End in sight for Classical Collection?

[ahinton]

Did she say where that happened, and how long ago?

No, she didn't; as I mentioned before, she did not even name the internet newsgroup on which said troll might have been posting...

[hackneyvi]

Will it be ... an opportunity for some longer pieces and informed introductions?

This seems unlikely.

... it will be how not to scare the punters .... 360 multiplatform digital drivel with a FACE

This seems likely.

When I look at the R3 schedules, there is a great deal I would be interested to hear and whilst it's often broadcast at midnight, it's then available morning, noon and ...

I understand you are going through the sort of change which in the mid-90s made BBC TV swiftly unrecognisable from its more intelligent, less commercial ancestor. Can you update me, what have you lost and what are you fearing you will lose next?

[Bryn]

old k,

Read from a card / script that, as like as not, they themselves have prepared.

"like as not" does not really drive the point home hard enough, Paul. Except on very rare occasions the script will definitely have been researched and prepared by the presenter delivering it. What would be the point in Radio 3 appointing presenters of considerable academic and practical musical experience if all they were going to do was read from idiot cards? A cursory glance at their profiles on the Radio 3 pages should make it clear enough what their qualifications for the job are.

[ahinton]

"like as not" does not really drive the point home hard enough, Paul. Except on very rare occasions the script will definitely have been researched and prepared by the presenter delivering it. What would be the point in Radio 3 appointing presenters of considerable academic and practical musical experience if all they were going to do was read from idiot cards? A cursory glance at their profiles on the Radio 3 pages should make it clear enough what their qualifications for the job are.

Indeed - and, on such a basis, it is presumably fair to assume that remarks such as the one to which I drew attention are nothing more than mere off-the-cuff asides that have no direct relationship with the research aspect of the preparation of the presenter's script. Without wishing to be unfair - still less cause offence - I did nevertheless find that remark abit unnecessary!...

[french frank]

What would be the point in Radio 3 appointing presenters of considerable academic and practical musical experience if all they were going to do was read from idiot cards?

Which brings us back to the commissioning brief for 'Essential Classics': a 'presenter-led' programme where the presenter is to be 'key' to appealing to new listeners, while avoiding any 'in-depth musicological or complicated biographical details'. (Incidentally, the indications are that the presenter will be a Radio 3 contracted presenter.)

[aeolium]

A glance at the schedule for this week's Classical Collection suggests that the stage is already being set for the successor programme. Here is a selection:

Glinka Ruslan & Ludmila overture
Grieg Peer Gynt Suite no 1
Saint-Saens Introduction & Capriccioso
Corelli Christmas Concerto
Bolero
Tchaikovsky Serenade for Strings
Respighi Birds
Toy Symphony
Allegri Miserere
Mozart Eine Kleine Nachtmusik
Schumann Spring Symphony
Rodrigo Concierto de Aranjuez
Warlock Capriol Suite

The sole concessions to music post-1950 being the Bernstein Serenade (1954) and a work by Piazzolla. To be fair there are also some welcome performances by the featured artist Roy Goodman and e.g. an Annie Fischer Beethoven sonata recording but it is pretty unimaginative stuff.

[DracoM]

Generated by computer.
Or nicked from CFM files?

Depressing.

[Bax-of-Delights]

Quite, DracoM.

While driving this morning - an hour's journey that started at 10 a.m. - I switched back and forth from R3 to CFM just to get a sense of the "difference" between the two.
On one side we had the glutinous John Suchet talking as if to a an idiot uncle ("Mendelssohn has been described as music for garden gnomes". Oh really? News to me) and on the other we had the lip-smacking Sarah Walker doing much the same (I caught the intro to "Bolero" ).
You couldn't spot the difference if it wasn't for the adverts/trails.

God, both programmes are dreadful.

[ahinton]

Quite, DracoM.

While driving this morning - an hour's journey that started at 10 a.m. - I switched back and forth from R3 to CFM just to get a sense of the "difference" between the two.
On one side we had the glutinous John Suchet talking as if to a an idiot uncle ("Mendelssohn has been described as music for garden gnomes". Oh really? News to me) and on the other we had the lip-smacking Sarah Walker doing much the same (I caught the intro to "Bolero" ).
You couldn't spot the difference if it wasn't for the adverts/trails.

God, both programmes are dreadful.

Well, I cannot speak for John Suchet's knowledge of the subject that some might expect him to have as a presenter of his programme, but Sarah Walker does know what she's talking about, so I am now beginning to wonder if certain R3 presenters are now being encouraged to filter in chatty bits such as the instance that I mentioned in some purported bid to make the programmes concerned more "user-friendly" or some such thing and, if so, why and why only certain programmes / presenters. It's a pity, perhaps, that we are unlikely to ascertain whose research it was that gave rise to the garden gnomes barb on the other channel...

That said, I've just played Sarah W's introduction to Bolero from this morning's edition and, whilst I'd agree that some of it might have been less than absolutely necessary, I've heard a lot worse elsewhere!

[StephenO]

Which brings us back to the commissioning brief for 'Essential Classics': a 'presenter-led' programme where the presenter is to be 'key' to appealing to new listeners, while avoiding any 'in-depth musicological or complicated biographical details'. (Incidentally, the indications are that the presenter will be a Radio 3 contracted presenter.)

In other words Breakfast/Classical Collection Mark II.

I can see why R3 wants to appeal to new listeners but surely the best way is by introducing them to the widest possible range of great music rather than by becoming a CFM clone that plays nothing but the well known bits of The Four Seasons or Concierto de Aranjuez over and over and over again.

When I fell in love with classical music as a teenager in the 70s it was in a large part thanks to R3's authoritative and inspirational broadcasting, complete with 'in-depth musicological or complicated biographical details' but minus the 'friendly' chat, the presenters as celebrities, the drivel and the texts.

R3 and CFM have very different roles in broadcasting and should complement each other. If, however, R3 is determined simply to emulate CFM (but not actually do it so well) and give up its own role then there really doesn't seem much point in its continued existence. What a tragedy.

[ahinton]

R3 and CFM have very different roles in broadcasting and should complement each other. If, however, R3 is determined simply to emulate CFM (but not actually do it so well) and give up its own role then there really doesn't seem much point in its continued existence. What a tragedy.

Well, it would be, indeed, but that's hardly appriopriate, since your remark suggests the tarring R3 in its entirety with a brush whose presence applies only to the ways in which certain of its programmes and their presenters are being put across these days; there is, after all, no overall "R3 house style " of programme or presentation and, inded, one aspect of R3 that remains fundamentally different to CFM is surely that very variety in approach.

[Norfolk Born]

In other words Breakfast/Classical Collection Mark II.

I can see why R3 wants to appeal to new listeners but surely the best way is by introducing them to the widest possible range of great music rather than by becoming a CFM clone that plays nothing but the well known bits of The Four Seasons or Concierto de Aranjuez over and over and over again.

When I fell in love with classical music as a teenager in the 70s it was in a large part thanks to R3's authoritative and inspirational broadcasting, complete with 'in-depth musicological or complicated biographical details' but minus the 'friendly' chat, the presenters as celebrities, the drivel and the texts.

R3 and CFM have very different roles in broadcasting and should complement each other. If, however, R3 is determined simply to emulate CFM (but not actually do it so well) and give up its own role then there really doesn't seem much point in its continued existence. What a tragedy.

Very well put!

[StephenO]

Well, it would be, indeed, but that's hardly appriopriate, since your remark suggests the tarring R3 in its entirety with a brush whose presence applies only to the ways in which certain of its programmes and their presenters are being put across these days; there is, after all, no overall "R3 house style " of programme or presentation and, inded, one aspect of R3 that remains fundamentally different to CFM is surely that very variety in approach.

Let's hope it remains that way. The return of live evening concerts is a good sign so fingers crossed.

[french frank]

your remark suggests the tarring R3 in its entirety with a brush whose presence applies only to the ways in which certain of its programmes and their presenters are being put across these days; there is, after all, no overall "R3 house style " of programme or presentation and, inded, one aspect of R3 that remains fundamentally different to CFM is surely that very variety in approach.

I think the problem lies largely in the 'presenter-led' programmes of classical music, i.e. the five hours in the morning and two and a half (previously three) hours in the afternoon. That is in fact well over half the daytime music programmes. It excludes speech-based programmes like CD Review/BaL, CotW and Discovering Music (all usually fine, give or take the differences in contributors). In fact, only the new live concerts provide uninterrupted music listening without significant presenter input/programme trails. The entire morning output, from 7am to 12pm is to be aimed at attracting 'new' listeners.

What we really lack is the imaginative programming of music on CDs, intelligently presented. I like StephenO's combination of 'authoritative and inspirational'. There are limitations on the range of music likely to be heard in live concerts, but no such limitations when it comes to CDs - yet these are the very programmes which are increasingly falling back on to 'Essential Classics'.

[StephenO]

I think the problem lies largely in the 'presenter-led' programmes of classical music, i.e. the five hours in the morning and two and a half (previously three) hours in the afternoon. That is in fact well over half the daytime music programmes.

Sad but true.

"Guess who's just come into the studio? It's Suzy Walker-Pietsch. Lovely to see you, Suzy. What have you got on the show for us today?"

"Well, I have a great line-up for you. There's lots of chat, competitions, trailers, phone-ins and my special guest - a very famous comedian talking about what Bolero means to him. And I'll be inviting listeners to text in about their favourite recordings of Bolero. There's even going to be some music - the BBC Kazoo Orchestra performing the opening bars of Bolero."

"Wonderful. I can hardly wait. But first, here's Andre Rieu's chart-topping arrangement of Bolero."