The Eternal Breakfast Debate in a New Place

[Leinster Lass]

Without wishing to make too much of the relationship between music and food, I regard 'Breakfast' as a kind of smorgasbord - the sheer variety (and unpredictability) of the fare on offer suits me fine at that time of the day. That nice juicy Mahlerian steak, preceded perhaps by a Mozart concerto, can wait until later, by which I mean post-supper rather than post-lunch. The 12.00 o'clock weekday concert, which I occasionally hear, serves as a reasonably substantial snack.

[french frank]

the sheer variety (and unpredictability) of the fare on offer suits me fine at that time of the day

"For those who like that sort of thing, said Miss Brodie in her best Edinburgh voice, That is the sort of thing they like." In other words, in this case, it always boils down to people saying 'Well I enjoy it.' That does not probe any deeper into why it is right for Radio 3 to have gone in this direction (other than to provide some people with what they like).

Whereas the counterargument has been laid out so many times, that one is left simply with the sad conclusion that people don't accept an argument that goes against their own personal point of view or preference.

1. The BBC has an entire portfolio of radio stations (as well as television channels). If the intention is to offer certain types of content to a broader range of listeners, why can they not incorporate a significant portion of it on any or all the other stations? To responses such as "It wouldn't fit in with what Radio 1/Radio 2 or (wherever) does, the naysayers among us might point out that it doesn't really fit in well with what a serious arts station has traditionally done, traditionally accepted as intended for a smaller audience, not a broad general one. It simply deprives those who wanted something 'meatier' (your word: could we say tastier, instead, please?), even for breakfast, and not necessarily a complete Mahler 2.

2. If adding bits of classical music to R1 or R2 would have listeners switching off, so putting Judy Garland, Tom Lehrer, or Pinky and Perky in the middle of a classical sequence causes listeners to turn off. It wouldn't stop Radio 4 going back to some of its traditional concert output ("Radio 4 is just speech." "Why? Radio 3 manages to combine speech and music."

3. "Radio 3's small audience makes the 'expensive' service unviable." "So how many more listeners does Radio 3 have now, after 20 years of trying to reach the 'broader audience.' (Answer: none, it gained some new listeners but lost the same number of existing listeners. And the average age has been going up, not down).

4. "As a Public Service Broadcaster, the BBC services have to reach all audiences." "Then why is Radio 1 targeted on the 15-29 age group? Why is there a special Asian Network? 1Xtra playing Black music? That argument is very selective - it only applies to Radio 3, which has to reach all ages, all ethnic backgrounds, all social grades, all musical interests, but isn't allowed to specialise. Why?"

5. My argument: why is the BBC not able/willing to provide a single specialist arts service, for those whose primary interest is in enjoying - and expanding their knowledge about - classical music, world literature, the general arts, other so-called 'minority' musical interests, including serious jazz and global traditional music? I mean a service that provides more than just the concerts and recitals: "music to listen to" but 'contextualises', discusses, informs, educates?

These are points of principle: they go beyond saying, well you may like it but I don't.

[cloughie]

Without wishing to make too much of the relationship between music and food, I regard 'Breakfast' as a kind of smorgasbord - the sheer variety (and unpredictability) of the fare on offer suits me fine at that time of the day. That nice juicy Mahlerian steak, preceded perhaps by a Mozart concerto, can wait until later, by which I mean post-supper rather than post-lunch. The 12.00 o'clock weekday concert, which I occasionally hear, serves as a reasonably substantial snack.

Don’t you ever fancy the astronauts ‘steak and eggs’ breakfast?

[antongould]

Without wishing to make too much of the relationship between music and food, I regard 'Breakfast' as a kind of smorgasbord - the sheer variety (and unpredictability) of the fare on offer suits me fine at that time of the day. That nice juicy Mahlerian steak, preceded perhaps by a Mozart concerto, can wait until later, by which I mean post-supper rather than post-lunch. The 12.00 o'clock weekday concert, which I occasionally hear, serves as a reasonably substantial snack.

I agree and I think it needs to be remembered that the Puccini - Keith Jarrett - Handel - Tom Lehrer - Liszt, sequence pounced on by ff arose from the morning’s news ..... sad about Keith Jarrett, happy about Tom Lehrer ......

[cloughie]

"For those who like that sort of thing, said Miss Brodie in her best Edinburgh voice, That is the sort of thing they like." In other words, in this case, it always boils down to people saying 'Well I enjoy it.' That does not probe any deeper into why it is right for Radio 3 to have gone in this direction (other than to provide some people with what they like).

Whereas the counterargument has been laid out so many times, that one is left simply with the sad conclusion that people don't accept an argument that goes against their own personal point of view or preference.

1. The BBC has an entire portfolio of radio stations (as well as television channels). If the intention is to offer certain types of content to a broader range of listeners, why can they not incorporate a significant portion of it on any or all the other stations? To responses such as "It wouldn't fit in with what Radio 1/Radio 2 or (wherever) does, the naysayers among us might point out that it doesn't really fit in well with what a serious arts station has traditionally done, traditionally accepted as intended for a smaller audience, not a broad general one. It simply deprives those who wanted something 'meatier' (your word: could we say tastier, instead, please?), even for breakfast, and not necessarily a complete Mahler 2.

2. If adding bits of classical music to R1 or R2 would have listeners switching off, so putting Judy Garland, Tom Lehrer, or Pinky and Perky in the middle of a classical sequence causes listeners to turn off. It wouldn't stop Radio 4 going back to some of its traditional concert output ("Radio 4 is just speech." "Why? Radio 3 manages to combine speech and music."

3. "Radio 3's small audience makes the 'expensive' service unviable." "So how many more listeners does Radio 3 have now, after 20 years of trying to reach the 'broader audience.' (Answer: none, it gained some new listeners but lost the same number of existing listeners. And the average age has been going up, not down).

4. "As a Public Service Broadcaster, the BBC services have to reach all audiences." "Then why is Radio 1 targeted on the 15-29 age group? Why is there a special Asian Network? 1Xtra playing Black music? That argument is very selective - it only applies to Radio 3, which has to reach all ages, all ethnic backgrounds, all social grades, all musical interests, but isn't allowed to specialise. Why?"

5. My argument: why is the BBC not able/willing to provide a single specialist arts service, for those whose primary interest is in enjoying - and expanding their knowledge about - classical music, world literature, the general arts, other so-called 'minority' musical interests, including serious jazz and global traditional music? I mean a service that provides more than just the concerts and recitals: "music to listen to" but 'contextualises', discusses, informs, educates?

These are points of principle: they go beyond saying, well you may like it but I don't.

Interesting that as the BBC seems to pride itself on diversification has in my view become unapologetically ageist!

[antongould]

......

5. My argument: why is the BBC not able/willing to provide a single specialist arts service, for those whose primary interest is in enjoying - and expanding their knowledge about - classical music, world literature, the general arts, other so-called 'minority' musical interests, including serious jazz and global traditional music? I mean a service that provides more than just the concerts and recitals: "music to listen to" but 'contextualises', discusses, informs, educates?.......

Sorry I am slightly confused, but then I find each morning I am older and more befuddled - is the BBC Radio service you would like to see
a) R3 as it was in 196x or
b) 5 above ...... ??????

[Leinster Lass]

"For those who like that sort of thing, said Miss Brodie in her best Edinburgh voice, That is the sort of thing they like." In other words, in this case, it always boils down to people saying 'Well I enjoy it.' That does not probe any deeper into why it is right for Radio 3 to have gone in this direction (other than to provide some people with what they like).

Whereas the counterargument has been laid out so many times, that one is left simply with the sad conclusion that people don't accept an argument that goes against their own personal point of view or preference.

1. The BBC has an entire portfolio of radio stations (as well as television channels). If the intention is to offer certain types of content to a broader range of listeners, why can they not incorporate a significant portion of it on any or all the other stations? To responses such as "It wouldn't fit in with what Radio 1/Radio 2 or (wherever) does, the naysayers among us might point out that it doesn't really fit in well with what a serious arts station has traditionally done, traditionally accepted as intended for a smaller audience, not a broad general one. It simply deprives those who wanted something 'meatier' (your word: could we say tastier, instead, please?), even for breakfast, and not necessarily a complete Mahler 2.

2. If adding bits of classical music to R1 or R2 would have listeners switching off, so putting Judy Garland, Tom Lehrer, or Pinky and Perky in the middle of a classical sequence causes listeners to turn off. It wouldn't stop Radio 4 going back to some of its traditional concert output ("Radio 4 is just speech." "Why? Radio 3 manages to combine speech and music."

3. "Radio 3's small audience makes the 'expensive' service unviable." "So how many more listeners does Radio 3 have now, after 20 years of trying to reach the 'broader audience.' (Answer: none, it gained some new listeners but lost the same number of existing listeners. And the average age has been going up, not down).

4. "As a Public Service Broadcaster, the BBC services have to reach all audiences." "Then why is Radio 1 targeted on the 15-29 age group? Why is there a special Asian Network? 1Xtra playing Black music? That argument is very selective - it only applies to Radio 3, which has to reach all ages, all ethnic backgrounds, all social grades, all musical interests, but isn't allowed to specialise. Why?"

5. My argument: why is the BBC not able/willing to provide a single specialist arts service, for those whose primary interest is in enjoying - and expanding their knowledge about - classical music, world literature, the general arts, other so-called 'minority' musical interests, including serious jazz and global traditional music? I mean a service that provides more than just the concerts and recitals: "music to listen to" but 'contextualises', discusses, informs, educates?

These are points of principle: they go beyond saying, well you may like it but I don't.

Oh dear - I didn't realize people felt that strongly about it. I'm a new kid in town, so I hope you'll forgive me if I put my foot in it occasionally. I was merely trying to point out that my musical tastes change as the day progresses and that the Breakfast programme is to my taste at that time of day. As far as I'm aware, I haven't accepted or rejected anybody's argument, and I'm sorry if I sometimes use the wrong word!

[french frank]

Sorry I am slightly confused, but then I find each morning I am older and more befuddled - is the BBC Radio service you would like to see
a) R3 as it was in 196x or
b) 5 above ...... ??????

As for a) I've no idea what it was like in the 1960s - I started listening in the late 80s - Drummond period. I'm not suggesting it should be exactly like it was in any past epoch. I am merely suggesting that it has 'progressed' or 'modernised' in the wrong direction.

One criticism I would have would be on strategy. The BBC starts off (I think) with an idea of the audience it wants to attract and then introduces all the features that it imagines will attract that audience to the service. I think it should have had more respect for what Radio 3 was already doing. Start off with an idea of what Radio 3, a 'cultural' arts station should broadcast, and then provide it. I think that would have provided a very different Radio 3. Technological advances have always been part of what it has offered. New content should come from new contemporary composers, new writers, new debates. Get presenters who are interested and knowledgeable onn these subjects. Tom Service is such a presenter. I just don't think he's a very good broadcaster. A pity, but that could so easily be remedied. Turning the experienced 'professional' jobbing broadcasters into good Radio 3 presenters is not so easily dealt with.

[french frank]

Oh dear - I didn't realize people felt that strongly about it. I'm a new kid in town, so I hope you'll forgive me if I put my foot in it occasionally. I was merely trying to point out that my musical tastes change as the day progresses and that the Breakfast programme is to my taste at that time of day. As far as I'm aware, I haven't accepted or rejected anybody's argument, and I'm sorry if I sometimes use the wrong word!

I meant to add - this wasn't a diatribe aimed at you, rathfarnham girl - you have a few who think like you around these parts. This forum was started by the Friends of Radio 3 (who have now withdrawn, bloody but unbowed) - a group formed specifically to protest against all the broadening out of the audience and content. It has always welcomed different points of view, expressed politely!

PS I won't just say "Take no notice of me" but others are quite used to my arguments - I just welcome their responses.

[Leinster Lass]

I meant to add - this wasn't a diatribe aimed at you, rathfarnham girl - you have a few who think like you around these parts. This forum was started by the Friends of Radio 3 (who have now withdrawn, bloody but unbowed) - a group formed specifically to protest against all the broadening out of the audience and content. It has always welcomed different points of view, expressed politely!

Do I detect a note of disapproval? I hardly know anybody on this forum, so I haven't had a chance to form a gang yet , and I don't think I've been impolite.

[french frank]

Do I detect a note of disapproval? I hardly know anybody on this forum, so I haven't had a chance to form a gang yet , and I don't think I've been impolite.

Not disapproval of you, anyway! <cackle> I merely meant there are people here who share your views and tastes. You are not a lone voice. Do feel welcome here to say what ever you feel like saying.

[oddoneout]

Do I detect a note of disapproval? I hardly know anybody on this forum, so I haven't had a chance to form a gang yet , and I don't think I've been impolite.

I'm one of those prepared to admit to listening to and mostly enjoying the morning schedules. However like my fellow renegades I don't consider the set-up ideal and we have all at various times criticised and offered opinions about how things could be changed and/or improved. I think I'm correct in saying that there is support for not having the whole morning devoted to the casual approach that irks so many forumites, and that a transition from 9am or 10 am to the more meaty fare post midday would be welcome. Things have changed and most of the really dire content of a couple of years ago has gone. Two core issues remain for the antis - the filleting of whole works/bleeding chunks approach, and the perennial differences of opinion about what types of music are considered 'appropriate' for a R3 programme. The first issue, while understanding the arguments against, I can mostly live with, although there are times when it grates even for this cultural deficient - such as this morning when SK decided that playing just the 3rd movt of LvB's 6th was good idea... Whether that needs to be the format for the whole morning's schedule? I would argue not, and I don't think if the transition to midday was done well (quite a big 'if' these days sadly) it would alienate listeners. The issue of 'suitable' music makes me uncomfortable. I think I missed out by not having exposure to a wider variety of genres, and it certainly didn't help me, as an unconfident child, to have no knowledge of anything outside a rather narrow received view of what constituted 'good' (ie acceptable) music, which had no common ground with my peers. The occasional intrusion of unworthy(pop, jazz, film - the list seems quite long sometimes) music in the morning line-up doesn't cause me palpitations; it won't last long if I don't like it, in the same way that pieces deemed suitable for R3 are sometimes very much not to my taste, but will soon be over. My view is that it's all music, it's all a learning opportunity, bit like the fact we are all human beings, but different individuals; we get on with some and not others.

The BBC starts off (I think) with an idea

which it then doesn't seem to research adequately before launching and doesn't seem to bother to monitor once it has launched, as far as the R3 'initiatives' are concerned - or so it seems to me. Some of the gimmicks fall into the painful - rather like politicians trying to engage with yoof and just making fools and laughing stocks of themselves. The attempts to attract a younger audience and to ape CFM (the morning programmes being part of the latter) seem to have achieved the dubious distinction of not attracting the intended audience and driving away the existing listeners, certainly in the case of the younger audience aim. Whether improvements to the morning offering have been the result of listener feedback I don't know, but I rather doubt that there will be a bigger shift to a better balance of casual and quality(whole works, better information) unfortunately.

[cloughie]

I'm one of those prepared to admit to listening to and mostly enjoying the morning schedules. However like my fellow renegades I don't consider the set-up ideal and we have all at various times criticised and offered opinions about how things could be changed and/or improved. I think I'm correct in saying that there is support for not having the whole morning devoted to the casual approach that irks so many forumites, and that a transition from 9am or 10 am to the more meaty fare post midday would be welcome. Things have changed and most of the really dire content of a couple of years ago has gone. Two core issues remain for the antis - the filleting of whole works/bleeding chunks approach, and the perennial differences of opinion about what types of music are considered 'appropriate' for a R3 programme. The first issue, while understanding the arguments against, I can mostly live with, although there are times when it grates even for this cultural deficient - such as this morning when SK decided that playing just the 3rd movt of LvB's 6th was good idea... Whether that needs to be the format for the whole morning's schedule? I would argue not, and I don't think if the transition to midday was done well (quite a big 'if' these days sadly) it would alienate listeners. The issue of 'suitable' music makes me uncomfortable. I think I missed out by not having exposure to a wider variety of genres, and it certainly didn't help me, as an unconfident child, to have no knowledge of anything outside a rather narrow received view of what constituted 'good' (ie acceptable) music, which had no common ground with my peers. The occasional intrusion of unworthy(pop, jazz, film - the list seems quite long sometimes) music in the morning line-up doesn't cause me palpitations; it won't last long if I don't like it, in the same way that pieces deemed suitable for R3 are sometimes very much not to my taste, but will soon be over. My view is that it's all music, it's all a learning opportunity, bit like the fact we are all human beings, but different individuals; we get on with some and not others.
which it then doesn't seem to research adequately before launching and doesn't seem to bother to monitor once it has launched, as far as the R3 'initiatives' are concerned - or so it seems to me. Some of the gimmicks fall into the painful - rather like politicians trying to engage with yoof and just making fools and laughing stocks of themselves. The attempts to attract a younger audience and to ape CFM (the morning programmes being part of the latter) seem to have achieved the dubious distinction of not attracting the intended audience and driving away the existing listeners, certainly in the case of the younger audience aim. Whether improvements to the morning offering have been the result of listener feedback I don't know, but I rather doubt that there will be a bigger shift to a better balance of casual and quality(whole works, better information) unfortunately.

I doubt because the BBC don’t really listen to what we, their paymasters, think. They never admit they are wrong and heaven forbid they should give us what we want.

[jayne lee wilson]

I doubt because the BBC don’t really listen to what we, their paymasters, think. They never admit they are wrong and heaven forbid they should give us what we want.

Working definition of Public Service Broadcasting: giving people something they didn't know they wanted....

[french frank]

Working definition of Pubic Service Broadcasting: giving people something they didn't know they wanted....

I have no difficulty about that. (Unlike others, it seems, I did listen to the entire 52 minutes of Occam Ocean II and won't say I liked it or disliked it. I consider it 52 minutes of experience, not wasted). But it's being given what you know you don't want because, yes, you have heard it before, that's the problem.

If you like jazz, you can listen to the jazz programmes which don't get snatches of classical music in between the pieces. Nor do the world music programmes. And Late Junction doesn't often get beyond the odd bit of John Adama, or less often, Jesus Blood Never Failed Me Yet.

It's the programmes billed as 'classical programmes' that get the ragbag assortment of short pieces interrupted with irrelevant (to the music) small talk.