The 2015 Survey of Classical Music on Radio 3

[BBMmk2]

Rather liked that Lindberg chorale this morning!

[french frank]

it seems to me the point was that it appears from the list there wasn't a lot of music being played on R3 by living composers, which seems a valid point. Though I notice that Sc says the list is of 'composers who had more than 50 pieces/chunks broadcast on Radio 3 in 2015', so I don't know how many living composers are lurking in the less-than-50 shadows.

I think the second point is valid. As for the first, you can do anything with statistics

Since Tallis is (as far as I can see) the earliest composer on that list, there are also no medieval composers. At all. The list covers, give or take, 500 years, so statistically you would only expect 10-12 to have been active during the past 60 years - since WWII. In fact the list has 5 who are still living and a further number who were significantly active post-war (Arnold,Tippett, Britten, Bernstein, Copland) and others like Walton and Sibelius who reached the post-war era. But I suspect Gongers meant there weren't that many who are alive and composing electro-acoustic/avant-garde music. As Daniel pointed out, there may have been several: they just weren't played 50 or more times.

[Suffolkcoastal]

If there are any requests for the total pieces/chunks which composers not on the 50+ list had broadcast, please let me know. Though composers like Bernstein look to have done well, in fact almost half of the pieces broadcast where from Candide or West Side Story, similarly, little outside of the popular, relatively straightforward Copland was broadcast.

[MrGongGong]

But I suspect Gongers meant there weren't that many who are alive and composing electro-acoustic/avant-garde music.

Not really, because (except at times like this week) R3 doesn't really feature that music very much.
It was more that the list seems so safe and predictable (not just in age and gender).

[Beef Oven!]

Not really, because (except at times like this week) R3 doesn't really feature that music very much.
It was more that the list seems so safe and predictable (not just in age and gender).

[french frank]

It was more that the list seems so safe and predictable (not just in age and gender).

I think that is likely to be because the list is 'The Most Played'. And unless Radio 3 is willing to settle for a total of audience of c. 1,000 (E&OE!!!) it will broadcast predominantly 'mainstream' music. The bits at both ends of the chronological spectrum get less attention.

[Suffolkcoastal]

Though a huge amount of composers and works in-between get considerably less attention as well.

[oddoneout]

The bits at both ends of the chronological spectrum get less attention.

Though a huge amount of composers and works in-between get considerably less attention as well.

I would agree with both these comments, and can't help feeling they are a sad indictment of the state that R3 is now in.I find this frustrating for 2 main reasons which arguably are linked. Firstly, we are being deprived of variety, something to leaven the lump of 'same old, same old'. However good that 'old' - ie well known in this context - is there is merit none the less in hearing something different, if only to re-affirm why piece/composer A is better than B. Secondly, I like to hear what else was being performed/composed and that may have been heard by or influenced a more well known composer.
If in days gone by composers felt it worthwhile to make lengthy and difficult journeys to hear other composers, I feel it's a poor show that producers can't be ar - sorry - bothered to dig around a little bit, without even needing to leave their seat,to find something different to broadcast.

[P. G. Tipps]

Don't most of us have the freedom to explore the output of lesser-rank composers for ourselves?

Of course there is nothing wrong with R3 playing the odd piece of second-rate music simply 'for a change' but surely the emphasis should be on quality not quantity?

When I watch football on television I prefer to watch Arsenal FC not Aldershot Town FC (sorry any Aldershot fans!) It is much the same listening to music.

Genius, Excellence & Superiority are, by their very nature, "exclusive". Not everyone has these qualities, including composers.

No more mediocrity/reduced standards as a result of the modern fad for 'inclusivity', please!

[Suffolkcoastal]

Who is to judge, if composers are 2nd rate? A world of so called 'superiority' would be unbelievably dull. There's plenty of poor pieces by 'great' composers as there are many works of very high quality by so called '2nd rate' composers. Personally I'd rather watch Aldershot than Arsenal, the football is more enterprising and the players play for the love of the game and are part of the core of the game, rather than the dull overpaid, overrated prima donna mercenaries of dubious acting skills that make up Arsenal and similar Premier League clubs. Players from 'lesser' clubs do produce moments of 'brilliance' that deserve as much attention as those of 'star' players.

[P. G. Tipps]

Who is to judge, if composers are 2nd rate? A world of so called 'superiority' would be unbelievably dull. There's plenty of poor pieces by 'great' composers as there are many works of very high quality by so called '2nd rate' composers. Personally I'd rather watch Aldershot than Arsenal ...

Yes, but it's only the 'good' pieces which tend to achieve popularity whether composers are considered to be 'first' or 'second'-rate? Some composers, like Bruch and Holst, are generally associated with a single popular work, however 'unfair' others may feel this may be.

As for you preferring to watch Aldershot rather than Arsenal that's just fine, I suspect you can still easily buy a 'half-season' ticket to watch The Shots at the Recreation Ground.

However, given the choice, I suspect the huge majority might not share your view and opt for the greater quality option, if at all affordable, and tickets are still available.

In the same way, and on balance, I'd rather hear the Berlin Phil perform than my local orchestra though I have nothing but admiration for the latter and rarely miss its concerts!

[teamsaint]

i Would suggest to Scottytips that the limitation is not so much in the amount of musical excellence out there, but rather in our capacity to appreciate it all, ( possibly for good reasons), and on the artificail constraints placed by a money driven media world.

i would look at radio content the other way round. There are now endless ways for most people to hear myriad recordings of the established heavyweights, and the job that R3 can really usefully do is to help guide us towards some of the best of that which has received less recognition.

[P. G. Tipps]

i Would suggest to Scottytips that the limitation is not so much in the amount of musical excellence out there, but rather in our capacity to appreciate it all, ( possibly for good reasons), and on the artificail constraints placed by a money driven media world.

i would look at radio content the other way round. There are now endless ways for most people to hear myriad recordings of the established heavyweights, and the job that R3 can really usefully do is to help guide us towards some of the best of that which has received less recognition.

Yet, teamsy/sainty, the question must be asked why 'some of the best' have 'received less recognition'? And to turn Suffolkcoastal's question to me on its head who is to decide what are these pieces? After all R3 can't possibly feature everything composed by every single composer, so somebody somewhere must be bold and selective.

Professional music performance is a business like any other. Public Demand must be the final arbiter if any business is to survive.

I'm no great fan of much of the music of either Brahms or Mahler but if there is huge demand to hear their works it's only right that demand should be met.

Whilst I think there is certainly a place for more obscure/less heard works to be performed occasionally it is hardly surprising that the more popular pieces and composers dominate the market?

Perfectly fair and logical, I most humbly contend!

[french frank]

Yes, but it's only the 'good' pieces which tend to achieve popularity

In that case, I think we can safely leave it to Classic FM to cater for classical music lovers who want 'good' pieces.

To my way of thinking, Radio 3 should be concerned not just with the popular (we all agree about that) but not even about quality/excellence perceived as some sort of Premier league table. How is it possible to have any critical perspective on what is generally perceived as being 'good' if you never hear anything else?

[Roslynmuse]

I do think there's an issue around broadcasting recordings (as against live broadcasts) of 'standard repertoire', particularly when many such recordings are readily accessible for free or next to nothing. If a Beethoven symphony is broadcast 20 times in a year, how many of those performances are commercially available?

And maybe for all those symphonies that have multiple broadcasts, even if just one performance of each was replaced by a lesser known work, then how much more interesting the schedules might be.

Re live broadcasts - it surprises me sometimes how many BBC orchestras programme 'standard rep' when, again, they could be the champions of music that is languishing in obscurity. And who selects which non-BBC orchestra concerts are broadcast? Again, they are not always the most adventurous programmes.

I'm not saying there's no place for broadcasting Beethoven symphonies (for example), by the way, just that I see no need for as many broadcasts of these, or all the other music that is readily available on YouTube, Spotify, etc

Where R3 should be leading is with new music of all sorts (we mostly get the 'soft' end of the new music spectrum), and, as has been mentioned before, putting the 'standard rep' in context/making interesting juxtapositions that will illuminate and inform.