To the producers of CE...

[DracoM]

I have.
Worldwide listeners checking in for big two or so weeks in Christian calendar and incorrect details? I think worth pointing out.
The CE / R3 people need to know that people are on their case, and that we DO notice what they do, and we DO care.

[mw963]

Couldn't all this stuff about discrepancies - important as it is - be moved to a separate thread concerning next week's broadcast. Ardcarp started an important subject which has now been totally hijacked, starting with post 10 above.

[jean]

It's not important, and there's a fairly simple explanation anyway. That's what I tried to say in #11.

Sorry if that contributed to the hijacking.

[Sir Velo]

I have just fired off this email:

[I]I wonder if you can let me know why live broadcasts of Choral Evensong appear to have declined?
Whilst the occasional recording might be justified, it seems the original idea of the Choral Evensong slot (i.e. broadcasting a service taking place live) is being lost.

There may be two possible reasons for this:

1. That less cathedrals/colleges are willing to commit to a live broadcast

or

2. Cuts in BBC funding.

Are you suggesting that only cathedrals and colleges of lesser quality are willing to be broadcast?

[DracoM]

No, not at all!

Most major cathedrals are fairly well kitted with recording gear and a number do their own webcasts anyway.
Hassle is [a] getting the kids / men in for tricky dates / rehearsals [exams? assessments etc?], [b] clearing spaces on cathedral / foundation calendars [c] pressure of other events - and about now, many choirs are well into rehearsals for big Holy Week / Easter services etc. Taxing.

The bigger the foundation, the more pressure from many sides.

[jean]

Sir Velo’s was a pedantic point. Ardcarp wrote ‘less’ where he might have written ‘fewer’ is all.

[ardcarp]

Are you suggesting that only cathedrals and colleges of lesser quality are willing to be broadcast?

Of course not. I meant that for whatever reason (as Draco says, commitments, etc) any place might not want to get booked up for a live broadcast. I actually don't think this is the reason for less live broadcasts! It's the Beeb being strapped for cash.

I wonder sometimes if our moans (including mine) about sound engineering on CE might be counter-productive? We know the Beeb looks at the Forum, and they might feel they've got to turn up for a live Tx with gold-plated kit...or not at all. I'd be happy to compromise a bit on the techno side in order to have live broadcasts as the norm.


Jean. I've just administered to myself a hefty slap on the wrist.

[jean]

Don't slap your wrist on my account, ardcarp! I don't mind! It was Sir Velo who was being silly.

[DracoM]

What always mystifies me is that, as said upthread, a number of foundations have their own webcasting facilities, which is maybe less used than they might be.

I'm with ardcarp entirely on the fact that we want 'live' - quality might not matter as much. Although the foundations themselves might insist on top quality?
Don't know.

Can anyone at the front line help?

[Miles Coverdale]

What always mystifies me is that, as said upthread, a number of foundations have their own webcasting facilities, which is maybe less used than they might be.

I'm with ardcarp entirely on the fact that we want 'live' - quality might not matter as much. Although the foundations themselves might insist on top quality?
Don't know.

Can anyone at the front line help?

I happen to know of one place where it is decided in advance which services will be webcast, and those services receive more rehearsal time than the ones which are not webcast. At other places it is decided afterwards which services will be put out.

Quite apart from the question of standard of performance, there are technical reasons why live webcasting is more difficult than non-live, not the least of which is bandwidth: if a large number of people want to listen to a live stream, then a robust internet connection is needed to provide that, and that costs money. Not all web servers can handle it well either. So the technical aspects of it can be expensive. Would those who listen to webcasts be prepared to pay for them? Somehow I doubt it.

[DracoM]

Thx for valuable nfo

[Sir Velo]

Don't slap your wrist on my account, ardcarp! I don't mind! It was Sir Velo who was being silly.

So we have it on record, no more posts on Pedant's Corner from you Jean?

My point was actually more than empty pedantry. I think where we are communicating in a fairly lofty tone to those in authority, adhering to the principles of sound grammar gives the argument greater weight; moreover, it clarifies any ambiguity as to meaning.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

So we have it on record, no more posts on Pedant's Corner from you Jean?

Just to be pedantic, it's Pedants' Paradise around here.

[W.Kearns]

So we have it on record, no more posts on Pedant's Corner from you Jean?

My point was actually more than empty pedantry. I think where we are communicating in a fairly lofty tone to those in authority, adhering to the principles of sound grammar gives the argument greater weight; moreover, it clarifies any ambiguity as to meaning.

Well said.

[jean]

You think so?

In order to underline ardcarp's departure from the principles of sound grammar, and to emphasise a potential ambiguity he claimed to detect in what ardcarp had written, Sir Velo was constrained to use the word lesser rather than less, and the result was so strained that the two subsequent replies failed to understand it.

And then, you know, if the message has already been sent, what is the point of drawing attention to infelicities of expression therein? It's too late now.