More Twitter

[kernelbogey]

This is off topic, but other than starting a new thread I don't know where else to post this. Perhaps we need a thread entitled simply Harrumph!.

I listened to some of Night Waves last night and was flabbergasted to hear an invitation to tweet views to that programme too.

[french frank]

This is off topic, but other than starting a new thread I don't know where else to post this. Perhaps we need a thread entitled simply Harrumph!.

I listened to some of Night Waves last night and was flabbergasted to hear an invitation to tweet views to that programme too.

Perhaps it does merit a(nother) Twitter thread? Has to be Platform 3, I'm afraid as it's more of a social phenomenon infecting Radio 3 and far beyond.

[MrGongGong]

[kernelbogey]

Perhaps it does merit a(nother) Twitter thread? Has to be Platform 3, I'm afraid as it's more of a social phenomenon infecting Radio 3 and far beyond.

Oh I'm honoured!

A large part of the programme was a pretty heavyweight discussion of the ethical dimensions of tax versus the legal ones. An interesting discussion though McElvoy was a bit bullying in moving her guests on along what she thought was the right trail.

The other item was Philip Hoare interviewed about his new book The Sea Within (sound fascinating).

There is something demeaning, but also pathetic, about the request for tweets in response to these items. Is it the need to be fashionable, right on, or is it desperate insecurity on the part of these programme makers? What is wrong with putting out a programme and in effect saying 'This is my programme, take it or leave it'?

[Sir Velo]

I listened to some of Night Waves last night and was flabbergasted to hear an invitation to tweet views to that programme too.

Do you consider all interaction between an audience and programme makers to be beyond the pale, or is it just Twitter to which you object?

If the latter, in what way is Twitter worse than other media, viz. email, letters, texts, phone? It at least has the advantage of enforcing brevity.

[french frank]

Another quick check on stats for (re)tweets:

Radio 3 55,479 (not including separate Radio 3 progs for which I can't find a figure)
Radio 1 45,813
Radio 4 22, 628
Radio 5L 21,794
Radio 2 15,932

Comparing tweets with the number of 'followers':
R1 1,262,966
R5 263,900
R2 230,763
R4 110,799
R3 20,081
Disproportionate?

Radio 3 staff have become insane Twitterers: plenty more progs to tweet about, R3: Choral Evensong, Lunchtime Concert, Composer of the Week...

[vinteuil]

Do you consider all interaction between an audience and programme makers to be beyond the pale, or is it just Twitter to which you object?

If the latter, in what way is Twitter worse than other media, viz. email, letters, texts, phone? It at least has the advantage of enforcing brevity.

... nothing wrong with the twitterers twittering among themselves. What becomes offensive is when we - the Great Listening Public - have to be subjected to the tweets being read out as part of a Classical Music Radio Programme...

[Sir Velo]

... nothing wrong with the twitterers twittering among themselves. What becomes offensive is when we - the Great Listening Public - have to be subjected to the tweets being read out as part of a Classical Music Radio Programme...

But how is it worse than texts, phone-ins, emails, or that relic of a bygone age, the letter?

Don't get me wrong: I'm old school and object to practically all interaction, unless of great interest, but am interested as to why Twitter is singled out.

[aeolium]

But how is it worse than texts, phone-ins, emails, or that relic of a bygone age, the letter?

Don't get me wrong: I'm old school and object to practically all interaction, unless of great interest, but am interested as to why Twitter is singled out.

Perhaps because it is an instinctive, first-thought-in-your-head type of communication, without much reflection or content. And due to the brevity there can be no kind of reasoned argument, as there can even with an email and letter - just an opinion. There are no great aphorists on Twitter - in fact, has anything interesting or memorable ever been recorded there?

[mercia]

I was surprised to hear some particularly inane tweets read out during Sunday's Lohengrin broadcast, along the lines of "I'm listening to this in the bath - fantastic", somehow it didn't sound right coming from Mr Macleod amidst an erudite conversation about Knights of the Holy Grail

[kernelbogey]

Perhaps because it is an instinctive, first-thought-in-your-head type of communication, without much reflection or content. And due to the brevity there can be no kind of reasoned argument, as there can even with an email and letter - just an opinion. There are no great aphorists on Twitter - in fact, has anything interesting or memorable ever been recorded there?

I think this expresses quite well my objection. And that programme makers are soliciting instant top-of-the-head responses. This seems particularly daft in relation to the programme content of Nightwaves.

[Dave2002]

If you go to those ROH "performances" in the cinema you are likely to be subjected to "tweets" in the ice cream break. Does anyone really care? I suppose it gives us something to talk (whinge, moan) about!

[teamsaint]

If you are a keen tweeter, imagine how many you could tweet to raffers on in tune from the Proms queue.

Nice.

[VodkaDilc]

Another quick check on stats for (re)tweets:

Radio 3 55,479 (not including separate Radio 3 progs for which I can't find a figure)
Radio 1 45,813
Radio 4 22, 628
Radio 5L 21,794
Radio 2 15,932

Comparing tweets with the number of 'followers':
R1 1,262,966
R5 263,900
R2 230,763
R4 110,799
R3 20,081
Disproportionate?

Radio 3 staff have become insane Twitterers: plenty more progs to tweet about, R3: Choral Evensong, Lunchtime Concert, Composer of the Week...

I have no idea what all those numbers mean! (I almost wrote "I wish I knew what those numbers mean" - but I don't.)