The Choir - Last straw

[Gabriel Jackson]

<< I'm not going into any more details. >>

Is that:
[a] because it's hearsay?
[b] an unverifiable figure given to you when it should not have been by a BBC / RAJAR exec?
[c] because you're scheduled to be on the show quite soon?

None of the above. And comments like c) don't do you any favours at all.

[Gabriel Jackson]

More relevant would be to ask whether listeners to The Choir also listen to Hear and Now, wouldn't it?

Would it? Relevant to whom?

[mercia]

is the "new format" what we've had since Sara took over, or is this a continuation of a "new format" which started with the previous presenter (Aled Jones ? ) ?

[Gabriel Jackson]

is the "new format" what we've had since Sara took over, or is this a continuation of a "new format" which started with the previous presenter (Aled Jones ? ) ?

The former.

[mercia]

The former.

fine. In which case I think you are saying that Sara's programme attracts 20% more listeners than did Aled's.

[french frank]

fine. In which case I think you are saying that Sara's programme attracts 20% more listeners than did Aled's.

And since she only took over on 5 January 2014, only one quarter's figures have been published - the ones we've just had (30 Dec - 30 March). A bit too soon to have consolidated tens of thousands of new listeners.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

How can anyone claim The Choir is in a "new format"? It's just a hackneyed copy of Breakfast and In Tune. Hardly new. But it has changed for the worse; there can be no doubt about that ( unless you are politician.

[Gabriel Jackson]

But it has changed for the worse; there can be no doubt about that

Of course there's doubt about it!

[antongould]

How can anyone claim The Choir is in a "new format"? It's just a hackneyed copy of Breakfast and In Tune. Hardly new. But it has changed for the worse; there can be no doubt about that ( unless you are politician.

Shouldn't there be an IMHO or IMO in here?

[Pulcinella]

Gabriel: No doubt in my mind! It has most certainly changed for the worse.

I was involved in a project last year that we were told would be an `episode' of The Choir.
Six local choirs were chosen and matched with poets and composers, and each then had a piece written for them.
The original sessions and follow-up workshop were recorded, as was the final concert in which all six pieces were performed.
We were all looking forward to the programme, and were very disappointed when we were given a slot of only about 10 minutes; most of the small amount of singing that was transmitted was talked over, as frequently happens these days.

Our choir secretary wrote to ask for an explanation, only to be responded to with a typically arrogant and dismissive letter, part of which said that they thought that the new pieces would be too challenging for the listeners!!

And another thing.
I don't care how professional and interesting to work with the BBC Singers are: the sound they produce, as has been said many times elsewhere, is like that of a bunch of competing soloists. They do not blend, and are not pleasant to listen to.

There's no doubt about that, either!

[Sir Velo]

None of the above. And comments like c) don't do you any favours at all.

Keep digging that hole Gabriel!

[french frank]

We were all looking forward to the programme, and were very disappointed when we were given a slot of only about 10 minutes; most of the small amount of singing that was transmitted was talked over, as frequently happens these days.

Our choir secretary wrote to ask for an explanation, only to be responded to with a typically arrogant and dismissive letter, part of which said that they thought that the new pieces would be too challenging for the listeners!!

GJ

The 'talking over the music' was a point that I made about the Meet My Choir feature. But that's called 'human interest' and is the staple of tabloid journalism. Pulcinella provides copper-bottomed evidence that the programme has 'dumbed down' - and, incidentally, the point that the new pieces would be 'too challenging' was EXACTLY the point I was making about Radio 3's (now) target audience. I said I hoped the 'new audience' would appreciate new compositions and your retort was 'Why shouldn't they?' Because they're too challenging, apparently.

It's disappointing, GJ, that all you offer, by way of support for your opinions, is contradiction. And try, "No, it isn't" to that one. Someone like you ought to be at the forefront of championing the musical element of the programme; not the misbegotten station strategy of attempting to engineer a new, less demanding audience. That won't provide a future for any new music, choral or otherwise.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Shouldn't there be an IMHO or IMO in here?

Perhaps, but to do so would be like saying Michael G*** knows something about education.

[jean]

<< I'm not going into any more details. >>

Is that:

...[c] because you're scheduled to be on the show quite soon?

...comments like c) don't do you any favours at all.

Keep digging that hole Gabriel!

Whatever one's view of the programme, implying that another poster's defence of it is motivated by their projcted appearance on it is cheap, and does nothing for the quality of the discussion.

[french frank]

I think tempers might have become a bit frayed. Mine certainly was.

If people have reasoned arguments they should make them. And if they make them, they should be prepared to defend them.