Not on Radio 3 - Bloomsday

[aeolium]

Radio 3 doesn't have to 'give up regular programming' for arts programmes because, such as remains, is regular. There just isn't much of it. My point was that if Radio 3 drops it all completely - and that has been the way things have been going - Radio 4 won't fully make up for what has been lost. And Radio 4 won't be free to do the out-of-the way stuff that Radio 3 is free to do.

I've been arguing that Radio 3 should do such programming better than it does - not that it should drop it completely so that Radio 4 can provide mass audience substitutes.

No, my point was that R3 does not supplement the small amount of regular arts/drama broadcasting it provides. I am not arguing that it should drop that regular programming - I have long argued that it was much too little. The point is that there is no sign whatsoever that R3 is going to increase its arts provision, or do any of the supplementary 'specials' like this forthcoming Bloomsday, so that if R4 is going to provide those features then that is to be welcomed as a crumb of comfort.

I'm glad you're happy with that.

I'm not happy with it. I just think it's idle to hope for any possible improvement from those in charge of R3, or indeed the BBC in general.

[austin]

[french frank]

I'm not happy with it. I just think it's idle to hope for any possible improvement from those in charge of R3, or indeed the BBC in general.

It's not that I'm realistically hoping for any improvement; I'm fearing the reverse.

If there's a backlash from R4 listeners like the anti-Boyle protests of the late 90s there may well be a reverse of policy. One Guardian commenter (the article Russ flagged up above) was : "R4 already has loads of arts programming. Front Row is on every weekday and on Saturday we get Saturday Review, then there's A Good Read, the Film Programme and there are plenty of dramas and book serialisations. I don't want R4 to focus on one area of interest. I want programmes on a wide variety of topics."

Perhaps the focus on the arts will turn out to be an illusion?

[aeolium]

R4 could vary its arts programming, though, without necessarily having to increase it. I think the problem with stereotyping radio station audiences - 'middle of the road', 'mass' - is that that is the kind of thinking that has brought R3 and more widely the BBC to the desperate straits it is in now, where classic TV drama and 'difficult' or risky modern drama have been largely abandoned. Why was that not the case with BBC2 in the mid-1960s to mid-1980s? That was also a mass audience channel - not with the ratings of BBC1 or ITV but also not the ghetto that BBC4 now is - and yet was able to show Plays for Today, works by David Mercer, Dennis Potter, Stoppard, Pinter, Beckett, Frayn, as well as a lot of classic drama, Ibsen, Shakespeare, Sophocles etc. Has that audience simply vanished? Why is it assumed that the 'middle of the road' R4 audience would not be prepared to listen to that? Or is it just the kind of assumption that is self-justifying? By abandoning the provision of serious arts programming, has the BBC effectively destroyed or abandoned one of its audiences, so that they can now say "Oh, we can't put that sort of thing on - there isn't the audience for it"?

I don't believe it. I think there is the audience for it, and it is potentially a large one. Hundreds of thousands in this country have watched the NT's live cinecast productions of both classic and modern plays. Many more young people are going to university now than was the case in the 1970s so in theory there should be a more widely educated audience. It is the BBC that is failing its public service obligation by ignoring it.

[french frank]

I agree entirely. Phrases like 'middle-of-the-road' and 'mass' do imply a ceiling above which listeners won't want us to go. Hence Essential Classics must be 'without in-depth musicological or complicated biographical detail'. Oh, dear, no. Nothing in-depth or complicated.

I think, though, that when BBC 2 was launched it did have a similar inspiration to the Third Programme - a cut above, more thought-provoking, and it did suggest a belief that such an audience existed. Radio 3's changes suggest that the BBC has little confidence that such an audience exists now.

Yes, I do think that the BBC has 'effectively destroyed or abandoned one of its audiences'; it has done that with the arts audience; it is in the process of doing so to the classical music audience. The arts and music will continue to exist out in the great world, but that isn't entirely the point.

[aeolium]

Slightly OT, but I found this website that lists quite a lot of the Plays for Today that were on BBC2 between 1970 and 1984, with commentary. It mentions that one of the plays, Edna the Inebriate Woman, had an audience of over 9 million. Interesting to see the names of some of the playwrights, people like Alan Plater, Peter Terson (who also wrote very well for radio), Mike Leigh.

[Frances_iom]

the key difference between the optimistic 80's (+ earlier) is the relentless commercial dumbing down in all forms of media - on the basis you can never insult the audience's intelligence most of the media have raced to the bottom - associated with this is a denigration of any pursuit other than possibly sport that requires continued application + knowledge - possibly this is necessary so that the commercial mass offering are not immediately seen for the rubbish they are. Couple this with the concept that the only measuring stick is the size of the audience and you have the present situation in which large numbers of near identical stations are chasing the same audience to deliver them to the advertisers - the BBC has adopted the same measuring rod and is only too happy to demonstrate it is 'less elitist' than other stations.
I cannot see any change unless the whole attitude to cultural education changes - we are deeply unfortuneate in that US English is too readily understandable and thus we buy into that 'damm the weakest' culture all too readily - a language barrier (as in France/Germany) would be very useful.

[Serial_Apologist]

the key difference between the optimistic 80's (+ earlier) is the relentless commercial dumbing down in all forms of media - on the basis you can never insult the audience's intelligence most of the media have raced to the bottom - associated with this is a denigration of any pursuit other than possibly sport that requires continued application + knowledge - possibly this is necessary so that the commercial mass offering are not immediately seen for the rubbish they are. Couple this with the concept that the only measuring stick is the size of the audience and you have the present situation in which large numbers of near identical stations are chasing the same audience to deliver them to the advertisers - the BBC has adopted the same measuring rod and is only too happy to demonstrate it is 'less elitist' than other stations.
I cannot see any change unless the whole attitude to cultural education changes - we are deeply unfortuneate in that US English is too readily understandable and thus we buy into that 'damm the weakest' culture all too readily - a language barrier (as in France/Germany) would be very useful.

I agree completely, and I find it very worrying. It speaks of an ideological attitude pervading the powers that be at the BBC which does not want its listenership and viewership exposed to challenging music and plays or programmes about art or politics that ask searching questions about what such challenging art and music exists to challenge, namely popular preconceptions concerning the world we live in, and how it is "sold" (sic) to us.

[french frank]

how it is "sold" (sic) to us.

Yes. One of the great losses on Radio 3 has been the critical comment and context. We have to be assured that X is 'wonderful' (how else would we know?), we are getting the great music in the best interpretations by acclaimed and award-winning performers. This is about presenters being 'passionate' (they all thoroughly enjoy their jobs, too, apparently).

Everything is simplified, marshmallow and meringue stuffed down our throats.

The one thing I enjoyed particularly about the old BBC messageboards was the Arts & Ideas board where we could dissect a play, talk about the qualities of the drama, of the performances, of the production. The point was, it didn't matter whether it was the greatest production ever as long as the attempt was worthwhile. 'Mere' enjoyment ('On a scale of 1-10 how much did you enjoy this production?') wasn't the point: even a poor production could stimulate analysis and discussion, fill gaps in our knowledge.

Presenters are now reduced to being cheerleaders and criticism is frowned on rather than encouraged.

[aeolium]

It speaks of an ideological attitude pervading the powers that be at the BBC which does not want its listenership and viewership exposed to challenging music and plays or programmes about art or politics that ask searching questions about what such challenging art and music exists to challenge, namely popular preconceptions concerning the world we live in, and how it is "sold" (sic) to us.

Yes. It's undoubtedly the case that many of the drama productions in that earlier era I was mentioning deliberately sought to challenge preconceptions and societal assumptions. It began to change imo in the late 1980s and especially in the 1990s when there seemed to be a more corporate-style, editorial control over productions which became blander, less political or concerned with ideas. It coincides with a more homogenised political culture in which ideological dispute has largely been abandoned by all parties, and unsurprisingly art/radio/TV are simply viewed as commodities to be consumed in the same way as everything else.

[Bryn]

Austin - Thank you for the information. I have 'Ulysses' on my book shelf but have never read it in full.

The biography of James Joyce was broadcast on Radio 4 last year. A musical version of Ulysses by Burgess was broadcast on Radio 3 in 1982.

frenchfrank - Could we call this section "Aural Arts (Mainly Radio 3)"?

I seem to recall Radio 3 offering some of the RTÉ's 30 hour broadcast of Ulysses in 1982, too.

[Lateralthinking1]

I seem to recall Radio 3 offering some of the RTÉ's 30 hour broadcast of Ulysses in 1982, too.

Any current news from Dublin? Perhaps what remains of the R3 allocation will extend to a TTN style arrangement for the spoken word.

[Russ]

The RTE 'full monty' Ulysses can be found at:

http://www.rte.ie/readingulysses/episodeguide.html

Russ

[Bryn]

The RTE 'full monty' Ulysses can be found at:

http://www.rte.ie/readingulysses/episodeguide.html

Russ

Thanks Russ. Triple MP3 CD option duly ordered. I could not really justify the the cost of the 32 CD set to myself.

[austin]

Yes. One of the great losses on Radio 3 has been the critical comment and context. We have to be assured that X is 'wonderful' (how else would we know?), we are getting the great music in the best interpretations by acclaimed and award-winning performers. This is about presenters being 'passionate' (they all thoroughly enjoy their jobs, too, apparently).

Everything is simplified, marshmallow and meringue stuffed down our throats.

The one thing I enjoyed particularly about the old BBC messageboards was the Arts & Ideas board where we could dissect a play, talk about the qualities of the drama, of the performances, of the production. The point was, it didn't matter whether it was the greatest production ever as long as the attempt was worthwhile. 'Mere' enjoyment ('On a scale of 1-10 how much did you enjoy this production?') wasn't the point: even a poor production could stimulate analysis and discussion, fill gaps in our knowledge.

Presenters are now reduced to being cheerleaders and criticism is frowned on rather than encouraged.