The Eternal Breakfast Debate in a New Place

[AuntDaisy]

And to be really contro-VER-sial, a symphony, concerto or string quartet is already divided up into shorter sections, different tempi and moods. So why are they deemed to be unsuitable for early morning listening? You don't have to stay glued to the radio listening to every movement, and why should you find that essential if you're happy to listen to one isolated movement anyway?

Highly contro-VER-sial!
Back in the mid 1980s 7-9am would have been "Morning Concert" followed by "This Week's Composer" - how the mighty have fallen!
Apart from broadcasting more complete pieces, the daily schedules didn't seem so predictably & tediously slotted through the day - programmes of variable length & type with fillers.
For example


This morning's "Breakfast" had ~28 pieces!

[AuntDaisy]

Exactement. It's the fact that there are so many short pieces/extracts that makes the presenter's role more prominent. Plus the pauses for programme trails, weather, news and requests from our listeners: all of these have to be found regular spots which makes it impossible to have longer pieces because the interruptions take precedence over the music. That doesn't have to be converted into 'we want full-length symphonies', but I can't tolerate a change of style every six minutes even if all the music is 'mainstream classical'. Saint-Saëns, Vivaldi, Ravel, Bach, Tchaikovsky, Muhly, Dufay, Adams: all carefully curated to be as disjointed as possible.?

Do you think the short pieces & constantly changing style are to try to keep listeners "attention"? They know that something they like will be along soon - so don't hit the off switch.

[Serial_Apologist]

Exactement. It's the fact that there are so many short pieces/extracts that makes the presenter's role more prominent. Plus the pauses for programme trails, weather, news and requests from our listeners: all of these have to be found regular spots which makes it impossible to have longer pieces because the interruptions take precedence over the music. That doesn't have to be converted into 'we want full-length symphonies', but I can't tolerate a change of style every six minutes even if all the music is 'mainstream classical'. Saint-Saëns, Vivaldi, Ravel, Bach, Tchaikovsky, Muhly, Dufay, Adams: all carefully curated to be as disjointed as possible.

And to be really contro-VER-sial, a symphony, concerto or string quartet is already divided up into shorter sections, different tempi and moods. So why are they deemed to be unsuitable for early morning listening? You don't have to stay glued to the radio listening to every movement, and why should you find that essential if you're happy to listen to one isolated movement anyway?

Picture this: Vienna in 1821, outside the Musikverein after a concert. A devotee approaches Beethoven for an autograph, and tells him, "Maestro, you are a genius, your music tells of the future!" To which Beethoven replies, "I know; in two hundred years' time they will have listening devices in every home, where lucky people will be able to hear my music, and tell each other how amazing it is that I was able to compose music that still reflected their tastes. I'm even thinking of writing pieces of around ten minutes' duration, designed to be broadcast either together or separately through these devices, so as to make it easy for the announcers to limit the amount they have to say between items, and to tell people what is going on in the world apart from music, as well as advertise other musics". "But Maestro", says the shocked fan, "the whole point of your existence is to bring enlightenment to this world of exploitation and ignorance: the kinds of music you compose will not lend themselves to such trivial expositions!" "I know", Ludwig answers with a knowing smile, "but it won't be like it was for Amadeus and Papa Bach; you'll need to be able to sell your stuff to overpaid flunkeys for other flunkeys to announce, and for people with more things on their minds than what I thought of Napoleon Bonaparte!"

[gurnemanz]

Highly contro-VER-sial!
Back in the mid 1980s 7-9am would have been "Morning Concert" followed by "This Week's Composer" - how the mighty have fallen!
Apart from broadcasting more complete pieces, the daily schedules didn't seem so predictably & tediously slotted through the day - programmes of variable length & type with fillers.
For example


This morning's "Breakfast" had ~28 pieces!

They may have gone too far in the other direction - that's why I don't usually tune in, but I do know people who like it and are not idiots. The mighty fallen? I fail to see see how playing half a dozen random CDs constitutes some sort of Golden Age of Broadcasting.

[AuntDaisy]

They may have gone too far in the other direction - that's why I don't usually tune in, but I do know people who like it and are not idiots. The mighty fallen? I fail to see see how playing half a dozen random CDs constitutes some sort of Golden Age of Broadcasting.

You could well be right, I'll take my rose-tinted specs off.

[Serial_Apologist]

They may have gone too far in the other direction - that's why I don't usually tune in, but I do know people who like it and are not idiots. The mighty fallen? I fail to see see how playing half a dozen random CDs constitutes some sort of Golden Age of Broadcasting.

I think her point is that the pieces go well together as a sequence, suggesting some thought put into their programming, and that they are all played in their entirety.

[Serial_Apologist]

You could well be right, I'll take my rose-tinted specs off.

No! - keep 'em on! :missing hug emoticon:

[LMcD]

Do you think the short pieces & constantly changing style are to try to keep listeners "attention"? They know that something they like will be along soon - so don't hit the off switch.

No - I think they're a recognition of the fact that a significant proportion of the audience for 'Breakfast' listens for 15 minutes or less and nothing can persuade them to stay tuned for longer. Petroc pointed this out some time ago in an interview (with Roger Bolton possibly?)

[oddoneout]

Breakfast is inevitably more broken up than EC as it has to accommodate the news. I can't help thinking that that, coupled with the unacceptable advert load drives much of the additional fragmentation - even if an individual wanted to, the slots available don't allow. I find it frustrating when an idea (which may come from listener input, not all of which is rubbish...) cannot be developed beyond a few minutes because of those interruptions - my particular ire is reserved for the adverts which are crass, insulting and wholly unnecessary, and which I notice are intrusively infecting the afternoon music. I think that Breakfast is very much a lost cause in terms of "proper" R3 (which doesn't stop me listening, not least because despite the shortcomings I do get to hear unfamiliar things) whereas EC is a huge lost opportunity which I consider a much bigger and more regrettable problem.

[AuntDaisy]

No - I think they're a recognition of the fact that a significant proportion of the audience for 'Breakfast' listens for 15 minutes or less and nothing can persuade them to stay tuned for longer. Petroc pointed this out some time ago in an interview (with Roger Bolton possibly?)

I find that a bit depressing (I'll put my RT specs back on - that's better).
Is it from this 2018 Feedback ~25:50 in? I'd not heard it before, thanks.

[french frank]

They may have gone too far in the other direction - that's why I don't usually tune in, but I do know people who like it and are not idiots.

Criticising or expressing a dislike, giving reasons, is not saying that people who do like it are idiots.

I fail to see see how playing half a dozen random CDs constitutes some sort of Golden Age of Broadcasting.

Straw man? But there are those who might point out that on a classical music programme every single piece is classical. And as Serial points out, they are played in their entirety, including an entire Schubert Symphony. That used to be how Radio 3 expressed its own difference from Classic FM.

Perhaps someone who likes today's mix would care to argue the case against listening to the whole of Respighi's suite The Birds or Schubert's Symphony on the morning programme?

[Serial_Apologist]

I find that a bit depressing (I'll put my RT specs back on - that's better).
Is it from this 2018 Feedback ~25:50 in? I'd not heard it before, thanks.

Nor me usually, but thanks for reproducing this, a particularly fine edition in respects other than that interview at the very end.

[french frank]

No - I think they're a recognition of the fact that a significant proportion of the audience for 'Breakfast' listens for 15 minutes or less and nothing can persuade them to stay tuned for longer. Petroc pointed this out some time ago in an interview (with Roger Bolton possibly?)

I don't find this an adequate reason, however. If they only listen for 15 minutes, why do the they want two or three different pieces, rather than, say the 14 minutes of Respighi? It beggars belief that they actually switch on and start listening at the very beginning of one piece and switch off at the end of another. The 'explanation' seems nonsensical.

[Serial_Apologist]

I don't find this an adequate reason, however. If they only listen for 15 minutes, why do the they want two or three different pieces, rather than, say the 14 minutes of Respighi? It beggars belief that they actually switch on and start listening at the very beginning of one piece and switch off at the end of another. The 'explanation' seems nonsensical.

Of course it does! I feel there's a certain amount of wilful non-deduction going on in this discussion.

[antongould]

Of course it does! I feel there's a certain amount of wilful non-deduction going on in this discussion.

Petroc. ........ “ ... wilful non-deduction .... “ surely not ......