Arriale perspectives looking down on you

[Serial_Apologist]

So you don’t listen to it and from not listening to it you can infer from the content that the presenters aren’t well
Informed ? When clearly some of them e.g Tom , Jess and Sean are experts ..

Fair enough; but let's see what others may think - bearing in mind this is the jass bored!

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

Fair enough; but let's see what others may think - bearing in mind this is the jass bored!

Without entering Michael Tin Tin Gove turf - "Experts who needs 'em", there are "experts" and experts. You pick yours accordingly. Service may be expert but he's also bloody annoying, well to me admittedly. Experts are not of equal worth, I give you the Shostakovich wars where ideology was critically paraded and battled for over his corpse, whist cheerfully accusing him of ...ideology.

Experts on the jazz side can be critics, again not without reservation, and musicians. One of best expert programs I've heard was Guy Barker talking about Gil Evans' arranging and dissecting "Miles Ahead". Hugely informative and revealing. Ditto John Surman's little series on the history & styles of the baritone saxophone in Jazz.

As was said of historians..."first read your historian, then their historiography". Everyone had a view to promote, an axe to grind, an encompassing ideology. Those that deny this are the most suspect.

[Alyn_Shipton]

JRR details now posted on my website. Apologies for delay.

[Serial_Apologist]

JRR details now posted on my website. Apologies for delay.

Thanks Alyn. That update now appears automatically on my OP.

Edit: I wonder how many other forumites would have noticed Lullaby for a lonely Child, the Graham Collier track on JRR, was actually composed by Karl Jenkins? Heavy cribbed off of The Duke's Moose the Mooch, of course, but how the fallen are mighty!

[Ian Thumwood]

This thread replicates some of the comments made on the Classical board about programming. It is interesting to read some of the comments about those radio presenters who are not popular amongst the posters. For me, I had to stop listening to the breakfast show when Petroc Trelawny started presenting. I cannot abide his plummy and aloof presenting style. There are others like Sean Rafferty and Jumoke Fashola who are continually gushing whenever presenting their programmes and I find them off-putting too. There are others on Radio 4 who are even worse such as Amol Rajan, Michael Rosen and that irritating bloke who presents "Thinking aloud" - the ultimate in beard stratching Open University-ness. I bet her wears sandals! Even other programmes I like such as "A good read" by be marred by the host's choice of book which invariably is something I would want to avoid reading ! On the other hand, I have really enjoyed Nick Robinson (excellent political commentator even though he supports Man Utd) and the football present Alan Green who are quite out-spoken. It is not possible to like all presenters on the radio and atleast Radio 3 does not feature the kind of presenters on Radio Solent . (Other than the sports team who are excellent.) By and large, rhe Radio 3 presenters are ok.

In defence of SA (even though there are some presenters I do enjoy) I find it bizarre that Jess Gillam produces a musical links / comparison programme which does not necessarily feature "art music" yet seems to have some very positive comments about music I am guessing most people in here would consider to be banal. It is really curious to listen to and I must admit to being hooked whenver I have listened - simply to understand why music from a more "light music" perspective gets this kind of analysis. I can imagine A level musical students really appreciating this music yet I think most people in here would be reaching for the "off" button. I do not think the musical presentation of this programme nor the analysis is poor. My argument is more snobbish and would be is the music worth analysing ? Jess Gillam must have one of the worst record collections going !

Kicking on from that, I have to admit that I am hooked on the Rick Biatto podcasts because of the musical analysis. However, i find him very different from the BBC approach as he is really happy to call it as it is and if something is simple / rubbish / unmusical / badly played he will call it out. These podcasts are addictive and are asked by an experienced musician who was invlved with rock music and production but is a jazz musician at heart .

I think some of the analysis these days to sympamatic of our times where, in general terms, everything seems to be considered of value and worthy of praise. Biatto is rare for being honest in a time when a composer like Howard Goodall can praise the Beatles for writing song cycles. I wish some presenters would be more critical of sacred cows. The Beatles were a product of George Martin's superior understanding of music and Lennon / McCartney werenot the second coming of J S Bach. They were not even the second coming of Offenbach! There was a really fascinating podcast a few weeks ago that featured Jack Conte of Pamplemoose reknown where the panel studied a Harry Styles tune and they were in raptures about it because it was so sophisticated in comparison with what passes as music these days. It does make fascinating listening as stuff which is bread and butter in classical music / jazz is singled out for praise.

The other thing that is intriguing is the fact that there is clearly a generation gap thing happening with this music. For today's yoof, music is pretty dispensible. I just feel that someone like Jess Gillam reflects our times - a brief 5 min discussion and then the attention span is expended and on to the next thing...... I will be intrigued how quickly someone like Harry Styles will get featured on a programme like JG's. The track featured was decent enough and you can find a live version of the pop song on Youtube where the band is really kicking. He has a brilliant girl drummer backing him, I would be happy for an in depth analysis of the music of Gil Evans, John Surman or Shostakovich but if the people producing these programmes are in their 20s / 30s, they will clearly perceive what is worthwhile very differently. (At the risk of sounding like Ed Readon moaning about 14 year olds at the BBC ....) i just feel that JG's approach is more suited to millenials . Where there is an issue for listeners, it is because the older generations are effectively excluded from the process.

I would be very interested to see what the demographic was for Radio 3 's jazz programmes and especially from an age perspective. Is this information available ? The age of people producing these programmes would also be insightful too.

[Quarky]

It's difficut to find detailed information about Radio 3. However it's clear that a lot of programmes are produced by external firms (they are acknowledged at the end of the programmes).

However the controller of Radio3 reports to Lorna Clarke, head of BBC Music. She has responsibility for Radio 1, Radio 2 Radio 6 and the Asean network.
Lorna was with Kiss before joining the BBC. As far as I can see, she has no connection with Jazz or Classical music:

https://www.birst.co.uk/an-interview-with-lorna-clarke/

[Ian Thumwood]

Quarky


Thanks for processing thank link which does underscore my impression of how radio programmes are developed. It only answered part of my query as you state many of the BBC programmes are produced externally and I do wonder how the "creatives" compiling them really understand what the wider field of the subject they are producing. Part of the reason I am saying this is because the one jazz programme which does reflect the taste of the listeners in JRR. It is probably a bit simplistic to argue this but if the other jazz programmes were following the same tastes as JRR, the music played on programmes like J-Z , etc would be much more different. Jazzrook mentioned a few months ago that aprogramme like "Freeness" probably has a very limited appeal and that most "jazz" fans give it a miss. I have never been inclined to listen to it as it holds no interest to me.

I wonder just how passionate some of the people are producing musical programmes in the BBC and whether they are working in an echo chamber where the views of those within the teams making the programme never listen beyond their own tastes. By and large, the more "classical" orientate stuff sounds like older people are making the programmes whereas I am guessing programmes like Jess Gillam's are probably all in their twenties. There is now a Radio 3 chill zone on Friday mights which I caught when coming back from Marks and Sparks. For me, having a programme with no presenter is lazy and misses the point of the BBC's role to inform . However, I imagine that it is probably resonnating with those Radio 3 listeners with butterfly minds who are unable to listen to something that lasts more than 4 minutes. It probably reflects the way people relate to their radios these days and with the popularity of "mix tapes." I thunk SA's criticism maybe has more to do with the audiences Radio 3 is catering for and reflects the fact that the producers might be coming from the same generation.

The new schedule does seem a step in the right direction and hopefully areturn to the same standard as the late, lamented "Impressions" which tended to get the right balance with the familiar and new stuff you felt compelled to check out.

Cheers

Ian

[Old Grumpy]

J to Z was certainly produced by Somethin' Else for a period. The company was founded by Jez Nelson (formerly of Radio 3), but I see has now been absorbed by Sony. The company website suggest input to a wide range of BBC radio programmes:

https://somethinelse.com/radio-podcasts/

However several articles online suggest the that input to BBC programmes has been dropped since the Sony absorption.