The Eternal Breakfast Debate in a New Place

[smittims]

I've yet to see any official information suggesting that anyone prefers the new style R3 to the old. I occasionally see letters, and hear comments, praising Radio 3 generally, e.g saying how it helped them get through COVID or some such problem, but none saying specifically 'It's bettter than it was before Roger Wright' (which was where the rot began for me). .

[oddoneout]

I've yet to see any official information suggesting that anyone prefers the new style R3 to the old. I occasionally see letters, and hear comments, praising Radio 3 generally, e.g saying how it helped them get through COVID or some such problem, but none saying specifically 'It's bettter than it was before Roger Wright' (which was where the rot began for me). .

The closest seems to be the vague " most responses we've had have been positive" in reply to criticism of, for instance the insertion of the news slot into the Early Music Show, which is the most recent I can think of.
In any case, I would be suspicious of any announcement that said something along the lines of " 75% of R3 listeners are happy with the current format/output", since the right question put to the right group will produce the desired result.

[antongould]

I've yet to see any official information suggesting that anyone prefers the new style R3 to the old. I occasionally see letters, and hear comments, praising Radio 3 generally, e.g saying how it helped them get through COVID or some such problem, but none saying specifically 'It's bettter than it was before Roger Wright' (which was where the rot began for me). .

do you see any official information suggesting that anyone prefers the old style to the new … ????

[french frank]

In any case, I would be suspicious of any announcement that said something along the lines of " 75% of R3 listeners are happy with the current format/output", since the right question put to the right group will produce the desired result.

Yes. Some years back we werer told that no focus groups had mentioned Radio 3's 'excessive' programme trails. But if R3 set the agenda for the meetings and didn't include the subject, would there have been any opportunity for it to be discussed?

[oddoneout]

do you see any official information suggesting that anyone prefers the old style to the new … ????

No - I wonder why...

[french frank]

do you see any official information suggesting that anyone prefers the old style to the new … ????

Why would there be 'official information' confirming that people criticise what the officials are currently doing? It's only on forums like this that people can praise or criticise, according to their personal opinions. But, as I keep saying, it's nothing to do with what Listener A likes and Listener B hates. It's to do with establishing a rational consensus as to what Radio 3's remit should be (and why).

[oddoneout]

Yes. Some years back we werer told that no focus groups had mentioned Radio 3's 'excessive' programme trails. But if R3 set the agenda for the meetings and didn't include the subject, would there have been any opportunity for it to be discussed?

When I was noting Breakfast content yesterday I recorded 2 ads(there may have been a 3rd when I was out of the room for 10 minutes)in the whole programme; in 40 minutes or so of (so-called) Afternoon Concert* today there were 3. It may be that the half-hourly news summaries mean fewer ads but even so it does seem strange.

* the JSB BWV 54 was good, but I was amused to see that the dissection bug had infected the online schedule listing, which shows it as 3 separate items...
There's also someone called Wiliam Brade listed - now even the pop person will.i.am keeps the double "l" so I don't know where that came from. Can AI really be such a bad thing if this is what humans do? - And no, no answers to that question thank you, on a postcard or otherwise!

[Serial_Apologist]

When I was noting Breakfast content yesterday I recorded 2 ads(there may have been a 3rd when I was out of the room for 10 minutes)in the whole programme; in 40 minutes or so of (so-called) Afternoon Concert* today there were 3. It may be that the half-hourly news summaries mean fewer ads but even so it does seem strange.

* the JSB BWV 54 was good, but I was amused to see that the dissection bug had infected the online schedule listing, which shows it as 3 separate items...
There's also someone called Wiliam Brade listed - now even the pop person will.i.am keeps the double "l" so I don't know where that came from. Can AI really be such a bad thing if this is what humans do? - And no, no answers to that question thank you, on a postcard or otherwise!

Ooh you are a one!

[french frank]

There's also someone called Wiliam Brade listed - now even the pop person will.i.am keeps the double "l" so I don't know where that came from.

The Welsh form has one l (otherwise the ll would be pronounced as an aspirated l - as in Flandudno or Thanethly) - but, no, Brade was an Englishman with two l's.

[LMcD]

Why would there be 'official information' confirming that people criticise what the officials are currently doing? It's only on forums like this that people can praise or criticise, according to their personal opinions. But, as I keep saying, it's nothing to do with what Listener A likes and Listener B hates. It's to do with establishing a rational consensus as to what Radio 3's remit should be (and why).

Its remit seems to be to hold on to as many as possible of its existing listeners and attract new, preferably younger, ones while attempting to adapt to a changing world. Whether that is achievable, yet alone desirable, is open to question, I would think.

[antongould]

Why would there be 'official information' confirming that people criticise what the officials are currently doing? It's only on forums like this that people can praise or criticise, according to their personal opinions. But, as I keep saying, it's nothing to do with what Listener A likes and Listener B hates. It's to do with establishing a rational consensus as to what Radio 3's remit should be (and why).

organisations ….. even the c**p one I ended my working days with …. Look for feedback on the popularity of major changes they make …..

[french frank]

Its remit seems to be to hold on to as many as possible of its existing listeners and attract new, preferably younger, ones

More than 'seems to be': it has been R3's stated aim. But since the inevitable result of its success would have been an increase in listening figures (whereas in fact some quarterly figures have been utterly dire), you'd imagine that in 20+ years they might have realised that they needed to think again. But in any case a 'stated aim' is not the same as a remit which has historically been imposed on/assigned to Radio 3 by the higher BBC. And in the days of the BBC Trust (which was much more open about such things), the remit was closer to what the R3 critics have campaigned for.

while attempting to adapt to a changing world.

Indeed. That is inevitable to some extent.

But ignorant critics, clutching at the strawmen of evening dress and cut-glass accents, reveal the fact that in some respects R3 has 'moved with the times'. The inclusion of 'world music' back in c 1992 was another movement with the times. The continuous following of developments in new 'art music' has been another. And the ending of 'no fixed points' another. A more systematic consideration of new writing would be another which I'm afraid is not found on the frequently mentioned bard of Barnsley's programme. In my view, more depends on the manner of presentation, and for whom the programmes are intended, than what is presented. E.g. a programme/series about new developments in pop music would be perfectly appropriate if presented for an R3 audience - with comment and analysis; but not if it was a programme of the latest pop music for the entertainment of fans of the latest pop music - who have plenty of alternative sources of such music, on and off the BBC

[kindofblue]

French Frank - you make a very powerful point here. What I find very odd about R3 is its reluctance to go deep into matters as a matter of course. It can do this very well, but infrequently, as if afraid of alienating people. There are fascinating programmes on R4 and R5Live that go into enormous detail on certain topics, leaving one feeling 'I know enough about that now' or equally 'This has been fascinating, I will explore further!' It borders on the anti-intellectual to be honest. Your suggestion for an examination into the latest trends in popular music is excellent; if you are a R3 listener it is reasonable to assume that your mind and ears are at least open to the idea of someone explaining what is happening now, rather than the tired assumption that simply because lots of young/er people listen to it, it surely can have no merit at all. And there are numerous other potential lines of enquiry. Also agree emphatically about the ludicrous idea of 'moving with the times' being de facto problematic. If people had refused to move wih the times from the 60s onwards we would scarcely have any Mahler and Stravinsky would still be 'difficult'.

[smittims]

I said some time ago that I thought Radio 3 had a problem with its identity, compared with that of the other BBC Radio channels. There's no doubt what Radios one, two and four are there for, but Radio 3 seems still to be floundering without a clearly-stated purpose. If we could have that we'd be onto something.

[LMcD]

I said some time ago that I thought Radio 3 had a problem with its identity, compared with that of the other BBC Radio channels. There's no doubt what Radios one, two and four are there for, but Radio 3 seems still to be floundering without a clearly-stated purpose. If we could have that we'd be onto something.

Perhaps we could invite Sir Lindsay Hoyle to oversee an investigation into the problem.