The Eternal Breakfast Debate in a New Place

[oddoneout]

I had a hunch about what you meant by, "Well there goes my Sunday morning start....". I had no thoughts about Aunt Daisy's wearing apparel.

As far as I'm concerned, a presenter can make a programme unlistenable, but no presenter makes a certain kind of programme listenable for me. I accept that in an age when the habit of walking out in the street with earphones constantly plugged into the ears (or being indoors 'listening' to whatever happens to be on the radio) is now a 'norm', but I still prefer a music programme which has an overarching unity (a concert or recital, two late Beethoven string quartets, two contrasting French works from the 1920s &c). I can think of other themes meeting this criterion which I wouldn't necessarily listen to but would fully approve of. It's the essential unity which would make a programme worth listening to - again for me.

But so many Radio 3 programmes have ended up as sequences made up of concert fillers or encores but no musical substance. I used to think that complaining about the lack of substance was self-evidently an argument for something better on Radio 3. But the tide of changing tastes was too strong.

But peasants/birds wouldn't be one of them...
I only heard the opening of the programme as I was getting ready for/going to work so can't comment on the content, but EA does have quite a high "no thanks" rating for me in terms of her choices. It's part of the package of the morning schedules, but what has happened to the Afternoon Concert slot is unforgiveable (this is probably the worst I've seen https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00162bx but the lasagne effect isn't new) , and means that I am listening less and less to what used to be a pleasurable and worthwhile (less familiar music)couple of hours or so.

sequences made up of concert fillers or encores but no musical substance

writ large, but possibly made worse by the fact that the component parts are not of no musical substance but are made so by R3's incomprehensible approach. The evening offerings will be next...

[kernelbogey]

I had a hunch about what you meant by, "Well there goes my Sunday morning start....". I had no thoughts about Aunt Daisy's wearing apparel.

As far as I'm concerned, a presenter can make a programme unlistenable, but no presenter makes a certain kind of programme listenable for me. I accept that in an age when the habit of walking out in the street with earphones constantly plugged into the ears (or being indoors 'listening' to whatever happens to be on the radio) is now a 'norm', but I still prefer a music programme which has an overarching unity (a concert or recital, two late Beethoven string quartets, two contrasting French works from the 1920s &c). I can think of other themes meeting this criterion which I wouldn't necessarily listen to but would fully approve of. It's the essential unity which would make a programme worth listening to - again for me.

But so many Radio 3 programmes have ended up as sequences made up of concert fillers or encores but no musical substance. I used to think that complaining about the lack of substance was self-evidently an argument for something better on Radio 3. But the tide of changing tastes was too strong.

I've been thinking a bit about your views - you do not seem to be engaging in an argument here - and while I respect, and sympathise, with that position, I find that from time to time I'm allowing myself to enjoy Breakfast (Monday-Friday! ) in the way that I think it is intended to be consumed: I'm waking and occasionally dozing off, or I'm pottering in the kitchen, or giving emails a first read - et cetera, et cetera - with no more than half my attention on the radio - except, importantly, if a piece of music or the introduction by the presenter catches my attention. Even when barely half-listening the name of a performer or conductor can penetrate my awareness, and I'll stop and bend my awareness to the broadcast, and sometimes even move closer to the radio and/or turn the volume up for that piece. I think this is the level of aural consumption at which the 'playlist programme' is aimed, and it's well suited to driving, when one's capacity for careful listening will be dictated in part by traffic conditions.

I find the notion of 'bleeding chunks' of music (and indeed that expression) less relevant to me. I don't mind copping a movement of a Schumann symphony (oh, was that the finale of No1 or No3?), or a single Dvorak Slavonic Dance ('oh that sounds so different on the piano'): the sit-down-to-iisten attentively programme is a different experience. (As it happens, also to speak purely personally, the latter happens less often at the moment; though I would say Sunday Breakfast, presented by a musician, comes closer to the latter for me).

We are not the same all day, every day, all year: differing moods, levels of attention, need for music or for silence, can come and go as our minds and bodies dictate.

[french frank]

I've been thinking a bit about your views - you do not seem to be engaging in an argument here

To me there is - these days - no argument on either side: Times have changed, tastes are different and as I stressed ('for me', 'again for me') I was referring to my tastes which are clearly not the same as yours. I find what you describe positively irritating and therefore something to be avoided.

If you want an argument, mine would be that the changes in R3 over the years ('moving with the times') have removed what was fundamental to the original service, its raison d'être and what I appreciated. I'm not looking for sleepy time entertainment, or background music. Even with a relatively small collection of CDs (100s rather than 1000s) I can select something I haven't played for years and sit and listen - which is how I 'consume' music. If I'm not listening like that, I prefer silence (Cagean silence, if you will). I find the forum better stimulation for finding new things - usually available on YouTube which initially is plenty good enough to discover whether it's something I want to pursue further.

[Serial_Apologist]

I find that from time to time I'm allowing myself to enjoy Breakfast (Monday-Friday! ) in the way that I think it is intended to be consumed [...] I find the notion of 'bleeding chunks' of music (and indeed that expression) less relevant to me. [...] We are not the same all day, every day, all year: differing moods, levels of attention, need for music or for silence, can come and go as our minds and bodies dictate.

Then given that this was not intended for such a programme by those who composed most of the music which goes into it, and has thereby become degraded by disassociation, the BBC should abolish this programme and just have a couple of hours of the sorts of light music much missed by many who tuned into Radio 2.

[kernelbogey]

Then given that this was not intended for such a programme by those who composed most of the music which goes into it, and has thereby become degraded by disassociation, the BBC should abolish this programme and just have a couple of hours of the sorts of light music much missed by many who tuned into Radio 2.

Shakespeare did not write Hamlet, or any of his other plays, to be read on the top of a No 24 bus. Does doing so degrade the original? Even if all that has been read is the To be or not to be... speech?

[kernelbogey]

I was referring to my tastes which are clearly not the same as yours. I find what you describe positively irritating and therefore something to be avoided.

Breakfast is not what I wanted from R3: 24 hours of what is now TTN - well, perhaps 18 or so hours, plus some talk - would suit me better. And one has one's off switch...!

If you want an argument

Well, no, I didn't I was trying to justify and model a compromised position of qualified acceptance of the status quo rather than carrying a NO MORE BLEEDING CHUNKS placard along Portland Place - metaphorically speaking, at least.

the changes in R3 over the years ('moving with the times') have removed what was fundamental to the original service, its raison d'être

Ii think I agree with that. I think you might equally agree that since then CDs, the internet, streaming and so on have contributed to the sidelining of that raison d'etre. A bit like guns superseding bows and arrows - but without the violence.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Shakespeare did not write Hamlet, or any of his other plays, to be read on the top of a No 24 bus. Does doing so degrade the original? Even if all that has been read is the To be or not to be... speech?

We have very little insight into Shakespeare’s motivation other than that he appears from litigation records and the property he amassed to have been quite keen on money. The question of reading his plays would not have arisen for him as I don’t think any were officially published in his lifetime. I suspect he would have been amazed and flattered that 400 years on they are still being performed. It strikes me that reading them on the bus is quite a productive way of whiling away the journey. It doesn’t “degrade the original” especially as with so many textual variants the “original “ takes a bit of defining. It’s likely that performances at the Globe would have been noisy affairs with constant audience interaction, cat calling , eating , drinking and all sorts of other misbehaviour i.e. not the church like atmosphere at the RSC.

[french frank]

Breakfast is not what I wanted from R3: 24 hours of what is now TTN - well, perhaps 18 or so hours, plus some talk - would suit me better. And one has one's off switch...!

In my case, I've actually mislaid the On switch - without too much discomfort.

If you want an argument

Well, no, I didn't

I knew that would be a hostage to fortune - without the context In fact, I would say I've always had 'an argument'; it's others whose only 'argument' is that they find enjoyment - or at least some enjoyment - in what passes for Radio 3 now. My argument is that having discarded what the BBC stated to be the role of Radio 3/The Third and put up two fingers to the stated audience in favour of a different audience, it has lost the essence of Radio 3. But it has an audience - as most broadcasting has.

I was trying to justify and model a compromised position of qualified acceptance of the status quo rather than carrying a NO MORE BLEEDING CHUNKS placard along Portland Place - metaphorically speaking, at least

Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks. I'm quite philosophical about change but I just don't find radio (as it is) a necessity of life.

I think you might equally agree that since then CDs, the internet, streaming and so on have contributed to the sidelining of that raison d'etre. A bit like guns superseding bows and arrows - but without the violence.

I agree in the way you describe it: the one has superseded the other. Statement of fact. But there is still the Royal Toxophilite Society for those who value bows and arrows.

[Serial_Apologist]

Shakespeare did not write Hamlet, or any of his other plays, to be read on the top of a No 24 bus. Does doing so degrade the original? Even if all that has been read is the To be or not to be... speech?

We're not talking about what listeners do with what they are given, but about what they are being presented with.

[antongould]

I've been thinking a bit about your views - you do not seem to be engaging in an argument here - and while I respect, and sympathise, with that position, I find that from time to time I'm allowing myself to enjoy Breakfast (Monday-Friday! ) in the way that I think it is intended to be consumed: I'm waking and occasionally dozing off, or I'm pottering in the kitchen, or giving emails a first read - et cetera, et cetera - with no more than half my attention on the radio - except, importantly, if a piece of music or the introduction by the presenter catches my attention. Even when barely half-listening the name of a performer or conductor can penetrate my awareness, and I'll stop and bend my awareness to the broadcast, and sometimes even move closer to the radio and/or turn the volume up for that piece. I think this is the level of aural consumption at which the 'playlist programme' is aimed, and it's well suited to driving, when one's capacity for careful listening will be dictated in part by traffic conditions.

I find the notion of 'bleeding chunks' of music (and indeed that expression) less relevant to me. I don't mind copping a movement of a Schumann symphony (oh, was that the finale of No1 or No3?), or a single Dvorak Slavonic Dance ('oh that sounds so different on the piano'): the sit-down-to-iisten attentively programme is a different experience. (As it happens, also to speak purely personally, the latter happens less often at the moment; though I would say Sunday Breakfast, presented by a musician, comes closer to the latter for me).

We are not the same all day, every day, all year: differing moods, levels of attention, need for music or for silence, can come and go as our minds and bodies dictate.

I say well said ….. I agree totally with all the above ….. shame that our votes for BBC Radio 3 Weekend Breakfast Presenter Of 2021 will be going in different boxes …

[kernelbogey]

I say well said ….. I agree totally with all the above ….. shame that our votes for BBC Radio 3 Weekend Breakfast Presenter Of 2021 will be going in different boxes …

That will be a fairly niche competition... but who knows...?

I'm signing out of this debate as I'm off to warmer climes for a while!

[antongould]

That will be a fairly niche competition... but who knows...?

I'm signing out of this debate as I'm off to warmer climes for a while!

Enjoy

[Nick Armstrong]

If you want an argument...

https://youtu.be/ohDB5gbtaEQ

[Serial_Apologist]

https://youtu.be/ohDB5gbtaEQ

That would be more than £5 today.

Oh no it would't,
Oh yes it would!

etc etc

[french frank]

https://youtu.be/ohDB5gbtaEQ

"Argument is an intellectual process." Oh, no, it is. Nobody here engages with MY argument. What argument have they got other than to say how much they enjoy Breakfast the Programme? Which isn't an argument. It's just saying they like something so there.