Pre-noon. How much do you now listen to post-schedule changes?

[Guest]

I thought I'd post a poll to see just how much people's listening habits had changed with the introduction of the new Breakfast format and Essential Classics.

[Serial_Apologist]

Not sure if I am qualified to vote at all, given that I now don't listen to any Radio 3 at all before COTW.

S-A

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Tricky, BtS: the most accurate answer from me would be "About the Same" as I have avoided the morning programmes almost entirely since January 2010.
Not quite the same thing as saying "I tune in as eagerly as ever", which might be inferred!

[amateur51]

I think you need to re-frame the question BTS. I listen to R3 exactly as before in this time slot but NOT to what is being broadcast; rather I listen to TTN. I don't think that I am alone.

[BetweenTheStaves]

Not sure if I am qualified to vote at all, given that I now don't listen to any Radio 3 at all before COTW.

S-A

I would have thought that option 1 was closest. I did toy with the idea of a null rating!

Good point, Am51, I tried to change the poll question title but couldn't find a way to do it. I've altered the thread title.

[Don Petter]

Tricky, BtS: the most accurate answer from me would be "About the Same" as I have avoided the morning programmes almost entirely since January 2010.
Not quite the same thing as saying "I tune in as eagerly as ever", which might be inferred!

Exactly my situation. I think the question & answers need to be framed somewhat differently to be meaningful.

[french frank]

Exactly my situation. I think the question & answers need to be framed somewhat differently to be meaningful.

Having set a poll myself, I perhaps could have been more helpful to BTS in suggesting questions - not least because I wanted to change mine as soon as people started voting.

As there have been about 14 votes cast already it's not very convenient to start again from scratch, so I'd suggest that the first option should be interpreted as:

1. Much less, or not at all

without further gloss. If people never have listened in the mornings because they can't for some reason (or they never miss Today on R4), there isn't a lot of point in them participating.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I'd suggest that the first option should be interpreted as:

1. Much less, or not at all

without further gloss.

With this interpretation, I have added my vote.

[Gasteiner]

I ticked "much less".

As far as I am concerned, both of the morning programmes have become much worse since the changes were made a few weeks ago.

I gave up completely with "breakfast" about half way through its first week. I could hardly believe that this programme could possibly get any worse than it was previously, but it certainly did so. Apart from Petroc Trelawny's non-stop babble about heaven knows what, I think what completely killed it for me was the the "phone in". I found this too embarrassing to listen to, apart from it being a complete waste of time. Just to make sure that I hadn't acted too hastily, I have occasionally switched it on for a few minutes on subsequent occasions to check it out, but sad to say that my first impressions were re-confirmed.

I don't like "essential classics" either. It's nothing like as good as its predecesor "classical collection". In the new format, we only get a clue about what's going to be played apart from the item which features at 11 am. There is an increased amount of playing only parts of whole works. The interviews with guests are a complete turn-off for me. I couldn't care less who the guests may be, or how interesting their musical choices may be. I'm not interested in mixing my listening to classical music with discussion about other material like cosmology, mathematics, or the state of the fish market in Cornwall. As for the quiz feature, can there be anything more tedious than this?

Neither of these radio programmes is the kind I still want to listen to.

[vinteuil]

Like others, I find it hardly worth listening in the morning.

If they could provide details - either in the Radio Times or on the BBC website - of when they would be playing particular works - then I wd happily listen to the pieces I wanted to listen to - turning the volume down if necessary to avoid burbly gossip before and after...

But with the inadequate info available - there is no point; to submit to inane drivel and loadsa CFM muzak-lite on the off-chance that there might be some really good stuff - no, not worth it.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

The lack of information in Radio Times of what is to be played is quite deplorable. Do the people who attempt to run this station imagine that people switch on and are happy to hear the DJs rabbiting on, and to carry on listening on the off-chance of hearing something interesting? Get real! Some of us have a life.
(Sorry - just had to get that off my chest.

[VodkaDilc]

Not sure if I am qualified to vote at all, given that I now don't listen to any Radio 3 at all before COTW.

S-A

Ditto.
And in the afternoons R5 is often a better option. Richard Bacon's interview with Jeremy Paxman yesterday was fascinating. I am turning to the radio less and less for music. (And I write as someone with 45 years+ of Radio 3 listening behind me. I must face facts: R3 is not designed for me any more!)

[MickyD]

I have continued to tune in probably for reasons of loyalty, but I think I have now reached a stage where I can't bear this appalling Breakfast programme any longer. The ridiculously-titled "Essential Classics" is not quite so bad, but certainly a shadow of the former slot.

All the same, I'll still listen to my favourite CD Review and Early Music Show - I just hope they never go down the same road, though nothing would surprise me.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I still listen on Saturday mornings? But even CD Review is punctuated by adverts (aka trailers)

[Bryn]

I have looked at the schedule and thus failed to tune in since the changes.