Removing Children's Programmes from BBC One: Not as ridiculous as you might think

It was announced a few days ago that as part of their 'Delivering Quality First' cost-cutting exercise the BBC would stop broadcasting children's programmes on the flagship channels BBC One and Two. It was unfortunate that the headline "Blue Peter axed from BBC One" got misinterpreted by the Tweeting Mob as "Blue Peter axed" as that misreading caused a large amount of unnecessary outrage!

Nonetheless, there was also plenty of more considered comment from those on the popular social networking site and other message boards. Is this a downsizing of children's television? After all, in 2006 CITV disappeared from ITV1 onto the brand-new CITV Channel and this coincided with the closure of ITV's children's department, far fewer newly-commissioned shows (you can count on one hand the number of new CITV programmes in the last five years) and a downgrading of quality compared to the energy and excellence that CITV showed just five years earlier. There are similar comparisons to be held with CBBC although to nowhere the same extent. When 'the channel' launched over a decade ago, there was live in-vision continuity on both the digital channel and the CBBC slots on terrestrial channels, with plenty of live shows on the digital channels, such as XChange, the cartoon phone-in Nelly Nut and Newsround updates. However, this gradually watered away and 2007 saw a repositioning of the CBBC channel. In-vision continuity returned to the 'broom cupboard' style with the launch of the CBBC Office, the puppet behind the desk and the feeling of one man creating his own fun. However, this popular re-launch took place only on the CBBC Channel, thus making it the principal channel over the terrestrial channels. New shows began to debut on the digital channel and the terrestrial slots became more like a ghost town, full of repeats and lifeless continuity. In January, Blue Peter made the switch to debuting on the digital channel and now Newsround is the only programme that premieres on BBC One.

Therefore, it is no doubt that children tune straight into the CBBC Channel rather than BBC One for their fix of programmes - that is where the new programmes are shown, that is where all the fun is, that is where to be, rather than on BBC One. Therefore, ratings have fallen on BBC One, sometimes below 1000, and thus the BBC have confirmed that they are to remove the children's slots from BBC One and Two.

As Simon Howard correctly points out, BBC One's remit is to be inclusive and show a diverse range of programming. However, if the programmes are not being appreciated by the target audience then why split the CBBC channel's audience (and everybody will be able to receive it following the final DSO later this year)? It would have been sensible to simulcast the CBBC channel on BBC One, thereby saving the cost of having two separate children's schedules, but as somebody pointed out to me on a discussion forum the repeat costs of showing major children's shows would be far higher on BBC One than on CBBC - and the reasoning behind DQF is to save money. It probably would be cheaper for the Beeb to show Cash in the Attic or other daytime far, hard as it may be to believe.

Therefore, I completely understand the argument behind removing CBBC from BBC One - in reality this died a death long ago, and why have an antiquated service that nobody watches, perhaps denying some new programmes on the digital channel as they don't bother searching beyond channel '1' on the remote control. However, it is the axing of long BBC Two slots which confuses me. At present this constitutes several hours of BBC Two's daytime - an area of the BBC which requires saving anyway. There's only so much simulcasting of the BBC News Channel that can be done! It remains to be seen how the BBC will fill this gap. However, the arguments I made above regarding BBC One stand to the same extent for BBC Two, I am sure.

I grew up with CBBC on BBC One (Studio 9 was my era, with Otis the Aardvark a childhood hero of mine!), but, sad as it is, times change, and just as I was used to pressing '1' on my remote when I got home from school, many children now press channel '70' for the CBBC Channel instead (or catch up via iPlayer or other services).

Whilst it is a bold move for the BBC, and surprising that it will occur in such blanket fashion, I don't think that it is the terrible decision that some are painting it as - after all, if anybody understands multichannel TV, it is children!

Thoughts on Christmas

It’s very easy to be glib about Christmas as a church musician.  All the extra services, the fantastic hymns and carols, the fun of descants, carol singing and full congregations.  Over the past few years I have got so swept away with the musical whirl that I haven’t given the true meaning a second thought.

It took two beautiful carol services in which I had a reduced musical role (one at Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford and one at St Mary le Tower Civic Church, Ipswich) to drive home the awe-inspiring message.

God, the omnipotent creator, coming to his Earth as a baby born into a manger.  Angels appearing to tell the lowly shepherds the news before any others.  Magi following a star for months to find a baby.

The greatest summation for me of this story which we all know, yet will never fully understand can be found in the poem by Henry Ramsden Bramley:

O wonder of wonders, which none can unfold:
the Ancient of days is an hour or two old;
the Maker of all things is made of the earth,
man is worshiped by angels and God comes to birth.

It is our job to portray as best we can the sheer mystery of the Christmas story.  And it has done me good to step back from the story which I have known since I can remember, and think about its true implications.

Formula 1 Television Coverage

It was a sad way for the BBC’s coverage of the 2011 Formula 1 season to end.  The on-screen team had delivered over an hour of the high-quality programming for which they were known, working their way from garage to garage discussing each team’s fortunes over the season and interviewing key figures from the sport.  And they had just made their way to British team McLaran, where Jenson Button was describing an overtaking manoeuvre on Fernando Alonso.  “It was fun,” he opined as the picture cut to black.  And that was that.  Ironically, the technical problems that the BBC’s coverage was also known for had claimed the last laugh.  “We apologise for the loss of coverage,” said the on-screen apology graphic.  “About time too,” many probably thought in response.

For this was no ordinary end of season for the BBC.  From 2012, Sky Sports will become the dominant broadcaster of the sport, with the BBC showing just 10 of the 20 races live, with the remainder in highlights form.  To say that there has been an outcry about this development in sports broadcasting would be an understatement.  To understand it fully, we need to go back over three-and-a-half years, to March 2008.  I remember having the Today programme on that morning, and Garry Richardson began his sports bulletin with the words, “Before we continue with the sports news, I can tell you that the BBC have obtained the rights to show Formula 1 exclusively on BBC television for the next five years.” 

March 2009 saw the start of the BBC’s tenure.  Jake Humphrey made the step-up from CBBC to anchor the show with a superb blend of assurance, knowledge and humour, with David Coulthard and Eddie Jordan alongside him in the pitlane.  Coulthard and Jordan made an excellent on-screen duo, with their arguments (and Jordan’s shirts) become legendary.  Martin Brundle’s commentary with the input of Ted Kravitz and Lee McKenzie from the pits accompanied the races that were shown advert-free for the first time in twelve years.

The coverage was a huge hit with the fans, with live coverage of every session, advert-free with lengthy build-up and post-race analysis and interviews.  Plus, online features such as Classic F1 and Murray Walker’s video blogs gave context to Grand Prix weekends.  Unfortunately, during that first programme (qualifying for the Australian Grand Prix), the programme feed fell off air for several minutes, giving a taste of things to come in the ‘technical fault’ category!

Come 2011, with the coverage perhaps at its height (after unpopular commentator Jonathan Legard had been removed from the box), there were worrying reports about how the BBC would cope with its sports rights following a licence-fee freeze.  Reports sprung up about how every broadcaster from Sky to Channel 4 were interested in taking up the BBC’s contract if they could no longer afford the sizable rights and production costs.

Then, in July, came the announcement.  The BBC had done their deal with Sky.  One reason for the intensely negative reaction was that Channel 4 had shown an interest in screening the sport.  Their sports coverage had always been innovative and impressive (with the exception of the 2011 World Athletics Championship debacle), and they had produced a highly impressive bid document.  However, they were unable to commit to screening the 2012 season, given their Paralympics commitments, and a similar problem befell ITV.  So, not unnaturally, many fans questioned why the BBC could not continue their exclusive coverage in 2012 before handing over to another terrestrial channel.

Bernie Ecclestone, Formula 1’s commercial owner, reinforced this view when he told journalists that this deal was nothing to do with him.  “The BBC came to us with Sky,” he said, “there was nothing we could do.”  Whilst this was obviously untrue (as Bernie has previous in playing hardball with television contracts and the BBC were signed up for live coverage that they obviously could not pull out of from their own accord), it proved that Bernie did not offer Sky the rights; it was the BBC who did the deal.

It’s a subjective argument as to whether an exclusive shift to another terrestrial broadcaster is better than the deal that is about to come into play.  No matter how impressive Channel 4’s package might have been, advert breaks would undoubtedly have come into play.  There would also have been the matter of the various interactive options that the BBC added, and with no red button service on Channel 4, they may well have disappeared.  Sky Sports will undoubtedly continue the innovation that the BBC have shown, and will show all the races advert-free.  The coverage that they will show will be more comprehensive than any free-to-air commercial channel could justify, albeit coverage that you have to pay for.

As for the BBC, then their edited highlights programmes will either be 90 minutes or two hours depending on the time zone of the race or qualifying session.  We still do not know how much of that programme will be the race itself, but at least the key moments will be shown – and that can’t be certain on an advert-interrupted live transmission.  And, for the 10 live races, nothing will have changed.

Except for the on-air team.  Martin Brundle has already announced that he is switching to Sky Sports’ team, with Radio Five Live commentator David Croft and BBC TV reporter Ted Kravitz expected to follow suit.  For the BBC’s part, they have confirmed that Jake Humphrey, David Coulthard and Lee McKenzie will stay with them.  It remains to be seen exactly how 2012 will pan out regarding viewing figures, the quality of the coverage and the reaction of the fans, but it will certainly be an interesting season.  All that needs to be said is a final farewell to the BBC’s exclusive F1 coverage.  A final farewell that, sadly, couldn’t be said on-air.

Sibelius 7 Review

It has now been several months since the announcement and release of the new version of the Sibelius notation software, and I have now used the program for several projects, so I now feel suitably qualified to pass my judgement on the latest version of this superb notation software. 

This is undoubtedly a major release, not so much through new features (there is nothing new in this software as revolutionary as Dynamic Parts and Magnetic Layout in my opinion) but through a new user interface and a very new feel to the program, indeed the product as a whole.  I’ll come onto that in due course, but let’s begin at the beginning…

Installation

Before I begin, please let me bore you with the reasons why I purchased an entirely new licence, despite having used Sibelius’ software extensively for the last seven years.  Previously, I used my family’s licence (which covered two computers) or the site licences available at my school and work place.  Now, moving to university, it seemed more sensible (and legal) to buy a new licence for me alone.

Previously, Sibelius has been very easy to install, backed up by meticulous instructions unparalleled in any other software I have come across.  Owing to the extensive sound library included with this version, installation is a lengthier and slightly more complex process.  I also found that the instructions have been condensed, which didn’t cause any problems to me, but is worth noting.

The programme itself, along with PhotoScore Lite, AudioScore Lite, Scorch and a small part of the sound library is on one DVD, and installation for this is par for the course.  There are then three further DVDs containing the remainder of the sound library.  In fairness to the developers, installing the sound libraries is dead simple (just put in each DVD and press a few buttons on the install wizard), and the fact that the library is so large (over 38GB in size!) is testament to the quality and quantity of sounds available.  The pay-off to this is that Sibelius now feels like an industry tool, instead of the friendly piece of software that it seemed three or four versions ago.

Registration

Now this is where I had some difficulties and the user experience wasn’t quite what it might have been.  I had purchased a student licence of the program, which meant that (in common with many other software producers, such as Adobe) no serial number came in the box.  Instead, I had to apply for one online, proving my student status.  The paper instructions in the box said that an academic email address (.ac.uk) would suffice as proof.  

However, after putting all my details through the online form (including my Oxford email address), I was told that I would have to provide a scan of an identity card.  This would prove problematic, as I am only given that as I arrive at Oxford.  I selected the option to save my details and come back later whilst I pondered what to do.  The option to save my details actually seemed to submit them, but without any scanned identity, and I received an email from the company dealing with the registration informing me that I should email a scan to a particular address.  Despite all this, two days later I received my serial number via email, through my .ac.uk account, which turned out to be valid proof of my student status after all.  I suppose that all’s well that ends well, but at no point did the verification process tell me that my email account was being processed as identification.

This is another area that differs to when we first installed Sibelius 3 in 2004, when to register we phoned up the Sibelius office in London and spoke to a human being who sorted it all out.  Obviously things are very different now (more of that later) and the software has grown beyond all recognition, but it is interesting to note.

User Interface: The Ribbon

The major change to the software is a brand new user interface, based on Microsoft’s Ribbon.  In a previous blog post I referenced MS Office 2007 as an example of the ribbon, which I have had experience of using.  The Sibelius ribbon is actually modelled on the MS Office 2010 ribbon, which is subtly different through virtue of a completely new file menu.  This file menu fills the entire screen and there are very few pop-up windows.  Instead, commands such as printing, editing score information and exporting are all achieved through full-screen dialogs.

(download)

This has been met with mixed opinion, especially as there have been some bugs in printing.  Personally, I like the change: I think it is more user-friendly and more aesthetically pleasing than the old dialog boxes.  However, it’s not quite there yet, as there are still some bugs (such as the Preferences window being too large for the screen on my MacBook Pro, so the OK and Cancel buttons are hidden from view, forcing the user to use (unexplained) keyboard shortcuts).

The remainder of the ribbon divide up the various tasks needed during a score, and the designers claim that largely you would work left to right along the ribbon categories as you progress through a project.

The Home category contains the most commonly used commands, such as clipboard functions, instrument changes, adding bars, filtering, plugins and a smattering of other functions. 

From then on, it’s meant to be left to right, from Note Input, through to adding special barlines, symbols, beams and graphics (Notations), editing Text, various Playback functions, Layout and Appearance options, managing Parts, Reviewing the score (through Versions and comments) and finally, the various View options.

I’m not convinced by the left-to-right workflow idea, but everybody’s workflow is different, and conceptually (and generally) it’s not a bad idea and its been done fairly well.  One downside of the ribbon (and I found this in Office too) is that sometimes things aren’t necessarily put in an especially logical place (see Page Break being in a completely different category to all the other Break commands in Word, for example).  Back in Sibelius, why is Reset Note Spacing in Appearance, yet Optimize Staff Spacing in Layout?  I am being hyper-critical here as everybody would have things in a subtly different place.

However, a genuine criticism are some of the icons.  They just seem too cartoony, and don’t actually add anything to understanding the function.  For example, the Add/Remove Instrument function on the screenshot above.  Why a picture of a trumpet?  It’s an instrument, yes, but that picture says nothing about adding or removing.  It’s just big, takes up valuable screen space and looks ugly (in my opinion, anyway).  There are several icons that fall into this category for me.  Comparing back to the Office ribbon, all the icons in Word, for example, seem to have a genuine purpose (and thus look neater, too).

There are also a couple of minor niggles, such as the main Symbols dialog being three clicks away (and pretty hidden at that), and that dialog is the only way to set a symbol as being for the system or for the stave.  I would also love there to be an expansion arrow under the basic playback commands in the Play category to open up the Transport panel (far more intuitive, I think, than having to go View -> Panels -> Transport which had me stumped for about half-an-hour, especially as that panel used to be called Playback in previous versions).

There is also an argument for screen real estate.  The ribbon takes up more space than the previous file menu and toolbar approach.  I have recently made the switch to Mac, and it is noticeable that in the Mac UI, the top menu bar has no purpose (there are just four menus, all of which are duplicates of commands in the ribbon, with the exception of Undo and Redo, for which I use the keyboard shortcuts anyway).  I find that I have to run the program in full screen mode with the ribbon minimised to get a workable screen space (but I do only have a 13” screen).  Hopefully in a future release, Sibelius 7 will support the Mac OS X Lion full screen function, so that it functions like other full-screen apps on the Mac platform.

Notwithstanding all of the above, I love the ribbon.  I think that it is a great UI improvement, most of all because of the lack of hidden features.  I’m sure there everybody has an I wish Sibelius could do that which in fact is already possible, but they just don’t know how to find it.  (The most ridiculous one I heard, from a person who shall remain nameless, was that Sibelius couldn’t make text bold and italic!)  However, it’s a bit rich of me to laugh at that, as I always wished that there was a function to re-input pitches of notes, whilst keeping the note values.  One of the first things I spotted in the Sibelius 7 screenshots was a Re-input Pitches function (which pleased me greatly), and sure enough, when I checked back to Sibelius 6 it was there too (and all the way back to Sibelius 3!).  I find that in the ribbon everything is out in the open, and thus you are less likely to miss useful features.

In addition to that, it takes generally fewer clicks to find a function, plus the Find in ribbon search box is genius.  And all previous keyboard shortcuts still work the same, so what’s not to like?!

Other UI elements

It isn’t just about the Ribbon.  Whilst that element of the UI is modelled on Microsoft’s Office suite, much of the remainder is modelled on Apple’s software.  The new Quick Start window is reminiscent of what you get when opening up Pages or Word for Mac, and I find it a great improvement on the old.  It speeds up the process of just about any function, and I am a big fan.  Similarly, the Inspector window is similar to that used in iMovie and the rest of the iLife suite.  Truth be told, I haven’t used it much, but I think that making the old Properties window contextual was a great move, and it does preserve screen space and efficiency.  Plus, moving the text commands out into the Ribbon is also a big advantage.

Equally, I haven’t done much instrumental work yet in Sibelius 7, so I haven’t had too much experience of the new method of viewing parts and versions.  I do miss the drop-down menus, as I found that a great way to work (as indeed the parts panel, which has now been integrated into the Ribbon).  I often used to go through one part at a time to proof-read before printing, and it seems that now each part gets its own tab, which creates clutter and the need to close them all off at the end of a session.  However, I’m sure I will get used to that and establish a new workflow.  Similarly, navigating between versions has been altered to the tabbed interface, but this does have the benefit of being able to instantly switch between one version and another and compare.  I can’t really say more than that, but again, this is a case of real evolution in the User Interface.

The final part of the new UI is the status bar, which combines the Zoom and Panorama functions with information about selected passages.  This is excellently designed and a great improvement.  Putting Panorama down there makes so much sense, and the information given on the status bar is great, especially the chord analysis feature!  I give this part of the UI ten out of ten!

Sound Library

This is the other main feature of Sibelius 7 – an all new comprehensive sample library dubbed the Avid Orchestra.  I am no sound buff, but they do sound very, very good to my ears.  Unfortunately, their performance doesn’t seem to have been perfectly optimised yet, especially on the Mac platform.  It might be that my laptop isn’t high-spec enough to run large scores (although it is a new MacBook Pro that I purchased this summer!), but it should be able to handle a string quartet and chorus (which it couldn’t).  For this purpose, I also installed the Sibelius 6 sound library, which whilst not being as comprehensive or high-quality, at least allows a better performance for general work.  Having said all that, for a small score (ie. SATB choir with keyboard accompaniment), I have found the Sibelius 7 sounds to perform absolutely fine.  It should also be stressed that for exporting large scores, the computer exports it perfectly and not in real time, so that performance is exemplary no matter how large the score, it just takes longer.

In my earlier blog post looking at the new features of Sibelius 7, I was most excited by the new organ sounds.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t quite work as I envisaged it (I had images in my head of an organ console interface, “drawing” stops as a method of altering playback and also notating registrations – that would be very good for a future version!).  Instead, text commands alter the playback registration, via the playback dictionary, but I have found performance to be sporadic, and there is no manual yet for the sound libraries.  Hopefully this will be fixed in due course (I know that the manual is coming imminently), as the functionality is there (and the sounds sampled), it’s just getting it to work 100%.  However, even in its present state, the organ sounds are an improvement on Sibelius 6, as it is a far less harsh sound, and all the octave-related irritations have also vanished.

Other new features

I won’t go into much detail on other features, as I have already written far too much, but I will summarise my thoughts in this section of the review. 

I haven’t had much use for the new Text features (but I’m sure I will), ditto the graphic import and export, but they are very useful additions to the Sibelius armoury.  I am a huge fan of the Plantin font, and it has already made my scores look even more professional!

I have used Export as PDF several times, and that works very well without having to use a separate print driver (or the OS command in Mac), with the options for whether to export the score or parts (and in how many files) very useful (and intuitive) indeed. 

I have never had a use for importing or exporting MusicXML files (in the UK the majority of musicians use Sibelius, and very few use Finale or a rival program), but I can see that this feature is very useful for those who do often collaborate with those who use rival notation programs. 

There are several changes to Note Input, especially helpful, I feel, to those switching from Finale.  It is now possible to input a note and then select a duration, rather than the default behaviour, which is the other way round.  It’s not a feature that I plan to use, but, again, I’m sure it’s useful to many users.  One change in behaviour which I am not a fan of is that pressing the back arrow key whilst inputting notes no longer has the same effect as pressing the escape key (the caret disappears, and the last note inputted is selected).  Instead, the back arrow key now takes you out of note input mode, but selects the penultimate note entered.  I can see why it has been done, but it has been very difficult to change my ingrained habit of pressing the back arrow key to change a note’s duration if I made an error whilst selecting from the keypad.

I haven’t used the sticky lines or sticky tuplets yet, but they will be very useful (especially the latter).  There are still many limitations with the way that tuplets are handled in the software, and it would be good to see these improved in a future version.

General comments

One gets the impression that this is a transitionary version of Sibelius.  It has moved away from the traditional menus-and-toolbars approach to User Interface to the modern day world of ribbons, contextual inspectors and graphics-based quick-start windows.  It isn’t all flawless yet, but I am a huge fan of what it is trying to achieve, and I hope that a 7.1 release will iron out many of the kinks (along with adding support for Mac OS X Lion features – please?!).  I noted in my previous blog post that there aren’t that many new features this time.  Sure, the interface is lovely, and I would agree that it saves time and improves workflow, but it isn’t as groundbreaking or just downright impressive as Magnetic Layout and Dynamic Parts (I know I keep banging on about them, but they have been the two stand-out Sibelius features in the seven years I have been using the software in my opinion).  Equally, the samples are great, but do not contribute to the engraving side of the program, and the other features, although very useful and well implemented, haven’t got the same wow factor as some of the headline features over the years.

But now Sibelius has got this major change under its belt, it can continue to press forward to version 8 and beyond with more significant new features, now that its User Interface is fully in the modern style. 

I will finish this review, however, with one final point.  I mentioned that this was a very different version of Sibelius.  Much of that is to do with the new-look User Interface.  But, in addition to that, this is the first version that feels to me like it has been produced by the software behemoth Avid, rather than the cosy family company based in the Old Toy Factory.  The program is now installed in an Avid folder, rather than the previous Sibelius Software.  The colour-scheme is imposing purple, the typography the corporate Avid sans-serif.  The logo has changed from the homely, friendly chord, to a circled treble clef on a purple background in order to fit in with the rest of the Avid family of products.  This software release is the final stage of the Avid-isation of Sibelius, which started when the company was acquired five years ago.  In that time the customer support has shifted to Avid’s system of paying for technical help (although the Sibelius Help Centre messageboards do remain open, and Daniel Spreadbury does a fantastic job of replying to emails, tweets and blog comments – he deserves the highest praise imaginable), the products are now purchased through Avid’s online store and the registration is carried out through a subsidiary company (and losing the human touch, hence the problems that I experienced).

In many ways it is inevitable.  The software has grown to be massive.  It has got more and more feature-packed with more and more users.  It makes sense for the Customer Support, Purchase and Registration services to be integrated with other Avid products.  But Avid is now the company, Sibelius is just the product.  It’s the same team behind it, the same cheery manual, the same brilliant software, but somehow it feels colder and less friendly.  It used to feel that Sibelius was produced for a select club of musicians by a caring team, who would go above and beyond the call of duty in customer service and in design.  Some of that still remains, of course it does, but this is the first version that I think of as being produced by Avid and not by Sibelius.  And that is a change worth noting I think.

That being said, the software is still great, I would recommend an upgrade to anyone and I still love using the program. The team behind Sibelius 7 deserve much praise, and I look forward to using the software for many years to come!

London Road: Review

Today I travelled to London to see London Road at the National Theatre.  London Road is a piece of musical theatre in response to the tragic Ipswich murders which took place over the Christmas period in 2006.  The production attracted controversy when it was first announced, with many publications, including the Evening Star, deeming it crass and distasteful.  The production isn't actually the Ipswich Murders: The Musical that some billed it to be, and actually looks at the effect the events had on the residents of London Road, where the girls worked and where the killer lived.

The production utilises interviews given by residents and others, and their speech patterns and imperfections are retained in the music, meaning that the rhythm and melodic intonation is guided "purely" by the initial speech.  This is a technique that Alecky Blythe, the writer, frequently uses, but was a new departure for composer Adam Cork.  Despite the initial backlash, the production secured an excellent critical response, which led to its run being extended.  I was very interested to see how it tackled the issues of such tragedy through the musical medium, and also how it portrayed the town of Ipswich.

At first, I disliked the "sung-speech" technique used.  I do think that it heightens people's mannerisms almost to a comical level, especially when the lines are repeated as much as they are in several of the "numbers".  Indeed, there was a great deal of laughter from the audience at first, as "er"s and "um"s kept being repeated in the same places, indeed in completely unnatural places.  This technique of writing is supposed to keep the "purity" of the interviews, but if somebody were to repeat the same line several times, the imperfections, mispronunciations, and malapropisms would appear in different places each time.  I felt that the method of writing stilted the actors.  Indeed, although they performed admirably, there was no real emotional engagement with any individual actor as there was no room for them to express themselves - they were just part of a whole, albeit a highly convincing one.

I grew more and more accustomed to the musical style, and was particularly impressed by two movements in the second half.  The opening number featured the London Road residents discussing their inability to sleep at night.  Brittle cross-rhythms belied the fear of the residents, whilst a three-part canon brought home the emphasis of the text.  Here the natural speech-rhythms really did work to portray the emotional message.  The verdict scene saw three news networks bring the news to viewers, as reporters panicked about their satellite links going down, then announced the verdict for each count of murder.  Crashing cross-rhythms and frantic woodwind passages brought the sense of chaos across to the audience, as the reporters sung the verdicts at completely different times from each other, occasionally dropping into unison.

The performance began and ended at London Road in Bloom - the festival set-up by the Neighbourhood Watch scheme to bring back community spirit to residents.  (Incidentally, this event has just taken place for the fourth time and is has been a tremendous success in revitalising the area.)  I did feel that several musical numbers went on for too long, and could have been equally (or more) effective at a shorter length, and I also felt that the show should have ended with the "Well look at it now" chorus, rather than feature a reprise of the opening "In bloom" chorus.  There was also a bizarre moment where a recording of the original interview was played, presumably to inform the audience of the method used, but to me it didn't quite fit into the narrative.

There were staggering moments of dramatic pathos too.  There was a full minute of silence, whilst drug-abusing prostitutes stared into the audience, seemingly afraid to speak and tell us of their habit and how they have changed their lives since the murders.  The terror of the residents sitting in their living rooms, watching a press conference taking place just two doors up the road.  The police tape being wound around each of the residents as they sung, as the investigation at Number 73 stepped up.

All in all this was a fantastic production.  I purchased the CD afterwards, and listening back to music from the first half, I now think it very good indeed - it took me a little while to get into the style, but once I was there I was truly convinced.  It was a very difficult task to bring such a terrible tragedy to stage, especially in a music theatre context, but I think this production was immensely successful, and it brought back many memories of fear, sadness, and shock back to me from that terrible period in 2006.

England - Top of the World

Saturday 13th August, an historic day.  After being the laughing stock of world cricket for so many years, after the countless false dawns the England Test Match Cricket team are finally the number one ranked side in the world.  As many of you will know, I have been a massive cricket fan as long as I can remember.  My first memories are of the Atherton years, when England lurched from defeat to defeat, caused by poor management, mediocre players and inconsistent selection.  Nasser Hussain and Duncan Fletcher brought in some success (including beating the West Indies in 2000 and Pakistan and Sri Lanka in 2000/1) at the turn of the century, but this was short-lived.  Michael Vaughan scaled a huge peak in 2005 in regaining the Ashes after 18 years, but that proved to be the end of the road for a promising side, as injuries and retirements pulled the team apart.  Only now does England have a real squad, have achieved a series of successes and look like the genuine outfit.  I am thrilled that England have finally made the summit, and hope that they can maintain that ranking.

Rather than continuing in that bland fashion, I felt that I should share something that I first wrote in January 2000.  At that time, a teacher at St John's Primary School in Ipswich encouraged my love of cricket and happily discussed it with me, and I wrote him these England Cricket Alphabets.  It is very obviously written by an eight-year-old, but it does sum up the "bad old days":

At the moment the England team are:

Abysmal

Beaten

Collapsing

Dire

Emergency

Following-on

Graceless

Horrendous

Idiots

Jokes

Knocked-out

Losing

Miserable

Nuisance

Outrageous

Pessimistic

Quitters

Resigned

Stupid

Terrible

Useless

Victims

Weak

eXhausted

Yielding

Zany

 

I would like the England team to be:

Accurate

Brilliant

Collosal

Determined

Excellent

Fantastic

Great

Heroes

Inspirational

Jubilant

Kings

Lucky

Magnificent

Noble

Optimistic

Passionate

Qualifying

Run-scoring

Strong

Terrific

Unstoppable

Victorious

Winning

eXciting

Youthful

Zealous

 

I think, eleven-and-a-half years later, we have finally got there.

Sibelius 7: my initial thoughts

I was very excited to see yesterday that a new version of Sibelius notation software had been released. It's become a bi-annual tradition for me to write a blog post about the new features before trying out the demo of the software and writing again. These have tended to take the pattern of a negative original post, where I question which of the new features will make it worthwhile to upgrade an already superlative software package, followed by a post exclaiming how marvellously implemented the new features are, and how they have improved my workflow!

I always wonder how Sibelius can add substantial new features to software that can pretty much do it all already. Sure, we'd all like our little niggles to be taken into account, but certainly in my case, these are only little things. I do very much feel that the three landmark features that I had been crying out for since my early days of experimenting with Sibelius 3 were Dynamic Parts, Magnetic Layout and Versions, which were implemented in Sibelius 4 and 6 respectively. Sibelius 6 is a program that I enjoy using and constantly delivers incredible results whilst remaining easy to use, so I wondered, as I always seem to do, how 7 would offer a major improvement.

The headline feature is an all-new user interface, using a ribbon, as used in MS Office since 2007. I am a huge fan of the Office ribbon, and have found my workflow in Office 2007 to be far, far better than in 2003 and before. I am slightly concerned as to how it will transform Sibelius, as every new version has previously always maintained a consistency, yet new features haven't felt 'bolted on' in the slightest. This trait of Sibelius is an incredibly admirable one, and I am slightly concerned that this wholesale change will confuse and dissuade casual users from upgrading. Certainly my mother refuses to use Office 2007 because of the ribbon, and I can say now that I am sure she won't be upgrading to Sib 7 for the same reason. Having said that, I am sure that the UI has been designed brilliantly, as Sibelius always do a fantastic job and I look forward to having a play with it before reporting back. I know that I dislike change at first, but I'm sure that it will improve my workflow.

I am also looking forward to using the Inspector (I regularly use the Properties window and can't wait to see how the Inspector improves on that user experience), the status bar and the new mixer, along with all the other changes. I just worry that such a big change to UI might dissuade potential upgraders. But we shall see.

There has also been a substantial improvement in playback samples. I admit that usually this doesn't excite me: I sometimes make rehearsal CDs or backing tracks from Sib scores, but usually I am very happy with the quality of the standard Sibelius library. Playback enhancements in previous versions have caused me to think 'Great! But it was fine before!'. This time, however, is slightly different. I frequently write organ parts and I have always found playback immensely frustrating. The playback engine adds in octaves seemingly at random and I always seem to change my organ stave to a piano sound in order to hear it clearly. This is all about to change! The new playback engine has a 20 stop organ to play back organ parts correctly. I cannot wait to try this out, I hope I'm not disappointed!

There are substantial text improvements which, to be honest, I don't entirely understand from reading the description, but I am sure they will be great and solve problems I've had in the past. Plus, the OUP font now comes with the software, so I can make my scores look even more professional! I also think that the new graphics importing improvements are great, as is the PDF exporter. That will save me many hours of work.

There are many other new features, but those are the major ones for me. I am very excited about the release and can't wait to try the demo. I do, however, have just the one caveat. As I said at the start, I wondered what the headline feature would be. The new UI is, I'm sure, a massive step forwards but it doesn't make your scores look any better at the end of the process or add any new facilities to improve workflow dramatically (like Dynamic Parts or Magnetic Layout). The other improvements are great, but none of them individually give me the wow factor like the two aforementioned features did. But that is the challenge that the Sibelius makers face by making such fantastic products and I have no doubt that 7 will continue to deliver on that front.

I will review the demo in about a week's time, and I can't wait to get it installed...

Sibelius launches on iPad

This evening I came across the exciting news that Sibelius has launched an iPad app.  Avid Scorch allows the user to open, playback and modify Sibelius files on the move, alongside the ability for in-app purchases of any score from SibeliusMusic.com or SheetMusicDirect.com.

The app looks utterly fantastic.  It is really tempting me towards buying an iPad, and it looks so much more practical than a PDF reader.  The ability to transpose a score, use Dynamic Parts or see a keyboard playing it back is brilliant.  I do hope that, in the future, there will be a Sibelius editing app, but this is great in its own right, and something that I've been hoping for, for a long time.

On another note, the release of this app means that the Digital Music Stand that I invented in my head many years ago has finally become a reality.  You can buy an iKlip (http://rekkerd.org/ik-multimedia-iklip-mic-stand-adapter-for-ipad-2-now-shipping/) to turn your iPad into a music stand and display Sibelius files on it.  One feature that I imagined, that has not yet appeared to my knowledge, is the ability for the dynamic parts of one score to be opened on different iPads, but all stored centrally, so if the conductor adds a marking it will appear instantly on the part on another iPad.  Perhaps with the iCloud coming soon this will be possible in the future.  I'm not sure whether you can add symbols, or text markings either - I hope this can also be added in a future release.

This app may well tip the balance towards me purchasing an iPad.  And you can't pay it a higher compliment than that!

The Wisden Cricketer rebrands

So, the Wisden Cricketer magazine is back to being just The Cricketer.  A small change, some may say, but as a long-term subscriber, I thought I'd give my two-penneth on the change.

Firstly, a bit of history.  The Cricketer magazine was launched in 1921 by Sir Pelham Warner, and had a distinguished array of editors, including Warner, E. W. Swanton and Christopher Martin-Jenkins.  Wisden Cricket Monthly launched in 1979 in competition to The Cricketer, with David Frith as editor.  Tim de Lisle took over in 1996, and upon his departure to the magazine's online venture, Steven Fay became editor.  In 2003, both magazines merged to become The Wisden Cricketer.  However, those at The Cricketer claimed that this was little more than a WCM takeover.  Fay retired at the same time as the final issue of WCM (which happened to coincide with his 65th birthday), and his deputy John Stern took up the editorship.  The Cricketer's long match reports and thoughtful essays were replaced by player interviews and comic asides.  The layout of the magazine resembled WCM far more than The Cricketer, and the final Cricketer issue bemoaned the fact that this high-brow and beloved magazine was being absorbed into the mainstream.  Older readers, including my grandfather, shunned the new release (where was the poetry corner and the puzzles) and vowed not to buy another issue.

I mention my grandfather because I inherited his subscription, and I rather liked the new magazine.  It was fun, yes, but it was also interesting and informative.  It kept me in touch with the game (despite the live action moving to Sky Sports in 2006) and has kept me interested in the England team.  There has also been very good coverage of the county game and the wider issues in the game.  It employs excellent writers and is edited to a very high standard.

But in 2007, the magazine was purchased by BSkyB.  Whilst the company cannot be blamed for cricket disappearing from terrestrial television, I do feel that the money they inject into the game isn't always healthy and I was worried that TWC would become a mouthpiece for the ECB and Sky's coverage of the game.  To the editing team's credit, that did not happen.  But Sky's coverage was frequently advertised by the likes of David Lloyd in the magazine, and there were also features on Cricket AM and Sky's Test Match coverage.  There was also the fact that I did not especially like the fact that my subscription was lining the pockets of BSkyB executives, whose broadcasting of cricket behind a pay-wall I disliked.

So, I was very pleased by the news this December, when a consortium of cricket commentators and administrators (but, above all else, fans) including Jonathan Agnew, Christopher Martin-Jenkins, Simon Hughes and Lord Marland purchased the magazine.  And I was most interested to see what they did with it.  The first issue since the takeover contained some small changes (such as columns from Aggers and Simon Hughes), but it was the second issue where things started to get interesting.  There was a major redesign, which actually reminded me of WCM's look around the time of its closure, and Mark Nicholas began to write a regular column.  The magazine's website (which I found excellent) was merged with Test Match Extra to make thecricketer.com.  This was the first hint that the name of the magazine was to change.  As for the website itself, I don't feel that it is quite as strong as TWC's.  Its design is not as neat, its content isn't as well organised, the magazine archive has been all but deleted and there is no longer a full RSS feed.  Having said all that, there is far more content.

Today marked the change of the magazine's name, and I must confess that I haven't yet seen the debut issue (my subscription is delivered to my home, rather than work, address).  But, I am very pleased to see commentators, analysts and administrators that I like (the likes of Agnew, Hughes, Nicholas, CMJ and Victor Marks) writing for the magazine, and the traditionalist in me is very pleased to see the Cricketer name return once more.  I have found it very interesting that the shift in columnists, the redesign and the name change have all been staggered, but I suppose that is to appease those who are against the change.

I hope that the magazine is successful in the future, and I look forward to reading many more issues!

Computer Browsing in Birmingham

As I mentioned a couple of days ago, last week I ventured into Birmingham to see a fantastic concert at the Symphony Hall.  Whilst in Brum, I also engaged in a bit of computer browsing - my current laptop, whilst being fab and serving me well for the last few years, has started to overheat and freeze at random, leading to a full power-off and reboot, losing my work, which won't be great when I start university, so I'm looking to get hold of a new one.

My main question is whether to plump for a Mac or a PC.  I was attracted to the Mac for several reasons: firstly, whilst I love the HP that I currently use, its build quality was a little suspect, and has a known overheating problem (my wireless card was fried about 18 months after I first got it - fixed by HP - and now there are the freezing problems), and I have also had some difficulties with the built-in webcam driver (it basically never worked), and the DVD drive broke too (which HP fixed at the same time as the wireless card).  Looking at the PC laptops around, I wouldn't buy another HP, as I'm wary of further issues down the line, I think that Acers look incredibly tacky, and the Sony VAIOs are just wannabe Macs.  That leaves Dell, which I considered buying from four years ago, but seem to be a bit behind the money design-wise today.  Secondly, I'm going off to study Music in October, and I'm very aware that musicians do tend to use Macs for their work.  Sibelius (although being fabulous on Windows too) works especially well on a Mac, and it would make sense for me to pick one up when I have access to a student discount.  Finally, I heard from many that Macs "just work", and after many years of fiddling with Windows I would really look forward to a well-built machine, where hardware is perfectly married to software that would last for longer than a PC without many of the problems.

So, I spent a few hours in Birmingham visiting computer stores to have a play and a chat to various salesmen last week.  I first ventured into the Apple Store in the Bullring (which, incidentally, is an incredibly impressive shopping area).  This was absolutely heaving with people, but then again it was the school holidays, so I should have known what to expect.  However, because of this, and the fact that the shop was smaller than I thought it might be, it was a little unpleasant.  There were loads of assistants on duty (and I mean loads), but it was really difficult to get into a private conversation with one, as the shop was just so busy, and I found the experience quite awkward.  I didn't end up quite having the discussion I anticipated, in which we discussed my needs in conjunction with the specifications of the MacBook and MacBook Pro before coming up with a solution.  The man just said "Pro" and printed out a list of what he thought I should buy.  He was rather glib about whether my hardware would work ("Yes it will, we'll set it up for you once you've bought the computer"), and didn't really seem very, well, Apple-like.  Still, I had a little play on a MacBook Pro, and was rather taken with it, deciding in the process that a 13 inch screen would be perfectly adequate for me.

I then headed into Black.  For those who think I'm referring to a tent shop, Black is in fact a rebranded PC World/Currys, done up like an Apple Store.  This was a far better experience, as there was basically nobody in there.  I originally went in to sample the PC laptops currently on offer and have a look.  I had been toying with getting a Sony VAIO, but seeing one in the flesh put me right off it, as there's horrible glitter in the lower end of the casing, below the track pad.  I was disappointed that the Windows machines were locked down (I had read an article that said that customers would be able to play around properly), but upon talking to an assistant about my thoughts, he informed me that a Mac would be by far the better choice.  He took me over to their Mac range, and I had a very long play with a MacBook Pro, he demonstrated some of the cooler features (Expose, and various other multi-touch track pad commands), and generally sold the Mac to me.  This very much made up my mind - I'll still buy direct from Apple (although Black impressed me no end, they were still selling old models at inflated prices, and I doubt they'd offer a student discount), but it was the 13 inch MacBook Pro that I wanted.

There are a few things still concerning me:

1) Office software: I gather that Office 2011 is very similar to Windows Office 2010 (or at least 2007, which I use at the moment), and shares fine.  I'm a little unsure of letting go of Publisher and Access, as I use them every once-in-a-while at the moment, and it seems a bit of a retrograde step to get rid of them.

2) Numeric keypad, or lack of it: in Sibelius, the numeric keypad is vital for various commands, and even if I plug in my current USB numeric keypad, I'm worried that it will use the wrong commands (numbers at top of keyboard, instead of the numpad numbers themselves).  I've got an app for it on my iPhone, but it seems a bit haphazard (it uses Wi-Fi) and I haven't got it to work yet on my PC.  Plus, I probably won't have access to Wi-Fi at University (certainly not to send app data over), so it wouldn't work there.

3) The price: I'm just concerned that I'm wasting money in buying something for its looks and its reputation, rather than whether it will do the job better.  Obviously I'm about to take out a very large loan, so I want to make sure that I'm spending my money wisely.

I'd appreciate any comments or advise - I'll write more when I make any further decisions!

About

I'm a Music Student at Oxford University, where I am also Junior Organ Scholar at Worcester College.

You can read more about my musical exploits here.

This blog is for my thoughts on a variety of subjects, from Sport to Tech, from Music to the Media alongside reviews of concerts and theatrical productions that I have attended.

TwitterFacebook