BaL 4.05.19 - Beethoven: Piano Trios Op. 1

[verismissimo]

That one was answered in #41.

The fact seems to be (and it's four-and-a-half hours since you posted this, so I've given time for comments about the review itself to be posted - and thank you visnick) that Forumistas who used to enjoy commenting on BaLs just don't have the same enthusiasm to listen to the programme in anything like the same numbers because of the twofer format. Mal (in #32) managed to salvage the best bits of the review in under 40 words. Otherwise, the most useful discussions about the works have had nothing to do with yesterday's programme.

If there was anything else worth discussing that came up in the BaL, nobody has seen fit to mention it - if there wasn't, then comments (that you suggest might tentatively be described as "whinging") critical of the programme, and imagining improvements to it are legitimately at home on this Thread.

OK ferney :)

[sidneyfox]

As suggested elsewhere, please could we have a completely separate thread, tentatively entitled 'Whinging about BAL'?

I quite enjoy reading through the comments on BaL threads, even if I've rarely got much to add. But this one's turned into whinging session for old people who want to go back in time and get their BaL back. Nothing against old people, I'm nearly 70 myself, which I guess is close to the average age of contributors here. I don't like the way R3 is going, but for heaven's sake, leave the Victor Meldrew to UKIP. Surely we're better than that?

[Alison]

Well I’m 41 and completely agree with the main gist of this thread.

What a shame, early Beethoven is one of my favourite things!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

OK ferney :)

[edashtav]

I quite enjoy reading through the comments on BaL threads, even if I've rarely got much to add. But this one's turned into whinging session for old people who want to go back in time and get their BaL back. Nothing against old people, I'm nearly 70 myself, which I guess is close to the average age of contributors here. I don't like the way R3 is going, but for heaven's sake, leave the Victor Meldrew to UKIP. Surely we're better than that?

Look, Sidney, I'm 73.9 but I'm not complaining about twofers, per se: I'm ready to accept the new format. My gripe concerned the medium obsuring the message. The host's contributions interrupted and wrong-footed the guest expert; after one short example, neither guest nor host were ready to resume their conversations. The discussion failed at a basic , technical level to the such extent that I found great difficulty in following the message. Such flaws do not characterise BBC Radio as a whole and, thus, I felt it necessary so outline the issues concerning this BaL. Age did not weary me: in fact had I been a young R.3 novitiate, I fear that I would have switched off in disgust.

[sidneyfox]

Look, Sidney, I'm 73.9 but I'm not complaining about twofers, per se: I'm ready to accept the new format.

You're in a minority in this forum!

[verismissimo]

This is then my take on the whole twofer-onesie thing.

There are two ways of successfully conducting a twofer:

1. A conversation between equals, each contributing 'expert' content
2. An interview, where the interviewer uses questions to draw out the expertise/opinions of the interviewee.

The problem here is that Andrew McGregor wanders seamlessly between the two, to the irritation of our more traditionally minded onesie preferers. Maybe if they fired him and brought in a pro interviewer like Michal Husain?

[gurnemanz]

This is then my take on the whole twofer-onesie thing.

There are two ways of successfully conducting a twofer:

1. A conversation between equals, each contributing 'expert' content
2. An interview, where the interviewer uses questions to draw out the expertise/opinions of the interviewee.

The problem here is that Andrew McGregor wanders seamlessly between the two, to the irritation of our more traditionally minded onesie preferers. Maybe if they fired him and brought in a pro interviewer like Michal Husain?

Well put. I assume that he never is an equal, because he won't ever have done the same amount of research as the main reviewer, so his to chipping in with his own little insights is not relevant and can be an irritant. If they insist on doing a twofer, the role of the interviewer should be, as you say, to take a back seat and maybe extract further information from the reviewer, if appropriate. Fair enough to experiment with the twofer format but since neither of the two options mentioned are ever likely to be achieved, they should see the light and give it up.

I hope today to get around to listening again to Jacqueline du Pré, Daniel Barenboim & Pinchas Zukerman.

[DracoM]

In the last RR, there were TWO significant twofers: one with Lucy Wallace ref Beethoven, and then - on a huge Haydn symph issue - with Nicholas Kenyon. AMcG then did 'my favourite' recent issues, so in effect he was on for more or less the entire prog, and NOT as link, but as prime voice chipping and wittering everywhere.

I like his work mostly, but in the twofers, he is frankly getting in the way and I just do not see what the purpose is, because it IS getting on the way of an informative lecturette. If you are learning / dipping toes to find out about a work, the twofers just do not work: you don't want conversation but clearly informed statement about preferences and reasons for so preferring.

I wonder if some of the named reviewers actually know that the twofer format is to be employed when they are preparing the stuff, because some give the distinct impression of not being entirely at home with it on air. Not good.