Programme presentation on R3

[french frank]

Anyway, I didn't realise that we had to maintain a certain proportion of R3-related posts

You don't. (I mean, people don't.) I was just worried that the thread title itself might not have been taken as being ironic/cheeky when read in isolation. But you confirm that you feel at least moderately strongly about this subject, and that the thread title does not reflect your own view .

[Gordon]

....Well it is Womens Day....

Really!! Don't tell the missus!! And it's Mother's day soon. They're taking over at last. Perhaps we need to be nice to the lady presenters just for a couple of days.

[ahinton]

I think that since Radio 3 is now so presenter-led, it’s inevitable that there’ll be a lot of comment and criticism of presentation and individual presenters. If they went back to straightforward announcing they wouldn’t invite so much criticism.

I'm afraid that this is right. The changes in presentational style and material that we've encountered over the years do at times seem rather symptomatic of a sense of "if it ain't broke, do fix it". Much of this has arisen as a consequence of an agenda for R3 to appear more "user-friendly" and, for the most part, I just don't think it works; you don't have to have chattiness, irrelevance, poor research, invitations for phone calls, emails and tweets in order to overcome any risk of stuffiness and élitism, but R3 seems not to care about that.

[Roehre]

I'm afraid that this is right. The changes in presentational style and material that we've encountered over the years do at times seem rather symptomatic of a sense of "if it ain't broke, do fix it". Much of this has arisen as a consequence of an agenda for R3 to appear more "user-friendly" and, for the most part, I just don't think it works; you don't have to have chattiness, irrelevance, poor research, invitations for phone calls, emails and tweets in order to overcome any risk of stuffiness and élitism, but R3 seems not to care about that.

I concur with ahinton - another non-boring non-elitist presenting style is very well possible, but R3 doesn't care

[Karafan]

Really!! Don't tell the missus!! And it's Mother's day soon. They're taking over at last. Perhaps we need to be nice to the lady presenters just for a couple of days.

[french frank]

At the suggestion of the OP, I'll be deleting this thread soon. Please bear in mind that we value the contributions of several R3 presenters here, and the thread title could be misconstrued

[doversoul1]

And, to try to balance my unfavourable comments about KD in other Threads, I heard her on R4 last year introducing a programme about Synchronized Swimming: her pace was less flustered, her vocal pitch was about a Fifth lower, and she didn't have that annoying "chuckle" in her voice that she seems to think is obligatory when introducing "Classical" Music. It was engaging and totally listenable - AND concerned a topic of which she has a lot of knowledge and experience, which I think is significant.

Not sure if this gets in before it is closed but here goes:

Ah, so it wasn’t just me imagining. I think it was just before the Olympic, I was visiting someone and the TV was on. The programme was about a history of the Thames or some related subject. The female presenter was walking along the river talking in a voice that was confident, well paced, and with just enough excitement about what she was presenting. I thought the voice sounded somewhat familiar but as I didn’t know any TV presenters I didn’t think too much about it. It turned out to be Katie Derham.

I noticed a similar thing in Simon Russell Beale. His presentation of Sacred Music was excellent, yet when he presented Saturday Classics, although the contents of the programme were very good, he sounded like a good singer who sings all the right notes. You couldn’t tell if he was about to tell a joke or state a fact: his voice was completely flat. Yet we know he is an excellent presenter on TV.

They must both respond to the idea of a visual audience even if they are not actually talking to a crowd of people, whereas I imagine radio presenters have a very different mindset. Some may be good at both but they may be exceptions.

P.S. SRB as a actor is a different issue, even on the radio.

[Gordon]

At the suggestion of the OP, I'll be deleting this thread soon. Please bear in mind that we value the contributions of several R3 presenters here, and the thread title could be misconstrued

Fair enough! But we're complaining about presentation style, determined by policy, not necessarily made by the people presenting, and NOT the person of the presenter, although separating the two might be tricky unless they are professional enough to curb it? Policy seems to be to appoint presenters BECAUSE of that personality??

The title is a bit misleading in that regard. It has been recognised here also that some have a different style depending on the programme and time of day. That is probably indicative of policy and it is against that that the complaints are ultimately directed.

There is a bit of the hot kitchen syndrome about this too, those putting themselves in the public ear should not expect total adulation should they, and so should have thick enough skins. I don't believe that anyone here is trying to be personally abusive - but having said all that there is the possibility of offence and so perhaps the better wisdom is to do as FF suggests.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

It's very simple. I like all the Radio 3 presenters.

The issue is with the style of presentation, which is unlikely to be of their choosing.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Sorry, FF. I hadn't read your post about closing the thread before posting.
But yes, it serves no useful purposem

[jean]

The programme was about a history of the Themes...

But not a word about the Variations.

Dumbing-down or what?

[french frank]

There is a bit of the hot kitchen syndrome about this too, those putting themselves in the public ear should not expect total adulation should they, and so should have thick enough skins. I don't believe that anyone here is trying to be personally abusive - but having said all that there is the possibility of offence and so perhaps the better wisdom is to do as FF suggests.

I think it is perfectly permissible to criticise presenters over specifics (however personal this gets - for the reason Gordon states). But short of just changing the title here, I would suggest people criticise as and when. And a thread on 'presentation' would be useful - as much resides in the style of the programme, what the particular aim is and the target audience. All might well merit discussion since presentation is indeed a hot potato. One person saying they can't stand X while another says X is wonderful serves little purpose.

[Nick Armstrong]

I think it is perfectly permissible to criticise presenters over specifics (however personal this gets - for the reason Gordon states). But short of just changing the title here, I would suggest people criticise as and when. And a thread on 'presentation' would be useful - as much resides in the style of the programme, what the particular aim is and the target audience. All might well merit discussion since presentation is indeed a hot potato. One person saying they can't stand X while another says X is wonderful serves little purpose.

I agree... can't you change the title?

We all love Catherine Bott ... she's often here, I'm always delighted to see... and that title is offensive!!

[Flosshilde]

I started the thread, not to provide a forum for criticism, but as a gentle criticism of the tendency to criticise presenters, evident on my thread about the content of In Tune. Unfortunately it was taken at face value (which I should have been prepared for - perhaps I should have used one or two suitable emoticons ), & I therefore asked ff to delete it.

[Alison]

All is well.