The New Schedule

[salymap]

I've just fetched the new Radio Times. I rather wish I hadn't. I agree with what people have written but what can we do? Answers on a postcard to RW.

[french frank]

I've just seen Radio Times. 'Essential Classics', which is now clearly the morning's 'flagship' programme, is in the special Highlights section at the front.

'The autumn schedules are upon us, so expect new series in familiar slots. Radio 3 is the first to introduce a fresh take on an old theme: guiding listeners to essential music, performances and artists. Host Rob Cowan is joined by a guest who introduces music that has significance for them, starting with the mathematician Marcus du Sautoy.'

(Note the programme is now 'hosted' rather than 'presented'.)


Why is a particular piece of music chosen to be played on Radio 3 these days?

1. Because the invited guest of the week likes it

2. Because a phone-in listener likes it

3. Because it's in the week's Top Twenty

4. Because it offers a reason (composer, artist) to trail a forthcoming Radio 3 programme, before and after the piece

5. Because it's an Essential Classic

6. Because it's one of the presenter's favourites.

[No wonder it's mostly about personal feelings and non-musical associations rather than objective criticism which requires knowledge.]

[vinteuil]

I've just fetched the new Radio Times. I rather wish I hadn't. .

saly - that was my feeling too.

If one wishes to be VERY positive one can follow Roehre's line...

The new schedule is for me very, very, very reassuring. Never have to switch on Radio 3 again before midday, as there will never, never, never, be anyting remotely interesting to be broadcast. Rather assuring isn't it, being sure you won't miss anything you might have listened too if you would have known in advance.

The Afternoon on 3 goes for me the same way: with c. in front of the time of beginning of a piece that will be broadcast I most likely won't even be bothered again to switch the radio on, as I might miss the beginning.

Most likely I'll stick to my own collection: no ridiculous chat, exactly offering the music I want at the moment I want, and generally with valuable information from the sleeves/booklets/other documentation in stead of the blabla from (now unfortunately most of) the presenters. :

Yes, the new schedule will probably 'free up' a lot of time for me to spend on better things - listenening to CDs, reading, going for walks.

But sad, sad, sad.

[aeolium]

Yes, looking at the first week's schedule in RT, it does look to be a total loss of a programme, replete with excerpts and old familiars. The truth is though that it won't make a great difference to my listening plans as I never listen to Breakfast and had virtually given up listening to Classical Collection except for the occasional specific piece or performance. As for Roehre, R3 will be for me a no-go zone at least up to midday, except for using iplayer to catch up on a concert or piece I had missed from a previous day, or TtN.

I do think it would be worth those listeners who used to value R3 (and still value the idea of what it could be) writing in to complain about the increasing lobotomization of the station, and its distortion into a vehicle for beginners' classics and the personal favourites of presenters and celebrities. The all-pervasive magazine programme, spreading through the schedules like a disease and filling the airtime with a vapid mish-mash of unrelated works loosely tossed together, accompanied by a verbal flotsam of personal impressions, listener emails and hyperbole, is a kind of brain-rot: the audial equivalent of fast food. What is the point of it all? What has it got to do with public service broadcasting? Why is this wretched Controller allowed to inflict this stuff on what was once a fine and valued station?

Aux armes, citoyens! Sound the tocsin - at least it'll sound better than the umpteenth Slavonic Dance

[french frank]

Aux armes, citoyens! Sound the tocsin - at least it'll sound better than the umpteenth Slavonic Dance

Yes, indeed: write to the papers, write to the Trust, write to the Director General, write to the Director of Audio and Music, write - civilly but firmly - to the Controller of Radio 3. Write to programmes, and presenters.

Probably as good a moment to say that FoR3 wrote a letter to the BBC Chairman last week, copied to the Controller. As they will both have time to read it, here's the central argument (an objection to the Trust's review of Radio 3):


"We consider the review to have been insufficiently probing and fundamentally flawed; insufficiently probing in that the routine measurements of quality, distinctiveness and audience appreciation do not address the key role and function of Radio 3; fundamentally flawed for that same reason and because the methodology of giving weight to the views of members of the public who were not already listeners to the station and who did not find classical music appealing favoured the conclusion that Radio 3 was indeed ‘intimidating’, aimed at ‘an elite’ and should be made more ‘accessible’. The conclusion was built into the methodology.

Further:

• for decades, new listeners with no knowledge of classical music have adapted to Radio 3’s standards and have profited from its rigour. There is no indication that the Trust review ever examined the policy of catering for the new target audience by using the methods of popular music broadcasting.

• there is no indication that the review queried the amount of Radio 3’s schedule being devoted to ‘entry level’ programming and popular techniques; nor that it considered the effect of that loss of in-depth programming which had fulfilled the needs of an audience which, regardless of knowledge level, wanted to learn.

• there is no indication that the Trust queried, or was even aware of, the abrupt reversal of station strategy between 1999 and 2007, the two strategies being at opposite poles and sharing only the aim of increasing Radio 3’s reach.

We regard the continuing expansion of entry-level classical music programmes, the primacy given to the entertainment value of programmes as against the educational, the removal of content thought to be off-putting to casual listeners, and certain schedule timing changes as signs that Radio 3 is once more (as admitted in 1996) seeking to poach Classic FM’s traditional audience; the claim that it is doing so with ‘high-quality’ and ‘distinctive’ programmes is irrelevant. Regarding the downgrading of jazz, in terms of the amount and scheduling, and following the much hyped raising of its profile in 2000, we ask how it can be an acceptable practice to flirt with sectional audiences one moment and dismiss them the next."

[More on transparency and the BBC's use of the Freedom of Information Act]

[antongould]

Its the lone voice in the wilderness again, I do share a birthday with John the B, but is this not judging the "New" Breakfast and Essential Classics books by their covers when the books are yet to be, as it were, printed? Personally I shall listen and form my opinion then.

[tony yyy]

Oh dear, oh dear! When I first joined the Radio 3 message boards, some years ago, I found it hard to understand why people felt the station had 'dumbed down'. Gradually things changed and at some point between then and now I started to agree with them. I long ago stopped bothering with Breakfast, even when on a long car journey, and now mornings look set to become even worse: listeners chatting to Petroc followed by Rob and his celebrities. I admire antongould's fair-minded attitude but I find it hard to believe I'd find the new programmes at all bearable.

[Old Grumpy]

I shall still be listening to Breakfast. It's a shame RC's moving though, as I do like his presentation. As with AG, I'll wait and see.

[Norfolk Born]

I've just done a bit of DIY, and am now watching the paint dry. I'm willing to bet it's more stimulating than listening to Radio 3 in the morning. I did listen to 'Hancock's Half-Hour' on Radio 4 Extra at 0800, but it wasn't as funny as last week, so I returned to 'Today', which offered the usual stimulating mix of brain food. It also has the pick of the presenters (with the obvious exception, but it would be ungallant of me in the extreme to name her (whoops!).

[french frank]

Oh dear, oh dear! When I first joined the Radio 3 message boards, some years ago, I found it hard to understand why people felt the station had 'dumbed down'. Gradually things changed and at some point between then and now I started to agree with them.

At the beginning, the strategy was to increase the range of non-classical music being given regular coverage - most of which was in the evenings, at weekends and at holiday times, as well as seeping into classical programmes. Arguably, that wasn't 'dumbing down'. But equally it didn't please the classical audience whose listening was affected.

There was a transition period c. 2004 -2007 when gradually most of these innovations disappeared or were cut back, and from 2007 onwards the strategy has been to attract and cater for listeners new to classical music rather than cater for the long-standing listeners.

The two strategies have in common that they both concentrate on bringing in new listeners and, particularly in the second case, radically extending the amount of the schedule devoted to them. Inevitably, what's good for one set of listeners is bad for another. The disappointing thing is that it's the same audience suffering under both strategies.

One could say that there were still good classical programmes during the first period (Morning Performance and CD Masters were both RW's innovations) but fewer of them. Now there are fewer good programmes. Even the 'specialist programmes' - much as they may still be greatly enjoyed - are less specialist than they were: Choirworks ➘ The Choir, Spirit of the Age/Music Restored ➘ The Early Music Show, Discovering Music ➘ (Charles Hazlewood) Discovering Music ... ↓ .

[Nick Armstrong]

I've just done a bit of DIY, and am now watching the paint dry. I'm willing to bet it's more stimulating than listening to Radio 3 in the morning.

I must say that Minkowski/Musiciens du Louvre playing a Haydn Symphony, and then "Leg Over" Andsnes and the Artemis playing Schumann's Piano Quintet were very interesting and really good, fresh interpretations of familiar works and were a most agreeable accompaniment to my journey to work.

The only saving grace with any of the 'familiar/essential/favourite classics' approach will be if interesting, offbeat, historic, brand new etc etc performances are chosen, and their different qualities etc being commented upon.

The presence of Rob Cowan gives me considerable cause for optimism in that regard.

I'm in the 'let's wait and hear before leaping to judgement' camp.

[Anna]

I bought a copy of the RT and the guest in Essential Classics is Marcus du Sautoy the Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science and therefore can’t really be classed as a “celebrity” in say the same way as, for example, scientist Brian Cox

It seems from various googling that apart from maths, music, theatre arts and symmetry are vital to him.. Therefore I’m expecting it to be interesting and his choices involving an explanation of such things as the Fibonacci numbers (which I struggle to understand) and the mathematics (ditto struggle) of music as he says such things as ‘the square root of 2 is the key to problems of musical harmony; and modern music by Schoenberg and Messiaen is a musical expression of the mathematics of symmetry'

So I think this particular guest will be a good thing as he has a total of two and a half hours to explain all the above. Or am I being hopelessly naive?

[Nick Armstrong]

I bought a copy of the RT and the guest in Essential Classics is Marcus du Sautoy the Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science and therefore can’t really be classed as a “celebrity” in say the same way as, for example, scientist Brian Cox

It seems from various googling that apart from maths, music, theatre arts and symmetry are vital to him.. Therefore I’m expecting it to be interesting and his choices involving an explanation of such things as the Fibonacci numbers (which I struggle to understand) and the mathematics (ditto struggle) of music as he says such things as ‘the square root of 2 is the key to problems of musical harmony; and modern music by Schoenberg and Messiaen is a musical expression of the mathematics of symmetry'

So I think this particular guest will be a good thing as he has a total of two and a half hours to explain all the above. Or am I being hopelessly naive?

Anna I think you are being hopeful, like me

[Anna]

Anna I think you are being hopeful, like me

Caliban, perhaps should we remember this?

Hope itself is a species of happiness, and, perhaps, the chief happiness which this world affords; but, like all other pleasures immoderately enjoyed, the excesses of hope must be expiated by pain. (Samuel Johnson)

[Serial_Apologist]

Hope itself is a species of happiness, and, perhaps, the chief happiness which this world affords; but, like all other pleasures immoderately enjoyed, the excesses of hope must be expiated by pain. (Samuel Johnson)

Boy, he can say that again!