I would say Vanessa is known within the general public although that's down to her TV work in the 90s and the coverage she got after that mainly due to her marriage break up.
True, but 'being known' isn't in itself all that useful as a USP in a job that calls for a particular set of skills, not least credibility and likeability - not to be confused with tolerance.
Re Ms Feltz in particular, I remember her having some trashy style ITV daytime 'talk' show which was in some way compromised by integrity / honesty issues vis its supposed guests.
Personally, I find her quite unpleasant - and that of course is only my opinion, I'm not suggesting that less discerning listeners (;)) will feel the same way. I'm just baffled that R2's PC imagines she can inspire empathy across the very disparate outposts of R2's tx area (i.e. the wider U.K.). Again, I'm baffled that she thinks she has anything to offer to a radio audience. I'm sure she'd perform well dishing out air kisses at a publishing house prouction meeting somewhere...but connecting with real people ?
In country of 60 odd million, with a decent sized professional presenter base, I can't see how anyone could argue that she's the most suitable candidate for the particular slot she currently occupies. It's a national radio station, not a PR lunch opportunity. In any case, although she's not my cup of tea, I'm not actually criticising her for taking the money for two jobs at the Beeb, I just can't see that we're so short of talent that she should be placed where she is...
Then it's a good job Radio 2 isn't programmed according to the whims of a couple of posters on a forum isn't it?
You seem to be suggesting that little thought went in to offering Vanessa the early breakfast show when Sarah Kennedy left. That is certainly not the case, as anyone who knows anything about Bob will tell you.
global giving the bloke from JLS (THATS SHOW BIZ) and the bloke from TOWIE and all other so called tv celebs presenting jobs on radio is just another way of killing off radio in this country...listening to them is quite mind boggling..self indulgent crap.....any thoughts......radio presenting used to be an art...what has happened to Richard Park,he used to be the best radio man around,now....sad.
Richard Park, the same man who (presumably) employed "that bloke from JLS" and "the bloke from TOWIE"
Then it's a good job Radio 2 isn't programmed according to the whims of a couple of posters on a forum isn't it?
You seem to be suggesting that little thought went in to offering Vanessa the early breakfast show when Sarah Kennedy left. That is certainly not the case, as anyone who knows anything about Bob will tell you.
I've no particular opinion on just how much thought he mulled his way through, more the result of that thought process.
I can understand why someone with limited experience and / or a wish to tick a few boxes might think she'd play well on a London station - and elsewhere on the schedule, he's obviously doing a decent job, but but any sober PC who thinks V.S. is suitable for a national station, is demonstrating more than questionable judgement IMHO.
Of course Vine actually isn't a DJ by profession, he's a journalist by training - and obviously the perfect choice for his show which features far more talk than music. Certainly more qualified than Jimmy Young was when he started doing this show.
Jamie Cullum - er, he plays piano. Ergo he's a natural choice for radio.
Elaine Paige - she's sung preposetrous songs from faintly preposterous musicals in a variety of (in the main) preposterous accents..
Graham Norton - "I'm Irish, camp and a litttle outrageous !" One trick pony, a little of whom goes a long, long way.
Paul O'Grady - He used to perform a drag act.
This is pretty bizarre, none more than that last one. Yeah, he used to perform a drag act but he he's also spent two decades as one of the most popular personalities on Britain with a number of hit TV shows and obviously phenomenal personal popularity. He is witty and entertaining and has an empathy with the public and exactly right for the show he does.
Graham Norton is an excellent presenter who is rightly hugely respected, and for a show heavily based around celebrity interviews and humour I don't know who else you would choose. And it's ludicrous to suggest that their TV popularity means nothing, Radio 2 listeners do not live in a vacuum, they do not listen to the radio 24 hours a day, they watch television and these are people they like and know. You get presenters from all walks of life depending on the needs of the specific show.
As for Elaine Paige, for heaven't sake. It's a programme about show tunes. That's a deliberately obtuse remark. And Jamie Cullum has obvious knowledge and interest in the genre he's covering and he can prove that through record sales and the respect of the artists he has on his show. I would suspect he is about the same age and has the same kind of background as Paul Jones did when he took over his show some thirty years or so ago. Presumably Jones is acceptable.
It's a stupid argument to say that because people read The Sun ratings aren't important. How else do you judge what people want? And people want to hear people on the radio saying interesting things, they don't care if they can hit a vocal. I admire people who can do that skill, doesn't mean I have to like it.
I remember folks complaing about Jameson at the time. Bob has the budget to book celebrity presenters, who are more or less guaranteed to pull in a large audience - why would he risk unknowns?
Let's be fair, apart from specialist shows and more focussed music stations when did we ever expect presenters to know about the music.
Even the country's most listened to presenter, Chris Evans, is no music authority, far from it in fact. Despite the fact that he would like to give the impression to the contrary, he clearly doesn't have much of musical knowledge. In fact, listening to his show, you get the impression that the music gets in the way judging by the way he treats it.
I think you summed the celebrity presenting scenario up quite well 'the music gets in the way' .
Radio 2 does have a high number of listeners , lost listeners due to the 'music getting the way'policy and gained listeners due to increased speech content rather musical content .
Therefore meaning that there are 2 and half national BBC speech orientated radio stations , in addition to BBC local radio .
True, but 'being known' isn't in itself all that useful as a USP in a job that calls for a particular set of skills, not least credibility and likeability - not to be confused with tolerance.
Re Ms Feltz in particular, I remember her having some trashy style ITV daytime 'talk' show which was in some way compromised by integrity / honesty issues vis its supposed guests.
Personally, I find her quite unpleasant - and that of course is only my opinion, I'm not suggesting that less discerning listeners (;)) will feel the same way. I'm just baffled that R2's PC imagines she can inspire empathy across the very disparate outposts of R2's tx area (i.e. the wider U.K.). Again, I'm baffled that she thinks she has anything to offer to a radio audience. I'm sure she'd perform well dishing out air kisses at a publishing house prouction meeting somewhere...but connecting with real people ?
In country of 60 odd million, with a decent sized professional presenter base, I can't see how anyone could argue that she's the most suitable candidate for the particular slot she currently occupies. It's a national radio station, not a PR lunch opportunity. In any case, although she's not my cup of tea, I'm not actually criticising her for taking the money for two jobs at the Beeb, I just can't see that we're so short of talent that she should be placed where she is...
I did attempt to listen to her for 2 weeks , but I found not very listener friendly with her 'headmistress tone ' talking at the listeners.
It certainly was a very baffling decision to give her that slot in place of more experienced listener friendly presenters .
I think you summed the celebrity presenting scenario up quite well 'the music gets in the way' . Radio 2 does have a high number of listeners , lost listeners due to the 'music getting the way'policy and gained listeners due to increased speech content rather musical content .
Therefore meaning that there are 2 and half national BBC speech orientated radio stations , in addition to BBC local radio .
That is your opinion, but you appear to have no evidence to support this. If music lovers were tuning out in their droves, it would be reflected in the overall figures.
What you appear to be suggesting is that the millions who DO tune in aren't big music lovers. Which is also ludicrous.
Now if I'm reading things correctly, you'd rather have every singe song played in its entirety with no talking at the beginning and the end - and any talking in between to essentially be a few sleeve notes?
Well CDs are frankly your best choice - because what you're describing would in my opinion sound incredibly dull.
That is your opinion, but you appear to have no evidence to support this. If music lovers were tuning out in their droves, it would be reflected in the overall figures.
What you appear to be suggesting is that the millions who DO tune in aren't big music lovers. Which is also ludicrous.
Now if I'm reading things correctly, you'd rather have every singe song played in its entirety with no talking at the beginning and the end - and any talking in between to essentially be a few sleeve notes?
Well CDs are frankly your best choice - because what you're describing would in my opinion sound incredibly dull.
For a change I find myself agreeing with Mapperly ridge - none of these personality presenters have much if Any say in what music is actually played on Radio 2 - which is just as well - as generally I think they are awful - but actually I think the music choices are pretty good - picked by a very skilled programming team behind the scene. It is because of the music that the station is so popular despite the obvious total lack of musical knowledge from most of the daytime presenters!
For a change I find myself agreeing with Mapperly ridge - none of these personality presenters have much if Any say in what music is actually played on Radio 2 - which is just as well - as generally I think they are awful - but actually I think the music choices are pretty good - picked by a very skilled programming team behind the scene. It is because of the music that the station is so popular despite the obvious total lack of musical knowledge from most of the daytime presenters!
Indeed! For musical knowledge on Radio 2 (and Radio 1, as well) you should be looking at evenings and weekends. Or stick with Radio 3 and 6 Music, to an extent.
That is your opinion, but you appear to have no evidence to support this. If music lovers were tuning out in their droves, it would be reflected in the overall figures.
What you appear to be suggesting is that the millions who DO tune in aren't big music lovers. Which is also ludicrous.
Now if I'm reading things correctly, you'd rather have every singe song played in its entirety with no talking at the beginning and the end - and any talking in between to essentially be a few sleeve notes?
Well CDs are frankly your best choice - because what you're describing would in my opinion sound incredibly dull.
In my opinion , any talking in between would be limited to what's just being played / what's being next and brief comment to what people may find amusing/lighted hearted comment on whats happening on the day in question , not at the expense of talking all over the music or place in of music.
Otherwise , please tell what is the point of the music in the first place ?, if people are talking all over the music , the music in question may be a song that people have not heard for a long time or new song being played for the first time ?
Do you not think that talking all over music does spoil people's enjoyment of the music ?
You do come across as someone who appears to have little or no time for music radio or music radio presenters., who seem to be edged out daytime programming or shunted to overnight , in place people who have not been on telly for a while and waiting for their next telly break / or current flavour of the month on the telly .
Radio 2 is trying to be too many things to too many people , it's brief is far too wide !
You are always appear to be very defensive of Radio 2 what Radio 2 does or do not do , cheerleader in chief
For a change I find myself agreeing with Mapperly ridge - none of these personality presenters have much if Any say in what music is actually played on Radio 2 - which is just as well - as generally I think they are awful - but actually I think the music choices are pretty good - picked by a very skilled programming team behind the scene. It is because of the music that the station is so popular despite the obvious total lack of musical knowledge from most of the daytime presenters!
I never implied that these people produce a playlist , as you say the playlist is very good , but ruined , when talking all the music and that I find is the issue !
In my opinion , any talking in between would be limited to what's just being played / what's being next and brief comment to what people may find amusing/lighted hearted comment on whats happening on the day in question , not at the expense of talking all over the music or place in of music.
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.
For me, it depends what the speech is about. I can't stand Evans boasting about his cars/his celb friends/charity deeds etc. I like presenters to be a little modest and self depricating.
You do come across as someone who appears to have little or no time for music radio or music radio presenters., who seem to be edged out daytime programming or shunted to overnight , in place people who have not been on telly for a while and waiting for their next telly break / or current flavour of the month on the telly.
You are always appear to be very defensive of Radio 2 what Radio 2 does or do not do , cheerleader in chief
And you come across as someone who cannot accept what most others do - that Radio 2 is an entertainment network. I have no issue in defending that.
And you come across as someone who cannot accept what most others do - that Radio 2 is an entertainment network. I have no issue in defending that.
It is - but that's not ALL it should be - what was it that Lord Reith said again... inform entertain and educate I think that Radio 2 may have sacrificied the inform and educate bit a little too much for the sake of entertainment - and it's not beyond the wit of the BBC to get the balance right again!
It is - but that's not ALL it should be - what was it that Lord Reith said again... inform entertain and educate I think that Radio 2 may have sacrificied the inform and educate bit a little too much for the sake of entertainment - and it's not beyond the wit of the BBC to get the balance right again!
Last time I listened Radio 2's news was pretty informative and almost all of the music documentaries are educational. Add in Vine's daily show and that's a pretty big chunk of the output.
Last time I listened Radio 2's news was pretty informative and almost all of the music documentaries are educational. Add in Vine's daily show and that's a pretty big chunk of the output.
But it seems to be either/or Yes there are good dry News bulletins - there are some good late night music Documentaries - there is the slightly boring Jeremy Vine - or then there are the apparantly flippant famous off the telly presenters often talking mostly about themselves...
I feel that if entertainers are chosen to present music programmes because of their sparkling wit and amusing personalities then they should at least be given something a little informative to say about what they are actually presenting... otherwise why not just have them doing a comedy show or some camp interviews like on the telly and just have the occasional featured musician....
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!
Look, if you want to learn about the music being played on Radio 2, it's daytime shows are not for you. And nor have they ever been. There seems to be a lot of rose-tinted myths of here that Radio 2 was somehow more highbrow back in the day because it had presenters who were knowledgeable about they music. Derek Jameson? Gloria Hunniford? Really?
I'd say that the vast majority of the audience is intelligent enough to know where to go if they want to find out more about the tunes or artists being played without a presenter effectively reading out a load of sleeve notes.
By contrast , Radio 2s specialist shows are far more likely to have that kind of detail - as they provide as much of a public service than anything. But it's nonsense to suggest that all "real music lovers" will tune out of Chris Evans or Steve Wright. Personally I can't stand the latter, but I'm realistic enough to see why he's so popular.
Comments
True, but 'being known' isn't in itself all that useful as a USP in a job that calls for a particular set of skills, not least credibility and likeability - not to be confused with tolerance.
Re Ms Feltz in particular, I remember her having some trashy style ITV daytime 'talk' show which was in some way compromised by integrity / honesty issues vis its supposed guests.
Personally, I find her quite unpleasant - and that of course is only my opinion, I'm not suggesting that less discerning listeners (;)) will feel the same way. I'm just baffled that R2's PC imagines she can inspire empathy across the very disparate outposts of R2's tx area (i.e. the wider U.K.). Again, I'm baffled that she thinks she has anything to offer to a radio audience. I'm sure she'd perform well dishing out air kisses at a publishing house prouction meeting somewhere...but connecting with real people ?
In country of 60 odd million, with a decent sized professional presenter base, I can't see how anyone could argue that she's the most suitable candidate for the particular slot she currently occupies. It's a national radio station, not a PR lunch opportunity. In any case, although she's not my cup of tea, I'm not actually criticising her for taking the money for two jobs at the Beeb, I just can't see that we're so short of talent that she should be placed where she is...
You seem to be suggesting that little thought went in to offering Vanessa the early breakfast show when Sarah Kennedy left. That is certainly not the case, as anyone who knows anything about Bob will tell you.
Richard Park, the same man who (presumably) employed "that bloke from JLS" and "the bloke from TOWIE"
I've no particular opinion on just how much thought he mulled his way through, more the result of that thought process.
I can understand why someone with limited experience and / or a wish to tick a few boxes might think she'd play well on a London station - and elsewhere on the schedule, he's obviously doing a decent job, but but any sober PC who thinks V.S. is suitable for a national station, is demonstrating more than questionable judgement IMHO.
Just my personal view.
Of course Vine actually isn't a DJ by profession, he's a journalist by training - and obviously the perfect choice for his show which features far more talk than music. Certainly more qualified than Jimmy Young was when he started doing this show.
This is pretty bizarre, none more than that last one. Yeah, he used to perform a drag act but he he's also spent two decades as one of the most popular personalities on Britain with a number of hit TV shows and obviously phenomenal personal popularity. He is witty and entertaining and has an empathy with the public and exactly right for the show he does.
Graham Norton is an excellent presenter who is rightly hugely respected, and for a show heavily based around celebrity interviews and humour I don't know who else you would choose. And it's ludicrous to suggest that their TV popularity means nothing, Radio 2 listeners do not live in a vacuum, they do not listen to the radio 24 hours a day, they watch television and these are people they like and know. You get presenters from all walks of life depending on the needs of the specific show.
As for Elaine Paige, for heaven't sake. It's a programme about show tunes. That's a deliberately obtuse remark. And Jamie Cullum has obvious knowledge and interest in the genre he's covering and he can prove that through record sales and the respect of the artists he has on his show. I would suspect he is about the same age and has the same kind of background as Paul Jones did when he took over his show some thirty years or so ago. Presumably Jones is acceptable.
It's a stupid argument to say that because people read The Sun ratings aren't important. How else do you judge what people want? And people want to hear people on the radio saying interesting things, they don't care if they can hit a vocal. I admire people who can do that skill, doesn't mean I have to like it.
I think you summed the celebrity presenting scenario up quite well 'the music gets in the way' .
Radio 2 does have a high number of listeners , lost listeners due to the 'music getting the way'policy and gained listeners due to increased speech content rather musical content .
Therefore meaning that there are 2 and half national BBC speech orientated radio stations , in addition to BBC local radio .
I did attempt to listen to her for 2 weeks , but I found not very listener friendly with her 'headmistress tone ' talking at the listeners.
It certainly was a very baffling decision to give her that slot in place of more experienced listener friendly presenters .
Now I listen to CD'S in the car instead.
That is your opinion, but you appear to have no evidence to support this. If music lovers were tuning out in their droves, it would be reflected in the overall figures.
What you appear to be suggesting is that the millions who DO tune in aren't big music lovers. Which is also ludicrous.
Now if I'm reading things correctly, you'd rather have every singe song played in its entirety with no talking at the beginning and the end - and any talking in between to essentially be a few sleeve notes?
Well CDs are frankly your best choice - because what you're describing would in my opinion sound incredibly dull.
For a change I find myself agreeing with Mapperly ridge - none of these personality presenters have much if Any say in what music is actually played on Radio 2 - which is just as well - as generally I think they are awful - but actually I think the music choices are pretty good - picked by a very skilled programming team behind the scene. It is because of the music that the station is so popular despite the obvious total lack of musical knowledge from most of the daytime presenters!
In my opinion , any talking in between would be limited to what's just being played / what's being next and brief comment to what people may find amusing/lighted hearted comment on whats happening on the day in question , not at the expense of talking all over the music or place in of music.
Otherwise , please tell what is the point of the music in the first place ?, if people are talking all over the music , the music in question may be a song that people have not heard for a long time or new song being played for the first time ?
Do you not think that talking all over music does spoil people's enjoyment of the music ?
You do come across as someone who appears to have little or no time for music radio or music radio presenters., who seem to be edged out daytime programming or shunted to overnight , in place people who have not been on telly for a while and waiting for their next telly break / or current flavour of the month on the telly .
Radio 2 is trying to be too many things to too many people , it's brief is far too wide !
You are always appear to be very defensive of Radio 2 what Radio 2 does or do not do , cheerleader in chief
I never implied that these people produce a playlist , as you say the playlist is very good , but ruined , when talking all the music and that I find is the issue !
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.
Personally, I'd choose Victor Lewis-Smith - but I wouldn't expect many to agree he'd be a good choice..;)
And you come across as someone who cannot accept what most others do - that Radio 2 is an entertainment network. I have no issue in defending that.
It is - but that's not ALL it should be - what was it that Lord Reith said again... inform entertain and educate I think that Radio 2 may have sacrificied the inform and educate bit a little too much for the sake of entertainment - and it's not beyond the wit of the BBC to get the balance right again!
Last time I listened Radio 2's news was pretty informative and almost all of the music documentaries are educational. Add in Vine's daily show and that's a pretty big chunk of the output.
But it seems to be either/or Yes there are good dry News bulletins - there are some good late night music Documentaries - there is the slightly boring Jeremy Vine - or then there are the apparantly flippant famous off the telly presenters often talking mostly about themselves...
I feel that if entertainers are chosen to present music programmes because of their sparkling wit and amusing personalities then they should at least be given something a little informative to say about what they are actually presenting... otherwise why not just have them doing a comedy show or some camp interviews like on the telly and just have the occasional featured musician....
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!
I'd say that the vast majority of the audience is intelligent enough to know where to go if they want to find out more about the tunes or artists being played without a presenter effectively reading out a load of sleeve notes.
By contrast , Radio 2s specialist shows are far more likely to have that kind of detail - as they provide as much of a public service than anything. But it's nonsense to suggest that all "real music lovers" will tune out of Chris Evans or Steve Wright. Personally I can't stand the latter, but I'm realistic enough to see why he's so popular.