Well in short we probably all agree the answer is quite a lot, as Sarah articulated in the response to the letter from the BBC Trust. But the problem for me is that while we may collectively share an antipathy to the style and content of the current Breakfast programme, do we all share a view of what we would wish it to be instead? If the million or so previous listeners were all (presumably) satisfied with the programme two years ago, are all of them equally dissatisfied with the programme today?
The problem with many campaign groups is they are better at expressing what they don't like than presenting a cogent and persuasive alternative. For my part this is what I don't like about the current presentation:-
1) The baseless jollity of presenters such as Sara Mohr Pietsch who regale us with the idea that listening to serious muisic is not a pleasure, it is "fun".
2) The idea that listening to the programme makes me a part of a group.
3) The idea that I should immediately express my enjoyment back to the programme (and the rest of the "group") to somehow enhance our collective "listening experience".
4)The idea that "success" is expressed in listener figures. What is the point of a license if the BBC becomes obsessed with market share as though it is a commercial station?
And what I don't like about the current musical policy
1) The replacement of a selection of music on its merits with a formula - so that (eg) the first piece after 7am is almost always a fanfare.
2) The idea that the music is more enjoyable if it is already familiar to the listener.
3) The idea that large, stirring grandiose symphonic overtures are more enjoyable than lighter more esoteric pieces.
4) The idea that having listeners select a musical choice somehow "democratises" the "listening experience", thus transforning listeners into "stakeholders" - presumably to fulfil some BBC edict, as though this handful of tiresome tweeters and emailers can somehow represent the million or so who do not wish to subscribe.
5) I do not like the preponderance of overtures. And because they are familiar we get the same old pieces over and over - the same old foreplay without the follow up. Everything that Radio 3 once stood against.
6) I don't like phone ins. Why is someone else's emotional association of a piece relevant or even interesting to me?
So what do I want instead? Is this what others want too?
1) I want to hear unfamiliar music. I want every Radio 3 programme to be part of my lifelong musical education.
2) I want presenters to inform on the pieces without using false jollity (Pietsch) or false reverence( Cowan)
3) I want humour to be dry and droll (Trelawney). I do not want to have "fun" at 7 in the morning (Pietsch)
4) I like chamber music, whether it is from the 18th century or the 20th
5) I like a smattering of early, sacred and profane music.
6) I like a smattering of vocal pieces especially accompanied by a solo instrument such as a piano
7) I like pieces written for unfashionable instruments
8) I love short pieces written especially for a solo woodwind instrument.
9) I like an occasional march so long as it is not the Dambusters.
10) I like pieces that convey a sense of peace and tranquility in the morning. I am sick of being shocked out of bed by overtures to ballet music and movements from the 19th century romantic symphonies.
Does anyone have a very different vision of "their" Breakfast programme?
The problem with many campaign groups is they are better at expressing what they don't like than presenting a cogent and persuasive alternative. For my part this is what I don't like about the current presentation:-
1) The baseless jollity of presenters such as Sara Mohr Pietsch who regale us with the idea that listening to serious muisic is not a pleasure, it is "fun".
2) The idea that listening to the programme makes me a part of a group.
3) The idea that I should immediately express my enjoyment back to the programme (and the rest of the "group") to somehow enhance our collective "listening experience".
4)The idea that "success" is expressed in listener figures. What is the point of a license if the BBC becomes obsessed with market share as though it is a commercial station?
And what I don't like about the current musical policy
1) The replacement of a selection of music on its merits with a formula - so that (eg) the first piece after 7am is almost always a fanfare.
2) The idea that the music is more enjoyable if it is already familiar to the listener.
3) The idea that large, stirring grandiose symphonic overtures are more enjoyable than lighter more esoteric pieces.
4) The idea that having listeners select a musical choice somehow "democratises" the "listening experience", thus transforning listeners into "stakeholders" - presumably to fulfil some BBC edict, as though this handful of tiresome tweeters and emailers can somehow represent the million or so who do not wish to subscribe.
5) I do not like the preponderance of overtures. And because they are familiar we get the same old pieces over and over - the same old foreplay without the follow up. Everything that Radio 3 once stood against.
6) I don't like phone ins. Why is someone else's emotional association of a piece relevant or even interesting to me?
So what do I want instead? Is this what others want too?
1) I want to hear unfamiliar music. I want every Radio 3 programme to be part of my lifelong musical education.
2) I want presenters to inform on the pieces without using false jollity (Pietsch) or false reverence( Cowan)
3) I want humour to be dry and droll (Trelawney). I do not want to have "fun" at 7 in the morning (Pietsch)
4) I like chamber music, whether it is from the 18th century or the 20th
5) I like a smattering of early, sacred and profane music.
6) I like a smattering of vocal pieces especially accompanied by a solo instrument such as a piano
7) I like pieces written for unfashionable instruments
8) I love short pieces written especially for a solo woodwind instrument.
9) I like an occasional march so long as it is not the Dambusters.
10) I like pieces that convey a sense of peace and tranquility in the morning. I am sick of being shocked out of bed by overtures to ballet music and movements from the 19th century romantic symphonies.
Does anyone have a very different vision of "their" Breakfast programme?
I'm at a distance from the myriad individual views (I've just had a response from a Distinguished Person rating the current presenters. Yes but, no but, as far as 'listeners in general' are concerned. And, as RW points out that presenters are a matter of personal taste, I think I may reveal that he also has presenters that he can't stand. But not, he added promptly, on Radio 3. [No, Rog, but Foul! you handpicked all the R3 presenters yourself! 
).
. IOW, should the description 'presenter' be reserved for those with either expert knowledge which is the fundamental focus of the programme (e.g. RC/JS on CDM) or with the time to spend researching their programmes (DM and CotW)? Those who 'host' 'shows' are sufficiently controversial to suggest their role - and their programmes - should be reconsidered.
Comment