End in sight for Classical Collection?

[Suffolkcoastal]

Aeolium, my comments were about how I fear R3 could end up if the current trend continues rather than its current state of affairs. I agree there are still some good programmes on R3 at present, but there are already early warning signs that some of these are starting to be eroded, as in the case of TTN which I pointed out in my earlier posting #62.

[aeolium]

asking no more of listeners than that they listen ...

Well, that's not a bad requirement for a music programme - and an advance on background listening where there is not even the expectation of continual listening. What would you have the listeners do - write an essay about the music?

The Lunchtime Concert and Po3 are normally bread-and-butter in terms of repertoire

I think it is incumbent on those who criticise the relatively conventional programming for Lunchtime Concert and Po3, yet at the same time call for more live concert programming, to explain how they would manage to make the programming more adventurous. If you look at the concert schedules of any major UK concert hall you will see very similar programmes, with plenty of warhorses and familiar repertoire - even more so during a recession. Is the BBC to tell those concert programmers to put on some more adventurous stuff, risking even emptier concert halls? On the one hand it could be argued that the BBC orchestras should take the lead here, but it could also be argued that it will be more difficult in the regions than in London where there is greater choice and diversity of repertoire.

[Suffolkcoastal]

Standard repetoire has dominated concert programmes in this country for some time. The two alternatives are: make other programmes in the day more varied and challenging to contrast with the live concerts, something R3 used to do in the past; or as I've suggested many times before R3 could share live concert broadcasting with other nations broadening the choice of repetoire and variety of orchestras/soloists/chamber groups etc.

[french frank]

In answer to aeolium, #77, I wouldn't criticise R3 for the content of R3's recitals and concerts, not at all: there is a huge range of 'standard repertoire' which is still what we all want to listen to, albeit for some, selectively. That's not a problem for 'us' or - I would suggest - for any listeners who want to give classical music a try.

I suppose what I'm trying to suggest is that we 'oldies' (in terms of 'classical' music) want something more, added value, in the way of insight, technical and aesthetic. We want information which is accurate from people who are experts in their field. In fact, we think (do we?) that this is what Radio 3 is about. So we're not catered for in terms of mornings, at all. This is for the Classic FM contingent.

We can usually rely on CD Review/BaL, even though some weeks are better than others. But that's just on Saturday mornings.

In terms of depth, thought provoking comment and encouragement to pursue our interest, there is little else. It seems to be considered 'dry', 'elitist' and 'exclusive' which is the equivalent of telling us to p*** off. Hear & Now is a late-night ghetto which no normal human being will be listening to anyway.

My view (Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ) is that R3 shouldn't be broadcasting anything that doesn't strongly appeal to the intellect: that is, it should demand that we THINK about what we hear, lead us on further [*e-duc-ate*]. To me, that is the defining requirement of Radio 3; whether it's music (of any kind), drama, poetry, thought...

[amateur51]

In answer to aeolium, #77, I wouldn't criticise R3 for the content of R3's recitals and concerts, not at all: there is a huge range of 'standard repertoire' which is still what we all want to listen to, albeit for some, selectively. That's not a problem for 'us' or - I would suggest - for any listeners who want to give classical music a try.

I suppose what I'm trying to suggest is that we 'oldies' (in terms of 'classical' music) want something more, added value, in the way of insight, technical and aesthetic. We want information which is accurate from people who are experts in their field. In fact, we think (do we?) that this is what Radio 3 is about. So we're not catered for in terms of mornings, at all. This is for the Classic FM contingent.

We can usually rely on CD Review/BaL, even though some weeks are better than others. But that's just on Saturday mornings.

In terms of depth, thought provoking comment and encouragement to pursue our interest, there is little else. It seems to be considered 'dry', 'elitist' and 'exclusive' which is the equivalent of telling us to p*** off. Hear & Now is a late-night ghetto which no normal human being will be listening to anyway.

My view (Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ) is that R3 shouldn't be broadcasting anything that doesn't strongly appeal to the intellect: that is, it should demand that we THINK about what we hear, lead us on further [*e-duc-ate*]. To me, that is the defining requirement of Radio 3; whether it's music (of any kind), drama, poetry, thought...

Strewth ff!

[Paul Sherratt]

>>>I suppose what I'm trying to suggest is that we 'oldies' (in terms of 'classical' music) want something more, added value, in the way of insight, technical and aesthetic. We want information which is accurate from people who are experts in their field.


Surely that kind broadcasting is more suitable to Radio 4 ?

[Mark Sealey]

The irony here, of course, is that what many of us seem to be feeling for is almost exactly how the old Third worked until the 1980s!

The crime is that such a formula could easily have been updated and adapted even for the post-Thatcher, 'alternative' media-rich age without alienating such large numbers of devoted listeners with its juvenile presentation, its bin loads of intrusive and inappropriate material and its dilution of content into a package-obsessed audio-mall.

…I suppose what I'm trying to suggest is that we 'oldies' (in terms of 'classical' music) want something more…

[mercia]

I think I may need a definition of 'challenging'. I find Stockhausen challenging, but to a lot of people he's probably 'standard repertoire'.

[mercia]

It seems to me that what some people here are after is a free musical education. Wouldn't they be better served by enrolling in a music degree course (or getting some books out of the library).

If, instead of music, I was interested in, say, veterinary science I'm not sure I would be expecting the BBC to educate me in the subject ......... would I?

[french frank]

It seems to me that what some people here are after is a free musical education.

No. It means that around the musical repertoire being broadcast people want accurate background information and some in-depth analysis.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

It seems to me that what some people here are after is a free musical education. Wouldn't they be better served by enrolling in a music degree course (or getting some books out of the library).

Well in the years before Kenneth Baker, many of us did have a free musical education and I don't feel at all guilty about that. Much of that education came from listening the Third Programme, the Music Programme and Radio 3. Now to receive a musical education, you have to pay extortionate fees, with rather less help from Radio 3. (Of course, you will also have to pay for instrumental lessons in school as well, probably in the same room as someone else having free extra maths tuition.)

[Suffolkcoastal]

Looking at the state of some Music degree courses these days, you'd be better educated listening to CFM! R3 was invaluable to me as a youngster in the early 1980's, it was a source of education & enlightenment without ever appearing stuffy or intellectual, nor did I ever feel talked down to either!

[Bax-of-Delights]

I commend DracoM's posting for encapsulating much of what I think is wrong with the present direction of R3.

In truth the present trajectory of the programme planning will only ever be a poor imitation of CFM. These "entry point" listeners are fairly served by CFM and one would assume that, if they find the CFM repertoire consistently repetitive (as indeed it is), they will eventually migrate to R3 to deepen and widen their knowledge. Becoming a mirror image of CFM really doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Just what is R3 tryiing to achieve? Adding a million listeners to R3, 2 million? Well, let's ditch music altogether and just have interactive quiz shows. You'll get your audience then.

But, of course, the intellectual and aesthetic quality that should be the seed-bed of thought, argument and enquiry goes out the window. I can't believe that the R3 presenters - with some notable celeb exceptions - can be at all happy with the way the station is being driven headlong into a cul-de-sac. These are people who have a lifetime of working with and in a high intellectual world. Now they are interviewing Steve Punt and playing the umpteenth version of Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet - just so they can please, well, WHO exactly?

[Frances_iom]

>>>I suppose what I'm trying to suggest is that we 'oldies' (in terms of 'classical' music) want something more, added value, in the way of insight, technical and aesthetic. We want information which is accurate from people who are experts in their field.


Surely that kind broadcasting is more suitable to Radio 4 ?

Do we interpret this as confirmation that Late Junkshop is a random collection of items of little intrinsic merit introduced by those ignorant of the genres broadcast ? - sounds as if RW got something right

[pilamenon]

I'm still reeling from the shock of the changes to the evening schedules - a live concert from Germany tonight. Plenty of variety in repertoire in the two weeks so far, not just a diet of the feared orchestral warhorses. This is EXACTLY what many of us have been wanting for ages, so credit where credit's due.