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

[french frank]

It’s more a response to the way music is consumed nowadays - playlists , streams and music to suit a mood or as a background to an activity without any particular interest in who wrote it (or indeed its quality ) . But there’s always been music like that . It’s just that only Electors, Princes and Archbishops could afford it .(oh yes and it produced more than one masterpiece...)

I think it was one of the ill-fated criticisms of the 'Adjusted Radio 3' - that it no longer put the music/content at the centre of its programming. The BBC mantra was "Audiences are at the heart of everything we do". We find out what our audiences want and give it to them. Or in other words, We stick to what's popular with listeners. The (ill-fated) Friends of Radio 3 argument was that Radio 3 should play music because knowledgeable and informed production staff believed it was worth broadcasting. Informing and educating came above 'merely entertaining' (which is not quite the same as 'merely' entertaining). It involved recognising that there was an audience which was primarily interested in extending its knowledge and experience of classical music and didn't want programmes to be deliberately 'accessible'.

Those were the days, my Friends

[jayne lee wilson]

For me the attraction of Smooth Classics is that I don't know what's coming, but I feel reassured that it will be be - fairly quiet, melodic, non-disruptive, as I face up to preparing my precious one cooked meal of the day (and feeding Cats, who always know exactly when to appear....)...

If Radio 3 could offer such, without too much prescriptive description (and perhaps more adventurous smoothies), it might attract me for similar reasons...

[Ein Heldenleben]

I think it was one of the ill-fated criticisms of the 'Adjusted Radio 3' - that it no longer put the music/content at the centre of its programming. The BBC mantra was "Audiences are at the heart of everything we do". We find out what our audiences want and give it to them. Or in other words, We stick to what's popular with listeners. The (ill-fated) Friends of Radio 3 argument was that Radio 3 should play music because knowledgeable and informed production staff believed it was worth broadcasting. Informing and educating came above 'merely entertaining' (which is not quite the same as 'merely' entertaining). It involved recognising that there was an audience which was primarily interested in extending its knowledge and experience of classical music and didn't want programmes to be deliberately 'accessible'.

Those were the days, my Friends

I wouldn’t disagree with your analysis . Thing is it was relatively easy to take that approach when the BBC had a monopoly . Now as well as myriad classical radio stations there’s also streamed music aimed at giving exactly what you like. The argument should be - why copy what every one else is doing?

[cloughie]

For me the attraction of Smooth Classics is that I don't know what's coming, but I feel reassured that it will be be - fairly quiet, melodic, non-disruptive, as I face up to preparing my precious one cooked meal of the day (and feeding Cats, who always know exactly when to appear....)...

If Radio 3 could offer such, without too much prescriptive description (and perhaps more adventurous smoothies), it might attract me for similar reasons...

Hang on Jayne the whole of the R3 morning programming is ‘don’t know what’s coming’ - the problem with this type of programme is that its going fine for a few items - then some unpleasant sound comes next - the off switch is applied and that’s it!

[french frank]

Now as well as myriad classical radio stations there’s also streamed music aimed at giving exactly what you like. The argument should be - why copy what every one else is doing?

I recognise the pressures that the BBC faces - including from MPs who look at the listening figures between CFM and R3 and demand to know why R3 can't be 'as successful'. People like that (Michael Fabricant MP who prefers CFM to R3) wants R3 to do the same as CFM but to do it 'better' - whatever that means.

My argument would be (and was ) that R3 should focus on the more 'studious' audience and try to 'grow' that audience, not try to attract a different, 'broader' audience. But the BBC hierarchy took the view that as R3 is paid for by the general public, it should cater for the general public. There was a brief moment when the old BBC Trust seemed to understand that Radio 3 could be just as valuable doing what it had traditionally done, in other words that it was a 'public good', but they didn't press management to adopt that point of view.

As far as I'm concerned, the chief failing of the Trust was that it wasn't given enough teeth to impose its rulings on more commercially-minded managers and was then abolished by the politicians because it didn't hold management to account.

[Ein Heldenleben]

I recognise the pressures that the BBC faces - including from MPs who look at the listening figures between CFM and R3 and demand to know why R3 can't be 'as successful'. People like that (Michael Fabricant MP who prefers CFM to R3) wants R3 to do the same as CFM but to do it 'better' - whatever that means.

My argument would be (and was ) that R3 should focus on the more 'studious' audience and try to 'grow' that audience, not try to attract a different, 'broader' audience. But the BBC hierarchy took the view that as R3 is paid for by the general public, it should cater for the general public. There was a brief moment when the old BBC Trust seemed to understand that Radio 3 could be just as valuable doing what it had traditionally done, in other words that it was a 'public good', but they didn't press management to adopt that point of view.

As far as I'm concerned, the chief failing of the Trust was that it wasn't given enough teeth to impose its rulings on more commercially-minded managers and was then abolished by the politicians because it didn't hold management to account.

I think we are agreeing !

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Hang on Jayne the whole of the R3 morning programming is ‘don’t know what’s coming’ - the problem with this type of programme is that its going fine for a few items - then some unpleasant sound comes next - the off switch is applied and that’s it!

The fact that I don't know what's coming is precisely why I don't listen very often. The gabbling presenters, the texts, tweets and emails and the repetitive nature every day - life is too short to hang around for something worthwhile to come from the presenters. It was different when the Radio Times listed almost everything that was to be played (and Radio 3 had a page to itself).

[jayne lee wilson]

Well one would hope a that Radio 3 version of Smooth Classics would keep talk to an absolute minimum; it would have to be a music sequence without tweets etc to work at all. Just like Classic FM's long running programme (which is one reason I like it)....you almost forget Myleene Klass is still there...and she handles the very discreet role well...

[french frank]

Well one would hope a that Radio 3 version of Smooth Classics would keep talk to an absolute minimum; it would have to be a music sequence without tweets etc to work at all. Just like Classic FM's long running programme (which is one reason I like it)

But how would it differ from the Classic FM version'?

[Bryn]

But how would it differ from the Classic FM version'?

It would not be submitted to the heavy degree of dynamic compression as Classic FM.

[Nick Armstrong]

On the 16th "Tearjerker" again appears in the 5am-6am slot, but the 6am-7am slot is filled with another programme entitled "Downtime Symphony", but I don't think it will be a symphony:

"An hour of wind-down music to help you press pause and reset your mind. With chilled sounds of orchestral, jazz, ambient and lo-fi beats to power your downtime."

What is all this b******s...??

Only just found this thread. Talk about 2020 going out with a whimper....

[french frank]

It would not be submitted to the heavy degree of dynamic compression as Classic FM.

If that were the only difference, R3 could more or less replicate CFM's schedule and still claim to be 'distinctive'. I doubt there are many people who listen to R3 purely for the superior audio quality.

[jayne lee wilson]

But how would it differ from the Classic FM version'?

Well I was responding to #22 but as I said above: perhaps with a more recondite choice of (allegedly) smooth and soothing repertoire....imagine Josquin segueing into Kancheli..... Gesualdo into Morton Feldman...

[cloughie]

Well I was responding to #22 but as I said above: perhaps with a more recondite choice of (allegedly) smooth and soothing repertoire....imagine Josquin segueing into Kancheli..... Gesualdo into Morton Feldman...

Mmm

[Roslynmuse]

Doesn't the In Tune Mixtape purport to do this?