Actually that's incorrect. SAGA gained a large audience but did not attract advertising revenue as advertisers did not wish to target older listeners.
I don't doubt the basic premise (audience success, commercial flop).
I *do* think Saga might have done a bit more to change those agencies' perceptions. Ron Coles spoke a lot about concentrating on the "55" end of the market rather than the "over" bit. If they'd successfully done that - and communicated it - Saga would have been as full of home furnishing ads as Heart or Smooth are. As it was, it always seemed to be incontinence treatments and care homes.
Anyway.. I seem to be veering dangerously off the premise of this thread, and I don't want to get in the way of JP repeating his point. Again
Anyway.. I seem to be veering dangerously off the premise of this thread, and I don't want to get in the way of JP repeating his point. Again
I'm sure there are many goldfish who have already forgotten what John has said hundreds of times on this forum. It is important that John keeps on saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. It is especially valued by those of us who enjoy being rudely condescended and spoken to as if we were children. I'm quite sure that John will be back soon to reassure us that his record is still broken.
I can tell you as a former BBC staff man that the listeners drop of the dial to the point where you cannot record them after 8.00pm.
I have no desire to get involved in any of the tiresome 'Paul Barnes'/ Radio 2/Jazz/ Big Band debates...
But I will point out that you're wrong here.
There's a ratings spike on several of the stations in the run up to Paul Barnes show. It's not massive but cumulatively his listening figures will be respectable.
I have no desire to get involved in any of the tiresome 'Paul Barnes'/ Radio 2/Jazz/ Big Band debates...
But I will point out that you're wrong here.
There's a ratings spike on several of the stations in the run up to Paul Barnes show. It's not massive but cumulatively his listening figures will be respectable.
... which is exactly why, as a PSB, The BBC should be providing this kind of programme. There are people who value it greatly and this kind of show is not available elsewhere locally although The BBC do provide other shows of similar style in other parts of the country, as highlighted by a previous poster. Of course the audiences aren't massive, which is why these shows are broadcast at off-peak times, but they are still a very important part of The BBC's role.
Actually that's incorrect. SAGA gained a large audience but did not attract advertising revenue as advertisers did not wish to target older listeners.
Someone posted on here that they wouldn't take advertising for products which the Saga group offered, such as holidays and insurance. It must have been difficult for them to work out how much these had benefited solely through advertising on their radio stations.
Sorry Howard, is that really the best you can manage?! TUC made some very valid points.
He suggested there is a place for a wider selection of music on the radio as a whole and all you can do is effectively stick your tongue out. Perhaps you should realise that just because someone has a different view of how things should be, that doesn't give you licence to mock them.
And I have not stated anywhere here that I would wish to remove the Paul Barnes type show from late night BBC local.
However I have had problems in the past with these late night
/off peak freelancers plugging their gigs and campaigning outside the BBC for personal gain.
As an ex BBC man I know the scams some of these people used to pull.
I'd like to see a BBC local sustaining service outside of prime hours. However as an oldie retired it's up to others to do that.
However I have had problems in the past with these late night
/off peak freelancers plugging their gigs and campaigning outside the BBC for personal gain.
As an ex BBC man I know the scams some of these people used to pull.
To whom are you pointing a finger and would you like to sunstantiate your accusation?
Forgive me if I am being thick but isn't the real problem that there is nowhere on any BBC Station either local or national where you can during the daytime hear regularly from artists such as
Diana Krall, Peggy Lee, Jane Monheit, Carly Simon, Peter Paul and Mary, Karen Carpenter, Julie London, Ella Fitzgerald, June Christie, Sarah Vaughan, Linda Rondstadt, Fats Domino, Guy Mitchell, Sammy Davis, Edward Woodward, Matt Monro, Peter Grant, John Gary, Perry Como, Dickie Valentine and Mr. Sinatra.
Yiou are certainly not being thick Phil, that is exactly the case.
I am sure people could add others of that genre . Now I am sure there are many who would look at that list and think that's not my scene. That's fine but I do think John P has a point when he says that the many many fans of the above have no outlet at all anywhere. Commercial Operators have an excuse such stuff does not bring in the advertisers.
Another interesting point.
I promote 2 jazz festivals a year on which I am at financial risk - in that if I don't sell the rooms at the venues, I'm into finding £thousands.
I also promote concerts in jazz clubs, arts centres and churches.
The audience age range for these activities is mainly 60 plus up to late 80s.
How do I get audiences? Guess what?I advertise. So older people do buy things they see advertised. They also have a high disposable income - many of them.
They buy festival breaks, concerts, CDs, DVDs. If I can sell to them, why can't the ad agencies?
I wonder what the model for Classic FM originally was.
I find it hard to believe that a properly marketed 'light' station would not be viable if managed correctly.
For the BBC however to run two FM Stations and two Digital ones(1 Extra and 6 Music) devoted to more hard edged daytime output and offer nothing to those who simply want a more melodic station to which they could listen is in my view wrong. Please also don't get me started on the anodyne Local Radio playlists.
For me I would alter 6 Music and offer an easy listening daytime schedule featuring many of the above. They could use the now defunct Primetime as a role model. It won't happen of course because the BBC would be scared of how many would desert Radio 2 to listen to it.
Maybe something like this may happen with the Radio 2 & 6Music review.
Forgive me if I am being thick but isn't the real problem that there is nowhere on any BBC Station either local or national where you can during the daytime hear regularly from artists such as
Diana Krall, Peggy Lee, Jane Monheit, Carly Simon, Peter Paul and Mary, Karen Carpenter, Julie London, Ella Fitzgerald, June Christie, Sarah Vaughan, Linda Rondstadt, Fats Domino, Guy Mitchell, Sammy Davis, Edward Woodward, Matt Monro, Peter Grant, John Gary, Perry Como, Dickie Valentine and Mr. Sinatra.
I am sure people could add others of that genre . Now I am sure there are many who would look at that list and think that's not my scene. That's fine but I do think John P has a point when he says that the many many fans of the above have no outlet at all anywhere. Commercial Operators have an excuse such stuff does not bring in the advertisers. .
Actually almost of all of those artists are played regularly during the daytime on Jazz FM. And the others you will hear frequently on The Coast 106.
Part of the problem in resolving this issue is plenty of people in this thread (and others) recognise that a legitimate minority taste is bieng highlighted but that DAB, cable/satiliite and the internet are the usual routes for stations aimed at minority tastes. However we're also being told that this high end of the mature audience are the least likely to use these routes of listening to the radio (something whoch I think is undoubtedly partly true but is changing literally month by month).
To have a national station on analogue radio (especailly one as high profile as Radio Two) for such a minority taste would seem like special pleading. There needs to be flexibility on both sides. A station is needed but the sudience may need to be adaptable in terms of the routes for receiving it.
Yes. I agree with this, though I would state (as I have before) that the FM network should have been reorganised some years ago to reduce the amount of space taken up by the current national stations, and allow other national, regional and local stations to exist - something that the rest of Europe seems to manage perfectly well. But you are right - I think non-traditional forms of receiving radio are "crossing over" significantly beyond the early adopters (who were indeed younger as is usually the case) and reaching a wider audience because the technology is becoming both cheaper and easier to use, as it inevitably does after a while. As I have said to the two Johns and Howard quite a few times, it's dangerous short-termism to pander to those who expect everything to be done the traditional way forever. Had you made such plans five years ago you would already be being overtaken. Another five years and who knows?
I can't claim to be an expert on The Coast 106's playlist, but it's on FM in quite a large area which does, significantly, have quite a large older population with a lot of disposable income (I live there so know what I'm talking about!). a propos the perception that older listeners are not attractive to advertisers, I would suggest that part of the problem, when compared to the US, has to do with the fact that Britain became dominated by advertising and commerce much more recently - with the last barriers to full-scale American-style commercialism not being removed until the 90s - so there's a particular generation, targeted I suppose by the "Music of Your Life" stations in the US (a slogan which PrimeTime used to use if memory serves) who grew up with commercial TV *and* radio, program(me) sponsorship etc. in a way the equivalent generation here did not, and because of this early experience may be (or be perceived by the advertisers to be) more willing to change their brands on a whim whereas their equivalents here may be (or be perceived by the advertisers to be) more inclined to stick with the same products they've always used. I know I've made this point before, but I think it holds - at least in terms of explaining advertisers' attitudes (whether they're right or not is of course another matter).
This month's issue of The Word magazine has a list of famous people who will turn 60 in 2010. Some of the names are ones to bear in mind when we think about who are 'older listeners'. The list includes;
Stevie Wonder
David Jensen
David Cassidy
Peter Gabriel
Agnetha Faltskog (from Abba)
Huey Lewis
Tina Weymouth (from Talking Heads)
Somehow I don't think those arguing for the interests of older listeners have got Peter Gabriel and Talking Heads in mind. I am still very concerned that this debate-and potentially the BBC Trust's view of 'older listeners'-is based on a cliche that is 10 or 20 years out of date.
I know that not everyone of that generation liked the same music, and many evolved to also like other, older styles, but the original rock'n'roll fans are now turning *70*.
I don't think the Light Programme lobby have fully grasped the passing of time and how it changes absolutely everything eventually.
Of course they haven't, Robin. I think it is ludicrous that some of the Light Brigade are out to destroy Radio 2's successful daytime schedule. Why should it be tarnished with crappy old Light Programmes that sound just as knackered as their presenters?
Right now, David Jacobs is on-air. I cannot believe some people are calling for him to be reinstated to daytime Radio 2! Not only is he 83-years-old, he's clearly sounding his age. He would not appeal to younger listeners! He would, in fact, scare them off. Just like Jimmy Young did.
Shortly before Jacobs was dropped from his weekday lunchtime show in the early 90s, he once rendered his show inaudible to the nation - a lot of the old guard never really did get used to the self-op technique brought in from the pirates - and, once restored to the air, spent *ages* gushingly apologising for his mistake. I didn't hear this go out, but my mum did, and even she - quite a fan of the old Radio 2 who regularly listens now on Sunday nights - knew that the time was up.
JY's playlist in his last couple of years wasn't too different from the rest of daytime Radio 2 by then - the softer end of early 00s pop mixed in with familiar 80s Radio 1 staples. The up-to-the-news instrumental was a distant memory by the time he left. Still, the very fact that he was unable to broadcast for most of his scheduled last six months sums up why he had to go, something even my mum eventually accepted - he'd have been ever more prone to such ill health as he lived on into *his* 80s.
I know that not everyone of that generation liked the same music, and many evolved to also like other, older styles, but the original rock'n'roll fans are now turning *70*.
I don't think the Light Programme lobby have fully grasped the passing of time and how it changes absolutely everything eventually.
Robin, there is precious little Rock'n'roll on Radio 2 in peak times. That same generation were the people who were into trad jazz and skiffle. To a large degree basing music purley on age is the wrong argument. There is a large element of nostalgia, it is true, but music is music.
As I said on thr Radio 2 board earlier, I listened to Morrissey on Desert Island Discs on Friday.
The aricle said:
"James Foley, music editor of Record of the Day, said: "It was a narrow choice, almost to the point of being belligerent. If an alien wanted to be introduced to 70s punk, that's the kind of playlist you would give them. It was narrow, unsurprising but completely what Morrissey is about."
and
"As a child, Morrissey described how he became "completely entranced by the recorded song" in a record shop in Manchester. "I was fascinated by the emotion that came from singing and still am," he said.
But presumably he had never heard the emotion depths of a Bessie Smith or a Billie Holiday. And as a man who loves poetry, he seems blissfully unaware of the amazing lyrics of Johnny Mercer.
Typically in the '60s, it became un-hip to listen to music that had gone even a few yeas before.
My contemporaries certainly didn't get jazz - they didn't even dig Little Richard or Elvis. They were fed on a diet of off-shore pirate radio and then Radio 1. It was Beatles, Hendrix and flower power.
I am six years older than Morrissey, yet my choice of music to take to a desert island would be so much broader that the limited choice he made.
As Tuc said their are a lot of people approaching 60 who have the same wilderness background as Morrissey, but there are also many more with a real wide perspective.
Stevie Wonder is an example. He acknowledged his debt to Duke Ellington with 'Sir Duke'.
I mentioned early rock'n'roll because it largely supplanted the sort of music you love the most, and many of its admirers viewed (and still view) a lot of that music with disdain.
I agree with you that basing music on age is the wrong argument. But radio stations still have to think in such terms to some extent, because there are a finite number of them and because "demographics", unfortunately, have become increasingly powerful. If you want to completely avoid stereotypical assumptions, avoid analogue radio altogether as I do increasingly.
The rest of the argument comes down to an important question: what gives you the right to describe a set of tastes different from your own as "wilderness"? I could just as easily describe the tastes of X Factor fans as "wilderness". But I don't, because I am mutually tolerant. I just avoid it altogether and listen to what *I* like. You'd be happier if you did.
I do not live within Morrissey's indeed rather narrow world. But why should he, or anyone else, exclusively go back? Why can they not also go forward?
"Sir Duke" is merely OK. "Living for the City" is *astonishing*. No tribute to the past could ever astonish in that way. And *that* is why your tastes have been marginalised, I'm afraid.
I mentioned early rock'n'roll because it largely supplanted the sort of music you love the most, and many of its admirers viewed (and still view) a lot of that music with disdain.
Robin, that is not the case.Go and read the history.
Rock'n'roll was not new in the 1950s. Some of its earliest practitioners were the Chicago Blues and Boogie pianists, the swing musicians, like Lionel Hampton and Louis Jordan and blues shouters like Big Joe Turner. Fats Domino was a New Orleans pianist.
The rest of the argument comes down to an important question: what gives you the right to describe a set of tastes different from your own as "wilderness"? I could just as easily describe the tastes of X Factor fans as "wilderness". But I don't, because I am mutually tolerant. I just avoid it altogether and listen to what *I* like. You'd be happier if you did.
Because, Robin, I am a musician and can make judgments on objective musical criteria, not emotional ones. Yes X Factor fans are in the wilderness as are most of the wannabes who perform on it.
You get some who can really sing. Susan Boyle is one, although I do not like what she does.
You have to have the ability to detach emotion, i.e. subjective likes and dislikes from objective musical analysis.
By any musical yardstick, the critic ,who claimed Morrissey's choice of records on DID was narrow, got it right.
I do not live within Morrissey's indeed rather narrow world. But why should he, or anyone else, exclusively go back? Why can they not also go forward?
I'm not arguing for exclusively going back - but in musical terms, if you throw away the roots you tend to get something of less substance than if you understand where a thing comes from.
You don't start to build a house on the 1st floor - you start with firm foundations. Music is the same. Hence why so much pop music today is, as you said, ephemeral and the real classic jazz recordings were much greater than that.
Any jazz musician playing, say, in the 'tradition' of New Orleans Jazz is not trapped in time warp in the year 1920, but is creating new music of the moment, which is his own reaction to what is going on around him now, but building on a musical heritage going back over many decades.
This is what the rock'n'rollers were doing.
Twenty years ago when I was touring with blues legend Art Hodes, who was then aged 85 and who's roots were in the black pianists of Chicago's South side, said to me he still wanted to record and play because he had something to say. His style had been formed in the '20s but his music was fresh, creative and invigorating - what's more it had depth and emotion not evident I'm afraid in the choices of Morrissey.
"Sir Duke" is merely OK. "Living for the City" is *astonishing*. No tribute to the past could ever astonish in that way. And *that* is why your tastes have been marginalised, I'm afraid.
On what grounds do you draw your comparison - I could say what gives you the right?
My tastes are far from marginalised. If I hear things I like in today's music that is fine. I just do not hear very much - but that is OK.
This is not a personal attack, but I do think you are musically biased towards modern pop artists. Just because you dislike Pixie Lott, Lar Roux, Mika etc, you feel they should not be played on Radio 2. Instead, you want to hear jazz and big band music.
Personally, I would much rather hear Pixie Lott et al - and I am sure the average daytime listener feels the same way!
Comments
I don't doubt the basic premise (audience success, commercial flop).
I *do* think Saga might have done a bit more to change those agencies' perceptions. Ron Coles spoke a lot about concentrating on the "55" end of the market rather than the "over" bit. If they'd successfully done that - and communicated it - Saga would have been as full of home furnishing ads as Heart or Smooth are. As it was, it always seemed to be incontinence treatments and care homes.
Anyway.. I seem to be veering dangerously off the premise of this thread, and I don't want to get in the way of JP repeating his point. Again
I'm sure there are many goldfish who have already forgotten what John has said hundreds of times on this forum. It is important that John keeps on saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. It is especially valued by those of us who enjoy being rudely condescended and spoken to as if we were children. I'm quite sure that John will be back soon to reassure us that his record is still broken.
I have no desire to get involved in any of the tiresome 'Paul Barnes'/ Radio 2/Jazz/ Big Band debates...
But I will point out that you're wrong here.
There's a ratings spike on several of the stations in the run up to Paul Barnes show. It's not massive but cumulatively his listening figures will be respectable.
Someone posted on here that they wouldn't take advertising for products which the Saga group offered, such as holidays and insurance. It must have been difficult for them to work out how much these had benefited solely through advertising on their radio stations.
Thank you for those wise words.
However I have had problems in the past with these late night
/off peak freelancers plugging their gigs and campaigning outside the BBC for personal gain.
As an ex BBC man I know the scams some of these people used to pull.
I'd like to see a BBC local sustaining service outside of prime hours. However as an oldie retired it's up to others to do that.
To whom are you pointing a finger and would you like to sunstantiate your accusation?
Another interesting point.
I promote 2 jazz festivals a year on which I am at financial risk - in that if I don't sell the rooms at the venues, I'm into finding £thousands.
I also promote concerts in jazz clubs, arts centres and churches.
The audience age range for these activities is mainly 60 plus up to late 80s.
How do I get audiences? Guess what?I advertise. So older people do buy things they see advertised. They also have a high disposable income - many of them.
They buy festival breaks, concerts, CDs, DVDs. If I can sell to them, why can't the ad agencies?
I wonder what the model for Classic FM originally was.
I find it hard to believe that a properly marketed 'light' station would not be viable if managed correctly.
It is wrong and there is no doubt about that.
Maybe something like this may happen with the Radio 2 & 6Music review.
..or at least come up with an original idea. Paul Hollins used that tag for his late shows years ago!
..or at least come up with an original idea. Paul Hollins used that tag for his late shows years ago![/QUOTE]
I think Paul was given that title by Radio Norfolk
Actually almost of all of those artists are played regularly during the daytime on Jazz FM. And the others you will hear frequently on The Coast 106.
www.jazzfm.com
www.thecoast106.com
To have a national station on analogue radio (especailly one as high profile as Radio Two) for such a minority taste would seem like special pleading. There needs to be flexibility on both sides. A station is needed but the sudience may need to be adaptable in terms of the routes for receiving it.
I can't claim to be an expert on The Coast 106's playlist, but it's on FM in quite a large area which does, significantly, have quite a large older population with a lot of disposable income (I live there so know what I'm talking about!). a propos the perception that older listeners are not attractive to advertisers, I would suggest that part of the problem, when compared to the US, has to do with the fact that Britain became dominated by advertising and commerce much more recently - with the last barriers to full-scale American-style commercialism not being removed until the 90s - so there's a particular generation, targeted I suppose by the "Music of Your Life" stations in the US (a slogan which PrimeTime used to use if memory serves) who grew up with commercial TV *and* radio, program(me) sponsorship etc. in a way the equivalent generation here did not, and because of this early experience may be (or be perceived by the advertisers to be) more willing to change their brands on a whim whereas their equivalents here may be (or be perceived by the advertisers to be) more inclined to stick with the same products they've always used. I know I've made this point before, but I think it holds - at least in terms of explaining advertisers' attitudes (whether they're right or not is of course another matter).
Stevie Wonder
David Jensen
David Cassidy
Peter Gabriel
Agnetha Faltskog (from Abba)
Huey Lewis
Tina Weymouth (from Talking Heads)
Somehow I don't think those arguing for the interests of older listeners have got Peter Gabriel and Talking Heads in mind. I am still very concerned that this debate-and potentially the BBC Trust's view of 'older listeners'-is based on a cliche that is 10 or 20 years out of date.
I know that not everyone of that generation liked the same music, and many evolved to also like other, older styles, but the original rock'n'roll fans are now turning *70*.
I don't think the Light Programme lobby have fully grasped the passing of time and how it changes absolutely everything eventually.
Right now, David Jacobs is on-air. I cannot believe some people are calling for him to be reinstated to daytime Radio 2! Not only is he 83-years-old, he's clearly sounding his age. He would not appeal to younger listeners! He would, in fact, scare them off. Just like Jimmy Young did.
JY's playlist in his last couple of years wasn't too different from the rest of daytime Radio 2 by then - the softer end of early 00s pop mixed in with familiar 80s Radio 1 staples. The up-to-the-news instrumental was a distant memory by the time he left. Still, the very fact that he was unable to broadcast for most of his scheduled last six months sums up why he had to go, something even my mum eventually accepted - he'd have been ever more prone to such ill health as he lived on into *his* 80s.
Robin, there is precious little Rock'n'roll on Radio 2 in peak times. That same generation were the people who were into trad jazz and skiffle. To a large degree basing music purley on age is the wrong argument. There is a large element of nostalgia, it is true, but music is music.
As I said on thr Radio 2 board earlier, I listened to Morrissey on Desert Island Discs on Friday.
He is 50 years old - clearly an intelligent man.
The Guardian review of the show got it about right:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/nov/29/morrissey-desert-island-discs
The aricle said:
"James Foley, music editor of Record of the Day, said: "It was a narrow choice, almost to the point of being belligerent. If an alien wanted to be introduced to 70s punk, that's the kind of playlist you would give them. It was narrow, unsurprising but completely what Morrissey is about."
and
"As a child, Morrissey described how he became "completely entranced by the recorded song" in a record shop in Manchester. "I was fascinated by the emotion that came from singing and still am," he said.
But presumably he had never heard the emotion depths of a Bessie Smith or a Billie Holiday. And as a man who loves poetry, he seems blissfully unaware of the amazing lyrics of Johnny Mercer.
Typically in the '60s, it became un-hip to listen to music that had gone even a few yeas before.
My contemporaries certainly didn't get jazz - they didn't even dig Little Richard or Elvis. They were fed on a diet of off-shore pirate radio and then Radio 1. It was Beatles, Hendrix and flower power.
I am six years older than Morrissey, yet my choice of music to take to a desert island would be so much broader that the limited choice he made.
As Tuc said their are a lot of people approaching 60 who have the same wilderness background as Morrissey, but there are also many more with a real wide perspective.
Stevie Wonder is an example. He acknowledged his debt to Duke Ellington with 'Sir Duke'.
I agree with you that basing music on age is the wrong argument. But radio stations still have to think in such terms to some extent, because there are a finite number of them and because "demographics", unfortunately, have become increasingly powerful. If you want to completely avoid stereotypical assumptions, avoid analogue radio altogether as I do increasingly.
The rest of the argument comes down to an important question: what gives you the right to describe a set of tastes different from your own as "wilderness"? I could just as easily describe the tastes of X Factor fans as "wilderness". But I don't, because I am mutually tolerant. I just avoid it altogether and listen to what *I* like. You'd be happier if you did.
I do not live within Morrissey's indeed rather narrow world. But why should he, or anyone else, exclusively go back? Why can they not also go forward?
"Sir Duke" is merely OK. "Living for the City" is *astonishing*. No tribute to the past could ever astonish in that way. And *that* is why your tastes have been marginalised, I'm afraid.
Rock'n'roll was not new in the 1950s. Some of its earliest practitioners were the Chicago Blues and Boogie pianists, the swing musicians, like Lionel Hampton and Louis Jordan and blues shouters like Big Joe Turner. Fats Domino was a New Orleans pianist.
Because, Robin, I am a musician and can make judgments on objective musical criteria, not emotional ones. Yes X Factor fans are in the wilderness as are most of the wannabes who perform on it.
You get some who can really sing. Susan Boyle is one, although I do not like what she does.
You have to have the ability to detach emotion, i.e. subjective likes and dislikes from objective musical analysis.
By any musical yardstick, the critic ,who claimed Morrissey's choice of records on DID was narrow, got it right.
I'm not arguing for exclusively going back - but in musical terms, if you throw away the roots you tend to get something of less substance than if you understand where a thing comes from.
You don't start to build a house on the 1st floor - you start with firm foundations. Music is the same. Hence why so much pop music today is, as you said, ephemeral and the real classic jazz recordings were much greater than that.
Any jazz musician playing, say, in the 'tradition' of New Orleans Jazz is not trapped in time warp in the year 1920, but is creating new music of the moment, which is his own reaction to what is going on around him now, but building on a musical heritage going back over many decades.
This is what the rock'n'rollers were doing.
Twenty years ago when I was touring with blues legend Art Hodes, who was then aged 85 and who's roots were in the black pianists of Chicago's South side, said to me he still wanted to record and play because he had something to say. His style had been formed in the '20s but his music was fresh, creative and invigorating - what's more it had depth and emotion not evident I'm afraid in the choices of Morrissey.
On what grounds do you draw your comparison - I could say what gives you the right?
My tastes are far from marginalised. If I hear things I like in today's music that is fine. I just do not hear very much - but that is OK.
This is not a personal attack, but I do think you are musically biased towards modern pop artists. Just because you dislike Pixie Lott, Lar Roux, Mika etc, you feel they should not be played on Radio 2. Instead, you want to hear jazz and big band music.
Personally, I would much rather hear Pixie Lott et al - and I am sure the average daytime listener feels the same way!