How Telegraph readers would change Radio 3 for the better

[MickyD]

....article in today's newspaper, including a Friends of Radio 3 statement:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10739587/How-Telegraph-readers-would-change-Radio-3-for-the-better.html

[Old Grumpy]

Interesting in this context that the Telegraph are still using CB-H's picture at the head of their article. Radio 64 isn't a Telegraph journalist is he?

[BBMmk2]

I rather liked FriendsofRadio3's but then was that person who was praising Roger Wright's running of the Proms and Radio, pulling our legs?

[french frank]

I rather liked FriendsofRadio3's

I think someone got out of the bed the wrong side that morning ...

[Quarky]

....article in today's newspaper, including a Friends of Radio 3 statement:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/t...he-better.html

Reading FoR3 statement, and comparing it with the detail of the Current Service Licence (May 2013), it seemed to me that they were more or less coextensive. It may be more a matter of getting R3 to do what it ought to be doing, according to the Holy Writ: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/...13/radio_3.pdf

Rewrite its service licence to focus on what it should do: broadcast, contexualise and discuss critically its musical repertoire: classical, jazz and world music. Broadcast high-quality modern and classic plays. Host discussions on the arts. Contribute to the audience's historical knowledge of the philosophy, science, politics and general culture of the world. Above all, forget about how many and what kind of people are listening but consider the educational value as an essential "public good" appropriate to a public service broadcaster funded by the public. For those who find that too dry, boring and stuffy, tell them to find something else: there's enough to choose from.

[french frank]

I don't think they discuss classical music 'critically'. Who? Where? When?

And the morning programmes are unappealing to many people precisely because they ARE trying to attract a particular 'kind' of listener: one who might enjoy classical music if there isn't anything too 'intimidating' (Essential Classics has a brief to avoid anything 'in depth'). Nor are history, philosophy, science, politics or general culture dealt with in any depth or with any regularity. Talks?

[Quarky]

I don't think they discuss classical music 'critically'. Who? Where? When?

And the morning programmes are unappealing to many people precisely because they ARE trying to attract a particular 'kind' of listener: one who might enjoy classical music if there isn't anything too 'intimidating' (Essential Classics has a brief to avoid anything 'in depth'). Nor are history, philosophy, science, politics or general culture dealt with in any depth or with any regularity. Talks?

Agreed entirely!

[VodkaDilc]

Interesting in this context that the Telegraph are still using CB-H's picture at the head of their article. Radio 64 isn't a Telegraph journalist is he?

Is it a reflection of my infrequent level of R3 listening that I had to go to the Telegraph link to see who CB-H is? I knew them all 40 years ago.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

it is not that Breakfast and Essential Classics fail to appeal, it is that they are offensive and gratuitously annoying ... over gushed, over personalised [oh my another "my"], over repetitive, over and done with full length works, over the moon with lollipops, and candidly rather badly done compared to the master of this style of broadcasting Sir Tel;

what Mr Skelly has demonstrated is the delight of a certain restraint and a hint of irony [attributes not unknown to Sir Tel] .... if you wished personality style programming [not me guv] then you need the personality and style to do it well ....

and no i did not want the bloody news either; what utter idiocy - if i wanted news i read it on my tablet/bedroom telly/newspaper; the snippet R3 produces so often every morning is such tripe ....

from 6 to 12 every day on R3 is now such poor quality broadcasting and so off the real identity of the station it should make the Pepsi man weep but clearly not!

Pepsi won the taste test on the basis of immediate reactions to the first drink; on reactions to drinking a bottle of the stuff and after-taste 30 mins later Pepsi lost hands down .... sugar will do that every time eh