Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2017 10:07:24 GMT -5
I do not know any of Suzy's direct neighbours, but the residential areas of Shepherd's Bush are primarily located to the west of the Green, either side of Uxbridge Road and Goldhawk Road to the southwest, and about as far as Askew Road in the west. Much of the housing in this area consists of three- or four-storey terraces dating from the late nineteenth century, and subsequently divided up into small flats. Wikipedia - Shepherd's BushI suppose that the significance of Suzy to the future or demise of BBC Radio 3 is that as a presenter, she has become the new face of In Tune, and with it, of Radio 3's flagship early evening show. Will there be life after Sean? So Suzy is far more than just Radio 3's office girl! If Suzy cannot help find a new audience for 3, who can? Of course, I realise that her style of presentation may not be to everyone reading The Third's taste, but to be honest, nor is mine!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2017 3:17:58 GMT -5
Plan for Reformation of the Third Programme. A: the Framework1) The reformed Third Programme will be broadcast daily between six o'clock every afternoon and - approximately - two o'clock the following morning. 2) The audience will never be obliged to pay "money". Financing the Third Programme broadcasts must incontrovertibly be wholly and solely the duty of the government of the day. 3) The broadcast will comprise both video and audio, except for announcements, which will be made in audio and accompanied by a kind of subtitles. 4) Announcements will be made before and after every broadcast item, and will be scripted in advance by a reputable qualified person (or persons) other than the announcer. Such announcements will be spoken in audio only, and read in standard English by a middle- or upper-class male. Any video accompanying these announcements will shew only the corresponding written characters, and never the faces of persons. 5) The script will state all, if available, but only, the following: the name of the item, the name of its composer or author, the year when it was written, the names of all those who performed or will perform it, the location where the performance took or will be taking place, and in the case of a musical item, the number of movements and the tempo and keys of each, as well as a formal analysis and an indication of the instrumentation. 6) No item will be broadcast a second time until at least twenty years have elapsed. 7) All broadcasts made over the past twenty years will be available for listeners to hear and download on request, in the same quality as the original broadcast. COMING NEXT:B: the Content(permitted genres and style of items) and C: a Sample Evening Schedule
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2017 3:27:41 GMT -5
that football fellow who staged a coup in the late sixties (I forget his name - starts with a "T") Tusa it was. Some fishy business in the sixties. (And no doubt thereafter.) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tusa
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jan 16, 2017 5:53:29 GMT -5
Plan for Reformation of the Third Programme. A: the FrameworkMuch to challenge ad question here but at least it;s broadly on topic for once! 1) The reformed Third Programme will be broadcast daily between six o'clock every afternoon and - approximately - two o'clock the following morning. So you would seriously advocate slashing its broadcasting slot to a mere one-third of what it is now? Why? What might that risk doing for the future and reputation of Radio 3, especially given that it would isolate it from all the other BBC radio channels that broadcast 24/7? 2) The audience will never be obliged to pay "money". Financing the Third Programme broadcasts must incontrovertibly be wholly and solely the duty of the government of the day. So a non-subscription service funded by the taxpayer, more or less as it is now by means of the license fee; no problem with that, provided that it can be afforded and delivers reasonable value for money (with the accent being more on the value than the money as far as humanly possible). 3)The broadcast will comprise both video and audio, except for announcements, which will be made in audio and accompanied by a kind of subtitles. But Radio 3 is by definition a radio station! Having all of its contents available on video. whilst an interesting idea, as well would mean having a separate television channel to relay it and that would bump up the costs enormously! 4)Announcements will be made before and after every broadcast item, and will be scripted in advance by a reputable qualified person (or persons) other than the announcer. Such announcements will be spoken in audio only, and read in standard English by a middle- or upper-class male. Any video accompanying these announcements will shew only the corresponding written characters, and never the faces of persons. Mon Dieu! In many cases, most if not all of the presentation content is already scripted in advance by programme producers and there's no harm in any of it being scripted by presenters (with the producers' prior approval) provided that they know what they're talking about and stick to the topic! If R3 becomes video as well as audio, what would you sh ow as background to these subtitles? Nothing at all? An otherwise blank screen? Wouldn't that seem suspiciously akin to a deliberate attempt to screen out the presenter while screening everything else? What of the occasions (rare as they admittedly are) when a performer/conductor might make some kind of live announcements; would you blank those out visually as well? In any case, why sh ow performers' faces and not presenters'? Moreover, what would you sh ow on screen when broadcasting recordings as distinct from filmed live performances? What is "standard English" at any given moment in time and who decides on that, especially since, whatever else it might be, it is as moveable a feast as any other language? Is it intended to presume an absence of identifiable regional or national accent? and, if so, what might that mean for listeners from their own regions and countries within UK? (or anywhere else, for that matter, since R3 has an international audience). How might who define in advance "middle-class" and "upper-class" presenters and why and how should such parameters (even were they to exist and have meaning) impact upon the nature of presentation of the same script? Would the respective "classes" of would-be presenters have to be put to some kind of formal written and viva voce tests in advance of their being contracted to present? How would such a thing - even were it possible, let alone desirable - sit with those members of the R3 audience who belong to different classes (if any)? And why male? How would that sit either with R3's female audience or with music composed, conducted, sung or played by females? How absurd would that be? You would surely not advocate R3 broadcasting only music by male composers played, sung or conducted by male musicians, would you? If you would, broadcasts of orchestra repertoire would disappear at a stroke! 5) The script will state all, if available, but only, the following: the name of the item, the name of its composer or author, the year when it was written, the names of all those who performed or will perform it, the location where the performance took or will be taking place, and in the case of a musical item, the number of movements and the tempo and keys of each, as well as a formal analysis and an indication of the instrumentation. To the extent that you implicitly advocate cutting our the ephemeral, the trivial and the irrelevant, fair enough insofar as that might go, but you refer here only to broadcasts of performances or recordings of music whereas in your previous references to the early days of R3's forerunner you mention speech programmes; would you drop these, so have no programmes talking about music? What price formal analyses for all of the listeners when the pieces concerned might be as different from one another as Reich's New York Counterpoint, a Byrd Mass, a Bach Cantata, a Mahler symphony or an opera? As to "the number of movements and the tempo and keys of each", the first of these will mean little in cases when movements are played without a break, the second might require a veritable essay (consider the first movement of Mahler's Fourth Symphony!). 5)[b/]the number of movements and the tempo and keys of each6) No item will be broadcast a second time until at least twenty years have elapsed. Why not? And why 20 years in particular? 7) All broadcasts made over the past twenty years will be available for listeners to hear and download on request, in the same quality as the original broadcast. That would be a nice luxury but just imagine the cost of such service provision in terms of royalties for all the performers and composers concerned! COMING NEXT:B: the Content(permitted genres and style of items) and C: a Sample Evening Schedule Well, while I will await these with curiosity, the use of the word "permitted" does raise a hackle or three; let's see if that does or does not turn out to be necessary! And, in advance, please refrain from regaling the membership with stuff along the lines of no Shostakovich, no Gershwin, all jazz to be replaced by Brahms, &c. Thank you. In the meantime, it might be argued that the worst of all of those questionable suggestions above is that of cutting 16 hours from R3's daily schedule; in reading it, I was reminded of Medtner's protesting retort to his friend Rachmaninoff's letter to him about his (Rachmaninoff's) then recently completed Fourth Piano Concerto (dedicated to Medtner himself) in which Rachmaninoff bemoaned what he considered to be its length and advised that had had made substantial cuts to its original score, namely "is music so terrible a thing that the less of it the better?"... Frankly, I see no need for any fundamental reform of R3. It's not perfect, but dispensing on the one hand with two-thirds of each day's broadcasts and adopting most of the other suggestions above might risk killing the channel off altogether and adding in video to all of the audio content would inevitably proved prohibitively expensive. I see no reason to cut out speech programmes about music (if that's what you'd commend) and, of course, some of these would by nature involve live interviews so could not be "scripted in advance". Disposing of invitations to members of the listening public to send emails, phone calls, tweets, faxes and the rest of the often largely unnecessary and sometimes unedifying audience participatory content (which in any case pervades only a very small amount of R3's broadcasting time) would be most welcome, as would ensuring the relevance of all spoken content.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jan 16, 2017 6:49:56 GMT -5
I do not know any of Suzy's direct neighbours, but the residential areas of Shepherd's Bush are primarily located to the west of the Green, either side of Uxbridge Road and Goldhawk Road to the southwest, and about as far as Askew Road in the west. Much of the housing in this area consists of three- or four-storey terraces dating from the late nineteenth century, and subsequently divided up into small flats. Wikipedia - Shepherd's BushI suppose that the significance of Suzy to the future or demise of BBC Radio 3 is that as a presenter, she has become the new face of In Tune, and with it, of Radio 3's flagship early evening show. Will there be life after Sean? So Suzy is far more than just Radio 3's office girl! If Suzy cannot help find a new audience for 3, who can? Of course, I realise that her style of presentation may not be to everyone reading The Third's taste, but to be honest, nor is mine! The early evening drive-time show is only one of R3's variety of programmes and occupies well less than 10% of the channel's broadcasting time on the five days of the week on which it is relayed; it's also hardly an R3 "flagship", even if it but rarely quite descends into a vessel of the sinking variety. The rôle of kleines Suzy in the overall future of R3, whilst clearly far more than that of mere "office girl", is therefore not obviously of immense significance. I know none of SK's neighbours either and, even if I did, such knowledge would not and could not impact on my thoughts about the future of Radio 3! I don't know Suzy herself either but, again, even if I did, why should I be concerned with where she chooses to live, since that is none of my business? What has such a consideration to do with the future of Radio 3 in any case?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2017 8:22:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jan 16, 2017 10:17:18 GMT -5
Indeed - and this goes some way to attempting to provide a realistic definition of it yet without closing its mind or terms of reference to the fact that, like all other languages, English, "standard" or otherwise, is in a perpetual state of flux - more so, indeed, than most other modern languages given that it has a substantially larger vocabulary. That said, despite my having put a number of serious bona fide points to you in the response in which I had included this question, you have so far seen fit to reply only to that one; I'm reasonably confident that I would not be alone in appreciating your attention to the others, to which I accordingly look forward and, in the meantime, I have to admit that I do find such selectivity of response as you have so far provided to be at best disappointing, not least in your implication that "standard English" in the context in which you referred to it covers not only vocabulary but also pronunciation, including regional and national variations within (and perhaps also outside) UK. For an example of how the attitude to the latter has thankfully changed, my compatriot Susan Rae was actually sacked years ago by BBC following complaints about her east coast Scottish accent (albeit on Radio 4, not Radio 3) - complaints that would mercifully never be raised today, especially since a handful of them added to the chagrin expressed therein that she is also a woman - yet her speaking voice is as clear as a bell and her every word enunciated splendidly so that there can be no doubt about what she is saying, as there most certainly was decades ago when all too much BBC speech was characterised by so many bizarrely strangulated vowels that it was sometimes hard to tell with certainty what was being said; I hope that you would not advocate a return to that peculiarly strained a manner of speech which would enunciate "accent" as "ex'nt" and "reliable" as "relahble" as well as substituting phrases such as "going down the town wearing one's brown trousers" with "gaying dine the Tyne wahring one's brine trysers"!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2017 15:40:39 GMT -5
BBC Radio 3 - In Tune - Sean RaffertySean clearly regards In Tune as Radio 3's flagship early evening music programme, ahinton, even if you do not! As for Sydney's suggestions, I don't think that anyone would listen, not even Sydney, although BBC Four (television), which only broadcasts in the evening, does provide a model of what might be possible! BBC FourMy own solution is that different types of organisation will broadcast what BBC Radio 3 aspires to broadcast online in the future.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2017 6:11:43 GMT -5
B: High-class content suitable for a high-class audience of the reformed Third Programme:
Readings of worthwhile poetry.
Conversations between about four well qualified men about the work and discoveries of some philosopher.
A performance of some tragedy or comedy, written at any time from the ancient Greek to our own.
Practical discussions of little problems of the day, such as how to remove and replace "demo"-cracy, nations, or "money".
Interviews with prominent men, such as the Duke of Edinburgh, Alistair Hinton the musical composer or Mr. Casey the decorated banker.
Discussions of literary works such as novels new and old.
Rarely seen sculpture and painting, and discussion thereof.
Live relays of orchestral concerts, given in some European capital and playing works never before broadcast.
Songs for the male voice by a composer of whom we have never before heard.
Chamber music ditto; there is much that has not only never before been broadcast, but has never before even been played!
We are left then with the question of whether items of this nature would be received with enthusiasm by a high-class intelligent audience? Certainly people of this calibre will have several other interests and undertakings, and a daily period of eight hours containing programmes of the type set out above will be amply sufficient to provide whatever diversion and instruction they seek.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jan 17, 2017 7:23:42 GMT -5
High-class content suitable for a high-class audience of the reformed Third Programme: It's this "class" thing again! Undefined, as usual... Readings of worthwhile poetry. But who decides what is "worthwhile"? Conversations between about four well qualified men about the work and discoveries of some philosopher. Why only men? A performance of some tragedy or comedy, written at any time from the ancient Greek to our own. OK. Practical discussions of little problems of the day, such as how to remove and replace "demo"-cracy, nations, or "money". Not only would none of these be "little" issues - very much the reverse, indeed - but you would also in any case have first have to find people who regard any of these as "problems" in the first place and be prepared to discuss them on a state owned broadcast channel; since you have insisted that BBC be funded wholly by the taxpayer via the government of the day, it must surely be the case that this very government would itself have to be removed as it is a democratic one that collects money in taxes for all manner of projects including the funding of Radio 3! Contradiction in terms and non-sequitur all in one! Well done! Interviews with prominent men, such as the Duke of Edinburgh, Alistair Hinton the musical composer or Mr. Casey the decorated banker. The Duke of Edinburgh is in his 96th year already and rarely if ever gives interviews to anyone and would hardly be expected to start now. It's kind of you to mention me but I really would not wish to be, nor could I see any obvious point in being, interviewed on a channel that would include some of the things that you recommend - I'd feel quite out of place, especially as I do not belong to the kind of "class" that you advocate as essential for the running and much of the content of Radio 3. Who is this Mr Casey? Anton Casey, the disgraced ex-banker? Or someone else? Anyway, once again, why only men? Discussions of literary works such as novels new and old. OK. Rarely seen sculpture and painting, and discussion thereof. Again, OK. Live relays of orchestral concerts, given in some European capital and playing works never before broadcast.[/quote Fine, although I don't see why this should be confined to European capitals. Songs for the male voice by a composer of whom we have never before heard. Why only male voice? Chamber music ditto; there is much that has not even never before been broadcast, but has never before been played! Fine. We are left then with the question of whether items of this nature would be received with enthusiasm by a high-class intelligent audience? Certainly people of this calibre will have several other interests and undertakings, and a daily period of eight hours containing programmes of the type set out above will be amply sufficient to provide whatever diversion and instruction they seek. I don't agree. You have not specified by you would advocate cutting out two-thirds of Radio 3's broadcast time, despite having been asked more than once, just as you have been asked other questions that so far remain unanswered. Will you please answer them? Thank you in advance. I also believe that a mere 8 hours per day taken up with what you advocate here would mean that the proportion as well as the quantity of music broadcast on Radio 3 would be vastly less than it is now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2017 9:54:32 GMT -5
Are you high-class, Sydney?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jan 17, 2017 10:46:24 GMT -5
Are you high-class, Sydney? I seem to recall that you have asked him that question previously but received no response, just as I have done to those questions which I asked him...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2017 12:21:40 GMT -5
Why should Sydney reply?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jan 17, 2017 15:06:09 GMT -5
No reason at all except that he has been politely asked to do so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2017 19:24:06 GMT -5
I don't agree. You have not specified by [ ] you would advocate cutting out two-thirds of Radio 3's broadcast time, despite having been asked more than once, just as you have been asked other questions that so far remain unanswered. Will you please answer them? Thank you in advance. I also believe that a mere 8 hours per day taken up with what you advocate here would mean that the proportion as well as the quantity of music broadcast on Radio 3 would be vastly less than it is now. Member H has a curious method of debate. First he copies the answer to it, and then, demanding an answer, he asks the question the answer to which he has just copied. In this particular case my answer was: Perhaps I should recast it: Eight hours daily will be ENOUGH for such people; being who they are they are sure to have things to do other than listening to the wireless. Try to wrap your mind around the word "ENOUGH" Mr. H!
|
|