[Aled]

It's simply that there's not THAT many songs that you'd be surprised to learn we like and shocking ones we hate!

[reviloslater]

It's simply that there's not THAT many songs that you'd be surprised to learn we like and shocking ones we hate!

*smells fear of BBC management*

[Aled]

It's simply that there's not THAT many songs that you'd be surprised to learn we like and shocking ones we hate!

*smells fear of BBC management*

Ha. I'm honest kind of guy. I'd say if this was management shutting it down. It's not. It's just not an easy feature to keep running week after week!

[nikkim01]

Hi Aled,

What plans do you have this weekend?

Nikki

[reviloslater]

It's simply that there's not THAT many songs that you'd be surprised to learn we like and shocking ones we hate!

*smells fear of BBC management*

Ha. I'm honest kind of guy. I'd say if this was management shutting it down. It's not. It's just not an easy feature to keep running week after week!

Ok fair play Aled
I just noticed you replied at 4:05am! That's well early!

[bmstinton93]

5:05am actually, I think you need to change your time settings.

[reviloslater]

Oh yeah! Thats wierd, I had to manually change it to daylight savings, is that normal?

[bmstinton93]

Yep.

[mt35.lisa]

do you ever worry that your going to run out of idea's for the show? and who thinks of the most idea's out of the team?

[itbe_Tyler]

Sorry if this has already been asked. (New User, been stalking for a while though.)

Obviously you have the rules of the type of stuff that can be broadcasted, but how do you personally decide if a comment or text etc. is suitable for broadcasting? E.g When people text in there stupid amnesty or comedy names such as mike oxlong.

[Yudster]

I think that's an interesting question.

[DevilsDuck]

Hi Aled

It sounds like the feature brain-storm was a semi success.

Do you think you would do it again?

[dimtimjim]

semi

**snigger**

[Emmy]

Hi Aled. I don't suppose you'll know the answer to my first question, but I'll ask you anyway. Why did the Guardian let you know in advance that they would be reviewing the show on a given day, is this something radio reviewers regularly do? I'd have thought it would make far more sense to listen to a 'regular' show, maybe over a few days, dipping in and out, and then base a review around that, having got a proper feel for the show and the people involved in it.

Secondly, why did you choose to tell Chris about it, when you must have known that he wouldn't be able to resist mentioning/ranting about it on air? Him knowing was always going to alter the content of the show and his performance in some, albeit small, way. If Chris hadn't been aware of it then neither the Guardian nor radio reviewers would in all likelihood have been mentioned on the show today, and the conversation would have gone off in some other, possibly more interesting and more natural, direction, as per a normal show.

If I were in his place, I'd rather not have known. For me, it would be a bit like knowing that my big boss would be visiting the office on a certain day, which would make me nervous beforehand and would change the way I'd usually behave in the office. No matter how hard I tried to carry on as normal, I'd be involuntarily putting on 'a show' all day.

Cheers.

[SAV1OUR]

why did you choose to tell Chris about it,

Cheers.

Personally I didn't see any problem with that. If some pompous hacks from the paper got slagged off then it's entertaining! Just like the rants.

[Emmy]

I have no problem with his rant, that wasn't the point of my question at all. Although I think it's a bit unfair to call somebody you don't know a 'pompous hack', in the same way that the commenters under the (very positive) review who are slagging off Chris and the show have no business doing so when they clearly state that they don't listen to the show.

[SAV1OUR]

I have no problem with his rant, that wasn't the point of my question at all. Although I think it's a bit unfair to call somebody you don't know a 'pompous hack', in the same way that the commenters under the (very positive) review who are slagging off Chris and the show have no business doing so when they clearly state that they don't listen to the show.

Are you saying if Moyles hadn't known then there wouldn't have been hatred in that comments section today? Anyway, besides that I don't think Moyles and the Media will ever be on great terms - one tame review won't change that. So, yes, there are some arses in the Media, they write about people, slag them off, they are the ones that start the fire.

[Emmy]

Are you saying if Moyles hadn't known then there wouldn't have been hatred in that comments section today?

God no! Most of the people commenting seem to have been storing up their absolute pure and utter hatred for Chris for several years, and were just looking for an excuse to let rip. As some of the more sensible commenters there mentioned, it's like a load of regular Daily Mail readers have wandered onto the Guardian site by mistake.

From the Twitter account of that 52 year year old reviewer of today's show who needs to get laid

'Take a Guardian blog. Say some nice things about Chris Moyles. http://tiny.cc/8qba7 Then stand well back...'

http://twitter.com/#!/BenDowell

[Aled]

do you ever worry that your going to run out of idea's for the show? and who thinks of the most idea's out of the team?

No. I do worry that a person will get into one way of thinking though, that after 9 years of working with Chris, or 2 years show producing him that all my ideas go down the same route which is why when it comes to coming up with ideas I never do it alone. It'll always be Freya and myself or Freya / Matt / the UA and myself or a team of producers from the rest of Radio 1 with us, or, as recently, the fans from here.

I then use my knowledge of Chris, the team and the show to try and take these ideas and make them work best for Chris and the team. I then present them to either Chris on his own, Chris and Dave or with the whole team who will further change the ideas and add their own spin. Then after all of that we do it on the show.

[Aled]

Sorry if this has already been asked. (New User, been stalking for a while though.)

Obviously you have the rules of the type of stuff that can be broadcasted, but how do you personally decide if a comment or text etc. is suitable for broadcasting? E.g When people text in there stupid amnesty or comedy names such as mike oxlong.

I suppose it's just a gut feeling you try and include the texts and suggestions you happen to see on the text console and you strip out the ones that you deem too offensive or inapropriate.

[Aled]

Hi Aled

It sounds like the feature brain-storm was a semi success.

Do you think you would do it again?

Yes, definitely. As much as the review of the ideas on the show made them sound like a complete failure in reality I think of all the past ideas session this one was one of the most productive. There are many ideas that will see the light of day in many different ways - either as subtle builds in other ideas we come up with, either as themes or as fully formed ideas.

I'll make sure I give this forum the nod when the ideas find their way on air over the next year.

[Aled]

Hi Aled. I don't suppose you'll know the answer to my first question, but I'll ask you anyway. Why did the Guardian let you know in advance that they would be reviewing the show on a given day, is this something radio reviewers regularly do? I'd have thought it would make far more sense to listen to a 'regular' show, maybe over a few days, dipping in and out, and then base a review around that, having got a proper feel for the show and the people involved in it.

Secondly, why did you choose to tell Chris about it, when you must have known that he wouldn't be able to resist mentioning/ranting about it on air? Him knowing was always going to alter the content of the show and his performance in some, albeit small, way. If Chris hadn't been aware of it then neither the Guardian nor radio reviewers would in all likelihood have been mentioned on the show today, and the conversation would have gone off in some other, possibly more interesting and more natural, direction, as per a normal show.

If I were in his place, I'd rather not have known. For me, it would be a bit like knowing that my big boss would be visiting the office on a certain day, which would make me nervous beforehand and would change the way I'd usually behave in the office. No matter how hard I tried to carry on as normal, I'd be involuntarily putting on 'a show' all day.

Cheers.

I don't know whether the Guardian DID let us know in advance - they may have, but if they did it would have been with Tamsin - our head of press. They posted the breakfast review idea on their blog on the Monday and listed who would be reviewed and on which day so it was out there on public display.

There is no right or wrong answer to the question as to whether Chris should have been told.

Knowing obviously changed the show - and that was inevitable because the show is transparent like that and Chris wears his heart on his sleave. But as Producer, and Chris' support, I'd feel uncomfortable going into a show where Chris was being judged so publicly, knowing this was happening and not tell him. If Chris had done something however minor that he probably wouldn't have wanted to do had he known it would be discussed and recorded publicly and analyzed under a microscope and he found out that the one person he could trust knew about it - I think that would have been an erosion of that trust and not something I would want.

Also, with it being public people could have quite easily tweeted / text Chris during the show and that would have been more unsettling to have learnt during rather than before and raised questions of why his support at Radio 1 didn't know about it.

[bmstinton93]

So Aled, who was the best looking out of the 6 forum members? And on a scale of 1 - 10 how hot is dimtimjim...?

[novalinnhe]

..........the musical taste game.............I don't think there's many weeks in it.

I can see why you think that, and I agree - but hasn't it got the potential to be a brilliant occasional feature? An as-and-when kind of thing? It couldn't work for every guest you had on but for the "friend of the show" type guest it could be great.

I'm a bit late but I agree with Yudster, it'd be great in interviews with people like Davina/John Barrowman/Jeremey Clarkson. C= And hello Aled! ^_^ *waves*

[reviloslater]

I don't know whether the Guardian DID let us know in advance - they may have, but if they did it would have been with Tamsin - our head of press. They posted the breakfast review idea on their blog on the Monday and listed who would be reviewed and on which day so it was out there on public display.

There is no right or wrong answer to the question as to whether Chris should have been told.

Knowing obviously changed the show - and that was inevitable because the show is transparent like that and Chris wears his heart on his sleave. But as Producer, and Chris' support, I'd feel uncomfortable going into a show where Chris was being judged so publicly, knowing this was happening and not tell him. If Chris had done something however minor that he probably wouldn't have wanted to do had he known it would be discussed and recorded publicly and analyzed under a microscope and he found out that the one person he could trust knew about it - I think that would have been an erosion of that trust and not something I would want.

Also, with it being public people could have quite easily tweeted / text Chris during the show and that would have been more unsettling to have learnt during rather than before and raised questions of why his support at Radio 1 didn't know about it.

Are you just a ruddy great bloke Aled?!