The Choir - Last straw

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Gabriel Jackson
    Full Member
    • May 2011
    • 686

    Originally posted by french frank View Post
    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.
    And yet they only recently broadcast a big piece by Julian Phillips (which no one here seemed to like, incidentally. Too challenging, perhaps?) and wasn't there a David Lang feature not so long ago?
    Originally posted by french frank View Post
    It's disappointing, GJ, that all you offer, by way of support for your opinions, is contradiction.
    I'm afraid I don't understand what this means.

    Comment

    • Gabriel Jackson
      Full Member
      • May 2011
      • 686

      Originally posted by french frank View Post
      I think tempers might have become a bit frayed. Mine certainly was.
      Why should anyone's temper be frayed?! Ardcarp asked a question, to which I gave an answer.

      Comment

      • Gabriel Jackson
        Full Member
        • May 2011
        • 686

        Originally posted by Pulcinella View Post
        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!
        I've no idea what relevance this has, but of course there's doubt about that too!

        Comment

        • french frank
          Administrator/Moderator
          • Feb 2007
          • 30654

          Originally posted by Gabriel Jackson View Post
          Why should anyone's temper be frayed?! Ardcarp asked a question, to which I gave an answer.
          And I asked a question, said later that I was still waiting for the answer, and was told I'd have to wait because you weren't going into any further details. That's why my temper was getting frayed: I can't speak for anyone else.

          As for your 'not understanding' what it means to make a factual assertion ("I have often wondered whether those vociferous critics of the new incarnation of The Choir speak for a majority of listeners, or not. It seems they don't, since the listenership has increased by 20 percent since the new format was introduced") but offer no supporting evidence, I'm afraid I'm unable to help you.
          It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.

          Comment

          • Pulcinella
            Host
            • Feb 2014
            • 11258

            Did I really need to add `In my mind' again?

            The relevance is that criticism of the BBC Singers, like that of aspects of The Choir, seems to be treated with contempt rather than reasoned argument: their professionalism and other attributes do not in themselves mean that they produce a pleasant sound. To my ears (and those of many others) that is.

            Comment

            • Gabriel Jackson
              Full Member
              • May 2011
              • 686

              Originally posted by french frank View Post
              And I asked a question, said later that I was still waiting for the answer, and was told I'd have to wait because you weren't going into any further details. That's why my temper was getting frayed: I can't speak for anyone else.
              I can't imagine why your, or anyone else's, temper would get frayed by this. As I said, you either believe what I said (why would I lie, incidentally?) or you don't. You clearly don't, or don't want to. Which is fine.

              Originally posted by french frank View Post
              As for your 'not understanding' what it means to make a factual assertion ("I have often wondered whether those vociferous critics of the new incarnation of The Choir speak for a majority of listeners, or not. It seems they don't, since the listenership has increased by 20 percent since the new format was introduced") but offer no supporting evidence, I'm afraid I'm unable to help you.
              The words I didn't understand were these "It's disappointing, GJ, that all you offer, by way of support for your opinions, is contradiction." Which is not the same as what you have written above.

              Comment

              • Cockney Sparrow
                Full Member
                • Jan 2014
                • 2296

                Originally posted by Gabriel Jackson View Post
                I've no idea what relevance this has, but of course there's doubt about that too!
                I resisted casting my vote when originally mentioned. However, I very much agree - BBC singers is an assembly of aspiring soloists. I usually turn them off, its not a good listening experience.
                I also think it has to be recognised that a professional musician cannot afford to alienate the BBC, given the size of its budget and the employment it generates. If I was in that position, I should think I would find it senseless to offer, or agree with, criticism of the "hand that feeds".
                However, I am in a different position - being one of those who pays a licence fee, and I'm free to agree and say the evidence is that a worthwhile programme has been dumbed down. Its all part of the current trend.

                I would be prepared to speak up and defend the licence fee, and the public service remit in the charter - but the direction taken by the BBC, in so many ways, does make me wonder if there will be much worth defending...........

                Comment

                • french frank
                  Administrator/Moderator
                  • Feb 2007
                  • 30654

                  Originally posted by Gabriel Jackson View Post
                  I can't imagine why your, or anyone else's, temper would get frayed by this. As I said, you either believe what I said (why would I lie, incidentally?) or you don't. You clearly don't, or don't want to. Which is fine.
                  Interestingly, the fact that I 'don't believe it' is not a reflection on your veracity but on the integrity of whoever told you that. As a statistic, it doesn't make sense, and the fact that you were unable to elucidate simply suggests that you accepted what you were told in good faith. There's no shame in that. It's quite endearing.
                  The words I didn't understand were these "It's disappointing, GJ, that all you offer, by way of support for your opinions, is contradiction." Which is not the same as what you have written above.
                  I was referring rather loosely to the series of questions challenging other people's comments and paucity of information from you. Not really that important.
                  It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.

                  Comment

                  • Gabriel Jackson
                    Full Member
                    • May 2011
                    • 686

                    Originally posted by Pulcinella View Post
                    The relevance is that criticism of the BBC Singers, like that of aspects of The Choir, seems to be treated with contempt rather than reasoned argument: their professionalism and other attributes do not in themselves mean that they produce a pleasant sound. To my ears (and those of many others) that is.
                    How would you persuade someone that doesn't like the sound of the BBC Singers that they should? Or, to turn it around, how would you persuade (by reasoned argument) those admirers of the group that they shouldn't be?

                    Comment

                    • Gabriel Jackson
                      Full Member
                      • May 2011
                      • 686

                      Originally posted by Cockney Sparrow View Post
                      I resisted casting my vote when originally mentioned. However, I very much agree - BBC singers is an assembly of aspiring soloists. I usually turn them off, its not a good listening experience.
                      I also think it has to be recognised that a professional musician cannot afford to alienate the BBC, given the size of its budget and the employment it generates. If I was in that position, I should think I would find it senseless to offer, or agree with, criticism of the "hand that feeds".
                      However, I am in a different position - being one of those who pays a licence fee, and I'm free to agree and say the evidence is that a worthwhile programme has been dumbed down. Its all part of the current trend.
                      Er...I pay the licence fee too! As it happens, I have never offered an opinion, positive or negative, of the The Choir in its current incarnation.

                      Comment

                      • Gabriel Jackson
                        Full Member
                        • May 2011
                        • 686

                        Originally posted by french frank View Post
                        Interestingly, the fact that I 'don't believe it' is not a reflection on your veracity but on the integrity of whoever told you that.
                        I don't have the same doubts about their integrity.
                        Originally posted by french frank View Post
                        As a statistic, it doesn't make sense,
                        Why not?
                        Originally posted by french frank View Post
                        and the fact that you were unable to elucidate simply suggests that you accepted what you were told in good faith.
                        It's not that I am unable, but that I am unwilling.
                        Originally posted by french frank View Post
                        There's no shame in that.
                        Indeed there isn't.
                        Last edited by Gabriel Jackson; 16-05-14, 16:32.

                        Comment

                        • french frank
                          Administrator/Moderator
                          • Feb 2007
                          • 30654

                          1. I'm not sure whether you meant to put a question mark after: 'I don't have the same doubts about their integrity?' It might either be asking me whether you have doubts (I don't know - insufficient data) or suggesting that you DO have the same doubts. If there were no question mark it would simply be saying you don't have doubts.

                          2. Why is the statistic meaningless? Because it's like me saying I'm now 20% older. Does it mean 20% older than you? Or 20% older than I was in 1999? Or in 2010? Or, in this case perhaps, 20% older than I was last week?

                          What exactly are the two entities which are being compared with each other, one of which is 20% higher than the other? Is it the whole of Aled Jones's 7-year tenure, averaged and set against the 13-week quarter of the tweeting, voiceovers &c &c.

                          If I don't know whether the comparison is genuinely like for like (and I don't see how it can be as the current manifestation has only been on a matter of weeks) I can't judge the significance of the statistic. It strains credulity to believe that within a week or two of beginning, new listeners were streaming in (and 20% within a quarter is, believe me, a very large increase indeed - and it's much more usual to see an audience fall in that time - because it takes less long for people to realise they dislike what they're listening to and switch off than for people even to become aware of the existence of a programme to which they weren't listening).

                          [Ed- As you were - you have removed the question mark :-).]
                          It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.

                          Comment

                          • Gabriel Jackson
                            Full Member
                            • May 2011
                            • 686

                            Originally posted by french frank View Post
                            1. I'm not sure whether you meant to put a question mark after: 'I don't have the same doubts about their integrity?' It might either be asking me whether you have doubts (I don't know - insufficient data) or suggesting that you DO have the same doubts. If there were no question mark it would simply be saying you don't have doubts.
                            No I didn't! I've edited that.

                            Originally posted by french frank View Post
                            2. Why is the statistic meaningless? Because it's like me saying I'm now 20% older. Does it mean 20% older than you? Or 20% older than I was in 1999? Or in 2010? Or, in this case perhaps, 20% older than I was last week?
                            It's not like that, and you know that!

                            Originally posted by french frank View Post
                            What exactly are the two entities which are being compared with each other, one of which is 20% higher than the other? Is it the whole of Aled Jones's 7-year tenure, averaged and set against the 13-week quarter of the tweeting, voiceovers &c &c.

                            If I don't know whether the comparison is genuinely like for like (and I don't see how it can be as the current manifestation has only been on a matter of weeks) I can't judge the significance of the statistic. It strains credulity to believe that within a week or two of beginning, new listeners were streaming in (and 20% within a quarter is, believe me, a very large increase indeed - and it's much more usual to see an audience fall in that time - because it takes less long for people to realise they dislike what they're listening to and switch off than for people even to become aware of the existence of a programme to which they weren't listening).
                            What I find extraordinary is the hostility to the very idea that this programme might have increased its listenership. I have no opinion as to whether the current incarnation of The Choir is a good thing or not, as i haven't listened to it, but is it so unbelievable that some listeners might like it?!

                            Comment

                            • french frank
                              Administrator/Moderator
                              • Feb 2007
                              • 30654

                              Originally posted by Gabriel Jackson View Post
                              It's not like that, and you know that!
                              It's not 'like that' because you've separated the analogy from the explanation - which you asked for. And then ignored the explanation. Why I 'don't believe it' is because there cannot be adequate data (as yet) to make any meaningful comparison.
                              What I find extraordinary is the hostility to the very idea that this programme might have increased its listenership. I have no opinion as to whether the current incarnation of The Choir is a good thing or not, as i haven't listened to it, but is it so unbelievable that some listeners might like it?!
                              The hostility, as you might have realised, is to the programme format. It is irrelevant whether 'some listeners like it' because 'some listeners' will always like everything that's served up. The point, on which you have no opinion, is whether the programme really needs to be dumbed down into populist pap or not? whether there is still an intelligent, knowledgeable audience which is interested in the M-U-S-I-C for its own sake without needing their 5 minutes of fame tweeting in decribing their choir or their #faveconductor..

                              The size of the audience is not the issue for Radio 3. Quoting an ex-BBC Chairman and a current Radio 3 Controller:

                              "In judging the success of other services, ratings may simply be misleading. If Radio 3's ratings suddenly shot up then something would clearly very seriously have gone wrong." (Michael Grade)

                              "A recent director general expressed dismay when I told him that figures for our breakfast show had gone up." (Roger Wright)

                              But, in any case, for the reasons I have given, I do not 'believe' the figure of 20% can be anything other than a, not uncommon, Radio 3 distortion intended to mislead. But you have no doubts.
                              It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.

                              Comment

                              • Eine Alpensinfonie
                                Host
                                • Nov 2010
                                • 20580

                                Originally posted by Gabriel Jackson View Post
                                How would you persuade someone that doesn't like the sound of the BBC Singers that they should? Or, to turn it around, how would you persuade (by reasoned argument) those admirers of the group that they shouldn't be?
                                The main admirers of the group seem to be Radio 3, rather than the audience. They appear to be a collection of fine singers who can sight-sing impeccably, but rehearse only as a last resort and never really listen to one another. I use the word "appear" because I don't know anything at all about the way they are run. It's just that other professional choirs knock spots off them.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X