|
Post by neilmcgowan on Jul 15, 2013 12:01:49 GMT -5
did either parade or otherwise allude to their political allegiances in their programmes about music Their allegiances are so notorious as to require no introduction. The way that two series about British music have been parcelled-out to two infamous hardline British rightwingers - of whom both have been in the media spotlight for their opinions - is clearly very wrong indeed. I suspect that these two have been foisted on R3 with specific instructions that they be allowed to parade their 'ownership' of British music, as though it's a done deal that the UKIP 'owns' British music.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jul 15, 2013 12:14:52 GMT -5
did either parade or otherwise allude to their political allegiances in their programmes about music Their allegiances are so notorious as to require no introduction. The way that two series about British music have been parcelled-out to two infamous hardline British rightwingers - of whom both have been in the media spotlight for their racist opinions - is clearly very wrong indeed. I did not claim that their allegiances required introduction but, if it is indeed so wrong irrespective of whether any of the content of the programmes concerned clearly reflected and sought to promote such opinions (and in any case not every non-UKIP supporter regards all UKIP supporters as infamous hardline British racists), might the same not be said of other candidates with equally left-wing political persuasions, or indeed any political persuasions with which some listeners diametrically disagree, if they were invited to present programmes on music? In other words, if, say, Tony Benn, Dennis Skinner, Arthur Scargill et al were to do this, mightn't it be just as "wrong"? I submit the only thing "wrong" about the invitation of any guest presenter - provided that they were to stick to the topic of the programme - would be insufficient knowledge or other ability to put together and present such a programme. I suspect that these two nutters have been foisted on R3 with specific instructions that they be allowed to parade their 'ownership' of British music, as though it's a done deal that the UKIP 'owns' British music. If your suspicion has any merit, whom do you suppose would have issued such "specific instructions" -the programme producers? Roger Wright? The BBC DG? - and on what grounds or evidence? As to the notion that such people being allowed to "parade their 'ownership' of British music, as though it's a done deal that the UKIP 'owns' British music", I cannot imagine even most UKIP supporters swallowing anything quite so absurd as that, especailly given that most of the music that is the subject of such programmes dates from long before UKIP's inauguration! Anyway, we might get some idea if, say, Heffer's programmes are so successful and appreciated that he gets invited to present a series on French music and agrees to proceed with it...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2013 12:59:02 GMT -5
There are ultimately no guarantees, ahinton. Nevertheless, as Simon Heffer is the topic of this particular thread, let me state my opinion unambiguously. Simon is an excellent broadcaster, and I commend his broadcasts to everyone reading ' The Third'. If you think that you can do better than Simon, Neil, why not have a go?
|
|
|
Post by neilmcgowan on Jul 15, 2013 13:50:28 GMT -5
In other words, if, say, Tony Benn, Dennis Skinner, Arthur Scargill et al were to do this, mightn't it be just as "wrong"? Well yes - it would be. But this whatiffery has not come to pass. What has actually happened is that two consecutive highly-controversial right-wing figures have been asked to prepare and present series about British music. Both are notorious as nationalist extremists. Simon is an excellent broadcaster
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2013 15:19:28 GMT -5
Prove it, Neil! According to Wikipedia, it was revealed that in May 2011, Simon was leaving the Telegraph to "complete a major literary project". It has been speculated that his departure has been prompted by his constant attacks on David Cameron's government, of which the Telegraph is generally supportive. Wikipedia - Simon Heffer - CareerThis is rather different!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jul 15, 2013 17:11:05 GMT -5
In other words, if, say, Tony Benn, Dennis Skinner, Arthur Scargill et al were to do this, mightn't it be just as "wrong"? Well yes - it would be. But this whatiffery has not come to pass. What has actually happened is that two consecutive highly-controversial right-wing figures have been asked to prepare and present series about British music. Both are notorious as nationalist extremists. Simon is an excellent broadcaster Simon is a . . . That has been questioned by some who are unconvinced about why it was that SH decided to quit writing for DT - but who cares? Anyone who does genuinely care about this ought, as I have said earlier, to question who it might be that invited SH to do this and who gave him whatever brief they might have given him for that purpose. I care more about whether people are any good at researching and presenting such programmes than what their political views might be, provided, of course, that those views, whatever they might be, are in no wise allowed to intrude into the programe material and provided also that they themselves know what they're talking about when it comes to the subject of the programme.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jul 15, 2013 17:13:42 GMT -5
It has been speculated that his departure has been prompted by his constant attacks on David Cameron's government, of which the Telegraph is generally supportive. Whether or not or to what extent such speculation about Heffer may have taken place in cetain circles, it remains arguable that The Daily Telegraph hardly has a record as the most vociferous supporter of the Cameron government in any case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2013 19:43:47 GMT -5
. . . The way that two series about British music have been parcelled-out to two infamous hardline British rightwingers - of whom both have been in the media spotlight for their opinions - is clearly very wrong indeed. I suspect that these two have been foisted on R3 with specific instructions that they be allowed to parade their 'ownership' of British music, as though it's a done deal that the UKIP 'owns' British music. Good point, Mr. McG! Truth in what you say! I would not put it past the Old Etonian element at the Corporation, and it is indeed wise to draw attention to such tendencies and nip them in the bud. The unbearable Benjamin faction rearing its ugly head, what. Is there any one who heard these broadcasts and can tell us what the two gentlemen actually said?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2013 23:21:10 GMT -5
I listened to some, but by no means all of Simon Heffer's British Music, Sydney, and it seemed to me to be entirely about British music. In fact, listening to the broadcasts, I suspect that it would have been impossible to work out Simon Heffer's political orientation from what he actually said about the music. Of course, you could argue that the music itself speaks volumes, but if so, what precisely does it say? As you know, I do not feel qualified to say. Can anyone help me?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jul 16, 2013 1:31:57 GMT -5
. . . The way that two series about British music have been parcelled-out to two infamous hardline British rightwingers - of whom both have been in the media spotlight for their opinions - is clearly very wrong indeed. I suspect that these two have been foisted on R3 with specific instructions that they be allowed to parade their 'ownership' of British music, as though it's a done deal that the UKIP 'owns' British music. Good point, Mr. McG! Truth in what you say! I would not put it past the Old Etonian element at the Corporation, and it is indeed wise to draw attention to such tendencies and nip them in the bud. The unbearable Benjamin faction rearing its ugly head, what. Is there any one who heard these broadcasts and can tell us what the two gentlemen actually said? While I leave that to someone who has indeed done so, I should point out that, in response to Mr McG's accusation, I asked - so far without direct response - "whom do you suppose would have issued such "specific instructions" -the programme producers? Roger Wright? The BBC DG? - and on what grounds or evidence?" I also wrote, à propos this absurd notion of people being led to believe that UKIP somehow "owns" British music (what? ALL of it?) - again, so far without response - "I cannot imagine even most UKIP supporters swallowing anything quite so absurd as that, especailly given that most of the music that is the subject of such programmes dates from long before UKIP's inauguration! Anyway, we might get some idea if, say, Heffer's programmes are so successful and appreciated that he gets invited to present a series on French music and agrees to proceed with it..." Would anyone care to comment on this rather than appear tacitly to assume, without question or the provision of hard evidence, that certain as yet unidentified bigwigs at BBC believe this stuff and accordingly issued instructions to at least two guest presenters to present in a certain agenda-driven way despite such presentation having no rightful or otherwise acceptable place in discussion of British music on R3? Furthermore, for the record, UKIP - whatever its current level of support among the British electorate - has not one single representative in the British Parliament; wouldn't BBC therefore be sticking its neck out and taking grave risks as to its general credibility were it to act as it has been claimed that it has done in this matter? I hardly imagine tht the 1m+ R3 listeners include a noticeably higher than average proportion of UKIP supporters in any case.
|
|
|
Post by neilmcgowan on Jul 16, 2013 1:46:46 GMT -5
Until such time as they began their series, I am unaware of either Heffer or Starkey having the slightest reputation for knowing anything about classical music. Both are highly controversial and pugnacious figures on the far right of British politics - both have taken public maulings for their extremist views, and it is for those opinions that they are primarily known.
It is beyond coincidence that two infamous extremists would be asked to give series about British music.
Heffer is a [man] whose knowledge of music is 0.
It's more than obvious that thjs man was reading a script written by others. He has no such knowledge, although he doesn't lack hubris. This therefore leaves the question of why he and Starkey were invited - and by whom?
Tub-thumping nationalist music is more than calculated to appeal to the brownshirts among the audience.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2013 3:30:08 GMT -5
Did not "brownshirts" go out of fashion in 1945?
So far (episodes 1 and 2 of 4):
Foulds von Holst Smyth Musgrave Bate Howells Tovey - a bleeding chunk Arnold - a bleeding chunk Sterndale Bennett Elgar's violin concerto Lennox Berkeley - a bleeding chunk Grainger - two rubbishy bits William Busch - a bleeding chunk Bantock's Russian Scenes Bliss Rootham
None of them exactly "tub-thumping" except perhaps the Rootham, and most of them quite rarely heard. They are described as Mr. Heffer's "personal choices of music from the British Isles." The fact that he chose them does not of course mean that he knows them (I certainly do not, although that is irrelevant) or that he likes them. He may have chosen them simply because he - some sort of music-lover - wished to hear them for the first time, or because he wanted other people to hear them. But Mr. McGowan's question remains: who chose him?
I can after perusing Wikipædia see that he is a pretty unattractive character who has said some pretty unpleasant things - his attitude to Section 28 for instance was a disgrace. [Readers wishing to expand upon the theme of his unpleasantness should keep in mind the laws of libel.] So what with a) him and b) the bleeding chunks I have no wish to listen in.
And in regard to the expression "extremist" it should be said that I am very much in favour of extremism in everything and everywhere. Any sincerely held view must by definition be an extremist view. Wishywashiness is a crime. Go on to the logical conclusion it is your duty!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jul 16, 2013 4:04:31 GMT -5
Did not "brownshirts" go out of fashion in 1945? I thought that they were blackshirts back then, but no matter, really.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jul 16, 2013 4:15:07 GMT -5
Until such time as they began their series, I am unaware of either Heffer or Starkey having the slightest reputation for knowing anything about classical music. What you are may or may not be or have been aware of is a personal matter but, if indeed neither presener has sufficient knowledge of the areas of music on which they were invited to present programmes and were accordingly obliged to rely heavily upon their producers and other researchers, it is certainly not unreasonable to question why each was so invited, regardless of their respective political views. Both are highly controversial and pugnacious figures on the far right of British politics - both have taken public maulings for their extremist views, and it is for those opinions that they are primarily known. It is beyond coincidence that two infamous extremists would be asked to give series about British music. To prove beyond doubt - as distinct from merely alleging - that there was indeed a specific agenda of the kind that you imply in the invitiations to them both to present programmes on BBC R3, you would need evidence of those invitations in the form of comprehensive email and/or other correspondence including contracts as well as transcripts of phone calls between BBC and each of them; do you have this? And, while we wait to find out (if indeed we do find out) who exactly it was that invited them, why do you suppose that they would have done so on those particular grounds? - by which I mean do you believe this kind of "philosophy" to have become so integral a part of BBC policy, aims and aspirations that it is typically representative thereof? Heffer is a [man] whose knowledge of music is 0. I am not countering you here but am nevertheless curious as to the specific evidential grounds on which you allege this? It's more than obvious that thjs man was reading a script written by others. He has no such knowledge, although he doesn't lack hubris. This therefore leaves the question of why he and Starkey were invited - and by whom? That question does indeed remain open and to be answered, since no one can currently be certain of those answers besides the presenters themselves and those who invited them, whoever they may be. Tub-thumping nationalist music is more than calculated to appeal to the brownshirts among the audience. Based upon what particular parameters do you define and identify such music? - who did what kind of calculating and how? (presumably the composers, so ought they perhaps to be blamed if anyone rather than the presenters and/or producers?) - and, while we're about it, who are these "brownshirts"? and ought their entitlement as licence fee payers to be served by BBC be equal to that of any other licence fee payers whose shirts might be of different hue?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2013 9:49:51 GMT -5
Good afternoon to you all! I trust that you are enjoying the hot summer weather today. For the record, I generally prefer a blue shirt, Neil, occasionally striped! Harvie and Hudson - Slim Fit Azure Blue Shirt - SF10I do have black, brown and red shirts, too, although I rarely wear them out. Out of interest, ahinton, do you ever wear a shirt these days?
|
|