Live and 'as Live'

[DracoM]

The way R3 counts up the hours of 'live' broadcasts seems to me a bit of a con, and I was wondering how the R3 listenership had settled or not to this distinction.

There is genuinely 'live' - as in Choral Evensong, the Monday Lunchtime recital, some Perfs on 3 evenings, the Saturday opera from the Met and on some occasions other opera houses. These very few constitute the actually live segments of the R3 week.

However, by and large, what passes as 'live' is actually and rightly billed as 'as live', i.e. NOT live, but recorded and played back later with a presenter in the studio presiding, and having it chopped up into either discrete bits and played at later dates - sometimes not even in the order of the original concert. In this way the trajectory / planning of a concert simply becomes 'commodity' or 'product', or in transmission, the material is faded in and out and interspersed with interviews / commentary of more or less - often less - serious 'expert' analysis.

What do we lose / gain by the BBC pursuing this distinction / format?

[johnb]

DracoM,

My understanding is that "as live" used to apply when a concert was recorded with presentation being done in the concert hall for later transmission. It sounded exactly the same as a "live" broadcast and, I suspect, many wouldn't have realised it wasn't live unless the presenter mentioned the fact or unless they actually knew when the concert took place.

The current system of studio presentation of music recorded from a concert is, IMO, totally different. It drains the broadcast of any sense of being present at a real event and veers towards the DJ approach. If the term "as live" has now been extended to these broadcasts that does seem worrying.

[Martin]

A live concert that is broadcast at a date later than when it really happened used to be called a deferred relay in the music business. So 'live' used to mean 'broadcast as it happens', whilst a deferred relay meant 'broadcast as it happened on a previous date'. The latter would seem to be, as johnb says, indistinguishable from 'live' unless the listening audience was told.

[Frances_iom]

mendacious advertising

This was a common topic on the old BBC boards - in one case the BBC was forced to amend its advertising - the 'listen up' format so beloved by Wright (it's cheap, can be easily topped + tailed to fit a rigid timetable imposed by the adverts etc etc) destroys any illusion as well as removing, for me at least, most of the enjoyment - one more example of throwing out the 'best' and replacing by a cheapened version - maybe FF can fill in if it gained any additional audience tho I suspect not.

[DracoM]

Quite apart from the corrupting, semantic sleight of hand in the use of the word 'live', knowing, as the BBC PR dept must, that numbers of listeners will miss the tiny 'as' before 'live' and not fully take on board what sanitised, packaged, bits and pieces are actually being vouchsafed.

I think it is that deception and THEN counting the 'as live' material in their claim that 50-odd % of the R3 is 'live', because it jolly sure as heck ain't.

That slippery re-definition of what 'live' means is so shabbily cynical.

[french frank]

maybe FF can fill in if it gained any additional audience tho I suspect not.

We asked about this unofficially, and then under the Freedom of Information Act. Unfortunately, there were last minute 'editorial concerns' which prevented disclosure of the information.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Most of the later DG VPO Bernstein CDs were "live" recordings, but cleaned up with edits, and with endings re-recorded to cut out applause and other audience interventions. Yet Bernstein maintained that the essence of the live performance was still there.

[DracoM]

[QUOTE]the essence of the live performance was still there[QUOTE]

And what does that mean? Is a calculation that just in terms of number of minutes unaltered/unedited / unpatched? or what?

I think we are on a very slippery slope here.

[aeolium]

I would like R3 to make a clear distinction between live broadcasts and deferred ones so that no-one is under any illusion - with the latter - that they are listening to a live transmission. I don't think deferred broadcasts should be included with the live for statistical purposes. But I am quite happy with deferred broadcasts as long as they are essentially untampered with - i.e. all the music is there including any encores. I don't like concerts being chopped up and different works played at different times/dates, as one expects the concert scheduler and performer(s) to have constructed a meaningful programme. I can do without the interval, lengthy applause and a studio presenter rather than one in the concert hall. I don't see any great difference, for instance, in listening to the Saturday repeat of the Wigmore Hall concert rather than the first live broadcast (or indeed listening on LA, except the sound is not so good). There's also the obvious advantage in deferred broadcasts of being able to schedule summer chamber music concerts in the autumn and winter, and there have been some exceptional ones recently. I don't subscribe to the view that deferred broadcasts are a bad thing - what's more important is the quality of the music-making and the choice of the music to be broadcast.

[doversoul1]

I always thought that Radio3 had ‘live broadcast’, ‘recorded live’ and ‘live recording (CDs)’. I thought this was perfectly clear. Or has this been changed and I have not noticed? What is new is ‘edited version’ but this is usually something unrelated to music.

[johnb]

aeolium,

I don't think that a studio presentation of an edited concert can be called a 'deferred' broadcast.

A deferred broadcast (or 'as-live' as they used to be called) would be when, say, last Thursday's live broadcast was broadcast this evening exactly the same as it would have been if it had gone out live.

For many years up to the changes in 2007 (?) the majority of evening concerts were done in this way (i.e. deferred/'as-live') though there used to be, say, one concert a week going out live-live (usually a BBC orchestra). Whether live-live or deferred/'as-live', the broadcasts had the same immediacy that was sadly lost when Radio 3 introduced studio presentation.

[aeolium]

johnb

I don't really mind what it's called, though I think using the term 'edited concert' suggests a change in the programme or some more significant alteration. As I say, it doesn't bother me whether the presenter is in studio or in the concert hall; what is important to me is the immediacy of the music-making in a concert performance. If we were to do as Suffolkcoastal has suggested on another thread (and which I agree with) and have more collaborations with EBU stations for concerts, then that would probably require even more studio presentations. Sending presenters round the country so that we can hear their introductions as the strings tune up seems a bit of a luxury in these straitened times, but that's just my view.

[Eudaimonia]

destroys any illusion as well as removing, for me at least, most of the enjoyment

Really? I often find I can't enjoy live radio performances: having worked behind the scenes in artistic administration and in recording sessions for a classical record label, I can't quite shake the residual anxiety that something might go wrong. Anytime there's an unscheduled "on air" pause, I find myself holding my breath and breaking out in a cold sweat, just like the "good" old days working for rabid, fire-breathing perfectionists with a short fuse prone to taking it out on the nearest person to hand. I suppose it's a kind of post-traumatic stress disorder, really. haha! It would be nice to be able to imagine myself in the audience, but somehow I always see myself on the other side of the stage.

It would be interesting to commission a scientifically-valid and statistically sound survey across the entire R3 demographic: how many listeners actually care about live performances one way or the other? These message boards can be a bit of an echo chamber...if they won't give you their data, go out and get your own.

[Frances_iom]

It would be nice to be able to imagine myself in the audience, but somehow I always see myself on the other side of the stage.
...if they won't give you their data, go out and get your own.

Do you not consider that others on this board might also have had experience from the other side of the lights (albeit in an amateur capacity) - at one time I only went to first nights as the extra buzz added much - if I want 'perfection' then there are CD's a plenty.
Re gathering statiscs - part of the licence fee is paid to Rajar - we could do with a wikileaking of the raw data - likewise there were listener panels also paid for by the licence fee - ask your self why their findings are not reported.