Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong.
But my tastes are not coincident with yours, and I often feel bored/ uncomfortable after listening a while to those presenters you mention.
That is why I asked a genuine question - do your views represent those of the majority? If so , I guess we can look forward to hearing much more of Ian Skelly, and I will probably depart in the general direction of Radio 6. If not, I'll probably hang around.
"The isle is full of noises... Sounds, and sweet airs, that give delight and hurt not"
The Tempest, Act III scene 2 ll 148-9
"'Smiley voice' affectation" is a brilliant description of that dreadful modern radio phenomenon. I don't know how they do it. I can't imitate it, even if I try, any more than I can finish sentences that aren't questions on a rising inflexion?
What the BBC's focus on the role of the presenter has done is to move attention away from the musical content of the programmes, so that there are more threads here about presenters rather than what is being presented. For me a 'good' presenter will be an unobtrusive one who swiftly and concisely (and accurately) conveys the relevant information about the performance. I don't really want to notice the presenter at all, just the music. Which is why programmes like Breakfast and Essential Classics, which are really constructed around the presenter and guests, with the music as a kind of afterthought (and so much of that is endlessly recycled music) are of so little interest to me. I would like to get back to a period - there must have been one - when no-one gave a damn who the presenter was.