Axing of BBC Singers and related cuts

[Pulcinella]

The vast majority of Radio 3’s output is classical music.

Would that were true.
I find that the vast majority of R3's output is now chat.
A reasonably fair survey of being in the car and turning the radio on finds talk on R3 and music on CFM.
It's the endless chat that has turned me away from R3.

[Ein Heldenleben]

The vast majority of Radio 3’s output is classical music.

Would that were true.
I find that the vast majority of R3's output is now chat.
A reasonably fair survey of being in the car and turning the radio on finds talk on R3 and music on CFM.
It's the endless chat that has turned me away from R3.

I meant of the music played. I would agree that the amount of chat has gone up probably because it’s much cheaper than so called needletime. That’s also why there are more trails. It’s quite easy to disguise cuts in Radio but eventually you reach the position they are in with local radio and you have have to cut tranches of output. One other cut I’ve spotted is the much more frequent use of EBU material and fewer recorded performances from BBC orchestras.

[french frank]

One other cut I’ve spotted is the much more frequent use of EBU material and fewer recorded performances from BBC orchestras.

And the BBC cuts to the orchestras not unconnected? As I remember, Radio 3 paid for the performances by BBC orchestras out of its budget just as it paid for any other orchestra's performance. Also EBU recordings count as 'live and specially recorded music' which contributes to another of the station's commitments.

I calculate that about 30 mins of the Breakfast slot is news, weather, trails and other presenter input (including the bits of jazz/musicals. That's roughly 20% of a 'classical music programme'. Don't think there would be much less in Essential Classics and In Tune. Along with all the other non-classical programmes, plus the various music programmes being, like Late Junction, Unclassified, Piano Flow, just commercial recordings (or EBU in the case of TTN) I'd estimate a significant chunk of R3's £35m was not actually invested in classical music. And if the orchestras become smaller and perform less I think the BBC's commitment to classical music is not what it was.

[Ein Heldenleben]

And the BBC cuts to the orchestras not unconnected? As I remember, Radio 3 paid for the performances by BBC orchestras out of its budget just as it paid for any other orchestra's performance. Also EBU recordings count as 'live and specially recorded music' which contributes to another of the station's commitments.

I calculate that about 30 mins of the Breakfast slot is news, weather, trails and other presenter input (including the bits of jazz/musicals. That's roughly 20% of a 'classical music programme'. Don't think there would be much less in Essential Classics and In Tune. Along with all the other non-classical programmes, plus the various music programmes being, like Late Junction, Unclassified, Piano Flow, just commercial recordings (or EBU in the case of TTN) I'd estimate a significant chunk of R3's £35m was not actually invested in classical music. And if the orchestras become smaller and perform less I think the BBC's commitment to classical music is not what it was.

Yes I think I made the link between orchestral cuts and more music off disc / EBU some posts back and didn’t want to repeat myself - that’s what been going on I suspect
On presenters think you are splitting hairs slightly . Introducing a piece of music on Radio is integral to the whole medium . Are you suggesting that money spent on Radio 3 presenters is not money spent on classical music? In Tune has a lot of chat but it’s largely about classical music and much of it is highly informative and is (IMHO) first class public service broadcasting . Can I respectfully suggest you try listening to it ? There is no going back to the days of Mainly For Pleasure which had back to back classical and light classical recordings interspersed with plum voiced de -haut -en - bas links . It just ain’t going to happen. In Tune is a much better programme - every night excellent live performances with musicians like Nicolai Lungansky last week. Mind you he wasn’t the worlds greatest interviewee.

[french frank]

On presenters think you are splitting hairs slightly . Introducing a piece of music on Radio is integral to the whole medium . Are you suggesting that money spent on Radio 3 presenters is not money spent on classical music?

It's this now ubiquitous style with so many different short pieces/extracts. If you have 25 different pieces you have 25 breaks for presenter input. If I remember, Morning on 3 had about 12 pieces (no single movements) so the amount of music played certainly seemed more. Whether time spent by a presenter telling us that Jane, I think, had seen something on television and would like to hear Grainger's Country Gardens or someone else's explanation as to why she'd like to hear John Ogdon playing a Busoni transcription of Bach is a necessity for introducing a piece of music might be queried. But if one enjoys the cameraderie of the virtual community all may be forgiven. Others may feel they're not getting their musical money's worth.

In Tune has a lot of chat but it’s largely about classical music and much of it is highly informative and is (IMHO) first class public service broadcasting . Can I respectfully suggest you try listening to it ?

But I've just subjected myself to Breakfast with its invitation to listen to the Classical Mixtape!

There is no going back to the days of Mainly For Pleasure which had back to back classical and light classical recordings interspersed with plum voiced de -haut -en - bas links . It just ain’t going to happen. In Tune is a much better programme - every night excellent live performances with musicians like Nicolai Lungansky last week. Mind you he wasn’t the worlds greatest interviewee.

It's interesting that it's perfectly all right to criticise a very dated style of broadcasting but - snobbish I imagine - to comment adversely on a regional accent. Of course, no one (?) expects a return to the 50s and 60s. That's always a straw man. But some parts of R3 were actually very good, so I understand.

[JasonPalmer]

Todays daily telegraph editorial says the eno should be saved.

[DracoM]

Try good style of Night Tracks then...............

[french frank]

Try good style of Night Tracks then...............

I have . Y' like, y' don't like. Pretty much like In Tune, apparently. As for Night Tracks, altogether too much Sleepy Time Baby on Radio 3 for me. Unlike TTN style.

[Ein Heldenleben]

It's this now ubiquitous style with so many different short pieces/extracts. If you have 25 different pieces you have 25 breaks for presenter input. If I remember, Morning on 3 had about 12 pieces (no single movements) so the amount of music played certainly seemed more. Whether time spent by a presenter telling us that Jane, I think, had seen something on television and would like to hear Grainger's Country Gardens or someone else's explanation as to why she'd like to hear John Ogdon playing a Busoni transcription of Bach is a necessity for introducing a piece of music might be queried. But if one enjoys the cameraderie of the virtual community all may be forgiven. Others may feel they're not getting their musical money's worth.

But I've just subjected myself to Breakfast with its invitation to listen to the Classical Mixtape!



It's interesting that it's perfectly all right to criticise a very dated style of broadcasting but - snobbish I imagine - to comment adversely on a regional accent. Of course, no one (?) expects a return to the 50s and 60s. That's always a straw man. But some parts of R3 were actually very good, so I understand.

Yes I agree there’s too much presenter not enough music -except on In Tune which is more of an Arts magazine . The only key bits of research I can remember from my time in Radio (40 years ago) is that 90 percent of people are doing something else when listening to the radio, the evening audience is so small as to be barely worth measuring , and people often prefer the presenter to the music. In other words it’s the presenter that’s the draw - possibly not on Radio 3 though. And that when surveyed by engineers only 20 percent of hifi owners had their system set up correctly to listen to stereo fm. All this might explain why there’s a lot of chat these days. It’s about trying to capture attention I guess.

[Cockney Sparrow]

And that when surveyed by engineers only 20 percent of hifi owners had their system set up correctly to listen to stereo fm. .

I invested in decent aerials and tuners. And I always switched to mono as I found the hiss integral in the stereo transmission was a significant deterioration in my experience in listening. Still the same in the kitchen audio unit. Elsewhere its via the internet.

Your other comments - I have pondered how small a proportion of my waking hours is spent in properly listening to recorded music (and how much of it surrounds me in the form of CDs, box sets of CDs, let alone downloads and streaming services). And how music, or speech radio, is playing in the 'background' - to a greater or lesser extent, at all other times.

[Ein Heldenleben]

I invested in decent aerials and tuners. And I always switched to mono as I found the hiss integral in the stereo transmission was a significant deterioration in my experience in listening. Still the same in the kitchen audio unit. Elsewhere its via the internet.

Your other comments - I have pondered how small a proportion of my waking hours is spent in properly listening to recorded music (and how much of it surrounds me in the form of CDs, box sets of CDs, let alone downloads and streaming services). And how music, or speech radio, is playing in the 'background' - to a greater or lesser extent, at all other times.

I had a colleague who decided to make his career in the world service because he didn’t like stereo. Stereo refuseniks are not uncommon.
I reckon I listen to music from 09.00 to 21.30 most days at home . The main reason I listen to R3 is that I can’t be bothered to keep choosing / changing CD’s or choosing what to stream . I never did so when working in the office .

These days whether people are really listening to stereo radio depends on whether smart speakers, cone speakers, sound bars etc really deliver stereo but that’s a topic for elsewhere I guess.

[Bryn]

. . . when surveyed by engineers only 20 percent of hifi owners had their system set up correctly to listen to stereo fm. All this might explain why there’s a lot of chat these days. It’s about trying to capture attention I guess.

Reminds me of the way the majority of those with both DVD players and a hi-fi setup do not feed the audio from the DVD player through their hi-fi system.

[gurnemanz]

Your other comments - I have pondered how small a proportion of my waking hours is spent in properly listening to recorded music (and how much of it surrounds me in the form of CDs, box sets of CDs, let alone downloads and streaming services). And how music, or speech radio, is playing in the 'background' - to a greater or lesser extent, at all other times.

I listen to music (mostly classical) for many hours every day and certainly not seriously and intently all the time. Who would want to do that? I find that I get less worked up about "chat" on R3 than I used to. It is not always irksome and I can go elsewhere if it starts to annoy me.

[french frank]

Yes I agree there’s too much presenter not enough music -except on In Tune which is more of an Arts magazine .

Yes, I agree with that, and think there is certainly a place for such a programme. But, to repeat a previous point, an 'arts magazine' is not a classical music programme: it's an arts programme, with a 'host' and guests. I thought it became a bit stale years ago - one of the few programmes that still has not been 'refreshed' in 30 years, even to keeping the same presenter - I think the only one who survived all the Wright innovations in the same role. The addition of Katie Derham to the line-up would not improve it, from my point of view. I haven't heard her on this programme, I should add. But I have heard her.

The only key bits of research I can remember from my time in Radio (40 years ago) is that 90 percent of people are doing something else when listening to the radio, the evening audience is so small as to be barely worth measuring , and people often prefer the presenter to the music. In other words it’s the presenter that’s the draw - possibly not on Radio 3 though.

Radio 3 was different according to the research relayed to me. Radio 3 'bucked the trend' (to quote RW) in maintaining a good audience for the evening concert when - at that time - people considered the concert a time to sit down and listen to the radio. Listeners to other stations deserted radio for television in the evenings. He also said that three quarters of R3's audience (going from aging memory here but, as I remember) listened during the mornings, which at that time would have had such programmes as On Air/Morning on 3, Masterworks/SoundStories, Artist of the Week, the short Work in Progress (briefly), Morning Performance and later CD Masters. CotW was removed from the 9am slot to 12pm because it was a turn-off for the breakfast slot listeners (too dry!), then moved back to 9am, then … and so on.

For those who find the current offering to their taste those schedules would indeed be dry :-) They were to my taste which, if nothing else, explains why the current R3 is, in my view … substandard.

https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/schedules/service_bbc_radio_three/1999-02-01

https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/schedules/service_bbc_radio_three/2001-02-01

For my money the replacement of Morning Performance was a particular loss. This had 'as live' recordings from e.g. the Bath Festival with, I remember, a week's discussion with Joanna MacGregor, then artistic director.

[Bryn]

Yes, I agree with that, and think there is certainly a place for such a programme. But, to repeat a previous point, an 'arts magazine' is not a classical music programme: it's an arts programme, with a 'host' and guests. I thought it became a bit stale years ago - one of the few programmes that still has not been 'refreshed' in 30 years, even to keeping the same presenter - I think the only one who survived all the Wright innovations in the same role. The addition of Katie Derham to the line-up would not improve it, from my point of view. I haven't heard her on this programme, I should add. But I have heard her.



Radio 3 was different according to the research relayed to me. Radio 3 'bucked the trend' (to quote RW) in maintaining a good audience for the evening concert when - at that time - people considered the concert a time to sit down and listen to the radio. Listeners to other stations deserted radio for television in the evenings. He also said that three quarters of R3's audience (going from aging memory here but, as I remember) listened during the mornings, which at that time would have had such programmes as On Air/Morning on 3, Masterworks/SoundStories, Artist of the Week, the short Work in Progress (briefly), Morning Performance and later CD Masters. CotW was removed from the 9am slot to 12pm because it was a turn-off for the breakfast slot listeners (too dry!), then moved back to 9am, then … and so on.

For those who find the current offering to their taste those schedules would indeed be dry :-) They were to my taste which, if nothing else, explains why the current R3 is, in my view … substandard.

https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/schedules/service_bbc_radio_three/1999-02-01

https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/schedules/service_bbc_radio_three/2001-02-01

For my money the replacement of Morning Performance was a particular loss. This had 'as live' recordings from e.g. the Bath Festival with, I remember, a week's discussion with Joanna MacGregor, then artistic director.

Before the days of savable mp2s from DAB or various evolving versions of the iPlayer/Sounds, I regularly listened to Radio 3 concert broadcasts in the evening. I still listen to them, just not necessarily in the evening of broadcast.