Building a Library - General Discussion

[VodkaDilc]

I cannot listen to chit-chat. The extended time needed for this format says it all. As johnb and others have said, Saturday mornings seem to be heading down the same route as the rest of R3. Next move: replacing MacGregor with Rafferty?

[vibratoforever]

A big big dog for me. What is the purpose of the change? Do they think we will get bored by listening to a single voice? There is no point in having someone sat with the reviewer just to say "that's nice!" and yesterday the comments were rarely above that level. The reviewer will have spent hours listening and will have prepared a line of thought. let the listener hear that without distraction.

[Parry1912]

Ruff!

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

the well displayed case that the best single presenters make for the work and its performance is unsurpassable imho

i enjoy three handed discussions [summer cd review &c] of a particular work or composer but not to pick a winner more to analyse and illuminate the work/composer

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

As johnb and others have said, Saturday mornings seem to be heading down the same route as the rest of R3. Next move: replacing MacGregor with Rafferty?

[doversoul1]

I have a feeling that this BaL worked better than other two-headed sessions because Rob is more comfortable talking to someone, especially someone whom he knows, rather than sit alone in front of a microphone.

All the same, I see no point in turning BaL into another discussion / conversation session, as the format is already included in the three-hour programme. And apart from anything else, BaL is the only substantial and serious record / CD review programme in the entire Radio 3. Why can’t it be left alone? Or is that the very reason why this conversation format in being imposed?

[BBMmk2]

IIR, I said in the Bartok BaL, that I didn't really warm to this style at all, or did I miss something. Am does seem to have a intermindable mumbly kind of voice, which rather spoils the effect. RC's has a very clear defined o0ne hear. With a voice akin to AM's, the style of programme and presenting can be rather off putting?

[DracoM]

Became diffuse, got the sense that both men were vaguely rattled by the other's unscheduled interruptions - Cowan particularly irked by AMcG's interventions as it was Cowan's job to lead, and lastly does the piece itself actually justify an hour plus?

RC clearly had a prepared and detailed set of discographic notes in front of him - maybe McG did too - the prog had a time schedule to keep to, and frankly, they got in each other's way.

Later it was AMcG as plain interrogator in the baroque slice, and he did not let other guest of the lead, nay pressured her pretty solidly.

Sorry, IMO it was a mess. And did no service to either Bartok, nor the to presenters, nor CDR. If they want CDM back, why the hell don't they stop pretending and do it properly?

[BBMmk2]

Became diffuse, got the sense that both men were vaguely rattled by the other's unscheduled interruptions - Cowan particularly irked by AMcG's interventions as it was Cowan's job to lead, and lastly does the piece itself actually justify an hour plus?

RC clearly had a prepared and detailed set of discographic notes in front of him - maybe McG did too - the prog had a time schedule to keep to, and frankly, they got in each other's way.



Later it was AMcG as plain interrogator in the baroque slice, and he did not let other guest of the lead, nay pressured her pretty solidly.

Sorry, IMO it was a mess. And did no service to either Bartok, nor the to presenters, nor CDR. If they want CDM back, why the hell don't they stop pretending and do it properly?

Thank you Draco M. My sentiments

[Nick Armstrong]

Well after a previous double-header, I 'interacted' with Andrew McG, in these terms:

I beg you/producers to ditch the 'live fireside chat' BAL format: it adds nothing, in fact detracts & wastes time...

Andrew kindly replied as follows:

Not my call, sir, but I'll pass it on. It's only possible to do a handful a year...

And by serendipity, I'm in touch with someone who over the years has done a number of BaLs, including latterly a double-header. An interesting aspect which hadn't occurred to me before, was that the idea of a different approach was appealing after years of doing the 'solo' style, as a change, really. Apparently it's felt that it's only something that can be done with a relatively few seasoned individuals, as the 'live' aspect makes it not feasible with the majority of contributors. That's presumably part of what AMcG was getting at by saying only a handful a year are possible. The producers do however apparently regard it as more inclusive.

Interestingly, I also happen to know a reviewer who some years back did a BaL on operas on video - due to the particular needs of that remit, esp. to describe the visuals as well as analyse the performances, he asked for a conversation format and it was only agreed to reluctantly. The preference seems to have shifted since then.

Like others, I didn't mind the AMcG-RC colloquium, as they are more on a similar footing as enthusiastic, general presenters - but on balance find it frustrating when a real specialist is interrupted and distracted by the pointless and generalised 'sounds very good' type remark from AMcG.

[VodkaDilc]

but on balance find it frustrating when a real specialist is interrupted and distracted by the pointless and generalised 'sounds very good' type remark from AMcG

This format always seems to me to be like one's GP turning up and butting in at an appointment with a hospital consultant. I feel like saying "Shut up and leave it to the expert."

PS Just to clarify, I am not keen on the two-person format.

[JFLL]

One disadvantage of the 'chat' format is that the lead critic might have something interesting to say but doesn't have time to in the end because of interruptions from the other participant, getting side-tracked etc. I think there's a lot to be said for a well-thought out and well-structured monologue, and it's surely more economical time-wise -- you can pack more in. But I realize that these days monologues are regarded by some as not inclusive () enough.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

The producers do however apparently regard it as more inclusive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTW2ZSjG5N0

[teamsaint]

I wonder how board members might choose to do a BaL , if asked?

[umslopogaas]

I would invite two knowledgeable people with differing views to present their case, and AMcG would be welcome to adjudicate and add his comments, because he knows a lot.

I have no problems with two people presenting different views. After all, if you just have one "expert", at the end of the review you have only their view versus AMcG's and he is the presenter so he cannot prevail. Their view might be commanding, but it might also be useless for the general listener, and it might be b******s. Toscanini made many fine recordings and they are all available, but should a Toscanini zealot be allowed to recommend his interpretation without challenge? I dont think so. They are undoubtedly fine interpretations, but does that mean that Solti, Boulez and Abbado are not allowed to have their say?

Is this an argument about authority versus debate? Then I'm on the side of debate. When you have only one authority, you have authoritarianism. I prefer democracy.