The Eternal Breakfast Debate in a New Place

[Zucchini]

Not sure what Morrison means by 'its policy to attract young listeners negligible'.

Nor am I!

[JFLL]

Plenty of listeners might reasonably be thought to have interesting things to say..

I quite agree in principle, TS, but interesting things can't usually be accommodated in the soundbites that are the staple fare of Breakfast. They need time. Now if Breakfast decided to have a ten-minute piece of music, and then ten minutes of the most interesting things about it – not primarily about themselves – that listeners had emailed in, it might be a different matter, though I've a feeling that the R3 management might be afraid that people would switch off if a latter-day Hans Keller emailed in. But I'd still on balance prefer 19 minutes of music to one minute of talk, because most music played on R3, even on Breakfast, is more interesting than what most listeners think about it (or even what I think about it.)

[french frank]

Nor am I!

On the subject of 'cuts at Radio 3': Torin Douglas, the BBC's (now retired) media editor, spoke at a conference recently about BBC radio and claimed that Radio 4 and Radio 3 were 'well-funded' (not the other stations, by implication). But if Radio 1 has a £40m service budget, the same as Radio 3's, in what sense is Radio 3 'well-funded' but not Radio 1? And what about Radio 2 which has £46m? Radio 5L has £50m and Radio 4 £90m.

It seems to be a commonly-held fallacy that Radio 3 is the 'expensive' station. I gained the impression that neither Alan Davey nor Tony Hall intended to see Radio 3 hit more than it has been. It will be very disappointing to be disabused of that belief.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

i have developed a small proclivity for the drum and bass on R1Xtra recently; if i trip down the DAB station selector i can find at least fifteen [fifty who cares] rivals offering something similar however this morning due to a most welcome absence of compositions by Birtwistle [a peccadillo i savour detesting his works] i am listening to the whole of a work new to me by Zelenka -Melodrama of St Wencelas and it is a recording of a live performance and the more delightful for that; ...[the rival is of course classic fm which is playing a recording of John Hisaishi The Rain] or else internet radio and jazz stations or my own libraries ...

the point is that broadcasting a rather neglected work by Zelenka, or even Birtwistle though it grieves me dearly to say that, is precisely the point of R3 ... but perhaps not in the morning between 7 and 12

[doversoul1]

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'.

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

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 …

It isn’t your comments that are unwelcome (if that was how you read my post). If you ask ‘they did it before, so why can’t they do it now?’ you are likely to get answers that you probably won’t be too happy to hear. For example, ‘you were 30 years younger then, so what makes you think the current programme isn’t good enough for listeners who are 30 years younger than you are now?’ (I am saying this for the sake of argument and not putting it forward as a point of discussion)

The point I am trying to make is that when you are arguing about current programmes, bring in a memory of personal impressions could easily backfire. ‘Good old days’ and all that.

As for the music played on Breakfast, since it wasn’t all that long ago when almost everything was new to me and I was happy to hear even a small piece of a large work, what is played on the programme is, to me personally, not the prime issue.

ff ( #4878)

I gained the impression that neither Alan Davey nor Tony Hall intended to see Radio 3 hit more than it has been. It will be very disappointing to be disabused of that belief.

I am keeping all my fingers crossed that your impression will prove right.

[french frank]

the point is that broadcasting a rather neglected work by Zelenka, or even Birtwistle though it grieves me dearly to say that, is precisely the point of R3 ... but perhaps not in the morning between 7 and 12

Between 7 and 12? Should it be confined to afternoons when people are less likely to be listening? Or Through the Night? I think a slot between 9 and 12 would be suitable, and I'd rather not see those three hours given over entirely to a Something-for-Everyone mix of favourite this, something of the week, our new guest, brainteaser, five reasons to love, a recommendation, all introduced by our genial presenter X. A programme that tries to be Something-for-Everyone is bound to end up as Many Very Unappealing Things-for-Everyone

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Between 7 and 12? Should it be confined to afternoons when people are less likely to be listening? Or Through the Night? I think a slot between 9 and 12 would be suitable, and I'd rather not see those three hours given over entirely to a Something-for-Everyone mix of favourite this, something of the week, our new guest, brainteaser, five reasons to love, a recommendation, all introduced by our genial presenter X. A programme that tries to be Something-for-Everyone is bound to end up as Many Very Unappealing Things-for-Everyone

[Stanfordian]

Between 7 and 12? Should it be confined to afternoons when people are less likely to be listening? Or Through the Night? I think a slot between 9 and 12 would be suitable, and I'd rather not see those three hours given over entirely to a Something-for-Everyone mix of favourite this, something of the week, our new guest, brainteaser, five reasons to love, a recommendation, all introduced by our genial presenter X. A programme that tries to be Something-for-Everyone is bound to end up as Many Very Unappealing Things-for-Everyone

Hiya french frank, I am in full accord. Oh, and none of those playing music backwards thingies. I cant imagine who wants to hear music played backwards. And less of this celebrity culture. Please radio 3 just play the music without those tiresome celebrity guests.

[Penn Igor]

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

I'll go along with that.

[JFLL]

It isn’t your comments that are unwelcome (if that was how you read my post).

No, no, I didn't think you would be so discourteous to say my comments were unwelcome

If you ask ‘they did it before, so why can’t they do it now?’ you are likely to get answers that you probably won’t be too happy to hear. For example, ‘you were 30 years younger then, so what makes you think the current programme isn’t good enough for listeners who are 30 years younger than you are now?’ (I am saying this for the sake of argument and not putting it forward as a point of discussion)

Well I don't think one shouldn't ask questions for fear of not liking possible answers, even if, like your hypothetical answer, it plays the 'old fogey' card (which I shan't argue with since you weren't puttting it forward as a serious point of discussion)

The point I am trying to make is that when you are arguing about current programmes, bring in a memory of personal impressions could easily backfire. ‘Good old days’ and all that.

But that was my point about copying the playlist -- it wasn't just a personal impression, it was what was actually played, and one can compare that objectively with what is played now. I think if they played music like that now on Breakfast I would start listening again, and just grin and bear the inanities in between.

[french frank]

I think if they played music like that now on Breakfast I would start listening again, and just grin and bear the inanities in between.

That's interesting. I wouldn't, because I actually expect something illuminating in the words of Radio 3 presenters. If all I wanted was to hear music I liked, I could go to other resources now, online and personal. To me it is absolutely fundamental to what Radio 3 is (that doesn't have to mean learned lectures over breakfast - just not 'inanities': there must be something in between).

[Penn Igor]

Have been reading a few favourable comments about the weekend editions of Breakfast on the forum recently, so, thought I would give it another chance this morning. (Needless to say I have given up on the Monday to Friday shows). But, oh dear. Tuned in just after eight. There was some woman going on and on about her aunt, Dorothy Howell (Howells?), having been one of the great undiscovered composers of the 20th. Century. I stuck with it though, as it was obvious they would eventually play something by said Howell (Howells?). They did. It was a movement of a so called "piano concerto". While it may have passed as background music for a fifties B movie, difficult to see, even in these "dumbed down" times at R3 how this ever got on air. While I am sure there are still numerous masterpieces out there to be discovered, I would guess there are far more that are undiscovered for good reason. This was one of them.

[aeolium]

That's interesting. I wouldn't, because I actually expect something illuminating in the words of Radio 3 presenters. If all I wanted was to hear music I liked, I could go to other resources now, online and personal. To me it is absolutely fundamental to what Radio 3 is (that doesn't have to mean learned lectures over breakfast - just not 'inanities': there must be something in between).

I think I'm more with JFLL here. I find TtN perfectly satisfactory with minimal comment by the presenters. There is little anyway that could be provided by the presenter in between pieces that would not be fairly perfunctory* and could not easily be discovered by online research. I prefer the meaningful comment to be kept for programmes where critics/presenters are allowed sufficient space to give insight into the music or performances, like CD Review or the old Discovering Music (or, formerly, Interpretations on Record) or interval talks. There ought to be more of such programmes but I'm not sure that the early morning, or the night sequences, is the place for them.

For me it is the toxic combination of rehashed familiar music plus inanities that has long deterred me from listening in the morning.

*And imagine hearing the same comments coming out for the works that come up again and again

[french frank]

*And imagine hearing the same comments coming out for the works that come up again and again

Which has happened. Didn't Bach walk all the way to Lübeck to hear Buxtehude playing? But I'd be happy with the TtN style too. But look who the presenters are: John Shea, Jonathan Swain, Catriona Young. That style seems entirely appropriate (to me) for the mornings (and I have, just occasionally, even heard enlightening comments on TtN! )

[Black Swan]

I have to say as one who has in the past stated that weekend Breakfast is ok I must qualify that it is if Martin Handley is presenting. I have been travelling and while laying in bed this morning turned on Breakfast. Unfortunately, for me MH is not presenting instead we have Tom McKinney..... I did listen a bit to hear Scance's Stabat Mater as Maria Christina Kiehr was the soloist but then came the Howells. Hearing a relative stump up that the works of her aunt were not recognised and then to hear the so called concerto to realise why they were not played was enough. I shut off and put on the CD player.