Far too much Schubloke

[bwhitjo]

No, you are not the only one. I think it is a silly idea, dreamed up, no doubt, by someone in R3 who wants to boast 'We are the only ones ever to broadcast every single note he ever wrote', and an appalling use of radio time. No doubt the Schubofils will now be at us for slandering the master, but they should understand that we are not anti-Schubert, but anti this wall-to-wall treatment of any composer.

[gurnemanz]

I think it is a silly idea, dreamed up, no doubt, by someone in R3 who wants to boast 'We are the only ones ever to broadcast every single note he ever wrote', and an appalling use of radio time.

I started off thinking similar thoughts and indeed expressing them on this board, but as it went on I found myself tuning in to R3 more than I usually do, e.g. even during the Breakfast slot and between 10pm and midnight when the normal schedule contains hardly any classical music at all.
I ended up being somewhat baffled by the virulence of those condemning the whole event, presumably without actually listening to very much of it.

[Osborn]

I think the problem with allowing any Tom, Dick or Harry access to raw reseach data is that outsiders will generally be incapable of consistently drawing sound conclusions and may well publish selective or misleading figures, in print or on the internet, which fit their own agenda. Such publication is impossible to correct and police.

But in my view. it would be reasonable to expect the BBC to allow access to the professionally prepared Management Summary of Findings (or equiv).

[Old Grumpy]

No doubt the Schubofils

Schubofils - Schmoomofils - SuBophils.

I, for one, am glad it's all over (until the next time!)

OG

[french frank]

I think the problem with allowing any Tom, Dick or Harry access to raw reseach data is that outsiders will generally be incapable of consistently drawing sound conclusions and may well publish selective or misleading figures, in print or on the internet, which fit their own agenda. Such publication is impossible to correct and police.

I think that's perfectly true (leaving aside that the BBC publishes its data selectively - and misleadingly on occasion) and we originally asked for data on an informal basis so as not to set a precedent (one could imagine people constantly requesting information to settle pub arguments). But two points: 1) they do disclose the kind of data we were asking for, had done so on a previous occasion and had said they were happy to do so as long as they had it 'off the shelf' and 2) if we had the money we could take out our own subscription - though the data would be supplied in a format which wouldn't have the means to process - but it would be horrendously expensive to subscribe each year to the entire UK radio statistics (every programme on every station) just in case something might turn up that we wanted to know.

As they agreed that it was their 'working practice' we were left wondering what it was about the two tiny pieces of information that was so special ...

[JFLL]

I think the problem with allowing any Tom, Dick or Harry access to raw reseach data is that outsiders will generally be incapable of consistently drawing sound conclusions and may well publish selective or misleading figures, in print or on the internet, which fit their own agenda. Such publication is impossible to correct and police.

But do we believe that the authorities who alone have access to raw research data will consistently draw sound conclusions and not publish selective or misleading figures which fit their own agenda? Such publication is impossible to correct and police.

In other words, that is why they should be in the public domain, and any argument about them can be seen to be transparent.