Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2017 0:55:58 GMT -5
But nevertheless, who pays, and what for? It seems fair to me that I should pay for what I want. You should not be paying for me, Sydney! What is important in a man's life is his dignity. Once the Third Programme has been reformed in accordance with truly wise and dignified principles, the question of money will take care of itself. To every clear-sighted man the right way forward will be evident, and will be found. We are not Trans-Atlantics, thank Heaven! The question does remain as to whether the failed Corporation itself is any longer capable of introducing video-wireless. What we see among its staff to-day does not inspire confidence. A more efficacious way may be to start again from "scratch" with a small group of idealistic men of dignity.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jan 3, 2017 7:22:04 GMT -5
But nevertheless, who pays, and what for? It seems fair to me that I should pay for what I want. You should not be paying for me, Sydney! What is important in a man's life is his dignity. Whilst there must be many important things in a man's life, what does the particular one that you mention have to do with the future of BBC Radio 3? And why only a man's life, anyway? What about a woman's life? There is surely no shortage of women who work in and listen to BBC Radio 3! Once the Third Programme has been reformed in accordance with truly wise and dignified principles It is not known what reforms to BBC Radio 3 might be carried out, by whom or indeed when, let alone the wisdom and "dignity"(!) of the principles under which any such reforms might be implemented. the question of money will take care of itself The question of money never takes care of itself, nor can or should it be expected to do so. BBC Radio 3's budget - which might indeed rise should any reforms to it be carried out - has to be funded from somewhere; at present, it is largely funded by the licence fee, which is effectively a tax on broadcasting (a term that I do not mean pejoratively). Whilst the matter of whether or not any or all of BBC Radio 3 continues to be funded by this means remains open to question, it will have to be funded by some means otherwise is demise will indeed be on the cards; money no more grown on trees at Broadcasting House than it does elsewhere. To every clear-sighted man the right way forward will be evident, and will be found Again, clear-sighted men are not the only people on whom BBC Radio 3's future can depend; it will also require the input of clear-sighted women. We are not Trans-Atlantics, thank Heaven! Whilst I do not know who either "we" or "Trans-Atlantics" are in this or any other related context and have no idea why or for what Heaven should be thanked, I cannot help but note from your frequent reference to the latter that you seem to take a very dim view of that particular ocean, although I have no idea why. The question does remain as to whether the failed Corporation itself is any longer capable of introducing video-wireless. What we see among its staff to-day does not inspire confidence. There are many other considerations besides just this one and, if the entire corporation has indeed failed or is failing, it might fold altogether, not just Radio 3. A more efficacious way may be to start again from "scratch" with a small group of idealistic men of dignity. I do not know what in this particular context represents "dignity" or indeed how and in what ways it might be expected to manifest itself; nor do you clarify the specific "ideals" for which you would hope in those reforming BBC Radio 3 but, once again, I am as dismayed as I am surprised to note you referring once again solely to men, especially when many positions at most levels in Parliament and at BBC itself are occupied by women. Your persistent mentions of "men" in the context of your presumably desired exclusion of "women" is not merely offensive to people of all genders but also a wholly unrealistic stance that could be taken almost to suggest that women - at least for you - either do not exist or have very limited existences; this comes across as a wilful and inexplicable head-in-sand attitude not unakin to that which appears to motivate gerard's posturings about the existence of nations occurring nowhere outside of certain people's imaginations and sets each of you ( e duobus unus?) apart from the remainder of human society other than a vanishingly small number of other people who might equally unrealistically align themselves with such absurd "viewpoints".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2017 8:54:36 GMT -5
Your persistent mentions of "men" in the context of your presumably desired exclusion of "women" is not merely offensive to people of all genders but also a wholly unrealistic stance that could be taken almost to suggest that women - at least for you - either do not exist or have very limited existences; this comes across as a wilful and inexplicable head-in-sand attitude. We do not know where you get these silly ideas from Mr. H. Certainly you have been moving in the wrong circles and not going to church; they are totally absurd. Also I know that for some unexplained reason you pretend not to know things when of course you do. In order to correct you I did not need even to look up the great Oxford English Dictionary; I simply went to Googol, which says very plainly: This has been brought to your attention more than once before; it is very simple English and I use it every day. If you concentrate hard it will perhaps one day sink in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2017 9:24:15 GMT -5
Start again from scratch!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jan 3, 2017 9:34:05 GMT -5
Your persistent mentions of "men" in the context of your presumably desired exclusion of "women" is not merely offensive to people of all genders but also a wholly unrealistic stance that could be taken almost to suggest that women - at least for you - either do not exist or have very limited existences; this comes across as a wilful and inexplicable head-in-sand attitude. We do not know where you get these silly ideas from Mr. H. Which particular ideas? And what makes them "silly" in your mind? Certainly you have been moving in the wrong circles and not going to church; they are totally absurd. Also I know that for some unexplained reason you pretend not to know things when of course you do. I decline to comment upon the circles in which I may move but, no, I very rarely attend church; what, however, has my church attendance or otherwise to do with what's under discussion here? Which kind of "church", anyway? - and why indeed should I attend "church"? (and, at the same time, why not?)... Those things which I indicated in my previous post that I do not know are so indicated there because I do not know them and for no other reason; no "pretence" is therefore involved. In order to correct you I did not need even to look up the great Oxford English Dictionary; I simply went to Googol, which says very plainly: This has been brought to your attention more than once before; it is very simple English and I use it every day. If you concentrate hard it will perhaps one day sink in. No need for any more concentration than I give now - and no need for "correction" either. I assume that, by "Googol", you mean "Google" although, of course, your habit of re-spelling all manner of names when it appears for some unaccountable reason or none to suit you to do so is already wearisomely well-known. Of course "Man", in the sense in which the word is intended to denote "mankind", includes humans of all genders; "men", however, tends as a rule to connote the male gender only (just as "women" does the female one) and your citation under (b) where the plural form of the former is defined arguably does not really help those who may not believe in God in any case. That, however, is not really the point. I refer here not only to your use of "men" in this post but also to your numerous references to "women" - or "ladies" - in previous ones which clarify beyond doubt that you regard females as inferior beings to males and unworthy to hold most of the professional and some of the cultural positions that you appear to regard as the proper province of males only. Are you about to tell me that I have also misunderstood all such past references of yours? For the sake of clarity, if, when you use the term "men", your intended meaning is "people" (i.e. humans of each and every gender), it would be helpful to use the word "people" instead; then there can be no doubt. Anyway - back to the future of BBC Radio 3!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2017 6:36:50 GMT -5
Start again from scratch! Thanks for your suggestion kc. Over luncheon to-day we have been working out how to flesh it out a little and make a start. Let us begin with one of the original schedules from 1946, and recreate it with the addition of video for our modern age: 1) 18.00: CONTEMPORARY FRENCH POETRY from ParisPierre-Emmannuel reads selections from his own works. Introduced in English by Harold Nicolson.It would be a simple matter to find modern equivalents of Pierre Emmanuel (two m's and one n as he is spelled to-day, at least - and perhaps even was in 1946) - as well as Harold Nicolson. Such would we are sure love to come in for a pittance and do the same to-day on camera. 2) 18.15: "SOME EUROPEAN FILMS"Talk by Elizabeth Montagu on some tendencies which she observed in the European cinema during the years 1939-1946.Again it would be a simple matter to find some respectable lady or other willing to come in and talk about recent tendencies in the European cinema - for a pittance. 3) 18.30: Public Concert of CHAMBER MUSICFirst of a new weekly series Griller String Quartet: Sidney Griller (violin), Jack O'Brien (violin), Philip Burton (viola), Colin Hampton (cello) BBC Singers: Margaret Godley , Margaret Rees , Maude Baker , Margaret Rolfe , William Mac Millan, Emlyn Bebb , Stanley Riley , and Leonard Hubbard. Conductor, Leslie Woodgate Part 1Oddly enough we are told nothing about the works performed on that occasion. But to-day there must be any number of performers willing to come along and shew themselves off to the public without any kind of "payment" but purely in order to put their names in the air so to speak. 4) 19.30: BERNARD SHAW-SOCIALIST OR REBEL?Talk by The Very Rev. W. R. Inge, K.C.V.O., D.D. Bernard Shaw's Man and Superman is to be broadcast in its entirety in the Third Programme on Tuesday and Wednesday this week. This evening Dr. Inge talks about Shavian philosophy.Well we could do that just as well to-day, still for a pittance. 5) 20.30: NEW POEMSA programme of poems specially written, or hitherto unpublished, by Walter de la Mare, W. J. Turner, Dylan Thomas, C. Day Lewis, W. R. Rodgers, and Henry Reed. Arranged by Patric Dickinson.Another item that would cost next to nothing to put on to-day in video. 6) 20.50: 'COMUS' A Masqueby John Milton and Henry Lawes. As first presented at Ludlow Castle on Michaelmas Day, 1634 The songs of the Attendant Spirit and the Lady transcribed from the original MSS. of Henry Lawes , and sung by Heddle Nash and Elsie Suddaby. Music composed and arranged by Elizabeth Poston, and played by the London Chamber Orchestra, conducted by Anthony Bernard. Produced by Douglas Cleverdon Elizabeth Poston was the spy lady was she not? She galloped naked across the fens with Peter Warlock. This would be the most expensive item to video during the evening, what with the actors and the orchestra. 7) 21.50: REFLECTIONS ON WORLD AFFAIRSAn address by Field-Marshal the Rt. Hon. J. C. Smuts, C.H., F.R.S., K.C., Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa.To-day we could approach the prime minister of China or Belgium could we not? If approached nicely they would do it for nothing but the prestige. 8)23.05: VINCENT D'INDYSymphonic Variations. Istar Symphony No. 2, in B flat on gramophone records There are plenty of video recordings to-day too. Our present-day régime could certainly afford a stream of videoed evenings such as that, even with the Comus, could it not? And a camera and a couple of rooms would do. Two or three well-disciplined office-boys, and a way of transmitting world-wide. The world will be on our doorstep in no time! It could be done does every one agree!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jan 4, 2017 7:46:44 GMT -5
Start again from scratch! Thanks for your suggestion kc. Over luncheon to-day we have been working out how to flesh it out a little and make a start. Let us begin with one of the original schedules from 1946, and recreate it with the addition of video for our modern age: 1) 18.00: CONTEMPORARY FRENCH POETRY from ParisPierre-Emmannuel reads selections from his own works. Introduced in English by Harold Nicolson.It would be a simple matter to find modern equivalents of Pierre Emmanuel (two m's and one n as he is spelled to-day, at least - and perhaps even was in 1946) - as well as Harold Nicolson. Such would we are sure love to come in for a pittance and do the same to-day on camera. 2) 18.15: "SOME EUROPEAN FILMS"Talk by Elizabeth Montagu on some tendencies which she observed in the European cinema during the years 1939-1946.Again it would be a simple matter to find some respectable lady or other willing to come in and talk about recent tendencies in the European cinema - for a pittance. 3) 18.30: Public Concert of CHAMBER MUSICFirst of a new weekly series Griller String Quartet: Sidney Griller (violin), Jack O'Brien (violin), Philip Burton (viola), Colin Hampton (cello) BBC Singers: Margaret Godley , Margaret Rees , Maude Baker , Margaret Rolfe , William Mac Millan, Emlyn Bebb , Stanley Riley , and Leonard Hubbard. Conductor, Leslie Woodgate Part 1Oddly enough we are told nothing about the works performed on that occasion. But to-day there must be any number of performers willing to come along and shew themselves off to the public without any kind of "payment" but purely in order to put their names in the air so to speak. 4) 19.30: BERNARD SHAW-SOCIALIST OR REBEL?Talk by The Very Rev. W. R. Inge, K.C.V.O., D.D. Bernard Shaw's Man and Superman is to be broadcast in its entirety in the Third Programme on Tuesday and Wednesday this week. This evening Dr. Inge talks about Shavian philosophy.Well we could do that just as well to-day, still for a pittance. 5) 20.30: NEW POEMSA programme of poems specially written, or hitherto unpublished, by Walter de la Mare, W. J. Turner, Dylan Thomas, C. Day Lewis, W. R. Rodgers, and Henry Reed. Arranged by Patric Dickinson.Another item that would cost next to nothing to put on to-day in video. 6) 20.50: 'COMUS' A Masqueby John Milton and Henry Lawes. As first presented at Ludlow Castle on Michaelmas Day, 1634 The songs of the Attendant Spirit and the Lady transcribed from the original MSS. of Henry Lawes , and sung by Heddle Nash and Elsie Suddaby. Music composed and arranged by Elizabeth Poston, and played by the London Chamber Orchestra, conducted by Anthony Bernard. Produced by Douglas Cleverdon Elizabeth Poston was the spy lady was she not? She galloped naked across the fens with Peter Warlock. This would be the most expensive item to video during the evening, what with the actors and the orchestra. 7) 21.50: REFLECTIONS ON WORLD AFFAIRSAn address by Field-Marshal the Rt. Hon. J. C. Smuts, C.H., F.R.S., K.C., Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa.To-day we could approach the prime minister of China or Belgium could we not? If approached nicely they would do it for nothing but the prestige. 8)23.05: VINCENT D'INDYSymphonic Variations. Istar Symphony No. 2, in B flat on gramophone records There are plenty of video recordings to-day too. Our present-day régime could certainly afford a stream of videoed evenings such as that, even with the Comus, could it not? And a camera and a couple of rooms would do. Two or three well-disciplined office-boys, and a way of transmitting world-wide. The world will be on our doorstep in no time! It could be done does every one agree! This is clearly a Third Programme format which is rather different to today's greater concentration on music and its performance. It also occupies just six hours or thereabouts whereas for many years Radio 3 has been a 24/7 broadcaster. I have no idea of the details on what costs what at BBC Radio 3, but do bear in mind that, at least for the time being, BBC supports BBC Concert Orchestra BBC Philharmonic BBC Symphony Orchestra BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra BBC National Orchestra of Wales BBC Big Band BBC Singers BBC Symphony Chorus and puts on more than 70 the Promenade Concerts each summer and those obviously come with their own costs. As a licensee, BBC also maintains a substantial budget to cover royalty payments in respect of the broadcast of all music and literary writings that are in copyright and much (though not all) of this devolves onto Radio 3. As to the "world" - or even the leaders of China or Belgium (why them in particular?) - "being on our doorstep in no time", I imagine neither why they would be so nor that either of them might be persuaded to give a 75 minute long address "just for the prestige" - not to mention whether most Radio 3 listeners would even want to hear such an address instead of more music in the first place. Likewise, why would any musician want or be expected to broadcast live, or have his/her already recorded work broadcast, without payment? - nd why should anyone else be expected to presednt anything on BBC "for a pittance"? In almost all cases they wouldn't, that's for sure! "Well-disciplined office boys"? Who would "discipline" them how and for what? And why no office girls?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2017 11:43:38 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2017 4:12:55 GMT -5
2) 18.15: "SOME EUROPEAN FILMS"Talk by Elizabeth Montagu on some tendencies which she observed in the European cinema during the years 1939-1946.Again it would be a simple matter to find some respectable lady or other willing to come in and talk about recent tendencies in the European cinema - for a pittance. Elizabeth Montagu was not just any Elizabeth Montagu: she was born Elizabeth Susan Douglas-Scott-Montagu, daughter of John Douglas-Scott-Montagu, second Baron Montagu of Beaulieu. Her life extended from 1909 to 2002, most of it in Lesbian mode, although in her twilight years she became the fourth "wife" of Colonel Arthur Noel Claude Varley CBE (mil). Read for yourselves about the variety of her activity, including in St. Gallen a brave sweeping of Hilter's portrait from the interrogation table! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_VarleyWhat a dwarf little Suzy [sic] looks beside a woman of that character!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jan 12, 2017 6:53:26 GMT -5
2) 18.15: "SOME EUROPEAN FILMS"Talk by Elizabeth Montagu on some tendencies which she observed in the European cinema during the years 1939-1946.Again it would be a simple matter to find some respectable lady or other willing to come in and talk about recent tendencies in the European cinema - for a pittance. Elizabeth Montagu was not just any Elizabeth Montagu: she was born Elizabeth Susan Douglas-Scott-Montagu, daughter of John Douglas-Scott-Montagu, second Baron Montagu of Beaulieu. Her life extended from 1909 to 2002, most of it in Lesbian mode, although in her twilight years she became the fourth "wife" of Colonel Arthur Noel Claude Varley CBE (mil). Read for yourselves about the variety of her activity, including in St. Gallen a brave sweeping of Hilter's portrait from the interrogation table! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_VarleyWhat a dwarf little Suzy [sic] looks beside a woman of that character! But what on earth or anywhere else does any of this have to do with the topic, which is the future of BBC Radio 3, not a specific broadcast talk given on its predecessor eons ago and certainly not the person who gave it? By "Hilter" I presume you to mean "Hitler", by the way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2017 11:18:55 GMT -5
If I may address your final point directly, Sydney: " ... What a dwarf little Suzy [sic] looks beside a woman of that character!" Funnily enough, Elizabeth and Suzy show an uncanny resemblance! If I may quote John of Salisbury from his ' Metalogicon' (1159):
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2017 23:49:33 GMT -5
In almost all cases they wouldn't, that's for sure! "For sure" is a thankfully obsolescent idiom introduced to Britain by negro troops in the forties. According to the Cambridge Dictionary of Trans-Atlantic Idioms it signifies "without any doubt". Its use is not recommended to the class-conscious; indeed we doubt it would even be understood among the higher echelons of society. Have you been moving in dubious circles, Mr. H?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2017 0:06:51 GMT -5
If I may quote John of Salisbury from his ' Metalogicon' (1159): Thanks for introducing Bernard and John into our discussion, kc. Bernard in fact said much that could improve the minds of youth. According to Bernard, there are three categories of reality: God, matter, and idea. God is supreme reality. Matter was brought out of nothingness by God's creative act and is the element which, in union with Ideas, constitutes the world of sensible things. Ideas are the prototypes by means of which the world was from all eternity present to the Divine Mind; they constitute the world of Providence ("in qua omnia semel et simul fecit Deus"), and are eternal but not coeternal with God. It is sufficient to note that he reproduced in his metaphysical doctrines many of the characteristic traits of Platonism and Neo-Platonism: the intellect as the habitat of Ideas, the world-soul, eternal matter, matter as the source of imperfection, etc. Bernard argued that matter, although caused by God, existed from all eternity. In the beginning, before its union with the Ideas, it was in a chaotic condition. It was by means of the native forms, which penetrate matter, that distinction, order, regularity, and number were introduced into the universe. Quite seriously, these are the sort of things that ought to be taught in the schools of to-day.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jan 13, 2017 1:38:40 GMT -5
In almost all cases they wouldn't, that's for sure! "For sure" is a thankfully obsolescent idiom introduced to Britain by negro troops in the forties. According to the Cambridge Dictionary of Trans-Atlantic IdiomsI've never encountered such a tome. it signifies "without any doubt". So you have understood its meaning, which is what matters most, methinks. Its use is not recommended to the class-conscious ...which probably accounts at least in part for my us of it... indeed we doubt it would even be understood among the higher echelons of society ...whoever they might be; never mind - as you demonstrate above, at least YOU understand it! Have you been moving in dubious circles, Mr. H? You have drawn attention to the circles in which I might or might not move once before and my answer to your question now is of the order of my previous response; perhaps I not only move in but indeed AM a "dubious circle"; who knows? Again, however, what the company that I might or might not keep has to do even with your digression here, let alone the thread topic, is something of which I have less than no idea.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jan 13, 2017 1:40:30 GMT -5
If I may quote John of Salisbury from his ' Metalogicon' (1159): Thanks for introducing Bernard and John into our discussion, kc. Bernard in fact said much that could improve the minds of youth. According to Bernard, there are three categories of reality: God, matter, and idea. God is supreme reality. Matter was brought out of nothingness by God's creative act and is the element which, in union with Ideas, constitutes the world of sensible things. Ideas are the prototypes by means of which the world was from all eternity present to the Divine Mind; they constitute the world of Providence ("in qua omnia semel et simul fecit Deus"), and are eternal but not coeternal with God. It is sufficient to note that he reproduced in his metaphysical doctrines many of the characteristic traits of Platonism and Neo-Platonism: the intellect as the habitat of Ideas, the world-soul, eternal matter, matter as the source of imperfection, etc. Bernard argued that matter, although caused by God, existed from all eternity. In the beginning, before its union with the Ideas, it was in a chaotic condition. It was by means of the native forms, which penetrate matter, that distinction, order, regularity, and number were introduced into the universe. Quite seriously, these are the sort of things that ought to be taught in the schools of to-day. Some of them might be, but I doubt that they'd cut much ice among the agnostics and atheists therein on either side of the desks. Once again, I must ask what any of this has to do with the future of BBC Radio 3...
|
|