End in sight for Classical Collection?

[cavatina]

If very few people comment about the state of the website when there is an opportunity to do so, then it is a sad reflection on the listeners who view it as it is a sad reflection on a society generally that now tamely accepts substandard goods and services as normal.

Speaking as someone who has an extremely low irritation threshold-- and who suffered the beginnings of a stomach ulcer because I always had myself up in knots when I was in my teens-- I'm gradually learning to discriminate between what's worth getting enraged (and outraged) about and what isn't.

To put it bluntly, rooting up errors on a radio station website simply doesn't make the cut. If you feel passionate about it, more power to you-- but I still think you'd be better off spending your time skewing the survey or phoning the boss of those responsible.

If you ask me, Epictetus said it best in his Enchiridion:

On Things Which Are In Our Power

http://www.humanistictexts.org/epictetus.htm#_Toc483370056

Just think: in the time it took us to write this, we could have filled out at least four more questionnaires and placed 2.5 phonecalls.

[french frank]

To put it bluntly, rooting up errors on a radio station website simply doesn't make the cut. If you feel passionate about it, more power to you-- but I still think you'd be better off spending your time skewing the survey or phoning the boss of those responsible.

There is principle and there is detail (or evidence).

The principle is that Radio 3 on air and online should not make the number of factual errors and other mistakes which it currently does; nor should it rely so heavily on sources which lack authority (especially Wikipedia). For a station which now says that it's targeting new audiences with little knowledge of classical music this seems to some of us to be particularly unacceptable.

Is that a reasonable principle, or is it not? (One thinks of the ridicule heaped on Classic FM when it first started because of all the presenter gaffes.)


One needs the examples to illustrate the principle. One also questions the agenda of people who focus on individual examples and suggest that they aren't worth bothering about. E.g. Does it matter that on one isolated occasion Imogen Holst was described as Gustav's wife? Dismissing it as unimportant is ignoring the principle.

[Suffolkcoastal]

Well put as always FF. R3 is providing a service and is supposed to be educating its listeners as well, websites are a key way of doing this nowadays a poorly maintained and inaccurate website reflects poorly on the parent company/organisation. As I've stated many times I'd gladly look after the website for R3, make sure it is accurate, carefully proof read all contributions, flag up errors etc, I wouldn't expect a large salary for doing it either, it's a matter of pride in the work you are doing and the service your are providing.

[cavatina]

The principle is that Radio 3 on air and online should not make the number of factual errors and other mistakes which it currently does; nor should it rely so heavily on sources which lack authority (especially Wikipedia). For a station which now says that it's targeting new audiences with little knowledge of classical music this seems to some of us to be particularly unacceptable.

Is that a reasonable principle, or is it not?

Yes, this is a very reasonable principle indeed. But given that there are an unlimited number of other principles worth upholding, we have to focus on issues where we're in a position to effect real change in a concrete manner. Bottom line: who do you need to reach and how can you reach them? It's a matter of being passive versus being active: sitting around commiserating with the like-minded never accomplished a thing and makes us look like we enjoy complaining for its own sake. Which isn't true, but how would anyone know if we seldom do anything else?

I think the next logical question to ask would be:

Has bringing up individual examples of R3's failure to live up to these principles on a message board ever accomplished anything?

Yes or no?

If not, it seems to me it's about time you did something else.

For an active approach, I can't see why you wouldn't be better off contacting the station directly--at as many different points of contact as possible-- and funneling your complaints about fact-checking into the survey as often as you can. Why don't we start a "how many surveys did you fill out this week?" competition or something. Create a thread specifically for highlighting errors so anyone interested can spot them at a glance, rather than force them to wade through a farrago of snarky ad-hominems in the regular threads. Come to think of it, you might get more attention if somebody started tweeting them.

One also questions the agenda of people who focus on individual examples and suggest that they aren't worth bothering about. E.g. Does it matter that on one isolated occasion Imogen Holst was described as Gustav's wife?

On an individual level, I meant it's "unimportant" in the sense that I really can't afford to let myself get enraged over things I can't do anything about. Because when I read this particular example, my throat tightened, my jaw clenched, I felt my breathing passages open from a shot of adrenaline, I vigorously and emphatically cursed out loud, and I had the sudden urge to throttle somebody. In the blink of an eye, I pretty much went from Mary Pickford in "Pollyanna" to Joe Pesci in "Goodfellas". Trust me, it's not a pretty sight. It's not an appropriate or healthy reaction, so what else can I do besides switch off?

Oh well, back to the Epictetus.

[french frank]

I don't get enraged in the way that you do . But anyway, I think you underestimate BBC management's ability to dismiss any sort of comment, helpful or critical, and however communicated, especially if you have a point of principle that impinges on its current policy (e.g. presenters are appointed for reasons other than their knowledge of music, yet they are expected to write their own links and introductions). Goodness knows who's responsible for the online material ...

They always have an answer; give them one example of a gaffe: 'Well, we're only human; we all make mistakes now and then."

Give them fifty examples: "<Sigh> Sometimes I think people only listen to pick up on the mistakes."

[cavatina]

Goodness knows who's responsible for the online material ...

Google always delivers: according to his LinkedIn bio, Gabriel Gilson has been the Interactive Editor for BBC Radio 3 and the Proms since January 2010. (Though with so many firings and hirings lately, I wouldn't necessarily bank on it.) He's "currently leading a major revamp of the Proms and Radio 3 websites. Making the best of Radio 3 content available to a much wider audience by improving segmenting, SEO, labeling, tagging and promotion". Oh, and he's also proud of having increased the website traffic by 40% during Mozart Month.

S, I think this sounds like a great place to start. If I were you, I'd call the general BBC number, ask for his administrative assistant, and politely ask if they think he might be interested in hearing from you-- and if not, do they know of anyone more appropriate to speak with, etc. Somehow, it just seems more sporting to at least give him the chance to tell you to p*** off to the general complaint line or something before you make a nuisance of yourself. I've never shared my two cents with anyone at the BBC personally-- but if I were on the other side of the fence, I think I'd appreciate the tact and consideration.

Hope that helps!

[french frank]

Hope that helps!

It was intended as more of a rhetorical question relating to the individual who actually inputs some of the unusual information, but, thank you. Gabriel Gilson has contributed several times to the Radio 3 blog.

I'm very much afraid, though, that the buck really stops at the top ...

[cavatina]

It was intended as more of a rhetorical question relating to the individual who actually inputs some of the unusual information,

Oh, I know...I just thought I'd rise to my own challenge and contribute something constructive.

I'm very much afraid, though, that the buck really stops at the top ...

Sure--in principle. But not only is Gilson more likely to know who was at fault, he has a lot more at stake (and a lot more to lose) if the website is ill-maintained and inaccurate. If the content is off, it reflects poorly on his department and his ability to manage the team...he has a vested interest in making sure the public thinks highly of his handiwork. That other fellow has bigger things to worry about-- i.e. things that might actually cost him his job, like declining audience figures.

I know he makes a good show of pretending to care at an abstract level, but the people you need to reach are those who genuinely care at a practical level.

[Suffolkcoastal]

Currently showing on the R3 website at 12.45pm advertising the current programme

Donald Macleod follows Svenden's early efforts in rejuvenating Norway's national music.

I think I'd better keep a log going and send it to Gabriel at the end of each month!

[Daring Tripod]

A too late idea:
I know I have ‘missed the boat’ for reasons beyond my control, but I have always had a dream that Rob Cowan should be promoted (!) to what he is best at and present a programme of “greatest ever performances on discs” where he could discuss the relative merits of the contenders either as a presenter or with a learned visitor.

How or where that fits into the schedule is immaterial. Maybe, in the past this has been tried already but times and audiences have moved on and there is ample new material what with the many reissues and new issues.

[vinteuil]

Currently showing on the R3 website at 12.45pm advertising the current programme

Donald Macleod follows Svenden's early efforts in rejuvenating Norway's national music.

I think I'd better keep a log going and send it to Gabriel at the end of each month!

... but sometimes the website is closer to the truth than Radio Times. Tomorrow's Classical Collection is giving us (according to the website)

"Webern
Im Sommerwind
Chicago Symphony Orchestra
Bernard Haitink "

A shame really - I was rather looking forward to the Radio Times promise of Weber's Im Sommerwind....

[Suffolkcoastal]

I wonder in Weber actually ever wrote a piece/song with that title? The truth is good old 'safe' Webern again (it's comfortably the most frequently broadcast original Webern piece of the last 3 years). I see that on In-Tune last night we were treated to Das Rheingold and Das heingold.

[french frank]

We get back, I suppose, to the point that each mistake is in itself hardly worth making a fuss about. But the point is that people are allowed to input information when they don't really understand what they're keying in (Breakfast today has Orchestre de chamber de la Foundation Gulbenkian de Lisbonne - was this absent-mindedness: someone forgot - twice - what language they were typing?)

But my most treasured Breakfast one - I think vinteuil spotted it - is still Morgengrub from Die Schöne Müllerin. Muesli?

[longinus]

James Jolly seems to have an extraordinarily patronising view of his audience. A few weeks ago, I noted that he wouldn't dream of playing us any Elliott Carter since "at this time in the morning" (11:30, I think) it would be too scary, and this morning in his preface to Webern's Im Sommerwind we were treated to some rigmarole about how we shouldn't immediately rush out to do our shopping since this wasn't the scary Webern but the (presumably) family-friendly one who hadn't met Schoenberg yet. After the piece, he added some gnomic comment about the different path that would have been taken by 20th C music had they not met - "for better or worse" I think he said. The implication was obscure but possibly he thinks the world would have been a much better place if Webern had been shot in 1905 instead of 1945.

Have we really got to the stage that Radio 3 cannot risk playing the music of some of the world's greatest composers before the afternoon?

[french frank]

Have we really got to the stage that Radio 3 cannot risk playing the music of some of the world's greatest composers before the afternoon?

The answer to that question is almost certainly, 'Yes' (though 'before the evening' would probably be more accurate). Make the most of Classical Collection: every sign is the replacement programme will be going down a further notch.

But why don't you email your comment, perhaps as constructively expressed as you can manage , to the programme? A reply might be interesting.