The Eternal Breakfast Debate in a New Place

[doversoul1]

Here is the article if anyone is interested in. You won’t find it by Music>Classical link. I expect this is meant to be a compliment….

Cowan's commentary on the music sometimes uses classical music terms ("If you love lieder as much as I do") but it's hard to imagine how or why it should ditch this. Classic FM, which is drippingly accessible, uses this vocabulary too.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2011/feb/10/rob-cowan-breakfast-show-review

[Don Basilio]

What is wrong with using the word "lieder"? Why should anyone be put off by it being used? There's plenty of technical terms in jazz (riff?) and if you listen to enthusiasts talking about the subject you get use to it and probably pick up the general meaning. (In can imagine classical terms - all those terms for key relationships, sub dominant, etc - which mean nothing to me, but I accept that they have a meaning for those close to the subject.)

[Old Grumpy]

A good article I thought. I agree, what is the problem with "lieder" - I think she was just using it as in illustrative point. I would imagine a significant proportion of the population would not know the word - but then they would probably not be listening to Radio 3 (or Classic FM for that matter).

[listen2counterpoint]

I have it on good authority that Sarah Mohr-Pietsch (or S M-P as she seems to be known on this Forum) is an intelligent, educated and rather gorgeous young (well young-ish) woman. It is a delight to see someone in her position be given the opportunity to front a primetime programme like Breakfast and I think she does the job rather well. For someone of her age (ie not sixty five) she has an excellent and varied knowledge of classical music and also much high quality performing experience to draw on when passing comment on others' work. She may make the occasional gaffe, but it does rather seem that some Messagers rather lie in wait for her to do so, gleefully rubbing their hands when it happens. Might this be a touch of chauvinism as such a talented young WOMAN has risen through the ranks at the Beeb so quickly? Perhaps not, but I certainly know that I'm not a flawless individual every second of the day. As for the balance, it's a Breakfast Show and not In Tune. Radio 3 has to have some nod towards easy listening otherwise it'll lose so many listeners they'll have to turn it off! And I don't think the compromise for the purist is too hard to bear. I can even just about bring myself to accept the relatively new Classical Chart........

L2C

[antongould]

Listen2counterpoint
Can I just say I agree with everything you say - I believe SMP does tend to get a bit of a "bad press" on these boards.

[french frank]

And I don't think the compromise for the purist is too hard to bear. I can even just about bring myself to accept the relatively new Classical Chart........

I wonder what it will take before those who can 'just about bring themselves to accept' some of these 'innovations' will join the moaners saying that it's now gone too far. Even they must have their limits. Surely?

[antongould]

Limits move over time and between generations I'm not saying it constitutes progress but they move - I believe women can now vote!

[teamsaint]

Limits move over time and between generations I'm not saying it constitutes progress but they move - I believe women can now vote!

not the ones in prison.

[teamsaint]

Rob Cowan's selection of music on Breakfast may fail the "complete works" test on many occasions, but its frequently more varied and interesting than much of the R3 schedules.

[Laurence Target]

I am reluctant to mention the things I don't like about 'Breakfast' since I suspect that the producers would regard it as an endorsement or an agenda.

[Eudaimonia]

LT: Now that you mention it, in his recent piece in the Independent, Roger Wright posed a question for critics like you:

It was with some amusement that I received one complaint that Radio 3 Breakfast was too, well, er, breakfast-y. Why should we not want the station to be welcoming, and reflect in our morning programmes that listening habits and needs vary at different times of day?

Why not? Let's hear it!

[french frank]

I have a hunch this is a distortion of something I said at a meeting a couple of years ago. I said that a 6 Music presenter was said to have reported that he was expected to make his breakfast show 'more breakfast-y'. I don't think that had anything to do with making the show more welcoming, but more populist (6 Music then rated the 'elitist' end of the popular music stations). Nor do I think the complaints about the R3 breakfast programme are entirely because it reflects the listening habits and needs of listeners at breakfast time. Is that really a suitable time for getting people to email or text in to presenters, when they're busy getting ready for work? How many pieces of music does a 3-hour breakfast-y programme have? 20? 25? 30? Would 35 be more breakfast-y still? Does it cease to be breakfast-y at 15? Is Frank Sinatra more of a breakfast-y type singer than Fritz Wunderlich?

Btw Radio 3 Controllers always have a great deal of fun 'aving a larf, especially in print, at the expense of their dottiest listeners. Note how here we pick out one complaint about the lack of music by Handel in order to demonstrate how mistaken listeners are because we've just had a whole lot of Handel . And so on.

[doversoul1]

ATTENTION!!
Persons (as ff says)
Read Robert Ponsonby's letter to The Times posted by Pianorak on Platform 3.

[Eudaimonia]

Well, as I've said before, there's a reason they never scheduled the Third Programme in the morning. Now with live concerts every night, those who want to make time to sit down and experience R3 in a Third-Programmey kind of way are welcome to do so. It might not be everything you want, but I'd say it's one whale of a start. Or concession, if you prefer to think of it that way.

Is that really a suitable time for getting people to email or text in to presenters, when they're busy getting ready for work?

No, but it's a far sight more appropriate than in the middle of programmes whose listenership is dominated by the over 65s. This reminds me-- did you ever get any information on how the breakfast demographic differs from the overall tally? Could be interesting...I'm sure it's out there somewhere.

Btw Radio 3 Controllers always have a great deal of fun 'aving a larf, especially in print, at the expense of their dottiest listeners. Note how here we pick out one complaint about the lack of music by Handel in order to demonstrate how mistaken listeners are because we've just had a whole lot of Handel. And so on.

I picked up on that too, when he used it in his PPL's AGM speech last May. I suppose it just goes to show how important it is to be mindful of how you're coming across so your input doesn't end up as the punchline of an anecdote.

[french frank]

Well, as I've said before, there's a reason they never scheduled the Third Programme in the morning.

Yes, nothing was scheduled in the morning at all when the Third started. It was all silence. When daytime programming began it was taken up with the Music Programme (i.e. music programmes).

No, but it's a far sight more appropriate than in the middle of programmes whose listenership is dominated by the over 65s. This reminds me-- did you ever get any information on how the breakfast demographic differs from the overall tally? Could be interesting...I'm sure it's out there somewhere.

It is, though the figure is for 2004. I don't think listening has been revolutionised since then.

Average age of R3 audience: 57
Av age of Morning on 3 listeners, weekdays: 59
Av age of Morning on 3 listeners, weekends: 59