Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2017 10:15:54 GMT -5
If I may address both your final points directly, ahinton: "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... " Well, in a metaphorical sense, the problem with Radio 3 could be that we are like dwarfs on the shoulders of giants. Little Suzy, for example, could be standing on Elizabeth's shoulders. Twenty-first century classical composers and artists in general could likewise be standing on the shoulders of the giants of the classical tradition. So the future of BBC Radio 3 depends upon new giants, otherwise why should anyone listen? As for Bernard of Chartres, I should perhaps confess that I did not formally study any philosophy. I did do Religious Studies (RS), but to be honest, there were only two people in my class who took the subject seriously. I did, however, visit the Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Chartres and Salisbury Cathedral with my family, but I still don't really know much about Bernard or John! It might make a good programme? Unless BBC Radio 3 seriously addresses the great debates of our day, its demise remains on the cards! Why, for example, did I have to learn that Karl Marx was the greatest philosopher listening to Radio 4? BBC Radio 4 - In Our Time - Greatest PhilosopherI was not even aware that Karl Marx listened to Radio 4, Sydney!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jan 13, 2017 10:44:46 GMT -5
If I may address both your final points directly, ahinton: "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... " Well, in a metaphorical sense, the problem with Radio 3 could be that we are like dwarfs on the shoulders of giants. Little Suzy, for example, could be standing on Elizabeth's shoulders. Twenty-first century classical composers and artists in general could likewise be standing on the shoulders of the giants of the classical tradition. So the future of BBC Radio 3 depends upon new giants, otherwise why should anyone listen? I don't agree. Radio 3 can be no different to any other radio channel in this regard and, if there are - or are considered to be - no contemporary "giants", then all radio channels might as well pack their bags and fold up. The "giants", whoever they are and such as they might be, would be present (or absent) whether or not BBC Radio 3 was in existence; furthermore, not only would I have trouble imagining that even "little Suzy" would believe that she has reason to consider herself to be a dwarf standing on a giant's shoulders (which giant, anyway?), the future of Radio 3 is also not dependent principally upon its presenters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2017 12:17:51 GMT -5
Elizabeth is the giant, ahinton!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jan 14, 2017 4:24:24 GMT -5
Elizabeth is the giant, ahinton! Be that as it may or may not, I ask once again of what possible relevance she can be to the future of BBC Radio 3 which I had thought to be the thread topic?...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2017 7:19:24 GMT -5
the future of BBC Radio 3 The problem, as we have been saying for years, is that low-class people have somehow found themselves in the position of running a high-class enterprise. They present us with regular doses of Shockingcowitch, Gherkswin, "jazz", and all the rest of the muck recommended to them by their equally ignorant low-class colleagues. They have not the least idea of what they are expected to do and what high-class people want. Until the Third Programme is restarted along the same lines as in 1946 there is no hope and no future I fear. It was around 1965 that the low-class lot began to take over the B.B.C. and the rot has been gradually continuing ever since then. Who will have the courage to sack the lot of them? Perhaps I shall write a drama about that football fellow who staged a coup in the late sixties (I forget his name - starts with a "T") and ask them to broadcast it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2017 9:33:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jan 14, 2017 11:18:03 GMT -5
the future of BBC Radio 3 The problem, as we have been saying for years, is that low-class people have somehow found themselves in the position of running a high-class enterprise. What and who are "low class people and, more importantly, who decides this. They present us with regular doses of Shockingcowitch, Gherkswin, "jazz", and all the rest of the muck recommended to them by their equally ignorant low-class colleagues. There's really no need to mis-spell Shostakovich or Gershwin, of whom the first has probably reached more hearts and minds across more of the globe than most Western composers active throughout the middle two quarters of the last century and the latter was deeply admired and respected by no less a figure than Arnold Schönberg (and who, incidentally sat next to the young Elliott Carter at the US première of Wozzeck and was most enthusiastic about it). Jazz was the medium through which artists of the calibre of Art Tatum (much admired by Rachmaninov and Horowitz), Miles Davis and Oscar Peterson, to name but three from many years ago. Who do you suppose "recommends" what gets broadcast of Radio 3 in any case? have not the least idea of what they are expected to do and what high-class people want. I don't know who "high-class people" are (except that I'm not one of them) but I had thought that BBC is not funded by the taxpayer for the sole benefit of a handful of unidentified people only; moreover, who decides and clarifies what even those people might want? What likelihood would there be in any case that even these people would all want broadly the same things? Until the Third Programme is restarted along the same lines as in 1946 there is no hope and no future I fear. So you would advocate it being reduced to a quarter of its current size in terms of broadcast hours per day with a higher proportion of speech programmes than as at present? And that would represent an improvement, would it?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jan 14, 2017 11:22:10 GMT -5
It's more than that; Suzy is alive whereas Elizabeth is dead - and the family background of the former (which has not been mentioned) and the latter (which has) can in any case be of no possible consequence in the present discussion, such as it is. I'm trying (not) to imagine what would happen were I to be invited by Sydney's Radio 3 to give a talk about the piano music of Leopold Godowsky and being vetted for family background and "class" before any contract for such a service could be issued to me!...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2017 12:01:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jan 14, 2017 12:11:01 GMT -5
This is absolutely ridiculous, ahinton! What is so in particular, in your view? (not that I'm suggesting that there's been any shortage of ridiculosities in this thread!)... Is it just that Suzy is not really your cup of tea, Sydney? I cannot answer that, of course but, although she also isn't exactly mine (especially given that she claims to like to have "Radio 3 on in the background"), one presenter doth not an entire BBC radio channel make! I do have issues with R3 as at least some of its wares are currently presented, but the kind of "ideas" up with which Sydney comes seem to be most notable for their disregard of realities of many kinds, not least the facts that R3 is - and is indeed supposed to be - available to all who want to listen to it and that dredging up highly selective and by no means pertinent examples from the early days of its forerunner (which would be all but unrecognisable to R3's listening public) does nothing to address the future of R3.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2017 13:04:04 GMT -5
What is ridiculous is that I (you or anybody else) should be vetted if we are not high-class, ahinton. In what sense are you high-class, Sydney?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jan 14, 2017 14:34:29 GMT -5
What is ridiculous is that I (you or anybody else) should be vetted if we are not high-class, ahinton. Well, that's certainly true and, in any case, who should do the vetting and who should confer upon such people the responsibility for so doing? AS I stated, I'm certainly not "high-class"; indeed, I've only ever had one-to-one composition teaching and have never attended a composition class. Not for the first time, I have neither any idea what Sydney's referring to nor what it's supposed to mean, still less what any of it has to do with the topic. Perhaps Sydney would forbid R3 broadcasts of Schönberg and Carter because of their friendships with and admiration for Gershwin, or Britten and others because of their ditto for Shostakovich; if so - and given all his other remarks on what might "make Radio Three great again" ( pace the uniquely delightful "unprecedented"ly-elect[ed] Donald Duck) - I think that the channel's listeners might be forgiven for heaving a collective sigh of relief that he is not in charge of its future.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2017 14:53:01 GMT -5
Could you therefore define what you mean by high-class, Sydney? Free Dictionary - high-classSuzy graduated with first-class honours in Music in 1996 from the University of Oxford. Is this sufficient?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2017 23:21:37 GMT -5
We profoundly pity her unfortunate neighbours. Remember them in your prayers, dear members!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jan 15, 2017 3:45:13 GMT -5
We profoundly pity her unfortunate neighbours. Remember them in your prayers, dear members! Topic, anyone? - which, as best I can recall, is something about the future of Radio 3 and certainly not about Suzy Klein, or her neighbours (whoever they might be - does anyone here know?) or praying, on none of which I feel inKleined to read further in this thread...
|
|