The Eternal Breakfast Debate in a New Place

[french frank]

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.

"Radio 3 for All" would not be 'Radio 3'. The whole point of having generic broadcasting - as the BBC chose to do - is for different services to cater for distinct audiences. The death of Radio 3 would be insisting that it, uniquely, had to serve everyone with a little bit of everything at every level of specialism.

You still aren't clear what 'its potential audience' is. The complaint might well be that Radio 3 has no detailed profile of its targeted new listener and therefore no idea how to attract them. It is the BBC's job to nurture that new audience, not Radio 3's (notwithstanding that programming for much younger listeners used to be considered essential and no longer is, apparently - and regrettably): that was the BBC Trust's view and BBC management ignored it. Radio 2 has divested itself of the 'gerry' music programmes that were where many Radio 3 listeners with less privileged musical backgrounds started out, in order to raise its already overwhelming reach to new heights of juggernautery.

[teamsaint]

I'm not sure that the BBC ( or any organisation) can be sure exactly where its new audience will come from. There is always an element of " Build it and they will come".

I don't accept that an improved Breakfast offering has to be part of the death of R3 that you outline. (And surely" R3 for all" isn't on anybody's agenda ).Simply that it can be done better, with some positive results , for example getting somebody like me to listen more regularly.
So I think I am saying that Breakfast doesn't have to be part of the problem, it could be part of the solution.
But you understand better than me how things work in and around the BBC.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

The morning slot up to 9.00 a.m. was almost ideal before the introduction of the current presenter-led drivel.

[teamsaint]

Incidentally, back in the day, R1 did rather a good job of transitioning between its daytime playlist /DJ led shows,through to the almost completely new and more left field " music led " John Peel show.
I can't show how well that did in terms of taking its audiences with it, but they made a good job of trying.

[oddoneout]

I'm not sure that the BBC ( or any organisation) can be sure exactly where its new audience will come from. There is always an element of " Build it and they will come".

I don't accept that an improved Breakfast offering has to be part of the death of R3 that you outline. (And surely" R3 for all" isn't on anybody's agenda ).Simply that it can be done better, with some positive results , for example getting somebody like me to listen more regularly.
So I think I am saying that Breakfast doesn't have to be part of the problem, it could be part of the solution.
But you understand better than me how things work in and around the BBC.

Watching this exchange between you and FF reminds me a little of the 'Think Global, Act Local' mantra. There is the big discussion about what R3 is for, which leads to what it should be doing, and how. The other side is 'This is what is happening now, how can it be improved'. Expressing opinion at both levels is important, but I for one am happier at the 'local' level suggesting ways that the parts of the existing offer to which I listen could,( and arguably should) be improved. Apart from anything else there is a lot of R3 output about which I know little if anything, or which does not interest me, and so while I may feel that opera for instance is 'A Good Thing' and should continue to be broadcast I don't feel qualified to comment on how that should happen.

[DaisyDog]

The morning slot up to 9.00 a.m. was almost ideal before the introduction of the current presenter-led drivel.

Indeed it was but they will keep tinkering. Now every time I hear that annoying promo for the ‘Mixtape' programme I mis-hear it as ’Mistake'. Which is what I think of it. A bit like my mishearing of the American Jazz man Geoffrey Smith promoting his late night programme announcing 'Hello Breakfasters’ that I always hear it as ’Hello Brexiters’. Deaf? Pardon? Creative listening I call it.

[french frank]

I don't accept that an improved Breakfast offering has to be part of the death of R3 that you outline.

Don't understand that. Do we mean different things when we speak of "an improved Breakfast". Within my definition I certainly don't think it would be part of 'the death of Radio 3'. But I don't regard the current Breakfast as an 'improved' offering.

That said, the situation is exacerbated by having it followed by three hours of so-called Essential Classics. And by interspersing reasonable presenters with people from other stations, and with other musical/other interests, who just aren't up to the job.

The deal should be that if, for instance, Radio 2's jazz listeners venture over to Radio 3, they should accept Radio 3's jazz programmes, not expect Jazz Now to be replaced with Late Night with Jamie Cullum and Jazz Line-Up with Saturday Smooth, just because the Controller of Radio 2 doesn't want jazz on his station any more and has dropped it all.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I recall my old headmaster from the 1960s. When he arrived, he tried all sorts of new things. Some of them worked, and some the didn't.

But there was one important difference between him and Radio 3. If he got is wrong, he would either seek to find a better alternative, or revert to the previous state of things. Either way, he showed integrity.

Radio 3 doesn't appear to have much in the way of wisdom in this regard, and carries on in the forlorn hope that things will get better - same failed ideas; same stuck-in-grooved presenters.

[teamsaint]

Don't understand that. Do we mean different things when we speak of "an improved Breakfast". Within my definition I certainly don't think it would be part of 'the death of Radio 3'. But I don't regard the current Breakfast as an 'improved' offering.

That said, the situation is exacerbated by having it followed by three hours of so-called Essential Classics. And by interspersing reasonable presenters with people from other stations, and with other musical/other interests, who just aren't up to the job.

The deal should be that if, for instance, Radio 2's jazz listeners venture over to Radio 3, they should accept Radio 3's jazz programmes, not expect Jazz Now to be replaced with Late Night with Jamie Cullum and Jazz Line-Up with Saturday Smooth, just because the Controller of Radio 2 doesn't want jazz on his station any more and has dropped it all.

I think we are maybe at cross purposes. I'm saying that a Breakfast style programme could be done to much higher standards, and more in keeping with the more usual programming of the rest of the day, of complete works, etc, whilst retaining the features that many people ( including classical music enthusiasts) seem to enjoy or want from their morning radio.
My own view is that , although there is vast room for impprovement in Breakfast, EC is a far bigger problem in terms of standards. I can see that, as a strategy, the management might want to programme the first hour ( say) of EC in a way that dovetails , to an extent, with Breakfast, but that could easily be done without plumbing the current EC depths.

I agree with your point about exporting R2 Jazz etc audiences. The real shame of it is that R2 seems to be wilfully set on abandoning valuable threads in its programming, in a way that the public isn't actually asking for.

[cloughie]

I think we are maybe at cross purposes. I'm saying that a Breakfast style programme could be done to much higher standards, and more in keeping with the more usual programming of the rest of the day, of complete works, etc, whilst retaining the features that many people ( including classical music enthusiasts) seem to enjoy or want from their morning radio.
My own view is that , although there is vast room for impprovement in Breakfast, EC is a far bigger problem in terms of standards. I can see that, as a strategy, the management might want to programme the first hour ( say) of EC in a way that dovetails , to an extent, with Breakfast, but that could easily be done without plumbing the current EC depths.

I agree with your point about exporting R2 Jazz etc audiences. The real shame of it is that R2 seems to be wilfully set on abandoning valuable threads in its programming, in a way that the public isn't actually asking for.

Has it never occurred to those in charge of BBC Radio that in addition to trying to attract younger listeners that we older listeners who are living longer are also entitled to be retained as listeners. What has happened to R2 and R3 has effectively disenfranchised many older listeners. At least iPlayer and a good CD collection can mean avoiding the poor offerings available.

[french frank]

In that case, team, we are entirely at one , now that you have explained No more to be said on that. I have watched the early morning programme evolving over 20 years. I remember what it was like as 'On Air' (NK) and 'Morning on 3' (RW), and would make this observation about this morning's programme, which I have no doubt was more competently (and acceptably!) done than other occasions:

Short pieces, first thing in the morning. Yes, but I don't believe people arrange their lives around what Radio 3 is playing on Breakfast ("Oh, jings! I should be leaving for work NOW, but Radio 3 is in the middle of a piece of music!"). They work by the clock and if they are forced to switch off in the middle of a piece, they will, however short the pieces. This morning, there were 17 pieces of which the longest was the Saint-Saëns Caprice at 10.37 secs. All the rest were under ten minutes long (Mzt K622 2nd mvt looked like 13 mins but actually just under 7). The rest were c.3 mins to c. 8 mins (but take off a minute or so for speech content), average under 7 mins (make that 5-6mins).

Proposition for weekdays: The pieces could still be 'short' but longer than now, let's say 2-3 works of at least 20 mins, and an average of 10 minutes? Would that be impossible for 'new listeners' to cope with? And if there were no single movements? And no listener participation or extra musical waffle? And the presenters were tightly produced, regardless of whether they were considered to be knowledgeable (even Homer nods), but especially when they are clearly only (mis-)reading a script ('Copland's ballet Rondo').

How about that for a start?

I think we are maybe at cross purposes. I'm saying that a Breakfast style programme could be done to much higher standards, and more in keeping with the more usual programming of the rest of the day, of complete works, etc, whilst retaining the features that many people ( including classical music enthusiasts) seem to enjoy or want from their morning radio.
My own view is that , although there is vast room for impprovement in Breakfast, EC is a far bigger problem in terms of standards. I can see that, as a strategy, the management might want to programme the first hour ( say) of EC in a way that dovetails , to an extent, with Breakfast, but that could easily be done without plumbing the current EC depths.

I agree with your point about exporting R2 Jazz etc audiences. The real shame of it is that R2 seems to be wilfully set on abandoning valuable threads in its programming, in a way that the public isn't actually asking for.

[BBMmk2]

Frenchie, that sounds like a great idea! Yes ok for shortish works and a few longer ones. A good mix that would be I am sure. I had a request in today, which was for more Samuel Coleridge-Taylor! A rather good performance of his Legend, Op.14.

[DracoM]

But the evolving modus audiendi is for music to be carried anywhere and everywhere, so if at breakfast etc one is in the midst of listening on a fixed radio etc, and then goes off to work with iPhone etc, one can still be listening to the same Bartok Str Qt.

Sorry, I just do not get this 'tracks' approach to R3's day time offerings. Modern listening devices availability militates against that mindset. I really do wonder if R3 have got it fundamentally wrong and will rue the day they effectively drove people away, AND also [ my pet hobby horse so pass by if it bores you] made such a shamefully, pitifully shoddy attempt to educate the new and the young on air /in schools.

Or are they seriously imagining that the young will pick up classical music like burrs caught on trousers as you walk a field?

First, there has to be a FIELD made attractive enough for the wanderer to pass by and catch the burrs.

[french frank]

But the evolving modus audiendi is for music to be carried anywhere and everywhere, so if at breakfast etc one is in the midst of listening on a fixed radio etc, and then goes off to work with iPhone etc, one can still be listening to the same Bartok Str Qt.

It's the way things are going, though RAJAR's latest research says only 8% of 'live radio listening' is via portable devices (excl. laptops) so still some way to go.

Or are they seriously imagining that the young will pick up classical music like burrs caught on trousers as you walk a field?

First, there has to be a FIELD made attractive enough for the wanderer to pass by and catch the burrs.

Ideally the Radio 2 prairie should have a couple of wildflower meadows for listeners to wander into if they feel attracted, and if they go in far enough they come to the entrance to Radio 3 which has even more attractive flowers

[Old Grumpy]

Ideally the Radio 2 prairie should have a couple of wildflower meadows for listeners to wander into if they feel attracted, and if they go in far enough they come to the entrance to Radio 3 which has even more attractive flowers

Here's a start