Radio 3 Schedule changes

[LMcD]

'Dumbing-down' has in fact been clearly defined and explained numerous times. Sam is being specious here. But I'm glad he feels 'insulted'; it means the message is getting through. If he'd smiled and batted it away with a bland remark it wouldn't have worked.

It's clear that Radio 3 don't use any sort of 'quality-ranking ' of composers. I'm sure music is chosen insofar as it fits current trends, themes, tokenisms, etc. This explains to me the sudden frequency of Mel Bonis, whose music is , to my ears, 'dull as dishwater, me bhoy'.

Certain British composers (Alwyn, Rawsthorne, Hoddinott and Ireland, to name just a few) are conspicuous by their continued absence.

[Ein Heldenleben]

A shareable Times article:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8...091e0b04e08e1f

Interesting . Very rare for a BBC exec to respond to public criticism and even rarer to suggest it’s personal . That suggests to me that he has been surprised by the strength of feeling. The Times comments underneath are overwhelmingly negative with intelligent comments saying pretty much what forumites have been saying - the presence of non classical music , the moving of RR and COTW - all deprecated . Of course he has only marginally moved the dumbing dial - the decay started long before his controllership.
The “problem” is a old as broadcasting. Mass media inevitably dumb down - even at its height Radio 3 made the sort of intellectual demands that a decent O level literature or music student could comfortably cope with. To have produced programmes only understandable by undergraduates would have reduced the potential audience even further.
It’s much worse in TV of course where as a former current affairs colleague put it “you spend all day becoming an instant expert on Iran and then write a script that would comfortably fit in the Daily Mirror.”
Now of course Radio 3 , outside the Sunday Feature , makes no intellectual demands at all - it’s all predigested. And the infiltration of light music , film music , music that’s there because it allows a few producers to flatter themselves they are righting centuries of social injustice - that’s what I call dumbing down.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Yes, instead of denying the accusation, he tries to parry it with a rhetorical question' why would I want to do that?' . Well,Sam, you'd want to please your bosses in the BBC who in turn want to convince the government that the BBC is sufficiently 'entertaining'.

I was pleased to see this article. It shows him on the defensive; if the Times thinks it's worth an interview, then we aren't just a bunch of cranks who can be ignored.

Good point - the Times comments underneath full of intelligent points often made by people who’ve been listening for decades.

[french frank]

“It’s very easy to use that ludicrous phrase ‘dumbing down’, but nobody ever really defines what it means, it’s just an insult."

As I have pointed out previously, that has been said before and is an indication of total ignorance. No less an authority than the OED* has defined it: "The action of making something simpler or less intellectually challenging, esp. in order to make it appeal to a broader audience."

In the US it dates back to the 1920s and the OED's first recorded example is 1995 in - the Daily Telegraph.

There is a fundamental dishonesty in saying that Friday Night Is Music Night is not like anything on Classic FM. No, it was like Radio 2 - music for the broad audience. The old ploy: pick out something which is not like CFM and use it as 'evidence' that R3 is not like CFM. Where is the explanation for wrecking schedules which have typified R3 for 50-60 years and replacing them with 'broad audience' 3-hour presenter-led sequences? Where is the explanation for removing four of the weekday lunchtime concerts? Where is the explanation for removing a Radio 3 'live' concert and replacing it with a Radio 2 concert? Why don't you just admit you aren't allowed enough money to run a respectable cultural network?

*OED = Oxford English Dictionary, Mr Jackson.

[french frank]

"the best place to hear unique recordings of live music making....".

Radio 3 at its best: always did have that wicked sense of humour!

[Ein Heldenleben]

“It’s very easy to use that ludicrous phrase ‘dumbing down’, but nobody ever really defines what it means, it’s just an insult."

As I have pointed out previously, that has been said before and is an indication of total ignorance. No less an authority than the OED* has defined it: "The action of making something simpler or less intellectually challenging, esp. in order to make it appeal to a broader audience."

In the US it dates back to the 1920s and the OED's first recorded example is 1995 in - the Daily Telegraph.

There is a fundamental dishonesty in saying that Friday Night Is Music Night is not like anything on Classic FM. No, it was like Radio 2 - music for the broad audience. The old ploy: pick out something which is not like CFM and use it as 'evidence' that R3 is not like CFM. Where is the explanation for wrecking schedules which have typified R3 for 50-60 years and replacing them with 'broad audience' 3-hour presenter-led sequences? Where is the explanation for removing four of the weekday lunchtime concerts? Where is the explanation for removing a Radio 3 'live' concert and replacing it with a Radio 2 concert? Why don't you just admit you aren't allowed enough money to run a respectable cultural network?

*OED = Oxford English Dictionary, Mr Jackson.

All very good points - Why don’t you offer to interview him for the forum ?
He’s clearly up for a scrap.

[french frank]

All very good points - Why don’t you offer to interview him for the forum ?
He’s clearly up for a scrap.

I was once booked to do a Today interview along with RW. Waited by the phone until the programme ended and then rang to find out what had happened: RW couldn't make and they couldn't do a one-sided interview. Famous BBC balance.

Sam Jackson is just blaming the messengers.

[kernelbogey]

All very good points - Why don’t you offer to interview him for the forum ?
He’s clearly up for a scrap.

Upthread someone has said Feedback on R4 Thursday will be about R3 changes, IIRC. It's so long since I listened to it I can't remember how it works. Could we jam their lines with calls? (Image of ladies frantically trying to plug jackplugs into a telephone switchboard ).

[Andrew Slater]

Upthread someone has said Feedback on R4 Thursday will be about R3 changes, IIRC. It's so long since I listened to it I can't remember how it works. Could we jam their lines with calls? (Image of ladies frantically trying to plug jackplugs into a telephone switchboard ).

I'm afraid not; comments have to be submitted in advance. (I could give them some feedback on their heading - is it perhaps missing something?)

[french frank]

I'm afraid not; comments have to be submitted in advance. (I could give them some feedback on their heading - is it perhaps missing something?)

What will be interesting is whether there are any reasons given for some of these keys changes.

It's just snobbery. It's nothing like Classic FM. We’re doing something utterly different [What are you doing, if it's not a rude question?].

Often it’s snobbery against commercial radio [in reality, many people think CFM does it better than R3].

We should never do things just because it’s what other people might want. We have to do what is right. [And in the words of Pope's Essay on Man: 'Whatever is, is right.'] A feeble response from CR3.

I see R3's Facebook page is awash with criticisms, though largely swamped by the R3 adverts. And here's another fantastic R3 prog coming up ...

[Andrew Slater]

What will be interesting is whether there are any reasons given for some of these keys changes.

We should never do things just because it’s what other people might want. We have to do what is right. [And in the words of Pope's Essay on Man: 'Whatever is, is right.'] A feeble response from CR3.

I think that last remark was meant to be about "Rule, Britannia!", rather than the station as a whole, but as it's in a separate paragraph, I suppose it could be construed to apply to anything.

[french frank]

as it's in a separate paragraph, I suppose it could be construed to apply to anything.

Well, it does apply to anything where the BBC is concerned. Why would they do anything if they didn't believe it to be the right thing?

I'm compiling a questionnaire ('Radio 3 Feedback') for the controller with preamble, which in time-honoured way can be copied to several other BBC dignitaries.

[Ein Heldenleben]

I was once booked to do a Today interview along with RW. Waited by the phone until the programme ended and then rang to find out what had happened: RW couldn't make and they couldn't do a one-sided interview. Famous BBC balance.

Sam Jackson is just blaming the messengers.

On an editorial note you can of course do a one sided interview - it happens all the time. The onus is then on the interviewer to present in some form the other point of view. What they meant was interviewing you wouldn’t be as interesting as a row. The consequence of course is that RW effectively had a right of veto - not something I would be editorially comfortable with. In fact it would annoy me so much I’d be tempted to really let you let rip.

Can’t stand the Today programme …

[Ein Heldenleben]

I think that last remark was meant to be about "Rule, Britannia!", rather than the station as a whole, but as it's in a separate paragraph, I suppose it could be construed to apply to anything.

The Rule Britannia argument must be kept quite separate from the wider concerns about Radio 3 . I don’t care if I never hear the tune again* but I do care that mediocre composers are overplayed on the station (amongst other things).
* except in Beethoven’s excellent piano variations on it .

[french frank]

What they meant was interviewing you wouldn’t be as interesting as a row.

If there was one thing that the Friends were criticised for it was being too polite! I always thought of it as an intellectual exercise: work out the arguments, provide the evidence and so on. I had very civilised meetings with both Roger Wright and Alan Davey, I don't think either were entirley straight with me (I may be cabbage-looking but I'm not ...&c ).

I think they regarded it as part of their role to 'engage' with listeners but not to concede any points. Except in the case of Alan Davey who agreed with the point about single movements not being very R3-like and he would 'see about it'. But we all 'saw about' it too. Zilch. If only one could get them to be honest about why it was necessary to play short pieces, to avoid a whole symphonies and concertos outside concert programmes. Tell us who they're pandering to?