BBC Young Musician on Four

[MrGongGong]

MrP

If you DO insist on posting the Sky schedule in a desperate effort to get more points from StRupert
don't be surprised when people make jokes at your expense !

[Lateralthinking1]

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

Sorry Richard. I should have replied to your question with thought. In all of my lifetime, there has been BBC and commercial television. Originally just one service of each although when BBC2 arrived, I was young. Had I been born in, say, the 1920s, I would have welcomed an ITV service. I believe that for 20 years - an extremely short period of time - it made a positive contribution.

I wasn't convinced in my late teens that a Channel 4 was necessary. Rather I was indifferent but in the first ten years it proved its worth. I did feel that a Channel 5 was completely unnecessary seeing that by the time that arrived, both ITV and Channel 4 were pretty awful. To date, I have spent no longer than half an hour of my time viewing Channel 5. I greeted the advent of further stations with more cynicism than hope but bought freeview to give it a chance. I found nothing commercial on there of any merit.

This might imply that I favour a heavily regulated mixed system. That was certainly my position in regard to radio around the Annan Report which led to the introduction in the seventies of 19 local commercial radio stations, initially not without note. As soon as the next phase of commercial radio was introduced, it became clear that the law of diminishing returns was setting in and the several-part third phase with national stations and others with narrow playlists was the absolute pits.

With hindsight, now that we are several decades into a post-monopoly broadcasting world, I favour a BBC monopoly. The commercial sector has shown us what it can and can't do. What it appears it can do is lower the standards all round. If we were to return to a heavily regulated mixed system, it would be willing to do far less than it did originally so I wouldn't bother with it.

[MrGongGong]

In France you can only have your post delivered if you have an approved postbox.
This "lack of choice" doesn't seem to be a hinderance or even a gross infringement on the rights of the citizens to not to be able to choose everything all the time.
Sometimes "choice" can be more trouble than it's worth , and without loosing the atom of credibility that I still might have by quoting Mark Knopfler

[Lateralthinking1]

In France you can only have your post delivered if you have an approved postbox.
This "lack of choice" doesn't seem to be a hinderance or a gross infringement on the rights of the citizens to choose everything all the time. Sometimes "choice" can be more trouble than it's worth

Quite. The commercial radio bubble will burst first. The business model has always been flaky and it is only going to get flakier. This may have an adverse impact on the less convincing parts of television. The big TV players will survive for longer but at the point when the price of watching sport live plummets as a consequence of general economic failure, it too will be in crisis. The biggest failing of commercial broadcasting? The lack of innovation, something that wasn’t suggested by its approaches before the 1980s.

[vinteuil]

In France you can only have your post delivered if you have an approved postbox.
This "lack of choice" doesn't seem to be a hindrance or a gross infringement on the rights of the citizens to choose everything all the time.
Sometimes "choice" can be more trouble than it's worth

... hmmm. I love France for many reasons, but the 'lack of choice' which France sometimes goes in for hardly seems to me to be a point in its favour. It used to be the case that you could only give your child a name that was on an "approved" list at the local Mairie - basically, a saint's name and a few approved non-Christian names. And of course the Napoleonic rules of succession still determine to whom you can bequeath your assets - so, little scope for Agatha Christie "who will inherit from the lost Will?" intrigues... Sorry, here I prefer the British sense of liberty over the French striving for égalité...

[MrGongGong]

... hmmm. I love France for many reasons, but the 'lack of choice' which France sometimes goes in for hardly seems to me to be a point in its favour. It used to be the case that you could only give your child a name that was on an "approved" list at the local Mairie - basically, a saint's name and a few approved non-Christian names. And of course the Napoleonic rules of succession still determine to whom you can bequeath your assets - so little scope for Agatha Christie "who will inherit from the lost Will?" intrigues... Sorry, here I prefer the British sense of liberty over the French striving for égalité...

My point is more that we have a somewhat "Knee Jerk" approach to choice being automatically a good thing always. What is maybe more important is WHAT one is choosing between .......... hence the Knopfler reference (i'll get my coat !) Choosing between 50 types of toilet roll can be disabling rather than a meaningful event.

[Satie]

Thank you for saving me a critical message. Agree with every word. I spent as much time trying to control the sporadic outbursts of Mme Satie as listening...
a poor show all round and very much not 'better than nothing'. there are other things to do.

[Panjandrum]

In France you can only have your post delivered if you have an approved postbox.
This "lack of choice" doesn't seem to be a hinderance or even a gross infringement on the rights of the citizens to not to be able to choose everything all the time.
Sometimes "choice" can be more trouble than it's worth , and without loosing the atom of credibility that I still might have by quoting Mark Knopfler

I see you've edited this post for "bad grammer (sic)". Was this to excise the solecism or to insert one: i.e. "hinderance" (sic)?

[Richard Tarleton]

Just back to the sub-thread for a moment - from today's Sunday Times, AA Gill's TV column - "

It's also a pleasure to give a nod to Sky Arts, which is producing some good, original programmes....

(incidentally in a review of a one-offdrama by Will Self on Playhouse Presents on Sky Arts)

[MrGongGong]

I see you've edited this post for "bad grammer (sic)". Was this to excise the solecism or to insert one: i.e. "hinderance" (sic)?

ooops that's what comes of trying to bee articulutte weil riting moosic

[VodkaDilc]

What has Sky done? 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.

I think this is unfair. Kay Burley is now limited to an afternoon slot on Sky News, so can easily be avoided. Most of the others who appear on Sky News are excellent; in fact, some, like Tim Marshall, Adam Boulton and Martin Brunt are unequalled in their specialist fields.

[Mr Pee]

I think this is unfair. Kay Burley is now limited to an afternoon slot on Sky News, so can easily be avoided. Most of the others who appear on Sky News are excellent; in fact, some, like Tim Marshall, Adam Boulton and Martin Brunt are unequalled in their specialist fields.

Quite right. But don't expect any sort of fair or informed comment from the Sky bashers. It is a given that none of those who post so many anti-Sky rants here actually watch any of the station's output, therefore they are speaking from a position of pure ignorance.

I can understand- although I don't agree with- the holier than thou moral objections raised by some, but when they knock Sky's programming despite having absolutely no idea what they are talking about, then it does become a tad annoying. Reminds me of people who say that classical music is boring when they have never actually listened to any.

[MrGongGong]

. Reminds me of people who say that classical music is boring when they have never actually listened to any.

Or even those who make comments about Stockhausen and Cage

[Lateralthinking1]

I think this is unfair. Kay Burley is now limited to an afternoon slot on Sky News, so can easily be avoided. Most of the others who appear on Sky News are excellent; in fact, some, like Tim Marshall, Adam Boulton and Martin Brunt are unequalled in their specialist fields.

What, this Adam Boulton? Really professional!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gkHwU4DRA8

If Will Self is in the pay of Murdoch, I despair but not as much, following a Google reference, on seeing Don Letts, Damon Albarn, Germaine Greer and Phill Jupitus with history there too.

Is there actually anyone on the left now in the public eye or politics who has even an ounce of principle?

[VodkaDilc]

Quite right. But don't expect any sort of fair or informed comment from the Sky bashers. It is a given that none of those who post so many anti-Sky rants here actually watch any of the station's output, therefore they are speaking from a position of pure ignorance.

Exactly!
I've only just seen this reply. It's been a full evening: Simon Callow's one-man Shakespeare show, a discussion of Hamlet interpretations and, soon, Antony Sher in Macbeth.