Full Member
I don't wish to further derail the discussion but I've just listened to Classical Collection (something I very rarely do).
It is a truly dreadful programme. Pure easy listening. Background music. No grit at all.
It doesn't even have the excuse of being in the 'Breakfast' slot.
From my limited sampling of the programme, I think it is probably the worst thing on Radio 3.
Rant over.
Sorry for the interruption. Please continue.
Full Member
The content of Classical Collection is undoubtedly becoming more populist, for want of a better word. Which is a pity, because for me part of the progrmme's attraction was always that it gave me the chance to discover pieces I hadn't previously heard, or even heard of, some of them by composers I'd never heard of. What did I learn from today's programme? That the 1812 Overture is quite a good piece if well performed. I await further such gems with a not inconsiderable degree of trepidation.
Full Member
ff
As smittm was famously said to have said ‘you can’t herd cats’. Threads do go off and in a way that is one of the funs of these boards. I also agree with you that it is best to keep the forum as simple as possible.
One possible way to keep discussions from fading away is to have someone to consolidate the (content of the) thread before it goes too far off the topic and start as a new thread. Or if, along the way of any thread, a point that is worth a discussion has emerged, someone can shout, ‘shall we start a thread on this topic?’ In this way, people can carry on posting something light but at the same time, we have a more focused thread to develop the discussion. I haven’t thought about who and how and all the other practicalities but this might be one way. In this way, there is no need to have any extra fixed boards which could get out of hand.
However we do it, I think we should make it clear that discussion threads are for discussions, and people shouldn’t get upset if they are told to rant and whinge on some other threads. I suppose you could create a symbol or something to show on the thread title that this is for discussion.
Yes, I know. How do you define discussion….? Ah well. Just a thought.
Administrator
What is needed is for someone who is well-versed in the psychology of messageboards to come up with a set of rules that all the messageboarders will love ... And on that note ...
Full Member
>>>and if the BBC and its R3 presenters have any sense they will not only sneak in and view, but even assume names and participate ....
DracoM,
They're here, amongst us, right now
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_jf65hTKNQW.../invasion6.jpg
Host
I's love to put a R3 presenter name to that pic, ........but maybe not.
People pestered him about anything and everything--he was beset upon by everyone from lickspittling toadies to deathly-dull anoraks to batty old kooks telling him how to run the festival: he heard them all. Furthermore, he didn't seem to mind a bit, and actually went out of his way to greet people, listening to them natter on longer than anyone in his right mind could possibly be expected to. All told, I'd say he had an astonishingly high tolerance level for putting up with other people's BS. Impressive, really. Whatever he might think about them, you can't fault him at all for what he did. As I said, everyone had ample opportunity to have their say.one wonders what the nature of those conversations were
Because, like it or not, you can't run a radio station on feelings.and if they were indeed critical about the role of R3 why would it appear that he has taken no note of the feelings of the core R3 audience?
By the way, where are you getting the idea that he's some kind of arrogant monster to work for? Somehow, I don't think you're being quite fair. Here's something that might change your impression of him a little:
DOUBT AND LEADERSHIP by ROGER WRIGHT
http://www.thewayaheadgroup.com/asse...ger_wright.pdf
"In this piece, Roger Wright, Controller BBC Radio 3 and director BBC Proms explores
the ideas of doubt in leadership and how our seemingly binary world cannot cope with
ambiguity, complexity and empowerment of others. His honest and authentic piece
acts as a companion to the previous article on Faith and Leadership by Sir Nick
Young.
Roger speaks of the way in which pressure from task and time can impact our ability
to be reflective and mindful. His thoughts capture so beautifully the thinking we are
engaged in around what makes for a Mindful leader. One who is intelligent with all the
intelligences (cognition, emotion, spiritual and physical), present, mindful,
compassionate, value-driven, sustainable, compassionate and focused."
Full Member
Eudaimonia
It is the quality of Radio3’s programmes and not Roger Wright’s personality or leadership quality he may have that matters to us. As regular listeners of the station, we know that what he is doing is not satisfactory. Whatever he says or do anywhere else does not change the fact that the quality of Radio3 has deteriorated alarmingly.
As for the introduction to the article (written by RW himself), it is written by the editor who is unlikely to say anything negative about his guest contributor. The fact that Roger Wright is seen to be a valuable personality by an organisation of this nature (i.e. market orientated) almost proves that he is the wrong person for Radio3.
Well then perhaps you should encourage your fellow posters to quit casting aspersions on his personality and leadership qualities and focus on what really matters.It is the quality of Radio3’s programmes and not Roger Wright’s personality or leadership quality he may have that matters to us.
I already said I think each of Suffolkcoastal's points would make excellent topics for individual threads; if you and others are interested in debating them without resorting to nasty ad-hominem attacks and pointless whinging, I'm certainly game. Let's help the board get off to a good start!
Originally Posted by Eudaimonia
:doh:
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote