Radio 3 Programming - Problems & Solutions

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I agree, but the list of the many frequently expressed suggestions that the forum has made (post no.4) does not address that.

Does not address "having a generally restrained style of presentation"? Doesn't address "presenting complete works"? Doesn't address "seeking to expand listeners' Musical horizons rather than reinforcing what the commercial market has already made familiar"? How not?

It seems to be a list that harks back to the old days when things were better.

"Seems" to whom?

[sgjames]

I think the point should be to go forward in time. There were many things wrong with the "old" Radio 3 as well; but having a generally restrained style of presentation, presenting complete works and seeking to expand listeners' musical horizons rather than reinforcing what the commercial market has already made familiar to them were not among these.

Obviously presentational styles have changed over the years, clearly too much for some. For someone like myself, who is not steeped in Classical Music, the R3 of today does a very good job of expanding my musical horizons.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

It no longer particularly matters to me - the presentation and content of R3 has reached a standard that I rarely listen to any of it (and I'm still below the "avearge age" of the typical R3 listener).

And, honestly, I wouldn't mind as much if the recent presentation styles had a proven record of bringing hoards of new listeners to the station - but RAJAR figures instead show a reduction of listeners to the station. Without bringing in the numbers of listeners that would justify such changes, these changes have alienated a substantial number of former listeners. That's the point that the in-denial Beeb refuse to acknowledge.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

We want to go back in time?

If that means improving Radio 3, then yes. Frankly, the standard of presentation and the musical content have slid steadily downhill for two decades.

[sidneyfox]

If that means improving Radio 3, then yes. Frankly, the standard of presentation and the musical content have slid steadily downhill for two decades.

An honest answer. Which year or decade do you think was the best for R3, and is the one that we should go back to?

[LMcD]

I think that, like the BBC in general, Radio 3 has lost its nerve. While nobody wants to be subjected to a continuous diet of Reithian cultural education, there's nothing wrong in, for example, encouraging post-breakfast-time listeners to stay tuned for more than a few minutes at a time, is there? Increasingly, listeners' wants - or what programme planners see as their wants - seem to be dictating both presentation and content - in other words, the station is following when it should be leading. Perhaps the concept of a broadcaster trying to enrich listeners' experience comes across as arrogant to some people? Programme planners make mistakes, it's true, but the biggest mistake would be to encourage listeners to settle exclusively for what they already know and enjoy.

As for going back to better times, I was very happy when, comparatively recently. the slot now occupied by 'Essential Classics' guided the listener from short, sometimes but not always well-known, pieces to one or more substantial works.

Any attempts to prove that Radio 3 offers 'value for money' overlook the fact that the benefits of music and other forms of art are by their vary nature unquantifiable.

[cloughie]

I think that, like the BBC in general, Radio 3 has lost its nerve. While nobody wants to be subjected to a continuous diet of Reithian cultural education, there's nothing wrong in, for example, encouraging post-breakfast-time listeners to stay tuned for more than a few minutes at a time, is there? Increasingly, listeners' wants - or what programme planners see as their wants - seem to be dictating both presentation and content - in other words, the station is following when it should be leading. Perhaps the concept of a broadcaster trying to enrich listeners' experience comes across as arrogant to some people? Programme planners make mistakes, it's true, but the biggest mistake would be to encourage listeners to settle exclusively for what they already know and enjoy.

As for going back to better times, I was very happy when, comparatively recently. the slot now occupied by 'Essential Classics' guided the listener from short, sometimes but not always well-known, pieces to one or more substantial works.

Any attempts to prove that Radio 3 offers 'value for money' overlook the fact that the benefits of music and other forms of art are by their vary nature unquantifiable.

R3 programmers are serial mistake makers. The one retro move they could make and improve the output at a stroke would be to replace Essential Classics with a 3 hour CD Masters - that had the right balance and many substantial and varied full works. As Rob Cowan has now departed to CFM Mr Skelly would be the ideal addition to Mr Swain in the roster! Maybe it is my age, grumpiness and intolerance but I am increasingly finding very little on any radio channel that I really want to listen to.

[gurnemanz]

Less chatter from presenters.
No gushing from presenters.
No "chumminess" in the presentation.
No interruptions of programmes for Trailers for other programmes.
No reading out of messages from listeners.
Complete works.
Greater range of Music.
Focus on the Music, not the biographical background of the performers.

I don't know how anyone who has followed this Forum can legitimately claim that they haven't seen these many suggestions frequently expressed.

Less chatter from presenters./No gushing from presenters. No "chumminess" in the presentation. (yes! I don't listen pre-noon for that reason but luckily only really applies to pre-noon slots)
No interruptions of programmes for Trailers for other programmes. (Can certainly be overdone but not realistic to expect them to do no plugs whatsoever for what they see as upcoming highlights)
No reading out of messages from listeners. (Yes, but as above - only really applies pre-noon)
Complete works. (yes! Like the complete Creation in German from the Verbier Festival which we had yesterday afternoon - greatly enjoyed on headphones while doing some light gardening. But also grey areas - would the vetting committee allow opera overtures or arias? Individual songs from cycles? Are suites complete works? - eg are bits of, say, Liszt's Années de pèlerinage permissible?)
Greater range of Music. (Few could argue with that)
Focus on the Music, not the biographical background of the performers. (Obviously, but if you want just music with no talk whatsoever there are a myriad of other options nowadays. Some biographical detail is occasionally relevant.)

With you in spirit but not so disgruntled as some on here. Despite shortcomings, R3 still offers me plenty. This is why I am a "Friend of Radio 3".

[Stanfordian]

Less chatter from presenters./No gushing from presenters. No "chumminess" in the presentation. (yes! I don't listen pre-noon for that reason but luckily only really applies to pre-noon slots)
No interruptions of programmes for Trailers for other programmes. (Can certainly be overdone but not realistic to expect them to do no plugs whatsoever for what they see as upcoming highlights)
No reading out of messages from listeners. (Yes, but as above - only really applies pre-noon)
Complete works. (yes! Like the complete Creation in German from the Verbier Festival which we had yesterday afternoon - greatly enjoyed on headphones while doing some light gardening. But also grey areas - would the vetting committee allow opera overtures or arias? Individual songs from cycles? Are suites complete works? - eg are bits of, say, Liszt's Années de pèlerinage permissible?)
Greater range of Music. (Few could argue with that)
Focus on the Music, not the biographical background of the performers. (Obviously, but if you want just music with no talk whatsoever there are a myriad of other options nowadays. Some biographical detail is occasionally relevant.)

With you in spirit but not so disgruntled as some on here. Despite shortcomings, R3 still offers me plenty. This is why I am a "Friend of Radio 3".

Laudable, but don't hold your breath!

Apart from very, very rare occasions when I come across snippets of Record Review whilst driving - I can't bare to listen to the station anymore.

[DracoM]

Less chatter from presenters.
No gushing from presenters.
No "chumminess" in the presentation.
No interruptions of programmes for Trailers for other programmes.
No reading out of messages from listeners.
Complete works.
Greater range of Music.
Focus on the Music, not the biographical background of the performers.

I don't know how anyone who has followed this Forum can legitimately claim that they haven't seen these many suggestions frequently expressed.

Absolutely.
And what we have seen is worrying increase in a patronising fragmentation of both musical content into 'movements' / ' extracts' etc and the ballooning of presenter-profiles.

And Essential Classics and its yuk squared 'playlist' barrel-bottom desperation to get noticed.

[Pulcinella]

Laudable, but don't hold your breath!

Apart from very, very rare occasions when I come across snippets of Record Review whilst driving - I can't bare to listen to the station anymore.

Much better to keep your clothes on, I think.

[french frank]

Do you think my initial premise is simplistic/incorrect ?

It is correct in that this is what the BBC is, factually, trying to do (it's consistently stressed, down in black and white if you know where to look). But what is the problem? Is it low listening figures? Then why aren't the services with lower reach required to 'broaden their audience'? Is it cost per listener head? Then why aren't there similar pressures on services whose cost per listener is much higher? (Answer: because a station like Radio nan Gàidheal is designed to serve a small, special audience). Is it the age/narrowness of social groups (ABC1)? Then why isn't Radio 1 expected to raise its average age, currently significantly below the national average? Answer: because the station is designed to serve younger listeners. So why can't Radio 3 be considered in the same light - a service for a special, and small audience?

Re your final sentence, has the BBC ever produced such a definition for R3 ? I suspect that any R3 mission statement which came forth would be just a collection of well meaning platitudes.

The Envy of the World, Humphrey Carpenter's book, commissioned by Nicholas Kenyon to mark the 50th anniversary of the Third/Radio 3, had this comment in its preface: "The BBC has never sat down to define 'culture', or what a 'cultural network' should be doing. Nor has it ever really faced up to the fact that if such a network is to do its job properly, it will, by definition, only have a very small audience."

What is not clear is whether the changes which have, for want of a better phrase, 'dumbed down' Radio 3 for the past 20 years are designed to educate an audience for the content - or simply to increase the audience for Radio 3. It seems to me that as long as Radio 3 attracts more listeners, it doesn't matter what they're listening, as long as they're listening to it on Radio 3.

It has been suggested, 999 times, that the BBC should define the audience they wish to so 'educate', identify which services they are currently listening to (or watching, for that matter) and introduce one or two regular programmes on those services which can build an audience. The people who are attracted to those programmes are likely to be the individuals, not people of the 'right' age or background, who will enjoy what Radio 3 is doing already - without the need to provide special 'easy' programmes for them on the station. Then some simple cross promotion would aim to attract them to suitable existing programmes on Radio 3 without the need to change them.

It appears that a rather blunt form of this has been operated: the 'discriminating' music lovers of 6 Music are likely recruits to Radio 3. But the BBC turns the obvious approach on its head. Change Radio 3 in ways that will attract 6 Music listeners, firstly by bringing popular 6 Music presenters - Mary Anne Hobbs, Stuart Maconie, Elizabeth Alker - over to Radio 3, regardless of whether they know anything about classical music (they'll know enough for the 6 Music listeners) or launching special programmes - Classical Fix, 'Clemmie meets Shaun Keaveny', Elizabeth Alker's Unclassified) with 6 Music appeal.

Ten years ago Radio 3's average age was 57: after all these topping wheezes, it's now 60. And the listening figures, depending how you compute them, are going down. Time to try the opposite approach? The reason that the BBC is unwilling to introduce a regular 'classical music' programme on to a mainstream or alternative service is that the slot will lose audience (even if it's attracting a small audience of the 'right kind' of listener i.e. the kind who might have the interest and curiosity to try Radio 3's existing programmes).

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

An honest answer. Which year or decade do you think was the best for R3, and is the one that we should go back to?

Nobody wants to go back in time. Now is now, but it doesn’t have to be crass, chummy, embarrassing, pathetic and patronising. High standards are not defined by a particular era.

[Stanfordian]

Much better to keep your clothes on, I think.

With my beautifully sculpted body, l reckon I look better with my clothes off? So there!

[sgjames]

Laudable, but don't hold your breath!

Apart from very, very rare occasions when I come across snippets of Record Review whilst driving - I can't bare to listen to the station anymore.

On each weekday there is about 5 hours of concert programming - and also a fair bit at weekends. Is there nothing that you find of interest in these concert programmes? My musical interests largely fall outside much of the Classical/Romantic repertoire that is frequently found in concerts. However, I always find several concerts, or at least works within those concerts, of interest every week.