Skip to main content

Why Radio One just isn't poptastic any more

As I seem to spend most of my spare time driving teenagers around, I get exposed quite a lot to stations on the wireless playing the music of popular beat combos. In these parts there are really only three options - BBC Radio Wiltshire, Heart FM and BBC Radio 1.

Radio Wiltshire we can dismiss straight away, as they aim at an older audience. So here's the thing. Neither Radio 1 nor Heart really make the grade, so we end up with the teenagers irritatingly flipping between the two with goldfish attention span regularity. This cannot go on. One of them needs to pull their musical socks up before I am driven round the bend.

The problem with Heart is that their music buying budget is about 10p and their taste is fixed in the 1980s. So often we suffer 80s disco monstrosities. When they do pick up something new, they play it over and over. And they only really like it if, like Charlene Spiteri's Xanadu, it is indistinguishable from an old track. (Actually, I think the play the Olivia Newton John track, as it's cheaper, but no one can tell the difference. Why on earth did they think this song was worth covering with an identical rendition? It was terrible to start with.) The teenage verdict - the music is rubbish.

So we flip over the Radio 1... and someone is talking. You can guarantee this. There's more speech on Radio 1 than on Radio 4. When they do play music there are interesting new bands and the tracks the teenage passengers really want to hear, but most of the time this station can't be bothered with the music. That's because the DJs on Radio 1 think they are celebrities, and we want to hear them drivelling on about themselves. No we don't, and more specifically, no my teenage audience don't. They'd rather listen to the adverts on Heart than yet another Radio 1 DJ rabitting on.

So here's the challenge. Either Heart get some decent music (and change your playlist more than once a fortnight), or Radio 1 sack all your self-centred DJs and get some (cheaper) people who concentrate on playing the music. Now, please. Teenagers have no patience.

Just to really make your day, here is the original Xanadu. Hands up if you can tell the difference:

Comments

  1. Brian - be a man. Stand up for yourself. It's your car. You should dictate what gets played. In Caroline eVolvo the choice is between Deep Purple's 2005 album 'Rapture of the Deep', or 'Ghost' by Dana Kerstein. Or nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just wait until your two are nearly 16...

    ReplyDelete
  3. I was quite dismayed on a visit back to the UK a few years ago when I realised that all my favourite songs are now on Radio 2. Oh, the horror!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh yes, Cath, the migration of the catalogue from Radio 1 to Radio 2 is inexorable. But 16-ish-year-olds' heads explode if they listen to Radio 2. It's scientific fact.

    ReplyDelete
  5. dad you will have to put up with us untill you by us a car each !

    ReplyDelete
  6. dad you will have to put up with us untill you by us a car each !

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense