A Sincere Thank You

[johnb]

I don't wish to further derail the discussion but I've just listened to Classical Collection (something I very rarely do).

It is a truly dreadful programme. Pure easy listening. Background music. No grit at all.

It doesn't even have the excuse of being in the 'Breakfast' slot.

From my limited sampling of the programme, I think it is probably the worst thing on Radio 3.

Rant over.

Sorry for the interruption. Please continue.

[Norfolk Born]

The content of Classical Collection is undoubtedly becoming more populist, for want of a better word. Which is a pity, because for me part of the progrmme's attraction was always that it gave me the chance to discover pieces I hadn't previously heard, or even heard of, some of them by composers I'd never heard of. What did I learn from today's programme? That the 1812 Overture is quite a good piece if well performed. I await further such gems with a not inconsiderable degree of trepidation.

[doversoul1]

ff
As smittm was famously said to have said ‘you can’t herd cats’. Threads do go off and in a way that is one of the funs of these boards. I also agree with you that it is best to keep the forum as simple as possible.

One possible way to keep discussions from fading away is to have someone to consolidate the (content of the) thread before it goes too far off the topic and start as a new thread. Or if, along the way of any thread, a point that is worth a discussion has emerged, someone can shout, ‘shall we start a thread on this topic?’ In this way, people can carry on posting something light but at the same time, we have a more focused thread to develop the discussion. I haven’t thought about who and how and all the other practicalities but this might be one way. In this way, there is no need to have any extra fixed boards which could get out of hand.

However we do it, I think we should make it clear that discussion threads are for discussions, and people shouldn’t get upset if they are told to rant and whinge on some other threads. I suppose you could create a symbol or something to show on the thread title that this is for discussion.

Yes, I know. How do you define discussion….? Ah well. Just a thought.

[french frank]

What is needed is for someone who is well-versed in the psychology of messageboards to come up with a set of rules that all the messageboarders will love ... And on that note ...

[Paul Sherratt]

>>>and if the BBC and its R3 presenters have any sense they will not only sneak in and view, but even assume names and participate ....

DracoM,

They're here, amongst us, right now

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_jf65hTKNQWA/TI8yImRejeI/AAAAAAAAAqE/Z7m3EJhnSW0/s1600/invasion6.jpg

[DracoM]

I's love to put a R3 presenter name to that pic, ........but maybe not.

[Eudaimonia]

one wonders what the nature of those conversations were

People pestered him about anything and everything--he was beset upon by everyone from lickspittling toadies to deathly-dull anoraks to batty old kooks telling him how to run the festival: he heard them all. Furthermore, he didn't seem to mind a bit, and actually went out of his way to greet people, listening to them natter on longer than anyone in his right mind could possibly be expected to. All told, I'd say he had an astonishingly high tolerance level for putting up with other people's BS. Impressive, really. Whatever he might think about them, you can't fault him at all for what he did. As I said, everyone had ample opportunity to have their say.

and if they were indeed critical about the role of R3 why would it appear that he has taken no note of the feelings of the core R3 audience?

Because, like it or not, you can't run a radio station on feelings.

By the way, where are you getting the idea that he's some kind of arrogant monster to work for? Somehow, I don't think you're being quite fair. Here's something that might change your impression of him a little:

DOUBT AND LEADERSHIP by ROGER WRIGHT

http://www.thewayaheadgroup.com/asset/file/75/doubt___leadership_by_roger_wright.pdf

"In this piece, Roger Wright, Controller BBC Radio 3 and director BBC Proms explores
the ideas of doubt in leadership and how our seemingly binary world cannot cope with
ambiguity, complexity and empowerment of others. His honest and authentic piece
acts as a companion to the previous article on Faith and Leadership by Sir Nick
Young.

Roger speaks of the way in which pressure from task and time can impact our ability
to be reflective and mindful. His thoughts capture so beautifully the thinking we are
engaged in around what makes for a Mindful leader. One who is intelligent with all the
intelligences (cognition, emotion, spiritual and physical), present, mindful,
compassionate, value-driven, sustainable, compassionate and focused."

[doversoul1]

Eudaimonia
It is the quality of Radio3’s programmes and not Roger Wright’s personality or leadership quality he may have that matters to us. As regular listeners of the station, we know that what he is doing is not satisfactory. Whatever he says or do anywhere else does not change the fact that the quality of Radio3 has deteriorated alarmingly.

As for the introduction to the article (written by RW himself), it is written by the editor who is unlikely to say anything negative about his guest contributor. The fact that Roger Wright is seen to be a valuable personality by an organisation of this nature (i.e. market orientated) almost proves that he is the wrong person for Radio3.

[Eudaimonia]

It is the quality of Radio3’s programmes and not Roger Wright’s personality or leadership quality he may have that matters to us.

Well then perhaps you should encourage your fellow posters to quit casting aspersions on his personality and leadership qualities and focus on what really matters.

I already said I think each of Suffolkcoastal's points would make excellent topics for individual threads; if you and others are interested in debating them without resorting to nasty ad-hominem attacks and pointless whinging, I'm certainly game. Let's help the board get off to a good start!

[Panjandrum]

if you and others are interested in debating them without resorting to nasty ad-hominem attacks and pointless whinging, I'm certainly game.

he was beset upon by everyone from lickspittling toadies to deathly-dull anoraks to batty old kooks

[Suffolkcoastal]

I'm afraid RW Leadership qualities are there for all to see in the rapid decline in standards that R3 has undergone since he took over. Doesn't the Controller have the final say on the content on R3? As I said earlier of course he will try to appear affable etc in public, have carefully choreographed interviews with vetted joiurnalists and be thick skinned and able to brush off any taxing questions, that is what he was hired to do. The question is whether this attempt to popularise (or should I say commercialise) R3 is mainly his agenda or as is most likely, the agenda of the BBC generally.

The problem with R3 is that the station is so unique and had such a clearly defined 'personality' that any attempt to commercialise/popularise the station is just doomed to failure as soon as someone in the BBC actually engages their brain and realises this then the sooner this daft experiment can end. What we have at the moment is a station that seems to be drifiting about randomly snatching at any daft new idea or trying to copy another station instead of building on what it does do well, its own huge resources and resources both nationally and internationally. Trying to turn R3 into a half serious, half commercial CFM/local radio style station does not and will not work and will ultimately satisfy no one.

The stark choice is that with its small audience you either allow R3 to expand on its tried and tested strengths with a willing controller who will fight to restore and maintain the integrity of R3 and also maintain its small but very loyal audience or you decide to pull the plug altogether to the detrement of the musical life of this nation.

We must remember that R3 was and hopefully (inspight of its decline) is highly respected internationally. There is so much scope in this fast moving digital age for working with other musical stations, building and creating new and expanding existing relationships with orchestras artists composers musicologists etc. As I mentioned in point 3 of my suggestions, pooling/sharing ideas and resources internationally could be one way for R3 to continue to create interesting and exciting programming, especially in more difficult economic times.

[doversoul1]

I’m sure you’ve all read it but just in case. Do read message 56 of the RIP Radio3 Message Boards thread on Platform3: ff’s latest report (I think?).

[Eudaimonia]

Thanks, Doversoul. Two thoughts: Although the Trust explicitly mentions message boards as a way to create "communities of interest", I'm not quite sure what we're trying to accomplish by pursuing the point. To be brutally frank, if the message boards weren't seen as valuable enough to keep around, what purpose would be served by trying to force them back? It's not happening in any event, so perhaps everyone should focus on moving forward.

If you want to be pragmatic about it, the fact that R3's Twitter and Facebook feeds are going completely unused might be seen as an opportunity. Instead of shrugging off Twitter because of its severe limitations, what if you made the effort to become skilled at writing pithy, epigrammatic zingers that really make people sit up and take notice? In other words, don't fault it for what it's not, adapt to what it is and push your agenda from there.

Likewise, a similar strategy might be used to work around the complaint that BBC blogs don't allow for a real discussion. Sure, it's not a message board, but perhaps all it needs is a little direction: what if you engaged in a little ad-hoc "blog-wrangling", i.e. jumping in early after a new blog post, posing questions to the community based on the content presented, and periodically returning to shape a real debate and discussion within confines of the blog comment space?

If you really have an interest in "being heard", there are dozens of things you could be doing that would be a lot more effective than sitting around complaining and waiting for something to happen. What about conducting real, scientifically rigorous surveys of what the R3 audience across all demographics thinks about various aspects of programming? Since hard data doesn't exist, make it happen: conducting unbiased studies with a statistically valid sample size would be a real public service.

There's so much more to say, but I don't really feel it's appropriate to get into it under a Wright-bashing snark thread. Suffolkcoastal: excellent points, which I'd be delighted discuss with you in your new threads. Cheers!