No longer Urgent!: On R3's live evening concerts

[french frank]

For me, providing the integrity of the concert is retained - i.e. the whole concert broadcast as performed - then it can be every bit as impressive as a live broadcast concert.

Yes - and I think it was Chris who reported that Edward Blakeman had said prerecorded/deferred concerts could now also be broadcast in the new Sunday afternoon concert, about which less has been said. This also has been a welcome innovation.

On your point, it was the Incorporated Society of Musicians which specifically deplored the impossibly long mish-mashes of concert extracts (my paraphrase as I can't be bothered to look up what they said, probably a bit milder but on those lines). I'm sure these comments from various sources has influenced the change in policy.

[Frances_iom]

the new Sunday afternoon concert, about which less has been said. This also has been a welcome innovation.

I'm sure that there were live Sunday afternoon concerts in the past - I recall getting tickets for Maida Vale in the late 1960's whilst I lived in London - the provision of a deferred broadcast of a concert is much more acceptable than the listeners' request programme and the previous Brian Kay show which was better suited to a R2 audience.
Re the Feedback - I think both FF and Chris were somewhat setup - the presenter had his agenda before the interviews etc and selected quotes were used to back up his original thesis - typical PR you don't want to have to debate or worst still reconsider, your previous position.

[salymap]

There were definitely Sunday afternoon concerts live from Maida Vale. I sometimes went to London for a Sunday morning rehearsal, got home in time to hear the broadcast of the concert, listening to see if the comductor's last minute improvements/instructions made any difference.

[french frank]

Re Sunday afternoon concerts: when I used the word 'new' I meant that they had just replaced the Sunday Radio 3 Requests programme (and before that Brian Kay's '3 For All') rather than that this was an 'unprecedented' innovation - like wot the 5-a-week is...

The company which makes Feedback is an indie and, I feel, tries to steer a moderate course between (often) irate listeners and the BBC on which they depend for their contract. There is also a sense (again, my view - but I don't listen often) in which they are making 'a show' which will be interesting to people not immediately concerned about the issues.

Here, I'm sure they had an idea of what they wanted in this feature: the BBC angle and the listener reception. If they were absolutely clear that I/FoR3 was saying that this was a thoroughly good thing, I'm satisfied. What I feared - I mentioned it some way up the thread - was that FoR3 would be depicted as 'whingeing again'. In fact I was under the impression that the recording I made was offering suggestions to the BBC editor which, by the magic of the editorial scissors, would have been offered to him, and to which there would have been replies. Actually, he'd long since left the building and I was answering the questions of the programme's presenter. A pleasant and genial man whose only fault was that he didn't make it clear what a right-thinking and wonderful lot we are

Funniest thing was that when I arrived at BH, Bristol, they were under the impression my name was Lawrie and were dubious about letting me in ... a prize for anyone who can explain that [Chris met Robert Hollingworth and Edward Blakeman, went to the rehearsal and the performance : I got a cup of filtered water ]

[Russ]

Feedback cannot cope with the details let alone subtleties of any argument or position, and one must remember it is essentially a choreographed magazine-format entertainment programme, and ff is correct that Whistledown Productions do have to steer a moderate 'non-heavy' course to preserve its contract. Much of the material Karen Pirie records ends up on the cutting room floor, or is ditched because Roger Bolton usually likes to take control of the direction and line of editorial questioning. (I've been 'Piried' in the past, even with a carefully chiselled 90-word 35-second soundbite.)

Having said that, it's a minor marvel that anything from the R3 world made the Feedback radar, and I thought the mention of FoR3 was something of a coup, particularly as it came across in a non-aggressive and supportive light.

Maybe the residual question here is why R3 itself cannot provide a vehicle for such debates!

Russ

[hackneyvi]

It seems unlikely to be a coincidence that yesterday (2nd time this week), there was a new high on FoR3 of 279 members online. Membership now 688, I see.

[BBMmk2]

May it go from strength to strength!

[cavatina]

FF: I'm not going to listen.

Why not? If I were you, I'd study the hell out of it to get some insight into how you're coming across on air, how your organization is being "spun" by the media, and what you might change in order to make a more effective presentation in the future. I'd also take this free online training course from the BBC Academy which teaches presenters how to be effective interviewers...learn it yourself, and it might give you a foot up in the game:

BBC ACADEMY: INTERVIEWING FOR RADIO, four modules.
"A guide to preparing for interviews for radio, including live studio interviews and vox pops."

http://www.bbctraining.com/onlineCourse.asp?tID=2555&cat=2772

I thought you did quite well in coming across as reasonable, but you sounded a touch muffled--most likely due to not projecting into the microphone, or not having it close enough to you. (Being naturally soft-spoken, I always had those sorts of problems as college radio presenter.) I'm sure you hate all things "sound bite" as much as I do, but if you could have been a tad more emphatic in crafting a summary of your points--i.e. put a little more effort into rounding them off for emphasis-- it might have played better.

For the life of me, I can't understand why they felt the need to take such a condescending tone toward you. Lord knows I've had my issues with people around here, but to characterise the Friends of Radio 3 as "people who like to tell the station what they think of it" is some seriously patronising b*******. I honestly felt offended.

And to repeatedly refer to you as a "fan"? (Are you f'n kidding me? I mean really, can somebody think of anyone who has LESS of a fan-ish demeanour than FF does?) I suppose they had to think of some sort of verbal shorthand to keep the audience from mistaking you for a "real guest" and getting wise to the fact you actually know what you're talking about. Oh, and the way they condescendingly led CN around by the hand would have been more suitable for chaperoning a developmentally-disabled oldster out on holiday from the nursing home. No respect...dreadful.

Oh well, better luck next time.

[johnb]

cavatina,

As far as I know, ff was being interviewed down the line from the the BBC studios in Bristol, so that might have influenced things somewhat.

However, do bear in mind that whatever FF and CN said was very heavily edited and the producers only chose the tit-bits that they wanted and which fitted with their design for the programme.

(I do agree that the presenter was slightly patronising but I'm sure that ff was fully aware of the pitfalls before she agreed to be interviewed.)

[french frank]

I'm sure that ff was fully aware of the pitfalls before she agreed to be interviewed.)

Erm, sort of. I was under the impression I was going to be asking the Live in Concert editor, Edward Blakeman, some questions - on behalf of the forum members, and as raised in this thread. I submitted them in advance and what I thought would happen was that he would answer the questions during the London session on Wednesday, and then they'd record me asking them on Thursday and edit me in. I was rather surprised to find I was myself being asked questions by the presenter

[Quote: "The idea behind the item is to find out a bit about how the live concerts work, and go behind the scenes as one sets up. In addition it will be a chance to put some questions to the editor about any concerns listeners might have."]

[EnemyoftheStoat]

I'm sure that ff was fully aware of the pitfalls before she agreed to be interviewed.

My experience from my dealings with the corporation is that you can never be fully aware of the pitfalls.