I watched the SkyArts recording of the Dudamel concert again tonight. Apart from the wonderful music-making, I was struck by the contrast with the current BBC approach to broadcasting serious music. There was no spoken commentary or introduction throughout the broadcast; we were just given visual titles. The audience was treated as adults. We either knew about the orchestra or we were assumed to have the initiative to find out.
How would this have differed if it had been recorded by the BBC? Patronising introductions, film of rehearsals, the players leaving home for auditions, reactions of parents, interviews with audience members, a commentary telling us what the conductor was feeling - all these horrors and more, I suspect. Even the camera work was unobtrusive and efficient.
How paradoxical the whole situation of televised music has become. Who would have believed, a decade ago, that Sky would be showing straightforward music-making, while the BBC is constantly searching for new gimmicks?
But there's another, very simple, and erm very correct explanation for the difference: SkyArts just shows stuff, and not much of it. Some concerts, some operas, the odd masterpieces of world whatever. All bought in. None of it original. Or adding anything to anything.
And nobody at Sky knows anything about the stuff they show, so nobody at Sky could provide introductions, editorial content etc.
So, apart from the fact that they aren't Sky's programmes anyway, there isn't anybody at Sky to get in the way (or to do something more interesting than get in the way).
And the camera work isn't Sky's, of course, since they don't make the programmes.
Effectively, they just show DVDs. (With the odd, insignificant, exception).
(I have Sky for Sky Sports, which is rather better informed
. I live with the shame of it.
)
There's plenty (I'm sure) to beat the BBC over and with. But SkyArts is no argument for anything.
