Sean Moncrieff - Newstalk

ThisRegard

A guy claimed his daughter was house sitting for her grandfather, threw a party, found 3 bottles and drank them. Grandfather said it was the heritance for the girls father.

Edit, mother, father, dunno, but a parent anyway.

Hazydays123

Turtle_ wrote: »

Did anyone catch the question about the Screaming Eagle? What exactly happened!?

The texter's daughter was staying in her grandfather's house while he was away. Had some friends over. They raided his drinks cabinet and drank 3 bottles of his wine- the screaming eagle stuff. Unbeknownst to them they were worth 15k each.
Something to that effect.

Turtle_

quickbeam wrote: »

Woman wrote in to say that her teenage daughter and her friends had drunk her father's (ie, the daughter's grandfather's) Screaming Eagle, 3 bottles of it when they had a party in the father's absence. When he found out he was furious, as it was the woman's inheritance and now they're not talking.

Oh God, I only caught the tail end of it and thought "ah well, enjoying a bit of early inheritance" reckoning the texter had helped themselves but teenagers drinking 30-45k worth of wine?! I can understand why he'd be angry!

CarrickMcJoe

Turtle_ wrote: »

Did anyone catch the question about the Screaming Eagle? What exactly happened!?

Granddaughter left in charge of grandas house, has party, drink runs out so her friends raid cellar and open a case of screaming eagle, quaff 3 bottles and granda goes mad, saying it was her inheritance . He doesn't speak to her now.

Worth between €15000 and €25000 each...

lawred2

Hazydays123 wrote: »

Turtle_ wrote: »

Did anyone catch the question about the Screaming Eagle? What exactly happened!?

The texter's daughter was staying in her grandfather's house while he was away. Had some friends over. They raided his drinks cabinet and drank 3 bottles of his wine- the screaming eagle stuff. Unbeknownst to them they were worth 15k each.
Something to that effect.

I just google 'screaming eagle'

I learned something new today

Say Your Number

Christ, I thought Tomas was taking the piss at first when he was explaining that :eek:

I sure prey the grandad doesn't take leagle action.

sheep?

Best of Moncrieff is on at the moment.

This is the first opportunity I've had to hear 'So you think you're an adult?'

Is it always this awful? :eek:

The interview with Ron Miscavige was interesting.

My name is URL

sheep? wrote: »

This is the first opportunity I've had to hear 'So you think you're an adult?'

Is it always this awful? :eek:

That was one of the better examples of it. It was on a 'best of' after all!

Yeah, it's a horrendous segment, with two of the most self absorbed and condescending people you could ask for. I can only assume that's what producers were going for, for whatever reason.

Hazydays123

sheep? wrote: »

Best of Moncrieff is on at the moment.

This is the first opportunity I've had to hear 'So you think you're an adult?'

Is it always this awful? :eek:

The interview with Ron Miscavige was interesting.

I really like 'so you think you're an adult'. It's so much better than half the crappy interviews he does. Like the one today with the English guy who pretended to be a goat for a year (or something to that effect).
I get that the show is meant to be light-hearted but sometimes it's so juvenile and they're totally scrapping the barrel. Some of the more 'quirky' guests sound to me like they probably have severe mental health issues and shouldn't be interviewed/mocked on radio.

alaimacerc

Sean has a texter that's "allergic to additives". Lord preserve us with these special snowflakes with a mile of entitlement, and no an ounce of clue about what they're talking about...

If it's sulphates they're allergic to, say, that makes a degree of sense, mind you. You'd never know from their actual comment...

Ol' Donie

Wow. For a guy who loves Movies and Booze, I've never realised how little I like hearing about wine.

Grape this. Vineyard that. Some French words. Bored. Who cares. Beer.

alaimacerc

Ol' Donie wrote: »

Wow. For a guy who loves Movies and Booze, I've never realised how little I like hearing about wine.

Grape this. Vineyard that. Some French words. Bored. Who cares. Beer.

I forget the name of the regular "wine" guy, but he at least makes a performance art out of a) sounding completely up himself, and b) not having a clue about the questions being texted in. The one currently on shift is certainly having a stab at both of those, but with not quite the same panache.

Vorenus400

alaimacerc wrote: »

I forget the name of the regular "wine" guy, but he at least makes a performance art out of a) sounding completely up himself, and b) not having a clue about the questions being texted in. The one currently on shift is certainly having a stab at both of those, but with not quite the same panache.

Jean Smullen (think thats her name) is dry and boring as the wine reviewer on the show. The other 2 wine guys or the beer guy are much more entertaining. Think the 'up himself' guy is Thomas Clancy (not the writer) and yes he does play the snob very well at times and can laugh at himself.

Its very telling when people ask for a good non alcoholic wine. the others reviewers say there is no good non alco version and to drink some grape juice . jean always has one to recommend. Its usually some company she worked with or promotes. She seems very close to some wine brands. She is less likely to offend any wine brand like the other guys. Shes a bit too safe.

I like the movie reviewer as shes good craic but I dont take her reviews seriously.

Turtle_

Vorenus400 wrote: »

I like the movie reviewer as shes good craic but I dont take her reviews seriously.

I've trusted her review once... Never again. Waste of 30 quid!

alaimacerc

Vorenus400 wrote: »

Jean Smullen (think thats her name) is dry and boring as the wine reviewer on the show. The other 2 wine guys or the beer guy are much more entertaining. Think the 'up himself' guy is Thomas Clancy (not the writer) and yes he does play the snob very well at times and can laugh at himself.

There's four of them? My god, they've been breeding! I'd not quite managed to fully distinguish them to that extent. Not the part of the show that most fully grabs my attention, evidently.

It does strike me as bizarre that the segment is so unrehearsed that large chunks of it ends up consisting of "I've never heard of that movie", "where is that place you just mentioned?", "there's no such wine as that, you must have the DTs!", etc. Good to keep them on their toes, sure, but is there nothing to be said for giving them 2m of advance notice they could google stuff, as the audience is likely doing, thereby ending up immediately more knowledgeable on the topic than the "expert"? Though maybe that would reduce the sport value...

Horse84

alaimacerc wrote: »

There's four of them? My god, they've been breeding! I'd not quite managed to fully distinguish them to that extent. Not the part of the show that most fully grabs my attention, evidently.

It does strike me as bizarre that the segment is so unrehearsed that large chunks of it ends up consisting of "I've never heard of that movie", "where is that place you just mentioned?", "there's no such wine as that, you must have the DTs!", etc. Good to keep them on their toes, sure, but is there nothing to be said for giving them 2m of advance notice they could google stuff, as the audience is likely doing, thereby ending up immediately more knowledgeable on the topic than the "expert"? Though maybe that would reduce the sport value...

Yea u could do that or u could equally get in any number of proper movie reviewers unlike Esther. A nice lady for sure but has as much knowledge on movies as I have about radio production....

Vorenus400

alaimacerc wrote: »

There's four of them? My god, they've been breeding! I'd not quite managed to fully distinguish them to that extent. Not the part of the show that most fully grabs my attention, evidently.

It does strike me as bizarre that the segment is so unrehearsed that large chunks of it ends up consisting of "I've never heard of that movie", "where is that place you just mentioned?", "there's no such wine as that, you must have the DTs!", etc. Good to keep them on their toes, sure, but is there nothing to be said for giving them 2m of advance notice they could google stuff, as the audience is likely doing, thereby ending up immediately more knowledgeable on the topic than the "expert"? Though maybe that would reduce the sport value...

I'd forgive the wine reviewers for not knowing a certain bottle or vintage. Lots of vinyards have multiple different bottle names. Its harder to forgive ester. its not as if all the queries are about little indy films. When asked about an upcoming film, she says eithert "I've heard good things about it" or "Ive not heard about that one" I like the group dynamic they have together but i wouldnt trust esters reviews

alaimacerc

Tom Clonan. Give me strength. Mercifully, missed most of it, only switching over from State-Run Spin One at the key "Liveline! Reverse!" moment.

One thing that really annoys me about Moncrieff (apart from that chin-in-the-throat voice) is how obviously scripted the interviews are.

It is blindingly obvious that "that's a great question" because Moncrieff has been given prior synopsis of precisely what the interviewee wants to tell us!

Often it seems like Sean is barely listening, because he asks an (obviously scripted) question that the interviewee has already explained. I assume Sean is reading texts or the twitterfeed when contibutors are actually speaking, then returns to the script without a clue where the interviewee has paused. He is 'lost' on the script.

I don't mean 'script' literally, of course. I am assuming that interviewees provide fact-sheets to guide the presenter, and maybe this is a standard practice on all chatshows. But it is only on Moncrieff that it is so obvious.

Other presenters seem to be able to multi-task and lead contributors down a particular line with relative ease, even Jonathan Healy!

Pat Kenny can play a round of tennis whilst a contributor rattles along, only come back, ask a pertinent question, then go off for a game of bezique before wrapping up the interview and reading texter comments. The whole apparatus of Moncrieff increasingly comes across stilted and scriped.

kunst nugget

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

One thing that really annoys me about Moncrieff (apart from that chin-in-the-throat voice) is how obviously scripted the interviews are.

It is blindingly obvious that "that's a great question" because Moncrieff has been given prior synopsis of precisely what the interviewee wants to tell us!

Often it seems like Sean is barely listening, because he asks an (obviously scripted) question that the interviewee has already explained. I assume Sean is reading texts or the twitterfeed when contibutors are actually speaking, then returns to the script without a clue where the interviewee has paused. He is 'lost' on the script.

I don't mean 'script' literally, of course. I am assuming that interviewees provide fact-sheets to guide the presenter, and maybe this is a standard practice on all chatshows. But it is only on Moncrieff that it is so obvious.

Other presenters seem to be able to multi-task and lead contributors down a particular line with relative ease, even Jonathan Healy!

Pat Kenny can play a round of tennis whilst a contributor rattles along, only come back, ask a pertinent question, then go off for a game of bezique before wrapping up the interview and reading texter comments. The whole apparatus of Moncrieff increasingly comes across stilted and scriped.

I don't think they are using scripted or pre-prepared questions from the interviewees but I think that Moncrieff's team actually put in some research and come up with interesting questions for the interviews which Sean then rabbits off. I think the compliments for the questions are usually genuine but I think it's down to his team. I've never noticed him ask questions about things already explained in the manner that Tubirdy or D'Arcy might. That said, I am only half listening most of the time while in work.

I've regularly heard the same person being interviewed on Moncrieff and Anton Savage/Ray D'arcy before him and there's been no comparison in terms of the line of questioning between them. I think he's actually a great interviewer.

foxtrot101

I disagree totally, i have to say, I think he is one of the most talented interviewers we have and Pat Kenny hasn't been called Pat the plank for years for nothing.

alaimacerc

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Pat Kenny can play a round of tennis whilst a contributor rattles along, only come back, ask a pertinent question, then go off for a game of bezique before wrapping up the interview and reading texter comments. The whole apparatus of Moncrieff increasingly comes across stilted and scriped.

The poor listener could get in five sets of tennis and an entire city break in Monaco while Kenny is winding up one of his own portentously over-rehearsed and self-regarding questions. Then add the pointless interruptions, and the self-serving and preening "commentary". The notion that his interviews are in the least bit interactive or get the best out of the interviewee is laughable in the extreme.

Grolschevik

^^ I don't find that at all. It seems to me that in most cases he's listening carefully and asking pertinent questions rather than pre-scripted ones. It's one of the things I like about his interview style: intelligent engagement.

No doubt the prep work has been done already, of course, as he and his team couldn't possibly read all the weird books etc they cover...

Sorry, just to clarify this, it's not really material to my point whether the prep is emailed through to the show, or whether it's the researchers' work. The point is that it's so incredibly obvious that Sean is working from a sheet, and that he frequently loses his whereabouts on that sheet, asking questions that have already been answered.

Listen back to today's female orgasm slot (ahem) for a fairly classic example of both an obvious script, and Sean not listening to his interviewee.

Sean owes an enormous debt of gratitude to Ray Darcy and Anton Savage in my view. He is the best of a bad lot, and no more.

alaimacerc

kunst nugget wrote: »

I don't think they are using scripted or pre-prepared questions from the interviewees but I think that Moncrieff's team actually put in some research and come up with interesting questions for the interviews which Sean then rabbits off. I think the compliments for the questions are usually genuine but I think it's down to his team.

I think that's part of it, and indeed surely some of the "research" is indeed talking to the interviewee, not just googling the heck out of a subject. But some of the "good questions" do indeed seem to be genuine followups. Or convincing fakes, at worst.

Of course, it's partly down to the interviewee. Some interviewees will doubtless be saying "great point, Sean" just to be polite/complete suckups. Then again, you get people like the "shark teeth" guy on today, who'll start off an answer with a rather high-handed "No, not at all..." ... before essentially giving a long-winded "yes" to the actual substance of the question.

alaimacerc

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Listen back to today's female orgasm slot (ahem) for a fairly classic example of both an obvious script, and Sean not listening to his interviewee.

Specifics?

He is the best of a bad lot, and no more.

And the best of a particularly bad lot on New Stalk, especially.

Grolschevik

I don't see/hear that at all, and think that it's far from obvious if it is indeed the case.

Of course, I'm not saying that the questions aren't prepared in advance, just that I rarely get the sense of him working from a script and regularly losing his way on it.

alaimacerc

alaimacerc wrote: »

I think that's part of it, and indeed surely some of the "research" is indeed talking to the interviewee

Did you hear the slot about the Irish doctor in Nagasaki?

At the outset Sean says to the interview "I'm just dashing through the initial phase [on his early life in Ireland], because there's quite a lot of it" or words to that effect. I assume the contributor sent in a fact-sheet, otherwise why even mention that you're rushing through it?

alaimacerc wrote: »

Specifics?

At one point Sean asks a question about oxytocin, out of nowhere, but it was clearly in his notes.

At another point, he asks a question that has already been answered about the evolutionary benefit of orgasm, but I cannot recall exactly what was said. It's very obvious upon hearing it.

kunst nugget

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Did you hear the slot about the Irish doctor in Nagasaki?

At the outset Sean says to the interview "I'm just dashing through the initial phase [on his early life in Ireland], because there's quite a lot of it" or words to that effect. I assume the contributor sent in a fact-sheet, otherwise why even mention that you're rushing through it?

The guy obviously lived a very full life - Sean Moncrieff was trying to condense it down to a couple of sentences to give context to who they were talking about while acknowledging there was a lot more to the fellow than what he was saying. I really can't see what the issue was there