Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2015 7:15:44 GMT -5
BBC Radio 3 wants to reinvent the Third Programme for the digital age. Congratulations to all!
|
|
|
Post by Gerard on Jun 22, 2015 3:24:53 GMT -5
What is it kleines c?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2015 11:27:57 GMT -5
The Third, Gerard! Classical Music - Third person | Alan DaveyI suspect that reinventing the Third is going to be rather more difficult than Alan Davey imagines. Of course, we could all go and see the newly reissued Third Man on Friday instead. BFI - The Third ManFT - On location: ‘The Third Man’To be honest, I don't think that there is much to link the Third Programme with the Third Man, but this very forum is an attempt to reinvent the Third for the digital age. So what is it, Gerard? Well, in a sense, it is a form of social media, although I note that Alan Davey is already running into trouble. BBC Radio 3 - Blogs - Expanding the audience for classical music is a matter to take seriouslyThe Third will have no fixed points. It will devote to the great works the time they require. It will seek to do something that is culturally satisfying and significant. BBC Radio 3 - The Third Programme - IntroductionOf course, it is highly subjective what is culturally satisfying and significant, particularly in the digital age. If you argue that cinema emerged as the greatest art form of the twentieth century, for example, you could predict that digital technologies will enable yet greater art forms in the twenty-first century. Of course, this very forum is a direct application of digital technologies. This is the (new) Third, Gerard?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2017 0:48:40 GMT -5
The next step for the Third Programme:
Uncle Henry and I have been discussing whether and how we ourselves will be able to take it yet. There are a number of obvious problems:
1) announcements. Not having had voice training I am unwilling to make them myself, either in video or audio. So I suppose we could vary the requirement and have them displayed as text on the screen. But those in the audience who for whatever reason are not using the video aspect will have to be catered for somehow.
2) finding material. It would be possible - in fact simple - to find eight hours of new audio of musical performances daily. But not eight hours of video. Perhaps one hour, but that would be mostly opera, choirs and orchestral concerts. There would almost certainly not be enough new chamber music of the required type or quality. And spoken items would be surrounded with even more difficulty.
3) transmission on the other hand, both audio and video, could probably be managed.
4) making ourselves known to an audience. This I suppose is in miniature the difficulty encountered by the present Third Programme. The solution will take a long time and will very much depend upon the quality of our service. The continued playing of rare items is one obvious point, as is the accumulation of a very large library of items that have already been broadcast. Also some gaps can be filled with books and rare cinematographic work, of which we have much that would be suitable.
I suppose the best way will be to start with just one hour of video daily, but with less emphasis on novel video features than we had before, and more emphasis on simply retaining the continuity of service. Then a review after six months or a year.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jan 24, 2017 6:40:53 GMT -5
The next step for the Third Programme: Uncle Henry and I have been discussing whether and how we ourselves will be able to take it yet. Well, that at least must have been very easy to do! There are a number of obvious problems Indeed there would be - and by no means limited to those that you outline below! 1) announcements. Not having had voice training I am unwilling to make them myself, either in video or audio. So I suppose we could vary the requirement and have them displayed as text on the screen. But those in the audience who for whatever reason are not using the video aspect will have to be catered for somehow. Those who listen when in the car, for example (whether driving it or not) will not likely be looking at the video of the broadcast - at least one seriously hopes not in the case of drivers! - but that's hardly the point; what makes you assume that you / "Uncle Henry" would be involved in any case, still less to be in a position to "take it"? 2) finding material. It would be possible - in fact simple - to find eight hours of new audio of musical performances daily. But not eight hours of video. Perhaps one hour, but that would be mostly opera, choirs and orchestral concerts. There would almost certainly not be enough new chamber music of the required type or quality. And spoken items would be surrounded with even more difficulty. 3) transmission on the other hand, both audio and video, could probably be managed. 4) making ourselves known to an audience. This I suppose is in miniature the difficulty encountered by the present Third Programme. The solution will take a long time and will very much depend upon the quality of our service. The continued playing of rare items is one obvious point, as is the accumulation of a very large library of items that have already been broadcast. Also some gaps can be filled with books and rare cinematographic work, of which we have much that would be suitable. I suppose the best way will be to start with just one hour of video daily, but with less emphasis on novel video features than we had before, and more emphasis on simply retaining the continuity of service. Then a review after six months or a year. As I've pointed out previously, the video idea would be cumbersome and expensive. You seem grossly to underestimate the sheer amount of material that is already or could easily be made available for audio broadcast, even in terms of live events although, of course, there's hardly a shortage of recordings. There is already "a very large library of items that have already been broadcast". The "continuity of service" that you mention would count for little if each day were to include 16 hours or so of broadcast silence! Where would be the "continuity" in that?! There is no "present Third Programme"; the channel concerned is Radio 3, as well you and Mr Davey both know and it has been thus for almost half a century; it remains unclear as to what Mr Davey means by "reinventing the Third Programme" although, mercifully, he appears to have made no suggestion that the present channel's broadcasting output should be curtailed to a mere 8 hours daily.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2017 12:29:12 GMT -5
Perhaps you could get Uncle Henry to present, Sydney?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jan 24, 2017 12:55:39 GMT -5
Perhaps you could get Uncle Henry to present, Sydney? How could he possibly do that when he doesn't run the channel and is hardly likely to be invited to, especially if it would never broadcast any live performances or recordings of women singing!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2017 13:25:22 GMT -5
Can you present, ahinton?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jan 24, 2017 13:35:03 GMT -5
Can you present, ahinton? 1. No. 2. I would not in any case be invited to do so by those in charge at BBC Radio 3. 3. I would accordingly feel the need politely to decline in the improbable event that I were to be offered such a position.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2017 13:43:50 GMT -5
When I watch presenters at live broadcasts of BBC Radio 3, I tend to be very impressed. What is wrong with them, Sydney?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jan 24, 2017 15:00:57 GMT -5
When I watch presenters at live broadcasts of BBC Radio 3, I tend to be very impressed. What is wrong with them, Sydney? I'm not Sydney, of course (although there are some who might be) but, although I do not wish to (and can in any case not) speak for him (or "them", given all this "we" stuff from him), the one thing that in my own humble opinion can at times be wrong with them, whether or not at live broadcasts (R3 presenters, that is - not Sydneyan alter egos!), is a surfeit of froth, of gush, of inconsequentialities and the like - not all the time or from all of the presenters by any means but it's still an issue as far as I am concerned and one with which, unusually, Sydney might actually agree, although his "other extreme" alternative would likely risk making R3 look unrealistically and unnecessarily po-faced (or at least sound po-voiced), methinks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2017 12:36:54 GMT -5
This is a subject on which we are all going to disagree. For the record, I really like Sean's froth, gush, inconsequentialities and the like. They make me laugh, ahinton! Listen liveAs for Sydney, I agree with Lord Clark of 'Civilisation' that it is absolutely essential to civilisation that the male and female principles be kept in balance. If I may quote him directly:
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jan 25, 2017 13:00:00 GMT -5
This is a subject on which we are all going to disagree. For the record, I really like Sean's froth, gush, inconsequentialities and the like. They make me laugh, ahinton! Well, I don't like those things and they make me do something else which discretion and politeness discourage me from identifying. As for Sydney, I agree with Lord Clark of 'Civilisation' that it is absolutely essential to civilisation that the male and female principles be kept in balance. If I may quote him directly: That's all very well - and very interesting, too - but small social gatherings in French salons in 18th and 19th century France are light years distant from our internet age and from a contemporary national/international broadcasting channel such as BBC Radio 3 in whatever form it might take; that said, if your point is to illustrate that women have valuable places as BBC executives, producers, presenters and the rest (just as they do as participants in each and every branch of the music profession) then yes, I am of course wholeheartedly in agreement with you. I think that, whilst it may indeed be impossible to reach 100% agreement about the future of Radio 3 and the extent to which the channel might benefit from "reinvention", it has to be said that (a) cutting its broadcasting time by two-thirds, (b) eschewing all presentation by females as well as all music sung (and possibly also composed, conducted and played) by females as Sydney would appear to advocate and (c) decreasing the proportion of music broadcast there would all be profoundly deleterious to that future and, were all three to pertain in horrifyingly unwelcome combination, I'd give the channel a maximum of about a week before it digs itself in 1.8288m under, never to be seen or heard again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2017 9:33:31 GMT -5
Alas, Sydney, I would not even give your channel a nanosecond! Perhaps you could broadcast something on ABC instead, particularly on Australia Day? Out of interest, what do you make of ABC Classic FM? I commend Madama Butterfly to everyone reading ' The Third'! BBC Radio 3As for ahinton, I am sure that you are quite capable of finding your own entertainment!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jan 26, 2017 14:56:26 GMT -5
Alas, Sydney, I would not even give your channel a nanosecond! Perhaps you could broadcast something on ABC instead, particularly on Australia Day? Out of interest, what do you make of ABC Classic FM? I commend Madama Butterfly to everyone reading ' The Third'! BBC Radio 3As for ahinton, I am sure that you are quite capable of finding your own entertainment! BBC Radio 3, with all its shortcomings in terms of presentation at times, would do, thank you - and without the need to "reinvent" it wholesale, still less restructure it in Grewish manner... And, for what it may or may not be worth, I would not even give Sydney's channel as proposed a nanosecond either and am accordingly thankful that there would be no possible chance of its materialistaion.
|
|