Radio 3 schedule changes (‘edging away from speech')

[french frank]

It wasn't Lunchtime but a piece entitled 'Panic Stations' which commented on cuts at Scala Radio. It was to help characterise that station for those who don't know it (eg me) as being "a halfway between Radio 3's stuffiness and the weapons-grade schmaltz of Classic FM."

Thanks.

On the same page Lunchtime has a piece on Sam Jackson's plan. It starts off by referring to a cello concert where Steven Isserlis launched an off-script attack on the poor quality of Radio 3 presenters. "The audience applause suggested many agreed."

It's a great shame when presenters get the flak. Even when there's a feeling some aren't really suited to presenting classical music, the fault lies with the managers who have their agenda when engaging them. And for those presenters who know their stuff they are often lumbered with crumby programme formats and/or managerial brief.

[Sir Velo]

Thanks. It's a great shame when presenters get the flak..

Before Vinteuil wheels in old Father Johnson to lend weight to the prosecution I would counter that observation by asking isn't it incumbent on anyone doing whatever role for which they're remunerated (well remunerated in the case of BBC presenters) to maintain their professional knowledge? Other professions are required to maintain (and demonstrate) CPD so why exempt presenters?

[smittims]

I couldn't agree more. Sir Velo. I once thought of compiling a list of what Private Eye would call 'Colemanballs' ( my term would be 'Derhamgate') on Radio 3 . It really does amount to professional incompetence. Yes, R3 managers are to blame for choosing a TV gardener,say, to talk about classical music, but he's still responsible for what he says.

[Serial_Apologist]

Thanks for your #273, Belgrove; I found that interesting and informative. I remember someone who was very good at maths telling me he believed maths was an art rather than a science. Food for thought there, maybe!

I did maths and what was called 'pure maths and statistics' to 'o' level in the 1960s and hated them, I'm sorry to say, having apparently no aptitude for them. But I've always been passionate about music, so I'm baffled by the occsaional remark I hear that Maths and music are closely connected. I've never noticed that. Yes, of course, counting, and proportion, such as the golden section and the Fibonacci sequence (as in Bartok and La Mer) have been used in composition, but no more so than on so many other walks of life. I've never heard it said that maths is important in painting, but for some reason some people thinkit is essential in music.

I think the main reason it is not so necessary to have a detailed expertise in mathematics to appreciate music is that the "best" composers using mathematical formulations hide the evidence thereof, treating the maths as an integral part of the aesthetic experience. I believe a pupil once asked Schoenberg to explain all the intricacies of how he had worked his 12-tone rows into the Violin Concerto, to which Schoenberg tried, but finally admitted that he himself was not quite sure, while adding words to the effect that such formal workings out should not of themselves be the main point of attention, in any case. As one of admits to being thoroughly dyslexic when it comes to maths, I just marvel that such "constructions" can yield such wondrously satisfying results!

[Ein Heldenleben]

Thanks for your #273, Belgrove; I found that interesting and informative. I remember someone who was very good at maths telling me he believed maths was an art rather than a science. Food for thought there, maybe!

I did maths and what was called 'pure maths and statistics' to 'o' level in the 1960s and hated them, I'm sorry to say, having apparently no aptitude for them. But I've always been passionate about music, so I'm baffled by the occsaional remark I hear that Maths and music are closely connected. I've never noticed that. Yes, of course, counting, and proportion, such as the golden section and the Fibonacci sequence (as in Bartok and La Mer) have been used in composition, but no more so than on so many other walks of life. I've never heard it said that maths is important in painting, but for some reason some people thinkit is essential in music.

Maths isn’t essential in either understanding or enjoying music . But there are some very Important common strands - not least the harmonic series which obeys a simple multiple progression . A pure note produced a tone generator is a sine wave so can be expressed in the form of an equation. The mathematical underpinning of the harmonic series and its implications for harmony are in many ways more important in music than the golden mean is in painting. The first analysis of it goes back to Pythagoras - one of the first mathematicians.

there’s a good basic guide to the connection here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_and_mathematics

[oddoneout]

I couldn't agree more. Sir Velo. I once thought of compiling a list of what Private Eye would call 'Colemanballs' ( my term would be 'Derhamgate') on Radio 3 . It really does amount to professional incompetence. Yes, R3 managers are to blame for choosing a TV gardener,say, to talk about classical music, but he's still responsible for what he says.

But said person may not realise he is in error - if you believe that what you know is correct why would you check? So doesn't it then come down to the person in charge, either in person or delegated - after all presumably a certain amount of checking goes on to ensure that nothing legally awkward or expensive is broadcast?

[Ein Heldenleben]

But said person may not realise he is in error - if you believe that what you know is correct why would you check? So doesn't it then come down to the person in charge, either in person or delegated - after all presumably a certain amount of checking goes on to ensure that nothing legally awkward or expensive is broadcast?

The person with overall editorial responsibility for the content of a TV or Radio programme is the Series Editor or dept head . This responsibility is delegated in effect to the producer for day to day oversight of the programme as it is going out . He / she is the one who is supposed to check that the script is accurate. It’s absolutely impossible for a series editor to check every fact in a programme . If the script is anyway contentious or has any legal ‘ awkwardness ‘ it’ll almost be certainly be checked by the series editor and a legal advisor . It may also be referred to an Editorial Policy advisor if it raises any of the many editorial issues delineated in the BBC’s editorial guidelines or OFCOM guidelines.

If the live presenter goes off piste that’s a whole different kettle of fish . One reason why they are very carefully selected and well paid.

So if you are a series editor as I was you spend vast amounts of time viewing stuff and referring it to legal , editorial policy and / or the boss or even the boss’s boss and sometimes the boss’s boss’s boss aka the DG.

simple really - nothing can go wrong …

[french frank]

Before Vinteuil wheels in old Father Johnson to lend weight to the prosecution I would counter that observation by asking isn't it incumbent on anyone doing whatever role for which they're remunerated (well remunerated in the case of BBC presenters) to maintain their professional knowledge? Other professions are required to maintain (and demonstrate) CPD so why exempt presenters?

The point I'm making though is a little different. If managers appoint a particular individual presenter because they - and the potential presenter - agree on what their job is, and why they have been appointed, what 'we' may consider 'professional competence' may very well not be (and I suspect isn't) the role they have been employed to fulfil. If the prospective employer says 'Your role is X' , I wouldn't expect the would-be presenter to say, "Oh, no. I don't think that would be at all right for R3, nor what the listeners expect."

We must never forget that in holding to the values we do, we are a minority - and a minority the BBC doesn't have a lot of time for.

[LMcD]

The prominence given to the views of an admirer of 'Friday Night Is Music Night' during Feedback last week (or week before last, depending on when your week starts) has been followed by at least one very enthusiastic review of the first programme during 'Breakfast', - not that I'm suggesting that this is anything other than a coincidence....

[Roslynmuse]

We must never forget that in holding to the values we do, we are a minority - and a minority the BBC doesn't have a lot of time for.

Some minorities are given more time than others, however.

[french frank]

Interesting discussion on the jass bored about presenters, what they know and don't know. We can probably agree that R3's presenters fall into two main categories: those who are well informed about 'classical music' (in a broad sense) and those whose musical interests lie elsewhere. It's a pity that the second category presenters are engaged to present classical programmes. But those presenters who are musically qualified by education, training or even 'amateur' superenthusiasm, need other qualities to make their contributions welcome to listeners.

First, they need to have a good broadcasting technique (no gabbling, sudden dropping of the voice, heavy breathing (!), constant sniffing, giggling or whatever, which can get annoying to listen to). Secondly, the programme format/brief must be predicated on appealing to listeners who want informed, educative programmes (rather than predominantly focused on appealing to 'beginners' or casual listeners). Whether their delivery is 'lively' or 'enthusiastic' depends on the individual's personality. People with a thoughtful, analytic or critical approach are probably (probably) more suited for R3.

[Posted in a personal capacity: all opinions are my own]

[gurnemanz]

We must never forget that in holding to the values we do, we are a minority - and a minority the BBC doesn't have a lot of time for.

Ivory tower? What I try not to forget is that I have an individual set of preferences which may be different from but are not superior to those of others. Above all, I also try not to forget to keep an open mind, without which, decades ago, I might not have got into classical music in the first place.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Interesting discussion on the jass bored about presenters, what they know and don't know. We can probably agree that R3's presenters fall into two main categories: those who are well informed about 'classical music' (in a broad sense) and those whose musical interests lie elsewhere. It's a pity that the second category presenters are engaged to present classical programmes. But those presenters who are musically qualified by education, training or even 'amateur' superenthusiasm, need other qualities to make their contributions welcome to listeners.

First, they need to have a good broadcasting technique (no gabbling, sudden dropping of the voice, heavy breathing (!), constant sniffing, giggling or whatever, which can get annoying to listen to). Secondly, the programme format/brief must be predicated on appealing to listeners who want informed, educative programmes (rather than predominantly focused on appealing to 'beginners' or casual listeners). Whether their delivery is 'lively' or 'enthusiastic' depends on the individual's personality. People with a thoughtful, analytic or critical approach are probably (probably) more suited for R3.

[Posted in a personal capacity: all opinions are my own]

Yes it is an interesting discussion. I’m pretty sure that Radio Three has never employed more expert presenters than it does now. In the seventies and eighties most of the presenters were general presenters reading scripts written by expert producers. They may have had an excellent knowledge of the repertoire but they weren't either music graduates or music professionals. Of course not all of those are necessarily that well informed in anything other than their specialty.

To the expert or at the very least “very well-informed “ list of Tom McKinney, Jess Gillam , Tom Service and Sean Rafferty that I mentioned on the Jazz board I would add Martin Handley , Lucy Skeaping, Hannah French ,Sarah Mohr-Pietsch , Verity Sharp and Sarah Walker. One of the most “expert “ people on R3 is Paul Guinery the early morning news reader and announcer who is a professional standard pianist .There are others whose background I just don’t know about.,

Of course many people without a music degree or professional training can reach well informed status and not a few , including some on this forum , reach expert status even if in my case it is solely in one composer or even one set of works of that composer (the Beethoven Piano Sonatas in my case )

The key question is not how many “experts “ R3 employs as presenters but how often are they allowed to employ that knowledge particularly on the morning sequence programmes which can be relatively superficial. It’s been said before but there is more criticism review and analysis - some of it quite scathing - on Match Of The Day than on large swathes of Radio Three.

incidentally even being an expert isn’t essential . One of the best analytical programmes of the Seventies was Sounds Interesting presented by Derek Jewell . Derek was a very successful Fleet St Journalist who had an interest in rock and Jazz Music. The quality of analysis , often from experts like Prof Wilfrid Mellers, was way higher than anything on nowadays.

[french frank]

What I try not to forget is that I have an individual set of preferences which may be different from but are not superior to those of others. Above all, I also try not to forget to keep an open mind, without which, decades ago, I might not have got into classical music in the first place.

I've lost count of how many times I've repeated that it's irrelevant whether John Williams (composer) or Karl Jenkins are 'better' or 'worse' than Beethoven. Both musics exist and are for those who enjoy them. My argument is that because (unarguably) 'classical' music is enjoyed by a minority, that doesn't lessen its value (or, heaven help us, its relevance). But in a consumerist, commercialised world of marketing, the value of classical music is less because it only appeals to a (diminishing) minority. And the diminution in that audience is not a matter of concern. Programmes like Classical Fix and This Classical Life are no real answer because the general audience that such programmes might appeal to and interest aren't listening to R3. In that sense they are cynical apologies to fix a problem the BBC isn't really bothered about.

Relevant add: And putting Friday Night Is Music Night and Jools Holland on R3 is more about shoving them off R2 (FNIMN had already been dropped) than in bringing a new audience to R3.

[smittims]

In the early days of Radio 3 I always felt that programme presenters such as Alec Robertson, Antony Hopkins, Denis Matthews and Cormac Rigby were more expert than are many today . Nothing I've heard Katie Derham, Sarah Walker, Kate Molleson, Tom McKinney or Sean Rafferty say suggests to me that they know as much about classical music.