Skelly replaces Cowan

[Frances_iom]

.... Forumistas are 'representative' of forumistas.

Key point is that plural of anecdote is not anecdata - an older + now decd friend was a keen CFm listener tho he had only 2 or 3 classical Cds - he listened mainly in his small workshop where the highly compressed sound could be heard against a background noise of lathe etc and the carousel nature of CFm with its heavily pushed 100 tuneful excerpts provided a comforting normality - I've noticed other older friends who now live alone tend to have R4 continually on as a background chatter - I suspect this replacement of lost social contact will continue to make radio attractive for the older members of society especially now the many social communities have been destroyed.

[cloughie]

This assumes that demographics are the only legitimate way of measuring how 'representative' an audience is. Classic FM's audience is, I would assume, slightly younger but not greatly so. People of identical democraphic (age, sex, social grade) may have very different tastes and requirements. Reading an article in the Guardian which profiles the Classic FM audience, the comment was made that Classic FM listeners 'didn't want to be educated', they wanted to be entertained. I would *hope* that was not true of Radio 3 listeners but the more the programmes become lighter, more audience oriented, simpler, the less likely they are to value education.

Given that there has been little significant shift in the size of R3's audience, but if anything the trajectory is downwards, and given that I - as an extremist who wants to be educated most of the time - don't listen at all (and I'm not entirely alone in this!) I would expect my place to be taken by people who have surged over for e.g. Essential Classics and that the "Third Programme" constituency will have declined. If the forum were 'representative' in this way there would surely be more support (than there is) for listeners contributions, tweets, guests, short pieces, (image conscious presenters, dare one say?)

What does seem to be 'average' is the distribution among the various genres: classical music by far the most important, jazz and world considerably less so, and drama &c. near extinction. But the controversial content is the classical music and the way the station chooses to present it. In that sense, reading comments from hither and yon suggests that the general classical listeners are somewhat less critical than the forumistas who voice their opinions most often. I wouldn't attempt to quantify the pros and cons with any precision. Forumistas are 'representative' of forumistas.

...but, and I do respect the fact that you, over a number of years, have done far more analysis of R3 listening figures than I have, does the listening figures break down how much R3 listening is needed for the count. In any week I will listen to something on Radio 2 3 4 5 Cornwall and CFM and every now and then see what 6 or up to!, so maybe I am not a typical R3 listener or forumista. Where I will agree with you and others on the forum is that we want a proper R3 back and the morning fayre is totally unacceptable.

[french frank]

...but, and I do respect the fact that you, over a number of years, have done far more analysis of R3 listening figures than I have, does the listening figures break down how much R3 listening is needed for the count.

[You may regret this ! ]

For the RAJAR quarterly figures, it's the same for Radio 3 as for every other radio station. To be counted as 'a listener' in any given week, a sample participant only has to listen for at least 5 minutes within ONE 15-minute period. For some people that's a ridiculously small amount, but you need to understand the entire system. There is a different sample each week for 12-13 weeks. You would have to imagine that a significant number of your 'representative' sample, every week, was tuning in and listening for just 5 minutes and then switching off and not tuning in again for the rest of the week. But listeners don't, in general, listen like that. The more refined figures, which aren't published, will give Radio 3 a good idea of when (which 15-minute slot) a listener tunes in and and when they tune out. A reasonable assumption would be that if they could see that masses of people tuned out, for instance, when the celebrity guest slot began they would drop the slot because, again it is reasonable to assume, they would rather drop an unpopular slot than have more people switching off than switching on; especially if it was a feature aimed at increasing listening.

On Frances_iom's point, I would assume that if nothing we complain about changes, it's because Radio 3 judges they will lose listeners rather than gain them. I think there would be a struggle within the BBC if a controller decided that returning to what, for shorthand, I will call "the Third Programme" would lose audience but would still be what the BBC 'should do'. The question would be, if the BBC agreed, and if Radio 3's 'populist audience' fell away and left a core of, say, 1.5m, what percentage of BBC funding should the station then get? One way of looking at that is that the populist programming is cheap and subsidises the more expensive programmes. But that only works if the cheap, populist stuff is on at peak times when it will get a substantial audience.

In any week I will listen to something on Radio 2 3 4 5 Cornwall and CFM and every now and then see what 6 or up to!, so maybe I am not a typical R3 listener or forumista. Where I will agree with you and others on the forum is that we want a proper R3 back and the morning fayre is totally unacceptable.

That's probably atypical only in the number of different stations you listen to. The one set of figures I've seen on this reported that only about 5% of listeners are 'solus' - they don't listen to anything BUT Radio 3 (that included me!). Radio 4 was listened to - from memory - about 75% of R3 listeners.

So, yes, a strong degree of the problem is about 'marketing' but the pressures on both the BBC and Radio 3 in particular home in on the use of public funding v the number of people served. This might possibly be rephrased as 'The cost of everything and the value of nothing'.

[jayne lee wilson]

If DAB and FM are poor then maybe Freeview should fit the bill? My point being compression is a deliberate policy not dependent on signal strength.

The problem is that Freeview radio still only operates at 192kpbs mpeg2, so is no better musically than DAB except when Radio 3 reduces to 160kbps (way too often). Both will usually have a wider dynamic range than FM of course, but for me the tonal or timbral damage done to say, classical strings, even at 192kbps is enough to keep me well away from it. The better the hifi system, the worse it sounds. So FM is (far) worse dynamically, but (when it isn't heavily compressed), far better tonally or timbrally, often spatially too on a really good tuner.
A musical coitus interruptus, beautiful but frustrating...!

https://www.astra2sat.com/radio/uk-digital-radio-bitrates/

(the comments on FM vs various codecs/bitrates should raise a few eyebrows...!)

The only realistic possibility for better webcasts/broadcasts is streaming(**) as per R3 HDs, but very few stations transmit even at this level now: the Berlin DCH only goes out live at 256kbps, although you can access 320 on their archive.
Classic FM could do it (and Rob Cowan would gain at least one more listener if they did.)..., but their owners/directors have to want to....

Yes, I do hope R3 Concert Sound comes back one day... but I guess it probably won't, before next year's Proms....

(**) DAB+ via AAC can of course be of equal quality to such stream, but even if it were widely available in the UK, many listeners would need a new tuner....(not many models are retrofittably upgradeable).

[Old Grumpy]

I've noticed other older friends who now live alone tend to have R4 continually on as a background chatter - I suspect this replacement of lost social contact will continue to make radio attractive for the older members of society especially now the many social communities have been destroyed.

Until they are forced to by costly and power hungry DAB sets by FM switch off!

[Lat-Literal]

What I have gathered from the dentist's chair and elsewhere is that CFM is chosen less for entertainment than to be soothing. Advertising content doesn't always align with the patient rather than the drill. It strikes me after all of these years on the forum that I have never asked what is the ideal historical blueprint for R3 on weekday mornings. Can we name a year?

For except during a very brief period when it was reduced to 24 hours pw, the Third Programme was an evening service from 1946 to 1967 when it was amalgamated with the BBC Music Programme that had commenced in 1965. All the elements of this Third Network - which had also included sport - were brought together under the R3 umbrella in April 1970.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

The R3 morning schedules during the years c1974 - 90 were unmissable for me.

[Lat-Literal]

The R3 morning schedules during the years c1974 - 90 were unmissable for me.

As recent as 1990. That is interesting because it is close, in my humble opinion, to the downturn in the quality of all British radio output, liberalisation, the anticipation of CFM and much more.

Nicholas Kenyon took over in 1992, there were visits to America to learn how classical music stations were run (!) and Saatchi and Saatchi were appointed to improve the station's public relations.

However, none of the period you mention or just afterwards is the Third Programme.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

However, none of the period you mention or just afterwards is the Third Programme.

Well, no - it answered the question you pondered in #231

I have never asked what is the ideal historical blueprint for R3 on weekday mornings. Can we name a year?

[Lat-Literal]

Well, no - it answered the question you pondered in #231

The real cultural abyss was 1997 to 2007 other than in a few areas like world music.

Some things have significantly improved, especially since 2012.

I would include classical music radio in that and also, sporadically, sitcom.

There are also exceptions. News coverage is much, much worse.

[french frank]

Some things have significantly improved, especially since 2012.

I would include classical music radio in that [… ]

What are you saying has improved, Lat?

My listening doesn't go as far back as ferney's, but the 1980s to the beginning of the 1990s was for me the lure and the era that I most enjoyed. I survived Kenyon, but that was when I began to feel uncomfortable. The noticeable slide in the the mornings, for me, was most obvious in the years following the arrival of RW who clearly made it his brief to 'broaden the audience' in ways that fit the dictionary definition of 'dumbing down'. For the BBC, as long as it was finding an audience that enjoyed it, it didn't count as 'dumbing down'. And, of course, the term was/is viewed as insulting by listeners who did/do enjoy it.

That said, there are many here who want a Radio 3 very different from what I would want. Not least, they would welcome 'Throught the Night' for 24 hours. That would seem to me to omit an essential part of the service: education.

[Pulcinella]

That said, there are many here who want a Radio 3 very different from what I would want. Not least, they would welcome 'Throught the Night' for 24 hours. That would seem to me to omit an essential part of the service: education.

It could be argued, surely, that exposure to music is education in itself.
I'd far rather just have music with straightforward announcements than R3 tweets and chumminess if that were the choice.

[french frank]

It could be argued, surely, that exposure to music is education in itself.

Probably But it wouldn't be enough education for those who want to know more about classical music. Like me. Simply listening is too passive for me, but I recognise that others have a different view, and have the resources to listen differently.

I'd far rather just have music with straightforward announcements than R3 tweets and chumminess if that were the choice.

When they're playing music, yes. But I would want more in the way of features, documentaries, analysis.

[DracoM]

e.g Stephen Johnson, David Owen Norris, maybe some remember Anthony Hopkins? Music patiently explained.

[Pulcinella]

When they're playing music, yes. But I would want more in the way of features, documentaries, analysis.

Ah, you mean the sort of music programmes that now are inexplicably on R4, and rather bizzarely do not seem to get trailed to death on R3.