

Good sense from Suffolk (as ever!)
(I have no wish to get involved in a rather unsavoury slanging match - I merely wished to point out that, whatever she's paid, KD should learn the correct pronunciation of the names of 'foreign' composers and performers. I don't think that's asking too much of a Radio 3 presenter).

[Bax-of-Delights]

suffolkcoastal hits the nail on the head in that KD is a symptom of the malaise that is infecting R3. Her lip-smacking and patronising head girl drivel is just so irritating that, as has been mentioned by other posters, there is an instinctive reach for the off or mute button. The drive to get a larger audience by importing a "celeb" or hooking up with a BBC favoured "news" item - the unending urging to text/email in torch music for the Olympic torch relay (Holst's Jupiter this morning, a less than imaginative choice) - is signally failing with the RAJAR figures dropping alarmingly.
One wonders at what point RW might just begin to cotton on that whatever goal he has in sight for R3 is fast disappearing.

[french frank]

If you'll excuse me closing this thread for a moment - I want to have a think about what is and what isn't appropriate comment about living persons. I'm not inclined, however, to let anyone be intimidated from speaking their views. Perhaps some ground rules are needed.

On one point, when new members register certain checks are carried out to check for mischievous purposes (mainly spammers) and I'm not aware of anyone on this thread registering a second account.

[french frank]

BBC presenters get a lot of flak. It may be true that the more money they’re paid, the less they care what anyone says about them (even I once succumbed to my strong feelings by referring to Jonathan Ross as a ‘slimeball’ ).

But this is "The Radio 3 Forum" and Radio 3 presenters are closer to home. Some have joined the forum and contribute to discussions – which is very pleasing; others have looked in on us; friends and colleagues of people we have talked about read discussions.

Also, this forum is run by Friends of Radio 3. As a point of principle we don’t target individual presenters in our lobbying. When presenters receive severe criticism here, it would be extremely annoying to us if casual visitors gained the impression that we endorsed those views or approved of insults.

Legitimate criticism should certainly not be discouraged (the reverse, in fact), and I’m afraid the ultra sensitive will always be upset by it. My view is that anyone who ‘performs’ professionally, in whatever capacity, has to put up with criticism. It goes with the job, the moreso if you’re highly paid. Focused remarks are fine, and I’m not going to choke off criticism just because some members disapprove.

If you feel abuse of presenters has reached an unacceptable, personal level, Report the post or PM me. If you argue the toss on the boards it will be assumed that you don’t feel it’s reached that stage.

One proposed change: I’m not keen on a Name and Shame approach, so could people not start purely critical threads containing the name of a presenter: concentrate on the point of criticism. Otherwise some threads attract more attention than they deserve. I propose to change this thread title when people have had a chance to come back and comment.

[jayne lee wilson]

But FF, doesn't your last point about "name and shame" run the risk of much you-know-who and you-know-who-I-mean etc.? There aren't, generally, any REALLY bad presenters, but when an appointment has been misconceived - as I think is the present case... as you say, if you perform professionally, you do offer yourself up. Yes, one should try to stay civil and focussed, but again, in this particular instance, oh it can be hard sometimes to listen without wincing.

Oddly enough, on the few occasions I've seen Katie Derham presenting a televised prom she did appear more relaxed, and performed a little better too.

[french frank]

Yes, I know ... I spent a long time thinking about it, deleting, adding, rethinking, rewording ... I do feel the public nature of internet discussion is a problem.

I'm chary of the forum being apparently used as some sort of campaign tool to target individuals: apart from anything, it wouldn't be effective when it can be pointed out that we have well over 1,000 members and possibly a round dozen (20?) chip in with their views.

Quite a range of presenters do get criticised now and again; and most presenters have obvious strengths as well which put things into some sort of perspective. Each case is (slightly) different. I'm not sure where it would lead (if anywhere) but ways of offsetting the weaknesses would help to pinpoint the trouble which then might be discussed with managers (and, after all, if school children are now encouraged to give their views on their teachers ...).

I think it's quite in order to bring up solid examples of what people are complaining about. General problems with interpersonal chemistry probably don't count.

[decantor]

Although rather a large proportion of R3's presenters irritate me, I would not normally post on the issue: there seems little to be gained other than the safety-valve effect, and I'm aware that there is too much of the Victor Meldrew in me anyway.

However, a number of elementary broadcasting techniques and courtesies are being abandoned, maybe in the desire to be 'natural' or 'chummy'. For example, many programme hosts speak too quickly, and it is quite exhausting to follow them (perhaps my age is my problem). Even worse, there is a tendency to swallow key words - "and it was played by [tone lowers] frebrdle", leaving the listener to guess whether it was Alfred Brendel or a rising star of the keyboard. In general, the girls who present EMS are not guilty of this sloppiness, but others who host lengthy playlist programmes too often are. Again, while the R3 website is a useful tool, few people will be permanently connected to it, and it is encumbent upon the presenters to have a shot at giving us the required information on air and clearly.

Another bee often swarms in my bonnet. There is a growing habit of describing in detail a work we are about to hear, and we wait expectantly...... as the announcer continues, "But before that we're going to listen to......". Grr.

[Pianorak]

. . . Oddly enough, on the few occasions I've seen Katie Derham presenting a televised prom she did appear more relaxed, and performed a little better too.

I agree with you entirely. She is an intelligent woman, personable, good-looking, telegenic - just what is wanted for TV, where gabbling, "Barakilev" and "Till Yewlenspiegel" and such don't matter a hoot since nobody's listening, only gawping. As for money, surely TV pays even better than R3. I'm afraid I'm past the wincing stage - as soon as I hear her dulcet tones R3 is off! No doubt my loss.

[Extended Play]

The finest radio presenters have a way of circumventing the microphone, so that they seem to be speaking just to YOU. This is a tremendous gift, hard -- perhaps impossible -- to define. It's more than having a "good" radio voice, important though that is. I have fond memories of the late Tom Crowe as a supreme exponent of this art of personal communication between announcer and listener.

Yes, perhaps TV is in some ways a "kinder" medium than radio to some presenters.

[Panjandrum]

The finest radio presenters have a way of circumventing the microphone, so that they seem to be speaking just to YOU. This is a tremendous gift, hard -- perhaps impossible -- to define. It's more than having a "good" radio voice, important though that is. I have fond memories of the late Tom Crowe as a supreme exponent of this art of personal communication between announcer and listener.

Yes, perhaps TV is in some ways a "kinder" medium than radio to some presenters.

I think it's obvious that Katie Derham tries hard to present as if she were talking to that one individual. Trouble is that other person, in her mind, is a half witted musical illiterate with a mental age of 7.

[french frank]

As for money, surely TV pays even better than R3.

Yes, but R3 is the day-in, day-out bread-and-butter. Most of the time there isn't any classical music to present on TV.

That said, KD is the poster girl of the Proms - this to coincide with the tickets going on sale.

[Pianorak]

Yes, but R3 is the day-in, day-out bread-and-butter. . .

True. But if she has set her heart on doing a regular radio job involving music, why oh why couldn't she have continued with Hall of Fame Concert on Classic FM (Wikipedia). I don't suppose ClassicFM audiences would have been up in arms about her poor diction and gabbling.
Although I have never met her - I don't dislike her as a person - but she's just so wrong for R3 IMV.
Quite an interesting interview with her here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandsty...rink.features7