Ian Skelly says............

[Rob Cowan]

That's probably because the composers concerned composed it to be heard that way, as a whole and not split up. They might even have argued the case for it not making any sense taken out of context, rather in the way that a severed limb makes no functional sense apart from the body to which it was once attached. Someone has come along and presented you with only part of the story. That's OK where this has been sanctioned by the originator, but in most cases where "purple patches" have been extracted for easy listening what you're getting is in effect a falsehood, the equivalent of history re-written. It may make sense to isolate a single movement, say, for examination; but the evidence won't add to the knowledge of the examiner unless he or she has first experienced the whole thing. These are the reasons I can't be bothered with programmes of this kind, and why Radio 3 has become a no-go area for me in the mornings.

Think of translated poetry, say the ancient Chinese Book of Songs (Ezra Pound or Arthur Waley). What you have in translation isn't the original 'made into English', but an entirely new piece that happens to be IN English. The two are entirely separate. What's more both are valid and of real literary value. The same is true of Matthews' Debussy, Stan Kenton's Wagner, Art Tatum's Dvorák and Grainger's Bach (which I played on CFM last night). Few of us want grafted 'purple patches' but think of Bach, Mahler, Mozart (Bach for string trio), Beethoven (and his folksong arrangements, not to mention his re-write of the Second Symphony for piano trio - also up for sampling on last night's Cowan's Classics), Tchaikovsky (Mozartiana), Liszt ( the 'list' there is endless) and so on. And these are terrific pieces. The 'examination' issue is entirely different - I'm actually not sure that I agree with using isolated movements for examination purposes anyway, certainly not for score studying - and arrangements should be tastefully programmed, but I think they add to our enjoyment - and to our knowledge of both the arranger and the original composer. Best. Rob

[Gasteiner]

I haven't yet listened to Rob Cowan's show on CFM but from the accounts given above it doesn't appear that it is to my taste. That's because I'm not interested in hearing just a part of any work, as selected by some programme editor of presenter. If it's a symphony, I want to hear the whole work, and the same applies to any other genre. The only exceptions for me are large scale choral works, like an opera or oratorio, where I'm content to listen to selective parts, such an aria, duet etc in playlist programmes.

As for the the latest state of play on Radio 3 morning programmes, all I can say is that I find them absolutely dreadful (with the exception of Record Review). The content is typically bog-standard, heard-it-all-before-a-million-times fayre. All the presenters seem to suffer from verbal diarrhoea. Quite truthfully, whenever I switch on any one of these programmes, and regardless of which particular presenter is doing the job, I seem to be bombarded immediately (or soon after) with nothing more than babble. Ian Skelly's version of babble is only slightly less irritating than that from his female chatterbox colleague on Essential Classics, whose version is not far short of being diabolical.

I'm afraid I've given up all hope that things might one day improve in regard to R3 morning schedules. Obviously the BBC don't care about retaining the loyalty of people like me who just want to hear a fair cross-section of classical music, each piece in its entirety. They seem to be focusing on attracting new audiences that comprise casual listeners whose preference is solely for hit-parade classical music, people who like a lot of chit-chat, and possibly a few "noobs" who can't be expected to hold attention for more than about 10 minutues on any one piece, before being "refreshed" with yet more babble.

[LMcD]

The assumption seems to be that listeners can’t cope with complete, demanding music in the morning. Only after 2pm are we ready for complete works (that’s well into the evening if it’s CFM.) I wonder what research this is based on? I’m listening to the Ring in the mornings at the moment when I’m at the freshest for concentrated listening. (Granted I’m retired so can do that.)

A great work sounds great, and will reveal its many riches, at any time of the day or night.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Think of translated poetry, say the ancient Chinese Book of Songs (Ezra Pound or Arthur Waley). What you have in translation isn't the original 'made into English', but an entirely new piece that happens to be IN English. The two are entirely separate. What's more both are valid and of real literary value. The same is true of Matthews' Debussy, Stan Kenton's Wagner, Art Tatum's Dvorák and Grainger's Bach (which I played on CFM last night). Few of us want grafted 'purple patches' but think of Bach, Mahler, Mozart (Bach for string trio), Beethoven (and his folksong arrangements, not to mention his re-write of the Second Symphony for piano trio - also up for sampling on last night's Cowan's Classics), Tchaikovsky (Mozartiana), Liszt ( the 'list' there is endless) and so on. And these are terrific pieces. The 'examination' issue is entirely different - I'm actually not sure that I agree with using isolated movements for examination purposes anyway, certainly not for score studying - and arrangements should be tastefully programmed, but I think they add to our enjoyment - and to our knowledge of both the arranger and the original composer. Best. Rob

Doesn't that respond to Alison's comment about "arrangements" rather than S_A's development of her second point, Rob?

(My own opinion about the idea that broadcasting individual Movements of large-scale works might "wean" new listeners onto the whole thing is that it's like expecting someone to fall in love with somebody by introducing them a limb at a time - especially if it's the same limb again and again - AND then told you can see another limb as long as it's not from the same person!!!)

[Rob Cowan]

Doesn't that respond to Alison's comment about "arrangements" rather than S_A's development of her second point, Rob?

(My own opinion about the idea that broadcasting individual Movements of large-scale works might "wean" new listeners onto the whole thing is that it's like expecting someone to fall in love with somebody by introducing them a limb at a time - especially if it's the same limb again and again - AND then told you can see another limb as long as it's not from the same person!!!)

' Thanks f/g. Re 'I guess many of us came to a love of music through full immersion in the real thing and want the same for others,' a movement is I suppose 'a partial real thing'. Look, years ago - when I was about 20 - I worked in the Proms office going through old Proms programmes. Back at the turn of the last century individual movements were constantly being programmed, either as encores or as parts of the main menu. With the advent of radio and records priorities seemed to change, simply because the 'completeness' option struck many people as the one to go for. But I still think that listening to a favourite movement (say Mahler 9 iv, Schubert String Quintet ii, Moonlight Sonata i) in no way distorts the truth of the music, especially if you know the parent work by heart. For me, the flaw in the limb argument is that falling in love is less to do with fancying a right arm or a left buttock than being strongly attracted to an overall shape, or a face, or a 'movement' (body language), a way of speaking, a mind, an attitude, and so on. These are the constituent parts of the whole that attract you enough to investigate further. Best. Rob

[french frank]

Look, years ago - when I was about 20 - I worked in the Proms office going through old Proms programmes. Back at the turn of the last century individual movements were constantly being programmed, either as encores or as parts of the main menu.

I sometimes think people forget that when the Proms were started, they were aimed at 'creating a new audience' - and the programmes then would hardly do for the audience, 100 years later, that was created.

What it seems is that Radio 3 is still trying to 'create a new audience' among people who know very little; but they've lost interest in the audience that became informed, immersed in the music. Radio 3 is now a station where there are odd bits here and there: some people still listen now and again: for others, it's a station not worth bothering with.

In other words, the BBC is building up a new audience (possibly) but destroying the one they had. That's my experience. Outside the world of Radio 3, there are so many other interests to follow and having gained all my knowledge of music from Radio 3, I now listen much less frequently to music. Thank you, Radio 3, but why can't you let Classic FM create the new audiences?

[ahinton]

' Thanks f/g. Re 'I guess many of us came to a love of music through full immersion in the real thing and want the same for others,' a movement is I suppose 'a partial real thing'. Look, years ago - when I was about 20 - I worked in the Proms office going through old Proms programmes. Back at the turn of the last century individual movements were constantly being programmed, either as encores or as parts of the main menu. With the advent of radio and records priorities seemed to change, simply because the 'completeness' option struck many people as the one to go for. But I still think that listening to a favourite movement (say Mahler 9 iv, Schubert String Quintet ii, Moonlight Sonata i) in no way distorts the truth of the music, especially if you know the parent work by heart. For me, the flaw in the limb argument is that falling in love is less to do with fancying a right arm or a left buttock than being strongly attracted to an overall shape, or a face, or a 'movement' (body language), a way of speaking, a mind, an attitude, and so on. These are the constituent parts of the whole that attract you enough to investigate further. Best. Rob

The prospect of listening to the finale of The Ninth Symphony (sorry, LvB!) is as unwelcome as - if not even more so than - having to listen to Bruckner's ditto with its finale missing (which there's no excuse for having to do today); perhaps more importantly, though, would you not concede that listening to Mahler's Ninth Symphony's last movement on its own gives an utterly different perspective to it than when listening to it as what it is, i.e. the fourth movement of a four movement symphony? In this particular instance, the sheer emotional weight of the finale as a standalone item is gravely compromised (for all that it still has immense heft in the regard).

[cloughie]

I sometimes think people forget that when the Proms were started, they were aimed at 'creating a new audience' - and the programmes then would hardly do for the audience, 100 years later, that was created.

What it seems is that Radio 3 is still trying to 'create a new audience' among people who know very little; but they've lost interest in the audience that became informed, immersed in the music. Radio 3 is now a station where there are odd bits here and there: some people still listen now and again: for others, it's a station not worth bothering with.

In other words, the BBC is building up a new audience (possibly) but destroying the one they had. That's my experience. Outside the world of Radio 3, there are so many other interests to follow and having gained all my knowledge of music from Radio 3, I now listen much less frequently to music. Thank you, Radio 3, but why can't you let Classic FM create the new audiences?

I think that the BBC in its quest for new audiences has now no interest in providing what anyone over 65 wants. The irony is that so many of its overpaid presenters eg Humphrys, the Dimbleby Brothers, Sean Rafferty and until recently Rob Cowan
are in that age group and may be in a position to speak up and influence things - no maybe they are so removed from reality that they are happy to take the money and go along with the dumbdown flow!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

For me, the flaw in the limb argument is that falling in love is less to do with fancying a right arm or a left buttock than being strongly attracted to an overall shape, or a face, or a 'movement' (body language), a way of speaking, a mind, an attitude, and so on. These are the constituent parts of the whole that attract you enough to investigate further.

Ah! That's where I've been going wrong all these years!

Personally, I find the very idea of listening to the Finale of Mahler #9 separately a hideous one ( mutter mutter, should be a criminal offence, mutter mutter) but I acknowledge that others think differently. But that's why there's the need for different broadcasting styles, catering to different audiences: CFM knows its audience very well, and answers that audience's tastes admirably. R3, by contrast is so desperate to steal the CFM audience that it ignores and loses the other audience. (With, if my own experience as a teacher is representative, the further loss of the teenage/young adult audience, who listen with contempt to the content of current pre-noon R3 offerings.)

[DracoM]

And as for R3 even thinking of attempting to ponder the possibility of engaging an audience UNDER 30...UNDER 20....UNDER 15...........forget it.
I look at schedules today, I think back to Pied Piper etc.......... and I weep.

The crisis in schools over live music, music teaching, music budgeting etc and R3 in particular virtually abandons the young to pop/rock, and maybe, just maybe merest happenstance, unless they have parents who care enough, are prepared to drive enough, nag and encourage enough.The BBC is the single biggest sponsor / provider of live in-the-room classical music in UK, but in terms of making live in-the-schoolroom-music and a new audience......apart of Ten Pieces...it is seriously lamentable.

BBC Young Musician of the Year still to come maybe? And will it get on at high density times on the schedule?

Which is why I jump up and down a lot on these threads about the content and fate of Choral Evensong in terms of the impact on cathedral funding, trying to point out that the BBC making an effort to have as many LIVE CEs as possible showcasing young singers etc matters mightily.

[french frank]

I think that the BBC in its quest for new audiences has now no interest in providing what anyone over 65 wants.

Oi! Moi not included, but I think there are plenty here under 60. And, as we also observe with great awe, many of them here know a great deal more about music than any Radio 3 presenter. There must be a cunning way to serve this audience, eg: concentrate on playing works in full, however long; have any discussion between musically knowledgeable people, discussing the music not their latest book or TV role; make sure that this audience is served during at least part of the most popular radio listening times (atm the 'new listeners' get all the peak time and the heavy stuff is shoved in where it won't interfere with their listening and frighten them). "Ratings by day, reputation by night" as the commercial broadcasters say.

[LMcD]

If the purpose of playing extracts from major works during morning programmes is to introduce listeners to classical music and encourage them to explore further, could we at least have some variety in the pieces chosen? This morning's 'Sunday Classics' featured a movement from a Mahler symphony - no prizes for guessing which!
If we must have 'bleeding chunks', of Mahler, could I suggest that the following be given an airing?
The 3rd movement ('Bruder Martin') from the 1st symphony
The 3rd movement (complete with cow bells) from the 6th symphony
Either of the two 'Nachtmusik' movements from the 7th symphony.
The extra 'Blumine' movement removed from the 1st symphony.

[french frank]

And as for R3 even thinking of attempting to ponder the possibility of engaging an audience UNDER 30...UNDER 20....UNDER 15...........forget it.
I look at schedules today, I think back to Pied Piper etc.......... and I weep.

A separate matter and OT here - but another major problem for Radio 3 (as if it didn't have enough).

Roughly 9% of Radio 1's audience is under the RAJAR 15+ age (I think only Radio 1 measures this age group). Their parents will probably listen to 6 Music. If Radio 3 goes to the trouble and expense of producing a programme strand for younger listeners, how will they ever discover it? Radio 4 had to admit that the audience for its children's programme was pitifully small - too small to warrant continuing with.

The BBC has more than doubled the number of music radio broadcasting hours since the days of Pied Piper: should Radio 3 provide a special programme for 257 under 10s, 147 adults and Mrs Trellis's cat?

[Gasteiner]

If the purpose of playing extracts from major works during morning programmes is to introduce listeners to classical music and encourage them to explore further, could we at least have some variety in the pieces chosen? This morning's 'Sunday Classics' featured a movement from a Mahler symphony - no prizes for guessing which!
If we must have 'bleeding chunks', of Mahler, could I suggest that the following be given an airing?
The 3rd movement ('Bruder Martin') from the 1st symphony
The 3rd movement (complete with cow bells) from the 6th symphony
Either of the two 'Nachtmusik' movements from the 7th symphony.
The extra 'Blumine' movement removed from the 1st symphony.

That's all very well but I rather feel that only playing certain extracts of multi-movement works, even if they're occasionally rotated as suggested, is a rather dubious way of introducing "noobs" to the classical music genre.

It's rather like a dating website deliberately informing would-be partners about the "best" features of the person in question, leaving the rest of it to guess-work. One could imagine all manner of things going wrong, for example "one gorgeous male hunk, sexy blue eyes, dark wavy hair, with an IQ of 140 seeks ..." turning out to be only 4'11", having a limp, a very pronounced stammer, and can hardly speak English..

I joke not. It's a fact that some classical works may have one very nice, appealing movement but the rest are disappointing. We wouldn't want to confuse the "noobs" now, would we, into parting with their cash on a CD they've only heard part of only to find they can't stand the piece in question in its entirety? The BBC could be sued for misrepresentation!

[ahinton]

Personally, I find the very idea of listening to the Finale of Mahler #9 separately a hideous one ( mutter mutter, should be a criminal offence, mutter mutter) but I acknowledge that others think differently.

But WHY do they think differently and what does that different thinking tell anyone about their thoughts on Mahler's music?