R4 Feedback covers Radio 3 - again

[Paul Sherratt]

>>>it was as fascinating and engaging as a National Geographic Special


Bloodless ?


PS
Well done with the attendance record.

[cavatina]

>>>it was as fascinating and engaging as a National Geographic Special
Bloodless ?

Teeth were bared, but the veneer of civility carried the day.

PS
Well done with the attendance record.

Meh. A bit pathetic and embarassing, really. I didn't set out to do a Grand Slam again this year--but I suppose I'm addicted, so what can you do?

[Paul Sherratt]

You have to do what you have to do ..

Did the Boss of All Radio Bosses show up ?

http://www.radiopub.fr/files/2011/03/tim-530x386.jpg

[Roslynmuse]

FF - those questions sound to me absolutely perfect. As Andrew Slater says, it'll be the responses that will interesting.

I do think there's a world of difference between a 'walkabout' outside the RAH and being pinned down in a studio to answer real questions in real time, recorded for posterity. RW will presumably have some time to prepare his responses (or be the mouthpiece for someone else).

All I can say is 'brava' for speaking at ridiculously short notice and - I'm sure - doing it so well.

[DracoM]

Oldest trick in the exec book. RW will wear that encounter like a medal, he will dine out on it, broadcast it as an anecdote to show his common touch for literally years and years to some. What a good brave public servant I am etc.

And if it was colourful as cavatina says - how could it not have been with such a correspondent to relay it? - it will simply be in his mind a blur.

I talked in the piece quoted by cavatina from my posting about 'analyses, explanations, and deffo not remonstrations which are very easy to deflect and even easier to write off as boorish etc etc examples of just how appalling the wrong kind of listeners and prommers are, and thus erase them from the memory.

Do not be quite so ready to applaud.

[Serial_Apologist]

Oldest trick in the exec book. RW will wear that encounter like a medal, he will dine out on it, broadcast it as an anecdote to show his common touch for literally years and years to some. What a good brave public servant I am etc.

And if it was colourful as cavatina says - how could it not have been with such a correspondent to relay it? - it will simply be in his mind a blur.

I talked in the piece quoted by cavatina from my posting about 'analyses, explanations, and deffo not remonstrations which are very easy to deflect and even easier to write off as boorish etc etc examples of just how appalling the wrong kind of listeners and prommers are, and thus erase them from the memory.

Do not be quite so ready to applaud.

We heard a lot of on-the-spot from same correspondent last year - we even had photos, warmed to said correspondent, looked forward to meeting up, being on hand, welcoming here long-term if that was to be on the agenda. Another person has been revealed this year, quite different from the one we thought we were getting to know.

Vulnerable people are easily taken in, DracoM.

[cavatina]

Oldest trick in the exec book. RW will wear that encounter like a medal, he will dine out on it, broadcast it as an anecdote to show his common touch for literally years and years to some. What a good brave public servant I am etc.

Incidents like that probably happen to him so often, I wouldn't expect him to remember it over any of the other tiresome annoyances he brushes off on a regular basis. I'll bet the head of the hall staff standing next to me remembers it though: as soon as she saw what was happening, she murmured a low "ohhhh nooooo!"

Here's another memorable one-- as I was waiting second in the queue for the Trelawny Q&A pre-Prom talk, I saw RW bound across the street and greet a scruffy old Rumplestiltskin-looking fellow in front of me with one of his trademark warm smiles and a cheery "hello!" As soon as RW was up the steps--and I hope out of earshot-- the old man folded his arms, snorted, and said "Hmpfh! Buttering up the audience!" He also let loose with a few other choice remarks, to which I smiled and nodded politely. After a pause, I asked him "You don't happen to post on the R3 messageboard, do you?" as I was dead sure he must be one of you people--to which he replied "No no...I don't have the patience for any of that nonsense." That's right, RW got dissed by a man who was too curmudgeonly for the messageboard. And you know that's really saying something.

I talked in the piece quoted by cavatina from my posting about 'analyses, explanations, and deffo not remonstrations which are very easy to deflect and even easier to write off as boorish etc etc examples of just how appalling the wrong kind of listeners and prommers are, and thus erase them from the memory.

Perhaps that should serve as a lesson to us all: foaming at the mouth about how he's ruining the station isn't an effective way to make your points memorably.

I do think there's a world of difference between a 'walkabout' outside the RAH and being pinned down in a studio to answer real questions in real time, recorded for posterity. RW will presumably have some time to prepare his responses (or be the mouthpiece for someone else).

Sure, but I don't imagine he'd have any problem at all answering questions in a studio in real time...do you really think anyone is going to come up with anything that could faze him? People like that don't need advance time to prepare their responses. In fact, you probably ought to think twice about wishing FF could debate him in public: he's so slick and silver-tongued you'd probably regret it.

[Anna]

I asked him "You don't happen to post on the R3 messageboard, do you?" as I was dead sure he must be one of you people--to which he replied "No no...I don't have the patience for any of that nonsense." That's right, RW got dissed by a man who was too curmudgeonly for the messageboard. And you know that's really saying something.

If you think we are all curmudgeons on this MB why bother to post, or do you just enjoy winding people up? I suspect, like your expertise at poker, you're just a game-player.

Also, if you're going to quote from other messages please include the name of the person quoted, it's very tedious to scroll back to find the message you're referring to.

[cavatina]

If you think we are all curmudgeons on this MB why bother to post

Simple: I post here because a) people are generally thoughtful and worth reading, b) if I want to talk about these issues, there's nowhere better to go. But in the end, maybe I'm just lonely and like the feel of the keyboard under my fingers at three in the morning. What's it to you?

or do you just enjoy winding people up? I suspect, like your expertise at poker, you're just a game-player.

If you don't like me or think I have anything interesting to say, put me in your filter file. Seriously, people--USE YOUR FILTER FILES. It's quite simple: if everyone who hates me puts me on perma-ignore, I'll only be talking to people who enjoy my posts and want to read me. WIN WIN! Go for it: I really wouldn't mind at all.

Also, if you're going to quote from other messages please include the name of the person quoted, it's very tedious to scroll back to find the message you're referring to.

Okay, sorry about that...I got it wrong once and there was hell to pay, which kind of put me off of it.

[Norfolk Born]

If you think we are all curmudgeons on this MB why bother to post, or do you just enjoy winding people up? I suspect, like your expertise at poker, you're just a game-player.

Also, if you're going to quote from other messages please include the name of the person quoted, it's very tedious to scroll back to find the message you're referring to.

Anna - I didn't know that individual contributors could be ignored, but have now taken the necessary action in respect of the person concerned. Some bait simply isn't worth rising to.....

[Frances_iom]

...
Sure, but I don't imagine he'd have any problem at all answering questions in a studio in real time...do you really think anyone is going to come up with anything that could faze him? People like that don't need advance time to prepare their responses. In fact, you probably ought to think twice about wishing FF could debate him in public: he's so slick and silver-tongued you'd probably regret it.

I suspect you must have missed his first appearnce on feedback some years ago (the older version that had a real bite - not the current 'house magazine' style) when he couldn't or wouldn't discus his changes, falling back on repeated "I can't accept that" to such an extent that Roger Bolton (think I have name correct) got exasperated and asked him to answer the questions - since then RW has never put himself in such a situation again.

[french frank]

FF - those questions sound to me absolutely perfect. As Andrew Slater says, it'll be the responses that will interesting.

Well, given that he will have had plenty of time to think about it I can see how he can 'trump' them. But what I found odd was that I was asked on the phone earlier in the day what points I wanted to make, to give them an idea of the direction of the discussion - but when I arrived with my 'idiot cards' I was informed that I would be answering the BBC's questions given that they weren't present to answer themselves. As I've said, I'm deeply suspicious as to whether they were on hand and discussing it just before I was brought in, especially as I was asked a question apparently about what I'd just overheard.

My first point was wanting to pre-empt any BBC suggestion that it was a revolt about the concept of a breakfast programme, and that we were arguing for a programme of full-length symphonies. I partly got that in because it was put to me that there was always a fuss from listeners when anything new was tried (I said this programme had started in 2007 and it was gradually getting worse - phone-ins just the last straw).

I also wanted to make the point that there was no dispute that there was an appreciative audience for the chatty, interactive style and that if they came to join R3 they could outnumber the existing audience - if all the BBC wanted was higher listening figures. Popular stations got more listeners than minority stations (the clue is in the descriptions) - and CFM was the proof of it.

What will be interesting is to see whether it 'works' in terms of listening figures. Any big change will be in our favour - numbers go up, and it's populist ratings chasing; numbers go down - the policy was wrong.

Perhaps we could leave the personalisation of criticism as it tends to divert attention from the issues.

[aeolium]

What I find strange is that although there have been many comments on these boards (and their R3 precursors) about apparent changes in the style and content of programming on R3, there has been virtually no justification and explanation for those changes by RW or any BBC executive. If a similar thing were to happen in any other major public service organisation, you would expect there to be some public scrutiny of the changes and for those responsible for them to be asked to explain them. Yet these changes are taking place without any kind of explanation or accountability at all, as far as I can see. It shows that despite an apparent commitment to greater interactivity by the BBC (as incorporated into the service licences), the interactivity that really matters - what people think of the service being provided - is downplayed if it raises uncomfortable questions, questions that are never properly answered.

[french frank]

aeolium

There are two 'possible' replies:

1. The bean counters say you can't have a station costing £39.2m with only 2m (+ or -) listeners. Cost per listener hour is unacceptable.

They can't argue this openly because treating the arts and culture in this way would not be acceptable to many influential people and organisations, though they do mutter 'value for money' now and again.

2. [This is the one they use]: Classical music is so wonderful they want to share it with as many people as possible, so R3 must not be exclusive.

This does not address the matter of profundity, of exploring the subject, of specialist expertise or what they destroy by targeting the programmes so determinedly on the 'new' listener with 'little knowledge of classical music'. In fact it's not just the classical music listeners who have lost out by this policy: it's the jazz and world listeners too. I reckon this is the last push, the last throw of the dice!

[hmvman]

'Feedback' is broadcast today on R4 at 13.30 and repeated on Sunday at 20.00

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b014gjw5