Brian Sewell joins the throng!

[mercia]

Drama on 3 is a useful benchmark: it epitomises what we think Radio 3 should be (not least in being content which only a minority listens to!).

I can't tell whether that is a serious or tongue-in-cheek remark

[french frank]

I can't tell whether that is a serious or tongue-in-cheek remark

Absolutely serious.

Anyone who 'objects' to Corneille on Radio 3 is, logically, arguing for the removal of classical music on the station and its replacement with content that 'people want to listen to'.

[mercia]

sorry, the part that I wasn't sure of the seriousness of was

"not least in being content which only a minority listens to"

which seems to imply that you think the best thing about Radio 3 is (or should be) that as few people listen to it as possible

[Frances_iom]

No-one mentioned that Brian Sewell has picked up on the phrase Radio 2.5.

the earliest ref I can find to "radio 2.5" dates back to 2006 - http://www.overgrownpath.com/2006_12_01_archive.html - was it coined here or is there an earlier use of it to illustrate the vandalism that RW has wrought

[mercia]

Anyone who 'objects' to Corneille on Radio 3 is, logically, arguing for the removal of classical music on the station

not sure I follow that argument either

[Don Petter]

No-one mentioned that Brian Sewell has picked up on the phrase Radio 2.5.

Also in the same issue, Janet Street-Porter has also come out against Radio 2.5 and as she's been invited to take part at the Free Thinking Festival in November, she will be an advocate. (Note to readers. It was a toss-up in cafe nero this morning whether I read the DM or the Grauniad). Link to her piece here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar....html...scroll down to the bottom

I get 'Page does not exist' with ths URL. Is it correct?

[french frank]

not sure I follow that argument either

Something like 4%-5% of Radio 3 listeners listen to Drama on 3. The vast majority listen to classical music. Let's say the vast majority of Radio 3 listeners argues that they're not interested in Do3, that only a 'tiny, tiny minority' [sic] listens, it's relatively very, very expensive to put on, so why not drop it and put on some classical music which would be appreciated by a much bigger audience.

Where does that leave the 4%-5% of the UK audience who listen to Radio 3, just a 'tiny, tiny minority' of UK listeners, and it's relatively very, very expensive? Do we drop all the classical music on Radio 3 and replace the station with a BBC Chill which would be appreciated by a much bigger audience? You have to be careful where your arguments lead you.

[DracoM]

I don't know Radio 2.5's exact provenance, but for me the Sewell article bears an almost uncanny resemblance to a heck of a lot - even word for word - of a large number of posts over the last few weeks on this and other threads.

Could it be that Brian Sewell is a regular on here - as indeed others have suggested?

[mercia]

I don't want Do3 removed from the schedule (even though I rarely listen to it), but if it wasn't there I don't see why Radio 3 would suddenly become Radio Chill.

And the fact that I don't listen to Do3 doesn't mean I'm not interested in classical music - I don't see the logic to that argument

[BetweenTheStaves]

I get 'Page does not exist' with ths URL. Is it correct?

mea culpa...now fixed

[french frank]

I don't want Do3 removed from the schedule (even though I rarely listen to it), but if it wasn't there I don't see why Radio 3 would suddenly become Radio Chill.

And the fact that I don't listen to Do3 doesn't mean I'm not interested in classical music - I don't see the logic to that argument

The argument for the continuance of a minority interest, expensive service like Drama on 3 is exactly the same argument for the continuance of a minority interest, expensive service like Radio 3: namely, because the content is worth it.

The BBC's argument that Radio 3 must be given a makeover to make it appealing to a broader range of listeners is an argument against minority services - because the people who appreciated the demands of the minority service are the very ones who are no longer served if the content is popularised.

[Don Petter]

mea culpa...now fixed

Many thanks - contact confirmed!

[Gasteiner]

One of the oddities about Brian Sewell's piece in the Daily Mail of 26 September is that he has written it as if Petroc Trelawny is the only presenter of this dreadful shambles of a so-called programme. He has failed to mention that the current presenter is Sara Mohr-Pietsch, who is now in the second week of her stint.

Making it all the more puzzling is that the whole tone of his essay is that Petroc Trelawny is "... manifestly ill-at-ease ..." with the new style of programme, and is only doing to comply with the demands of the cultural ignoramuses in the higher echelons of the BBC. Could it be, one wonders, that Brian Sewell was simply asked to write a critical article by the Daily Mail, having been given a few basic facts about the latest version of "breakfast" to moan about?

Moreover, I don't detect that Petroc Trelawny is "manifestly ill-at-ease" with any of it, but rather he seems to be rather quite comfortable presenting all this dross, and is probably pleased about the "promotion". If the BBC felt that he was ill at ease, he would soon be out of a job. So I think all this part of his article is nonsense on the part of Brian Sewell, and it's not a suitable way of attacking the basic flaws of the programme by merely arguing that the presenter doesn't like what he is doing. Never mind what Petroc thinks; it's what we, the former R3 breakfast listening public, think that matters.

I don't know why Brian Sewell confined his remarks to "breakfast", since the "essential classics" programme that follows is badly spoiled by the 30 minute slot in the middle of it chatting with the same guest for a whole week. Personally, at this time of day I don't want to hear long interviews with anyone on any topic, music included. It's boring and I switch off mentally. In the first week there was some mathematician waffling on about .. yes mathematics; last week it was the gardening lady who was ever-so-nice but awfully boring as she agreed with everything Sarah Connolly said on a range of largely irrelevant topics; and now we have Rick Stein talking about his love of red mullet and Mozart. What the hell are we going to get next week, one wonders? The programme is so utterly awful. Rob and Sarah, I hope you are reading this!

One thing in Brian Sewell's article I did agree with was his comment about the "... ignorant, screeching Katie Derham ..". That's absolutely right. I cannot stand that woman's superficial commentary or that dreadful clipped accent she speaks in.

[aeolium]

In one way the BBC management won't mind attacks from conservative critics writing in generally hostile papers, such as the Telegraph and the Mail, which rarely miss an opportunity to attack the BBC. The BBC can characterise these attacks as coming from 'the usual suspects' , the forces of reaction determined to weaken and undermine the BBC as opposed to their own 'progressive' agenda of expanding the accessibility of classical music to everyone. It also helps the BBC if they get support for their changes from more left-leaning broadsheets such as the Grauniad and the Indy. It then becomes a 'progressives' versus 'reactionaries' struggle, with the BBC on the side of progress. This is a convenient distraction from detailed argument, but I'm not sure that it helps those arguing against the current changes that they are getting high-profile support from media that are anyway notorious for their loathing for the BBC.

[mercia]

I don't detect that Petroc Trelawny is "manifestly ill-at-ease" with any of it, but rather he seems to be rather quite comfortable presenting all this dross

hello Gasteiner, I agree with you on this, but I think we may be in a minority on these messageboards where the received opinion seems to be that the presenters are slaves to their producer masters who apparently have total control over content