The Eternal Breakfast Debate in a New Place

[french frank]

Well, if you'll remember, a lot of people seemed to react like this...

NORMAL PERSON: Hey guess what! R3 is going to feature live music every night, isn't that fantastic?
MESSAGE BOARDER: GRAAAAAR OH MY GOD I BLEEPING HATE ROGER WRIGHT SOMEBODY FIRE THAT NO-GOOD BLEEPING BLEEP (etc. ad nauseam)

Nope. I searched on 'bleeping' to see if I could find the posts in question - but most of them seemed to be from you

I think every time someone mentions "reaching new audiences", ultimately they're thinking about the long-term survival of their organization [...] And who knows how much of the bias toward "short pieces in the morning, repeated often" has to do with some kind of deal they cut with the record industry to promote individual artists and albums to help keep the whole business afloat?

We-e-ell, the situation with the BBC isn't the standard commercial deal. There's a symbiotic relationship between R3 and the Proms, for example. No R3, no Proms - and I don't think the BBC wants to rid itself of one of its most prestigious 'brands'. It has to justify its public funding, and divesting itself of some of the most high profile PSB services wouldn't be the obvious way to go about it. As for 'cutting deals' with the record industry, erm, that sounds distinctly dodgy to me ... what are you suggesting the BBC gets out of it?

[Eudaimonia]

It has to justify its public funding, and divesting itself of some of the most high profile PSB services wouldn't be the obvious way to go about it.

Sure, but they still have to go through the "we're so relevant and forward-looking" tap dance routine to pacify the critics. It's largely an image management problem: the easier it is for people to portray R3 as being for fussy old elitists, the harder they'll have it in every respect: fewer audiences, less impact, less funding, more cuts, nastier op-eds in the media, et cetera.

So in effect, what looks like populism may just be well-disguised cynicism. I'm thinking in particular of someone I used to work with in the music world--let's call them "Nanny"-- who was one of the most opinionated, patronising, Lutoslawski-in-the-morning, "[bleep] the audience" Brussels-sprouts-pushing musical elitists to ever walk the face of the earth. But somehow in public, Nanny always managed to talk a smooth line about the importance of new audiences, music education, diversity, and all the rest of it. And ultimately, Nanny did very, very well in the musical world indeed, all because it learned to keep its harsh opinions to itself. But did Nanny really care? No, it most certainly did not. I can't help but wonder how many other people who do well in the music world have a touch of Nanny about them.

As for 'cutting deals' with the record industry, erm, that sounds distinctly dodgy to me ... what are you suggesting the BBC gets out of it?

I suppose I was extrapolating from a half-remembered fragment of a speech the Artful Dodger Himself gave last year to PPL, the music licensing company working on behalf of performer and record companies:

You know how diverse and how fragmented our media consumption has become. In this environment the collective agreement between the PPL and the BBC is vital in order to build in the necessary cost-effective and time-effective creativity at the heart of the relationship between our two organisations. The forward looking nature of this agreement gives real benefits to members and audiences alike.

Radio 3 has a genuine two-way partnership with the recording industry – for example, by our broadcasting of the recently created specialist classical music chart, our special composers seasons and our independent reviewer recommendations, we know that Radio 3 creates a powerfully positive market impact with increased sales as a direct result of our broadcasting initiatives. The BBC Trust is currently reviewing Radio 3's service licence and I am looking forward to our discussions with the Trust about how we need to keep with the times and deliver our station's unique output by the digital means which our audiences now expect from audio providers.

I don't know... I just thought it stands to reason that playing certain short tracks over and over is part of a strategy to sell records. Another "broadcasting initiative", if you will.

[french frank]

One thing is sure: there is a tension within the BBC between what they want to be doing (even, feel they have to do) in a competitive market and what they know they ought to be doing as a public service broadcaster. They have done their best (I assume!) to highlight the PSB obligations and to publicise their own efforts to fulfil them.

I don't know... I just thought it stands to reason that playing certain short tracks over and over is part of a strategy to sell records. Another "broadcasting initiative", if you will.

I don't think that's exactly what they're doing: they're not plugging particular recordings, for example. But, if they were, then they should be clear that it's what they're doing and drop the pretence that no one can concentrate on anything longer than 6 minutes at breakfast time (or, increasingly, at other times too). His comments about the Specialist Chart were a giveaway - and articulate the precise reason why we're against the Charts on R3: they push the latest/most popular releases over other available versions (Rieu over the VPO, for example). Guidelines on product placement and the BBC's coverage of commercially sponsored events, for instance, have recently been restated, so the justification for the Charts seems very thin (but I'm sure it was what the PPL wanted to hear).

What is bad about Breakfast is the editorial decisions that are now forced on it: playing recordings uncritically because they are among the current best-sellers (largely irrelevant in the classical music world, unlike in the pop world), playing pieces as an excuse to advertise forthcoming programmes, playing pieces because a celebrity guest has chosen them, playing single movements and short works because a minority of the audience is going off to work (as if people haven't always been going off to work at that time, ever since Radio 3 started broadcasting in the mornings), doing the 'interactive' bit because it's BBC policy.

Meanwhile, Andrew has pointed out the intriguing fact that, quarter on quarter, Breakfast gained 85,000 extra listeners while CFM lost 111,000 from their breakfast show: so much for cooperation with the commercial sector! ('Sorry, loves, if you ain't got the product, innit. Eh?')

[Osborn]

ff
I assume that the software has a store of obscene and objectionable words/phrases which it will not allow to be used in a post. Could you add 'dumbing down' please - it reeks of sneering and self-satisfied superiority and its persistent use does these MBs no favours!

[old khayyam]

Hi there. I'm new to the forum and just dropping in on random conversations.

I noticed way up-thread someone declaring how they don't enjoy hearing short, light pieces played on Breakfast as they represent lightweight modern programming, or something of that ilk.

My preference is not to hear big, rumbling symphonies first thing in the morning. I'd much prefer to hear something like a baroque quartet chirping away, or a gentle choral piece, or solo intrumental. None of these need be short or lightweight, yet all are in keeping with the character of the morning. Am i alone in this?

[french frank]

ff
I assume that the software has a store of obscene and objectionable words/phrases which it will not allow to be used in a post. Could you add 'dumbing down' please - it reeks of sneering and self-satisfied superiority and its persistent use does these MBs no favours!

Ossie

The software does have such a facility - but there's nothing on it at the moment (I toy with adding the word 'matron').

I don't like the term 'dumbing down', but it represents a real concept, roughly equivalent to 'I can cope with something that is intellectually more serious and demanding than this, and see no reason why I should be denied it in those contexts where it might be expected'. If anyone else can come up with a better phrase, I'll be happy to insist that they use it.

Don't forget that two (fairly) recent opinion polls found that a majority of BBC viewers/listeners considered that the BBC was [term deleted - please replace with an appropriate alternative].

[french frank]

My preference is not to hear big, rumbling symphonies first thing in the morning. I'd much prefer to hear something like a baroque quartet chirping away, or a gentle choral piece, or solo intrumental. None of these need be short or lightweight, yet all are in keeping with the character of the morning. Am i alone in this?

No. Because I agree, for one. There is a huge range of music available so it wouldn't be necessary to resort to long symphonies (many baroque/classical ones are relatively short). I'd like a mix of pieces up to about 20-25 minutes or so, alternating with short pieces (Mozart's Das Donnerwetter is under a minute, if I remember correctly). Many contemporary pieces are also quite short.

[Norfolk Born]

Welcome old khayyam! I think that for some people - myself included - two major sources of irritation with 'Breakfast' are: (a) the increasing incidence of 'bleeding chunks' ripped from longer works; and (b) the constant repetition of certain popular pieces. There MUST be plenty of short or medium-length pieces that deserve to be heard more often, some of which certainly meet the criteria which you list. Along with others, I'm dreading the day when single movements only of a Vivaldi concerto are played on 'Breakfast' on the grounds that listeners lack the stamina to listen to the whole 8 or 9 minutes.

[old khayyam]

Thank you and hello.

Certainly one cannot deny how appropriate Vivaldi can be for most mornings, though as you say, playing single movements does feel like a suppressed desire to play pop records.

The subject of playing popular classical pieces, however, i was going to raise on a seperate thread as it is not confined to Breakfast. Do you think i should raise it here anyway?

[Norfolk Born]

You're free to start a separate thread, or invite further discussion on this one. 'Breakfast' is the worst offender IMO when it comes to fragmented schedules. That's why I hardly ever tune in to Radio 3 before 10.00 a.m. Unfortunately, Classical Collection seems to be going the same way. Why not start a thread along the lines of 'Too many lollipops (or warhorses)'?

[aeolium]

Why not start a thread along the lines of 'Too many lollipops (or warhorses)'?

You could call it "Too many ghosts sucking lollipops on warhorses"

[Eudaimonia]

A new thread would be great-- thanks!

[Norfolk Born]

You could call it "Too many ghosts sucking lollipops on warhorses"

[Bax-of-Delights]

Has the "Comedy Collection" been quietly dropped? No sign of a chucklemeister this Monday morning....

[Frances_iom]

Has the "Comedy Collection" been quietly dropped? No sign of a chucklemeister this Monday morning....

I think they could only find 6 who had any idea of what classical music was (or possibly whose language was suitable pre 9pm watershed) - luckily R4 9 to 9:45 is preferable listening when I'm at home.
However doesn't seem to have stopped the downwards slide into a playlist mentality - could someone confirm that Rob Cowan admitted to having his hand held by the last guest