BBC Young Musician on Four

[ardcarp]

S-A An interesting point, this. In the old days (no longer I gather) FRCO exams were done without the examiners seeing nor indeed knowing the name of the candidates. (All done by numbers.) At the other extreme, it was always considered important for singers to 'communicate' with their audience, and here examined candidates needed to pay attention to posture, stance, hand position and so on.

Just listening to a CD necessarily means you experience the music without any visuals. But surely one of the pleasures of going to a live concert (even one where the music is considered fairly abstract, e.g. a viol consort) is seeing the performers, body language, gurning and all?

[vinteuil]

Yes - it's the sort of thing which his regular teacher should have beaten out of him. Brendel talked amusingly about how his wife made him watch himself on film, which helped him to curb his own excesses. It's actually a misdirection of effort.

"It is better and more seemly not to beat time with the head, the body, nor the feet. One should have an air of ease at one's harpsichord; not gazing too fixedly at one object, nor yet looking too vague; in short, look at the assembled company, if there be one, as if not occupied with anything else. [ ... ] With regard to making grimaces, it is possible to break oneself of this habit by placing a mirror on the reading desk of the harpsichord... "

François Couperin, l'Art de Toucher le Clavecin [1716]

[Lateralthinking1]

I think I gave CBH (if only she had been named Glemency) a reasonably good write-up on this forum. I might even have suggested that she should be moved to weekday breakfast. If so, I must have had a sudden rush of the blood to the head.

Those though who say Sky would do this kind of thing - or any other - better. They are on a different planet. I will never accept that television with commercials is anything but second rate. Given who produces it, I wouldn't watch it on principle.

I keep hearing about the terribly expensive BBC license. In a country where virtually everything is a rip-off, I think that you could treble the cost of it and it would still be good value. How much is Sky TV these days anyway and why don't people flinch?

[Vile Consort]

But surely one of the pleasures of going to a live concert ... is seeing the performers, body language, gurning and all?

I never find it enhances the experience - at best it is neutral, at worst it is so distracting as to ruin the experience. There are some performers I cannot bear to watch.

Back on topic: why did the competition appear to be taking place in a brothel?

[teamsaint]

I think I gave CBH (if only she had been named Glemency) a reasonably good write-up on this forum. I might even have suggested that she should be moved to weekday breakfast. If so, I must have had a sudden rush of the blood to the head.

Those though who say Sky would do this kind of thing - or any other - better. They are on a different island. I will never accept that television with commercials is anything but second rate. Given who produces it, I wouldn't watch it on principle.

I keep hearing about the terribly expensive BBC license. In a country where virtually everything is a rip-off, I think that you could treble the cost of it and it would still be good value. How much is Sky TV these days anyway and why don't people flinch?

The question I would ask, Lat, is what do the BBC actually produce with the huge amount of revenue they receive?

Is it really value for money? 2 big TV channels with plenty of substandard content. 2 smaller channels, one of which is fifth rate rubbish, and both of which have a limited amount of new content.

Four national radio stations of reasonable quality.
Local radio costs peanuts.
Sport, (one of the nations most popular activities,) is very poorly served, and the bbc want to axe its coverage of most football league teams, the ones most people actually want to see.
The Arts on TV are limited to say the least.
And they never get the weather right !!(ok, that may be a bit harsh).

True though, Lat, that we are a ripped off nation.

AS to SKY suscription, it is indeed very expensive. Just scrapped mine, and watching all the footy I want on free streams.

[Nick Armstrong]

"It is better and more seemly not to beat time with the head, the body, nor the feet. One should have an air of ease at one's harpsichord; not gazing too fixedly at one object, nor yet looking too vague; in short, look at the assembled company, if there be one, as if not occupied with anything else. [ ... ] With regard to making grimaces, it is possible to break oneself of this habit by placing a mirror on the reading desk of the harpsichord... "

François Couperin, l'Art de Toucher le Clavecin [1716]

I knew there was a good quote about that, Monsieur V ! It was somewhere at the back of my mind, as so often it was at the front of yours

[ardcarp]

Vile Consort. You must surely have seen Fretwork playing? They don't sit still!

[MrGongGong]

I never find it enhances the experience - at best it is neutral, at worst it is so distracting as to ruin the experience. There are some performers I cannot bear to watch.

Back on topic: why did the competition appear to be taking place in a brothel?

That's not like any brothel that i've been to ........... oops too much information there

"Live" performance involves the physical presence of a person
if that's not to your taste there are alternatives

Acousmatic music .......... (which does what it says on the tin)
Become a brass band adjudicator
or
Organ recitals in Cathedrals

or the orchestra at Bayreuth

[Richard Tarleton]

Those though who say Sky would do this kind of thing - or any other - better. They are on a different island. I will never accept that television with commercials is anything but second rate. Given who produces it, I wouldn't watch it on principle.

Lat, you mean only state-funded television is acceptable to you?

[Richard Tarleton]

I knew there was a good quote about that, Monsieur V ! It was somewhere at the back of my mind, as so often it was at the front of yours

David Oistrach
Joshua Bell

I rest my case

[Lateralthinking1]

The question I would ask, Lat, is what do the BBC actually produce with the huge amount of revenue they receive?

Is it really value for money? 2 big TV channels with plenty of substandard content. 2 smaller channels, one of which is fifth rate rubbish, and both of which have a limited amount of new content.

Four national radio stations of reasonable quality.
Local radio costs peanuts.
Sport, (one of the nations most popular activities,) is very poorly served, and the bbc want to axe its coverage of most football league teams, the ones most people actually want to see.
The Arts on TV are limited to say the least.
And they never get the weather right !!(ok, that may be a bit harsh).

True though, Lat, that we are a ripped off nation.

AS to SKY suscription, it is indeed very expensive. Just scrapped mine, and watching all the footy I want on free streams.

I'm halfway through the programme on the I-P. That "who is it going to be?" point. I don't think CBH is too bad. One costume change so far. How many does she do? The stripes seemed ill-advised. Production not as it was back in the day. In fact, it's poor. I am sure they used to give equal time to the performers then and let them play whole pieces uninterrupted.

Why is it that I feel that the performers are all older than me although 30 plus years younger? I don't think it should be a competition really. The judges always seem to be the wrong sorts and should not be allowed in front of the cameras.

No one complains about the cost of Sky because it isn't compulsory. This shows that cost and indeed quality matter less to the British public than choice. I don't buy that outlook. I find it simplistic. It sees greater choice in competition. I see less of it. Everything is squeezed down to become uniform on the basis that one thing appeals. When it was just the BBC it was all broader and driven by standards.

There are at least seven national BBC radio stations and far more than four BBC television channels. I accept that the quality on television could be very much better. But knocking the BBC too much as a BBC supporter defeats the object and risks placing us in the category of philistines.

If it ever goes, that's it. Personally I see the commercial thing as a passing fad. In ten to twenty years it will be shown to be the dud it is on every level, including as good business. Then what will we do?

I can think of a hundred very good comedy series on BBC radio and television since the 1950s. I am not aware of one from Sky. Sky hasn't shown me that it is good at drama either. Even Channel 4 found some sort of niche there. Given that it is not a station I like, I accept that it was innovative, even interesting, in its first ten years.

What has Sky done? I don't think it does good quizzes. It had Bear Grylls in the jungle but I doubt that it has done much else of note vis a vis nature. There is no groundbreaking series on history or literature and its news is presented by showroom dummies with Naomi Campbell attitudes, whether female or male.

[Mr Pee]

I can think of a hundred very good comedy series on BBC radio and television since the 1950s. I am not aware of one from Sky. Sky hasn't shown me that it is good at drama either. Even Channel 4 found some sort of niche there. Given that it is not a station I like, I accept that it was innovative, even interesting, in its first ten years. What has Sky done? I don't think it does good quizzes. It had Bear Grylls in the jungle but I doubt that it has done much else of note vis a vis nature. There is no groundbreaking series on history or literature and its news is presented by showroom dummies with Naomi Campbell attitudes, whether female or male.

Well, of course Sky hasn't been around since the 1950s, so it's a bit of a false comparison. I've only been a subscriber for about 14 months, but in that time I've found all these to be just as good, or better, than anything on the BBC:-

I don't really watch quizzes, but this is pretty good:-

http://skyarts.sky.com/what-the-dickens

As for comedy and drama:-

http://skyarts.sky.com/playhouse-presents

http://sky1.sky.com/sky1hd-shows/little-crackers

http://sky1.sky.com/sky1hd-shows/stella

http://sky1.sky.com/sky1hd-shows/mad-dogs

And that's before I even start on the excellent HBO productions that are shown on Sky, such as Boardwalk Empire, Luck, and Game of Thrones.


Hardly surprising that that you're not aware of Sky programmes, since you don't watch the station. Although apparently you somehow manage to watch Sky news. And Sky didn't put Bear Grylls in the jungle, that was the Discovery Channel. But then Sky have a new series on plants starting soon, with Richard Attenborough:-

http://skyatlantic.sky.com/kingdom-of-plants

Anyway, looking forward to watching these tonight, the start of the Sky Arts 2 Shakespeare season. Does that count as literature?

http://skyarts.sky.com/being-shakespeare

http://skyarts.sky.com/discovering-hamlet

[Lateralthinking1]

The 1950s? Possibly in some far off island. Thanks Mr Pee but genuinely there is absolutely nothing in that lot that appeals.

I think the second young musician was the best, then the third, then the fifth, the fourth and finally the first. Am about to watch the results. The judges will no doubt arrogantly think they know best.

[Lateralthinking1]

.......Oh, so the third won. They almost got it right. Hope to be back with another tweet later.

[Richard Tarleton]

Mr Pee old chum, I think I've given up. Sky Arts showed Gluck's Iphigenie en Tauride yesterday afternoon, followed by Giselle - but I think we're wasting our breath. David, BTW, not Richard, before anyone else spots it.