The Eternal Breakfast Debate in a New Place

[Frances_iom]

yes I hear and understand what you're saying salymap, but if someone hadn't heard a particular symphony (or whatever) and didn't have that musical memory, couldn't a single movement be a "satisfying-in-itself" entity ................ just a thought

great pity all those hack musicians of yesteryear decided they couldn't compress their thoughts into the 3 minutes needed to fill the gap between adverts and tweets - nevermind the kindly beeb and its everso musical producers can cut it down to size to fit into the gap between Mrs Bloggs's tweets and the trailer for the next R4 'comedy' show.

[kernelbogey]

[...]Just because new listeners - of any age - are coaxed over to R3 to listen to Breakfast or Essential Classics (two programmes ostensibly tailored specially for them) doesn't mean they couldn't cope with and enjoy programmes which are more music-focused, with all the trivalities stripped out.

There isn't any evidence that they all tuned in to Morning on 3 and found it 'inaccessible' and are now flooding back with relief having found the new programmes more on their level. It isn't that Morning on 3 was terribly demanding. [...]

Totally agree with this.

I feel constantly patronised by the Monday-Friday format - there is something of Blue Peter style in the announcements and back announcements, the links etc. I could imagine a young listener feeling the same way about the style of presentation. You don't get that on R1 or R2, I believe: there's an assumption of a culture common to both presenter and listener. As it used to be on R3.

[antongould]

You do get it on R1 and R2 in spades I'm afraid on short car journeys I sometimes allow my daughters to listen and the level of audience participation requested and received would I think amaze people hereabouts. The percentages of music to chat would, I feel, be very revealing. I still think it is a mistake to think the yoof of today are just like we were living in a land much as we did...............

[kernelbogey]

You do get it on R1 and R2 in spades I'm afraid[.....]

Do you mean being patronised by the presenter? (E.g.'wasn't that a wonderful performance?' etc.)

[antongould]

Yes that as well - even the sainted Sir Terence went in for that big style in my day - of course IMHO he was almost always right.......

[doversoul1]

antongould
I still cannot understand why you refuse to accept that R1 and R2 are doing what they are set out to do but that has nothing to do with R3. There is really no point in bringing in R1 and 2 unless you are saying that R3 should cater for or the same audience.

The presenters of Radio2 are casual but I don’t think they ever patronise the listeners. They know their audience and I am sure the listeners know why they are listening to the programme. You could say that both sides keep the contract whereas Radio3 does not.

[antongould]

I didn't raise R1 and R2 I was responding to someone who did. If people listened IMHO they would find the style very patronising.

[french frank]

You do get it on R1 and R2 in spades I'm afraid on short car journeys I sometimes allow my daughters to listen and the level of audience participation requested and received would I think amaze people hereabouts. The percentages of music to chat would, I feel, be very revealing.

It's popular, mass audience radio. I don't think it would surprise anyone if there's a lot of banter, and lightweight content.

I still think it is a mistake to think the yoof of today are just like we were living in a land much as we did...............

But we keep saying that R3 is not supposed to be another 'yoof' station. Your mistake (if I may say so) is in making a sweeping assumption that all 'yoof' are the same (the same as your daughters? - why should they be?). If, as always, a tiny, tiny minority of young people are different and start listening to the station for the music, all is well. Radio 3 isn't "for" a young audience: it's for the entire age range.

Under your model, if 'yoof' tune in, it will be because they want chat and audience participation, not to 'expand their horizons'. And among the Radio 3 listeners, you are the minority in going off to work first thing in the morning and wanting a light music and chat show. If you want to expand your horizons, do what I imagine you do now, listen to a range of programmes on Radio 3.

You are the one who expects a tailor-made programme: short pieces of music, please, extracts welcome and nothing too off-putting; regular news headlines; regular time checks; time for recovery between music with a bit of audience participation. Oh, and of course, classical pieces so that I can expand my horizons. Now, assuming you couldn't have all of it, which would be the most important feature?

[antongould]

Sorry I said I'd shut up but - perish the thought that all yoof were like our dittzy daughters the world would end tomorrow!! But I work and interact with many, many of their generation and they are not IMHO as we were.

On the last para. It is to be honest no longer my ideal but all I keep saying is I think I understand why it is as it is and it brought me and others to this better place on the shores of John Ireland et al - now I really will shut up and no I haven't heard such a loud GOOD for ages.......

[french frank]

Heh, heh! I don't think anyone wants you to 'shut up' but it must be very tiring facing the onslaught of the many. And I'm sure there are more of you with similar ideas lurking on the forum. It's just that the rotters have left all the hard slog to you.

It is to be honest no longer my ideal but all I keep saying is I think I understand why it is as it is

This begins to approach the cavatina argument: 'I don't like it either but it's not for me/us - it's for other people.'

Look, I understand why they're doing it too. I just think they're wrong, not least because as a strategy it won't work. It will affect the audience it has and not bring in many new listeners who are quite happy with what they are already listening to. Radio 3 in head-to-head competition with the rest of UK radio? Hmmmm, I don't think it will win ...

[doversoul1]

antongould

I keep saying is I think I understand why it is as it is

If you mean you understand why R3 is as it is, I (and many others) DO understand too why it is as it is and we are saying that THIS IS WRONG. What youths are or were like has absolutely nothing to do with it.

[Norfolk Born]

I think the phrase 'agree to differ' was probably devised long ago by some far-sighted person(s) who saw this thread coming.

[Old Grumpy]

I think the phrase 'agree to differ' was probably devised long ago by some far-sighted person(s) who saw this thread coming.

I think you're right!

I personally broadly enjoy Breakfast - I can appreciate where the "bleeding chunks" argument is coming from, but would not necessarily support it. As Anton has (IIRC) pointed out before, the clue to this thread is in the title. I'm not sure much more useful debate can be had in this regard (at least on this thread).

OG

[kernelbogey]

I'm not sure much more useful debate can be had in this regard (at least on this thread).

I think I've been robbed of something precious - and to no avail. (Or, rather, with no overall gain to the audience.) This is the one place I know of where the R3 suits can be held to account.

[salymap]

I heard a piece of piano music that I once attempted to play. Couldn't remember title. NO SCHEDULE YET.