"Outrageous" live 7.30pm concerts on R3

[LeMartinPecheur]

Very welcome news of course that we're once again to have live concerts at a sensible time in the evening. But what staggered me was the write-up on p13 of the new BBC Music Magazine. Not Wroger Wrong announcing with the force of Old Testament (OT/OTT) prophet "It has real excitement" - that was pathetically predictable, as was the total lack of apology for the evening cultural wasteland that he tried to pass off as progress

But Stephen Hough, no less, telling the world that it's 'outrageous, audacious and astonishing'? Really? Not a long-overdue return to long-established basic common sense???

[french frank]

But Stephen Hough, no less, telling the world that it's 'outrageous, audacious and astonishing'? Really? Not a long-overdue return to long-established basic common sense???

This was written in his Telegraph blog a month ago. They're quoting that in the new BBCMM?

People express their opinions, even strong opinions, on the basis of partial information or short memories. [What joy when R3 'gains' 270,000 'new' listeners! And no one puts two and two together and connects it with the fact that earlier R3 'lost' 300,000 listeners.]

I quote from a letter of 21 February 2007 from RW, defending the dropping of live concerts:

"I was interested in your four levels of listeners' approval**. However, the research undertaken with groups of listeners (both core and occasional) shows that these distinctions are not a real concern to most of the audience. The majority of listeners, even extremely loyal ones, are keen to have music taken from concerts and events rather than commercial CDs, but they would not relate to the distinctions you make."

**The four levels:
1. Live broadcasts of concerts/recitals
2. Recordings, as live, of the entire concert/recital
3. 'Music taken from concerts and events'
4. Commercial CDs

In other words, neither 1 or 2 was particularly appreciated by listeners. But that was then ...

[Panjandrum]

Poor old Rog. He does seem to suffer more and more from short term memory lapses. Maybe it's time he was put out to grass.

[Eudaimonia]

In other words, neither 1 or 2 was particularly appreciated by listeners. But that was then ...

Well, obviously something changed; I'm guessing they did focus groups and found that audiences care after all. Great--but assuming it's "common sense" is a bit of a stretch, isn't it?

Perhaps this new policy is yet another variation on the theme of "R3 is unique and does what no commercial station can". Maybe it makes more economic sense. Maybe they just wanted to do something splashy to get R3 in the papers. Maybe your relentless whingeing shifted public opinion and paid off. Maybe all or none of the above...what difference does it make? What's to be gained by bringing up the past?

You're getting exactly what you want, yet you still fume about how bad it used to be and what an infernal idiot he is. Silly me, I always thought that when somebody tries something new that isn't working-- and they stop doing it-- it says something positive about them.

[johnb]

Deleted.

[aeolium]

I am one of those who still do not see a great distinction between listening to live and recorded concerts; to me this is a minor distinction compared with the difference between listening to a concert on the radio and being there. The real disaster of the Feb 2007 change for me was moving the timing of the evening concert forward to 7 pm, and the change back to 7.30 is much to be welcomed. But the other very important question is the programming for the evening concert. If it is simply rehashing frequently heard works between different orchestras and conductors (that are also often broadcast elsewhere in the schedule) then it doesn't matter whether it is live or 'as live' - for me it just isn't going to be worth listening to.

Incidentally, I do think there is a big difference between listening to a recorded concert 'as live' in its entirety (for instance a recording of an Edinburgh Festival concert) and listening to individual works taken out of a recorded concert and spliced up between other recordings as often happens in Afternoon on 3. The latter seems quite pointless.

[Eudaimonia]

If it is simply rehashing frequently heard works between different orchestras and conductors

Do you have any reason to think it would be? This isn't rhetorical; I'm genuinely curious.

[aeolium]

Only really because there have been concerns about the narrowing of repertoire broadcast on R3 over recent years, documented for instance by Suffolkcoastal who has recorded the frequency with which certain works are repeated. Also the evidence elsewhere in the schedule of an apparent intention to popularise certain programmes, Breakfast and Classical Collection for instance, compared with their predecessors (CD Masters was quite a different programme from Classical Collection). If this intention is carried through to the evening concert scheduling then it could be that 'safer' programmes are preferred. To a certain extent this is already happening - and I don't think it is entirely due to a conscious scheduling change by R3 producers - because in times of recession the music directors of orchestras will tend to programme more conservatively.

[3rd Viennese School]

I look forward to proper live concerts starting at 1930.
Especially if it stops the Outrageously bad second half where they continously play 100 years of German song, but its always 1870 and always Schumann.

3VS

[Cellini]

Poor old Rog. He does seem to suffer more and more from short term memory lapses. Maybe it's time he was put out to grass.

I thought by giving him the Radio 3 job he had been put out to grass?

Maybe euthanasia would be a better bet ...

[french frank]

Incidentally, I do think there is a big difference between listening to a recorded concert 'as live' in its entirety (for instance a recording of an Edinburgh Festival concert) and listening to individual works taken out of a recorded concert and spliced up between other recordings as often happens in Afternoon on 3. The latter seems quite pointless.

Yes, that was item 2 on my list which I described as 'an acceptable substitute' for 1 (live).

[New avatar is a mark of mourning for my beloved car which was stolen from outside my house last night. 'The Turk' will return when I get my car back ]

[Zucchini]

I thought by giving him the Radio 3 job he had been put out to grass?

Maybe euthanasia would be a better bet ...

I suppose we could give her to him but who'll pay for the flight from New York?

[MrGongGong]

Interestingly (and a little OT I know )
when the Wigmore Hall opened most concerts started at 8pm or even 8.30pm
I guess the folk who went then didn't have to get up in the morning as they were often epics (a bit like some of the early prom concerts)

[aeolium]

I went to a chamber music concert at Cheltenham on Monday night and that started at 8 pm, finishing around 10. Not a bad start time - you get a chance to have a bite to eat beforehand.

[pilamenon]

I can fully understand Le MartinPecheur's allergic reaction to Hough's ridiculous comments, but also agree with Eudamonia that it would be kinder simply to take satisfaction from the fact that they've made a sensible U-turn.

I am one of those who still do not see a great distinction between listening to live and recorded concerts; to me this is a minor distinction compared with the difference between listening to a concert on the radio and being there. The real disaster of the Feb 2007 change for me was moving the timing of the evening concert forward to 7 pm, and the change back to 7.30 is much to be welcomed. But the other very important question is the programming for the evening concert. If it is simply rehashing frequently heard works between different orchestras and conductors (that are also often broadcast elsewhere in the schedule) then it doesn't matter whether it is live or 'as live' - for me it just isn't going to be worth listening to.

Incidentally, I do think there is a big difference between listening to a recorded concert 'as live' in its entirety (for instance a recording of an Edinburgh Festival concert) and listening to individual works taken out of a recorded concert and spliced up between other recordings as often happens in Afternoon on 3. The latter seems quite pointless.

I can't see why any of the changes that were made in 2007 could be regarded as a "disaster", but leaving that aside I do know what aeolium means. The same mainstream mid 19th/early 20th century orchestral works crop up all too regularly on Performance on 3 - the Strauss tone poems for example - and the new live schedule will hopefully be imaginative and variable, and include chamber, solo, early music, and contemporary music. But even if conservative programming does dominate, it's still something to look forward to for those, like me, who do enjoy the sense of being at a live event through the radio at a more realistic listening time. Just hope they don't spoil it by having BBC presenters live on stage introducing the works.