Axing of BBC Singers and related cuts

[french frank]

I don’t think these cuts to music are anything like the scale of those that BBC news has recently undergone.

I'm not sure how a comparison can be made. The amount of money spent on news - and sport - is on an altogether different scale.

It might sound brutal but this is an inevitable consequence of what’s happened to BBC funding over the last few years. You might not believe it but Radio 3 and Classical Music has been comparatively well protected (until now). TV Arts spending like all factual documentary spend is well down for example.

I agree that all departments have to make savings because of brutal cuts which have nothing to do with the BBC. But this had been going on for years. The first time I met Alan Davey - when he had not yet taken over at Radio 3 - I showed him the figures which I'd been keeping (in the days of the old Trust service licences when information was available) for a number of years which showed that Radio 3's budget/spending had been disproportionately cut over the years compared with Radio 2, Radio 4 and 5 Live - though 5 live has been cut back savagely since after a period of plentiful funding. Davey was taking over at a time when the talk was of a civil servant who'd been appointed to make substantial savings at R3. Davey told me that was NOT what he'd been appointed to do. In the end, Radio 3 is allocated what BBC Radio bosses allow it: do what you can with that. But comparing the nature of what Radio 3 broadcasts with Radio 1, it's hard to see why Radio 1 should be better funded on the basis of that content.

On the other hand, the performing groups have always been vulnerable left in the hands of the BBC. But it's been some time since a group was actually axed. I can well understand that the BBC Singers seem relatively unimportant to BBC executives who have never even listened to Radio 3 and know nothing about it other than that it somehow "comes between" Radio 2 and Radio 4.

[jonfan]

Weasel words from the BBC that these cuts are a 'good' thing; reminds me of turkeys enjoying Christmas. This all stems from Nadine Dorres and her gleeful prevention of an inflation rise in the licence fee. 'Culture' Secretary!

[Maclintick]

"This new strategy is bold, ambitious, and good for the sector and for audiences who love classical music."

Bollocks.

Bollocks indeed. Translation from Newspeak "This new strategy is cowardly & lazy. It represents yet another act of cultural vandalism in the sector and is bad for audiences who love classical music."

[Peanut]

At least now we might be treated to some decent choral performances

The problem with this comment is not just that it's incredibly mean and insensitive to those who are worried about their future living (yes - BBC Singers do read this forum), it's probably going to be proven incorrect. Not only will the range and breadth of choral music broadcast be diminished with fewer new composers getting a public platform for their work but, just because there won't be performances from the BBC Singers on our radio, it doesn't automatically follow that, once the initial initiatives have run their course and the budgets have been squeezed further, there will be much more from other choirs on R3 beyond the core repertoire.

[Peanut]

I would imagine the decision had already been taken by heads further up the food chain before the new R3 controller was appointed.

[retroman]

Singers aside, once the prospect of 20% cuts across the orchestras sinks in, prepare for a pitched battle. Might as well write off the 2023 Proms now...

[Crowcatcher]

I'm not sure how a comparison can be made. The amount of money spent on news - and sport - is on an altogether different scale.



I agree that all departments have to make savings because of brutal cuts which have nothing to do with the BBC. But this had been going on for years. The first time I met Alan Davey - when he had not yet taken over at Radio 3 - I showed him the figures which I'd been keeping (in the days of the old Trust service licences when information was available) for a number of years which showed that Radio 3's budget/spending had been disproportionately cut over the years compared with Radio 2, Radio 4 and 5 Live - though 5 live has been cut back savagely since after a period of plentiful funding. Davey was taking over at a time when the talk was of a civil servant who'd been appointed to make substantial savings at R3. Davey told me that was NOT what he'd been appointed to do. In the end, Radio 3 is allocated what BBC Radio bosses allow it: do what you can with that. But comparing the nature of what Radio 3 broadcasts with Radio 1, it's hard to see why Radio 1 should be better funded on the basis of that content.

On the other hand, the performing groups have always been vulnerable left in the hands of the BBC. But it's been some time since a group was actually axed. I can well understand that the BBC Singers seem relatively unimportant to BBC executives who have never even listened to Radio 3 and know nothing about it other than that it somehow "comes between" Radio 2 and Radio 4.

Like you it appalls me that more is spent on third rate 'pop' music than classical.
All of its 'pop' stations could be happily closed and few would notice as they all only duplicate what most commercial stations do.
I'm a retired BBC engineer and I still feel the worst thing my employers did was open Radio1 when it was obvious what commercial radio would bring.
With access to the internet it astounds me that the BBC is the only publicly funded national broadcaster I can find without dedicate classical or jazz radio stations (ABC Australia having 2 classical stations)
Closing the "Singers" - another nail in its coffin.

[french frank]

The problem with this comment is not just that it's incredibly mean and insensitive to those who are worried about their future living (yes - BBC Singers do read this forum)

I'm not going repeat the comment but ...

it's probably going to be proven incorrect. Not only will the range and breadth of choral music broadcast be diminished with fewer new composers getting a public platform for their work but, just because there won't be performances from the BBC Singers on our radio, it doesn't automatically follow that, once the initial initiatives have run their course and the budgets have been squeezed further, there will be much more from other choirs on R3 beyond the core repertoire.

Remember the old Choirworks programme? When that was axed, the protesters were told reassuringly, there, there: the choral works will still be broadcast but in other existing programmes. As they always were, but the net result was less choral music once the dedicated programme was ditched.

[RichardB]

Like you it appalls me that more is spent on third rate 'pop' music than classical.

This is the wrong argument though. It isn't a question of "pop" versus "classical" music in the context of BBC support, it's the fact that culture in general is being run into the ground as unnecessary. Imagine any government of the 1960s or 1970s of either party saying that the BBC has to institute cuts of 20% across the board. Nobody would have stood for it. What has happened in the meantime? An enormous growth in wealth inequality, made acceptable to the populace by relentless propaganda through the decades around the idea that greed is good and government funding from tax revenues is bad. It's going to take a radical change of consciousness to prevent this process from continuing.

[Ein Heldenleben]

This is the wrong argument though. It isn't a question of "pop" versus "classical" music in the context of BBC support, it's the fact that culture in general is being run into the ground as unnecessary. Imagine any government of the 1960s or 1970s of either party saying that the BBC has to institute cuts of 20% across the board. Nobody would have stood for it. What has happened in the meantime? An enormous growth in wealth inequality, made acceptable to the populace by relentless propaganda through the decades around the idea that greed is good and government funding from tax revenues is bad. It's going to take a radical change of consciousness to prevent this process from continuing.

I agree with you . The problem is you hear just as much BBC bashing from the left these days as from the right. I think the German TV licence is around 220 euros a year. With that sort of money there would be no question of cutting BBC orchestras - we’d be talking about one in each BBC English Region.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Singers aside, once the prospect of 20% cuts across the orchestras sinks in, prepare for a pitched battle. Might as well write off the 2023 Proms now...

Strictly speaking they are not 20 percent cuts . They are the replacement of 20% of staff with freelances. The saving is in things like pension contributions and ensuring there’s absolutely no downtime. Its absolutely standard practice in TV production these days. Of course some prefer being freelance - I think strictly speaking quite a few London orchestral players are freelances aren’t they?
The sneaky way of doing it is through post closure and job redesignation - quite difficult to do with an orchestra I would have thought,

[Master Jacques]

Strictly speaking they are not 20 percent cuts . They are the replacement of 20% of staff with freelances. The saving is in things like pension contributions and ensuring there’s absolutely no downtime. Its absolutely standard practice in TV production these days. Of course some prefer being freelance - I think strictly speaking quite a few London orchestral players are freelances aren’t they?
The sneaky way of doing it is through post closure and job redesignation - quite difficult to do with an orchestra I would have thought,

As the original point of the BBC Orchestras and Singers was to maintain quality, by employing fewer freelancers, it's apparent that quality is no longer the most important thing for our cultural rulers. Saving their own jobs is. For I don't suppose for one moment, that the number of administrators, marketing and press people will be cut by so much as one job. We're tumbling back into the 1930s, as far as professional music making goes, with the difference that there will be a huge team of "professional" co-ordinators of various kinds, with diminishing amounts to co-ordinate.

[Ein Heldenleben]

As the original point of the BBC Orchestras and Singers was to maintain quality, by employing fewer freelancers, it's apparent that quality is no longer the most important thing for our cultural rulers. Saving their own jobs is. For I don't suppose for one moment, that the number of administrators, marketing and press people will be cut by so much as one job. We're tumbling back into the 1930s, as far as professional music making goes, with the difference that there will be a huge team of "professional" co-ordinators of various kinds, with diminishing amounts to co-ordinate.

I’m going to be provocative and ask whether the all staff BBC Symphony Orchestra is better or worse than other London orchestras with a higher proportion of freelances? Or if they are staff they are given huge leeway to pursue other very profitable freelance activity. Isn’t the real problem that the big London orchestras just pay better ?
I managed a creative team of about 50 per cent staff / freelance (these days it would be 100 percent cent freelance ) and I would say that both have their advantages and disadvantages. But staff are at least 30 per cent more expensive (on the other hand they are there when you need them!)
PS I spent years trying to coax one or two people onto staff but it was just too limiting for them professionally.

[Joseph K]

I agree with you . The problem is you hear just as much BBC bashing from the left these days as from the right.

They're different criticisms of different aspects of the BBC. It's not any of the BBC Singers' fault that BBC News is often and in some cases heavily biased. Pointing that out isn't 'BBC bashing' it's bemoaning the fact that the BBC to an extent helps to dig its own grave.

[Ein Heldenleben]

They're different criticisms of different aspects of the BBC. It's not any of the BBC Singers' fault that BBC News is often and in some cases heavily biased. Pointing that out isn't 'BBC bashing' it's bemoaning the fact that the BBC to an extent helps to dig its own grave.

Thanks for illustrating my point. BBC News is not “heavily biased.”