@PaulR said:

 British TV is usually better, but the BBC for example are unable to make much these days because most of the taxpayers money goes to paying the communist fucks that work there, their salaries.

 

Ya know, that's a damn crying shame!  All the more reason to privatize the BBC.  Like that's going to happen.  I thought the Brits made the best documentaries ever, hands down.  I loved watching BBC documentaries.  They were so good.  Forget that Michael Moore Socialist propaganda crap.  The BBC just told it like it was.  I have those old David Attenborough series on DVD and watch them everytime the wife and kids are away.  But my favorite has to be the Connections series by James Burke.  James just had a way of making some of the dryest mundane material interesting and fun to watch.  Not to mention that dry British humour that I love.

We get the BBC here in the states on some cable outfits but It's mostly just British versions of American Drama shows.

@jasensmith said:

[...]  All the more reason to privatize the BBC.  Like that's going to happen. [....]

Hopefully not.

@PaulR said:

this is merely a substitute of and for the background drone of 21st century day to day living

That is probably true and why current film scores are so hideous to me.  They must have a constant drone and that is exactly what Zimmer the Destructor is doing - constant heavy drones with percussion. 

This is in total contradiction to what is essential to true meaning in any field of human endeavor - SILENCE.  Without silence, human beings essentially go mad, and that is what is happening with the constant drone of horrible noise like thumping woofers in cars to punctuate the din of traffic, wall of sound stereos at work, earbuds while jogging - you name it, it is all constant din of sound. 

This is absolutely contrary to what is needed for real music, which is the organization of purified sound out of silence, NOT out of noise and chaos. 

btw those Lewton scores again are a perfect example of extremely quiet subtle music that comes out of the silence and is therefore immensely more effective.   

@jasensmith said:

Forget that Michael Moore Socialist propaganda crap.  The BBC just told it like it was.  

The BBC is sponsored by The Guardian - or is it the other way round. You chaps don't know a fucking thing about the BBC. They are certainly not a capitilist organization. Although I try not to laugh out loud whenever  I hear about the BBC moving their operation to...........Salford. HAHAHAHA. That's funny.

What would be great would be once they've moved there - the same people that trashed the place a couple of nights ago went in and trashed the BBC. All those people at the BBC that earn 600k p/a aren't going to want to disrupt their pretend left - wing existences to go to fucking Salford. Believe me.

The BBC should be overhauled into the margins of virtual non existence. I, along with most people that think and don't read The Guardian, find it incredible that we are forced to pay for a service we don't really want. A public sector tv station that can no longer make programs and is a glorified left wing news channel. How would that go down in your countries (of origin).

Ha!

Thanks for the link Paul, but what a sorry untalented conductor!! How did he ever get this gig?! The whole thing sounds more like a reading than a performance; a mock-up before humanizing automation is applied. No phrasing (in terms of theme-structuring), no mystery, no shades, no dynamics, no interpretation, even the shower scene sounds more like a parody of somebody with a facial tick, rather than a murder scene...

P.S.: Guys, please stop tempting me to get into a political discussion here...

@PaulR said:

A public sector tv station that can no longer make programs and is a glorified left wing news channel. How would that go down in your countries (of origin).

 

Well here in the states we have PBS and NPR News which are "partially" funded by tax dollars.  The funny thing is, these organizations have turned a profit in the last couple of years yet they will put a strangle hold on the federal money they recieve and absolutely refuse to give it up under any circumstances.  Why?  Good question.  My guess is because of the fact that both organizations are dominated by Lefties (and I don't mean left armed people) if they give up that federal money then they will loose the persona of being Run by the Government.  As if this is a bad thing.  I don't know why they seem to think that something run by the government is somehow cleaner, more pristine, pure, or uncorruptable then if it were being run by Microsoft or something.  Then again it's just a theory and I could be right.  

@PaulR said:

The BBC should be overhauled into the margins of virtual non existence. I, along with most people that think and don't read The Guardian, find it incredible that we are forced to pay for a service we don't really want.  

I didn't know that the BBC and the Guardian were connected.  Now I know why I get flamed and called all sorts of hideous names whenever I post my conservative views on some of their articles related to America.

@jasensmith said:

[...]  All the more reason to privatize the BBC.  Like that's going to happen. [....]

Hopefully not.

Well, Dietz I don't know how things are in your neck of the woods but in the states TV programing that is funded completed or in part by the government tend to promote political views that I don't agree with.  I respect your point of view but why should I be forced to pay taxes to support TV programing that I don't agree with.  Even if I did agree with their political point of views I don't think others should be forced to pay for them if they don't.

@Errikos said:

P.S.: Guys, please stop tempting me to get into a political discussion here...

Yeah try to resist doing that Errik.  I admit I may have started it with one of my previous posts but I was only responding to something Paul said that caught my attention and that I felt contributed, albeit in a small way, to the discussion we were having.  It kind of got out of hand however and I appologize to those who want to keep the talk to music.

@William said:

Also what you are talking about with the loudness is something I have particularly been affected by.  I have grown more and more intolerant of loud music (though have written a lot in the past) and even felt physically disturbed, by that horrible pounding blaring score so often heard today. 

Do you think technology has something to do with this loudness and constant "droning" that most audiences tend to favor today? 

I remember when I bought my first Walkman.  I thought it was the best thing to come out since peanut butter and toilet paper.  I could ride the subway or walk or work or whatever turn the volume up and just sink into my own little world. 

Today, you walk down the street and if they're not talking on cell phones people have Ipods or MP3 players or whatever in their ears and they are just tunning out of the world around them.  I especially see this in younger generations.  They are just in their own droning worlds.

@PaulR said:

..

The BBC should be overhauled into the margins of virtual non existence. I, along with most people that think and don't read The Guardian, find it incredible that we are forced to pay for a service we don't really want. A public sector tv station that can no longer make programs and is a glorified left wing news channel. How would that go down in your countries (of origin).

..

What is your opinion on the BBC Proms, PaulR?

@JSAntares said:

What is your opinion on the BBC Proms, PaulR?

What have the Proms got to to do with the BBC?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1196153/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-Will-tell-overgrown-teenagers-running-BBC-licence-fee-party-over.html

Far from me to engage in a political discussion here - for I'd be doing it in my customary gracious and forgiving ways, plus I don't see the moderators allowing it for too long - but I'd like to make a point which is at least related to what we do here:

I used to have my own broadcast as talent/producer on the national public radio here in Athens (say BBC 3 equivalent - a parody of it), and I have to say that I agree with Paul's blanket assessment of who runs the programming and who the target audiences are, as well as with Jasen's notion of their glorification of government centralization and the seemingly endless supply of money those "lefties" have access to. A lot of these "Marxists" in Greece (both on public radio and TV) have made untold millions with the blessings of the pestilential government we've had during the last 40 years. My salary was also disproportionate for Greek standards, during my brief tenure, and I saw incredible things happen around me while contracted there.

However, I have also lived in Australia for a very long time, and I must say that the best programming by far on radio and TV in both countries came from those public stations. Although I admit that in both countries those stations are ran by the fringe elements of society - thus there's a demographic misrepresentation in their ranks - there is no way that the vile, conspiratorially decadent private stations would ever pay to broadcast any quality program, let alone produce it. The private stations are the auspices of game-shows, sports, women's sit-coms and dramas, reality TV where retards watch twirps sleep and peep into their toilet habits, "talent"-shows, top10 crap, Hollywood movies, and endless commercials. The only thing they share with public radio/TV on a day-to-day basis is political commentary. All the documentaries, the concerts (classical), the great investigative reports (tainted red I agree), opera, the theatre, the great interviews, the old/great films, they're all audible/viewable exclusively on public radio/TV - 2MBS FM in Sydney being a marvellous exception, I hope it's still running. I think Dietz meant that we are all going to lose the quality programming that BBC offers if it is ever privatized. Who is going to take it up?

What quality programming would that be Erik? To speak of quality programming you immediately have to do comparisons with times gone by.  Why do the BBC even bother to get involved in "daytime television"? BBC3 programs are generally for teenage imbeciles on how to squirt their zits at the mirror.

And the film for BBC3 this evening will be the same as it was yesterday evening - Tomb Raider. No one but those morons watch it. The BBC is no longer the largest tv station in GB. SKY television is and the BBC cannot compete with SKY in anyway, apart from news coverage, which is biased. Therefore, they cannot justify the licence fee and any future arbitrary  increases based on their pension problems and lack of programming - especially in sports coverage.

The BBC do not do quality dramas anymore. The BBC are more interested in getting Labour into government to keep their news funding going. They need to be broken up and made much smaller. 

When I was quite young, the only TV channel was the one BBC channel. That was it. No other channel. And they managed to make that pretty good considering in the afternoons they shut down and showed the Potter's Wheel, Fish in a Tank and Kittens playing with wool on an Armchair. Then came ITV. So then there were 2 channels. And now you have God knows how many channels, most of which are poor and show repeats of everything, although Sky Arts  and their sports coverage are very good a lot of the time.

Plus they (SKY) don't stink up the place by constantly having communist dikes in for their political slant on recent events because it suits their policy.

I normally wouldn't get involved in these kind of discussions but I really can't resist this one - what "quality" programmes do Sky make? All I see is live sports, "reality" tv and American imports.

And if you want to talk about bias in the news - Sky's reporting of the NotW phone hacking scandal has been atrocious (they ignored it for just about as long as they could) but then again News Corp (owner of the NotW) holds the biggest stake in Sky (and has been lobbying for the BBC to be shut down for years).

Perhaps that's the kind of objective journalism you'd like to see more of.

I'd like to sign off on a happier note than that though, so for those of you unfamiliar with The Guardian, Daily Mail & NotW I present to you a clip that is still the very best overview of our beloved UK newspapers;

I agree with Paul in that, today, there is just so much more available on the boob tube then there ever was.  I think I have over a thousand channels in my satelite TV package.  Of that thousand about 95% is just pure garbage or stuff that just doesn't interest me, ie. The Shrimp Channel?   Who the hell watches that?  I don't watch much TV anymore but when I do I usually watch things like the History channel, TLC, Animal Planet, Nat. Geo and a few others.  I really like the older documentaries like the ones the BBC used to run but apparently don't anymore.  It seems that those privately operated channels offer the best programming IMHO.

However you're right Errik at one time PBS (Public Broadcasting Station) ran some good stuff.  To some extent, they still do.  Thank God they've stayed out of the unreality TV market.  I remember when they ran the Ken Burnes Civil War documentary which was excellent.  Also Vietnam, the Ten Thousand Day War which was actually a Canadian production very good as well.  But in today's market, those productions could easily be picked up by private run TV stations on satelite or cable. 

Martin, I read the Gaurdian from time to time and unfortunately their readership doesn't know how to debate.  When I call out some of their erroneous reporting or challenge an editorial leaving a comment on their website, instead of engaging in honest healthy debate they just attack me by calling me a "racist," or "Bigot" or "moron" or whatever.  Apparently if you don't goose step to the prevailing left wing drum at the time, you're ridiculed and dismissed.

BTW, Martin don't take this the wrong way but why is the font on your website so small?  As some marketing advice, make the font bigger because if I have to take out my glasses to read the small print on your site it's just easier to click away somewhere else.  

Jasen - don't take any notice of Martin.

Jasen - it's difficult for Americans to understand this. But what you proabably don't know is that the 182 readers of The Guardian are all mentally ill and need help. They think Captain Pugwash is going to do a great job of running the country in 3 years time and all their benefits will be restored, payed for by anyone stupid enough to still be paying tax. 

English people that are left in this country realized long ago that the problem was always going to be population control and that will naturally come in xy years time.

Ahoy there!

@PaulR said:

Jasen - it's difficult for Americans to understand this. But what you proabably don't know is that the 182 readers of The Guardian are all mentally ill and need help. They think Captain Pugwash is going to do a great job of running the country in 3 years time and all their benefits will be restored, payed for by anyone stupid enough to still be paying tax. 

@Another User said:

Jasen - don't take any notice of Martin.

Jasen - it's difficult for Americans to understand this. But what you proabably don't know is that the 182 readers of The Guardian are all mentally ill and need help. They think Captain Pugwash is going to do a great job of running the country in 3 years time and all their benefits will be restored, payed for by anyone stupid enough to still be paying tax.

Kind of proves my point doesn't it? Ridiculing and dismissing going on right there.

Mis-reporting (or as they prefer to call it editorialising) is true of every paper. For example, the Daily Mail hyped up the MMR vaccine scare (though they weren't the only one). Then when the research saying it was dangerous was debunked they didn't print a thing. So now our vaccination rates have plummeted and we had our first deaths from measles in decades (as we were at, or close to, herd immunity levels before the scare) and the Mail print an article saying it's the French that have caused the rise in measles infections.

The Telegraph recently printed a story saying that average wages in the public sector were higher than the private sector (which plays nicely into the narrative of public sector bad & wasteful, private sector good & efficient). The problem is that's is so much more complicated than that. Yes the average wage is higher but that's partly because all the low skilled jobs have been outsourced to private companies. Also, we know that women are paid less than men to do the same job and that women are disproportionally employed in the public sector so if anything the result should be the opposite. However since proper research hasn't happened we don't actually know. And this happens every day in all of the papers - utter crud being printed based on the political stripe of the paper rather than on solid research and reporting.

I don't see a lot of Fox News but I know the lack of balanced reporting in the US isn't just confined to the left.

However, none of this has anything to do with my original point.

Not sure why the font on my site is appearing small - I'll look into it and thanks for the heads up!