Sunday Morning

[french frank]

With respect, I think that might possibly be overstating things, ff. It's one little 2-3 minute piece once a week (I'm not counting "On the Town" or Peggy Lee as light music). I hardly think, as an appreciator of light music, I'm being given priority over others who aren't. Also, I don't think 'light' and 'heavy' music listeners are necessarily mutually exclusive. Yes, I like 'light' music but I also listen to and enjoy 'heavier fare' too.

In the context light/popular/clearly-not-classical might have been a more accurate description, since I was, specifically, talking about Peggy Lee and On the Town. For me, the question to ask is "What kind of audience is this aiming to serve?" My reply to Sir V was exactly pointing out that 'light' and 'heavy' listeners (if we know what that means) aren't necessarily mutually exclusive since some people like both, in fact some like anything which, broadly speaking, is referred to as 'music'. 'My' Radio 3 would be clear what audience a programme was aiming to satisfy: jazz programmes, as Serial has suggested, for listeners who have a special and informed interest in jazz, introduced by knowledgeable presenters, where the focus might shift for a programme which aimed to be cutting edge and another which was 'pure' jazz , but with perhaps a broader appeal. I would never have listened to Brian Kay's Light Programme, but I think lovers of light music had a better deal when it had a dedicated programme, and those who weren't interested didn't have to listen.

And if not to R3 where should they go?

That turns around the point I made. Should everything which isn't on anywhere else be on Radio 3? Let's have Your Hundred Best Tunes, Melodies for You, the old Friday Night is Music Night with light classical music, The Organist Entertains, Mike Harding's folk and country show … I'm sure there are other types of music which don't get much of a look-in.

[Serial_Apologist]

Not for the first time I'm not entirely clear as to the point you are making. OTOH you seem to be saying that if a particular listener requests a piece of music, no matter how non "core R3" it is, they will get it played, provided the producer/presenter is in tune with it; while OTOH you seem to be implying that particular listener preferences are irrelevant when it comes to presenters. Surely, the opposite is true if only from your opening remarks?

Moreover, I think you provide the evidence that individual likes and dislikes are extremely relevant in the selection of presenter. Look at the recent success of Ian Skelly; this has surely come about through his garnering a little fan club on these pages and among other listeners. Anyone who listens attentively can tell after a few moments that he has neither the breadth of musical knowledge of Jonathan Swain or Martin Handley, yet he has become flavour of the month. Furthermore, one can see from the evidence of other radio stations that if there is sufficient dislike of a particular presenter then they get bounced quickly, particularly if the holy grail of listener numbers is adversely impacted.

But what would these "more knowledgeable presenters" have to say, repeatedly ad nauseam, about a perpetual diet of de-contextualised "bleeding chunks", that would justify their scholarliness? Skelly possibly satisfies some of Radio 3's musically disenfranchised by virtue of how his gentle manner of sending up constitutes its own kind of criticism.

[french frank]

Skelly possibly satisfies some of Radio 3's musically disenfranchised by virtue of how his gentle manner of sending up constitutes its own kind of criticism.

I had an email last week from a FoR3-er asking if anyone had said anything about IS's comment on some new feature and how that there would be many, many R3 trails about it. "You know you like them really…"

[antongould]

I had an email last week from a FoR3-er asking if anyone had said anything about IS's comment on some new feature and how that there would be many, many R3 trails about it. "You know you like them really…"

Puzzled as to why anyone should say anything ..... but then I puzzle easily .....

[french frank]

Puzzled as to why anyone should say anything ..... but then I puzzle easily .....

He was suggesting an awareness on the part of the presenter that Radio 3 never misses an opportunity to broadcast a trail or five - and that they weren't everybody's favourite listening. I think. And probably the said listener was enquiring whether such an interpretation had struck anyone else forcibly enough for them to pass a comment. Just a guess

[antongould]

He was suggesting an awareness on the part of the presenter that Radio 3 never misses an opportunity to broadcast a trail or five - and that they weren't everybody's favourite listening. I think. And probably the said listener was enquiring whether such an interpretation had struck anyone else forcibly enough for them to pass a comment. Just a guess

As we know, around here trailers are not universally popular and Skellers is quite happy to take the Michael out of both R3 and himself ...

[cloughie]

As we know, around here trailers are not universally popular and Skellers is quite happy to take the Michael out of both R3 and himself ...

Trailers for sale or rent
Rooms to let 50 cents
I'm a man of means by no means
King of the road

[LMcD]

Trailer trash?

[doversoul1]

A programme of music interspersed with intelligent comment.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bfxltw

How very exciting.

[Serial_Apologist]

A programme of music interspersed with intelligent comment.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bfxltw

How very exciting.

Not a programme of intelligent music interspersed with comment, then!

[oddoneout]

Not a programme of intelligent music interspersed with comment, then!

Definitely not! The only part of the blurb that has any relationship(although increasingly tenuous) to reality is 'music'. Intelligent comment in this context is an oxymoron.
I have been dismayed by the Sunday morning schedule becoming a weekday offering. Whatever my tolerance levels for Breakfast and EC, doesn't mean I want them at the weekend, and for every morning to be the same format as a consequence.

[Serial_Apologist]

Definitely not! The only part of the blurb that has any relationship(although increasingly tenuous) to reality is 'music'. Intelligent comment in this context is an oxymoron.
I have been dismayed by the Sunday morning schedule becoming a weekday offering. Whatever my tolerance levels for Breakfast and EC, doesn't mean I want them at the weekend, and for every morning to be the same format as a consequence.

For regularity, I prefer All Bran myself.

[french frank]

Declaration of interest (or no interest): I have never listened to the new Sunday Morning programme. But I do feel able to criticise the playlist as published. And I do feel qualified to comment on what the BBC/R3 says about the programme.

Whether or not the interspersed comment is 'intelligent' or not, I cannot say. But it still doesn't answer the question 'At what level of listener is the comment aimed?'

The playlist suggests that the programme is yet another undemanding, if I may repeat (because I quite like it), gallimaufry of short pieces, mostly classical but interspersed with popular songs for people who are only half listening, or perhaps aren't listening at all, all the time. Is the 'intelligent comment' addressed to them?

If so, my earlier question remains, as it were, unanswered: How many programmes on Radio 3 are unsuitable for casual, 'beginner level' listeners? I would suggest the late night, once a week Hear and Now. But is anything else a no-no for people who know little about classical music? Perhaps Composer of the Week offers them more about a focused subject than all of them would wish to know, but is hardly difficult listening. As with any of the music, it interests or it doesn't. More a matter of curiosity than attained knowledge.

In reverse, how many programmes are aimed at quite to very knowledgeable listeners who want to be educated, informed and stretched, and who don't see that as being incompatible with being entertained?

[oddoneout]

'At what level of listener is the comment aimed?'

I don't think it's so well thought out as to involve height restrictions. It's more a case of who happens to be in the way when the blunt missile lands.

[french frank]

I don't think it's so well thought out as to involve height restrictions. It's more a case of who happens to be in the way when the blunt missile lands.

It's always somewhat invidious to try to explain what exactly one means about these 'levels'. There is no derogatory intention behind pointing out that a five-year-old is at some sort of 'level' different from a fifteen-year-old. And offence is not taken if one assumes that to be the case. With adults, A, who knows more than B about, say, music, may know very much less than B about maths. But if one is discussing music, only the first is relevant. We are speaking of 'knowledge level'.

I think the BBC refers to 'levels of musical appreciation' which could be taken to include knowledge (extent of information, facts) and experience (going to concerts, number of years spent listening).

Radio 3 is, by declaration, trying to attract and cater for people who have little or no knowledge, for many hours a day. The way they do it is not going to satisfy more knowledgeable listeners, and expecting both sorts of listener to appreciate the same programme is like sitting a group of fifteen-year-olds down with the five-year-olds.

But if one is dealing with adults, is it unreasonable to assume that they are able to sit and listen to a piece of music for 30 minutes? And without the need for any sort of comment, intelligent or not?