Compulsive Viewing and the Need to Reply

[Guest]

Does anyone remember a series of performances called “Hooked on Classics”?
Well known works, popularised by the addition of drum kit etcetera.

Ugh!

But if you are a member of this forum, maybe you are also “hooked”.

Yes, however much we concern ourselves with wasted time, reading the posts on this forum (and other forums) is compulsive – and also compulsive is the urge to reply (and maybe express an opinion) upon the posts of other members.

I have no time for those “Social Media” such as Twitter and Facebook and consider that the harm that they can do outweighs any social benefits but I have followed several forums without contributing; going back to the sadly defunct BBC Radio 3 Forum and my interest in the views of others is compulsive.

“One man’s meat is another man’s poison”

Why bother to argue if you disagree? It’s only going to cause rancour among some of the forum members.

I shall try to remain an observer, who has an interest in all musical matters, but it is inevitable that I will tend to categorise the various contributors to the forum, to assist my understanding of some of the members’ opinions.

Here goes then:

Music Professionals

Instrumental Performers.
Conductors
Composers
Orchestral or Opera Managers
Music Teachers

Amateurs]

Choral Society members
Choristers
Amateur Orchestra Members
Lovers of music*
These sub-categories can, perhaps, give one an insight into the reasoning of the contributor.

* Remember that it is this categorie that represents the majority of listeners and it is their loyalty that will ensure the continuation of Radio 3

For myself, I give priority to any message boarder who was actually present at a live performance – followed by one who listened to the actual live broadcast in preference to one who heard the performance on iPlayer or Listen Again (where the original performance may have been “doctored” and cleaned up before transmission)

What do you think? Is there any point in contradicting a contributor whose opinion is at variance with your own and upsetting someone who has stated their personal view?

O.P

[ahinton]

Yes, however much we concern ourselves with wasted time, reading the posts on this forum (and other forums) is compulsive – and also compulsive is the urge to reply (and maybe express an opinion) upon the posts of other members.

I have no time for those "Social Media" such as Twitter and Facebook and consider that the harm that they can do outweighs any social benefits

I am likewise wary of them other than LinkedIn where I have a very small presence/profile and I can't honestly say that it's been of much use, frankly; these facilities can have good uses, but they're not without their downsides, for sure.

"One man’s meat is another man’s poison"

Sure, but sometimes it's good to know that and also to know why! (and what about the vegetarians and vegans?)...

Why bother to argue if you disagree? It’s only going to cause rancour among some of the forum members.

It doesn't have to; one might as well "argue" that there's no point in arguing subjects, causes or whatever anywhere but, if everyone who ever did so decided to refrain from any longer doing so, there would be no new laws, no governmental changes - nothing much at all, if fact...

[Ferretfancy]

I am likewise wary of them other than LinkedIn where I have a very small presence/profile and I can't honestly say that it's been of much use, frankly; these facilities can have good uses, but they're not without their downsides, for sure.


Sure, but sometimes it's good to know that and also to know why! (and what about the vegetarians and vegans?)...


It doesn't have to; one might as well "argue" that there's no point in arguing subjects, causes or whatever anywhere and, if everyone who ever did so decvided to refrain from any longer doing so, there would be no new laws, no governmental changes - nothing much at all, if fact...

I know this is awfully mean, but not really meant with malice. When I get exasperated with online pomposity or sheer folly ( By my exalted standards of course!)

I remember the famous remark by Alice --- "You're nothing but a pack of cards! "

[ahinton]

I know this is awfully mean, but not really meant with malice. When I get exasperated with online pomposity or sheer folly ( By my exalted standards of course!)

I remember the famous remark by Alice --- "You're nothing but a pack of cards! "

or perhaps a house of cards (not that this was a Lewis Carroll concept), given what happens to those!...

[MrGongGong]

I have no time for those “Social Media” such as Twitter and Facebook and consider that the harm that they can do outweighs any social benefits but I have followed several forums without contributing; going back to the sadly defunct BBC Radio 3 Forum and my interest in the views of others is compulsive.

Erm

I think this IS "social media" , people post things, some comment, some is information, some opinion, some nonsense (my hand is up miss) and some inspiring.
Not much different to Facebook really

[french frank]

I think this IS "social media"

but Facebook and Twitter are specified immediately afterwards.

As the new Trust review acknowledges few R3 listeners are interested in Facebook and Twitter. With mighty global 'brands' like that, it says something that there is far greater participation - people as well as postings - on this forum than on R3's Facebook & Twitter put together.

[MrGongGong]

but Facebook and Twitter are specified immediately afterwards.

As the new Trust review acknowledges few R3 listeners are interested in Facebook and Twitter. With mighty global 'brands' like that, it says something that there is far greater participation - people as well as postings - on this forum than on R3's Facebook & Twitter put together.

I know what you mean
but I do think (and i'm one who avoided "Stalkerbook" for as long as possible!) there is a danger of thinking that one form of conversation mediated by technology is somehow "better".
There are some really interesting conversations about music (and not just on the "Pretentious Classical Music Elitists" group) on Facebook with significant contributions from many folks involved in music (as there are in here).

Having said that, i'm not sure endless "ooooooh isn't Mozart wonderful" twitter comments are worth anything

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

What do you think? Is there any point in contradicting a contributor whose opinion is at variance with your own and upsetting someone who has stated their personal view

But, as Dr Johnson put it; "Thank heavens for something worth arguing about!" Discussion and disagreement are essential parts of sharing our ideas, opinions and responses - and if somebody takes the effort to express an opinion that is at variance with my own, why should my disagreement upset her/him any more than that opinion might "upset" me?

I find it wonderful to read unexpected views and to exchange ideas - the opportunity this affords to clarify and/or expand my own responses is invaluable. Robert Simpson was no shrinking violet when it came to expressing his opinions in the most vigorous manner - I find his writing frequently infuriating, sometimes illogical, never dull and often stimulating. To nick his words and apply them to Forum posts: If anything in them makes [the reader] cross, let hope it will sharpen his enthusiasm as well as his temper.

[aeolium]

But, as Dr Johnson put it; "Thank heavens for something worth arguing about!" Discussion and disagreement are essential parts of sharing our ideas, opinions and responses - and if somebody takes the effort to express an opinion that is at variance with my own, why should my disagreement upset her/him any more than that opinion might "upset" me?

I find it wonderful to read unexpected views and to exchange ideas - the opportunity this affords to clarify and/or expand my own responses is invaluable. Robert Simpson was no shrinking violet when it came to expressing his opinions in the most vigorous manner - I find his writing frequently infuriating, sometimes illogical, never dull and often stimulating. To nick his words and apply them to Forum posts: If anything in them makes [the reader] cross, let hope it will sharpen his enthusiasm as well as his temper.

I would also query the OP about giving some kind of priority to those who had actually attended a concert performance over those merely listening on radio. After all, plenty of people can't get to concerts, through infirmity, location or whatever, and this is a "Radio 3" forum.

For my own part, I try to avoid commenting on music I don't like or that doesn't engage my attention. I admire those who are able to comment constructively on music that doesn't appeal to them, but I can't and so would add little to the discussion. I think generally people tend to be more eloquent about music that excites them, and they probably know it better, having heard it more often.

[Bryn]

Does anyone remember a series of performances called “Hooked on Classics”?
Well known works, popularised by the addition of drum kit etcetera.

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

[french frank]

I think generally people tend to be more eloquent about music that excites them, and they probably know it better, having heard it more often.

More eloquent, probably, though whether those who want to 'knock' are all less eager to do so than you, I'm not sure ... ??

'Contradicting'? Depends what that implies. Disagreeing because you think differently shouldn't be construed as contradicting; and stating your opinion shouldn't be considered anything more than giving an alternative view. Contradicting would imply that facts have been given wrongly, in which case there's nothing wrong in stating the facts correctly - with evidence that they are correct. Without implying that the other person is an idiot for not knowing :-)

Debating isn't arguing ....

[Observation Postr]

I would also query the OP about giving some kind of priority to those who had actually attended a concert performance over those merely listening on radio. After all, plenty of people can't get to concerts, through infirmity, location or whatever, and this is a "Radio 3" forum..

Thank you for that observation. It enables me to clarify my statement with a hypothetical example:

A concert in an acceptable venue such as The Barbican given by a well-known Orchestra and Respected Conductor.

a) The patron in the auditorium hears the orchestra's interpretation of the conductor's direction and judges his reaction accordingly.
Let us suppose that he enjoys the performance, but would like to hear more from the woodwind but less from the brass section.
One of the horn players splits a high note in the first movement of the symphony

He might be bold enough to mention his considered opinion on this forum.

b) The concert is broadcast live

The audio engineer, sitting at his mixing desk with the programme's Producer sitting alongside might correct this imbalance by fading up the ww mike and reducing the mike in front of the brass - in real time, as it is happening

c) The concert is to be re-broadcast or available on the iPlayer.

Now, the Producer can get his audio man to get rid of that catastrophic split note in the symphony (By editing in a few bars from the repeated section of the symphony)

So which would you prefer?

a) The Patron's report on his reactions to the performance?
b) The Audio Engineer's adjustment to the balance of the performance?
c) Or the Producer's manipulation of what actually took place, in the interests of accuracy and to spare somebody's blushes?

I wish that I could be there at every concert, but those days have long passed.

OP

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Hmm. Good question(s). As we are talking about a radio broadcast, I think I'd prefer option C (the "manipulated" product). At a Live event, where I have made the effort to get to the venue and am surrounded by strangers brought together purely for the purpose of hearing this unique Musical event, I can tolerate fluffs and errors (in fact, these can even enhance my appreciation of a work and of the performers who have to do this sort of thing every night). At home, hearing the work through the speakers in my living room, unable to see the performers, undisturbed by the noises and movements of the strangers in the nearby seats, such errors can spoil a performance for me - where there isn't the human contact of the Concert Hall, I become entirely absorbed by the Music itself and fluffs can break and ruin my attention irreparably.

But I would confine any comments I wished to share on the Forum to the work and the essential details of how the Musicians felt the Music should be performed. I wouldn't wish to get involved in a discussion about a player's momentary error(s) at the expense of those performance details s/he had spent hours preparing.

[Bryn]

Thank you for that observation. It enables me to clarify my statement with a hypothetical example:

A concert in an acceptable venue such as The Barbican given by a well-known Orchestra and Respected Conductor.

a) The patron in the auditorium hears the orchestra's interpretation of the conductor's direction and judges his reaction accordingly.
Let us suppose that he enjoys the performance, but would like to hear more from the woodwind but less from the brass section.
One of the horn players splits a high note in the first movement of the symphony

He might be bold enough to mention his considered opinion on this forum.

b) The concert is broadcast live

The audio engineer, sitting at his mixing desk with the programme's Producer sitting alongside might correct this imbalance by fading up the ww mike and reducing the mike in front of the brass - in real time, as it is happening

c) The concert is to be re-broadcast or available on the iPlayer.

Now, the Producer can get his audio man to get rid of that catastrophic split note in the symphony (By editing in a few bars from the repeated section of the symphony)

So which would you prefer?

a) The Patron's report on his reactions to the performance?
b) The Audio Engineer's adjustment to the balance of the performance?
c) Or the Producer's manipulation of what actually took place, in the interests of accuracy and to spare somebody's blushes?

I wish that I could be there at every concert, but those days have long passed.

OP

If the performance is unbalanced in the venue, I would rather that lack of balance was not messed around with by an audio engineer at the time. I have bad memories or severe dynamic limiting being applies to some Proms a couple of years or so ago, so b) is not favoured by me. c) might be o.k. but I can't offhand think of a case where it has been resorted to by Radio 3. Therefore, of the options on putative offer, a) would be my preference.

[David-G]

Re the a/b/c choice. I would always prefer to attend a concert live, in an ideal world. But that is not always possible, and I am always grateful for opportunities to hear concerts broadcast. That the balance is not perfect on the broadcast, or that it might be adjusted, does not unduly bother me　– I am just grateful that the concert has been broadcast at all. I doubt very much that any changes are made before rebroadcasting on the iplayer. Does anyone have contradictory information on that point? So I am very happy "listening again". But listening "live" always has an extra thrill, which is totally illogical but true nonetheless.

However, the thing I HATE is concerts being chopped up before broadcasting.