"Classical Live" was once Afternoon Concert

[smittims]

Radio 3 have really gone overboard on 'arrangements' recently. We had that accordion chap playing Faure and Schubert, of all composers. After hearing 'Lydia' mangled in this way I had to put on Pierre Bernac and Francis Poulenc's version to convince ,myself that there was still civilisation.

[LMcD]

Radio 3 have really gone overboard on 'arrangements' recently. We had that accordion chap playing Faure and Schubert, of all composers. After hearing 'Lydia' mangled in this way I had to put on Pierre Bernac and Francis Poulenc's version to convince ,myself that there was still civilisation.

When listening to Britten's original I can hear, see and almost touch the waves as they advance over the shingle and retreat. The Anna Lapwood is just a lot of noise that doesn't conjure up anything.

[Retune]

Any way neither the Saint-Saens nor the Beethoven gain much from being taken out of context. The thrilling tonal movement key scheme of the 7th symphony - 1 Cmajor / A major. - 2 Aminor/ A major -3 Fmajor / D major -4 A major just undermined by single movement extraction.

The worst I recall was hearing the first movement of the Op.101 piano sonata and, thinking I was safely in the Through the Night zone where whole pieces are played, expected to enjoy the second. But no, this was one of those days before the schedule change when Through the Night started later, so I was 'treated' to a random piece of Respighi. The whole sonata is not much over 20 minutes. Is there really anyone in the entire R3 audience able to appreciate the Beethoven who would genuinely have enjoyed such a jarring juxtaposition, making the first movement meaningless? Who are they doing this for? Do the people who compile the playlists, who must have a broad knowledge of the repertoire and presumably enjoy the music, ever listen to these programmes themselves?

[LMcD]

The worst I recall was hearing the first movement of the Op.101 piano sonata and, thinking I was safely in the Through the Night zone where whole pieces are played, expected to enjoy the second. But no, this was one of those days before the schedule change when Through the Night started later, so I was 'treated' to a random piece of Respighi. The whole sonata is not much over 20 minutes. Is there really anyone in the entire R3 audience able to appreciate the Beethoven who would genuinely have enjoyed such a jarring juxtaposition, making the first movement meaningless? Who are they doing this for? Dothe people who compile the playlists, who must have a broad knowledge of the repertoire and presumably enjoy the music, ever listen to these programmes themselves?

It would be nice to think that was the case, but who can tell?

[Ein Heldenleben]

The worst I recall was hearing the first movement of the Op.101 piano sonata and, thinking I was safely in the Through the Night zone where whole pieces are played, expected to enjoy the second. But no, this was one of those days before the schedule change when Through the Night started later, so I was 'treated' to a random piece of Respighi. The whole sonata is not much over 20 minutes. Is there really anyone in the entire R3 audience able to appreciate the Beethoven who would genuinely have enjoyed such a jarring juxtaposition, making the first movement meaningless? Who are they doing this for? Do the people who compile the playlists, who must have a broad knowledge of the repertoire and presumably enjoy the music, ever listen to these programmes themselves?

Good example . Interestingly both Op 101 and the Seventh symphony share that A major / F major juxtaposition between movements though it’s between first and second in the piano sonata. Those F major FF chords with that tricky Da Dum rhythm - so difficult to hit cleanly after the quiet end in A major of that wonderful first movement. One of the most thrilling and startling moments in all music - all lost if you don’t actually play the second movement .

[Retune]

Maybe it's a disillusioned intern or member of the Old Guard who despises the playlist concept and is pushing it as far as it will go. "Let's see if I can get away with this: how about the Cavatina from the Op.130 string quartet, followed by the 1812 Overture? They're both in E♭!"

[hmvman]

Currently being subjected to what is, to my ears, a pointless 'reimagining' by Anna Lapwood of the first of Britten's Sea Interludes.

The dreaded 'R' word....

[Andrew Slater]

If it's the performance from the 3 Choirs in Worcester Cathedral, you're lucky if you can hear it. It was inaudible to the audience! Something about a fault or subtle stops never having been installed, to save money.

[oddoneout]

You're absolutely spot on, my friend! Wary newcomers are clearly more important than weary regulars.

But does it serve wary newcomers either? This is always the great unanswered question. Looking at the result of the BBCS concert deconstruction I can only assume that it has been determined that wary listeners are not affected by having completely unrelated items(style, mood, key) thrown together at random, with the occasional constipation of a whole symphony. I would have thought that sort of mishmash would be rather hard to cope with for those used to easy listening CFM style, if that is part of the new audience the Beeb is aiming for, even if it is assumed that they will only listen to part rather than the whole.

[Serial_Apologist]

But does it serve wary newcomers either? This is always the great unanswered question. Looking at the result of the BBCS concert deconstruction I can only assume that it has been determined that wary listeners are not affected by having completely unrelated items(style, mood, key) thrown together at random, with the occasional constipation of a whole symphony. I would have thought that sort of mishmash would be rather hard to cope with for those used to easy listening CFM style, if that is part of the new audience the Beeb is aiming for, even if it is assumed that they will only listen to part rather than the whole.

But can the whole be understood or even appreciated by the listening novice through the part? Composers have not necessarily composed their symphony, whatever, to be listened to in that way. It's like being expected to understand Christianity by reading a random chapter from the Bible. Is that what Radio 3's informative remit should be about? If so it's giving false pictures. That is the nub of the issue, I think.

[oddoneout]

But can the whole be understood or even appreciated by the listening novice through the part? Composers have not necessarily composed their symphony, whatever, to be listened to in that way. It's like being expected to understand Christianity by reading a random chapter from the Bible. Is that what Radio 3's informative remit should be about? If so it's giving false pictures. That is the nub of the issue, I think.

Before even getting to considerations of understanding or appreciating my concern is that the juxtaposition of so many short pieces that have no relation to each other does not make for a good aural experience, except possibly by accident. It assumes that, just because the listener is uninformed, the unplanned and unintentional leaps between keys, tonalities, rhythms, tempi that are the inevitable result of such an approach(unless very carefully put together) do not have a negative(possibly even uncomfortable) effect. Where such effects are intentional(ie as the composer wrote them within a complete work) they may still be uncomfortable, but hopefully will make some sort of sense when heard in context.
The thing I find unpleasant is that it seems to take the same superior "we know best what the ignorant masses should have" that results in watered down science-based TV programmes or superficial news reportage. Simplifying explanations or material to reach a wider audience does not mean having to turn it into the equivalent of weaning food administered by nanny.

[Hitch]

This blog article, dated 1st Aug this year, has an interesting graph that uses Rajar data. It shows that the number of R3's listeners has stayed more or less the same since the turn of the century, fluctuating between 1.7m to 2.1m. The latest figure is almost the same as 1999's. One might question the effectiveness of the many changes that R3 has undergone. Was the remit to attract new listeners ultimately successful? If not, what was the point? If yes, what happened to the established audience? Have both station and listeners changed at the same time?

[LMcD]

This blog article, dated 1st Aug this year, has an interesting graph that uses Rajar data. It shows that the number of R3's listeners has stayed more or less the same since the turn of the century, fluctuating between 1.7m to 2.1m. The latest figure is almost the same as 1999's. One might question the effectiveness of the many changes that R3 has undergone. Was the remit to attract new listeners ultimately successful? If not, what was the point? If yes, what happened to the established audience? Have both station and listeners changed at the same time?

As a member of the established audience, I can only say that I listen to Radio 3 a lot less than I used to - on some days, I switch off before the Breakfast Show has finished and don't switch on again until 10.00 p.m. (Sunday to Thursday) for Night Tracks. The disappearance of CD Masters years ago and the more recent loss of 80% of the Lunchtime Concerts and a properly structured Afternoon Concert are the main reasons for this frequent huge 12- to 13-hour gap.

[french frank]

This blog article, dated 1st Aug this year, has an interesting graph that uses Rajar data. It shows that the number of R3's listeners has stayed more or less the same since the turn of the century, fluctuating between 1.7m to 2.1m. The latest figure is almost the same as 1999's.

But the population has grown (by 21%?). Between 1999 and 2024 (the listening figures are not directly comparable btw), Radio 2's audience has grown from 9.7m to 13.3m. R3's went from 2.3m to 1.8m (all figures rounded).

The question is whether R3 makes strategy changes in response to poor listening figures, or whether strategy changes cause listening figures to fall.

[LMcD]

But the population has grown (by 21%?). Between 1999 and 2024 (the listening figures are not directly comparable btw), Radio 2's audience has grown from 9.7m to 13.3m. R3's went from 2.3m to 1.8m (all figures rounded).

The question is whether R3 makes strategy changes in response to poor listening figures, or whether strategy changes cause listening figures to fall.

Radio 3's weekly reach in Q4 of 1998 was 2.54 million!