Come back Radio 3

[David Samuels]

Perhaps there's some way of building a modern-day protest using Twitter and Facebook? I'm going to start now.

[David Samuels]

I've just tweeted and posted on facebook (my own and R3's own page), the following:

"Why can't Radio 3 go back to less chat, no phone-ins or competitions, more erudition -- what happened to educate & inform? #bringbackradio3"

Come on everyone -- there's a baton: pick it up and lets run.

[french frank]

I've just tweeted and posted on facebook (my own and R3's own page), the following:

"Why can't Radio 3 go back to less chat, no phone-ins or competitions, more erudition -- what happened to educate & inform? #bringbackradio3"

Come on everyone -- there's a baton: pick it up and lets run.

Oh, dear - I'm not sure how many of us here tweet

[Osborn]

Oh, dear - I'm not sure how many of us here tweet

The nostagia for recordings of 50+ years ago & long dead performers suggests that some members still look for buttons A & B on payphones

...it's a question of market. They argue that R3 is high quality and distinctive...it's still the case that R3 is targeting the same market: the lighter listener, the listener who doesn't know a lot about classical music, the listener who prefers the short and familiar

For a few hours in the morning, for some people, maybe. Not 24 hours a day.

But crucially, is it acceptable for BBC management or the BBC Trust to withdraw from a market of over 5 million people who enjoy classical music, simply because they are efficiently catered for by a commercial station? I'm not sure it is.

[David Samuels]

Oh, dear - I'm not sure how many of us here tweet

It's about time we all learned -- it isn't difficult -- because it's an opportunity to open additional fronts on which to attack the infidels and the philistines. Moreover, these are channels which garner publicity and hence are noticed. If you can get a trend going on Twitter, people take notice.

[french frank]

For a few hours in the morning, for some people, maybe. Not 24 hours a day.

But it encompasses the peak listening time of the entire 24-hour schedule. More people want to listen at that time of day than to any other part of the schedule, including the evening concert. People won't rearrange their listening, and listen in the afternoon instead. Is it fair to target the entire peak listening time at a different audience (the odd full-length piece excepted)?

But crucially, is it acceptable for BBC management or the BBC Trust to withdraw from a market of over 5 million people who enjoy classical music, simply because they are efficiently catered for by a commercial station? I'm not sure it is.

They would not be 'withdrawing' from that market, since it was never part of Radio 3's remit to cater for it. That market has been catered for (Classic FM, 20 years, Radio 2, 40 years) and what is the argument for a publicly funded service to attempt to plunder a commercial service? Under Ofcom regulations, it isn't allowed.

The pertinent question is: Is it acceptable for BBC management to 'withdraw' from a market which the station was specifically set up to cater for? Or drive it back into the less popular parts of the schedule?

[barber olly]

The nostagia for recordings of 50+ years ago & long dead performers suggests that some members still look for buttons A & B on payphones

For a few hours in the morning, for some people, maybe. Not 24 hours a day.

But crucially, is it acceptable for BBC management or the BBC Trust to withdraw from a market of over 5 million people who enjoy classical music, simply because they are efficiently catered for by a commercial station? I'm not sure it is.

At least with button B you got your money back!

As for the last point I would say it is totally justifiable on the grounds that it is pointless wasting time, effort and licence-payers money on reinventing the wheel. By cutting out guests, gimmicks and phone-ins there is no intention to stop enjoying classical music, quite the opposite with more music, full works and less chat - simple!

[doversoul1]

Originally posted by ff
The pertinent question is: Is it acceptable for BBC management to 'withdraw' from a market which the station was specifically set up to cater for?

This is the point we should stick to.

[Sparafucile]

Hi all,
There has been a series of letters in the RT over the last few weeks. I emailed Breakfast a few weeks ago myself, about how awful things were becoming, but have received no response, which is a bit rude.
I have no interest in Facebooks or Twitterings, even though I have a Blackberry. I'm just fed up with the endless, inane wittering, and the silliness of all that it now is.
And it looks like BBC4 is going to down the stupid route soon! What a dismal world quality broadcasting is turning into.

[Shahrazad]

And it looks like BBC4 is going to down the stupid route soon! What a dismal world quality broadcasting is turning into.

Oh dear ... BBC4 has been one of the few remaining beacons of quality in the BBC. What evidence do you have for saying it will take the stupid route?

[VodkaDilc]

Oh dear ... BBC4 has been one of the few remaining beacons of quality in the BBC. What evidence do you have for saying it will take the stupid route?

I'm puzzled. Are there any other beacons of quality? (I've just thought of one - R4 - surely that's as far as it goes.)

[Sparafucile]

It's been an ongoing preoccupation in the RT, just as the decline of R3 has been:

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2011-08-24/stand-up-for-bbc4

[Wallace]

As an aside, mention of buttons A and B brought to mind what I am assured is a true tale and which I heard recently.
Some of the phones in a factory were, for technical reasons, still of the old dial type. A new apprentice was sent to part of the factory to check some equipment and told to phone his supervisor with the results. After a considerable delay he appeared in person in front of his supervisor to report that the phone was broken. He was sent elsewhere in the factory to repeat the task and, after a delay, returned to report that a second phone was broken.

On investigation it was found that the apprentice could not work out why the phone would not function when he pushed on the numbers in the holes on the dial. When he discovered that the dial turned but then jumped back under the power of a spring, he was completely flummoxed.

[Norfolk Born]

Oh dear ... BBC4 has been one of the few remaining beacons of quality in the BBC. What evidence do you have for saying it will take the stupid route?

BBC4 - or BBC Radio 4?

[french frank]

Oh dear ... BBC4 has been one of the few remaining beacons of quality in the BBC. What evidence do you have for saying it will take the stupid route?

Not sure about stupid route, but BBC Three and BBC Four face a 10% reduction in their budgets over the next five years (but Three will have £85.5m to play with, while Four only has £54.3m). BBC Two will have a 6% reduction (at £455m) while BBC One has the smallest reduction of the major TV channels (3%) leaving it with well over £1bn.

If BBC One, instead, had taken a 10% reduction, the savings would have paid for all those other channels' savings, including its own) put together.

TV channels are in general more expensive than radio stations, yet Radio 5Live will have £62.8m spent on it in 2016/17, plus Live Extra's £2.5m, compared with BBC Four's £54.3m. (In fact Radio 2, at £49.2m isn't far behind Four either, and 6 Music's £8.3m takes the total past what is spent on Four).

As for R3, there have been letters of complaint in the last three issues of RT, and another back in October.