The Eternal Breakfast Debate in a New Place

[antongould]

If that 'potential audience' wants what is currently being offered to them, what is it about the members of this forum that makes you and Bbm the rare ones who actually like it - or at least find little to complain about? In other respects, members seem to cover a fairly wide range: why should so many here want more depth, quality, expertise and less 'light entertainment'?

I feel our fine body is far from representative of my - as S_A points out - decidedly dodgy definition of potential audience. At times it seems a badge of honour to listen to very little or none of R3's output. Yes if the station moved in the direction desired by the Forum members their listening hours may well increase but I feel overall listening figures would be down. The only real test would be for a time to have, as gurnemanz suggests, two separate morning R3 stations and compare the listening figures.

[french frank]

Yes if the station moved in the direction desired by the Forum members their listening hours may well increase but I feel overall listening figures would be down.

Which poses another question : should the BBC start with a concept of what Radio 3 should be (and do), or do they start by thinking about how they can persuade more people to listen, and be prepared to lower standards in order to increase listening? Isn't this integrity v. cynicism?

[LMcD]

Which poses another question : should the BBC start with a concept of what Radio 3 should be (and do), or do they start by thinking about how they can persuade more people to listen, and be prepared to lower standards in order to increase listening? Isn't this integrity v. cynicism?

I think this what's called a 'no-brainer'. If priority is given to chasing listeners, the result is sooner or later bound to be a less challenging (and thus, in my view, less nutritious) and increasingly bland product.

[DracoM]

[antongould]

Which poses another question : should the BBC start with a concept of what Radio 3 should be (and do), or do they start by thinking about how they can persuade more people to listen, and be prepared to lower standards in order to increase listening? Isn't this integrity v. cynicism?

But surely different people have different views of what R3, and it's standards, should be .... so which group should decide ... ???

[teamsaint]

It really isn't impossible , or undesireable , to have a programme that includes a range of generally shorter works, with possibly some well chosen non classical works sympathetic to the general tone and style, a little listener interaction ( helps keep the numbers up and it actually isn't the crime of the century to want to phone in to your favourite station) , have some interesting snippets of arts and music news, at a time of day when an awful lot of people DO seem to like the radio on as a soundtrack to their morning routine or activities. And having it thoughtfully and professionally presented, with an eye to informing and educating, is also possible.
There are a lot of hours in the day for other styles of presentation of music, and if there are many people who both crave ,and don't have any other way of hearing hour long pieces of music at that time of day, then I would be surprised.

R3 presumably needs to have an access point for new listeners too. A popular time for listening, when attention spans are often understandably short, seems a good place to start.
But perhaps all that has already been said at some point in this thread.

[oddoneout]

It really isn't impossible , or undesireable , to have a programme that includes a range of generally shorter works, with possibly some well chosen non classical works sympathetic to the general tone and style, a little listener interaction ( helps keep the numbers up and it actually isn't the crime of the century to want to phone in to your favourite station) , have some interesting snippets of arts and music news, at a time of day when an awful lot of people DO seem to like the radio on as a soundtrack to their morning routine or activities. And having it thoughtfully and professionally presented, with an eye to informing and educating, is also possible.
There are a lot of hours in the day for other styles of presentation of music, and if there are many people who both crave ,and don't have any other way of hearing hour long pieces of music at that time of day, then I would be surprised.

R3 presumably needs to have an access point for new listeners too. A popular time for listening, when attention spans are often understandably short, seems a good place to start.
But perhaps all that has already been said at some point in this thread.

This sums up my thinking on the matter, thank you TS. For me it isn't a case of one or the other, I like(within reason) shorter items in the morning as that suits how my day works, but that doesn't mean I don't listen to or want the afternoon or evening programmes. I may not know much about music but it is an essential part of my life and, in the same way that I cannot be without reading material, if the choice is between a somewhat less than ideal format or nothing at all, then I'll go with the former.
As it happens what is currently making me switch off throughout the day is the excessive trailer trash, and sadly, for whatever reason, the radio doesn't always get switched on again once that's happened as I don't have a remote control to make such censorship easy.

[french frank]

But perhaps all that has already been said at some point in this thread.

Don't know about this thread. It's certainly been thought by Roger Wright. As for the 'who should decide' question. Only the BBC decides anything. Groups or individuals may present arguments in the folorn hope that the BBC will weigh up the arguments and provide explanations for what they 'decide'. Not that they will.

The main argument is that the BBC should provide unique services, not provided elsewhere. Radio 3 provides a mish-mash (as described by teamsaint :-P) of programming presented elsewhere, mainly on CFM and Radio 2 and dismisses any suggestion that there is an audience which takes classical music more seriously.

Radio is not like television where people expect to channel-hop in search of the programmes they think will be enjoyable. Once Radio 3 becomes that kind of listening where you have to check up each day for a programme that sounds good, listeners will lose interest.

As Richard Osborne once lamented as regards changes to Radio 3: "Will an informed audience even exist in thirty years time?" Well, that was about 15 years ago and the answer to his question seems headed towards a No. Because if Radio 3 is not nurturing such an audience, no one else will. It does not need entry points for people who want 'generally shorter works, with … non classical works … a little listener interaction … snippets of arts and music news… a soundtrack to their morning routine." That's like opening up universities to six-year-olds. It's adopting the commercial mantra 'ratings by day, reputation by night', where you broadcast your popular programmes when everyone wants to listen and put anything serious on when no one wants to listen. If Radio 2 still had these kinds of programmes, Radio 3's entry points would be for those who wanted to know more, wanted more demanding listening. As it is, as other services focus more and more on light entertainment, Radio 3 has to take on more responsibility for the rock bottom basics.

Why isn't there a station to take the arts and music to a more demanding level? Or is this the same question as the one about degrees?

[teamsaint]

I really don't see why an " accessible style" Breakfast time format precludes having the station also putting out a wealth of programmes that " take the arts and music to a more demanding level ".

Or, put another way , the accessible format of Breakfast should itself set high standards, in terms of researching the music played, quality of information given, sensitive links into other ( more demanding?) programming, and so on.

[Serial_Apologist]

I really don't see why an " accessible style" Breakfast time format precludes having the station also putting out a wealth of programmes that " take the arts and music to a more demanding level ".

Or, put another way , the accessible format of Breakfast should itself set high standards, in terms of researching the music played, quality of information given, sensitive links into other ( more demanding?) programming, and so on.

I agree. The question remaining is: why is Radio 3 not providing this, then?

[oddoneout]

I agree. The question remaining is: why is Radio 3 not providing this, then?

Money?

[teamsaint]

Seems to me that a good quality Breakfast format is more like running a university open day for interested 16/17 YO students than "opening up Universities to six year olds."

And personally speaking,as somebody who spends a lot of time learning about music, and listening to music that is new to me, I'd still welcome a mixed Breakfast time format along the lines I described, ( but to my mind of better quality than the current offering) , because it would work for me. And I suspect a lot of other people.

[antongould]

It really isn't impossible , or undesireable , to have a programme that includes a range of generally shorter works, with possibly some well chosen non classical works sympathetic to the general tone and style, a little listener interaction ( helps keep the numbers up and it actually isn't the crime of the century to want to phone in to your favourite station) , have some interesting snippets of arts and music news, at a time of day when an awful lot of people DO seem to like the radio on as a soundtrack to their morning routine or activities. And having it thoughtfully and professionally presented, with an eye to informing and educating, is also possible.
There are a lot of hours in the day for other styles of presentation of music, and if there are many people who both crave ,and don't have any other way of hearing hour long pieces of music at that time of day, then I would be surprised.

R3 presumably needs to have an access point for new listeners too. A popular time for listening, when attention spans are often understandably short, seems a good place to start.
But perhaps all that has already been said at some point in this thread.

[DracoM]

<< As Richard Osborne once lamented as regards changes to Radio 3: "Will an informed audience even exist in thirty years time?" Well, that was about 15 years ago and the answer to his question seems headed towards a No. Because if Radio 3 is not nurturing such an audience, no one else will. It does not need entry points for people who want 'generally shorter works, with … non classical works … a little listener interaction … snippets of arts and music news… a soundtrack to their morning routine." / FF >>

Nail > hammer > bash.

[teamsaint]

Or R3 could just vote itself into oblivion.

It needs to nurture ALL of its actual or potential audience, ( not just those already at the" university") because most people/ fee payers couldn't care less about it.