3beebies aka Breakfast

[BetweenTheStaves]

Just to make sure I wasn't missing any good music, I have just switched from the recording of my beloved TTN and, lo-and-behold, what was being played - The Four Seasons - there really is no imagination left in the brains of the morning producers!

Funny you should say that. I just dipped in to hear......Rodeo. Ba..boom!

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

i switched off because i a) found PT's meandering warbly intro intolerable to bear and b) the lark AGAIN

[Lateralthinking1]

I agree with some of these comments but wonder if people would be prepared to expand on their presentational preferences. There are reasons why some presenters are liked more than others. Could consensus be found beyond "unobtrusive presentation"?

The reason why I like Andrew McGregor and Susan Sharpe is that they sound warm by which I probably mean genuine. They are knowledgeable and appear to be interested in what they are describing. They sound like they are informing rather than presenting. They have good voices for radio - not too strident - and are professionally competent without sounding as if they have been to too many radio style workshops. Crucially they avoid words that make you cringe. I don't like to be told that a piece is the most "sumptuous" or "scrumptious" ever to be played on the violin. I really don't want other music to be described as "tasty".

Rob falls into a slightly different category. I have watched most of the clips recorded by the presenters for the Radio 3 website. It is therefore clear to me that he is a true enthusiast. The idea of someone who has a shed in his garden full of records and then brings some into the studio in his rucksack is one that appeals. I think it is the genuine thing again. Charmingly naive but informed.

While the more aloof sounding voices are not quite for me, I can recognise their appeal, particularly from a historical perspective. I do think that they are - and should be - a part of Radio 3. Here Michael Berkeley springs to mind. The only proviso I have with "Private Passions" is one about the content. I don't mind it at all but it is effectively a celebrity programme. Nick Clegg was on it in 2010. I guess RW might ask why that is generally considered acceptable but the changes to the morning programme less so.

What I absolutely hate is the sound of pushiness in radio presentation. The kind of voice that you know reveals a business orientated person whose business happens to be in the media. It isn't that I resent them making media their business but rather they can sound as if they would be more suited to a boardroom. I don't want music to be played by a boss.

[diogenesdog]

Crank up the Vivaldi, Petroc.
We're gonna ride this bus til the wheels fall off.
We're goin' all the way baby.

FREEDOM!!!

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

¡basta soplón!

[ardcarp]

It's Jupiter which upsets me most. It is a most fantastic piece of music in every respect (its conception, its orchestration, its being way ahead of its time for British music...not to mention the 'good tune') but repeated playing (and it seems to be on all the time!) really does debase the currency. I know this has been mentioned many times, but it's still a big factor for me.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

Quantity changes quality, Hegel thought. It’s an observation which proves true in many different contexts, and one of them involves

R3

...to borrow from http://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n20/john-lanchester/short-cuts

the more radio stations we have had over the decades the less the quality of the broadcasting .... shame that the AUNT PIGGIES chickened on R3 and caved in to low quality broadcasting

[doversoul1]

How do you solve these problems?

1. Your ‘repeated’ and ‘familiar’ is ‘the first time’ and ‘unfamiliar’ to someone else, and
2. your favourite presenter is someone else's bête noire (ff #121)

I don’t think you/we can argue these points rationally. If we want to rise above whining and winging (I sound like certain resigned member), we’ll have to argue the point that can be talked about objectively, which is, again to quote ff ‘It's the style that matters’.

I listen to Radio 3 to hear classical music presented by professional presenters. On this basis, I expect the programmes even Breakfast to have no ‘listener interactive’ of any forms apart from occasional inclusion of classical music related anecdotes sent in by listeners but read by the presenter, and no reading out of newspaper articles unless it has particular reference to classical music. Selection of music will be trickier. I’d say perhaps around 30% of ‘familiar’ works. There must be a way of finding out what counts as ‘more often played works’, and the rest, less often played short works.

I am sure this will attract people who have little knowledge but a lot of interest in classical music, the people who have no other stations to listen to for what they want.

Having said all this, I am probably one of those whom RW wants to get rid of. Ah well.

[notinajumalainukhaju]

That was Cormack Rigby. Why not set up a subsidiary station called Radio 3 Extra (as Radio 4 has already done!) and then just run entire daily schedules from the sainted days of the Third Programme onwards up until the recent dumbing down years?

Annoying as the Today programme is I tend to listen to Radio 4 in the morning . The other day something deadly dull was on and I switched over to Radio 3 . Horror of horrors I thought I have switched to Classic FM by mistake surely Radio 3 would not inflict the oleaginous Petroc Trelawny on us again at this time of day and only snippets are being played .

This apparently is what Radio 3 listeners want at breakfast time !

Oh for the days of Morning Concert with that deep voiced announcer who went on to be a Catholic priest .

[aeolium]

How do you solve these problems?

1. Your ‘repeated’ and ‘familiar’ is ‘the first time’ and ‘unfamiliar’ to someone else, and
2. your favourite presenter is someone else's bête noire (ff #121)

I don’t think you/we can argue these points rationally. If we want to rise above whining and winging (I sound like certain resigned member), we’ll have to argue the point that can be talked about objectively, which is, again to quote ff ‘It's the style that matters’.

doversoul, you make it sound as though it is not possible to present some of these issues in an objective way. I disagree. Here are a few statements which I suggest are either objectively true (or at least verifiable) or highly probable:

1. A number of popular works are frequently played on R3 in the morning. It is possible to quantify how frequently they are played - indefatigable souls like Suffolkcoastal do just that. Their repetition is a matter of fact not of subjective opinion.

2. Those popular works are played more frequently - much more frequently - than many works which are rarely heard at all on R3, in the morning or at any time. Again, this is a matter that is statistically verifiable.

3. That those popular works - I am thinking e.g. of one of the Four Seasons, or the Hebrides overture, or Montagues and Capulets from R&J - are familiar to the great majority of those listening to R3 in the morning is if not indisputable fact highly probable. The great majority of those who are at all familiar with classical music could not help but be acquainted with them, and even casual listeners who do not listen to classical music would probably know quite a few of the tunes from piped music, callcentre music etc.

4. It is again not indisputable fact but highly probable that the great majority of those turning on to listen to R3 in the morning will be those who habitually listen to R3, and that the casual audience or new listeners will be a small minority. The introduction of those popular works to new listeners will therefore be catering primarily for a small minority, unless it can be argued that the habitual listeners enjoy listening frequently to works they are very familiar with.

5. The average length of works played during Breakfast can also be quantified and thus is not a matter of subjective opinion but is verifiable, as is the average amount of time spent on chat, interactivity etc.

Returning to a subjective opinion, for me it is not just 'the style that matters'. It is the content - what is played, and how often it is played. Dreary though I find the presentational style, it is the content that makes the R3 weekday morning a no-go area for me now. There's just hardly anything of interest that I could not equally well find in my CD collection.

[mercia]

the great majority of those turning on to listen to R3 in the morning will be those who habitually listen to R3

I thought the Breakfast-listener was supposed to be a separate unique beast who is only half listening as he or she wakes up, gets ready for and goes to work, doesn't listen beyond 9am (when there is a mass switch off/over) and has a 21st century "short attention span" acccording to RW.

[french frank]

I thought the Breakfast-listener was supposed to be a separate unique beast who is only half listening as he or she wakes up, gets ready for and goes to work, doesn't listen beyond 9am (when there is a mass switch off/over) and has a 21st century "short attention span" acccording to RW.

A certain section of the morning audience is a kind of 'captive' audience in that they are, physically, in a place where the options are either to listen to the radio or not to listen to anything; organising CDs to listen to is just one task too many when they're getting ready to go to work. They are unlikely to want to text, email or tweet.

Another section is more leisured. Just because they don't have to set off for work doesn't mean they don't get up at the same time. Whether they want to text, email or tweet, or listen to texts, emails and tweets, depends on the individual. I would hazard that that isn't the 'historic' Radio 3 listener who wants a good choice of music, as aeolium says.

I don't know how much of what RW says off the cuff can be believed, but what he said about the increased frequency of news snippets suggested that an intended audience is someone who has perhaps been listening to Today for an hour, or less, and now wants some music. Since the Radio 4 audience is where CFM also gets a large chunk of its audience, these listeners are likely to be the ones who want very short pieces and familiar works. CFM v. R3. CFM also gets listeners from R2, and R3 may be after Wogan's TOGs who are used to 'interactivity', high-profile presenters. The imponderable is how big this audience actually is, since it is the new audience that R3 is trying to attract.

Some people here don't mind the short pieces but don't want the trivia, some people will tolerate the presentation as long as the music is good and substantial, others won't tolerate the trivia and don't want such short pieces, others will put up with high-profile presenters as long as they're the 'right' presenters. But this is the Divide and Rule principle. All these people have to be clearer about what they want, not what they're prepared to tolerate.

[mercia]

Some people here don't mind the short pieces but don't want the trivia, some people will tolerate the presentation as long as the music is good and substantial, others won't tolerate the trivia and don't want such short pieces, others will put up with high-profile presenters as long as they're the 'right' presenters.

with such a range of listener it's certainly an impossible task to please everybody (sorry to state the obvious)

[aeolium]

with such a range of listener it's certainly an impossible task to please everybody (sorry to state the obvious)

Yes, but why should it be a task for R3 at all? No other radio station tries to please everybody - R1 or R5 for instance.

Easy classical listening with popular classics has been catered for by CFM for quite a while now. When he first took over, RW claimed he was not attempting to compete with CFM, that they were trying to do different things. Yet what he is providing now in weekday mornings does suggest as though he is trying to encroach on CFM territory.

[Don Petter]

Originally Posted by french frank:

Some people here don't mind the short pieces but don't want the trivia, some people will tolerate the presentation as long as the music is good and substantial, others won't tolerate the trivia and don't want such short pieces, others will put up with high-profile presenters as long as they're the 'right' presenters.

with such a range of listener it's certainly an impossible task to please everybody (sorry to state the obvious)

Well, not exactly. If you analyse it, the right presenters, presenting longer pieces of good and substantial music, could please everybody.