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)

"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)

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)

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

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)

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.

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

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)

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

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

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)

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.

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.

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)

On 23/5/07 09:32, in article , "Broadback"
wrote:

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.

I don't see that there's much point in having hours of coverage of THE
showcase for gardeners, plantsmen, growers, nurserymen and designers and not
acknowledging they'd like to know something about the things being
showcased. Those not interested can switch over, switch off or perhaps just
tolerate the few minutes it would take.
The winner of the Best Garden is not of much interest to me because I think
that sort of thing is very subjective. Apparently the Linnaeus garden didn't
win because the trees were in bud, not full flower but that's ow the
designer wanted them. However, I *think* the rules state that if you're
going to show flowering plants they must be in flower.


--
Sacha
http://www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
(remove weeds from address)