At Christmas i was given a surprise present - an astronomical telescope. I have had fun with it, even if the weather and light pollution have not helped me to see very much.
I have considered getting yet another one, but a review of one telescope, a significanly more advanced model with a computer and other sophistication, such as a database of stellar clusters, nebulae and galaxies, pointed out that with 40,000 (I think that was the number) of "interesting" objects to point one's instrument at, that it would take over 10 years successfully locating 10 per night to see them all.
I keep reading about new, better and cheaper boxes of musical works - the latest being of Haydn symphonies - an incomplete set by Hogwood and the AAM, and another of Sturm und Drang symphonies by Pinnock. There's also Julian Bream's collection, plus quite a few others. Some of us buy these, but realistically many of the CDs will never get played.
Another recent posting in these boards concerns listeners to Live in Concert on R3. Few of us listen, seemingly.
Could it be that there is too much choice, far too much opportunity, and that in fact none of us can actually experience everything which is on offer?
A consideration for the BBC management is whether a station such as R3 should be judged only on the total number of listeners to individual programmes, or whether some consideration of choices should be used to modify the way in which the data is evaluated. We are now moving to a form of media consumption in which many don't listen as programmes are broadcast, but only to delayed versions. It is inevitable that if listeners have more choices that the total number listening to any one programme will be reduced. It does not necessarily mean that overall satisfaction with a station's output is reduced, as choice may be a factor in the mind of the listeners. Buyers of large CD boxes are not necessarily troubled over much if they never listen to every CD in every box.
Satisfaction measures should perhaps not only be based on raw numbers of listeners, where listeners have choices.
I have considered getting yet another one, but a review of one telescope, a significanly more advanced model with a computer and other sophistication, such as a database of stellar clusters, nebulae and galaxies, pointed out that with 40,000 (I think that was the number) of "interesting" objects to point one's instrument at, that it would take over 10 years successfully locating 10 per night to see them all.
I keep reading about new, better and cheaper boxes of musical works - the latest being of Haydn symphonies - an incomplete set by Hogwood and the AAM, and another of Sturm und Drang symphonies by Pinnock. There's also Julian Bream's collection, plus quite a few others. Some of us buy these, but realistically many of the CDs will never get played.
Another recent posting in these boards concerns listeners to Live in Concert on R3. Few of us listen, seemingly.
Could it be that there is too much choice, far too much opportunity, and that in fact none of us can actually experience everything which is on offer?
A consideration for the BBC management is whether a station such as R3 should be judged only on the total number of listeners to individual programmes, or whether some consideration of choices should be used to modify the way in which the data is evaluated. We are now moving to a form of media consumption in which many don't listen as programmes are broadcast, but only to delayed versions. It is inevitable that if listeners have more choices that the total number listening to any one programme will be reduced. It does not necessarily mean that overall satisfaction with a station's output is reduced, as choice may be a factor in the mind of the listeners. Buyers of large CD boxes are not necessarily troubled over much if they never listen to every CD in every box.
Satisfaction measures should perhaps not only be based on raw numbers of listeners, where listeners have choices.
ratings?? 
Comment