Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2016 8:36:11 GMT -5
Radio 3 is, in my view, much improved of late. BBC - Blogs - Reflecting on a strong performance from Radio 3I would not disagree with Alan Davey's analysis in the link above, and as he concludes, Radio 3's success is " ... down to the people who work here – knowledgeable, enthusiastic individuals who make great programmes with consummate skill and pride in what they do." Congratulations to all!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2016 20:55:30 GMT -5
Our member has inspired me to attempt a communication with Mr. Davey, and in that way, indirectly, with our member. But I have tried umpteen times to do that in every way possible and I keep being told either
"This combination isn't right"
or
"Give us your e-mail" (which I do not think they have the right to know).
So I gain the impression that comments upon Mr. Davey are definitely regarded as unwelcome. "Arbiter" was all right the last time (three years ago). So since the Corporation doesn't like my combinations, here is what I would have said had I been able to say it:
One's purpose would be better were the word "remarkable" there replaced by the word "good".
1) Pride comes before a fall, almost always.
2) "Lovingly", "brilliant", "team" and "passionate" are all women's words, and trivial.
Women's Day is tedious and irrelevant. As for "Jazz now" 1) you should be ashamed because of the low quality of such "music" and 2) you should like all civilized people be boycotting all productions from the American states after their atrocities in Vietnam and elsewhere. There are two hundred nations in the world and it is high time you moved on to better masters.
All of that is irrelevant to the purpose of a good broadcasting station. Can you not understand that in to-day's Plebeian world the best station (without "shows") would probably have the lowest audience? Not to understand that means to be moving still in the wrong direction.
Not so. There are daily errors in, and omissions from, the published schedule. Items are broadcast without prior of subsequent announcement. Items are broadcast incomplete (the outrageous "bleeding chunk" system). Announcers are given a different name to make them sound serious and knowledgeable - which they are obviously not. They should go back to simply announcing, briefly but fully, and in a dignified way, without waffling or impertinence. That improvement is all that is needed as a first step, yet even that is evidently beyond the power of the proud, consummately skilful, knowledgeable and enthusiastic staff of Radio Three.
|
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Aug 6, 2016 0:22:34 GMT -5
Our member has inspired me to attempt a communication with Mr. Davey, and in that way, indirectly, with our member. But I have tried umpteen times to do that in every way possible and I keep being told either "This combination isn't right" or "Give us your e-mail" (which I do not think they have the right to know). To what "combination" are you referring? 2) "Lovingly", "brilliant", "team" and "passionate" are all women's words, and trivial. By whose order and in what sense? How can anyone determine with the remotest credibility that words that have been in the English language for so very long a time were all initially invented by women? Are you attempting also to suggest that the "irrelevance" of these words ("to what?", one might ask) has something to do with women? If so, what, which women and why? Women's Day is tedious and irrelevant. "Tedious" to whom and "irrelevant" to what? As for "Jazz now" 1) you should be ashamed because of the low quality of such "music" There's good and bad and plenty in between in the world of jazz, just as in any other kind of music. you should like all civilized people be boycotting all productions from the American states after their atrocities in Vietnam and elsewhere. There are two hundred nations in the world and it is high time you moved on to better masters. Were BBC R3 to boycott exposure to music from all nations that had committed atrocities within their own territory and/or against other nations, it would probably need only half an hour of programming daily - if even that; no Byrd, Purcell, Elgar, Tippett or Vaughan Williams, no Bach, Beethoven, Brahms or Wagner, no Berlioz, Chausson, Debussy or Ravel, no Albéniz or Granados, no Ockeghem, no Busoni, no Tchaikovsky - where does one stop?... What "masters" are you writing about here and what in any case do you mean by your use of the term? All of that is irrelevant to the purpose of a good broadcasting station. Can you not understand that in to-day's Plebeian world the best station (without "shows") would probably have the lowest audience? Not to understand that means to be moving still in the wrong direction. Like the Breakfast show, the drivetime one is certainly not one of R3's better productions; far from it, indeed. You should remember, however, that the lower the audience figures the greater the risk of the axe falling on the station itself, not just on its drivetime or Breakfast programme. There are daily errors in, and omissions from, the published schedule. Items are broadcast without prior of subsequent announcement. Items are broadcast incomplete (the outrageous "bleeding chunk" system). Announcers are given a different name to make them sound serious and knowledgeable - which they are obviously not. They should go back to simply announcing, briefly but fully, and in a dignified way, without waffling or impertinence. That improvement is all that is needed as a first step, yet even that is evidently beyond the power of the proud, consummately skilful, knowledgeable and enthusiastic staff of Radio Three. There is indeed inconsistency of presentational manner, matter and standard - and some presenters appear to come across as though somehow encouraged (or at least not discouraged) by their producers to waffle on far more than is welcome or necessary - but which of them has been given a "different name" (by which you presumably mean different to his/her own given name)? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2016 10:12:13 GMT -5
I enjoyed reading Sydney Grew's critique, and ahinton's critique of Sydney! You have, in my view, Sydney, quite an extreme view of what Radio 3, as the successor to the Third, should be! My sense would be that it is a little dry. I generally stand by the Controller, Alan Davey, and confess that 'In Tune', Radio 3's drivetime programme, has always been one of my favourites, particularly when driving. More later ...
|
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Aug 8, 2016 11:19:31 GMT -5
I enjoyed reading Sydney Grew's critique, and ahinton's critique of Sydney! You have, in my view, Sydney, quite an extreme view of what Radio 3, as the successor to the Third, should be! My sense would be that it is a little dry. I generally stand by the Controller, Alan Davey, and confess that 'In Tune', Radio 3's drivetime programme, has always been one of my favourites, particularly when driving. More later ... For me, it would be an accident waiting to happen! Still, if unemployment in UK rises as a direct consequence of the Brexit thing and all the uncertainty, dithering and the rest that is inevitably following it, BBC R3 might as well merge Breakfast with In Tune as some people will be driving back from almost as soon as driving out to work; that this exercise in economy would spare us some of the worst aspects of the channel as now it is might instructively be illustrated by Alan Jay Lerner's time-dishonoured but nevertheless classic retort to Andrew Lloyd Webber when the latter asked the former why people took an instant dislike to him, namely "it saves time"... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2016 6:51:51 GMT -5
An interesting point, ahinton. I suppose that we therefore have to ask why people take an instant dislike to BBC Radio 3, or anyone or anything else for that matter, for example, Andrew Lloyd Webber and the European Union! I must admit that I sometimes struggle with all three. I think that we just have to accept that different people have different tastes, and if I find myself in a situation in which I feel uncomfortable, it might make sense just to get out! It saves time, after all!
|
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Aug 9, 2016 11:47:22 GMT -5
An interesting point, ahinton. I suppose that we therefore have to ask why people take an instant dislike to BBC Radio 3, or anyone or anything else for that matter, for example, Andrew Lloyd Webber and the European Union! I must admit that I sometimes struggle with all three. I think that we just have to accept that different people have different tastes, and if I find myself in a situation in which I feel uncomfortable, it might make sense just to get out! It saves time, after all! There are still good things about BBC R3. I supported Remain in the UK/EU in/out omnishambles so wish UK to remain within EU, as do the majority of my compatriots who live in my country. I have never met Andrew Lloyd Webber and do not expect ever to do so but I refrain from other comment about him in a way that I have not done about BBC R3 or UK's continued EU membership; make of that what you will (or won't)... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2016 9:08:56 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2016 7:58:08 GMT -5
Alan Davey blogs that Radio 3’s reach soars with the birds, concluding that " ... as Radio 3 prepares to celebrate 70 years since its launch as The Third Programme in 1946, we will be looking both to the past and the future to maintain and grow our longstanding reputation as a cultural pioneer. These brilliant RAJAR results are testament to Radio 3’s immense value as a rich, diverse and imaginative hub of ideas, poetry, drama and – of course – great music from around the world." Long may it continue! |
|
