Essential Classics - The Continuing Debate

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Hmmmmm...
Is it just me that worries about being a target audience ?

Depends how good their aim is!

[vinteuil]

.

... I share others' revulsion at the current state of things, awful. And yet - I thort Suzy Klein's various tv historical music programmes were rather good.


.

[Stanfordian]

Lucky him!

I hope you are not slagging off my beloved Wonderful Town!

I can still picture Connie Fisher in the role of Ruth Sherwood. ‘My hair is too spiky, my teeth too goofy’

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

... I share others' revulsion at the current state of things, awful. And yet - I thort Suzy Klein's various tv historical music programmes were rather good.

Oh, but 'twas one of those very programmes that she made the "young deer" gaffe. (Sorry to keep going on about it, but really! I mean, would the BBC let an Art programme go out in which The Fighting Temeraire was described as "set at a boxing match"?!) And that "Lucy Worsley Wannabe" did nowt for me, either!

Anyroadup - she's back next week; and with Vivienne Westwood to chat to.

[Barbirollians]

Suzy Klein is quite insufferable but frankly so are many R3 presenters . Jamie McDougall's desperately cheesy presentation of concerts from Scotland , Sarah Walker was just as bad as Klein on Essentual Classics and for all his knowledge Cowan was little better , Petroc is oleaginous and Andrew McGregor never knows when to shut up .

Apart from Donald McLeod and Penny Gore nearly all of them put my teeth on edge .

[Nick Armstrong]

"young deer" gaffe.

Oh yes I remember now!

[Gasteiner]

I gave up listening to "Essential Classics" years ago on a regular basis. I couldn't stand its format compared with its predecessor programme.

Not for me the (mostly silly) quizzes, listener requests and their reactions to the music played, the celebrity interviews, the many "plugs" for other programmes coming on later in the day/week. I found all that kind of stuff to be hugely off-putting. The programme's only saving grace has been that it has been possible to listen (at a later time) to decent recordings from across a fairly wide spectrum of the classical music repertoire.

Now, judging by the events of this week with Suzy Klein at the helm, things have gone down hill even further. The music programming has involved little more than popular, mass appeal stuff with a snippet of this and a snippet of that, not much different from the kind of material that's typically played on "Breakfast".

Combined with all the presenters' (not just S-K's) over-bearing involvement, i.e. far too much talking in between pieces, "Essential Classics" is now pretty terrible for me, and I doubt that I will bother with it at all in future. Do I expect the BBC management to take the slightest bit of notice of my opinion, or indeed those of many other people who have expressed similar views? I'm afraid not with much confidence.

[french frank]

Do I expect the BBC management to take the slightest bit of notice of my opinion, or indeed those of many other people who have expressed similar views? I'm afraid not with much confidence.

As may have emerged from previous comments, I feel much the same - for me the mere outline of what the "new" programme (c. 2007) would be like preserved me from the pain of listening - and I trust the ears of those who have been listening enough to vindicate my view.

However (further information, not modifying the above ), information has come to my ears that Essential Classics gets the biggest audience of any programme on Radio 3. This is partly because it drags on for 3 hours, partly because it occupies a 'peak' listening spot for radio.

But what this also means is that Radio 3 is attracting listeners who enjoy it, indicating that it is positioning itself to attract people who will dip in or stick it on - like SK herself - as background listening while busily doing other things. It simply is not for the kind of listener who relished the Third Programme, or Radio 3 in its earlier days. Presenters' personalities are not something one can easily give as criticism of a programme, so more concrete details would be useful (e.g. snappy egotistical replies to listeners; or misunderstanding the word 'faune'. Heck! what was that piece of music about?).

So, really? More bleeding chunks? Still an 'interactive' quiz? Still the guest spot where guests have the opportunity to talk about themselves rather than, knowledgably, about music?

As for the change of presenter, the BBC has its stock answer: 'Listeners never like changes. Next item?' I think we can assure them that there's a change we would welcome …

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

information has come to my ears that Essential Classics gets the biggest audience of any programme on Radio 3. This is partly because it drags on for 3 hours, partly because it occupies a 'peak' listening spot for radio.

Perhaps it shouldn't count in the statistics unless they listen to the full 3 hours.

[french frank]

Perhaps it shouldn't count in the statistics unless they listen to the full 3 hours.

Well, as I see it These long, presenter-led programmes - one presenter, one production team, CD-based - are just about the cheapest form of radio you can get. It's what Classic FM has and most (I'm guessing here), most commercial music stations have. They're intended for people to dip in when it fits in with other things they're doing and switch off when they have to go out. And if they do listen to the full 3 hours, it will be background music.

Now, to me, these are two reasons why Radio 3 shouldn't have them. At all. People have Classic FM for dipping in and out of and listening to as background music. Ideally, Radio 3 should have individually 'crafted' (curated? ) programmes with a particular focus - CotW, a concert or recital, a newsy programme like Music Matters, and at the peak breakfast and tea times a live programme which can add flexibility to the schedule and mop up overruns. Ideally (still, in my view).

But since Radio 3 has less money to spend than Radio 2 (which wastes its money on exorbitant presenter pay) and not a lot more than Radio 1 which is also presenter-led, CD-based shows, it has to save money where it can in order to be able to broadcast live OB concerts, drama and features - all of which cost more.

Hence Essential Classics - cheap radio (I won't add the adjective that usually goes with 'cheap').

[BBMmk2]

I liker to listen to the radio in the evenings, if possible, for the live concerts, if they appeal to me!

[Cockney Sparrow]

.............Now, to me, these are two reasons why Radio 3 shouldn't have them. At all. People have Classic FM for dipping in and out of and listening to as background music. Ideally, Radio 3 should have individually 'crafted' (curated? ) programmes with a particular focus - CotW, a concert or recital, a newsy programme like Music Matters, and at the peak breakfast and tea times a live programme which can add flexibility to the schedule and mop up overruns. Ideally (still, in my view)............

I must refresh my memory who is the current ineffective regulator of the BBC - I presume this is the very reverse of fulfilling R3's remit. (And if so, I've obviously missed why the FoR3's (not this forum) work is done......(no reply or comment needed - I'll look it up - I obviously need to research that).

Mind you, I suppose in these days of "existing budgets" any effective complaint would result in spending more on 09:00 to 12:00 and could result in the the loss of .......... live concerts, COTW, or some such decent offering.

[french frank]

I must refresh my memory who is the current ineffective regulator of the BBC - I presume this is the very reverse of fulfilling R3's remit. (And if so, I've obviously missed why the FoR3's (not this forum) work is done......(no reply or comment needed - I'll look it up - I obviously need to research that).

FoR3 isn't quite done - although it was hoped that by donating the forum to its users it might be possible [for me] to slink off from both outfits . As for FoR3, one more heave, as they say, might be possible.

In the end, the BBC is bigger than any mere employee; and the pressures on the BBC are bigger than both …

Mind you, I suppose in these days of "existing budgets" any effective complaint would result in spending more on 09:00 to 12:00 and could result in the the loss of .......... live concerts, COTW, or some such decent offering.

But when you say 'existing budgets', bear in mind that Radio 3 spent less money in 2016-17 than in 2013-14, more than 8% less in actual cash (forget inflation and 'real terms') on programme content. So it was a question of maintaining what it was doing on less money.

By my calculation R3 would have needed about 5% more to stand still, instead it got 8% less.

[Cockney Sparrow]

ff - thanks for the summary of the position - once again, you have the facts at your fingertips!

[french frank]

ff - thanks for the summary of the position - once again, you have the facts at your fingertips!

I ought to remember to include E&OE, however As you put it, the dross is apparently the price that has to be paid (for reasons known to the BBC) for the live concerts, and the Proms (which come out of R3's budget). With this year's lossless audio, you'd think BBC Worldwide could sell them - and reimburse R3.