The Eternal Breakfast Debate in a New Place

[JFLL]

With absolutely no disrespect to JFLL, I don’t really think it is very helpful to compare a playlist from 30 years ago and one of current programme. Firstly, we can’t know if these works were not played very often (although I expect the selection of music was far more varied). Secondly, we can’t tell what went on between the music, i.e., how the programme was presented, which, to me, is more immediate issue now.

I can't see why it's unhelpful to compare programmes now with what they were. Why not? If they were doing it right then, why can't they now? (OK, we know the reason -- rampant populism.) The only piece in that list which was likely to have been performed at all often is the Italian Caprice, possibly the Haffner. And they were presented, IIRC, just as FF described them in her post.

[Serial_Apologist]

I can't see why it's unhelpful to compare programmes now with what they were. Why not? If they were doing it right then, why can't they now? (OK, we know the reason -- rampant populism.) The only piece in that list which was likely to have been performed at all often is the Italian Caprice, possibly the Haffner. And they were presented, IIRC, just as FF described them in her post.

I agree: many people would not have been around 30 years ago, or listening to Radio 3 back then, so it's all to the good to have such a comparison, however brief the example; the indicated timings alone suggest little available time for presenter chats, outside phone-ins etc.

[antongould]

For me, the early morning programme does need to be distinct from what is broadcast at other times of day. Out of interest, would anyone disagree with that?

Again for me, it would become listenable if it had fewer pieces of music than at present, everything played to be complete (long symphonies ruled out), no listener contributions at all (that doesn't stop people texting, tweeting, emailing if their reason for doing so is to suggest music which perhaps the R3 production team would not think of), the news would be read on the hour only and no further reference to what is currently happening. Presenter would talk briefly about the music and its context - that doesn't prevent the Skellerses of this world being a bit artful now and again - if that's a natural part of their personality.

Emphasis on playing interesting pieces, not well-known pieces. And care taken not to play any one piece too often.

It should be a music programme, not a breakfast programme. But not excluding announcement of, say, a death, with a tribute piece to composer/performer.

I most certainly agree it has to be different. But as, I think you know, I see a place for warhorses on which, IMVHO, many of us rode into the land of Classical Music. Given the philistine world we live in with, amongst other things, musical education not being what it was and Classical Music seen more and more as elitist, R3 has to provide a bridge. That to me should be part of the Breakfast brief. Tweets and emails in moderation are fine by me and Skellers is always welcome.

[french frank]

For me (I keep emphasising this ), the playlist is of secondary importance to the - broadly speaking - presentation. The last time I listened to Breakfast (iPlayer) it really seemed to be that every time the music stopped there was gassing on about something unconnected with the music that was about to be played or had just been played. If you were listening to someone in the bus you would mentally switch off. With the radio I would literally switch off. The boring content is in the ratio 1:4, at which point it becomes an unattractive factor for someone who has switched on for the music.

On warhorses: I did say the 'emphasis' but didn't mean that all familiar music should be excluded. In fact, studying the playlists (which I do more often than I listen), I think there has been an improvement over recent months. But sometimes it's name the composer and you can probably name the music.

Given all that's said about current education and classical music, there is a very skilful balancing act needed between making the subject interesting to those who DO know about classical music and not too heavy for those who don't (and also bearing in mind the time of day). But in recent years, very little attention has been paid to those who do have some knowledge: the programme has been firmly targeted on those who don't. It's THEIR programme. That has been both the mistake and the unfairness of the policy. The early morning is a key listening time for all audiences, not just the newcomers. Breakfast shouldn't be an emetic.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

well the morning programming could certainly up its game on the music selected but i confess that it is the actual presenters who give me the creeps ... they are not that good hence the references to Ian Skelly who is good at the job .... better presenters [CBH and RC are just unbearable; SW could do a lot better minus the tweets and game shows and phoney interviews] better music and no 'listener participation' or news bulletins ... R3 is an arts service not a commercial station and the sooner it understands what the marketing people mean by congruence the better ... the problem is not 'dumbing down', it is a painful incongruence ... an emetic indeed

[doversoul1]

I can't see why it's unhelpful to compare programmes now with what they were. Why not? If they were doing it right then, why can't they now? (OK, we know the reason -- rampant populism.) The only piece in that list which was likely to have been performed at all often is the Italian Caprice, possibly the Haffner. And they were presented, IIRC, just as FF described them in her post.

It isn’t exactly unhelpful in that it gets in the way, but it is not helpful because comparing playlists isn’t the same as comparing the programmes when they were broadcast. Looking at a printed playlist does not help us to know how the music was presented / how the programme as a whole sounded. I expect a lot of members here do know that it was indeed presented ‘just as FF described them in her post’ but a playlist cannot tell that to those who don’t know how it was then. Also, asking ‘they did it before, so why can’t they do it now?’ will invite all sorts of unwelcome (to me) comments and answers.

As Calum says, the main issue is (to me) the presenters or their presentation styles and the contents of their talk rather than the music played..

[french frank]

As Calum says, the main issue is (to me) the presenters or their presentation styles and the contents of their talk rather than the music played..

That sums it up for me, too. One could say mildly that the music could be less repetitious, or that playing single movements is unnecessary, or that there are too many short pieces; but on their own that wouldn't be enough to make the programme unlistenable. The 'radio rage' sets in with all the inconsequential gassing away, with presenters striving to be 'welcoming and accessible'. All trying to ingratiate themselves with the potential new listener.

As a concession I can understand that none of this bothers someone who isn't listening too closely because they're busy rushing around getting ready for work, or whatever. But that suggests it wouldn't bother them if the presentation were more relevant and intelligent either.

[muzzer]

And let's face it have most listeners got anything to add to the music? Beyond at best "Wow".

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I agree: many people would not have been around 30 years ago, or listening to Radio 3 back then...

I was (to both). And FF is correct.

[Padraig]

And let's face it have most listeners got anything to add to the music? Beyond at best "Wow".

I don't understand your point, muzzer. Please explain it to me.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

.... better presenters [CBH and RC are just unbearable; SW could do a lot better minus the tweets and game shows and phoney interviews] better music and no 'listener participation' or news bulletins

RC has been a very fine presenter, prior to the relatively recent introduction of sycophantic programming, so I would amend the word "unbearable" in this instance, though I'm not sure of the best word to replace it with...

[vinteuil]

RC has been a very fine presenter, prior to the relatively recent introduction of sycophantic programming, so I would amend the word "unbearable" in this instance, though I'm not sure of the best word to replace it with...

... o, I think "unbearable" is pretty fair.

[Zucchini]

Given all that's said about current education and classical music, there is a very skilful balancing act needed between making the subject interesting to those who DO know about classical music and not too heavy for those who don't (and also bearing in mind the time of day). But in recent years, very little attention has been paid to those who do have some knowledge: the programme has been firmly targeted on those who don't. It's THEIR programme. That has been both the mistake and the unfairness of the policy. The early morning is a key listening time for all audiences, not just the newcomers. Breakfast shouldn't be an emetic.

Richard Morrison in The Times 2/1/2015 assessed the difficulties facing the six new brooms in the Arts Sector - Darren Henley (ACE), Henrietta Gotz (ENO),, Alan Davey (R£), Roger Wright (Aldeburgh) Fergus Linehan (EIF) & Abigail Pogson (The Sage). I would be surprised if he hadn't taken soundings from these key players before publication (or in the recent past), so I take him seriously.

In respect of R3 he says Davey has been praised for the imaginative way he handled subsidy cuts and that "...his task at R3 will be similar... His bosses want cuts, R3s audiences are down, its style uncertain and its policy to attract young listeners negligible. Radical thinking is needed but will be fiercely resented within. What he should say is: "Everyone in classical music is looking for bold new ways of reaching new audiences. Radio 3 should be in the vanguard not dragging its heels"

In respect of the ENO he says "...audience figures are dire... the core audience is fleeing..."
In respect of The Sage he says "...the excellent Northern Sinfonia has sometimes been playing superb concerts to tiny audiences..."

“Educating riff raff” as some might put it is not what’s needed. The point of all this is that I believe Alan Davey knows that BBC Radio 3 has a responsibility to support those employed in the music industry by seeking new listeners and lapsed concertgoers who may attend concerts/recitals and find enjoyment in an evening out, live music and an audience of like-minded people. The morning programming with its large constantly rotating audience has to be the key vehicle for that. It should be part of the programme brief to draw attention to performers and performing groups who are alive and well, at the height of their powers or fast-rising, maybe worth seeing live or hearing on CD.

(AD is more aware than anyone that public funding of “Core” symphony orchestras has fallen by up to 25% since 2010, that underperforming investments have massively increased pension liabilities, that almost all Report & Accounts predict losses in the current year, that there’ve been a spate of credit rating reductions, that with everyone chasing the same pot there’s less and less money to be made from overseas engagements. And advance ticket sales are generally very poor (for example the CBSO is about to offer for a limited period, up to a third off any ticket for any concert through to the end of this season and sadly for those seeking a career, a while ago over 200 applications were received for a principal second flute!.)

[french frank]

I think I agree more with the way you state it than with RM. It's become a mantra that the BBC bosses 'want cuts' (yes, they do) and that therefore R3 will be in for it. Yet no one denies the fact that Radio 1 has had huge increases in its service budget in recent years and Radio 3 tiny ones. Radio 1 even (briefly) overtook Radio 3 in service expenditure. It's not simply that Radio 3 supports the Performing Groups and Proms: a large amount of its budget is ploughed back into the 'cultural industries' in one way or another. It's a vital part of its role (along with encouraging new musical talent). Compared with what it used to spend, Radio 3 has been pared to the bone (my view is that that HAS affected the quality of programming).

Not sure what Morrison means by 'its policy to attract young listeners negligible'. Unsuccessful? Not enough? He needs to explain what he means by 'young listeners': children? teenagers? under 50s? As Bryan Appleyard pointed out, Radio 1 isn't expected to chase older listeners. Well, I've bent AD's ear with what I think Will he be allowed to do it? He seemed ... wary ... of any idea of a 'Radio 3 For All'.

[JFLL]

It isn’t exactly unhelpful in that it gets in the way, but it is not helpful because comparing playlists isn’t the same as comparing the programmes when they were broadcast. Looking at a printed playlist does not help us to know how the music was presented / how the programme as a whole sounded. I expect a lot of members here do know that it was indeed presented ‘just as FF described them in her post’ but a playlist cannot tell that to those who don’t know how it was then.

But isn't one of the important points that Breakfast now has only relatively short pieces, and those relatively well-known? To me that is much more important than what happens in between, though that can be, and often is, intensely irritating. But if you weren't around in 1985 and want to know how it sounded, I can only say 'It sounded as though it was addressed to grown-ups and not adolescents'.

Also, asking ‘they did it before, so why can’t they do it now?’ will invite all sorts of unwelcome (to me) comments and answers.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by comments being 'unwelcome'.

As Calum says, the main issue is (to me) the presenters or their presentation styles and the contents of their talk rather than the music played..

Well, I think that may be the problem. The balance between the music played and the talk in between is now wholly skewed towards the presentational aspects ('Sarah's show' etc.), and that seems to me wrong, when it is the music that is interesting, not presenters' (and still less listeners') egos. Of course, if they had anything useful to say, things might be different …