The Eternal Breakfast Debate in a New Place

[Lat-Literal]

Research suggests it's beneficial to health:

"Inspired to go find some peace and quiet? Here are four science-backed ways that silence is good for your brain ― and how making time for it can make you feel less stressed, more focused and more creative. "




Again, research suggests certain kinds of noise (white noise) can improve sleep. But other kinds of noise (storms and bird calls are mentioned) don't help. The noise has to be diffused so that the brain doesn't become suddenly active.

Thank you French Frank.

I am not going to argue against what is said because I don't, in spirit, disagree. But how realistic is it? I live in what is officially a quiet road. I've known people who have moved away because it is too quiet and they find the sounds of the foxes "creepy". But there are always the sounds that I cannot stand - plugs being put in sockets or taken out, background voices and especially the banging of windows and doors, the latter not always from the increasing numbers of cars. Also, people are different. I don't switch off. When it is quiet-ish my brain chatters. Sometimes I sleep with the full light on because darkness can get to me. But then I have lived virtually in solitary confinement for seven years and communicate as others do in the physical silent ways of the computer world. I've said it before but I will say it again. It's much easier when the conversation is two-way, audible and physical movement isn't necessary. This would surely be true of anyone who places talking and listening high up on their priority list. Neighbours are ok but they only want to talk about illnesses and families.

As for the other recent posts on this thread, how awful. One can't help but feel at times that the BBC has lost it!

[Lat-Literal]

I realise there appears to be something a bit contradictory in what I have said here. The original idea that non human sound of the right kind can be best and then to have followed it up with a positive angle on good conversation. But we were in the area of sound in which there is no conversation. I still think good sound in the main is better than absolute silence as background or more. Actually, when it comes to conversation, I lament the changing role of the telephone. When it was a special thing, ie before it was a tool of the mobile, it was a rather wonderful device as there was no need for either person to look at the other in discourse. If that scenario had been the only one, I would have aimed to be a Lord of the Universe.

As for music, well, it hovers between these things, doesn't it.

Not quite human.

Not quite not.

A bit like the voice of a radio presenter when one knows nothing about their real life.

[Lat-Literal]

............Anyhow, back on topic, today's Breakfast selection was conservative in the extreme and poor old Petroc sounded like he had a cold.

[DaisyDog]

A cold for Petroc may the the least of his, and our, worries, according to Private Eye, 23 February, in their Music & Musicians column, to quote,

'Listening figures for the last quarter of 2017 were music to the ears of almost everyone at the BBC, but not Radio 3 Controller Alan Davey.

While the world is tuning in more frequently to Radios 1 and 2, with roughly stable audiences for Radio 4, Radio 3 lost 8% of its listeners last year, with a 16% drop in average hours per listener. This punctures the standard claim that although Radio 3 plays to fewer people, they’re the ones who listen most attentively.

Though embarrassing, the figures are not surprising. There’s a widespread feeling among devotees that Radio 3 has lost the plot, with feeble, ill-informed presenters and a misjudged policy of undemanding programmes that alienate established audiences and fail with new ones. This needs to be addressed, and fast, before the figures fall to nothing.'

[underthecountertenor]

A cold for Petroc may the the least of his, and our, worries, according to Private Eye, 23 February, in their Music & Musicians column, to quote,

'Listening figures for the last quarter of 2017 were music to the ears of almost everyone at the BBC, but not Radio 3 Controller Alan Davey.

While the world is tuning in more frequently to Radios 1 and 2, with roughly stable audiences for Radio 4, Radio 3 lost 8% of its listeners last year, with a 16% drop in average hours per listener. This punctures the standard claim that although Radio 3 plays to fewer people, they’re the ones who listen most attentively.

Though embarrassing, the figures are not surprising. There’s a widespread feeling among devotees that Radio 3 has lost the plot, with feeble, ill-informed presenters and a misjudged policy of undemanding programmes that alienate established audiences and fail with new ones. This needs to be addressed, and fast, before the figures fall to nothing.'

I think I've managed to get by now that you're no fan of Petroc Trelawny, DaisyDog. It seems a bit arbitrary and unfair to single him out when referring to the Private Eye quote, given that the writer doesn't tell us who he/she considers to be the 'feeble, ill-informed presenters'. I'd say that PT is anything but.

[french frank]

"While the world is tuning in more frequently to Radios 1 and 2, with roughly stable audiences for Radio 4, Radio 3 lost 8% of its listeners last year" (Private Eye)

They say there are lies, damn lies and statistics. What they mean really is that there are 'damn liars' who use statistics to bolster their case or themselves (more kindly, there are people who don't look into the historical figures closely enough).

Yes, Radio 3's figures were poor last quarter, but quoting a year-on-year drop as a percentage is misleading, since the year before Radio 3 had a spectacularly good quarter and no way was it going to top that in 2017. And overall radio listening was down last quarter, so it wasn't quite the entire 'world' than was 'tuning in more frequently' (Radio 1 was almost half a million down on its 2015 figure, but slightly up on 2016).

Even a very poor figure for Radio 3 like 1.951m is 8.6% better than Roger Wright's lowest effort, so talking of the figures as 'falling to nothing' is somewhat premature

[underthecountertenor]

They say there are lies, damn lies and statistics. What they mean really is that there are 'damn liars' who use statistics to bolster their case or themselves (more kindly, there are people who don't look into the historical figures closely enough).

Yes, Radio 3's figures were poor last quarter, but quoting a year-on-year drop as a percentage is misleading, since the year before Radio 3 had a spectacularly good quarter and no way was it going to top that in 2017. And overall radio listening was down last quarter, so it wasn't quite the entire 'world' than was 'tuning in more frequently' (Radio 1 was almost half a million down on its 2015 figure, but slightly up on 2016).

Even a very poor figure for Radio 3 like 1.951m is 8.6% better than Roger Wright's lowest effort, so talking of the figures as 'falling to nothing' is somewhat premature

Very fairly put, as ever, ff. Worth popping in a letter to Private Eye? Lunchtime O'Boulez often seems to have as much of an axe to grind as the egregious 'slipped [scratched] disc' Lebrecht.

[french frank]

Worth popping in a letter to Private Eye?

Doubt it I sent a letter to The Times saying that FoR3 had not "attacked Radio 3" in our submission to Ofcom (the controller had found us 'helpful'). Times published Radio 3's 'defence' of Radio 3, but we didn't get our letter published saying the journalist had got his story wrong about FoR3 (much as Private Eye makes its dubious points here).

The journalists do their best, poor things, but they only have about 30 minutes to do research which has taken others a lifetime. If newspapers ever make apologies, it will be three weeks later in small print at the bottom of p 94, so that there is little chance of readers making a connection between the original story and the apology .

[oddoneout]

As Private Eye is a somewhat different set-up from The Times I would have thought that a letter to them wouldn't be quite such a lost cause?

[french frank]

As Private Eye is a somewhat different set-up from The Times I would have thought that a letter to them wouldn't be quite such a lost cause?

You're probably right. I generally find people's eyes glaze over when I start quoting figures. Journalists just block them out because they know their readers .

Radio 3's quarterly figures are always a hostage to sampling. Not always possible to guess why, exactly, they go up or down.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

This morning I switched on the car radio to listen to Breakfast, which I do from time to time, hoping for a glimmer of an improvement. Today there was a glimmer of light. The guest presenter was as skin-crawling as ever - inane chatter about the weather, etc. - but the music was all new; I'd never heard any of it. The reason was that it was the BBC's annual tokenism day, when we hear music by women composers who will largely be ignored.

What a refreshing change! Perhaps we could have an International Women's Month? Although, I detest tokenism and any kind of discrimination, today's Breakfast revealed that there can be a silver lining.

Of course, the presenter had to spoil things at the end, by introducing SK as Radio 3 Royalty.

(I did say skin-crawling.)

[french frank]

Good ol' Donald and good ol' Sean look like the only men getting a look-in (what was Ms Drm doing?) today (and Mr Swain before 6.30am).

Not sure what I think about that - it seems to make the 'tokenism' idea stronger: we know this isn't really how things are.

This morning I switched on the car radio to listen to Breakfast, which I do from time to time, hoping for a glimmer of an improvement. Today there was a glimmer of light. The guest presenter was as skin-crawling as ever - inane chatter about the weather, etc. - but the music was all new; I'd never heard any of it. The reason was that it was the BBC's annual tokenism day, when we hear music by women composers who will largely be ignored.

What a refreshing change! Perhaps we could have an International Women's Month? Although, I detest tokenism and any kind of discrimination, today's Breakfast revealed that there can be a silver lining.

Of course, the presenter had to spoil things at the end, by introducing SK as Radio 3 Royalty.

(I did say skin-crawling.)

[oddoneout]

The advantage of this bit of tokenism is that although the focus limited in one respect, the time line aspect is more than long enough to ensure variety and remove what otherwise might be an offputting narrow focus. What the 'core morning audience'(assumed to be not real R3 listeners.....) makes of so much unfamiliar material I would be mildly interested to know. Perhaps it might result in the addition of some new pieces to the small collection of favourite pieces endlessly repeated.

[oddoneout]

Good ol' Donald and good ol' Sean look like the only men getting a look-in (what was Ms Drm doing?) today (and Mr Swain before 6.30am).

Not sure what I think about that - it seems to make the 'tokenism' idea stronger: we know this isn't really how things are.

Just as well there is more than one female presenter on R3?

[french frank]

The advantage of this bit of tokenism is that although the focus limited in one respect, the time line aspect is more than long enough to ensure variety and remove what otherwise might be an offputting narrow focus.

You mean we realise it's always been like this? Yes, and on the other hand it draws attention usefully to the inequity - and its effects: I'm sure there are some who miss the presence of the usual DWMs, and even LWMs, and therefore they must understand how others miss the presence of the women composers.

It's a bit CFM only to appreciate what is familiar