Broadly, What Parts of Radio are Still Quality?

[P. G. Tipps]

I find 'Tweet of the Day' the most kind and informative on the ear ...

Our sweet-sounding feathered friends are mercifully free of Political Correctness & Faux Behaviour and are rarely heard being maddeningly inaudible like Mr Andrew MacGregor or found loudly ranting like Mr Andrew Neil ... unless, of course, some poor "domesticated" unfortunates are trained to be so by thoroughly horrid human example.

[cloughie]

R3 ranges between excellent and truly dreadful
R4 maintains a certain level but most comedy is poor apart from 'I'm sorry I haven't a clue' and 'Just a minute' though Giles Bradreth should be barred if he continues to shout down the other contestants. The Archers needs new scriptwriters.
R5 football coverage below Prem level is woeful and does not reflect the level of support of listeners for lower teams.
RCornwall - good local coverage - I suspect probably the best BBC local radio.
CFM - full works in the evening often worth a listen.
R2 What was a good station has deteriorated at a faster rate than R3 over the years - is now Superannuated R1.

[MrGongGong]

The Archers needs new scriptwriters.

Many years ago I ran a project at the CBSO centre in Birmingham with young musicians.
The room we were using in the morning was booked in the afternoon by the BBC for an Archers script conference (I think they wanted to do it away from the studios OR it was nearer to Ronnie Scotts for afterwards? ).

So at the end of the session we wrote a whole pile of suggestions on the flipchart pad in the corner of the room (some orchestral players are avid fans)

I'm waiting for

1: Susan & Peggy to die horribly
2: Nigel to come back from the dead along with Jethro and Gip (Jip, Gyp?)

We live in hope

In spite of the BBC trying to convince us otherwise (a recent edition of Feedback) Local radio is no longer worth anything and (in my humble view) should be discarded and the money spent on commissioning new music ( NOT from me ).

Radio 3 is often wonderful
Resonance FM is a model of excellence (it is available online) that the BBC should emulate

[DracoM]

'In Our Time' WAS good until Melvyn Bragg decided that the experts were a bit of a nuisance and began to intrude more and more, interrupting, re-stating at length what had already been said, and rudely shutting people up. Great shame. BUT basically it is still one of the must-hear programmes. How long it can go on with MB
busting things up as he seems more and more prone to do remains to be seen. I'd put Tom Sutcliffe in charge of it.

[teamsaint]

Many years ago I ran a project at the CBSO centre in Birmingham with young musicians.
The room we were using in the morning was booked in the afternoon by the BBC for an Archers script conference (I think they wanted to do it away from the studios OR it was nearer to Ronnie Scotts for afterwards? ).

So at the end of the session we wrote a whole pile of suggestions on the flipchart pad in the corner of the room (some orchestral players are avid fans)

I'm waiting for

1: Susan & Peggy to die horribly
2: Nigel to come back from the dead along with Jethro and Gip (Jip, Gyp?)

We live in hope

In spite of the BBC trying to convince us otherwise (a recent edition of Feedback) Local radio is no longer worth anything and (in my humble view) should be discarded and the money spent on commissioning new music ( NOT from me ).

Radio 3 is often wonderful
Resonance FM is a model of excellence (it is available online) that the BBC should emulate

Lots of people likely think of R3 the way you do of local radio.

What I hear when I hear BBC local radio is not something that is replicated elsewhere, and I do hear something that provides a very important link for many people. It isn't perfect, and I am not just talking about sport.

[Dave2002]

Obviously a significant proportion of the listening population would be "mortified" if the Archers went. I would not - bring it on!

I have rather enjoyed some of the drama this week - the Zola week.

[gradus]

Gongers, many thanks for the Resonance FM link, I'd not come across it before. A very interesting programme line-up.

[subcontrabass]

R4 maintains a certain level but most comedy is poor apart from 'I'm sorry I haven't a clue' and 'Just a minute' though Giles Bradreth should be barred if he continues to shout down the other contestants. The Archers needs new scriptwriters.

Hmm. Each to their own. All three of those programmes have me leaping for the "off" switch when I hear them start. The first two seem to me to be about 40 years past their "sell by" date.

Radio 4 Extra is grossly inferior to its predecessor Radio 7 - too many repeats of the bits of current Radio 4 that I try to avoid. Radio 7 (repeats of classic comedy and drama) had a much clearer identity and a much higher proportion of quality programmes.

[Ferretfancy]

Obviously a significant proportion of the listening population would be "mortified" if the Archers went. I would not - bring it on!

I have rather enjoyed some of the drama this week - the Zola week.

When I first started at the Beeb, I quite often used to record radio drama of one sort or another, often at a small studio called The Grafton next door to Warren Street tube. ( It's a hotel now )
Because of this previous experience I find all radio drama impossible to listen to. Every time I listen I see actors in my mind's eye standing around microphones with script in hand, and any imaginative illusion is shattered.

Radio acting is odd isn't it? It seems to exist in a parallel world to other types of performance, and the more it tries to sound real, the less convincing it becomes.

Later on, both in location filming and post production, I was aware of all the mechanics of television performance, but I can watch TV drama perfectly happily without being reminded of the machinery involved. Why can I suspend disbelief on the one hand, and not on the other?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I relish Radio 3's CD Review on Saturday Morning.

Yes! 5 stars for this. Other good programmes on Radio 3 are Through the Night, Composer of the Week, Afternoon on 3, most of the evening fare, Choral Evensong & EMS.

Radio4/4Xtra are generally rather good

Sadly, my experience is that The News Quiz has gone a long way downhill in the last five years or so.

I still like The News Quiz, but I really miss Week Ending.

[usher]

'In Our Time' WAS good until Melvyn Bragg decided that the experts were a bit of a nuisance and began to intrude more and more, interrupting, re-stating at length what had already been said, and rudely shutting people up. Great shame. BUT basically it is still one of the must-hear programmes. How long it can go on with MB
busting things up as he seems more and more prone to do remains to be seen. I'd put Tom Sutcliffe in charge of it.

I agree with every point made here. I used to listen to every IOT programme but stopped after Bragg was appallingly rude to a female don who had the temerity not to toe his line on the topic under discussion. I also complained to the BBC and a fat lot of good that did.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I agree with every point made here. I used to listen to every IOT programme but stopped after Bragg was appallingly rude to a female don who had the temerity not to toe his line on the topic under discussion. I also complained to the BBC and a fat lot of good that did.

Unfortunately the presenter is always right and everyone else, including interviewees and customers, is wrong.

[Serial_Apologist]

When I first started at the Beeb, I quite often used to record radio drama of one sort or another, often at a small studio called The Grafton next door to Warren Street tube. ( It's a hotel now )
Because of this previous experience I find all radio drama impossible to listen to. Every time I listen I see actors in my mind's eye standing around microphones with script in hand, and any imaginative illusion is shattered.

Radio acting is odd isn't it? It seems to exist in a parallel world to other types of performance, and the more it tries to sound real, the less convincing it becomes.

Later on, both in location filming and post production, I was aware of all the mechanics of television performance, but I can watch TV drama perfectly happily without being reminded of the machinery involved. Why can I suspend disbelief on the one hand, and not on the other?

An interesting question indeed - and not one I would have given thought to had you not raised it, Ferret.

Could the suspension of disblief have been more easily achieved when the original intention of the broadcast, play or whatever, defined the range of sensory responses required in its appreciation in relatively simple terms? I.e. the physical attractiveness of the soloist at the violin concerto performance, as an example, may be neither here nor there when the terms of receptivity inhere in the music as opposed to being focussed on those performing it? That being the case (assuming it is), by appealing to more than one sense - the auditory, as solely represented in the radio play - the extra aspects of receptivity and responsiveness evoked in addition in watching a play or film elicits that sense of greater involvement in the recipient that translates into disbelief-suspending identification. If that makes any sense?

[Frances_iom]

An interesting question indeed ...

My own take is that though auditory processing is one of the last facilities to lose during terminal sickness being part of the 'old brain' any visual processing, being an extension of the brain, dominates our perception of the world even when this perception is conveyed via a small tv screen - thus you are able to suspend disbelief in the artificiality of tv drama (and by extension that of news broadcasts even tho edited to be partisan) whereas audition allows our mind to consider various possible causes (and in FF's case past experience in the studio) whilst listening.
I have a similar reaction but in reverse - I can happily listen to a broadcast of an opera I've seen as I can replay some of the missing visual details whereas I don't enjoy a previously unseen opera to the same extent

[Lat-Literal]

An interesting question indeed - and not one I would have given thought to had you not raised it, Ferret.

Could the suspension of disblief have been more easily achieved when the original intention of the broadcast, play or whatever, defined the range of sensory responses required in its appreciation in relatively simple terms? I.e. the physical attractiveness of the soloist at the violin concerto performance, as an example, may be neither here nor there when the terms of receptivity inhere in the music as opposed to being focussed on those performing it? That being the case (assuming it is), by appealing to more than one sense - the auditory, as solely represented in the radio play - the extra aspects of receptivity and responsiveness evoked in addition in watching a play or film elicits that sense of greater involvement in the recipient that translates into disbelief-suspending identification. If that makes any sense?

Possibly S_A but both of us have been known to close our eyes at live performances of music.

The question about that greater involvement with music may be whether it is about a broadening of experience or a narrowing of music down to its essence. I think when it comes to people, the visual aspects of performance in music can be something of a distraction. Most performers are ordinary looking and are consequently in visual terms subconsciously narrowed down into stereotypes. Fat bloke. French woman etc. Where there is something a bit different about their facial expression or demeanour then that is when visuals do enhance and are "more" real - dramatic, grumpy looking, etc. It is the character and closer to emotion. Acting is not the same but to some extent I feel that sort of point applies.

Sound is generally more real and indeed rounded to me than visuals although I feel differently with landscapes. Colour can also make a considerable difference and the manner in which something is visually styled. But that's me. Maybe there are some general rules applicable to all and individual variations. I can see how if you have spent some considerable time in places with radio actors speaking into a microphone as ferret has done the reality of that experience could principally inform on listening to a broadcast. Most of us haven't been there. And then there is that odd occurrence when one person meets another for the first time, having spoken on the telephone, or perhaps one sees an actor on television who was previously only known via radio. "I didn't think you would like like that!" - "well, what picture did you have in mind?" - "erm, none whatsoever.......but it was different"!