Entertainment For Lively Minds
Professor Paul Gambaccini has had enough of TV stars taking over the radio
Refreshingly undiplomatic interview with Paul Gambaccini in the Guardian today in which he continues to criticise the BBC over the Jonathan Ross affair and lays into George Lamb, describing his interview with Ray Davies as "the worst interview in the history of broadcasting", which is probably a bit strong. "He needed training," he reckons.
Gambaccini's about to be the Visiting Professor of Broadcast Media at Oxford University and his opening lecture is going to be all about the invasion of radio by TV faces, which is probably the first time that subject has been aired within the cloisters.
He's not completely dismissive of all the TV people. He says Jeremy Vine's OK and Dermot O'Leary "works very hard." Saucer of milk for the Prof.
- More from David Hepworth.
- Login or register to post comments
-
Despite myself
I've always had a grudging respect for Mr Gambacinni. He speaks mostly good sense (but with that 70's DJ overstatement that makes you think its rot to start with). His views on Kajagoogoo were very nearly professional suicide however.
I don't know which comments
you refer to, but I seem to recall that PG and Limahl were an item at one time, so that may have caused them, whether good or ill.
All I know is that I once saw Nick 'world's stupidest hair' Beggs playing a Chapman Stick with celtic rockers Iona, and he was absolutely mindblowing.
He wrote a forward
in a book about them in which he described them in future of music terms. Left his critical faculties behind on that one.
Good for Gambo...
as far as I'm concerned he's just telling it like it is. He certainly has the track record in radio to back up his comments.
"Works very hard"
is the most concise description of O' Leary's presentation style I have ever heard.
TV personalities
The presenters are not without their faults but I'd rather have the 'new' style radio 2 we have these days than the old style bland, light muzak-based version or old poptastic radio 1. I don't think bringing the odd TV person is wrong per se - there aren't really many anyway. Lamb is awful but Ross's old show was actually pretty good. We had the Ross/Brand incident but that was about something other than TV people getting on radio. I'm tired of Wogan myself. I wonder if Gambaccini might be a little resentful of newcomers getting top spots while he rather languishes in a less prominent time slot. Good that he speaks out though.
Languishes in a less prominent time-shot *where* exactly?
He's all over Radio 4 these days.
PG is, I believe, the only presenter to have had series-run shows on all 4 BBC Radio networks, Capital AND Classic FM.
OK then
That just shows how little I listen to radio 4, Capital and Classic FM.
His crucial point is about the money in radio.
High profile presenters (even ones less well known than Jonathan Ross) eat up a huge proportion of radio budgets which means less on air variety. I'm sure in radio terms Gambo doesn't come cheap himself; but he plainly loves the medium and puts in the effort. His point seems to be that a lot of the telly incomers don't.
I will declare an interest here and admit that most of my work is in radio. His complaints about lack of money for documentaries etc really rings true and it was pretty much impossible to get stuff commissioned for Radio 2 under Lesley Douglas unless a celeb of some kind was attached. I very much doubt that this situation will change much even though Radio 2's management is going to be different, but it's marvelous that a high profile person in the world of radio is at least speaking out on this subject. Usually when this happens its an embittered ex presenter with an axe to grind, Gambo can't be described as one of them and for that reason I can only applaud him for his comments.
Wogan
His salary must be pretty high and he is presumably a radio man -though he bestrides both media forms like a colossus I suppose. Anyway these days people flit from radio to TV back to radio all the time like Chris Evans, or Kenny Everett back in the day. I just don't think it's as simple as TV people coming along and taking all the money or spoiling things. Depends on abilities of individual whether show works regardless of where they come from. Predominantly radio people can also command big bucks.
The number of people who can
The number of people who can do both TV and radio well is actually pretty small - Terry Wogan, Jonathan Ross (yes, Jonathan Ross) and not many others.
The reason for this is, TV presenting and radio presenting are two different skills. Radio hates dead air, and to succeed on it, you've got to have a large enough personality to keep talking throughout. But often, what makes for a good presenter - Nicky Campbell, for example, or John Humphrys - comes across as overbearing and arrogant on the TV screen. On the other hand, what matters on TV is to have an attractive personality, even if this means being bland - and these shortcomings are usually mercilessly exposed on radio, as anyone who's listened to Eamonn Holmes or Davina McCall will testify.
Well
Chris Evans, Jeremy Vine and Dale Winton seem to have also done alright in both worlds. Mark Radcliffe and Stuart Maconie have both done good work on TV. And am not sure I agree about John Humphreys and Nicky Campbell not being as good on TV. I've not heard Davina McCall on radio but I recall her TV chat show disaster so don't know what that proves? Only any good on Big Brother and hair colour ads?
Well...
I'm a fan of Radcliffe and Maconie but they haven't exactly set the TV world on fire. And Nicky Campbell never exactly became the next Paxman. as he was once expected to. Chris Evans could probably still do both if he wanted to, but he's a rare example of a TV personality with the sense to realize that radio was his proper home. And Dale Winton will never be another Fluff Freeman.
Or...
do I mean Jimmy Saville?
I'm not saying
these people are necessarily outstanding and brilliantly successful - there are very few who are, even just in TV or radio alone, but they can do well enough in both. Radcliffe did good on White Room and Maconie did fine on BBC4 pop programmes, for example. Dale is well suited to his pop charts of yesteryear show. Danny Baker though is one who is clearly only really right for radio. Dermot O'Leary may be a bit bland, but is he any worse than some of the old radio 2 presenters who have now disappeared? I just don't agree with the generalisation that's being made.
I don't really see his point
What does it matter if they come from TV or radio? Chris Moyles comes from radio and I'd guess his salary is as high as Russell Brand's was. If they make entertaining shows what does it matter?
His point was surely that
just because someone's good on TV doesn't mean they'll be good on radio. Fair point I'd say. Mind you, I can't think of anything worse than listening to Moyles or Lamb so...
But some of them are good on radio
And some of the radio people are crap. I just don't think you can make blanket statements like that.
I thought Russell Brand's show was excellent, he's a radio natural despite coming from TV. In fact he's better on radio than he's ever been on TV. Gambo's criticism of him "look he's standing up, that means he can't run a desk" was completely irrelevant for what was a comedy talk show.
Dom Joly
A timely thread this, as I was unfortunate enough to catch some of Radio 5's mid-morning show yesterday, whose stand-in presenter was Dom Joly. Yes, the big mobile phone man.
Now this show is not exactly Hard Talk, but it does feature discussions on news and current affairs. So who on Earth thought Dom Joly would be a good idea to present it? When he introduced an item about the recession in Lebanon I was waiting for the punchline.
Didn't he start in news journalism
and then move onto comedy (loose description).
Well I'm off to hear him give the lecture tonight
....and will report back.
I can sense that you're all gripped with anticipation.