Building a Library - General Discussion

[visualnickmos]

That's a very interesting 'take'.... and thank you for clarifying.

[Keraulophone]

No - I'm sorry, but I don't buy this at all. I don't consider the inane, "agreeable" chirruppings that interrupt a reviewer's arguments every 15 seconds to be any better than the hypothetical "pathetic schoolgirl giggle" - nor does the "persona" that he adopts ("is compelled to adopt by his cruel masters in order not to let his children starve" if you prefer)show any real "understand of the works/recordings being discussed".
The "it could be worse so be thankful for the not-so-good that we've got" doesn't cut any ice with me - for me, the programme has gone beyond the "better than nothing" point...

Sadly, I have to concur with the above. Having listened to BaL/RR for nigh-on fifty years, I may be biased in favour of John Lade’s style rather than AMG’s. However, the increasingly frequent ‘twofer’ format often cause me to switch off when the time-wasting repetition and AMG’s uncritical confirmation of his guest’s remarks become unbearable. Layton, Greenfield, Osborne, Warrack, Milnes, Nichols et al, were masters of their art, whether ‘professional broadcasters’ or not - well, maybe not al.

[french frank]

Sadly, I have to concur with the above. Having listened to BaL/RR for nigh-on fifty years, I may be biased in favour of John Lade’s style rather than AMG’s. However, the increasingly frequent ‘twofer’ format often cause me to switch off when the time-wasting repetition and AMG’s uncritical confirmation of his guest’s remarks become unbearable. Layton, Greenfield, Osborne, Warrack, Milnes, Nichols et al, were masters of their art, whether ‘professional broadcasters’ or not - well, maybe not al.

I think broadcasting has come to be considered a 'skill' whereas many of us would be happy to sit in on an informal talk from someone who knows what they [] are talking about. It happens in real life that people sit quietly and listen while they are being 'educated'.

[From earlier]

My guess is that the twofer was introduced to make it sound less like someone reading out an essay, more like Melvyn Bragg on R4's In Our Time. And who would want to listen to any or all of Melvyn's experts talking solo for 45 minutes?

I listened to In Our Time twice, then gave up because of the input of Melvyn Bragg, all too clearly intended to be an intermediary between the 'experts' and the 'know-nothing' listeners.

[Serial_Apologist]

I think broadcasting has come to be considered a 'skill' whereas many of us would be happy to sit in on an informal talk from someone who knows what they [] are talking about. It happens in real life that people sit quietly and listen while they are being 'educated'.

[From earlier]


I listened to In Our Time twice, then gave up because of the input of Melvyn Bragg, all too clearly intended to be an intermediary between the 'experts' and the 'know-nothing' listeners.

Melvyn Bragg - good name, that...

[Barbirollians]

I don't think In Our Time and BAL are slightly comparable . In the former , frequently the experts are talking about a subject which many listeners will know nothing about at all . That certainly fits me as far as the scientific ones are concerned . Also there are three rather than just one expert giving a talk and therefore Bragg is more like the Chair of a meeting keeping matters on the rails.

BAL fits the individual talk rather more . Can you imagine how annoying it would have been in the past if some BBC newsreader had been interposed into Letter from America !

[french frank]

I don't think In Our Time and BAL are slightly comparable .

I only mentioned it because it was brought up earlier as a programme where the presenter was needed. I would have preferred one expert and no presenter in order to learn about a subject I knew nothing about. The fewer people the more information is conveyed in the allotted time (I ground my teeth at MB's, "So, very briefly, then … Sorry, I'm going to have to stop you there.").

I agree with pg - if I was giving an hour's lecture, I would more or less time it to last an hour. If someone else had been sitting there interrupting me to ask questions or pass a comment I wouldn't have got through anything like the same amount of material. It does seem to me that R3 is envisaging a different audience.

[antongould]

If they want to attract younger people, they’re going about it completely the wrong way. Do they think young people want to be talked down to by Giggling Katie, Stroppy Susie, Talkingincessantly Tom and Gasping Petroc?

When a policy is failing - utterly -it must be time to do something that might actually work.

But that would be sensible. They could do that.

Just seen Giggling Katie on Pointless Celebrities .... as she is a massive celeb .... and she failed to identify Maria Callas from a photograph .......

[pastoralguy]

Just seen Giggling Katie on Pointless Celebrities .... as she is a massive celeb .... and she failed to identify Maria Callas from a photograph .......

Oops...

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Just seen Giggling Katie on Pointless Celebrities .... as she is a massive celeb .... and she failed to identify Maria Callas from a photograph .......

Pointless...

Hmm

[sidneyfox]

Average age of the R3 listeners is now 60. I don't think the forum members are unrepresentative in that respect. I have collected 12 comments from the forum and 12 from Facebook which I'll forward to the programme and Alan Davey (if N. Farage can make a comeback, why shouldn't I?). I estimate that 85% of all the comments are critical.

That's the problem. Radio 3 needs new younger listeners, not older ones. And this forum feels older than R3's 60 year olds average.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

That's the problem. Radio 3 needs younger listeners, not older ones.

Why should the Beeb exclude any listeners? And what do you imagine that they have done to the station that would actually attract "younger listeners" as opposeed to "older ones"?

And this forum feels older than R3's 60 year olds average.

"Feels" so to whom and by what criterion/criteria?

[sidneyfox]

I agree, R3 mustn't exclude anyone. But without new younger listeners (like we were once) the audience will get smaller and finally disappear. That's why probably they don't take this forum seriously in terms of the future.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I agree, R3 mustn't exclude anyone. But without new younger listeners (like we were once) the audience will get smaller and finally disappear. That's why probably they don't take this forum seriously in terms of the future.

But, I ask again - what do you think the Beeb is actually doing to attract those "new, younger listeners"?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

That's the problem. Radio 3 needs new younger listeners, not older ones. And this forum feels older than R3's 60 year olds average.

Young people aren't stupid enough to be wooed by Katie the giggler being pathetic.

[pastoralguy]

But, I ask again - what do you think the Beeb is actually doing to attract those "new, younger listeners"?

Well, there is Young Musician which highlights talented young people such Nicola Benedetti, Shaku Kanneh-Mason and Jess Gillam. However, it's really aimed, I suppose, at a middle class type audience who may well be learning an instrument either at school or, more likely, privately.

It's better than nothing but whereas it used to be '... of the year', it's now every second year?