End in sight for Classical Collection?

[Paul Sherratt]

For those curious, Private Passions is recorded on the other side of the door ( pictured )

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Books/Pix/pictures/2009/01/02/writersroo030109-460.jpg

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

back to ALexander Armstrong then innit

[Mark Sealey]

Why care?

The assumption is that these hours are (largely) devoted to music, isn't it?

If so, then I feel a strong word should be put in for the notion that it's a logical absurdity that the presenter, the name of the programme, the time it's on, the presenter's guests, their hobbies, the day of the week etc can affect the notes played.

R3 has - until recently - been about the music, the drama, the art, the ideas, the literature themselves. Which seems to make most sense. Dickens, Debussy and Dowland had no idea who Rob Cowan (for example) was or is. Or when he was at the microphone, or what his programme was called, or how long it lasted. Nor could or should they have had!

Here's a great chance to focus on the music… a chamber music series; a midweek morning opera; a programme of musical analysis; a poetry sequence; a history of Serialism, of the madrigal, the motet; a quarter's programming - without hourly straightjackets - on the development of the symphony.

The presenter? The Title? The time and length of the program?

If Wright can show me conclusively that these will retrospectively change what was written by the composers and authors whose works are contained therein, even show me how these can enhance my hearing and appreciation of said notes and words, then I'll care.

[amateur51]

The assumption is that these hours are (largely) devoted to music, isn't it?

If so, then I feel a strong word should be put in for the notion that it's a logical absurdity that the presenter, the name of the programme, the time it's on, the presenter's guests, their hobbies, the day of the week etc can affect the notes played.

R3 has - until recently - been about the music, the drama, the art, the ideas, the literature themselves. Which seems to make most sense. Dickens, Debussy and Dowland had no idea who Rob Cowan (for example) was or is. Or when he was at the microphone, or what his programme was called, or how long it lasted. Nor could or should they have had!

Here's a great chance to focus on the music… a chamber music series; a midweek morning opera; a programme of musical analysis; a poetry sequence; a history of Serialism, of the madrigal, the motet; a quarter's programming - without hourly straightjackets - on the development of the symphony.

The presenter? The Title? The time and length of the program?

If Wright can show me conclusively that these will retrospectively change what was written by the composers and authors whose works are contained therein, even show me how these can enhance my hearing and appreciation of said notes and words, then I'll care.

Oh Mark, I'd never had you down as ein Stropmeister but that is sensational

Thank you for making my day

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Anyway, getting back:

The new prog is to be a 3-hour CD-based programme

It will aim to hold on as far as possible to the Breakfast audience

It all sounds rather depressing - more of the same.

[french frank]

If Wright can show me conclusively that these will retrospectively change what was written by the composers and authors whose works are contained therein, even show me how these can enhance my hearing and appreciation of said notes and words, then I'll care.

But the one thing Euda said which I unconditionally agree with is that it's a case of targeting "the audience you want", not "the audience you have". Cynically, they're now going after John Suchet's 9am audience. The only sense of direction they have is to dog the footsteps of Classic FM.

Whoever heard of such a limp programme brief as a presenter-led CD-based information light music sequence with a guest dropping in for a chat and invitations to listeners to send in their emails and text messages?

[amateur51]

But the one thing Euda said which I unconditionally agree with is that it's a case of targeting "the audience you want", not "the audience you have". Cynically, they're now going after John Suchet's 9am audience. The only sense of direction they have is to dog the footsteps of Classic FM.

Whoever heard of such a limp programme brief as a presenter-led CD-based information light music sequence with a guest dropping in for a chat and invitations to listeners to send in their emails and text messages?

OK so CFM has John Suchet, R3 has Katie Derham It's Newsreaders At Dawn!

What I would give to have heard "Reggie at Breakfast" on R3 - Reginald Bosanquet Sticks It To Ya!

[Frances_iom]

It will be more (should it be less ?) of the same - the key problem is that we view RW as an intellectual interested in educating the masses - all his past behaviour indicates this is totally false - he is a marketer with no interest in the product except in as much as he can exploit it to his advantage - like all true marketers you repeat any previously successful format as per Hollywood until it eventually can attract no further audience - always in hope that someone will come along with the idea that you can exploit to your benefit.

[Mark Sealey]

Am a little wary of making too many assumptions about the 'audience he wants'; I bet they'd take just as much to a well-argued, carefully-illustrated discourse on the development of opera as a DJ-style sequence. Why wouldn't they?

I certainly have no evidence to the contrary.

[french frank]

Am a little wary of making too many assumptions about the 'audience he wants'; I bet they'd take just as much to a well-argued, carefully-illustrated discourse on the development of opera as a DJ-style sequence. Why wouldn't they?

Partly in answer to francis_iom too: this appears to be what the BBC Trust has given the green light to. This was in some measure in response to their recent 'research' in which 'audiences' (unspecified) were asked to listen to some selected(?) programming of Radio 3 and asked for their reaction. Many of the respondents were not R3 listeners and - this was said - did not find classical music 'appealing'.

Now, I may be wrong, but it does seem to me that this type of listener may well report that they found R3 a bit heavy-going. But, but, but - these are the very listeners, the 'wider audience', who feel 'excluded', the listeners we want to attract ... so. Here endeth [Don't tell me the obvious arguments contra: I know-ooh]

[DracoM]

I have to say that the prog brief FF presented is depressingly unoriginal.

It is CFM, it is R3 capitulating, and I would suggest that it is unllikely to wean a big CFM market away from a noted branded programme / presenter, and for me, unless you make yourself distinctive in a very crowded field, you are likely to be submerged. And that looks precisely what R3 have painted themselves into.

This is what CFM did a year ago, so already R3 is miles behind the game, and has only just reacted with a programme format designed to come on stream way after the CFM model has been road-tested, established with listeners, and setled. Why should anyone choose R3 over CFM if the formula is virtually identical? Just because it's R3? I don't think so - not these days of huge online choice.

I am wearily unsurprised.

[Frances_iom]

.. [Don't tell me the obvious arguments contra: I know-ooh]

Feynman once said (probably with tongue firmly in cheek) that if you could not explain quantum mechanics to a sophomore class then you didn't understand the topic - he did not however say that said sophomore class merely had to sit back and all would be made clear without any effort on their part.

[french frank]

The bit of the brief that catches my attention is : "whilst drawing in new listeners from the post-Today Radio 4 switch over".

This goes straight back to 1996 when Paul Gambaccini said of his short-lived programme 'Morning Collection', in a Radio Times interview: "I had a specific mission to invite Today listeners to stay with the BBC rather than go to Classic FM."

So, to pull Radio 4's Today listeners over at 9am, to stop them going over to Classic FM, big name popular presenter, minimal knowledge of classical music. At least I'd put money on the new presenter not being Paul Gambaccini, but it could be anyone else (John Suchet? ) ...

Radio 3 - you are quite ridiculous, churning out the same tired stuff from two decades ago.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Is there something wrong with Radio 4 at 9.00 a.m?

[french frank]

Is there something wrong with Radio 4 at 9.00 a.m?

Not necessarily . As I said earlier, if 9am is a switchover time, i.e. one programme is just ending, they toy idly with twiddling the virtual knob to see what else is on. Classic FM moved last year from 8am to 9am, while R3 was at 10 am. Now this puts the two stations in contention at 9am again. Look out for a big name. (Or maybe Rob if they think he can attract R4 listeners as well as Suchet.)