Tearjerker, Downtown Symphony, Piano Flow, Happy Harmonies and other Saturday padding

[cloughie]

Might have been repeated during the 40s and 50s

Did they do repeats even back then?

[Ein Heldenleben]

Clearly the name of this thread should be changed. Tearjerker is no more, being replaced by Piano Flow and Happy Harmonies.

(I'm not joking.)

What is a “ happy harmony” ? A Neapolitan sixth? Particularly if preceded with the “Basie “ cadence Dm7 / Cdim7 in first inversion ? Well it makes me happy...
What nonsense ...

[Alwyn]

Tear Jerker

The Daiily Mail claimed last Saturday that there had been complaints from many R3 listeners that the likes of Justin Bieber had been included on what is supposed to be a Classical music programme. When I was a teenager in the 1950s the Third Programme did seem exclusive, not for the likes of me, whose favourite was the Light Programme. Thankfully R3 is more eclectic in its choice of musicc these days. Although atonal music doesn’t appeal to me I listen to R3 to be constantly surprised and delighted by its variety. It is great to hear Jess Gillam chat to her contemporaries about the music they listen to. Often, although they are Classical musicians, they listen to pop music, very short excerpts of which may be played on This Classical Life.

I have listened to Jazz Record Requests for many years but am wondering if the formula has become a little tired. I recently discovered Jazz Nights on BBC Scotland, 2 hours of wonderful jazz.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

...It is great to hear Jess Gillam chat to her contemporaries about the music they listen to. Often, although they are Classical musicians, they listen to pop music, very short excerpts of which may be played on This Classical Life.

Well, maybe, but what isn't so great is that she and her friends talks/simpers over the music, which is inconsiderate and discourteous in the extreme.

[oddoneout]

The Daiily Mail claimed last Saturday that there had been complaints from many R3 listeners that the likes of Justin Bieber had been included on what is supposed to be a Classical music programme. When I was a teenager in the 1950s the Third Programme did seem exclusive, not for the likes of me, whose favourite was the Light Programme. Thankfully R3 is more eclectic in its choice of musicc these days. Although atonal music doesn’t appeal to me I listen to R3 to be constantly surprised and delighted by its variety. It is great to hear Jess Gillam chat to her contemporaries about the music they listen to. Often, although they are Classical musicians, they listen to pop music, very short excerpts of which may be played on This Classical Life.

I have listened to Jazz Record Requests for many years but am wondering if the formula has become a little tired. I recently discovered Jazz Nights on BBC Scotland, 2 hours of wonderful jazz.

Would they have been happier with this version? https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p016j6s5

[french frank]

Thankfully R3 is more eclectic in its choice of musicc these days.

That does sound a bit like the "Well, I like it" point of view - which ignores the arguments for Radio 3 being a "classical music" network. If they accepted that having programmes which mix classical, pop, jazz, musicals can't be called 'classical programmes', they would also have to say that daytime R3 doesn't have much for classical listeners. Radio 3 is, predominantly, catering for an audience that might otherwise think "Radio 3 isn't for me" rather than for a classical audience.

The argument is in any case specious. If people had been able to listen to classical music slotted between pop music on other BBC stations, that might have been the very "gateway" they claim to be introducing on R3. But bit by bit the gateway on Radio 3 is becoming Radio 3. I've just read the Richard Osborne quote on the FoR3 website:

"What everyone should be worrying about, however, is the loss of that old drip-feed of expert, uncondescending talk about music with which the BBC created and educated an audience in the first place. Will an informed audience even exist by 2030?"

Tearjerker epitomises the difference between education and entertainment.

[kernelbogey]

"What everyone should be worrying about, however, is the loss of that old drip-feed of expert, uncondescending talk about music with which the BBC created and educated an audience in the first place. Will an informed audience even exist by 2030?"

I couldn't agree more: the whole argument in a couple of well-formed sentences.

Tearjerker epitomises the difference between education and entertainment.

[Bryn]

That does sound a bit like the "Well, I like it" point of view - which ignores the arguments for Radio 3 being a "classical music" network. If they accepted that having programmes which mix classical, pop, jazz, musicals can't be called 'classical programmes', they would also have to say that daytime R3 doesn't have much for classical listeners. Radio 3 is, predominantly, catering for an audience that might otherwise think "Radio 3 isn't for me" rather than for a classical audience.

The argument is in any case specious. If people had been able to listen to classical music slotted between pop music on other BBC stations, that might have been the very "gateway" they claim to be introducing on R3. But bit by bit the gateway on Radio 3 is becoming Radio 3. I've just read the Richard Osborne quote on the FoR3 website:

"What everyone should be worrying about, however, is the loss of that old drip-feed of expert, uncondescending talk about music with which the BBC created and educated an audience in the first place. Will an informed audience even exist by 2030?"

Tearjerker epitomises the difference between education and entertainment.

The loss of informative science programmes from Radio 3 is another example of this departure from its historical remit. It appears to go hand-in-hand with the degeneration of much of tertiary education into an employment training scheme.

[french frank]

I couldn't agree more: the whole argument in a couple of well-formed sentences.

Richard Osborne's, of course, not mine

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

As I said in an earlier post (#353), "Tearjerker" is no more. It was last broadcast on 20th March. It's now been replaced by other silly and pointless programmes, aimed (presumably) at people with acute insomnia with the concentration level of a goldfish, but don't like the adverts on Classic FM.

[oddoneout]

"What everyone should be worrying about, however, is the loss of that old drip-feed of expert, uncondescending talk about music with which the BBC created and educated an audience in the first place. Will an informed audience even exist by 2030?"
Tearjerker epitomises the difference between education and entertainment.

I wouldn't argue about Tearjerker but I'm not sure that it is helpful to think in terms of there being a great divide between the two - education and entertainment. I can be educated by a programme but also be entertained by it - engaged, amused, intrigued. Isn't that a reason why David Attenborough's documentaries have a such a wide reach? It does however presuppose a level of programme quality which doesn't appear to be considered necessary except on rare occasions. It reminds me of the stupid and unnecessary divide between arts and sciences which I first came up against in school, and which still seems to linger - surprise that someone can have skills and interests in both disciplines, and a tendency to dismiss the art side as less important. Educational programmes are seen as worthy and heavy going and therefore unacceptable to modern day audiences so are either dispensed with or subject to demeaning and counter-productive efforts (as people pick up on the implied lack of intellectual capabilities) to jolly them up and make them more appealing. In the context of R3 it seems a bit contradictory on the one hand to accept it is a minority station because of the material it puts out and then on the other to consciously undermine and dilute that material to make it into something it can never(and in an ideal world should never) be, thus achieving nothing.
I agree about the erosion of the kind of talk to which Osborne refers. When such programmes do occur they often attract much forum comment (for instance some of the EMS episodes about a specific instrument) whereas it used to be taken for granted they would be part of the output.

[Serial_Apologist]

I wouldn't argue about Tearjerker but I'm not sure that it is helpful to think in terms of there being a great divide between the two - education and entertainment. I can be educated by a programme but also be entertained by it - engaged, amused, intrigued. Isn't that a reason why David Attenborough's documentaries have a such a wide reach? It does however presuppose a level of programme quality which doesn't appear to be considered necessary except on rare occasions. It reminds me of the stupid and unnecessary divide between arts and sciences which I first came up against in school, and which still seems to linger - surprise that someone can have skills and interests in both disciplines, and a tendency to dismiss the art side as less important. Educational programmes are seen as worthy and heavy going and therefore unacceptable to modern day audiences so are either dispensed with or subject to demeaning and counter-productive efforts (as people pick up on the implied lack of intellectual capabilities) to jolly them up and make them more appealing. In the context of R3 it seems a bit contradictory on the one hand to accept it is a minority station because of the material it puts out and then on the other to consciously undermine and dilute that material to make it into something it can never(and in an ideal world should never) be, thus achieving nothing.
I agree about the erosion of the kind of talk to which Osborne refers. When such programmes do occur they often attract much forum comment (for instance some of the EMS episodes about a specific instrument) whereas it used to be taken for granted they would be part of the output.

Excellently put.

[AuntDaisy]

As I said in an earlier post (#353), "Tearjerker" is no more. It was last broadcast on 20th March. It's now been replaced by other silly and pointless programmes, aimed (presumably) at people with acute insomnia with the concentration level of a goldfish, but don't like the adverts on Classic FM.

Please put up warnings! I nearly sprayed tea all over my keyboard.

[french frank]

I wouldn't argue about Tearjerker but I'm not sure that it is helpful to think in terms of there being a great divide between the two - education and entertainment.

I think it's possible for a programme to educate and entertain; I'm not sure I would agree that there isn't a 'great divide' (your words) as regards these programmes. My point was that there really isn't the kind of education which Richard Osborne described as 'that old drip-feed of expert, uncondescending talk about music' in these new "gateway" programmes which don't have experts contributing. The term 'gateway' is hypocrisy: they are gateways to Radio 3, carrots, which doesn't mean to say they could create an informed classical music audience. They are, and are intended to be, relaxed background music.

[oddoneout]

I think it's possible for a programme to educate and entertain; I'm not sure I would agree that there isn't a 'great divide' (your words) as regards these programmes. My point was that there really isn't the kind of education which Richard Osborne described as 'that old drip-feed of expert, uncondescending talk about music' in these new "gateway" programmes which don't have experts contributing. The term 'gateway' is hypocrisy: they are gateways to Radio 3, carrots, which doesn't mean to say they could create an informed classical music audience. They are, and are intended to be, relaxed background music.

My comment about the divide was intended to apply in general rather than specifically to the contentious items.
While sorting through some papers today I came across a cutting I had kept from the Radio Times of a letter from Humphrey Burton about BBC2 50th Anniversary celebrations which missed out reference to classical music. It should perhaps go into the thread about BBC4 and the effects on BBC2 but has relevance to the wider discussion here.

We created new ways of presenting music, airing regular masterclasses [.....] and workshops that showed how music is put together. Full-length opera and ballet alternated with concerts and features in the Music 625 slot. Proms coverage was trebled.

Surely some version of this, to link with R3, would be a better way to "increase reach" (rather than retch...). But what do I know, I'm just a listener of 60+ years standing who isn't too bothered by the occasional incursion of (perceived or otherwise)"nonR3" repertoire, but is concerned about the erosion of discernment, quality and, frankly, intelligence, in the modern offerings.