|
Beeb Chelsea coverage
I've been enjoying the programmes, although I'd rather have had Monty Don
presenting than Mr Smugmarsh, but two other things have particularly jarred every time I've watched: a) Charlie Dimmock's wooden way of reading anything out to camera and b) that flipping awful theme music! :-/ -- Sue |
Beeb Chelsea coverage
Sue wrote:
: I've been enjoying the programmes, although I'd rather have had Monty : Don presenting than Mr Smugmarsh, but two other things have : particularly jarred every time I've watched: : : a) Charlie Dimmock's wooden way of reading anything out to camera and : b) that flipping awful theme music! :-/ I agree with you about the blue fencing and decking man! Why not a real gardener but I ask myself is Chelsea for real gardeners? |
Beeb Chelsea coverage
"Robert" wrote in message
... Sue wrote: : I've been enjoying the programmes, although I'd rather have had Monty : Don presenting than Mr Smugmarsh, but two other things have : particularly jarred every time I've watched: : : a) Charlie Dimmock's wooden way of reading anything out to camera and : b) that flipping awful theme music! :-/ I agree with you about the blue fencing and decking man! Why not a real gardener but I ask myself is Chelsea for real gardeners? hmmm, on that note, would you class Hampton Court as a show that would be genuine interest to 'real' gardeners? Reason I ask is that we're considering going - it's only a couple of miles down the road from us - and persuading my parents to come down fromYorkshire for it as well. (related question - my father can't walk long distances any more without a great deal of pain in his legs, is he likely to find places to be able to rest there? Don't smoke, kids, it'll kill ya...) Although I'm enjoying watching the coverage of Chelsea I can't really say that I'd be tempted to go. Altogether seems like a lot of hard work and a long day out... -- Richard Sampson email me at richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk |
Beeb Chelsea coverage
On 27/5/04 19:56, in article ,
"RichardS" noaccess@invalid wrote: "Robert" wrote in message ... Sue wrote: : I've been enjoying the programmes, although I'd rather have had Monty : Don presenting than Mr Smugmarsh, but two other things have : particularly jarred every time I've watched: : : a) Charlie Dimmock's wooden way of reading anything out to camera and : b) that flipping awful theme music! :-/ I agree with you about the blue fencing and decking man! Why not a real gardener but I ask myself is Chelsea for real gardeners? hmmm, on that note, would you class Hampton Court as a show that would be genuine interest to 'real' gardeners? Yes. Very much so. Chelsea is too except that the arty farty tv brigade have got their dead hand upon it and some plonky director is trying to make a name for himself or herself. God alone knows who it is and I don't want to know or I'd have to do something radical. We are really furious about this cheat of a programme. We have watched tonight's 'Chelsea' and seen not one plant with a name, not even a plant description. Instead, we have seen roof gardens god only knows where, ladies growing exotic veg somewhere, Chelsea by night which nobody ever sees, so the lighting is immaterial to the planting *and* encourages yet more light pollution; the inanely grinning while 'tense because I hate you', faces of Alan T and Diarmuid G and the flicking hair of Rachel de T attached to the rest of her and Alan T doing his imitation of a royal wave from Buckingham Palace. We fell asleep shortly after that, having given up on the foolish notion that watching a programme about the Chelsea Flower Show might actually show some plants at Chelsea. We thought we were pushing our luck to expect actual plant names on the screen because producers of such programmes expect them to appear through the medium of aliens via tinfoil hats, apparently but we did think 'Chelsea' might show a bit about the plants at Chelsea! Reason I ask is that we're considering going - it's only a couple of miles down the road from us - and persuading my parents to come down fromYorkshire for it as well. (related question - my father can't walk long distances any more without a great deal of pain in his legs, is he likely to find places to be able to rest there? Don't smoke, kids, it'll kill ya...) I wouldn't count on this being a good place for someone with such difficulties. By its very nature there's a lot of walking about if you're going to see everything. BUT if he is happy to go, see a few things and then stay in one of the refreshment areas and wait for you, it's a possible. But it's worth remembering that any resting places are likely to be used by others who got there first. Perhaps you could take a folding chair, some sandwiches, and a bottle of whatever for him so that he can choose his own place to stop? My husband has been to Hampton Court many times and I've only been once. But I think, as he does, that it's a much more enjoyable show without the Chelsea hype. Overall, there is more room to move around (we'll never go to Chelsea again because of the crowding) and the way it beats Chelsea hands down, IMO, is that you can actually buy and take away plants and seeds. Although I'm enjoying watching the coverage of Chelsea I can't really say that I'd be tempted to go. Altogether seems like a lot of hard work and a long day out... Damn right. And we still think the coverage is abysmal. ;-) If anyone else does, I hope they'll write to the Beeb as I intend to do tonight. 'Chelsea' my foot! -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon (remove the weeds after garden to email me) |
Beeb Chelsea coverage
"Sue" wrote in message ... I've been enjoying the programmes, although I'd rather have had Monty Don presenting than Mr Smugmarsh, but two other things have particularly jarred every time I've watched: a) Charlie Dimmock's wooden way of reading anything out to camera and b) that flipping awful theme music! :-/ I agree with you about the music. It was about as bad a mismatch with a programme about gardening as couldbe imagined. They should sack that persistent awful drummer. Franz |
Beeb Chelsea coverage
"RichardS" wrote in message : hmmm, on that note, would you class Hampton Court as a show that would be genuine interest to 'real' gardeners? Reason I ask is that we're considering going - it's only a couple of miles down the road from us - and persuading my parents to come down fromYorkshire for it as well. (related question - my father can't walk long distances any more without a great deal of pain in his legs, is he likely to find places to be able to rest there? Don't smoke, kids, it'll kill ya...) Although I'm enjoying watching the coverage of Chelsea I can't really say that I'd be tempted to go. Altogether seems like a lot of hard work and a long day out... Hampton Court is, just like Chelsea, of interest to real gardeners. Don't let anyone tell you different. They differ in the space available, that HC is not in London, the fact that you can drive to HC (if you have the time!) and park, that you can actually buy what you see at HC, but Chelsea has the better displays and plants. There are more "normal" gardeners at HC (the dirty broken fingernail type) but then Chelsea is on the social calendar like Ascot. If your Father can't walk far you will need to take some form of seating for him, a shooting stick perhaps, the extra space at HC means more walking than Chelsea and that is bad enough. Both very tiring, wear very comfortable shoes. p.s. driving from the West, Teddington/Hampton/Sunbury etc it's worthwhile driving through Bushy Park rather than that solid jam on the road from Kempton Park by the river, can save ages. Don't let anyone else know. :-) -- Regards Bob Some photos of my plants at..... |
Beeb Chelsea coverage
"Robert" wrote in message
... Sue wrote: ...but I ask myself is Chelsea for real gardeners? Chelsea is to gardeners as fashion shows are to those who wear clothes. -- Nick Wagg |
Beeb Chelsea coverage
The message
from "Nick Wagg" contains these words: "Robert" wrote in message ... Sue wrote: ...but I ask myself is Chelsea for real gardeners? Chelsea is to gardeners as fashion shows are to those who wear clothes. Sorry, don't agree. The show itself is packed with fascinating plants, ideas, exhibits and information .It's only the TV coverage, which fails to address the needs and interests of gardeners. We went to the first Galloway Garden Festival at Castle Kennedy last weekend. A glorious venue, lovely weather, and every nursery, grower etc for many miles around displaying and selling plants to a high turnout of gardenlovers. Not many "furniture and knicknack" stalls, but we shared a B and B with the salesman from one of the few, who said his sales were so fantastic that he'll be back next year, and all the other stand-owners had found the same. Janet. |
Beeb Chelsea coverage
"Nick Wagg" wrote in message ... "Robert" wrote in message ... Sue wrote: ...but I ask myself is Chelsea for real gardeners? Chelsea is to gardeners as fashion shows are to those who wear clothes. -- Nick Wagg Cute (-: Though I understand the sentiment expressed, I have only one real problem with the "real gardeners" label. It's a bit like saying ; a little bit pregnant. To be or not to be a gardener is just as simply real. The only sub categories that I think may apply might refer to financial rewards. The professional and the amateur both deemed enthusiast... and both gardener. Patrick |
Beeb Chelsea coverage
"Franz Heymann" wrote I agree with you about the music. It was about as bad a mismatch with a programme about gardening as couldbe imagined. They should sack that persistent awful drummer. It was probably all electronic and no doubt intended to appeal to a yoof audience. It did sound as though it might be the sort of thing you hear booming from a boy-racer's car stereo system as he speeds by. :-/ I suppose the nonsensical 10 minutes of 'Pot Idol' with Nicki Chapman in tonight's programme was on the same lines but I'd rather have seen more new plants shown and described instead. -- Sue |
Beeb Chelsea coverage
In article , Janet
Baraclough.. wrote: The message from "Nick Wagg" contains these words: "Robert" wrote in message ... Sue wrote: ...but I ask myself is Chelsea for real gardeners? Chelsea is to gardeners as fashion shows are to those who wear clothes. Sorry, don't agree. The show itself is packed with fascinating plants, ideas, exhibits and information .It's only the TV coverage, which fails to address the needs and interests of gardeners. That would be because the BBC audience for its Chelsea programmes comprises a majority who are not keen gardeners. The BBC has decided to build its audience rather than serve the needs of keen gardeners. Hence the daytime presenter was Jenny Bond for whom this may have been her first ever visit to Chelsea. I thought she was excellent: very coherent, very engaging, very professional - the very kind of professional presenting that the show has lacked in the past. Last year's Chelsea programmes were a technical disaster. Much better this year and it seemed to me that even Charlie Dimmock has finally had some TV tuition. It will be better still when the Beeb finally figures out that the incomprehensible bumbling, mumbling Diarmuid Gavin isn't cut out for any kind of TV work. Simon |
Beeb Chelsea coverage
On Thu, 27 May 2004 18:33:12 +0000 (UTC), "Robert"
wrote: Sue wrote: : I've been enjoying the programmes, although I'd rather have had Monty : Don presenting than Mr Smugmarsh, but two other things have : particularly jarred every time I've watched: : : a) Charlie Dimmock's wooden way of reading anything out to camera and : b) that flipping awful theme music! :-/ I agree with you about the blue fencing and decking man! Why not a real gardener but I ask myself is Chelsea for real gardeners? delurks can someone tell me what a real gardener is? I'm still developing my interest in gardening so don't understand the distinction that seems so apparent to the group regulars. -- Paul C |
Beeb Chelsea coverage
Sue wrote:
: I've been enjoying the programmes, although I'd rather have had Monty : Don presenting than Mr Smugmarsh, but two other things have : particularly jarred every time I've watched: : Well I liked seeing AT again. Still cant stand D.Gavin ( cant understand the accent and it irritates!) R de T or frankly even Charlie! |
Beeb Chelsea coverage
On 29/5/04 9:45 am, in article , "mich"
wrote: Sue wrote: : I've been enjoying the programmes, although I'd rather have had Monty : Don presenting than Mr Smugmarsh, but two other things have : particularly jarred every time I've watched: : Well I liked seeing AT again. Still cant stand D.Gavin ( cant understand the accent and it irritates!) R de T or frankly even Charlie! I agree with this. AT is professional but the teeth achingly winsome stuff between him, RdeT and Diarmuid last night reduced him in status, IMO. I wouldn't mind betting he can't stand DG off screen, somehow. Anyhow, I'm writing to the Beeb to have a general whinge about all this and I hope others who feel the same will do so, too. Gardens in Manchester and Spitalfields are NOT Chelsea Flower Show. A whole other programme or two could have been made out of the totally irrelevant stuff shown during supposed coverage of CHELSEA! -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon (remove the weeds after garden to email me) |
Beeb Chelsea coverage
And what does the group think of Diarmuid Gavin's lollipop garden ...
ghastly? -- |
Beeb Chelsea coverage
"Bob Hobden" wrote in message
... "RichardS" wrote in message : hmmm, on that note, would you class Hampton Court as a show that would be genuine interest to 'real' gardeners? snip Although I'm enjoying watching the coverage of Chelsea I can't really say that I'd be tempted to go. Altogether seems like a lot of hard work and a long day out... Hampton Court is, just like Chelsea, of interest to real gardeners. Don't let anyone tell you different. They differ in the space available, that HC is not in London, the fact that you can drive to HC (if you have the time!) and park, that you can actually buy what you see at HC, but Chelsea has the better displays and plants. There are more "normal" gardeners at HC (the dirty broken fingernail type) but then Chelsea is on the social calendar like Ascot. If your Father can't walk far you will need to take some form of seating for him, a shooting stick perhaps, the extra space at HC means more walking than Chelsea and that is bad enough. Both very tiring, wear very comfortable shoes. p.s. driving from the West, Teddington/Hampton/Sunbury etc it's worthwhile driving through Bushy Park rather than that solid jam on the road from Kempton Park by the river, can save ages. Don't let anyone else know. :-) Thanks Bob, Sacha, I think that we'll definitely be going to HC, I'll work on persuading my parents (may well invest in one of those x-framed "picnic" stools for my father, though he may well like the idea of a shooting stick... ) I was kind of cautious about including the 'real' gardeners thing - I realise that there are many, many very keen & able recreational gardeners and professionals alike that go to Chelsea and find it a thoroughly worthwhile visit, so not having been I'd certainly not have the cheek to knock it. I think that what I was enquiring about is the sentiment that appears to have been implied that "Chelsea may be the premier show, but the cognescenti reckon HC has the edge"... I'll stop here in case I'm digging a hole for myself that I really didn't intend to dig! Incidentally, thanks, Bob - we're just up the road in Twickenham, so we did learn from early experience to avoid the road from Kempton Park (the A320?? can't remember offhand) -- Richard Sampson email me at richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk |
Beeb Chelsea coverage
"Joe" wrote in message . .. And what does the group think of Diarmuid Gavin's lollipop garden ... ghastly? -- OK - even good, but not worth the enormous cost !! The 'pod' was somewhat overrated IMO. The balls on sticks were fine. I don't think we saw enough of the planting for me to have much opinion about it. In fact the series about the realisation were interesting, but I missed a final tour of the finished article. maybe there will be a follow up? Does anyone know if it was sold, and if so where it will go ..........? Jenny |
Beeb Chelsea coverage
In message , Paul Corfield
writes On Thu, 27 May 2004 18:33:12 +0000 (UTC), "Robert" wrote: Sue wrote: : I've been enjoying the programmes, although I'd rather have had Monty : Don presenting than Mr Smugmarsh, but two other things have : particularly jarred every time I've watched: : : a) Charlie Dimmock's wooden way of reading anything out to camera and : b) that flipping awful theme music! :-/ I agree with you about the blue fencing and decking man! Why not a real gardener but I ask myself is Chelsea for real gardeners? delurks can someone tell me what a real gardener is? Someone whose garden contains stainless steel only in their tools. I'm still developing my interest in gardening so don't understand the distinction that seems so apparent to the group regulars. Few modern gardening programs contain much information about plants. Presumably these programs appeal to somebody: the unreal gardeners. -- Joe |
Beeb Chelsea coverage
In message , Sacha
writes Anyhow, I'm writing to the Beeb to have a general whinge about all this and I hope others who feel the same will do so, too. Gardens in Manchester and Spitalfields are NOT Chelsea Flower Show. A whole other programme or two could have been made out of the totally irrelevant stuff shown during supposed coverage of CHELSEA! This happens year after year, too consistently to be accidental. Also, much of the material that is shown is usually repeated. We see the same few gardens over and over again, and many gardens and much of the pavilion are never shown. Does anyone know if this is just down to ease of camera positioning, or if the coverage is limited in some way in the contract with the BBC? -- Joe |
Beeb Chelsea coverage
"Paul Corfield" wrote in message ... On Thu, 27 May 2004 18:33:12 +0000 (UTC), "Robert" wrote: Sue wrote: : I've been enjoying the programmes, although I'd rather have had Monty : Don presenting than Mr Smugmarsh, but two other things have : particularly jarred every time I've watched: : : a) Charlie Dimmock's wooden way of reading anything out to camera and : b) that flipping awful theme music! :-/ I agree with you about the blue fencing and decking man! Why not a real gardener but I ask myself is Chelsea for real gardeners? delurks can someone tell me what a real gardener is? I'm still developing my interest in gardening so don't understand the distinction that seems so apparent to the group regulars. Gardeners are the folk whose primary interest is in propagating and cultivating the plants, including vegetables. "Beeb gardeners" are those whose main interest is in the nonsense other than the plants in the surroundings of their houses, such as the decking, the gaily coloured fences, the bright 5 ft lollipops and the tinny pieces of pseudo-sculpture like the rubbish which desecrated the garden of Trelissick last time I was there, and those who think there is any gardening interest in swapping inanities with would-be celebs and their hangers-on. Much of Chelsea was, regrettably, according to the Beeb reporting, overtaken by Beeb gardening this year. Franz |
Beeb Chelsea coverage
|
Beeb Chelsea coverage
On 29/5/04 6:23 pm, in article , "Joe"
wrote: In message , Sacha writes Anyhow, I'm writing to the Beeb to have a general whinge about all this and I hope others who feel the same will do so, too. Gardens in Manchester and Spitalfields are NOT Chelsea Flower Show. A whole other programme or two could have been made out of the totally irrelevant stuff shown during supposed coverage of CHELSEA! This happens year after year, too consistently to be accidental. Also, much of the material that is shown is usually repeated. We see the same few gardens over and over again, and many gardens and much of the pavilion are never shown. Does anyone know if this is just down to ease of camera positioning, or if the coverage is limited in some way in the contract with the BBC? I think sheer space will determine some of it but given those shoulder cams or whatever they're called - they must be able to get to most places. We were waiting to see the exhibit Brian Hiley did for Trevena Cross - they got a gold but we saw damn all and he and his wife work their little socks off for every damned show the RHS produces. That's an outrageous neglect, IMO. Those are the people that keep the RHS shows going, all the little shows, not just great big important Chelsea. -- Sacha (remove the weeds after garden to email me) |
Beeb Chelsea coverage
"Paul Corfield" wrote in message ... On Thu, 27 May 2004 18:33:12 +0000 (UTC), "Robert" wrote: Sue wrote: : I've been enjoying the programmes, although I'd rather have had Monty : Don presenting than Mr Smugmarsh, but two other things have : particularly jarred every time I've watched: : : a) Charlie Dimmock's wooden way of reading anything out to camera and : b) that flipping awful theme music! :-/ I agree with you about the blue fencing and decking man! Why not a real gardener but I ask myself is Chelsea for real gardeners? delurks can someone tell me what a real gardener is? You for a start! Well now, had you asked for *who* is a real gardener, then contrary to the awful "Mr Smugmarsh" reference I would say Alan Titchmarsh is a very real gardener. Perhaps it's his common sense touch and the earthy logical plainness of how he seems to be expressing a deliberate simplicity of unmysterious presentations that might irk some eonough to seeth. If he seems a tad too smug...folly though that may be... well he has dam well earned the right to lean out of his trolly so we can also plainly see, someone who has done much, so very very much for this garden industry. I'm still developing my interest in gardening so don't understand the distinction that seems so apparent to the group regulars. Standing by Diarmuids National Lottery Garden a couple were chatting next to me. She said something like ; oh look how the grass (lawn) sweeps under the concrete. That is soooo new. Must be a new idea and it looks wonderful. Everyone else would just bring it up to the edge.. How interesting! How new! Now, suffice to say, there are a few here who might suggest she is not a "real gardener". The term "Real gardener" probably refers to at least a basic measure of knowledge that would enable an show observer to realise the difference between reality and fantasy. Perhaps another title might be a "reality" gardener Many "garden designers" lack just such realism yet get tend to be vastly more appreciated and recognised then "real gardeners" and so I tend to dream up various different titles for them, none of which are really repeatable on a newsgroup. That said, much as they are such *******, credit where credit is due, this years chelsea show gardens were the best yet and futhermore the judging seems more accurate, though very tight. Too tight for argue over. The really interesting thing about that garden would have being it's agelessness. Real gardener or not, we are all susceptible to first impressions. That ahhhh factor that so many find relevant in other people's gardens (but not their own) was created through the suberb planting design and the reason for it's agelessness was in how that design would evoke just such a response years down the road when the colour of the hardsurfaces has being lost to uniform grey and maybe slippery with it. When the highly selected, amazing uniformity of the as yet slightly underdeveloped and overpopulated plants give way to the ravages of competition and animal tracks throughout and when the grass running under the concrete has long sice muddied over levaing strangly whisps of untidness.. it will still hold it's visitor's illusion. It is when someone can see through such illusions that they might quite mistakenly delude themselves to thinking that unlike those who have yet to notice, s/he is a Real gardener -- Paul C |
Beeb Chelsea coverage
On Sat, 29 May 2004 21:26:54 +0100, Sacha
wrote: There was a summing up of Chelsea on TV tonight. It's just finished. AT and DG went to the 'balls' garden and I saw no planting that made me want to rush out and emulate any of it. But I did think DG was sincere in his beliefs and perhaps a little chastened by his experience. yes, Sacha, I agree. Did any of you watch the programme 9 - 10 last night, about Capability Brown, presented by Diarmud? I thought he did quite well. Pam in Bristol |
Beeb Chelsea coverage
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... "Paul Corfield" wrote in message ... On Thu, 27 May 2004 18:33:12 +0000 (UTC), "Robert" wrote: Sue wrote: : I've been enjoying the programmes, although I'd rather have had Monty : Don presenting than Mr Smugmarsh, but two other things have : particularly jarred every time I've watched: : : a) Charlie Dimmock's wooden way of reading anything out to camera and : b) that flipping awful theme music! :-/ I agree with you about the blue fencing and decking man! Why not a real gardener but I ask myself is Chelsea for real gardeners? delurks can someone tell me what a real gardener is? I'm still developing my interest in gardening so don't understand the distinction that seems so apparent to the group regulars. Gardeners are the folk whose primary interest is in propagating and cultivating the plants, including vegetables. snip I seem to recall that on a topic as to *what is a garden*, there was some consensus that a gardener might be one who tends a garden from it the point of creation &/or beyond that point. There was no distinction offered on grounds (no pun intended) of plant type, (veg,flower shrub,tree) or materials incorporated. Patrick |
Beeb Chelsea coverage
"Stan The Man" wrote in message ... In article , Janet Baraclough.. wrote: The message from "Nick Wagg" contains these words: "Robert" wrote in message ... Sue wrote: ...but I ask myself is Chelsea for real gardeners? Chelsea is to gardeners as fashion shows are to those who wear clothes. Sorry, don't agree. The show itself is packed with fascinating plants, ideas, exhibits and information .It's only the TV coverage, which fails to address the needs and interests of gardeners. That would be because the BBC audience for its Chelsea programmes comprises a majority who are not keen gardeners. The BBC has decided to build its audience rather than serve the needs of keen gardeners. Hence the daytime presenter was Jenny Bond for whom this may have been her first ever visit to Chelsea. I thought she was excellent: very coherent, very engaging, very professional - the very kind of professional presenting that the show has lacked in the past. Last year's Chelsea programmes were a technical disaster. Much better this year and it seemed to me that even Charlie Dimmock has finally had some TV tuition. It will be better still when the Beeb finally figures out that the incomprehensible bumbling, mumbling Diarmuid Gavin isn't cut out for any kind of TV work. Yes, in spiite of being Irish myself I found a few occassions when I wished more sub titles were used to identify plants. All it takes is a sudden sweep of a helicopter, or growing drone of a plane at just the wrong time to botch things up. For the most part I had no problem with Diarmuid's elecution, but then, at other times, especially with outside interference, when, as if it was "take 23", he did seem sufficiently self consious as to induce mumbling.... just like last year and the year before. patrick Simon |
Beeb Chelsea coverage
"Pam Moore" wrote in message ... On Sat, 29 May 2004 21:26:54 +0100, Sacha wrote: There was a summing up of Chelsea on TV tonight. It's just finished. AT and DG went to the 'balls' garden and I saw no planting that made me want to rush out and emulate any of it. But I did think DG was sincere in his beliefs and perhaps a little chastened by his experience. yes, Sacha, I agree. Did any of you watch the programme 9 - 10 last night, about Capability Brown, presented by Diarmud? I thought he did quite well. Pam in Bristol I di and agree. I think it was called Art of the Garden. My reason for mentioning its name is that on returning from Chelsea Fl Sh last Tues evening, I made my way back to Charring Cross via a stroll from Chelsea Bridge. As I did so, I noticed a forthcomming exhibition at the Tate and it has a very similar name. Slight;y ot, I also notice a work in progress by English Landscapes and it looks promising. I also noticed the planting outside eagle house. half of it dieing .. well, ok,, maybe not half. It reminded me of the garden design used around the admin section of a Las vegas hotel... but no dead plants. An just when I assumed that by getting on the tube, I'd see no more gardening for a while, the train just happened to stop at one station at a point where I was looking straight at Diarmuids forthcomming new (gardening?) book... the name of which I've already forgotton (-: Patrick |
Beeb Chelsea coverage
On Sat, 29 May 2004 22:18:12 +0100, "tuin man"
wrote: "Paul Corfield" wrote in message .. . can someone tell me what a real gardener is? You for a start! you haven't seen the dreadful lawn and overgrown borders that I am slowly trying to tackle. Well now, had you asked for *who* is a real gardener, then contrary to the awful "Mr Smugmarsh" reference I would say Alan Titchmarsh is a very real gardener. Well I'm glad you said that because it is really Alan Titchmarsh's books and telly programmes that have got me interested. I know his jokey comments are corny but for someone like me who is a bit clueless about plants then his common touch and evident knowledge and enthusiasm are reassuring. I get the very real sense that people on this group - who I assume are real gardeners by their own definition - hate programmes like Ground Force or Garden Rivals or Small Town Gardens etc. From my viewpoint I think they help people like me understand what is possible and also help me work out what I like and don't like about certain design aspects. I've also learnt lots about plants too. Still can't decide quite what I'm going to do to my garden when it's a bit tidier though! I also noted the evident dislike of Rachel de Thames vs Sarah Raven and Chris Beardshaw seems to be on the group hitlist. Why? Aren't they gardeners too? I'm still developing my interest in gardening so don't understand the distinction that seems so apparent to the group regulars. Standing by Diarmuids National Lottery Garden a couple were chatting next to me. She said something like ; oh look how the grass (lawn) sweeps under the concrete. That is soooo new. Must be a new idea and it looks wonderful. Everyone else would just bring it up to the edge.. How interesting! How new! Now, suffice to say, there are a few here who might suggest she is not a "real gardener". The term "Real gardener" probably refers to at least a basic measure of knowledge that would enable an show observer to realise the difference between reality and fantasy. Perhaps another title might be a "reality" gardener Well OK I understand the issue about the grass not growing under the concrete lip. While I don't like everything Diarmuid designs he evidently understands plants - at least from where I sit. Does the fact that he designs outlandish structures really make him not a gardener? Many "garden designers" lack just such realism yet get tend to be vastly more appreciated and recognised then "real gardeners" and so I tend to dream up various different titles for them, none of which are really repeatable on a newsgroup. So you are really saying that people who design gardens on these telly programmes don't understand plants and create designs that are unsustainable as living gardens after the film crew leaves? I've watched a fair few of these programmes and I haven't seen many hopeless designs - maybe some I don't like but that doesn't mean they won't work as gardens. One series I liked was A Garden for all Seasons because that showed gardens belonging to "real" people. While the presenting was a bit wooden (ms dimmock and anne marie powell] I enjoyed seeing the gardens that people had created and watching how they developed over the year. There was evidently both design knowledge and horticultural knowledge being displayed by those real people - are you (the group) saying the design bit is not important? I'm just trying to understand why opinions divide so sharply over things that, to me, are not *that* important. -- Paul C |
Beeb Chelsea coverage
The message
from Joe contains these words: This happens year after year, too consistently to be accidental. Also, much of the material that is shown is usually repeated. We see the same few gardens over and over again, and many gardens and much of the pavilion are never shown. Does anyone know if this is just down to ease of camera positioning, or if the coverage is limited in some way in the contract with the BBC? Modern outside-broadcast (OB)crews consists of one or at most two people on foot with a small camera on the shoulder. In other words, there's nowhere at Chelsea which the BBC camera could not have physical access to.So the reason each presenter keeps harping on the same garden, is not production limitations. I was gobsmacked that the BBC permitted Alan Titchmarsh and Diarmuid Decongestant, to blatantly advertise their respective tailors. That kind of prime-time, fame-associated TV exposure is worth a fortune to brandnames. It's a far cry from the days when the BBC blanked out the brand-name on the detergent bottle or yoghurt pot the Blue Peter presenters were making into a birdfeeder or space rocket. It does make one wonder about who influences production and editing decisions at BBC Chelsea, and what motivates them. Janet. (Married to ex-BBC broadcast engineer) |
Beeb Chelsea coverage
The message
from "RichardS" noaccess@invalid contains these words: I was kind of cautious about including the 'real' gardeners thing - I realise that there are many, many very keen & able recreational gardeners and professionals alike that go to Chelsea and find it a thoroughly worthwhile visit, so not having been I'd certainly not have the cheek to knock it. I think that what I was enquiring about is the sentiment that appears to have been implied that "Chelsea may be the premier show, but the cognescenti reckon HC has the edge"... I'll stop here in case I'm digging a hole for myself that I really didn't intend to dig! Chelsea is wonderful, but the site is so small that the crowd pressure nowadays makes it intolerable imho. I've stopped going to it because of that. Hampton Court is a far larger, more gracious, beautiful and practical venue. I've attended both in the company of an elderly aunt; the last time I took her to Chelsea it was just too much for her, it was very difficult to find her somewhere quiet to sit down (other than on the ground, and it's even hard to find space for that) and getting a drink means long queues. Hampton was much more relaxed, spacious, plenty of pleasant R and R areas and more convenient catering outlets. She enjoyed it far more. Chelsea possibly has the edge horticulturally in tems of show gardens (except these days you can barely see them through the jam-packed hordes), but virtually all the trade exhibitors also go to HC so you'll see all the best plants, garden gizmos, show gardens, AND be able to choose from a zillion plants to buy on the spot,park in a plant creche then take home that day. No plants for sale on the spot at Chelsea (except at the last day last hour closing scrum; only suitable for the fit and hardy :-) Janet |
Beeb Chelsea coverage
The message
from Paul Corfield contains these words: can someone tell me what a real gardener is? I'm still developing my interest in gardening so don't understand the distinction that seems so apparent to the group regulars. Okay. Imho. on TV, examples of real gardeners are Geoff Hamilton (deceased) and Percy Thrower (?); people who are connected on the deepest personal level to the earth and life-force. They garden because it's the breath of life to them. They are easily distinguished from those poseurs whose focus is furthering their own wordly "success", and constructing a meeja career out of physical attributes, "being a meeja personality", or other superficial triviality. On urg, examples of real gardeners are rife. People with dirt under their fingernails who frequently disagree but are intrinsically bonded by their connectedness to the life-force, love of plants, of growing things, of their gardens or plantpots, and of communicating their genuine enthusiasm to others. Those qualities transcend age, experience, and just about every social marker you care to imagine. I strongly recommend that you get hold of "The Yellow Book" of gardens open for charity..available in most garden centres and bookshops. It's published annually for about a fiver. Wherever you live, it will list large and tiny private gardens near you to visit; a great source of pleasure, inspiration, cheap plants, wonderful teas, and meeting real gardeners :-) Janet. |
Beeb Chelsea coverage
On 29/5/04 11:00 pm, in article ,
"Paul Corfield" wrote: snip I'm just trying to understand why opinions divide so sharply over things that, to me, are not *that* important. I think you may well remain puzzled but I'll take the plunge and say that I think most 'real gardeners' as defined by urg, are more interested in plants FIRST, rather than in decking, stainless steel fins, or coloured balls, patios, drinks trolleys, lights or barbecues, bits of rope, worter feechas, stone paving and so on - and on. For me, at least, 'real gardening' is the planting of plants in appropriate places and some major gambles; blocks of colour or no definition at all, just happy or unhappy accidents etc. Perhaps it's summed up by plants first, hard landscaping second. E.g. "I want to grow x, y and z which like to trail down a wall and have sharply drained ground", so the plants create the need for the wall or others need a bog garden, or fence or trellis or pergola. Plants first. Not the other way round - perhaps? -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon (remove the weeds after garden to email me) |
Beeb Chelsea coverage
"Janet Baraclough.." wrote in message ... The message from Joe contains these words: snip I was gobsmacked that the BBC permitted Alan Titchmarsh and Diarmuid Decongestant, to blatantly advertise their respective tailors. That kind of prime-time, fame-associated TV exposure is worth a fortune to brandnames. It's a far cry from the days when the BBC blanked out the brand-name on the detergent bottle or yoghurt pot the Blue Peter presenters were making into a birdfeeder or space rocket. Actually, I think that one clip spoke volumes about the gulf between AT and DG - the Gardener and the Designer. Not too sure that there'll be a rush on Gucci or Next (I think it was) suits - anyone spending (?) £700, £1k plus on a suit would possibly have Gucci in their sights (if not wardrobe) anyway, and Next is just, well, Next. -- Richard Sampson email me at richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk |
Beeb Chelsea coverage
"Janet Baraclough.." wrote in message
... The message from "RichardS" noaccess@invalid contains these words: I was kind of cautious about including the 'real' gardeners thing - I realise that there are many, many very keen & able recreational gardeners and professionals alike that go to Chelsea and find it a thoroughly worthwhile visit, so not having been I'd certainly not have the cheek to knock it. I think that what I was enquiring about is the sentiment that appears to have been implied that "Chelsea may be the premier show, but the cognescenti reckon HC has the edge"... I'll stop here in case I'm digging a hole for myself that I really didn't intend to dig! Chelsea is wonderful, but the site is so small that the crowd pressure nowadays makes it intolerable imho. I've stopped going to it because of that. Hampton Court is a far larger, more gracious, beautiful and practical venue. I've attended both in the company of an elderly aunt; the last time I took her to Chelsea it was just too much for her, it was very difficult to find her somewhere quiet to sit down (other than on the ground, and it's even hard to find space for that) and getting a drink means long queues. Hampton was much more relaxed, spacious, plenty of pleasant R and R areas and more convenient catering outlets. She enjoyed it far more. Chelsea possibly has the edge horticulturally in tems of show gardens (except these days you can barely see them through the jam-packed hordes), but virtually all the trade exhibitors also go to HC so you'll see all the best plants, garden gizmos, show gardens, AND be able to choose from a zillion plants to buy on the spot,park in a plant creche then take home that day. No plants for sale on the spot at Chelsea (except at the last day last hour closing scrum; only suitable for the fit and hardy :-) Janet well, I've just checked Fernatix' website (www.fernatix..co.uk), and they say they'll be at HC. We've been so impressed with what we've seen from their tv interviews and coverage thay we just have to see their stand in the flesh (so to speak). We'll definitely be going. Whether I can persuade my parents or not is another matter, but if it gets too much for them then it's only a short distance to return them to base. thanks, all. -- Richard Sampson email me at richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk |
Beeb Chelsea coverage
In article , Sacha
writes On 29/5/04 11:00 pm, in article , "Paul Corfield" wrote: snip I'm just trying to understand why opinions divide so sharply over things that, to me, are not *that* important. I think you may well remain puzzled but I'll take the plunge and say that I think most 'real gardeners' as defined by urg, are more interested in plants FIRST, rather than in decking, stainless steel fins, or coloured balls, patios, drinks trolleys, lights or barbecues, bits of rope, worter feechas, stone paving and so on - and on. For me, at least, 'real gardening' is the planting of plants in appropriate places and some major gambles; blocks of colour or no definition at all, just happy or unhappy accidents etc. Perhaps it's summed up by plants first, hard landscaping second. E.g. "I want to grow x, y and z which like to trail down a wall and have sharply drained ground", so the plants create the need for the wall or others need a bog garden, or fence or trellis or pergola. Plants first. Not the other way round - perhaps? For me, I think it has something to do with plants being living organisms, which *grow*. So a garden makeover which looks good because all the plants look just right isn't a real garden unless it is still going to look good in a year's time when the plants have spread. And a gardener wants to continue to be involved in that garden - not just to sit back and look at it, but to continue to add plants and develop it. -- Kay Easton Edward's earthworm page: http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm |
Beeb Chelsea coverage
|
Beeb Chelsea coverage
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de bRfWjvs5F0GYvwt+ySSAzgJ5GdzccKP+Ghxxo2S0ja/g/ltPg= X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652 X-No-Archive: yes Path: kermit!newsfeed-west.nntpserver.com!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!news2.euro.net! newsfeed.vmunix.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail Xref: kermit uk.rec.gardening:207219 On Sat, 29 May 2004 23:33:39 +0100, Sacha wrote: On 29/5/04 11:00 pm, in article , "Paul Corfield" wrote: snip I'm just trying to understand why opinions divide so sharply over things that, to me, are not *that* important. I think you may well remain puzzled but I'll take the plunge and say that I think most 'real gardeners' as defined by urg, are more interested in plants FIRST, rather than in decking, stainless steel fins, or coloured balls, patios, drinks trolleys, lights or barbecues, bits of rope, worter feechas, stone paving and so on - and on. Yes! For me, at least, 'real gardening' is the planting of plants in appropriate places and some major gambles; blocks of colour or no definition at all, just happy or unhappy accidents etc. Yes! Perhaps it's summed up by plants first, hard landscaping second. E.g. "I want to grow x, y and z which like to trail down a wall and have sharply drained ground", so the plants create the need for the wall or others need a bog garden, or fence or trellis or pergola. Plants first. Not the other way round - perhaps? Yes! |
Beeb Chelsea coverage
"Paul Corfield" wrote in message ... On Sat, 29 May 2004 22:18:12 +0100, "tuin man" wrote: "Paul Corfield" wrote in message .. . can someone tell me what a real gardener is? You for a start! you haven't seen the dreadful lawn and overgrown borders that I am slowly trying to tackle. That actually *is* what real gardening is about. Have you ever stopped at one of the Chelsea gardens and said to yourself "I wonder what that one would look like six months (or indeed 2 years) from now?" Franz |
Beeb Chelsea coverage
"Kay Easton" wrote in message ... In article , Sacha [snip] For me, I think it has something to do with plants being living organisms, which *grow*. So a garden makeover which looks good because all the plants look just right isn't a real garden unless it is still going to look good in a year's time when the plants have spread. You have hit the nail on the head. Of how many of the Chelsea gardens, and indeed the Beeb "madeover" gardens, would this be true? And a gardener wants to continue to be involved in that garden - not just to sit back and look at it, but to continue to add plants and develop it. The evolution of the garden is of the essence. Franz |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:14 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter