Essential Classics - The Continuing Debate

[BBMmk2]

That is a strong arguments against having changed barbs's original thread title: Essential Classics - surely a programme on the wrong station? In other words, the gist of the 'continuing debate' is what is wrong with the programme, isn't it? It used to feature one full-length work, eg Dvorak's 40-minute Cello concerto, giving the title and time it would be played in Radio Times. Nothing gets changed if one always takes the view that 'it is what it is', though you are - of course - quite entitled to say that you like it as it is. I merely posed some questions. about it.

Probably the programme's title should be changed to Coffee Classics, with chat, classical music, chat and a quiz?

[french frank]

The Alan Keith reference was intended to illustrate the change that was being imposed in the presentation of programmes. You could have heard in his tone of voice that he did not like what he was being asked to do. I'm sorry, E A, but it was not intended for having a go at current presenters, which has been a feature of this thread and others.

And I'll repeat something said to me by a Radio 3 presenter, which I have also reported before: "It's not much fun getting the flak for decisions taken far above our humble station in life." No question that presenters 'perform' as they do with the approval of the managers. Nor that they are the ones to, unfairly (ooh, split infinitive!), get the flak because they're in the front line.

It seems to me there are (at least) three reasons for the criticism presenters get:

1. Instructions imposed on them from above

2. Incompetence/lack of professionalism

3. Aspects of personality which some listeners 'don't like', or 'find annoying'.

They are not all equally blameworthy

[french frank]

Probably the programme's title should be changed to Coffee Classics, with chat, classical music, chat and a quiz?

You could certainly do that, Bbm, but then someone would have to take a hard look and decide whether that is really what Radio 3 should be doing. Of course 'some people like' it because just about everything will be liked by someone. Is the fact that 'some people will like it' sufficient justification for doing something'?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

And I'll repeat something said to me by a Radio 3 presenter, which I have also reported before: "It's not much fun getting the flak for decisions taken far above our humble station in life." No question that presenters 'perform' as they do with the approval of the managers. Nor that they are the ones to, unfairly (ooh, split infinitive!), get the flak because they're in the front line.

It seems to me there are (at least) three reasons for the criticism presenters get:

1. Instructions imposed on them from above

2. Incompetence/lack of professionalism

3. Aspects of personality which some listeners 'don't like', or 'find annoying'.

They are not all equally blameworthy

I had a great deal of sympathy with that viewpoint, until I saw SK doing the same cringeworthy performance in the live Twelfth Night screening last week. She was not under instructions from the BBC. There was no change whatever in her style of presentation.

[french frank]

I had a great deal of sympathy with that viewpoint, until I saw SK doing the same cringeworthy performance in the live Twelfth Night screening last week. She was not under instructions from the BBC. There was no change whatever in her style of presentation.

Obviously, I did imply that 3. was not necessarily as blameworthy, as far as the individual presenter is concerned. But I do have a view as to what personal characteristics are (in my view) not appropriate for Radio 3, though I'm not sure whether it's completely subjective to decide where the line is to be drawn between relaxed wit/humour (pleasant, appealing) and facetiousness (unappealing).

[antongould]

Make that oddTWOout oddoneout I get a lot of enjoyment over the week from the programme through those short pieces that are frequently complained about. I don't understand why 'short is bad' - Bach wrote plenty of short pieces, to name but one composer. I won't say 'long is bad', but in the mornings I have not always got time to spend, and I can't imagine that there are many who have. There's nothing sad about my mornings, musically speaking, so enough of this sadness - let's have a(very)short piece of Mahler.

Well said Padraig ..... so I suppose make that oddTHREEout .......

[Padraig]

Well said Padraig ..... so I suppose make that oddTHREEout .......

Who wants to be D'Artagnan?

[french frank]

I don't understand why 'short is bad' - Bach wrote plenty of short pieces, to name but one composer. I won't say 'long is bad', but in the mornings I have not always got time to spend, and I can't imagine that there are many who have.

Do we have any support for Radio 3's apparent view that 'long IS bad (so we don't do long)'? If they play a long piece and you/anyone doesn't have time to listen to the whole piece, why not just switch off, at the end of a movement if you wish, and go and do what else you have to do? Why is that worse than being given no choice because only one movement is being played? Why not give those who want longer pieces the chance to listen to them, and let those who don't have time in the mornings switch off at whatever point they want to?

The argument seems to be that one doesn't want to switch off in the middle of a piece of music, but one doesn't mind the BBC switching it off in the middle and going on to something else.

[Serial_Apologist]

Do we have any support for Radio 3's apparent view that 'long IS bad (so we don't do long)'? If they play a long piece and you/anyone doesn't have time to listen to the whole piece, why not just switch off, at the end of a movement if you wish, and go and do what else you have to do? Why is that worse than being given no choice because only one movement is being played? Why not give those who want longer pieces the chance to listen to them, and let those who don't have time in the mornings switch off at whatever point they want to?

The argument seems to be that one doesn't want to switch off in the middle of a piece of music, but one doesn't mind the BBC switching it off in the middle and going on to something else.

You've clinched the argument there, ff: see, if I choose to go to a gallery to see a particular statue or sculpture, and in doing so don't bother to walk around said exhibit to view the back and sides, that is my choice, and analogous to switching the radio off before hearing the work others may wish to hear in its entirety.

[Gasteiner]

.

... in a way, I really don't mind at all what they put on. Or rather, I wouldn't mind - provided they gave us advance notice of what they were going to broadcast - whether by means of the Radio Times or by the R3 website.

It can't, surely, be that difficult for them to provide the information in advance - and then we would know whether we wanted to listen.

Or am I being more than usually obtuse?

.

They used to do that but it stopped several years ago. I don't recall ever seeing an explanation for this but assumed that it had something to do with not wishing to notify the competition (CFM) what pieces were going to played in case the latter used the information in some way gain an advantage. Even if they resumed their former practice, it would not encourage me to resume listening to the programme live in view of the short pieces and excessive chat and other paraphernalia that they now incorporate into the schedules.

[oddoneout]

Is the fact that 'some people will like it' sufficient justification for doing something'?

The other side to that is 'some people won't like it - is that justification for not doing it'?

[doversoul1]

The other side to that is 'some people won't like it - is that justification for not doing it'?

I think we should stick to the question ‘what should Radio3 be doing?’ Should Radio3 be providing listeners with three-hour easy listening programmes every weekday morning?

[oddoneout]

Do we have any support for Radio 3's apparent view that 'long IS bad (so we don't do long)'? If they play a long piece and you/anyone doesn't have time to listen to the whole piece, why not just switch off, at the end of a movement if you wish, and go and do what else you have to do? Why is that worse than being given no choice because only one movement is being played? Why not give those who want longer pieces the chance to listen to them, and let those who don't have time in the mornings switch off at whatever point they want to?

The argument seems to be that one doesn't want to switch off in the middle of a piece of music, but one doesn't mind the BBC switching it off in the middle and going on to something else.

If the rest of the schedule was now short bits only then I would agree that is very wrong and reason to be up in arms. The fact that the filleting might be spreading to other areas is reason to be watchful and voice concern.
But what is being discussed here surely is the morning schedule(since Breakfast has the same format to all intents and purposes). Once again can I state my position that I don't think the current format should occupy the whole morning, and that there is much that could be done to improve the 2 programmes without doing away with them entirely - making one shorter programme being the obvious to my way of thinking.
I like the short bits approach in the morning because if something comes on that I don't like then I can go and do something else for a few minutes, instead of being stuck with it or switching off,having to work out how long it'll last(not easy without listings) and remember to switch on again. I can't be the only one....
I would be mildly interested to know how many forumites do actually listen(as opposed to drop in briefly now and then to have their fears(prejuduces?!) confirmed) but either don't get involved in this discussion or are not wanting to admit to their downmarket/sad listening habit?

[oddoneout]

I think we should stick to the question ‘what should Radio3 be doing?’ Should Radio3 be providing listeners with three-hour easy listening programmes every weekday morning?

Doesn't have to be three hours or all 'easy listening', but the format does have possibilities if done to a higher standard than at present.

[french frank]

Even if they resumed their former practice, it would not encourage me to resume listening to the programme live in view of the short pieces and excessive chat and other paraphernalia that they now incorporate into the schedules.

I entirely agree. Looking at today's playlist, I can't say that any individual piece would put me off listening (if played complete where necessary eg not just the rondo from Mozart's clarinet concerto or Mahler 6, "2nd mvt"). And I will keep saying, 'I/some people like it' is not an argument: it's a statement of individual preference. The point is whether this is really good enough for Radio 3.