Michael Ball is to take over the Radio 2 slot recently vacated by Michael Parkinson. His show will start on Sunday 6th April from 11 a.m. until 1.30 p.m. preceding Elaine Paige's Sunday show.

Good news !

Sorry to correct you angelfan, but Elaine Paige´s show always starts at 1.00 p.m.

But it might be interesting to listen to Michael Ball from 11 a.m. until 1.30 p.m. from 6th April on.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressrele...y/18/ball.shtml

It is 11.00 until 1.00pm here's the official announcement

"Michael says: "This is a wonderfully exciting new challenge in my career. I hope listeners will make a regular date to have lunch with me on Sundays."

Well, not unless he's in the pub :-)

Now we know why he is not doing Mondays in Hairspray after April.

Sorry, my mistake.

I am quite looking forward to the show. He has proven himself a very good presenter in the past. He certainly does like to keep busy.

That official announcement doesn't seem to mention EP's show.

Who is to play Edna on Mondays if Michael is no longer doing those dates?

And now he has won his category in the WOS awards!!! Is there no stopping this man??!!!!
He deserves to win, close call with Lea Mead though! 0.6%!!!!
congratulations to Micael Ball and all concerned with Hairspray.

Publie votes are pointless as there can be no proof as if the voter has actaully seen the show or performance,Ball was bound to win with his fanbase,a meaningless award I am afraid!

I'm entirely in agreement, LOL.

Good grief
How mean spirited.
Oh well, have to wait for the Oliviers!!!
Lea has a huge fan base too, would you have jumped so sharply onto this thread if he had won.
I think not.
Do cheer up, spring is nearly here.

To answer previous question imagine Adam Price will do mondays, he did a great job during michaels xmas break,
not quite as feminine an edna but great fun to watch.

No its not mean spirited and I take it you are a Ball fan to be so defensive and irate and I am sure Lee not Lea Mead's fan base is nowhere near Michael Balls and would have said the said if he had won anyway so you are wrong.
I am sure many voted for Lee that had only seen him on TV and not at the Adelphi.

But any votes like this or the National TV awards are pointless as I said there is no proof the actual person has seen the show etc and vote for a household name so what is the point of an award there that has happened.
I personally think all awards are pointless but at least with none public ones ,its more likely the people voting have at least seen what they are voting on.

But public votes are to me just a bit fun but should be taken lightly and not make the winner swell headed!!

Well, yes, I would have jumped on to this thread as sharply if I knew that votes for Lea had come from some people who haven't seen Hairspray and who have never actually seen him on stage in any capacity. The sad thing is that MB deserved recognition for the role, but it's meaningless if those who voted haven't been to London to see the show so have no-one with which to compare him. (Not to mention those who got sundry friends, colleagues, etc., to vote blindly.)

Oh how funny - no, not a Ball fan, not at all, that is amusing, but a huge musical theatre fan.
let's leave it there then, just hope they enjoy the show tonight , as you say, a bit of fun.
You are so serious on here, so scary!!!

Not serious at all and thats quite funny you say that as its you really that started that the personal attacks !

So not sure how you can call anyone else scary!

What show tonight?,the awards/concert is on Sunday!As a huge muscial fan I thought would have known that

Michael Ball's performance as Edna has been praised by audience and critics alike, it does seem a little meanspirited to belittle the winning of the award, as being the result of the winner having the largest fanbase. That arguement doesn't really hold up either. If it's possible that not everyone who voted for the winner had not been to the Shaftesbury to see the show. It is equally as likely that t.v. viewers of ADWD voted for Lee Mead or a few thousand Harry Potter devotees voted for Daniel Radcliffe and so on.The mainstay of the votes have likely come from people who paid their money, attended the show and enjoyed the performance they have voted for.

Thanks for making the point,that is a impossible to proove if the that people voted had seen the show or not as like me you are guessing!! ,so it makes any public vote a popularity contest and not a real vote on performance as it cant be prooved.

That doesn't mean the performance is not worthy of being recognised. It can't be proved that more people voted that hadn't seen the performance, than had either.

I think it's more accurate to say that he certainly does like the money!

Isn't that what we all go to work for?

Just over a decade ago I knew of an ardent fan who insisted that actors were such wonderful people that they'd happily work for nothing just so long as they had the adoration of their fans. Although several of us on the same newsgroup tried to point out to him that acting was a job like any other and the whole point of a job was to make money, he couldn't bear the thought that the actress he worshipped would sully herself with something so common as commercial gain. She was his angel; something as dirty as earning money was beneath her.

Yeah, she probably didn't need a lavatory, either

My point to oldlady was that it's not so much that he likes to keep busy but that he likes having more money. Yes, it's a job but as far as money goes, he seems somewhat more greedy than others.

At the risk of sounding impertinent, Guest Nancy, could you mention the names of these saintly others who turn down lucretive offers solely because they don't need the money; "No, I can't do that once a week Radio 2 job because I'm washing my hair"? Of course there are some at the very top of their profession who will be very selective about what they do but acting/doing musicals is a very competitive business and unless you're happy for people to forget about you the more exposure you can get the better.

I can hear those axes grinding from here.

edited: to say my comment was also diected at message 28 not 29

You think he took this job because he was afraid of being forgotten?? He's up for an Olivier award and he's in Hairspray until October! He's not in danger of being forgotten anytime soon. This was all about the money, and why shouldn't it be, but let's not pretend it was about anything else.

I'd suggest this job has been in pipeline before Hairspray was even confirmed especially as there had been so many false starts for it coming over. The Parky Job was certainly rumoured in the press months and months ago. This is a great opportunity, big commitment he's paid his dues over the last 20 years or more, there really doesn't seem to be any stopping his beat at the moment (sorry couldn't resist) and I for one don't begrudge him a second of it.

You don't get it, do you? The successful performer is the one that consistently makes the right decisions throughout his/her career about exposure and artistic credibility. Just because he's doing Hairspray means nothing in global terms [see the thread about Connie Fisher]; the R2 show could be of huge longterm significance.

How about some names in answer to my previous question, Guest Nancy?

Take a look at the fan sites, James.

I think the comment of himdoing the R2 job just fro the money nancy may be a bit off...my guess is as a performer who has also had his own 2 hour a week radio show, that actually its good fun, its not the hardest of jobs, and actually lets you do something a bit different.

Id say hes taking it because he enjoys it and as previous times when he has covered in for people on R2 really enjoys it aswel, you always want a dj that sounds like they are having fun on air...because if they are not, its not pretty listening

Frankly
I didn't think my little comment warranted any kind of response. It just seems to me that working on a show full time is very busy and time consuming and adding another endeavor on his day off must mean he likes to try new things and keeping busy. I am sure the pay is wonderful and he gets to do something he rather enjoys doing. I think it also keeps him in London and available for another musical if he chooses to be part of another after he finishes his stint in Hairspray. I think he does a very good job of presenting on radio and television. Of course this is just speculation and I don't know anything really.

Neither, I would imagine, does guest nancy.

I have just been and done a quick look at the results for this and previous years. The figures for this years winning performers does not seem to be to disproportionate in comparison. There will have been some votes cast from people who have not actually seen the performance/performer they have voted for. It would be naive to suggest otherwise. However, I don't think these particular awards suffer from this to extreme. Not compared to something like 'Best British Record Poll' in which some bands haven't got a hope in hell of competing with other bands. Who have massive fanbases, huge publicity wagons supporting them and the patriotic vote from their part of the country. So it's part of the vote but there are there factors to take into consideration. The individual shows popularity, whether it is still open and therefore being seen. How many people have seen it. Has a particular cast member got a high profile, who is in the cast.

Using MB as an example for the last four years the Best Actor in a Musical category has been won with between 32% - 39.3% of the vote by a variety of actors (Nathan Lane, Martyn Ellis, Tim Curry and Michael Ball). Which indicates this years voting is on a parr with previous years. Then there is the popularity of a particular show to consider. Hairspray got rave reviews when it opened and there has hardly been a bad word written about it since. If you look at the Supporting Actor category Ben James-Ellis won it with 27.6% but there was also 21.9% of the vote cast for Mel Smith in the same category. So whilst voting for favs plays it's part all these things go together to make the final figure.

There does seem to be several categories in which this year the person coming second has also had a healthy % of the vote to. Perhaps were this is where some of the extra votes cast have settled. I think it's to simplistic to say, Oh such and such won it because they had the biggest or best organised fanbase. You have to take into consideration all the different reasons people vote.

I'm not sure about other years, James, but reading fan-sites this year lead me to think that these awards are skewed by voters who haven't seen any of the shows and who haven't even seen a performance of any kind by those involved. However I can't think of any way to make the whole thing fairer or representative. And I'm certainly not complaining that Michael Ball won his award - he deserved one. But one that's voted for in such an ad hoc manner can't be worth that much.

Why is working for money "greedy"? I really can't see anything amiss about Michael Ball taking on a Sunday job and being paid for doing so. I certainly wouldn't do a second job without pay so why should he? Whatever his reasons I'm sure he will prove to be a popular presenter with R2 listeners. I've heard him on radio a couple of times and he seems to be a happy, affable presenter which I'm sure goes down well.

He may be keeping an eye on a future career path - no-one can say how long a chap's voice is going to hold out, so a future in radio wouldn't be a bad alternative. Or he may be doing it just because he can. Good luck to him! I don't suppose I'll hear it in the pub but I'm sure loads of others will tune in.

I don't think it's any worse than previous years or else the winning percentages would be much higher. Those people interviewed commented on how important these awards are because they are voted for by the public. Any public vote of this nature is never going to be fool proof. Even if there was a ballot paper given with every ticket sold, this would ensure the production had been seen but the system would still be open to multiple voting from the same person. Difficult one !

Enjoy the pub

They would, wouldn't they? It's unlikely anyone picked out for an interview at an awards ceremony would say "These awards are worthless" (except, perhaps, someone who can't get over not being nominated for a single category).


Years ago I overheard a conversation between two old women about the general election that was a few days away. "I'm going to vote Conservative", one said. "I do like that nice Mrs Major".

to LOL 'just hope they enjoy the show tonight ', My words from Friday - Boy you were fast to jump. again!
I MEANT the show as in Hairspray - thought it would be a fab one as the cast would have been so hyped up after winning so many awards that day, and have a fun show that night. I KNEW the WOS show was on Sunday for goodness sake, I had tickets! Lighten up. Relax.
I still maintain you are scary,mmmmmm, no....nasty really.

Granted but the public are at least getting their voice heard (by how much, depends on how watertight a person views the whole voting process to be).

MB just mentioned on TV that after he starts his radio show he will not be performing in Hairspray on Monday evenings!!

Oh dear! Someone's now going to post that not only is he being greedy but also extremely selfish in wanting an extra night off.

I've heard from a friend at the BBC that he is probably getting around £1000 a week for his two-hour show. Not bad! Whether or not he's greedy is beside the point.

Presumably there must be quite a lot of thought and preparation put into the show beforehand so it wouldn't really be just two hours work.

The 'thought and preparation' are done by the production team. MB is the front man although he will have to be up to speed on anyone he interviews aided by material supplied by the researchers. He will have a competent backroom staff. I've always thought that he comes across really well on the radio and am looking forward to hearing the show.

"Probably getting" being the operative words there

It's an estimate, obviously, based on what similar presenters, with similar experience, are getting.