Enthusiastic presenters

[french frank]

What you say is largely rubbish. Being artistic director of an American orchestra, A&R for a commercial record industry, BBC music producer are not the same job as running a public service radio station. In the 12 years RW has been at R3, he (?) has changed the major strategy completely, twice, after about 6-ish years changing the entire tack. Two policies which are mutually exclusive. There couldn't have been anything fundamentally 'right' about both of them. He took the listening figures to near melt-down and then slammed the R3 automobile into reverse and lurched off in a different direction.

RW is strong on marketing and (self-)publicity. That doesn't make him the greatest controller of R3 ever - or even the right one for now.

[french frank]

Director-General's Strategy Review, page 59:

"Some of the unspoken truths on which the BBC has often operated —that professionals know best; that control is always the way to ensure quality; that audience contributions are valuable but must be crafted or editorialised to be of most value; that the audience must only be given the finished product; that professionals will create more content than the audience —are being contested and overturned. To fit itself for the future, therefore, the BBC must demonstrate a willingness and an ability to engage in an open discussion about itself, its values and its operations. How the BBC fulfils its public mission will become a dialogue between the BBC and its audiences and contributors —meeting the public ’s demands for greater levels of visibility, openness and accountability."

[aeolium]

But that doesn't change the fact that it's going to be an incredibly hard sell to convince people who've spent their entire careers in the music industry that they should be spending any significant portion of their time heeding unsolicited internal policy recommendations from people who've never worked in the music business, have no experience with radio or television, zero exposure to formal arts policy analysis--and to top it all off, never played an instrument and can't even read sheet music.

There is so much that is wrong in this sentence that I hardly know where to start. There is the patronising assumption that none of these listeners has any experience in the music business, radio or television or has any ability to play an instrument or read sheet music. Criticism or constructive suggestions from outside the BBC are not 'unsolicited internal policy recommendations'. There is the assumption that people working in the BBC have no obligation to listen to the feedback of their audience, who happen to be those who are paying their salaries - even though they are required by their own policy to solicit such feedback. And underlying the whole the idea that people in the public service have no real accountability at all to the public they serve. As for the idea, later on in the post, that the only real way of influencing BBC opinions or obtaining change is to get a job there, that really smacks of life in some corrupt dictatorship.

Every public institution benefits from critical scrutiny and structures that enforce real accountability. The BBC, imo, is still some way short of having the latter with the way the Trust is set up, although its new chairman Lord Patten may well change that. But at least people here and elsewhere in the BBC's audience can provide the former.

[cavatina]

What you say is largely rubbish. Being artistic director of an American orchestra, A&R for a commercial record industry, BBC music producer are not the same job as running a public service radio station.

No, but a thorough understanding of the dynamics shaping the music industry and a vast amount of experience in big-picture decisionmaking ought to count for something.

In the 12 years RW has been at R3, he (?) has changed the major strategy completely, twice, after about 6-ish years changing the entire tack. Two policies which are mutually exclusive. There couldn't have been anything fundamentally 'right' about both of them. He took the listening figures to near melt-down and then slammed the R3 automobile into reverse and lurched off in a different direction.

Why fault him for having the courage to change when he realises he could be more effective doing something else? Flexibility is an asset, not a drawback. You should be applauding him.

RW is strong on marketing and (self-)publicity.

Turn up your nose as much as you like, but marketing and publicity are necessary evils and an inescapable part of ever getting anywhere in the world. I've seen so many nonprofit organizations flounder and fail for taking the high-minded route and ignoring them, it just isn't funny. Of course, it's an unmitigated horror show to see people going the opposite direction into content-free crass commercialism, but there's got to be a balance somewhere...being an idealist in a pragmatist's world is damned hard.

That doesn't make him the greatest controller of R3 ever -

Never said it did. Who was the greatest controller of Radio 3, in your opinion-- and what made his policies particularly effective? I'd be genuinely interested to hear your answer.

[cavatina]

There is so much that is wrong in this sentence that I hardly know where to start.

I don't have to like it to recognise that a significant number of people in the music industry see it in exactly those terms. I've met them. Worked cheek-by-jowl with them. Been steamrolled by them. Now given that, where do we go from here?

As for the idea, later on in the post, that the only real way of influencing BBC opinions or obtaining change is to get a job there, that really smacks of life in some corrupt dictatorship.

Isn't it? Looks like I'm infinitely more cynical than you are.

Every public institution benefits from critical scrutiny and structures that enforce real accountability. The BBC, imo, is still some way short of having the latter with the way the Trust is set up, although its new chairman Lord Patten may well change that. But at least people here and elsewhere in the BBC's audience can provide the former.

You'll never be in a position to provide anything if you don't do something to fix the gross misconceptions people have of you and make your case in a way more people can appreciate and understand.

[cavatina]

Director-General's Strategy Review, page 59:

[...]To fit itself for the future, therefore, the BBC must demonstrate a willingness and an ability to engage in an open discussion about itself, its values and its operations. How the BBC fulfils its public mission will become a dialogue between the BBC and its audiences and contributors —meeting the public ’s demands for greater levels of visibility, openness and accountability."

If you'll pardon the strong language, that's the biggest bunch of window-dressing horseshit I've ever heard--and furthermore, I don't think any of this so-called "dialogue" amounts to a hill of beans. They're saying that because it's what they're expected to say. Personally, I'd rather die than show up for a polite, politician-ey, "I'm only talking to you because you're an R3 listener and I have to talk to you" pep talk.

The Director General might force people at the BBC to go through the motions, but he can't make them care. He can make them talk to you, but he can't stop them from furtively checking their watch and secretly longing for a nice, stiff gin and tonic. Ugh--no thanks.

[Serial_Apologist]

If you'll pardon the strong language, that's the biggest bunch of window-dressing horseshit I've ever heard--and furthermore, I don't think any of this so-called "dialogue" amounts to a hill of beans. They're saying that because it's what they're expected to say. Personally, I'd rather die than show up for a polite, politician-ey, "I'm only talking to you because you're an R3 listener and I have to talk to you" pep talk.

The Director General might force people at the BBC to go through the motions, but he can't make them care. He can make them talk to you, but he can't stop them from furtively checking their watch and secretly longing for a nice, stiff gin and tonic. Ugh--no thanks.

Then, if what you are saying is right, we appear to have 2 choices: either

1) We find the "appropriate" language and demeanour (whatever these could possibly be) for addressing our cares and concerns to the BofD, which, unless and probably even if succeeding in being taken on by the BBC, they are unlikely to take any notice of; or

2) We might as well give up on this discussion, and in the teeth of all evidence to the contrary place our misconceived trust in the abilities of the BBC magically to invoke this "balance" between upholding long-dependable principles of public broadcasting and appealing to the values of product placement.

You go for the second?

[french frank]

If you'll pardon the strong language, that's the biggest bunch of window-dressing horseshit I've ever heard--and furthermore, I don't think any of this so-called "dialogue" amounts to a hill of beans.

D'you know, I went out to get some food and I thought: I bet cavatina will rubbish that. They didn't mean it, they're only saying it to look good, and so what anyway?

The more important thing is they said it, it's in print and there are higher people in the BBC quango than the D-G.

Funnily enough, for someone who consistently attacks the BBC/R3 critics, you've actually got - from what you say - far less respect for the people who work there than I have. And in any case, what's your interest? You don't live in the UK, and when challenged to name the R3 programmes you listened to, you could only mention the Proms-related broadcasts (which you apparently atennded rather than hearing on the radio), not the programmes which get most of the flak. cavatina, you have some sort of personal agenda: when you've worked out for yourself what it is, let us know

I must say, though, I did find rather endearing the suggestion that the way forward was to start looking for jobs at the BBC. And after twenty or thirty years working your way up, you may just reach a position where you can influence decisions



[Don't want to steal S_A's thunder here - I agree with his last]

[french frank]

[ff] What you say is largely rubbish. Being artistic director of an American orchestra, A&R for a commercial record industry, BBC music producer are not the same job as running a public service radio station.

No, but a thorough understanding of the dynamics shaping the music industry and a vast amount of experience in big-picture decisionmaking ought to count for something.

The missing ingredient here (as always in what you say) is the ethos of public service broadcasting. Perhaps you could snuggle down with the BBC Deputy Chairman's book: 'Public Value in Practice: restoring the ethos of public service'. And then tell us what a 'load of horse-shit' that is too.

[cavatina]

You don't live in the UK, and when challenged to name the R3 programmes you listened to, you could only mention the Proms-related broadcasts (which you apparently atennded rather than hearing on the radio), not the programmes which get most of the flak.

Doversoul asked me what I'd heard in the last week; I told him that in the last two and a half weeks, I'VE ATTENDED FIFTY-NINE RADIO 3 PROGRAMMES IN PERSON. Jeez Louise! How obsessed do you people expect me to be?

Interesting points SA--and lots more to say-- but I really must be off and get a proverbial life before I have to join the queue.

Perhaps you could snuggle down with the BBC Deputy Chairman's book: 'Public Value in Practice: restoring the ethos of public service'.

Maybe I'll try to see if anyone can order that for me when I hit the bookstores this afternoon. Good timing--thanks!

[french frank]

Doversoul asked me what I'd heard in the last week; I told him that in the last two and a half weeks, I'VE ATTENDED FIFTY-NINE RADIO 3 PROGRAMMES IN PERSON. Jeez Louise! How obsessed do you people expect me to be?

I think by a 'programme' most people would assume a radio broadcast, over the air, not attendance at live events. Have they started announcing the main RAH concerts from the stage? I did not know that. When I've been to a Prom I haven't heard the R3 presenters at all.

I'm not sure if Diane Coyle's book would be available at a bookshop, but it is on line. The economics I found a bit tough (she is an economist!) but that wasn't the most relevant part.

[Frances_iom]

.. I told him that in the last two and a half weeks, I'VE ATTENDED FIFTY-NINE RADIO 3 PROGRAMMES IN PERSON.

does this mean 26 proms (x2 counting each half) + proms talks + proms chamber concerts which would come to about that figure
Otherwise you must be a BBC employee with access to studio programmes.
If the 1st then congrats on your marketing skills in dressing up attendance at public concerts

ETA or possibly double counting using afternoon repeats? - if so then I suspect you will go far in marketting

[cavatina]

I think by a 'programme' most people would assume a radio broadcast, over the air, not attendance at live events.

But I think most of the Proms Plus events are broadcast exactly as I heard them, occasionally with a little editing. I'm sure you'll all be delighted to know that Petroc Trelawny stopped and did a re-take to correct a date he'd inadvertently misread. When he made a crack about not wanting his producer to get angry letters over it, for a split-second he looked a little miffed, to say the least.

Have they started announcing the main RAH concerts from the stage? I did not know that. When I've been to a Prom I haven't heard the R3 presenters at all.

No, but many of the late-night and non-classical events have at least some element of being announced from the stage, and certainly the Elgar Room Jazz and Poetry Nights, as well as the Cadogan concerts with Catherine Bott. On "regular" days, I hear the music and see the orchestra the same as anyone else...ought to count for something, I think.

I've been listening to BBC Radio online-- more specifically, Radio 3, Radio 4, and the World Service-- more or less consistently since 2005. I've had periods of employment where I jumped between BBC programming eight hours a day: World Service headlines and analysis in the morning followed by African programming, R3 and R4 in the afternoon, and maybe rounding off the day with programming from Northern Ireland and whatever random show I stumbled across. I used to listen to loads of R4 drama...even bought it on tape and CD when it was especially good.

Oh, and when I was a teenager, I was absolutely delighted that public radio used to play repeats of "My Music" and "My Word". Best shows ever! My friend and I used to eagerly sit by the radio to listen to it together...good times.

These days, I usually pick and choose from the I-player, though since I came to the Proms I've been fairly well saturated. However, I am downloading (and ripping, heh) concerts I particularly enjoy to hear again later, and trying to keep up with Jon Jacob's BBC blogs and Twitter stream as he's a very thoughtful, interesting character who has lots to say.

Oh well, more later.

[french frank]

If I may be permitted, I propose to remove the comments which have deviated to a discussion of a particular member. I think it is against the House Rules to 'gang up' on any individual Thanks to doversoul for repeating the general point: 'If it merits a reasoned reply, make it; if it doesn't, ignore it.'

Whatever one feels about the sentiments of such comments, they don't make for very good general reading.

[cavatina]

does this mean 26 proms (x2 counting each half) + proms talks + proms chamber concerts which would come to about that figure

26 Proms and 26 lectures makes 52 events. 3 jazz, 3 chamber music, and 1 Hyde Park world music concert = 59.
Tonight, I heard two more concerts and a lecture, so the new total is 62.