Axing of BBC Singers and related cuts

[Ein Heldenleben]

I am not at all convinced there has been as "back down". I suspect and dishonest strategy from the start, i.e. that the closure of the BBC Singers was never really their aim but that it was a distraction aimed at getting the orchestral cuts through more easily. The latest news release serves to reinforce that opinion.

Cunning but not unprecedented. Completely overlooked in all this are the local radio cuts which will impact vastly more people - both staff and listeners. Ditto the major cuts to regional news and local programmes made last year. These are programmes watched by millions and have been cut with scarcely a murmur outside the pages of Private Eye and many,many MP’s- including paradoxically many who voted through the licence fee freeze.
Even the chocolate fireguard that is OFCOM has finally woken up to what’s being going on.
The beauty of it all this from the Government point of view is that many blame the BBC when they are really just trying to make the best of a very difficult funding position.

[Hitch]

The BBC's decision to "suspend" the closure of the BBC Singers makes me cautiously optimistic. To paraphrase E.M. Forster, two cheers for public outcry.

However, with the threat of salary reductions, etc., still hanging over more than one state-funded orchestra, the situation reminds me of those dastardly housing developers, currently occupied in wiping the so-called Home Counties from the face of the earth, who claim that they have listened to local communities when announcing that they will inflict a mere 250 new shoe-boxes on a village or town instead of the promised 1000.

[french frank]

The beauty of it all this from the Government point of view is that many blame the BBC when they are really just trying to make the best of a very difficult funding position.

A Terrible Beauty. Yes, the protests should have been against the government's policies to cut the BBC's ability to compete with commercial broadcasters who actually produce 'what people want to watch'. E.g. Fabricant's opinion that CFM is more 'successful' than R3 because more people listen to it. But by its very nature it's too diffuse an issue to unite protests in the same way as for 6 Music or BBC Singers - or R3 if it comes to that.

[Master Jacques]

I am not at all convinced there has been as "back down". I suspect and dishonest strategy from the start, i.e. that the closure of the BBC Singers was never really their aim but that it was a distraction aimed at getting the orchestral cuts through more easily. The latest news release serves to reinforce that opinion.

I'm afraid I agree with you: there was a strong sense of "Lutyens' lions" about the way the original "decision" was framed. As other posters have said, there are two things about this apparent climb-down which should worry us. First, the claims that "alternative funding sources" are being considered. The point of the BBC Singers is that the NATION, not compromising corporate sponsorship, is seen to be believing in choral music by paying for the country's only full time, professional chamber choir.

Second, the 20% cut in orchestral funding is equally heinous, and needs to be fought until it's also dropped: any talk of "alternative funding" needs to be whacked out of court where it belongs. The orchestras and singers are the reasons many of us meekly pay our licence fee: it's ours, not the province of some corporate bank or other.

[Serial_Apologist]

I'm afraid I agree with you: there was a strong sense of "Lutyens' lions" about the way the original "decision" was framed. As other posters have said, there are two things about this apparent climb-down which should worry us. First, the claims that "alternative funding sources" are being considered. The point of the BBC Singers is that the NATION, not compromising corporate sponsorship, is seen to be believing in choral music by paying for the country's only full time, professional chamber choir.

Second, the 20% cut in orchestral funding is equally heinous, and needs to be fought until it's also dropped: any talk of "alternative funding" needs to be whacked out of court where it belongs. The orchestras and singers are the reasons many of us meekly pay our licence fee: it's ours, not the province of some corporate bank or other.

Well said.

[Ein Heldenleben]

I'm afraid I agree with you: there was a strong sense of "Lutyens' lions" about the way the original "decision" was framed. As other posters have said, there are two things about this apparent climb-down which should worry us. First, the claims that "alternative funding sources" are being considered. The point of the BBC Singers is that the NATION, not compromising corporate sponsorship, is seen to be believing in choral music by paying for the country's only full time, professional chamber choir.

Second, the 20% cut in orchestral funding is equally heinous, and needs to be fought until it's also dropped: any talk of "alternative funding" needs to be whacked out of court where it belongs. The orchestras and singers are the reasons many of us meekly pay our licence fee: it's ours, not the province of some corporate bank or other.

Is it a 20 per cent cut in orchestra funding or that 20 percent of the staff positions will be replaced by freelancers? The latter was my understanding. The usual rule of thumb is a freelance position is about 30 per cent cheaper than a staff one . More so in the case of the BBC orchestras because older members will be part of a defined benefit pension scheme. You are happy to pay for freelance tv and radio producers , journalists and presenters, editors , camera Ops etc. so what is so sacrosanct about orchestral musicians?

[french frank]

It was only ten years ago that the BBC commissioned John Myerscough to produce a report on the Performing Groups.

"John, a respected professional with many years' experience in the classical music world, was asked to assess the potential for savings to contribute to the BBC's financial challenge, following the most recent Licence Fee settlement... John's report recognises that the groups are a core part of the BBC's public service remit and that each one plays a unique role in British cultural life, delivering high-quality performances of distinctive repertoire and supporting education and outreach projects. It also shows that they have increased their impact and performance in recent years and have already achieved levels of efficiency that compare favourably with other orchestras [...]

"This will be a challenging period for everyone associated with the performing groups and the discussions about how best to apply the changes will continue with staff and unions. However, I hope that we now have a clear sense of how the groups can contribute to the BBC's financial challenge while protecting their quality and preserving each one's unique role in British cultural life."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/entries/e64f89ff-42cb-359a-a207-43303eab89e9

This suggests a possible saving of 10% in the groups' total budget, £2.1m pa by 2016/17.

[teamsaint]

So, the initial decision could have been a win-win for the high ups ? Get away with it and save a few quid ( and play to the populist gallery) , don‘t get away with it and look “ responsive “ ?

[Ein Heldenleben]

So, the initial decision could have been a win-win for the high ups ? Get away with it and save a few quid ( and play to the populist gallery) , don‘t get away with it and look “ responsive “ ?

No it’s been a disaster for them . They’ve alienated almost the entire UK music establishment- quite a tricky thing to do you are its biggest supporter (apart from the Arts Council maybe ) when you take into account the pop channels as well. They’ve cheesed off a core supporter base. But the thing is it’s the government forcing them into this position. Everything else is being cut -older staff sacked and replaced with younger or freelances.

[eighthobstruction]

So, the initial decision could have been a win-win for the high ups ? Get away with it and save a few quid ( and play to the populist gallery) , don‘t get away with it and look “ responsive “ ?

....quick agility based forward moving agenda - in their speak....I think we can say "that decision went to VAR"

....I'm just wondering what make of pies they'll be serving, and they will be too hot to eat after 45 minutes....

[Master Jacques]

The stellar gulf between art music and even the mainstream BBC was indicated neatly on the 4pm Radio 4 news headlines, when we were treated to a snatch of the BBC Singers "from their album, Messiah". Sigh....

[ardcarp]

We should beware of weasel words from Aunty. Phrases such as 'The BBC Singers will still be able to perform' is not the same as as saying their full-time salaried jobs have been reprieved.

There is much talk about whether to continue Top Gear or not...that programme which encourages young male adults to behave like dangerous idiots. That abomination must cost multiples of the BBC Singers' costs.

[Master Jacques]

There is much talk about whether to continue Top Gear or not...that programme which encourages young male adults to behave like dangerous idiots. That abomination must cost multiples of the BBC Singers' costs.

But it's popular, don't you know, with fantastic audience ratings. Unlike the tiny minority of elitist snobs who care about choral music. It wouldn't surprise me to see BBC broadcasting public executions, when we bring those back in due course.

[Simon B]

There is much talk about whether to continue Top Gear or not...that programme which encourages young male adults to behave like dangerous idiots. That abomination must cost multiples of the BBC Singers' costs.

It's one of the BBC's biggest cash-cows, a massive global earner. So it costs multiples of the BBCS, providing there's a '-' sign in front of the coefficient. Indeed, it was the single biggest earning BBC show some years ago. This at a time when it was fronted by a bunch of studiedly grumpy middle aged blokes, rather suggesting that the young idiot demographic wasn't the obvious target.

False equivalences are one thing, but we can certainly agree that today's weasel words from the BBC should be treated with infinite world-weary suspicion.

[Ein Heldenleben]

It's one of the BBC's biggest cash-cows, a massive global earner. So it costs multiples of the BBCS, providing there's a '-' sign in front of the coefficient. Indeed, it was the single biggest earning BBC show some years ago. This at a time when it was fronted by a bunch of studiedly grumpy middle aged blokes, rather suggesting that the young idiot demographic wasn't the obvious target.

False equivalences are one thing, but we can certainly agree that today's weasel words from the BBC should be treated with infinite world-weary suspicion.

Yes Top Gear through sale of format rights and other spin-offs almost certainly still makes a big profit which is then put back into funding public service broadcasting things like classical music. It funds all sorts of other things as well. In 2015 it was making £50 mill a year . Since 2012 the BBC has pulled in all the profits - before that it was splitting them with Clarkson and the exec producer. To put that in perspective a successful returning multi part drama series on HBO / Netflix etc and streamed or shown globally could comfortably return $250 million dollars a year.