Essential Classics - The Continuing Debate

[Ein Heldenleben]

The one thing I do lay squarely at the present controller's door is Radio 3's current mania for Mindfulness, Meditation, Slowing Down, Relaxing, Ambiant Floaty Nothingness. The last thing I would want Radio 3 to be providing for me. If I were to feel I needed it, I could provide it for myself by sitting quietly in a darkened room intoning Ommmmmmmmmmm ……

In fact mindfulness is an extremely useful , relatively easy to learn series of techniques / modes of experiencing that are pretty much proven to relieve anxiety and mild depression. It has very little to do directly with chanting or , sadly , listening to music.

[Bryn]

In fact mindfulness is an extremely useful , relatively easy to learn series of techniques / modes of experiencing that are pretty much proven to relieve anxiety and mild depression. It has very little to do directly with chanting or , sadly , listening to music.

Not so much listening to music but my introduction to the concept and practice of mindfulness date from 1969 and Michael Parsons's composition, Mindfulness of Breathing, followed a year or so later by Mindfulness occupied with the Body, both text pieces seeking to relate mindfulness to creative musical performance and experience.

[Barbirollians]

I still prefer my original title for this thread - a programme surely in the wrong station !

[cloughie]

I still prefer my original title for this thread - a programme surely in the wrong station !

Not on the wrong station - just that the tired formula that replaced CD Masters, which was not broke so should never have been fixed, now is well and truly broke, should now be replaced with, I suggest, CD Masters 2022!

[Bryn]

Not on the wrong station - just that the tired formula that replaced CD Masters, which was not broke so should never have been fixed, now is well and truly broke, should now be replaced with, I suggest, CD Masters 2022!

Spot on!

[oddoneout]

Not on the wrong station - just that the tired formula that replaced CD Masters, which was not broke so should never have been fixed, now is well and truly broke, should now be replaced with, I suggest, CD Masters 2022!

Trouble is that CD Masters 2022 wouldn't be the old version, it would be a new improved updated woke diverse - add whatever current tick boxes - version. That wouldn't achieve much - replace a programme that many like and listen to currently with one that nobody wants to listen to?

[french frank]

Trouble is that CD Masters 2022 wouldn't be the old version, it would be a new improved updated woke diverse - add whatever current tick boxes - version. That wouldn't achieve much - replace a programme [B]that many like

Well, the fact that many like it ensures its continuance, especially when boosted by those who don't like it but still listen to it. Just listen for a continuous 5 minutes and you're just as important for the programme's listening figures as those who listen for the whole 3 hours.

Radio 3 will analyse the figures and will know that some switch off after 5-15 minutes, but if it means rethinking the whole programme and coming up with something that fewer people will listen to it won't be worth the candle. Au contraire, the answer is to make it even worse for the 5-minuters.

It's a style of broadcasting appealing to mass audiences, slightly adapted; whereas the Third/R3 was not for a mass audience. Picking out - as people inevitably do - that there are still gems is for optimists, as more and more airtime falls to the mass audience programmes.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Well, the fact that many like it ensures its continuance, especially when boosted by those who don't like it but still listen to it. Just listen for a continuous 5 minutes and you're just as important for the programme's listening figures as those who listen for the whole 3 hours.

Radio 3 will analyse the figures and will know that some switch off after 5-15 minutes, but if it means rethinking the whole programme and coming up with something that fewer people will listen to it won't be worth the candle. Au contraire, the answer is to make it even worse for the 5-minuters.

It's a style of broadcasting appealing to mass audiences, slightly adapted; whereas the Third/R3 was not for a mass audience. Picking out - as people inevitably do - that there are still gems is for optimists, as more and more airtime falls to the mass audience programmes.

Although TV audience figures (being meter based ) do show minute by minute flow in and out of programmes I d9nt think Radio figures have anything like that degree of precision. I think all they can tell is the number who have listened for a m8n 15 minute period and even those figures have a huge margin of error.

[french frank]

I d9nt think Radio figures have anything like that degree of precision. I think all they can tell is the number who have listened for a m8n 15 minute period and even those figures have a huge margin of error.

That's what the publicly released (free) figures show. The stations are given a breakdown by 15-minute segments. I got a look at some CFM figures which showed that.

The amount of data issued to stations is huge. We would have been allowed to buy it (costing £1,000s) but you still need the software to process it, with 99% of it being totally irrelevant as it covers all the stations and all the programmes. The BBC's argument that the information is commercially sensitive is worse than disingenuous since all their competitors (like CFM) already have it. One journalist I was in touch with said that if he wanted BBC figures he asked Classic FM, and if he wanted CFM's figures he asked the BBC.

[Serial_Apologist]

That's what the publicly released (free) figures show. The stations are given a breakdown by 15-minute segments. I got a look at some CFM figures which showed that.

The amount of data issued to stations is huge. We would have been allowed to buy it (costing £1,000s) but you still need the software to process it, with 99% of it being totally irrelevant as it covers all the stations and all the programmes. The BBC's argument that the information is commercially sensitive is worse than disingenuous since all their competitors (like CFM) already have it. One journalist I was in touch with said that if he wanted BBC figures he asked Classic FM, and if he wanted CFM's figures he asked the BBC.

I would imagine a good lawyer could discredit the BBC excuse of commercial confidentiality as fallacious.

[french frank]

I would imagine a good lawyer could discredit the BBC excuse of commercial confidentiality as fallacious.

We approached the Information Commissioner about it and were told that a disproportionate number of complaints under the FoI Act were then against the BBC. They agreed with us that the tiny amount of data (which licence fee payers pay for) should be released and contacted the BBC, extracting agreement to give us the information by a certain date. We were then in touch with the BBC directly who dithered and then said they'd changed their mind. After two years battling, we gave up, since the figures were out of date anyway.

Their other argument was that under their contract with RAJAR they were unable to provide us with what would be free figures as that would undermine RAJAR's financial viability. I rang RAJAR and they were incredulous: "They're the BBC's figures. Why should RAJAR care what they do with them?"

[Serial_Apologist]

We approached the Information Commissioner about it and were told that a disproportionate number of complaints under the FoI Act were then against the BBC. They agreed with us that the tiny amount of data (which licence fee payers pay for) should be released and contacted the BBC, extracting agreement to give us the information by a certain date. We were then in touch with the BBC directly who dithered and then said they'd changed their mind. After two years battling, we gave up, since the figures were out of date anyway.

The challenge could nevertheless have established the precedent necessary, even though giving up was obviously understandable under the circumstances. The BBC might pre-emptively have backed off, rather than face possible public ridicule - especially over the matter you indicate next:.

Their other argument was that under their contract with RAJAR they were unable to provide us with what would be free figures as that would undermine RAJAR's financial viability. I rang RAJAR and they were incredulous: "They're the BBC's figures. Why should RAJAR care what they do with them?"

[french frank]

The challenge could nevertheless have established the precedent necessary, even though giving up was obviously understandable under the circumstances. The BBC might pre-emptively have backed off, rather than face possible public ridicule - especially over the matter you indicate next:.

In one sense I understand their point of view. They were suspicious: "What are they going to do with them? Give us bad publicity?" More understandably, they have always been afraid that small bits of data are subject to misinterpretation since there is always quite a degree of unreliabilty about them, especially once you drill down to exact programme figures.

[Ein Heldenleben]

One other factor is the impact of public release of the figures on the presenters .I know that sounds a bit wet but negative headlines put pressure on very exposed individuals. These things take time to fix and keeping up presenter morale is key.of course in telly things are a bit more brutal

[french frank]

One other factor is the impact of public release of the figures on the presenters .I know that sounds a bit wet but negative headlines put pressure on very exposed individuals. These things take time to fix and keeping up presenter morale is key.of course in telly things are a bit more brutal

That's right. Though in our case 'public release' meant 'telling us'. It didn't mean us going to the press, which we seldom did. As I remember, back in 2007 we were keen to know what happened to the evening concert listening figures when the live concerts were dropped and replaced by what were effectively edited versions (since they had to fit a fixed slot - 7.00-8.45 at one point). The concerts were recorded, the presenters were live! And starting at 7pm instead of 7.30 was an issue too.

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/tvandradioblog/2006/nov/09/listenupradio3?CMP=gu_com