The Eternal Breakfast Debate in a New Place

[french frank]

This is what I was disagreeing with .........

But what I said in my previous post was: "An argument that it's doing it 'better' than Classic FM has no critical credibility." Doing the same thing 'better' isn't a good enough ambition for Radio 3. And the fact that individual listeners say they like it, enjoy it, think it's jolly good &c &c. is no more relevant than individual listeners saying they like, enjoy, think Classic FM is jolly good. That's merely about subjective individual preference, not objective criticism. Objectively, Radio 3:

now plays more short pieces
plays single movements from longer works
has more speech unrelated to the music
includes listener participation
(possibly- subjective rather than statistically objective as the data isn't available) plays individual well-known pieces more frequently

All of these things are part of what Classic FM perceived as a 'gap in the market': classical music presented in an accessible style for a broad public. Classic FM was spectacularly successful in becoming the national (single) commercial station in the UK with the largest audience.

Radio 3 wanted a cut of its success so it's tried to go down the same road, pinching Classic FM's ideas (as listed above). That some people think that Radio 3 does it a lot better than Classic FM doesn't alter that. Radio 3 should offer something that is distinctly different, not something that is similar but better.

[antongould]

"An argument that it's doing it 'better' than Classic FM has no critical (characterised by careful evaluation and judgement) credibility (the quality of being believable or trustworthy)"

Means, I think, after careful evaluation and judgement - that's me told

[french frank]

"An argument that it's doing it 'better' than Classic FM has no critical (characterised by careful evaluation and judgement) credibility (the quality of being believable or trustworthy)"

Means, I think, after careful evaluation and judgement - that's me told

Heh, heh :-) But I'm only saying that what is needed is to address the criticisms against Breakfast, rather than underlining what you may approve of. In that sense I would concede that Radio 3 is not identical and that it has much that is 'superior' (a wider range of genres, rather than mainly orchestral music (choral, chamber, solo instrument, opera) and less frequent repetition of well known and particularly popular film scores. Those are plus marks; they make Radio 3 'better' than Classic FM. But how do you counter the arguments about the ways in which Radio 3 has begun to introduce similarities (other than to say, as people do, that they're not bothered by them')?

One point that I found amusing was Roger Wright insisting that, distinctively, 'Radio 3 played complete works' unlike Classic FM; but first he said excerpts might be played when 'editorially justified' (not sure what that meant but assumed he meant used for illustrative purposes e.g. CotW); when Breakfast regularly switched over to playing single movements he said this was to enable Radio 3 to play more 'great music'. I'd call it 'expediency'.

[oddoneout]

I've taken the precaution of putting protective headgear on before putting my head above the parapet and saying I'm not overly bothered whether R3 is 'better' than CFM, what's important to me is that it's different. In small doses I can tolerate CFM, but what always drives me away is the adverts and the jingles. There is a great deal R3 could and should do to get itself back on track, and much that irritates in what it has been doing of late, but I still have it on much of the day when I'm at home, and am a very long way from not listening at all.
What I don't quite understand is why those in charge thought trying to woo the CFM audience was a realistic thing to attempt; I've always assumed there's a reason why people tend to listen to one or the other rather than being floating voters available for persuasion. Acquiring 'new' listeners at the expense of existing ones is hardly a matter for congratulation, especially if eventually you end with neither group.

[Serial_Apologist]

What I don't quite understand is why those in charge thought trying to woo the CFM audience was a realistic thing to attempt; I've always assumed there's a reason why people tend to listen to one or the other rather than being floating voters available for persuasion. Acquiring 'new' listeners at the expense of existing ones is hardly a matter for congratulation, especially if eventually you end with neither group.

It's their ever-increasing assumption of commercial criteria to justify use of the eternal taxpayer's money to governments, of either hue now, it seems, whether targetting the CFM demographic is likely to succeed or not. Some people just can't be persuaded even when the figures are dangled right in front of them when it's a yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir type mentality in full flow and in command at work.

[teamsaint]

Clemmie turned up on the lunchtime mix and match concert today.

Kind of came in stark and unpleasant contrast to the Charles Mingus albums I had been listening to.

[french frank]

It's their ever-increasing assumption of commercial criteria to justify use of the eternal taxpayer's money to governments, of either hue now,

Given that this is now the second Charter Review I've been following, I'd say that the two concerns are that Radio 3 first has to be 'accessible' to the 'broad public' (in spite of the fact that other services, such as Radio 1, 1Xtra and the children's services are more narrowly targeted) as a principle of BBC broadcasting at taxpayers' expense; and secondly that Radio 3 expenditure has to be reined in in view of its smaller audience. There seems to be an idea that money spent on Radio 3 will be 'begrudged' by those who don't listen to it. But the vast amount of a licence fee payer's money is spent on programmes he or she doesn't watch/listen to. How could it be otherwise when the BBC broadcasts so much?

I think jazz listeners would accept that, broadly speaking, the content and presentation of jazz on Radio 3 serves a different audience from the one that listens to jazz on Radio 2 (and generally speech/drama on Radio 3 compared with speech/drama on Radio 4). Why is it such a big deal if Radio 3 serves up its classical content for an audience distinct from Classic FM's?

Had lunch with my brother today we were discussing Classic FM. He knows more about classical music than I do, but he listens to Classic FM because, for him, radio is not his principal way of listening to music. He listens in the mornings when he switches on for the news and doesn't mind snippets of music as long as it's classical; and he has it on when he's in his car. If his priority is to listen to music, he'll sit down and listen to a CD.

For other listeners, among whom I'd count myself, radio/Radio 3 was my principal means of hearing and learning about music and, never mind the absence of adverts and jingles, it would now fail my test of always expanding my knowledge.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

For other listeners, among whom I'd count myself, radio/Radio 3 was my principal means of hearing and learning about music and, never mind the absence of adverts and jingles, it would now fail my test of always expanding my knowledge.

This was true of me, also; when I first became fascinated by "Classical Music" at the age of around 11/12 in the early '70s, Radio 3 was the principal means I had available to me for hearing the vast range of repertoires and hearing information about that Music. Given the nature of my domestic circumstances at that age, listening before school was a vital time for me.

When I began teaching, some twelve years later, Radio 3 was also the first pointer that I would give to students who were similarly intrigued by these repertoires ("listen in the morning when you're getting ready for school") - and the kids were as responsive to the station then as I had been at their age. In the mid-90s, things began to change, and in the last ten years of my career I found I couldn't give such a blanket recommendation, and my students' response to the station became increasingly mocking and contemptuous of the content and style of the station.

Fortunately, with youTube and Spotify, other methods of hearing and learning have become available to people, so I do not worry for the future of the repertoires; but the neglect of these repertoires by the BBC, and of the audiences wishing to widen their experience and knowledge of them - in the very name of exactly those audiences - makes me far less confident about the future of Radio 3 itself.

[oddoneout]

If the aim is to make R3 more accessible perhaps the first(simple, no-cost) step would be to stop using the term 'classical music' at every turn. It isn't accurate either in terms of R3 output, or the more academic meaning, but it reinforces the mistaken 'oh that's not for me/I'm not interested in that old stuff' attitude. I have been known to yell at the radio when I hear yet again 'My guest's choice of classical music' when much of the time it isn't 'classical' music as the great British Public would understand it. Julian Lloyd Webber talked about this earlier in the year and said in his view the term classical music should be dropped...'500 to 600 years of music to choose from, how can you compare Purcell and Philip Glass?.. There's only good music and bad music' That latter bit I'm not entirely in agreement with insofar as the distinction is as much subjective as objective, and I would add a few more centuries, but the basic premise has a lot to be said for it as far as I'm concerned.

[antongould]

..............

Had lunch with my brother today we were discussing Classic FM. He knows more about classical music than I do, but he listens to Classic FM because, for him, radio is not his principal way of listening to music. He listens in the mornings when he switches on for the news and doesn't mind snippets of music as long as it's classical; and he has it on when he's in his car. If his priority is to listen to music, he'll sit down and listen to a CD.
........

If I may ask why does he listen to CFM rather than than Tree Lawn?

As to why we have arrived at the current type of R3 Breakfast is it all, in your opinion, down to a wish to emulate CFM? Do you see no impact of the general Woganisation of Breakfast music programmes where audience participation by letter, fax and beyond became the norm?

[french frank]

If I may ask why does he listen to CFM rather than than Tree Lawn?

I think he's never really familiarised himself with what Radio 3 does and has it in his head that it's all 'squeaky gate' music. Radio simply isn't important to him, as it was for me (once upon a time ).

As to why we have arrived at the current type of R3 Breakfast is it all, in your opinion, down to a wish to emulate CFM? Do you see no impact of the general Woganisation of Breakfast music programmes where audience participation by letter, fax and beyond became the norm?

I wouldn't blame Tel for it all! I think that making Radio 3 'accessible' was all about making everything more 'familiar' to listeners who thought of Radio 3 as being some remote inaccessible fastness. They looked towards Classic FM for ways to make the content more popular and to Radio 2 (and more or less any popular music station) to popularise the style, especially by using 'warm and welcoming' presenters.

Both were to encourage new people to listen by saying: Look, Radio 3 really isn't so very different from what you already listen to.

That's how I see it.

[Stanfordian]

Given that this is now the second Charter Review I've been following, I'd say that the two concerns are that Radio 3 first has to be 'accessible' to the 'broad public' (in spite of the fact that other services, such as Radio 1, 1Xtra and the children's services are more narrowly targeted) as a principle of BBC broadcasting at taxpayers' expense; and secondly that Radio 3 expenditure has to be reined in in view of its smaller audience. There seems to be an idea that money spent on Radio 3 will be 'begrudged' by those who don't listen to it. But the vast amount of a licence fee payer's money is spent on programmes he or she doesn't watch/listen to. How could it be otherwise when the BBC broadcasts so much?

I think jazz listeners would accept that, broadly speaking, the content and presentation of jazz on Radio 3 serves a different audience from the one that listens to jazz on Radio 2 (and generally speech/drama on Radio 3 compared with speech/drama on Radio 4). Why is it such a big deal if Radio 3 serves up its classical content for an audience distinct from Classic FM's?

Had lunch with my brother today we were discussing Classic FM. He knows more about classical music than I do, but he listens to Classic FM because, for him, radio is not his principal way of listening to music. He listens in the mornings when he switches on for the news and doesn't mind snippets of music as long as it's classical; and he has it on when he's in his car. If his priority is to listen to music, he'll sit down and listen to a CD.

For other listeners, among whom I'd count myself, radio/Radio 3 was my principal means of hearing and learning about music and, never mind the absence of adverts and jingles, it would now fail my test of always expanding my knowledge.

Hello French Frank,

Like your brother I listen to Classic FM during the day rather than R3 for pretty much the same reason as him. I too am not too keen on the adverts but realise they pay for the station. Plus I also like David Mellor's new release show. R3 doesn’t know what it is these days. The endless tweeting, the trails, the many unknowledgeable presenters, the near-moronic competitions; all just about finished it for me. BBC management tried to fix R3 Radio 3 but it wasn't broken but it's knackered now

[ahinton]

This was true of me, also; when I first became fascinated by "Classical Music" at the age of around 11/12 in the early '70s, Radio 3 was the principal means I had available to me for hearing the vast range of repertoires and hearing information about that Music. Given the nature of my domestic circumstances at that age, listening before school was a vital time for me.

When I began teaching, some twelve years later, Radio 3 was also the first pointer that I would give to students who were similarly intrigued by these repertoires ("listen in the morning when you're getting ready for school") - and the kids were as responsive to the station then as I had been at their age. In the mid-90s, things began to change, and in the last ten years of my career I found I couldn't give such a blanket recommendation, and my students' response to the station became increasingly mocking and contemptuous of the content and style of the station.

Fortunately, with youTube and Spotify, other methods of hearing and learning have become available to people, so I do not worry for the future of the repertoires; but the neglect of these repertoires by the BBC, and of the audiences wishing to widen their experience and knowledge of them - in the very name of exactly those audiences - makes me far less confident about the future of Radio 3 itself.

What you describe here is dispiriting but unarguable; when you can;t commend R3 to students - and not necessarily those of music as their primary subject - something has become demonstrably wrong.

One undercurrent of all of this discussion is the quite disgusting notion of music as being a kind of weapon with which to beat the uninitiated, theeby putting them off it; I wish that more people could understand the kind of experience that I had at the outset which involved no snobbery, prejudice or indeed any other potential or actual interfering influcences because all that mattered - and all that impacted - was the music itself. For all that my early musical education and experience was unusual, I feel very fortunate in that no one ever tried actively and with prejudice to persuade me to listen to, or ignore, anything.

[french frank]

'There's only good music and bad music' That latter bit I'm not entirely in agreement with

No, talk about words and phrases that grate: not only is it one of the stalest clichés in the book of clichés, it's also completely, meaninglessly nonsensical. Music either good or bad and nothing in between?

The problem (in my opinion) is that if you don't have any sort of idea of what, for want of a better word, one might think of as 'categories' there will become fewer and fewer areas where certain repertoires will be heard. Take the Proms: once it becomes a 'music festival' how do you differentiate it from any other 'music festival' - Isle of Wight? Glastonbury? T in the Park? What would its remit be? How would you describe it? A 'symphony festival' and don't have any solo chamber, jazz, film, musicals. Or you could have a 'symphony week', 'a piano concerto week', a choral week, an opera week, a flute week.

Purcell and Glass? How can you compare Louis Armstrong and Cecil Taylor? Are they both jazz?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

There's only good music and bad music' That latter bit I'm not entirely in agreement with insofar as the distinction is as much subjective as objective, and I would add a few more centuries, but the basic premise has a lot to be said for it as far as I'm concerned.

I can assure you there's plenty of very bad music around - especially the stuff I've written.