Sunday Breakfast without Martin Handley

[underthecountertenor]

Great minds etc . If you work in a publicly funded organisation you have three responsibilities-
1) don’t waste the public’s money
2) don’t hint that you’re having a cushy life (even though you are )
3) reflect the fact that many people aren’t as well off as you by making programmes about them.

The BBC used to full of people who embodied that (to the point of fanaticism to be honest ) . Now. ..not so sure.

?

[french frank]

It has been the BBC's - and Radio 3's - policy in recent years to encourage presenters (never announcers) to be their natural selves and reveal an individual personality made up of general delivery style and factual information about themselves; in fact, to encourage listeners to develop imagined 'friendships'. It should be obvious that this will end in 'one man's meat' and 'another man's poison' as with any other humans we happen to meet up with. In the end, if they keep their jobs, they're doing what the managers approve of.

As with music there will be extremes of liking and disliking. I personally would prefer to read reasoned opinion and criticism rather than about other members' 'feelings'. But ... such is life. It's just my view.

[kernelbogey]

As with music there will be extremes of liking and disliking. I personally would prefer to read reasoned opinion and criticism rather than about other members' 'feelings'. But ... such is life. It's just my view.

But we are in the age when 'feelings' trump 'reason'. You could say it's another interpretation of the 'anthropocene era'.

[vinteuil]

I personally would prefer to read reasoned opinion and criticism rather than about other members' 'feelings'. But ... such is life. It's just my view.

... my 'reasoned opinion' is that Radio 3 should not be mimicking hospital radio : it has a 'higher' and more difficult role in striving to educate, enlighten, and enthuse rather than merely to entertain and soothe and make people feel cosy. In Brave New World Aldous Huxley showed a government prescribing soma to increase the happiness and complacency of the population. If we perceive Radio 3 as being a conduit of soma that is a 'reasoned criticism'.

.

[kernelbogey]

...If we perceive Radio 3 as being a conduit of soma that is a 'reasoned criticism'.

And Tearjerker is a prime example of the new R3 philosophy of the purpose of 'classical' music being to soothe the troubled soul....

[underthecountertenor]

It has been the BBC's - and Radio 3's - policy in recent years to encourage presenters (never announcers) to be their natural selves and reveal an individual personality made up of general delivery style and factual information about themselves; in fact, to encourage listeners to develop imagined 'friendships'. It should be obvious that this will end in 'one man's meat' and 'another man's poison' as with any other humans we happen to meet up with. In the end, if they keep their jobs, they're doing what the managers approve of.

As with music there will be extremes of liking and disliking. I personally would prefer to read reasoned opinion and criticism rather than about other members' 'feelings'. But ... such is life. It's just my view.

I should say that I mentioned my ‘feelings’ in this case only in an attempt to show that the subjectivity about MH is just that. The ‘reasoned opinion’ bit (such, and clumsily expressed, as it was) was intended to be simply to the effect that affection for a particular presenter’s personality and ‘friendliness’ runs counter to the prevailing view here (with which I am broadly in agreement) that presenters should maintain a professional distance from the listeners and concentrate on the music.

[french frank]

I should say that I mentioned my ‘feelings’ in this case only in an attempt to show that the subjectivity about MH is just that. The ‘reasoned opinion’ bit (such, and clumsily expressed, as it was) was intended to be simply to the effect that affection for a particular presenter’s personality and ‘friendliness’ runs counter to the prevailing view here (with which I am broadly in agreement) that presenters should maintain a professional distance from the listeners and concentrate on the music.

Yes, I wasn't directing my comments at anything which you had said, just a general view of the BBC's historical approach. In the end, much of this is about audience engineering and manipulation. It's what they're about. I can see that one can come to regret the departure of one presenter if replaced by someone (much) less appealing!

[AuntDaisy]

... my 'reasoned opinion' is that Radio 3 should not be mimicking hospital radio : it has a 'higher' and more difficult role in striving to educate, enlighten, and enthuse rather than merely to entertain and soothe and make people feel cosy. In Brave New World Aldous Huxley showed a government prescribing soma to increase the happiness and complacency of the population. If we perceive Radio 3 as being a conduit of soma that is a 'reasoned criticism'.

I like the soma comparison. There's also EM Forster's short story "The Machine Stops".

[LMcD]

I should say that I mentioned my ‘feelings’ in this case only in an attempt to show that the subjectivity about MH is just that. The ‘reasoned opinion’ bit (such, and clumsily expressed, as it was) was intended to be simply to the effect that affection for a particular presenter’s personality and ‘friendliness’ runs counter to the prevailing view here (with which I am broadly in agreement) that presenters should maintain a professional distance from the listeners and concentrate on the music.

I don't think MH set out to soothe his listeners, and I don't think that his occasional references to domestic or personal matters qualify as self-indulgence. Mondays to Fridays, it doesn't bother me if Petroc enthuses about some musical or other cultural event that he's recently attended.

[Serial_Apologist]

And Tearjerker is a prime example of the new R3 philosophy of the purpose of 'classical' music being to soothe the troubled soul....

I've just now invented "circumambulatory solipsism" to describe the desired associated mental state. Headphones on while walking oblivious to one's surrounds. You see it exhibited in the street all the time.

[Ein Heldenleben]

... my 'reasoned opinion' is that Radio 3 should not be mimicking hospital radio : it has a 'higher' and more difficult role in striving to educate, enlighten, and enthuse rather than merely to entertain and soothe and make people feel cosy. In Brave New World Aldous Huxley showed a government prescribing soma to increase the happiness and complacency of the population. If we perceive Radio 3 as being a conduit of soma that is a 'reasoned criticism'.

.

You don’t have to be a fully paid up member of the Glasgow media group to realise that the mainstream media are pretty much about toeing the centrist line - of whatever political party - in other words complacency.
Things you won’t hear a Radio 3 presenter say “ I was down the foodbank yesterday trying to pull together the fragments of a society shattered by 21st century capitalism and one client Bert requested this bit of Debussy.”

[french frank]

I'm at a bit of a loss to comment on presenters and programmes as I don't listen. The BBC used to think they'd trapped me by saying "Aha! how can you criticise Radio 3 then when you say you don't listen?" Reply "Because, you nincompoop, it's not my role to tell you what I think or feel but to convey the strongly held views of many listeners who have stronger stomachs than me and do listen." In just the same way I tend to discount listeners' comments that rely on "I liked/enjoyed this', "I can't stand this", "I'm not too fussed one way or the other". In isolation, they have no more value than my own opinion.

The trouble with comments about presenters is that, although a seemingly large number do have favourite/unfavourite presenters, they don't agree about which ones are approved of and which not. Which is why my personal opinion has been that presenters are 'good' if they don't intrude: they should be judged by how well they present the material and whether they have interesting things to say about it. Sadly, that no longer appears to be the job they're employed to do.

[kernelbogey]

...it's not my role to tell you what I think or feel but to convey the strongly held views of many listeners who have stronger stomachs than me and do listen."...
The trouble with comments about presenters is that, although a seemingly large number do have favourite/unfavourite presenters, they don't agree about which ones are approved of and which not. Which is why my personal opinion has been that presenters are 'good' if they don't intrude: they should be judged by how well they present the material and whether they have interesting things to say about it. Sadly, that no longer appears to be the job they're employed to do.

I can't recall any profound criticism here of Through the Night presentation: which I attribute to the presenters' very limited time for announcements and back-announcements. This seems to me to facilitate their focus on the music itself. John Shea and Jonathan Swain are masters of the pithy, musically informative introduction.

[AuntDaisy]

I can't recall any profound criticism here of Through the Night presentation: which I attribute to the presenters' very limited time for announcements and back-announcements. This seems to me to facilitate their focus on the music itself. John Shea and Jonathan Swain are masters of the pithy, musically informative introduction.

Funnily enough, I was recently looking for details of 2012 TTNs with Nicola Christie presenting, and found an interesting discussion about whether her voice was suited to TTN - (including some scurrilous comments from me!)

[french frank]

I can't recall any profound criticism here of Through the Night presentation: which I attribute to the presenters' very limited time for announcements and back-announcements. This seems to me to facilitate their focus on the music itself. John Shea and Jonathan Swain are masters of the pithy, musically informative introduction.

The format doesn't entail saying a great deal. But a single (pithy) sentence can be thought-provoking and illuminating, and from memory, I agree with your assessment of those two. I don't sense that either is concerned to inject something 'distinctive' of themselves into their input.