|
Coverage of Chelsea
What did everyone think of last night's tv programme? As always, we became
very irritated with the number of plants whose name didn't appear onscreen, though that improved when Carol Klein was in the marquee. But why oh why do they, every year, take us away from Chelsea and off to other locations? Chelsea is Chelsea. All those other places they show could be the subject of another series of gardening programmes. I have no particular dislike of Lawrence L-B but can't help wondering why he, an interior designer, has been recruited to present a programme on Chelsea. Alan Titchmarsh did his usual professional job - I think he's an excellent presenter but I did not welcome the mercifully brief appearance of Diarmuid Gavin. I don't like his style, I don't think he's a gardener and I find him incomprehensible. We thought the Chinese garden was really beautiful. We loved that mossy wall effect, though I've just read the feng shui is 'bad' - can't say I really understand all that! While I do think the presentation of Chelsea has improved immeasurably over the past couple of years, I really don't understand why the programme makers are frightened of making it just about Chelsea and of putting plant names on screen. -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk (remove weeds from address) |
Coverage of Chelsea
"Sacha" wrote in message . uk... What did everyone think of last night's tv programme? As always, we became very irritated with the number of plants whose name didn't appear onscreen, though that improved when Carol Klein was in the marquee. But why oh why do they, every year, take us away from Chelsea and off to other locations? Chelsea is Chelsea. All those other places they show could be the subject of another series of gardening programmes. I have no particular dislike of Lawrence L-B but can't help wondering why he, an interior designer, has been recruited to present a programme on Chelsea. Alan Titchmarsh did his usual professional job - I think he's an excellent presenter but I did not welcome the mercifully brief appearance of Diarmuid Gavin. I don't like his style, I don't think he's a gardener and I find him incomprehensible. We thought the Chinese garden was really beautiful. We loved that mossy wall effect, though I've just read the feng shui is 'bad' - can't say I really understand all that! While I do think the presentation of Chelsea has improved immeasurably over the past couple of years, I really don't understand why the programme makers are frightened of making it just about Chelsea and of putting plant names on screen. -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk (remove weeds from address) I suppose people will watch it en masse regardless of the content or lack of plant names. Someone said "You can reproduce your own bit of Chelsea in your garden" I suppose they might be right if you have specialist plant houses/refrigeration and all the tricks of the trade that gets everything to flower at the right/same time. All very artificial -(people too) |
Coverage of Chelsea
On 22/5/07 10:40, in article , "Rupert (W.Yorkshire)"
wrote: "Sacha" wrote in message . uk... What did everyone think of last night's tv programme? As always, we became very irritated with the number of plants whose name didn't appear onscreen, though that improved when Carol Klein was in the marquee. But why oh why do they, every year, take us away from Chelsea and off to other locations? Chelsea is Chelsea. snip I suppose people will watch it en masse regardless of the content or lack of plant names. Someone said "You can reproduce your own bit of Chelsea in your garden" I suppose they might be right if you have specialist plant houses/refrigeration and all the tricks of the trade that gets everything to flower at the right/same time. All very artificial -(people too) I'm full of admiration for those that do all the preparation etc. but have to admit it would try my patience to its absolute limit. I am not sure the majority of the general public realise the refrigeration, pushing on, holding back, exposing to light etc. etc. that has to be done for all those plants to be seen at their very best. No, it's not natural but it is supposed to be an example of the most excellent heights nurserymen and gardeners can attain. If one had a time machine, it would be interesting to go back to the days of Chelsea's early beginnings to see how things were shown then. -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk (remove weeds from address) |
Coverage of Chelsea
SNIP I suppose people will watch it en masse regardless of the content or lack of plant names. Someone said "You can reproduce your own bit of Chelsea in your garden" The bit I want is a shed roof made of Sedum and Sempervivum plants. But first I have to make the shed roof slope the right way, and make it strong enough to take the weight. Maybe next year. Steve |
Coverage of Chelsea
On 22/5/07 12:05, in article , "shazzbat"
wrote: SNIP I suppose people will watch it en masse regardless of the content or lack of plant names. Someone said "You can reproduce your own bit of Chelsea in your garden" The bit I want is a shed roof made of Sedum and Sempervivum plants. But first I have to make the shed roof slope the right way, and make it strong enough to take the weight. Maybe next year. Steve That was really pretty, I thought. In my old village someone had house leeks on either side of the peaked porch roof and it looks just as if it was wearing a flowery bonnet! -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk (remove weeds from address) |
Coverage of Chelsea
On 22 May, 12:05, "shazzbat"
wrote: The bit I want is a shed roof made of Sedum and Sempervivum plants. But first I have to make the shed roof slope the right way, and make it strong enough to take the weight. Maybe next year. Just finished mine - not one sedum in sight but grasses and wild flowers. One ton of soil up there ... it was a labour of love ;o) Why do you need to wait?! And you don't necessarily need the roof to slope either, as long as there's a good drainage. |
Coverage of Chelsea
The program didn't do it for me but maybe it will be better tonight, cannot
quite put my finger on the reason, have to admit to falling asleep in the middle and missing some, shouldn't blame the prog. for that I suppose. I did see some brilliant iris but did not catch the name of them, must look more carefully tonight. kate |
Coverage of Chelsea
On 22/5/07 16:47, in article
, "Kate Morgan" wrote: The program didn't do it for me but maybe it will be better tonight, cannot quite put my finger on the reason, have to admit to falling asleep in the middle and missing some, shouldn't blame the prog. for that I suppose. I did see some brilliant iris but did not catch the name of them, must look more carefully tonight. kate I regret to say that we both nodded off for a few minutes at some point. I don't know what it was about the programme - it was just rather flat and seemed to be to be rather choppy in its format. -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk (remove weeds from address) |
Coverage of Chelsea
On 22 May, 14:58, Sacha wrote:
On 22/5/07 12:05, in article , "shazzbat" wrote: SNIP I suppose people will watch it en masse regardless of the content or lack of plant names. Someone said "You can reproduce your own bit of Chelsea in your garden" The bit I want is a shed roof made of Sedum and Sempervivum plants. But first I have to make the shed roof slope the right way, and make it strong enough to take the weight. Maybe next year. Steve That was really pretty, I thought. In my old village someone had house leeks on either side of the peaked porch roof and it looks just as if it was wearing a flowery bonnet! -- Sachahttp://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk (remove weeds from address) Sempervivum were known as House leeks because they were grown on the cottage roofs and were used for the same things that Alo vera are now used for. They didn't have any need for special compost, for that matter they had no compost. David Hill Abacus Nurseries |
Coverage of Chelsea
The program didn't do it for me but maybe it will be better tonight, cannot quite put my finger on the reason, have to admit to falling asleep in the middle and missing some, shouldn't blame the prog. for that I suppose. I did see some brilliant iris but did not catch the name of them, must look more carefully tonight. kate I regret to say that we both nodded off for a few minutes at some point. I don't know what it was about the programme - it was just rather flat and seemed to be to be rather choppy in its format. -- Sacha I am so glad that I was not alone in sleeping :-) kate |
Coverage of Chelsea
On 22/5/07 20:46, in article
, "Kate Morgan" wrote: The program didn't do it for me but maybe it will be better tonight, cannot quite put my finger on the reason, have to admit to falling asleep in the middle and missing some, shouldn't blame the prog. for that I suppose. I did see some brilliant iris but did not catch the name of them, must look more carefully tonight. kate I regret to say that we both nodded off for a few minutes at some point. I don't know what it was about the programme - it was just rather flat and seemed to be to be rather choppy in its format. -- Sacha I am so glad that I was not alone in sleeping :-) kate Happened again this evening.... Somehow, this year's coverage just isn't grabbing our attention. I awoke to Chris Beardshaw waxing eloquent and enthusiastic about grasses and gave up! I wish I knew enough to figure out what's happening. Is it the presenters - doubt it because not many changes there - is it the format? -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk (remove weeds from address) |
Coverage of Chelsea
In article , Sacha
wrote: On 22/5/07 20:46, in article , "Kate Morgan" wrote: The program didn't do it for me but maybe it will be better tonight, cannot quite put my finger on the reason, have to admit to falling asleep in the middle and missing some, shouldn't blame the prog. for that I suppose. I did see some brilliant iris but did not catch the name of them, must look more carefully tonight. kate I regret to say that we both nodded off for a few minutes at some point. I don't know what it was about the programme - it was just rather flat and seemed to be to be rather choppy in its format. -- Sacha I am so glad that I was not alone in sleeping :-) kate Happened again this evening.... Somehow, this year's coverage just isn't grabbing our attention. I awoke to Chris Beardshaw waxing eloquent and enthusiastic about grasses and gave up! I wish I knew enough to figure out what's happening. Is it the presenters - doubt it because not many changes there - is it the format? I think it's the script. A bit too contrived, too banal and a bit too "humorous". Presenters are spending too much time "laughing" at each other's wisecracks. There is also too much forced/false "excitement". I wonder if any of the presenters will admit on air to be being mystified about the RHS' choice for Best Garden... Huge areas without any plants and totally irrelevant to anyone imho. And sponsored by one of the main competitors to the overall Chelsea sponsor -- made me wonder if the RHS had had a falling out with Marshalls and wanted to give them a smack around the ear. |
Coverage of Chelsea
Stan The Man wrote:
In article , Sacha wrote: On 22/5/07 20:46, in article , "Kate Morgan" wrote: The program didn't do it for me but maybe it will be better tonight, cannot quite put my finger on the reason, have to admit to falling asleep in the middle and missing some, shouldn't blame the prog. for that I suppose. I did see some brilliant iris but did not catch the name of them, must look more carefully tonight. kate I regret to say that we both nodded off for a few minutes at some point. I don't know what it was about the programme - it was just rather flat and seemed to be to be rather choppy in its format. -- Sacha I am so glad that I was not alone in sleeping :-) kate Happened again this evening.... Somehow, this year's coverage just isn't grabbing our attention. I awoke to Chris Beardshaw waxing eloquent and enthusiastic about grasses and gave up! I wish I knew enough to figure out what's happening. Is it the presenters - doubt it because not many changes there - is it the format? I think it's the script. A bit too contrived, too banal and a bit too "humorous". Presenters are spending too much time "laughing" at each other's wisecracks. There is also too much forced/false "excitement". I wonder if any of the presenters will admit on air to be being mystified about the RHS' choice for Best Garden... Huge areas without any plants and totally irrelevant to anyone imho. And sponsored by one of the main competitors to the overall Chelsea sponsor -- made me wonder if the RHS had had a falling out with Marshalls and wanted to give them a smack around the ear. We have to accept that most gardening programmes, certainly Chelsea, are not aimed a US (bit boastful that!) but at a mass audience, hence there is little about gardening. The average TV watcher will barely get their hands dirty, if they even have a garden, certainly will not want lists of unpronounceable Latin names. To be fair it is not only gardeners who pay a TV licence. |
Coverage of Chelsea
On 23/5/07 08:46, in article , "Stan The
Man" wrote: In article , Sacha wrote: On 22/5/07 20:46, in article , "Kate Morgan" wrote: The program didn't do it for me but maybe it will be better tonight, cannot quite put my finger on the reason, have to admit to falling asleep in the middle and missing some, shouldn't blame the prog. for that I suppose. I did see some brilliant iris but did not catch the name of them, must look more carefully tonight. kate I regret to say that we both nodded off for a few minutes at some point. I don't know what it was about the programme - it was just rather flat and seemed to be to be rather choppy in its format. -- Sacha I am so glad that I was not alone in sleeping :-) kate Happened again this evening.... Somehow, this year's coverage just isn't grabbing our attention. I awoke to Chris Beardshaw waxing eloquent and enthusiastic about grasses and gave up! I wish I knew enough to figure out what's happening. Is it the presenters - doubt it because not many changes there - is it the format? I think it's the script. A bit too contrived, too banal and a bit too "humorous". Presenters are spending too much time "laughing" at each other's wisecracks. There is also too much forced/false "excitement". That's the sort of idiotic thing they were doing a couple of years ago when a lot of people, including many urglers, complained to both the RHS and BBC. It was too much about the presenters and not enough about the designers, nuserymen and plants. We had miles of AT and DG and others all gurning at each other and falling over laughing at how clever they are. Monty Don has written in an article that it's the thing he hates about GW - that bit at the end when they all get together and have to be 'jolly' with each other. It's so fake and so contrived that it's like watching a sort of muddy Blue Peter. I wonder if any of the presenters will admit on air to be being mystified about the RHS' choice for Best Garden... Huge areas without any plants and totally irrelevant to anyone imho. And sponsored by one of the main competitors to the overall Chelsea sponsor -- made me wonder if the RHS had had a falling out with Marshalls and wanted to give them a smack around the ear. OTOH, if Bradstone had won, we'd all be saying 'stitch up'. ;-) -- Sacha http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk (remove weeds from address) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:43 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter