Originally posted by amateur51
View Post
Doonelm
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Don Petter
Originally posted by french frank View PostI would add to that that a House Rule of the board is now that criticism of individuals in connection with the specific appointment they hold, have held, may hold in the future is off limits. These are questions for others to deal with.
Comment
-
Don Petter
Not trying to be controversial. Just wondering about possible unintended implications or inconsistencies.
Comment
-
Panjandrum
Originally posted by Don Petter View PostDoes this mean that we can no longer moan about, for instance, the presenting style of SM-P or PT?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Don Petter View PostDoes this mean that we can no longer moan about, for instance, the presenting style of SM-P or PT?
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Don Petter View PostDoes this mean that we can no longer moan about, for instance, the presenting style of SM-P or PT?
I do cringe at some of the general comments which I think are unkind and insensitive. But there is something about the situation which is different in that the forum isn't - in the same way as The Choir board is - a meeting/talking place for a close-knit band of professionals and colleagues, as well as the general public - and discussing that profession specifically. The unkindest comments are often mere abuse and (in my view) tend to reflect back more on the poster than the presenter. And I don't think people are usually taking the view VCC does, in saying that these presenters should be removed from their jobs. At R3, it's the job that's wrong, if you like.
Presenters, throughout the BBC, get the flak.
Also, the public service remit, and public funding, of the BBC does present a rather different relationship between the corporation and those who pay for it.
I do know that certain presenters have looked in on the forum and wouldn't touch it with a bargepole as regards joining us. I'm sorry about that, but I don't think they would feel their professional position was threatened. In speaking about the raison d'être of the forum, it is for discussion about Radio 3, it is for people to express their praise and criticism, to say what they like and dislike.
[Roger Norrington? - quite different. He functions in the much wider world of international classical music, a world which doesn't know we exist. The views of individuals here for the most part only annoy those who disagree with them - his state of employment isn't affected! And he does court controversy.]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
-
-
Don Petter
Originally posted by Pabmusic View PostThere's a big difference between "I don't like X's style (but it's obviously in keeping with management policy)" and "X is incompetent (and therefore shouldn't be employed in such a role)".
Comment
-
Originally posted by Don Petter View PostThis would still exclude comments on RC's foreign pronunciation and SM-P's wrong identification of works, though?
It's fair to criticise the presenter for not checking up on what was obviously an incomplete piece of information. If the information wasn't immediately available, then there is the option of doing what the late H Carpenter used to do: admit that he couldn't supply the information but say that he would announce it later. NB producer: What was it?
In other words, it's fair to criticise (or nitpick if you don't care very much) that particular point. You don't go on to say that the presenter is a total incompetent and what on earth is R3 doing employing such a person. Or you might say that but it comes over as a bit of a rant instead of a reasonable point. CounterproductiveIt 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
-
-
Originally posted by french frank View Post...In other words, it's fair to criticise (or nitpick if you don't care very much) that particular point. You don't go on to say that the presenter is a total incompetent and what on earth is R3 doing employing such a person. Or you might say that but it comes over as a bit of a rant instead of a reasonable point. Counterproductive
Comment
-
-
Am I wrong to make a distinction between "presenters" and "professional classical music critics"? The former should at the very least have perfect diction and not gabble and swallow half the words. The latter should know their stuff, with perfect diction of secondary importance. It's for that reason that I feel Kate Derham, undoubtedly an intelligent woman, shouldn't present R3 programmes, while I have no problem with Hilary Finch's minor and different shortcoming in that department.
Please feel free to delete if considered going too far.My life, each morning when I dress, is four and twenty hours less. (J Richardson)
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Pianorak View PostAm I wrong to make a distinction between "presenters" and "professional classical music critics"? The former should at the very least have perfect diction and not gabble and swallow half the words. The latter should know their stuff, with perfect diction of secondary importance. It's for that reason that I feel Kate Derham, undoubtedly an intelligent woman, shouldn't present R3 programmes, while I have no problem with Hilary Finch's minor and different shortcoming in that department.
Please feel free to delete if considered going too far.
* If she doesn't already, should give masterclasses in presentation!
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Don Petter View PostDoes this mean that we can no longer moan about, for instance, the presenting style of SM-P or PT?
And we are all equally in possession of all the information we need to agree or disagree with someone else's opinion on
that topic.
The same is true of performers, and perhaps to a lesser extent, conductors - but there is a lot more to what we hear in a broadcast by a cathedral chor than the particular choir-training abilities of the director. Nobody can really know how far those fall short unless they've been trained by him.
(I think this touches a nerve with me because as an ex-teacher I get so tired of hearing politicians blaming all the problems schools have on the catch-all 'poor teaching'.)
Comment
-
-
There are slightly blurred, um, distinctions, or definitions, here and we tend to set up our individual boundaries.
To me, a presenter *should be* someone with specialist knowledge who contributes (along with a producer) a good deal of the information/comment/viewpoint/insight to a programme which expands significantly beyond the mere playing of a succession of pieces of music. At the moment it's hard to think of too many programmes of that type. Perhaps CotW, but that veers towards 'documentary' (I think that's its technical description). I don't think Donald MacLeod is a musicological specialist, but he is clearly involved with the research aspects of the programme and is capable of discussing intelligently with any guests.
If someone sits in a studio introducing pieces of music with minimal (if any) supporting information, that person is an announcer. There are limited expectations of that person (they don't have to be in possession of a vast range of information, or have a degree in music). They must speak clearly, they must be provided with, or obtain themselves, adequate accurate information - and not just from Wikipedia. That is the beginning and end of the requirements of announcers: say what you're going to play, accurately, and add the odd piece of information (aka contexualistaion). Any more is a bonus. People who can contribute more than that should be employed as presenters.
The BBC has introduced a new animal - 'talent'. They are there for their 'personality', to interact with the listeners. They can exchange general, topical, non specialist chat. They can read the newspapers and pick out topical stories. Radio 3's 'talent' is mostly capable of a lot more than that, given the opportunity. But in the mornings, they're not. They witter, they tweet, they bumble. But, offered the job, they're not going to say, No, are they?Last edited by french frank; 30-01-12, 14:11.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
-
Comment