BBC Young Musician on Four

[Richard Tarleton]

Today, Lat, you would be able to see Barenboim, Anne-Sophie Mutter, Howard Goodall with Evelyn Glennie, a programme about the National Trust, Joan Bakewell, the Sixteen, lots more on Shakespeare, a new production of Henry lV part 1....

Hole
Digging
Stop

[Panjandrum]

Does being a lateral thinker mean you are more or less likely to come out with complete crap?

[Mr Pee]

Today, Lat, you would be able to see Barenboim, Anne-Sophie Mutter, Howard Goodall with Evelyn Glennie, a programme about the National Trust, Joan Bakewell, the Sixteen, lots more on Shakespeare, a new production of Henry lV part 1....

Hole
Digging
Stop

And don't miss "Tchaikovsky on the road", a documentary film that follows the Kirov orchestra on their recent European tour. It's fascinating, and includes a lot of footage of Gergiev in rehearsal.

[MrGongGong]

Do you get a biscuit or a discount for all of this eulogising MrP ?

[Lateralthinking1]

Today, Lat, you would be able to see Barenboim, Anne-Sophie Mutter, Howard Goodall with Evelyn Glennie, a programme about the National Trust, Joan Bakewell, the Sixteen, lots more on Shakespeare, a new production of Henry lV part 1....

Hole
Digging
Stop

Thanks. I admit that the list is impressive. Perhaps I shouldn't ask whether that National Trust programme and the Howard Goodall one were bought from the BBC. The fact is that I wouldn't be able to see it because I am unwaged and not on any benefits.

You mention Joan Bakewell, another lefty, who would know that many of her favourite constituency, the elderly, would also have difficulties in paying for it. She and the others I have mentioned - is it 14 or 15 of them so far? - should be looking at their own contradictions. Their selfishness really takes the mick.

I stick to what I said about the majority of Sky output being, in my view, without merit. But in the case of what many would call quality broadcasting the situation now looks even worse. This tiny corner of Sky is the private medical company or the private school of television. This means that it is arguably bleeding the BBC dry while providing for the wealthy. Furthermore, whatever its artistic achievements, its standards will not be as high as the BBC standards were in the absence of Sky in several key respects.

First, not being open to everyone, it plays to all the buttons pressed by arts viewers in its marketing surveys. While this might seem preferable to dumbing down to cater for a wider public, it is inferior to a system which holds to a standard and persuades others through content to take an interest. In other words, it is safe, just as dumbing down is safe. ITV wasn't safe in the 1960s, nor the BBC. There was no call for a "Cathy Come Home" but it was done anyway. Ditto the Radio Ballads that were on BBC radio. That is what I mean by innovation. It is fearless. I humbly suggest that fearless - even with disasters - is precisely what we need.

You won't get an Alice Nutter play on Sky Arts. Not only does it need to please its audience but it needs to please the advertisers. Those have far more importance than they should do and was ever the case in the early days of commercial television. Plus there is the issue of the political involvement of those who run it whereas the BBC is neutral; the problem of a lack of any accountability to all; and the fact that it might not stick around. In short, I would suggest that it is too easy to be taken in by it.

I am now seeing this clearly. It is another area where the wealthy left are selling out and potentially leaving other people with nothing. They are every bit as big a menace as rabid right-wing conservative types and have shown that vividly ever since 1997.

[Mr Pee]

Thanks. I admit that the list is impressive. Perhaps I shouldn't ask whether that National Trust programme and the Howard Goodall one were bought from the BBC. The fact is that I wouldn't be able to see it because I am unwaged and not on any benefits.

You mention Joan Bakewell, another lefty, who would know that many of her favourite constituency, the elderly, would also have difficulties in paying for it. She and the others I have mentioned - is it 14 or 15 of them so far? - should be looking at their own contradictions. Their selfishness really takes the mick.

I stick to what I said about the majority of Sky output being, in my view, without merit. But in the case of what many would call quality broadcasting the situation now looks even worse. This tiny corner of Sky is the private medical company or the private school of television. This means that it is arguably bleeding the BBC dry while providing for the wealthy. Furthermore, whatever its artistic achievements, its standards will not be as high as the BBC standards were in the absence of Sky in several key respects.

First, not being open to everyone, it plays to all the buttons pressed by arts viewers in its marketing surveys. While this might seem preferable to dumbing down to cater for a wider public, it is inferior to a system which holds to a standard and persuades others through content to take an interest. In other words, it is safe, just as dumbing down is safe. ITV wasn't safe in the 1960s, nor the BBC. There was no call for a "Cathy Come Home" but it was done anyway. Ditto the Radio Ballads that were on BBC radio. That is what I mean by innovation. It is fearless. I humbly suggest that fearless - even with disasters - is precisely what we need.

You won't get an Alice Nutter play on Sky Arts. Not only does it need to please its audience but it needs to please the advertisers. Those have far more importance than they should do and was ever the case in the early days of commercial television. Plus there is the issue of the political involvement of those who run it whereas the BBC is neutral; the problem of a lack of any accountability to all; and the fact that it might not stick around. In short, I would suggest that it is too easy to be taken in by it.

I am now seeing this clearly. It is another area where the wealthy left are selling out and potentially leaving other people with nothing. They are every bit as big a menace as rabid right-wing conservative types and have shown that vividly ever since 1997.

So Sky has to play safe to please its advertisers. Really? Since you don't watch the station, I really don't know how you can be so sure. There was nothing "safe"about the first episode of their new drama series, Playhouse Presents, that aired last week. The BBC's output nowadays, on the other hand, is as safe and bland as it has ever been. They certainly wouldn't show most of the HBO imports that Sky co-produces- far too much sex, strong language and violence for poor old Auntie. And if the Beeb's approach to classical music isn't playing it safe, I don't know what is. As for your comment about them being neutral, you have got to be joking. Just look at the BBC's fawning coverage of anything to do with the Royal Family, for example. The BBC is dependent on the Government, who decide on the level of the licence fee. Sky is not; I would argue that makes them more neutral, not less.

By the way, the Howard Goodall series is entirely produced by Sky. It represents precisely the kind of serious approach to classical music broadcasting that is but a distant memory at the BBC. And as for your comment

holds to a standard and persuades others through content to take an interest

you've clearly forgotten what this thread was originally about- the dumbing down of Young Musician, which is reflected all across the BBC.

I repeat, it really is quite hard to be lectured about the quality of Sky programming by somebody who never watches it.

Does being a lateral thinker mean you are more or less likely to come out with complete crap?

Question answered.

[MrGongGong]

you've clearly forgotten what this thread was originally about- the slipping standards of Young Musician, which is reflected all across the BBC. :

From what I heard I thought they all played very well indeed

[DracoM]

And when did BBC TV have complete and "un-presented" concerts by Abbado, Haitink, Rattle, Gatti, plus regular and complete Puccini / Wagner operas, and recently some astonishing dance material, plus the haunting Playhouse Presents + Tennant? And HBO material as said.

Frankly, for a publicly owned global brand conglomerate, the BBC's record in high-end Arts TV broadcasting in the last four or so years has been pathetic. Proms? Just read what this Forum's members think of the BBC's presentation of many of those concerts. It took The Guardian to start streaming major operas from Glyndebourne eg Turn of the Screw. And other posters will have lists of their own favourite TV Arts progs form round the networks, and my guess is that not many will have been on BBC TV.

[Lateralthinking1]

far too much sex, strong language and violence for poor old Auntie

Well you fall into my trap Mr Pee, not that it was consciously set. The sex, strong language and violence idea of dangerous belongs to 40 odd years ago. I fully recognise that the public still go through the motions of finding one stance or another on such things but what a tired old charade. It is as if the prohibition of drink had been considered to be at the cutting edge of television in the 1960s.

No, I mean fearless as in imaginative. God forbid, things that haven't been thought of yet except by a wide range of individuals dotted around whose ideas would never be accepted under current regimes.

[Mr Pee]

No, I mean fearless as in imaginative. God forbid, things that haven't been thought of yet except by a wide range of individuals dotted around whose ideas would never be accepted under current regimes.

Ideas such as what? And individuals such as whom? Do please enlighten us.

And feel free to respond to some of my other points.