BaLs: Where do we go from here?

[Pulcinella]

Not a very big pile if they only have an hour to cover everything apart from BaL and the RotW.

I've bought many new recordings I'd never have heard if not for RR. Perhaps there's now a gap in the market for some podcast (perhaps hosted by a former R3 presenter) to produce a more comprehensive weekly review, just as The News Agents continues the tradition of BBC journalism before it was neutered. I imagine many classical labels are pretty upset at the new schedule, and would be more than happy to cooperate.

Presto puts out a weekly new releases summary (on Fridays).
Here's today's:

https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/articles/5820--new-release-round-up-new-release-round-up-15th-march-2024

[RobP]

What would he/she (gender neutral; I hate 'they') have made of a recent photoshopped public image, one wonders.

If in a situation where the person you are talking or referring to has assigned a gender to themselves (e.g. placing he/she/they after their name in correspondence) then as a matter of courtesy you would use that. It really isn't a matter of what you 'hate'.

[RobP]

Well spotted.

1405
Violinist Tasmin Little brings an exciting pile of new releases to the studio.
1500
Building a Library
David Owen Norris chooses his favourite version of Vaughan Williams's "A Sea Symphony".
1545
Record of the Week: Andrew’s top pick

Years ago RR tried cutting BAL down to 30 minutes, which was obviously a disaster. I seem to think that Richard Osborne was doing Boheme and he had to say that everything I've said about Acts 1 to 3 applies to 4 and the recommendation is.

[Pulcinella]

If in a situation where the person you are talking or referring to has assigned a gender to themselves (e.g. placing he/she/they after their name in correspondence) then as a matter of courtesy you would use that. It really isn't a matter of what you 'hate'.

Of course I would, and that wasn't the case here.
I'm still allowed to hate the use, and find it singularly unhelpful.
Using a 'plural' is confusing, as others have pointed out countless times.

I turned round and there they were, walking towards me.
Who, and how many?

[RobP]

Of course I would, and that wasn't the case here.
I'm still allowed to hate the use, and find it singularly unhelpful.
Using a 'plural' is confusing, as others have pointed out countless times.

I turned round and there they were, walking towards me.
Who, and how many?

As with a very good of mine they are non-binary. There is nothing difficult in that.

[Pulcinella]

As with a very good of mine they are non-binary. There is nothing difficult in that.

Staying off topic, but there is!

Phone call to police station following a burglary at home: They were in the living room when I got home.

So you have to say 'the intruder' or 'the intruders'.

The difficulty is with the English language (and other languages are having similar problems), not with the concept per se.
It's the same with YOU: Would you like to come to dinner? (We have to say would both/all of you....).
More for Pedants' Paradise or the Grumble Thread, I think.

[RobP]

Staying off topic, but there is!

Phone call to police station following a burglary at home: They were in the living room when I got home.

So you have to say 'the intruder' or 'the intruders'.

The difficulty is with the English language (and other languages are having similar problems), not with the concept per se.
It's the same with YOU: Would you like to come to dinner? (We have to say would both/all of you....).
More for Pedants' Paradise or the Grumble Thread, I think.

Yes indeed about the thread. But you is not gender specific.

[Pulcinella]

Yes indeed about the thread. But you is not gender specific.

It isn't, but that's not the difficulty; it's using a previously plurally-associated word with a singular (no pun intended) situation; the problem with you is that (now we no longer use thee, thou, thy) the same word is used for both singular and plural.

As I said previously, English and other languages are struggling to find (or invent) a new pronoun to cover the non-binary situation.

[RobP]

It isn't, but that's not the difficulty; it's using a previously plurally-associated word with a singular (no pun intended) situation; the problem with you is that (now we no longer use thee, thou, thy) the same word is used for both singular and plural.

As I said previously, English and other languages are struggling to find (or invent) a new pronoun to cover the non-binary situation.

I think you are over-complicating this. There is no obligation in a situation where you do not know if a person is non-binary to use anything other than he or she and that includes intruders etc. As the LGBTQ+ Officer (I am gay) for a large constituency in North London I was in touch with Trans in the City, a member of who gave a presentation and Q&A session, all they expect is that people respect their choice of designation when you are informed of this. At present there is no pronoun for non-binary and perhaps there will be in future but at present that is not a high priority in terms of equal rights etc.

I challenged you because you used the word hate and introduced for some reason pronouns. And as originally said, when you know a person's preference you use it. You are not obliged to assume that someone is non-binary and therefore worry about how you describe someone whose preference you don't know.

[Pulcinella]

I think you are over-complicating this. There is no obligation in a situation where you do not know if a person is non-binary to use anything other than he or she and that includes intruders etc. As the LGBTQ+ Officer (I am gay) for a large constituency in North London I was in touch with Trans in the City, a member of who gave a presentation and Q&A session, all they expect is that people respect their choice of designation when you are informed of this. At present there is no pronoun for non-binary and perhaps there will be in future but at present that is not a high priority in terms of equal rights etc.

I challenged you because you used the word hate and introduced for some reason pronouns. And as originally said, when you know a person's preference you use it. You are not obliged to assume that someone is non-binary and therefore worry about how you describe someone whose preference you don't know.

Sending you a PM.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Back on thread it seems BAL retains its 45min slot which is good . I’m happy to do a brief summary of the clips played for the Madama Butterfly next week if people find that useful. Hopefully the clips will be longer as it’s surprisingly difficult to keep up particularly when you are having a bathroom installed upstairs.

[MickyD]

Not a very big pile if they only have an hour to cover everything apart from BaL and the RotW.

I've bought many new recordings I'd never have heard if not for RR. Perhaps there's now a gap in the market for some podcast (perhaps hosted by a former R3 presenter) to produce a more comprehensive weekly review, just as The News Agents continues the tradition of BBC journalism before it was neutered. I imagine many classical labels are pretty upset at the new schedule, and would be more than happy to cooperate.

Yes, I agree, especially the smaller labels who have so often opened my ears to things. So that's just under an hour for the new releases spot - when you think that France Musique's 'En Piste!' morning programme covers new releases for two hours five days a week, it really is pathetic.

[mikealdren]

Yesterday's Feedback covered the changes to the Radio 4 schedule with the Radio 4 controller putting his case. I appreciate that moving the Archers stirs up even more controversy than RR but has anyone written to feedback, perhaps a concerted effort might get our point across?

[FFRR]

.... I appreciate that moving the Archers stirs up even more controversy...

Dreadful news! I've got used to reaching for the off-switch at 2pm and 7pm, but it's now going to be inflicted on me at 2.45pm on Saturdays - presumably after Any Answers, where proto-fascist loons never fail to amuse and/or annoy

Back to RR/BaL. I'll add my thanks to EA for all his sterling work in compiling lists. A labour of love, but to be honest, I only ever scanned them to see if my own favourites were there...

I think in future a short summary of, say, previous BaL recommendations or historically acknowledged 'reference recordings' would be just as useful, in conjunction with the Presto links proposed.

Re the purpose of a BaL itself, I've mentioned before that IMV the only object should be to see if newer recordings 'unseat' a previous recommendation.

[Goon525]

Surely that’s only valid if you accept that all BaL recommendations have papal infallibility? Another reviewer, another era - surely different opinions can be legitimate.