Consultations on the BBC

[MrGongGong]

Do you deliberately seek to troll? To take out of context what people write merely to puff up your own sense of self-importance? You ignored the first sentence but then again I should have learned by now to expect nothing less.

Here's your first sentence

Oh Lord. "People who listened to this also liked this."

Which to me reads like (as demonstrated in the second) that you aren't interested in someone else suggesting that you could enjoy listening to something you haven't heard before.

Cheer up matey and stop taking yourself so seriously

[Anastasius]

Here's your first sentence

Which to me reads like (as demonstrated in the second) that you aren't interested in someone else suggesting that you could enjoy listening to something you haven't heard before.

Cheer up matey and stop taking yourself so seriously

Patronising now. Great stuff. Keep it up.

[MrGongGong]

Patronising now. Great stuff. Keep it up.

You didn't answer the question though?

Why do you need a radio then?
Surely if you know everything about what you like all you need is a CD collection or a streaming service?

[P. G. Tipps]

You didn't answer the question though?

Why do you need a radio then?
Surely if you know everything about what you like all you need is a CD collection or a streaming service?

Surely the point that was being made was the last thing that anyone wants (or needs) is some idiotic human or computerised so-and-so deciding what we might like as if we hadn't the simple intelligence to explore such possibilities ourselves?

What on earth has the marvellous invention of the radio got to do with such irritating, patronising guff?

[Anastasius]

Surely the point that was being made was the last thing that anyone wants (or needs) is some idiotic human or computerised so-and-so deciding what we might like as if we hadn't the simple intelligence to explore such possibilities ourselves?

What on earth has the marvellous invention of the radio got to do with such irritating, patronising guff?

Thank you as I was beginning to think I'd fallen down a rabbit hole. Succinctly put.

[MrGongGong]

Surely the point that was being made was the last thing that anyone wants (or needs) is some idiotic human or computerised so-and-so deciding what we might like as if we hadn't the simple intelligence to explore such possibilities ourselves?

What on earth has the marvellous invention of the radio got to do with such irritating, patronising guff?

When I had a viva for my degree Nigel Osborne suggested that I listen to various things and explore several areas of music I knew nothing about.
Silly me actually listened to him (and several other knowledgeable musicians) what I obviously should have done was to tell him where to go and not be such a patronising idiot.

Surely one of the reasons for the radio IS to have people who know stuff suggest that there is music you might like?

Without PEOPLE suggesting things you really won't encounter them (look at what folks talk about here and suggest etc)

[P. G. Tipps]

When I had a viva for my degree Nigel Osborne suggested that I listen to various things and explore several areas of music I knew nothing about.
Silly me actually listened to him (and several other knowledgeable musicians) what I obviously should have done was to tell him where to go and not be such a patronising idiot.

Surely one of the reasons for the radio IS to have people who know stuff suggest that there is music you might like?

Without PEOPLE suggesting things you really won't encounter them (look at what folks talk about here and suggest etc)

On the contrary, I have found that those who suggest I might like or dislike something or somebody almost always prove to be wholly wrong. That is why I've always been highly suspicious of anyone labelled an 'expert'. Financial 'experts' giving advice have probably ruined more lives than organised crime.

I might willingly accept well-meaning suggestions (however misguided) from close friends and relatives who think they know me well. No problem with that at all.

However some faceless radio presenter/presenteress who doesn't know me and other listeners from Adam suggesting we might 'like' to listen to some Mahler after a performance of Bruckner 9 is just too much to bear for some.

A good journalist should "know" his/her readership, and radio staff should "know" their listeners.

Basic human respect should be mutual, not patronisingly one-sided.

[MrGongGong]

However some faceless radio presenter/presenteress who doesn't know me and other listeners from Adam suggesting we might 'like' to listen to some Mahler after a performance of Bruckner 9 is just too much to bear for some.

Which is why LPs, CDs and streaming are such wonderful things for these folks.
No problem at all.

[french frank]

Which is why LPs, CDs and streaming are such wonderful things for these folks.
No problem at all.

This misses the point: it isn't that people necessarily don't want ANY SORT of input from Radio 3 - many do (like me): that is indeed what they consider the 'added value' of Radio 3 over listening to their own recordings or any kind of unending stream of music.

But information which is tailored endlessly to meet the requirements of people who know very little and don't know 'what they should listen to' is not what has been expected from a specialist service like Radio 3. And it seems mainly to be a penance inflicted almost exclusively on a classical community which demands a higher level of informed context.

[DracoM]

Yes. R2 consistently attempts to educate its audience in blues, country. R3 does much good with enterprising Jazz with the likes of Alyn Shipton, and add in world music.

Classical music alone of the genres seems to have been cartoonised. Weird. You'd expect exactly the reverse for a R3 Music 'offer'. Some decent frontier stuff occasional after about 11 p.m., but........6.30 a.m. - 7.30 p.m...? Erm.......?

[french frank]

When I had a viva for my degree Nigel Osborne suggested that I listen to various things and explore several areas of music I knew nothing about.

In a nutshell, Gongers. The point being 'areas of music I knew nothing about'. Radio 3's classical audience does know 'something' about classical music; some people know a great deal more than the average Radio 3 presenter. It doesn't mean they have nothing further to learn: but it's been the Radio 3 aim to target 'potential listeners' who 'know nothing about' classical music. This betrays the fact that Radio 3 has been expending most of its energy on try to attract new listeners. Anyone will do as long as they raise the listening figures (which they haven't): pop fans, rock fans, film music fans, musicals fans - come on over to Radio 3 and learn about classical music. Now if you liked that last piece, you may like this …

If you haven't taken in this fact, you haven't been listening to the programmes.

[Dave2002]

Surely the point that was being made was the last thing that anyone wants (or needs) is some idiotic human or computerised so-and-so deciding what we might like as if we hadn't the simple intelligence to explore such possibilities ourselves?

What on earth has the marvellous invention of the radio got to do with such irritating, patronising guff?

I think the announcers/presenters are somewhat negligent. As an example, I'm currently listening to the rather splendid performance of Mendelssohn's 3rd symphony (Scottish with Gilbert and the BPO yet in over 55 years of listening to radio I really can't remember anyone informing me that this was really Mendelssohn's last symphony, or discussing why it was published as number 3. At least with Dvorak we are now mostly aware of numbering problems, but Mendelssohn? Check it out.

Perhaps presenters are relying on listeners to "tweet in" any useful and interesting facts and information!

Lovely performance though - just coming to a conclusion! Listen on iPlayer.

[MrGongGong]

In a nutshell, Gongers. The point being 'areas of music I knew nothing about'. Radio 3's classical audience does know 'something' about classical music; some people know a great deal more than the average Radio 3 presenter.

Indeed they do
But haven't you noticed that every time there is something in the media (Radio, TV, Press) about something you DO know about you are likely to be disappointed in how superficial it's presentation is?

What I was suggesting was that those people who are so enlightened to know everything about "Classical" music don't really need a radio station at all.
I find it interesting when I meet musicians who one would regard as at the very top of the profession and they tell me with great excitement about a composer who's music they are just discovering.
Surely a big part of the radio experience is for this to be available to more people?

Whether the people doing the presenting are the best for the job is another question IMV

[Serial_Apologist]

In a nutshell, Gongers. The point being 'areas of music I knew nothing about'.

Maybe "aspects of music" would have covered it better then if we feel thinking Radio 3 is inadequate: PG Tipps might rightly not feel that anybody other than his friends, assuming we believe he has any, can tell him what to like or not, but he might not think himself so knowledgeable as not to benefit from those more knowledgeable than he telling us something about the subject - assuming there is anybody more knowledgeable about Bruckner than PG Tipps, of course.

[french frank]

Indeed they do
But haven't you noticed that every time there is something in the media (Radio, TV, Press) about something you DO know about you are likely to be disappointed in how superficial it's presentation is?

What I was suggesting was that those people who are so enlightened to know everything about "Classical" music don't really need a radio station at all.
I find it interesting when I meet musicians who one would regard as at the very top of the profession and they tell me with great excitement about a composer who's music they are just discovering.
Surely a big part of the radio experience is for this to be available to more people?

Whether the people doing the presenting are the best for the job is another question IMV

In a general sense, you're right, but I implied the same point in my last answer: even people who know a lot about (classical) music, be they a Radio 3 listener or one of your professional musician friends, they don't discover more if the purveyors of the good advice are treating them as if they know little or nothing about the subject.

R3 presenters don't appear to know who their listeners are. ('Have you ever tried the music of Aleksander Nikolayevich Scriabin?' 'Yes, thank you, I wrote the definitive study of his work. You can order it from Amazon, £85.00.')

Meanwhile, I was informed (on Breakfast) that James Rhodes is 'Britain's most prominent classical pianist' - a press quote, but one that should either be submitted to a critical consideration (what does 'prominent' mean here?) or not mentioned at all. Preferably the latter: repeating a stupidity compounds the stupidity.