Enthusiastic presenters

[Dave2002]

If I may be permitted, I propose to remove the comments which have deviated to a discussion of a particular member. I think it is against the House Rules to 'gang up' on any individual Thanks to doversoul for repeating the general point: 'If it merits a reasoned reply, make it; if it doesn't, ignore it.'

Whatever one feels about the sentiments of such comments, they don't make for very good general reading.

You may be permitted. Some of the comments in a few posts seemed very out of order to me. I never intended this thread to get so heated, and dare I say it, convoluted and almost incomprehensible at times. There appeared to be specific ad hominem attacks in one or two posts, seemingly coming from nowhere, and with little reason, and I know nothing about the information presented in them, which may have come from private knowledge by those who made them.

Also, although I thought PT's announcement which I commented on was a bit inane, I generally feel he does OK, and I put it down to the Colemanballs syndrome mentioned later - to be relished rather than scorned, perhaps!

[Panjandrum]

Cavatina quote: "26 Proms and 26 lectures makes 52 events. 3 jazz, 3 chamber music, and 1 Hyde Park world music concert = 59.
Tonight, I heard two more concerts and a lecture, so the new total is 62. "

None of these are broadcasts as opposed to concerts, as I think you well know. Therefore, by your own admission, you have not actually heard any radio 3 programmes and are not qualified to pass comment on radio 3 presenters per se. Look, why not listen to Breakfast or Classical Collection and then let us know how you feel about the presenters. If you still think they are wonderful and do a grand job then fine. I am more than happy to live with divergent viewpoints, but only when they are based on empirical evidence and not just argument for the sake thereof!

I'm going to let this go

[cavatina]

None of these are broadcasts as opposed to concerts, as I think you well know. Therefore, by your own admission, you have not actually heard any radio 3 programmes and are not qualified to pass comment on radio 3 presenters per se. Look, why not listen to Breakfast or Classical Collection and then let us know how you feel about the presenters

With 62 live musical events under my belt in two-and-a-half weeks, you think I'm going to feel like listening to excerpts?

I'm not the kind of person who listens to that kind of thing in any event... it's definitely not a show "for me". Unlike you, I don't think it's appropriate to demand that every show on Radio 3 be tailored to knowledgeable specialists.

I said I've been listening to Radio 3 online since 2005. Before I started reading here, I never gave much thought to the presenters at all, as I was listening to R3 for the music and drama, not to find something new to whinge about. In fact, before I started reading the message boards, the only presenter I remembered by name at all was Bryan Kay on the light programme...I thought he had a pleasant voice and unusually cheerful manner; very personable and memorable, for some reason. The last episode of that was in 2007, so that ought to tell you something.

If I found someone annoying, it was an easy jump to switch off and leap over to R4. Not worth remembering at all, really. In more recent days, I've already given my negative opinion of Breakfast and certain other presenters () in a way I'm not particularly proud of, but think it's best to stick to the issues from here on out. I apologise; onward and upward.

[amateur51]

26 Proms and 26 lectures makes 52 events. 3 jazz, 3 chamber music, and 1 Hyde Park world music concert = 59.
Tonight, I heard two more concerts and a lecture, so the new total is 62.

But not on the radio, which is the basis of the original question, about your consumption of Radio 3's output and your comments on it.

Edit: Ooops sorry Panjandrum, you got there first

[cavatina]

But not on the radio, which is the basis of the original question, about your consumption of Radio 3's output and your comments on it.

Okay, so you all feel superior for sitting around on your bums at home hearing the exact same concerts and lectures I'm experiencing from the front row in person. Whatever. The content is the same-- and anyway, as I said, I've been listening online since 2005, so it's a bit silly to harp on the last two weeks. Before the I-player where you could choose specific digital content, my "listening style" consisted of always tuning in for the music, and jumping to R4 when it wasn't a piece I wanted to hear.

[doversoul1]

House rules: If it merits a reasoned reply, make it; if it doesn't [i.e. the content of the post is irrelevant to the topic of the thread], ignore it.

[salymap]

ff Is it not possible to close this thread which seems to go nowhere fast? Your decision of course. Saly

[Ventilhorn]

ff Is it not possible to close this thread which seems to go nowhere fast? Your decision of course. Saly

... and not just the thread.

VH

[french frank]

I think this is an example of a redundant thread.

The axe looms.

R. Beeching (Dr)

(Please don't post just to agree.)

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I wish we could behave like a group of friends (which we are really) sharing a love of music, but with the ability to disagree amicably.

[salymap]

I think most of us would agree with that EA.

[mangerton]

The original premise "Enthusiastic presenters" was a completely reasonable one, and the early posts were on topic. We have now arrived at a difference of opinion and the lines appear to be drawn at least partly along the lines of age and nationality. 'Twas ever thus, I suppose.

However, it is incorrect to say that "the content is the same" for listeners in the hall and for listeners and viewers at home. I don't feel "superior" for sitting at home;Like millions of others, I have no other option. As I have a living to earn, I can afford neither the time nor the money to attend every Prom concert. Like all TV licence payers, I contribute to the cost of the - heavily subsidised to concert-goers - Proms, and to the costs involved in sending the BBC's programmes around the world - something our overseas members should perhaps remember.

[Ariosto]

If I may be permitted, I propose to remove the comments which have deviated to a discussion of a particular member. I think it is against the House Rules to 'gang up' on any individual Thanks to doversoul for repeating the general point: 'If it merits a reasoned reply, make it; if it doesn't, ignore it.'

Whatever one feels about the sentiments of such comments, they don't make for very good general reading.

By removing those posts it may mean that you are giving an unfair advantage to a certain person, and this means that his/her opinions in the end are allowed to carry more weight - even when the majority have been arguing against this persons "reasoning."

It makes no difference to me as I won't be contributing to this thread any more, and probably not to any other thread either.

But we can't really expect democracy on here, and internet forums are possibly past their sell by date now in any case.

[Serial_Apologist]

It makes no difference to me as I won't be contributing to this thread any more, and probably not to any other thread either.

I've seen that you've said as much on another thread, Ariosto. Your posts would be missed.

[Panjandrum]

By removing those posts it may mean that you are giving an unfair advantage to a certain person, and this means that his/her opinions in the end are allowed to carry more weight - even when the majority have been arguing against this persons "reasoning."

It makes no difference to me as I won't be contributing to this thread any more, and probably not to any other thread either.

But we can't really expect democracy on here, and internet forums are possibly past their sell by date now in any case.

I agree. Things are rapidly turning into a one party state here.

Quite why a certain person has been allowed to hijack this and other threads without a shred of evidence to support their views, and yet other posts are removed for daring to express justifiable displeasure at these antics is beyond my ken.