Women Composers' Thread/International Women's Day 2015 on R3

[Lento]

Women composers (and Clara Schumann) were not particularly well represented by the piece of played at the end of Marr today, IMV. I suppose choice was limited by the short time slot.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b055tsh1/the-andrew-marr-show-08032015

[antongould]

Quite so - and I have removed the offending (and offensive) comment from my original.

I do, however, reiterate my opinion that, the Cowen/Walker disgrace aside, this has been the best day's broadcasting that R3 has done for years. For the first time in a decade I have stayed with programmes just because the content has been fascinating, informative, new and good - quite took me back.

I agree Ferney ........

[P. G. Tipps]

So you haven't actually heard what was brodcast?

Whilst I readily acknowledge the question was not addressed to me, the reason for not listening seems valid enough.

A true 'non-sexist' will deplore such programmes purely based on gender.

Independent minds will choose their own music to hear, irrespective of such trendy sociopolitical pressures by the BBC, thank you very much!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

No offence taken here, I assure you!

Very glad to hear it, Don - when I read the comment from my post an hour or so later the "teasing" tone I'd planned sounded absent and I thought it unpleasant.

[Flosshilde]

I come back to my "freak-show" allegation. So many of the snippets are being broadcast for the sole reason that they were composed by women, and not because of the quality of the music itself. This does a massive disservice to the women who really do compose fine music.

Does that mean that you have been listening all day? Or that you decided that nothing being broadcast is of sufficient 'quality' to be worth you listening to it (because it's been written by 'freaks')? If you haven't heard it before how do you know it's not worth listening to? What proportion of of the music broadcast do you think should be 'quality'? How does this compare with R3's usual output? What do you mean by 'quality'?

Your statement is complete nonsense. It can only be prejudice that causes you to make it.

[Flosshilde]

I have no principles. It's just that Sundays are filled with things other than listening to R3.

So you never listen to R3 on Sundays?

[Don Petter]

So you never listen to R3 on Sundays?

Very rarely. We might dip in if we are in the car.

[ardcarp]

I'd just like to say that I thoroughly approve of the BBC's idea to do a Women Composers Day. I find the idea in its conception and in its outcome to be neither a 'freak show' nor an example of 'positive discrimination'. I've come across many pieces, both today and leading up to it, which I didn't know before (inter alia Clara Schumann's G minor piano trio and the oeuvres of Barbara Strozzi). A week would have been silly...a day, just right.

I do agree however:

the only freak show I've encountered today was courtesy of the inane antics of Cowen and Walker this morning

Cringe-worthy.

[Beef Oven!]

I'd just like to say that I thoroughly approve of the BBC's idea to do a Women Composers Day. I find the idea in its conception and in its outcome to be neither a 'freak show' nor an example of 'positive discrimination'. I've come across many pieces, both today and leading up to it, which I didn't know before (inter alia Clara Schumann's G minor piano trio and the oeuvres of Barbara Strozzi). A week would have been silly...a day, just right.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Does that mean that you have been listening all day? Or that you decided that nothing being broadcast is of sufficient 'quality' to be worth you listening to it (because it's been written by 'freaks')? If you haven't heard it before how do you know it's not worth listening to? What proportion of of the music broadcast do you think should be 'quality'? How does this compare with R3's usual output? What do you mean by 'quality'?

Your statement is complete nonsense. It can only be prejudice that causes you to make it.

Asking a question and then commenting before receiving in answer is perhaps not the best way to aid discussion.

In answer to your questions:
1. I listened for over 2 hours this morning. Then I switched to me recording of TTN.
2. I do not consider the composers to be freaks - more that this embarrassing style of broadcasting makes them appear to be so.
3. Merely the way things were going, further listening to the programmes (typical Sunday fare ) did not seem worthwhile, hence the switch to TTN.
4. Radio 3 should aim for 100$ quality broadcasting.
5. Sadly, it matches Radio 3's Sunday output.
6. Quality is always subjective. That doesn't necessarily imply prejudice - just personal judgement.

[Flosshilde]

Asking a question and then commenting before receiving in answer is perhaps not the best way to aid discussion.

It was the statement I quoted that I thought was nonsesense - & I still do. I think your answers 2, 3, 4 & 6 don't make a lot of sense, either. What do you mean by "100$ (sic - I assume you mean 100%) quality broadcasting"? Do you mean the music, or the way it is presented? Of course the concept of 'quality' is subjective, but if you dismiss programmes or music as lacking without hearing them there has to be a large amount of prejudice involved.

[JFLL]

Your statement is complete nonsense. It can only be prejudice that causes you to make it.

Your statement is complete nonsense. It can only be prejudice that causes you to make it.

[Beef Oven!]

Fight, fight, fight, fight, fight............

[Nick Armstrong]

Time for some perhaps....

[Flosshilde]

Your statement is complete nonsense. It can only be prejudice that causes you to make it.

Not really. I had read Eine Alpensinfonie's comments about 'freak shows' and 'quality', before I decided they didn't make senses and weren't sensible; he made them several days before hearing the broadcast, and re-iterated them after only hearing a small part of it, so was obvioulsy making a judgment about it in advance, and can only have made that judgement based on prejudice.

(cute cats, Cali)