Vinyl to Digital
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Graeme on 18 Mar 2010 18:40 In message <1jfkbyd.1wgjcfj1bgtupqN%adrian(a)poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> adrian(a)poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Adrian Tuddenham) wrote: > Graeme <Graeme(a)greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > > In message <1jfk44e.1lz0ep64icu9eN%adrian(a)poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> > > adrian(a)poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Adrian Tuddenham) wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > > It is a great pity that most music presenters these days seem to think > > > that their voice is what the listener has tuned-in to hear and the music > > > is merely a background to be spoken over. If the music is worth > > > hearing, it is worth hearing 'in the clear' for its entirety. > > > > > > > > > > Aren't�presenters encouraged to speak over the music to stop people taping > > the tracks off-air? > > That was probably the case with pop music in the 1960s, OK I was giving my age away, and yes I did... > but inappropriate talk-over is found in many programmes nowadays, not just > in music shows but in interviews and serious documentaries. To me it just > shows that a lot of the BBC radio programmes are being presented by > badly-trained media-studies geeks. Not just TV then. -- Graeme Wall My genealogy website <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/>
From: Adrian Tuddenham on 18 Mar 2010 19:44 T i m <news(a)spaced.me.uk> wrote: > On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:57:39 +0000, > adrian(a)poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Adrian Tuddenham) wrote: > > > >> H u g e pauses between the end of one track and his commentary then > >> another h u g e pause between that and he next one. > > > >That is a very good style if you want to hear the music and think about > >it. Also each piece should be back-announced, so that anyone who > >didn't catch the title at the start, but liked the music, is told what > >it was. > > Yep, that's sounds about right. Actually, as aforementioned daughter > is actually in Fort William as we speak I might get her to tune in and > see if he's still going. ;-) > > > >It is a great pity that most music presenters these days seem to think > >that their voice is what the listener has tuned-in to hear and the music > >is merely a background to be spoken over. If the music is worth > >hearing, it is worth hearing 'in the clear' for its entirety. > > The style was actually quit a nice change, in it's own special way. It > also complemented both the music and the area. I presented a programme on "Resonance FM" a few years ago (with considerable encouragement and support from Bella Jones) and was careful never to overlap music and speech. It was a conscious decision, to give the right 'feel' to the programme - but it was also partly enforced by using Peak LE as my editor, which didn't allow more than one stereo track, so all the edits were butt joins or cross-fades of a few milliseconds during silence. >...However, it would be > very easy to tune through it if you were just scanning to see what was > on, thinking it was just some unmodulated carrier. ;-) The intention of most stations seems to be to grab the casual listener by the balls - unfortunately this tends to irritate the thoughtful listener who is actually interested in the programme content. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk
From: Adrian Tuddenham on 18 Mar 2010 19:44 Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Graeme <Graeme(a)greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > > Aren't presenters encouraged to speak over the music to stop people taping > > the tracks off-air? > > That might be one effect, but it doesn't happen on Radio 3. I suspect > that the real problem is the 'Fear of Silence' on air, and the influence > of commercials with their hyped up 'exciting' presentation. Didn't it > start with Radio Luxemburg avoiding the fustiness of BBC presentation by > copying the American stations? And it seems that people like it. So I > guess it's the audience's fault- as it usually is. Some people like it and it is wholely appropriate for some types of programme, but it doesn't work everywhere. The problem is that it is so ubiquitous that producers and many listeners don't realise how much better many other programmes would be without it. The same goes for trails. They are totally unnecessary and innappropriate for Radio 4. The previous system of having Continuity read out a list of forthcoming programmes during the day was much better - it allowed the listener to make an informed choice of what to listen to, rather than telling him, in a nauseatingly patronising way, to listen to one particular programme . It is clear that the Radio 4 audience *doesn't* like trials; when they were first introduced it lost something like 20% of its listeners in a couple of months. More complaints on the subject of trails were received by the "Feedback" programme than on any other subject. Not only have the trails continued unabated, but now they are even allowed to interrupt and curtail programmes. It just screams out to the world that Radio 4 is being run by someone who doesn't have any real idea of what makes good quality radio. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk
From: Peter Ceresole on 18 Mar 2010 20:05 Adrian Tuddenham <adrian(a)poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote: > It is clear that the Radio 4 audience *doesn't* like trials; when they > were first introduced it lost something like 20% of its listeners in a > couple of months. More complaints on the subject of trails were > received by the "Feedback" programme than on any other subject. I think that's wrong. What most radio audiences don't like- and that definitely includes R4- is *change*. There's always a vocal minority who complain. Then after a bit they like what they hear, and then complain about the *next* change. -- Peter
From: Rowland McDonnell on 18 Mar 2010 23:10
Adrian Tuddenham <adrian(a)poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > [...] > > Okay, let's talk about it from that point of view. > > > > BBC Alba - the Scots Gaelic language channel that hardly anyone wants at > > all - costs 29.4p per hour. > > Just listen to BBC Radio 4 and note the percentage of air time when you > hear a Scots accent - not just the presenters but their interviewees. <shrug> Well, why not? I'm no more worried about the Scots taking over than I am worried about the Jews taking over. Never mind anything else, there just aren't enough of them. Things like this are just part of the wheel of fate, sortathing. Let it roll round and we'll have something else. In any case: Taking over England is like taking over China - impossible, unless you become one with the `taken over' culture. Some cultures are just too robust to be flattened, and grow into something better under those conditions. - the only way you can spot 'em is looking at history. > I have nothing against the Scottish accents, in fact I rather like them, > but not time after time after time in every programme. Liz Barclay is in my little black book - `up against the wall, come the revolution'. Not because she's Scottish, no: because she's so annoying. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking |