It would be nice to have at least some interesting info about the actual music - which in the main is interesting enough to warrant comment!
Would it? Really? I think most people are fine with just band/artist name, song name, and at a stretch - album it's taken from and in pre-digital days - release date.
But what counts as 'interesting info' - what track number it is on the album? Whether they used drum samples from a Roland 808 or 909 or a real life drummer called Steve? What inspired the name? What day of the week it was written on? Which producer you've probably never heard of produced it? BPM? Would that kind of information really enhance your enjoyment of the song or the show?
I don't know how you define "talking all over the music".
In most cases, I like presenters talking up to the vocal - they don't have to always do it, but some people have it down to an artform. With the right presenters, it can come across as really (for want of a better word) slick.
Personally, I've always hated when people talk over a song when it still has a bit to run, or even worse, cut it short (and at an unsuitable point) to squeeze in another song.
However, from what I've read from you so far, it just feels that you haven't grasped/or have a inherent dislike of what many people find truly great about radio above any other medium. You just have to accept that certain radio stations weren't designed with you in mind.
Radio has always been about entertaining an audience - it wasn't designed to be a pure music portal or else we would have had stations called Decca and EMI FM. Disc jockeys became stars for a reason - if they were faceless droids then music radio wouldn't have grown to be the massive industry it is today. Believe it or not, a lot of people actually like the bits between the music, the live connection that they form with a presenter, and enjoy a show format and features that go beyond "that was...this is...".
A 'brief comment' every now again would kill the radio experience for a lot of people.
Your right in reasons for Disc Jockeys being stars , but now Disc Jockeys are being replaced with telly stars , but when the live connections take over the music , that is a different story .
The idea that you're going to get daytime presenters limiting themselves to being about 'just the music' is just absurd.
It firstly would never work with a playlist setup which a station like Radio 2 has, due to song choice being somewhat restrictive and the need for song choices to be appealing to a wide range rather than narrow niche of one persons choice or taste (unlike in a specialist show where a presenter has that freedom more).
And does the presenter have to have a huge in-depth music knowlege? No, thats what producers etc are for to craft the show wisely behind the scenes and to know their audience.
For example Chris Evans probably does have a music taste (Ocean colour scene seems to be a favourite of his for example, as are the Killers), but his team have a good ability to craft shows which are fun, light and varied, both on music themes, and non-music themes, which work well for breakfast.
It seems some people want effectively radio to be their own playlisted music choices, with minimal speech which in the days of ipods and the like seems idiotic.
What defines a non-presenter? If they appear on the TV does that mean they are a non-presenter? Chris Moyles had a regular TV show on Channel 4...
I'm wondering that too. What about Sara Cox? She started off on TV but became one of R1s most popular DJs and is brilliant on the radio (admittedly, more so now than when she started! )
Your right in reasons for Disc Jockeys being stars , but now Disc Jockeys are being replaced with telly stars , but when the live connections take over the music , that is a different story .
Again, you're talking like this is a new thing. It isn't. TV names have been part of Radio 2's schedule since day one.
Again, you're talking like this is a new thing. It isn't. TV names have been part of Radio 2's schedule since day one.
Yes in the days of classical/light/military/ middle of the road music and comedy , again it goes back , no forwarding planning ,when Radio 2 went out to appeal to former Radio 1 listeners in 1997 under Jim Moir , it has since drifted back to this policy.
As I've said , Radio 2 is too many things to too many people
Yes in the days of classical/light/military/ middle of the road music and comedy , again it goes back , no forwarding planning ,when Radio 2 went out to appeal to former Radio 1 listeners in 1997 under Jim Moir , it has since drifted back to this policy.
As I've said , Radio 2 is too many things to too many people
Although I personally think Jim was the best ever controller, maybe he caused the unrest we have today in some quarters by changing an entertainment station into a music station. This would have been similar to the BBC1 controller changing their station into something similer to MTV!
Although I personally think Jim was the best ever controller, maybe he caused the unrest we have today in some quarters by changing an entertainment station into a music station. This would have been similar to the BBC1 controller changing their station into something similer to MTV!
Yes Jim Moir did change the format of the Radio 2 , which had mass appeal to attract listeners like me and that change has been diluted ever since he left.
Yes Jim Moir did change the format of the Radio 2 , which had mass appeal to attract listeners like me and that change has been diluted ever since he left.
Me too, but perhaps R2 is the wrong station for serious music lovers? Jim went down this route to capitalise on older R1 listeners displaced by Bannister, but historically R2 has always been a celbrity fest interspaced by some music.
Yes Jim Moir did change the format of the Radio 2 , which had mass appeal to attract listeners like me and that change has been diluted ever since he left.
The audience figures haven't been diluted, and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that "real" music lovers have been driven away. Musical snobs, perhaps - but from personal experience I know all too well how hard it is to please them.
The audience figures haven't been diluted, and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that "real" music lovers have been driven away. Musical snobs, perhaps - but from personal experience I know all too well how hard it is to please them.
Well what is the point of having music on between all the talking then ?... why, just have a telly celebrity in the front of the microphone waffling without the music interupting them !
Well what is the point of having music on between all the talking then ?... why, just have a telly celebrity in the front of the microphone waffling without the music interupting them !
Because - as the figures clearly demonstrate - the market is for a mixture of music and chat, not one or the other. Why do you think Smooth Radio invested so much in its music documentaries? At the time they openly said they wanted to challenge Radio 2.
I do agree with your other point that Radio 2 has a tough job trying to be all things to all over 35s, but again its figures would appear to suggest it's doing a pretty good job.
Comments
Would it? Really? I think most people are fine with just band/artist name, song name, and at a stretch - album it's taken from and in pre-digital days - release date.
But what counts as 'interesting info' - what track number it is on the album? Whether they used drum samples from a Roland 808 or 909 or a real life drummer called Steve? What inspired the name? What day of the week it was written on? Which producer you've probably never heard of produced it? BPM? Would that kind of information really enhance your enjoyment of the song or the show?
Your right in reasons for Disc Jockeys being stars , but now Disc Jockeys are being replaced with telly stars , but when the live connections take over the music , that is a different story .
It firstly would never work with a playlist setup which a station like Radio 2 has, due to song choice being somewhat restrictive and the need for song choices to be appealing to a wide range rather than narrow niche of one persons choice or taste (unlike in a specialist show where a presenter has that freedom more).
And does the presenter have to have a huge in-depth music knowlege? No, thats what producers etc are for to craft the show wisely behind the scenes and to know their audience.
For example Chris Evans probably does have a music taste (Ocean colour scene seems to be a favourite of his for example, as are the Killers), but his team have a good ability to craft shows which are fun, light and varied, both on music themes, and non-music themes, which work well for breakfast.
It seems some people want effectively radio to be their own playlisted music choices, with minimal speech which in the days of ipods and the like seems idiotic.
I'm wondering that too. What about Sara Cox? She started off on TV but became one of R1s most popular DJs and is brilliant on the radio (admittedly, more so now than when she started!
Same goes for Fearne Cotton.
Again, you're talking like this is a new thing. It isn't. TV names have been part of Radio 2's schedule since day one.
Yes in the days of classical/light/military/ middle of the road music and comedy , again it goes back , no forwarding planning ,when Radio 2 went out to appeal to former Radio 1 listeners in 1997 under Jim Moir , it has since drifted back to this policy.
As I've said , Radio 2 is too many things to too many people
Although I personally think Jim was the best ever controller, maybe he caused the unrest we have today in some quarters by changing an entertainment station into a music station. This would have been similar to the BBC1 controller changing their station into something similer to MTV!
Yes Jim Moir did change the format of the Radio 2 , which had mass appeal to attract listeners like me and that change has been diluted ever since he left.
Me too, but perhaps R2 is the wrong station for serious music lovers? Jim went down this route to capitalise on older R1 listeners displaced by Bannister, but historically R2 has always been a celbrity fest interspaced by some music.
The audience figures haven't been diluted, and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that "real" music lovers have been driven away. Musical snobs, perhaps - but from personal experience I know all too well how hard it is to please them.
and Lenny Henry!!
Anyone remember Bates' Mates when Simes used to go and sun himself for 6 weeks in the summer?
Well what is the point of having music on between all the talking then ?... why, just have a telly celebrity in the front of the microphone waffling without the music interupting them !
Because - as the figures clearly demonstrate - the market is for a mixture of music and chat, not one or the other. Why do you think Smooth Radio invested so much in its music documentaries? At the time they openly said they wanted to challenge Radio 2.
I do agree with your other point that Radio 2 has a tough job trying to be all things to all over 35s, but again its figures would appear to suggest it's doing a pretty good job.