The Eternal Breakfast Debate in a New Place

[Richard Tarleton]

What (or where) is 'Jonathan Creek'?

It's in North Carolina

[Anna]

It seems to me (but I may be totally wrong) that Breakfast and the first part of Morning seem to be targetting children/familieis with young children. There was the 7 year old violinist on Your Call and then later the presenter (sorry, cannot remember who) was trying to persuade a 10 year old to accompany Dad to a cello concerto (he'd tweeted in for help) and yesterday (or today) another tweet from a Mum to say her 2 year old toddler was in her high chair conducting with a spoon to whatever had just been played. And the tone has (but maybe it's my imagination again?) been reduced to a very Nursery slopes/entry level. Anyone else think the same? Perhaps, if they want to get children/pre-teens on board they should bring back that programme (sorry, I seem to be having an extra blonde day as I cannot remember the title!) which was solely for children?

[french frank]

It seems to me (but I may be totally wrong) that Breakfast and the first part of Morning seem to be targetting children/familieis with young children. There was the 7 year old violinist on Your Call and then later the presenter (sorry, cannot remember who) was trying to persuade a 10 year old to accompany Dad to a cello concerto (he'd tweeted in for help) and yesterday (or today) another tweet from a Mum to say her 2 year old toddler was in her high chair conducting with a spoon to whatever had just been played. And the tone has (but maybe it's my imagination again?) been reduced to a very Nursery slopes/entry level. Anyone else think the same? Perhaps, if they want to get children/pre-teens on board they should bring back that programme (sorry, I seem to be having an extra blonde day as I cannot remember the title!) which was solely for children?

I'm sure this is absolutely correct. Given the amount of the morning schedule taken up by Breakfast daily, plus with a similar approach on Essential Classics - that makes up 100% of the morning up to midday, so it's understandable that people who want something more grown-up are getting frustrated.

The official reason why Making Tracks was axed was because the Radio 3 audience (average age 57) didn't have enough young children to make a children's programme worthwhile. Now that they've changed the target audience they hope they'll attract younger people with young children. This is all to give the impression they're succeeding: I don't believe it.

I don't believe the BBC is allowed to change the nature of the station in this way.

[Anna]

I'm sure this is absolutely correct. Given the amount of the morning schedule taken up by Breakfast daily, plus with a similar approach on Essential Classics - that makes up 100% of the morning up to midday, so it's understandable that people who want something more grown-up are getting frustrated.

I'm glad it's not just me thinking that I am being talked down to and patronised. But, it's difficult isn't it, because I didn't come to classical music until around 2002 (although then I was not a toddler in a highchair conducting Tchaikovsky with a spoon!) but I do feel quite strongly that it's important that young children learn about, and grow to love, classical music. But, if it means the core R3 audience deserts the station?
Oh yes, it was Making Tracks. They had a game didn't they - called Splatt a Troll! That could have come in handy recently .....

I don't believe the BBC is allowed to change the nature of the station in this way.

But, who is to stop them, nothing is written in stone is it?

[french frank]

But, who is to stop them, nothing is written in stone is it?

Yes, it's in the Royal Charter and Agreement that they may not change a station 'significantly' without considering the impact on 'relevant users' (that's us, folks). Reducing a serious arts/music station to less than half a station, more than half of that being broadcast between 12.30am and 6.30am in order to attract a different audience is in my view 'significant'?

[Anna]

Yes, it's in the Royal Charter and Agreement that they may not change a station 'significantly' without considering the impact on 'relevant users' (that's us, folks). Reducing a serious arts/music station to less than half a station, more than half of that being broadcast between 12.30am and 6.30am in order to attract a different audience is in my view 'significant'?

But who decides what is 'significantly' and who are 'relevant users' - I guess it's the BBC management, but they can say their audience has changed beyond recognition - and who are these Royal Charter blokes who yield power and what right do they have to say to Mr. Wright - Oi! You're out of order Mate! Back off!

[Sir Velo]

But who decides what is 'significantly' and who are 'relevant users' - I guess it's the BBC management

That would be a conflict of interest. In the case of a Royal Charter, it is The Crown.

[Suffolkcoastal]

What I can't come to terms with is why a whole of chunk of R3 is now reduced to Cbeebies level to try and attract a younger audience. I had no problem with the style of R3 when I first started listening to it in the mid 1970's when I was 9/10. Nor did I have any problem with listening to 45 minute long symphonies, R3 was like an extra music teacher introducing me to new composers and works and I wanted to learn and I felt more grown up as a result, if I was the same age now I very much doubt I could have beared to listen at least not in the mornings. I don't believe that I was particularly special, just a normal working class boy who was drawn to classical music.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

What I can't come to terms with is why a whole of chunk of R3 is now reduced to Cbeebies level to try and attract a younger audience. I had no problem with the style of R3 when I first started listening to it in the mid 1970's when I was 9/10. Nor did I have any problem with listening to 45 minute long symphonies, R3 was like an extra music teacher introducing me to new composers and works and I wanted to learn and I felt more grown up as a result, if I was the same age now I very much doubt I could have beared to listen at least not in the mornings. I don't believe that I was particularly special, just a normal working class boy who was drawn to classical music.

Exactly my own experience (except that I was in my own mid-teens in the mid-1970s) and my own feelings today.

[Hautboiste]

Back in the late 50s my parents took me to a concert in Manchester Town Hall given by the then BBC Northern orchestra. On the programme were Taylor Coleridge's Hiawatha's Wedding Feast and Constant Lambert's Rio Grande. I was 11 years old and loved that concert. We were a working class family, my parents had had basic formal education but they were interested in music and drama. For this I have always been thankful. It's a pity the BBC doesn't cater for families like mine any more.

[french frank]

But who decides what is 'significantly' and who are 'relevant users' - I guess it's the BBC management, but they can say their audience has changed beyond recognition - and who are these Royal Charter blokes who yield power and what right do they have to say to Mr. Wright - Oi! You're out of order Mate! Back off!

Well, as regards 'significantly' it has to be people who listen to the station who decide. Unlike in the BBC Trust's review where they gathered members of the public and got them to listen to Radio 3 programmes and say what they thought of them - regardless of whether they a) listened to the station and b) whether they had any interest in classical music (some were stated to be listeners 'to whom classical music did not necessarily appeal'. That, in my view, was using a methodology that would ensure that the BBC got the 'right' answer - that R3 was too difficult and heavy going for people not very interested in classical music. Having spoken with Trust Unit members engaged in the review, I would have said none were Radio 3 listeners. I can't see that they would have been 'relevant users'. Nor would those who don't use the service be 'relevant users'.

If those who listen say it has changed 'significantly' who's to contradict them?

The Royal Charter and Agreement are signed between the BBC and the government (the DCMS acting for HM the Queen). The BBC Trust is the sovereign body which has the final say.

[Andrew Slater]

What I can't come to terms with is why a whole of chunk of R3 is now reduced to Cbeebies level to try and attract a younger audience. I had no problem with the style of R3 when I first started listening to it in the mid 1970's when I was 9/10. Nor did I have any problem with listening to 45 minute long symphonies, R3 was like an extra music teacher introducing me to new composers and works and I wanted to learn and I felt more grown up as a result, if I was the same age now I very much doubt I could have beared to listen at least not in the mornings. I don't believe that I was particularly special, just a normal working class boy who was drawn to classical music.

Ditto: I started listening a few years earlier at the age of about 10. I saw no problem at all. I probably would now.

[Roehre]

What I can't come to terms with is why a whole of chunk of R3 is now reduced to Cbeebies level to try and attract a younger audience. I had no problem with the style of R3 when I first started listening to it in the mid 1970's when I was 9/10. Nor did I have any problem with listening to 45 minute long symphonies, R3 was like an extra music teacher introducing me to new composers and works and I wanted to learn and I felt more grown up as a result, if I was the same age now I very much doubt I could have beared to listen at least not in the mornings. I don't believe that I was particularly special, just a normal working class boy who was drawn to classical music.

An experience I share with SC, AS and FHG (and in the latter's age bracket )

[Sir Velo]

An experience I share with SC, AS and FHG (and in the latter's age bracket )

Much the same goes for me too, except I started listening in my teens in the late 80s, during the Drummond era. I revelled in the fact that one wasn't spoonfed or mollycoddled by the presenters, although I was never aware of their not being "welcoming". More, it seemed like a place where my intellectual and musical needs could be fully stimulated. When I didn't understand some technical term or needed to know more about a particular composition, I went away and looked it up; and those were the days before wiki, so a damn sight more effort was required!

One of my earliest recollections is listening to a recital of 2VS chamber works followed by a performance of a play whose subject matter was Constantine's conversion to Christianity. Hard to imagine such fare these days. No doubt it would be considered indigestible.Oh dear, back to spoonfeeding babyfood.

[Sir Velo]

Well, as regards 'significantly' it has to be people who listen to the station who decide. Unlike in the BBC Trust's review where they gathered members of the public and got them to listen to Radio 3 programmes and say what they thought of them - regardless of whether they a) listened to the station and b) whether they had any interest in classical music (some were stated to be listeners 'to whom classical music did not necessarily appeal'. That, in my view, was using a methodology that would ensure that the BBC got the 'right' answer - that R3 was too difficult and heavy going for people not very interested in classical music. Having spoken with Trust Unit members engaged in the review, I would have said none were Radio 3 listeners. I can't see that they would have been 'relevant users'. Nor would those who don't use the service be 'relevant users'.

If those who listen say it has changed 'significantly' who's to contradict them?

Would they not have to demonstrate that they had been regular listeners for a defined period of time? If not, it seems to me that the methodology is open to challenge. Notwithstanding, even if one could demonstrate that one had been a regular listener, any opinion as to the station's output would be entirely subjective, which hardly seems the basis for an objective assessment of whether a station has changed "significantly".

A far more objective test, surely, would be compare the amount of music broadcast at various times of day; the number of complete works; the number of different works broadcast etc - in fact, the kind of information which SC keeps. I would also have thought that a listeners' organisation such as FoR3 would need to be consulted. Otherwise, it seems that a clear remit is not being given.