Doonelm

[Pabmusic]

Re msg # 44, I think we're bloody lucky to have you frenchie!

Seconded, wholeheartedly.

[Don Petter]

I 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.

Does this mean that we can no longer moan about, for instance, the presenting style of SM-P or PT?

[DracoM]

Raises an interesting point, Don.

[Don Petter]

Not trying to be controversial. Just wondering about possible unintended implications or inconsistencies.

[Panjandrum]

Does this mean that we can no longer moan about, for instance, the presenting style of SM-P or PT?

I think there is a distinction to be made between a statement made about named individuals in a manner which presents as fact in a way that causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of them; and fair comment (whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held).

[Pabmusic]

Does this mean that we can no longer moan about, for instance, the presenting style of SM-P or PT?

There'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)".

[french frank]

Does this mean that we can no longer moan about, for instance, the presenting style of SM-P or PT?

Someone else queried that off-board. Also the competence or incompetence of Roger Norrington .

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.]

[Don Petter]

There'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)".

This would still exclude comments on RC's foreign pronunciation and SM-P's wrong identification of works, though?

[french frank]

This would still exclude comments on RC's foreign pronunciation and SM-P's wrong identification of works, though?

Certainly not on the second. I (unkindly!) often make recordings of certain kinds of 'fault': example: a piece is announced as 'Recitative and aria from Don Giovanni'. That in itself is imperfect. The presenter should have checked which aria it was and perhaps added the basic information as to which character sings it. It was back announced in the identical way. If the presenter had checked they would have discovered (if they didn't already know) that it was the Count's 'revenge aria' from The Marriage of Figaro. Not from Don Giovanni.

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. Counterproductive

[Pabmusic]

...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

Much better put than I could have.

[Pianorak]

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.

[cloughie]

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.

Before you delete it if you do I would just say that I don't have a hearing problem but I can hear a greater percentage of Penny Gore's words than of Katie Derham's. And Penny* usually leaves a longer gap between finishing speaking and starting the music!

* If she doesn't already, should give masterclasses in presentation!

[DracoM]

THE prime functions of a presenter are clarity and audibility. If you have neither, and if you also gabble, then you are not a presenter. QED.

[jean]

Does this mean that we can no longer moan about, for instance, the presenting style of SM-P or PT?

The only criteron by which a presenter can be judged is what comes over to the listener.

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'.)

[french frank]

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?