The 2015 Survey of Classical Music on Radio 3

[P. G. Tipps]

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?

Have you never heard anything else? Have you never explored record shops and experimented or increasingly these days searched for new stuff online? To be fair to R3 I do think it features quite a variety of composers and their works unlike Classic FM which might be best described as almost wholly 'light classical'. However, even on R3, somebody or some group has to decide what they think is 'worthy' of inclusion or not?

I'm all for lesser-known pieces being performed, I'm simply saying that in the commercial world and on radio it's always going to be the stuff which is likely to attract the larger audiences which will tend to dominate. The football analogy may be weak but, local allegiances aside, more people will travel to watch Arsenal than Aldershot simply because they see a difference in quality of output.

That is why the Mozarts, Beethovens and Mahlers are so ubiquitous ... precisely because they are simply more popular than the others. I feel certain that 'quality' has something to do with that popularity as well.

That is not to say, of course, that they (and Arsenal) are necessarily everyone's cup of ... er ... tea!

[Serial_Apologist]

Have you never heard anything else? Have you never explored record shops and experimented or increasingly these days searched for new stuff online? To be fair to R3 I do think it features quite a variety of composers and their works unlike Classic FM which might be best described as almost wholly 'light classical'. However, even on R3, somebody or some group has to decide what they think is 'worthy' of inclusion or not?

I'm all for lesser-known pieces being performed, I'm simply saying that in the commercial world and on radio it's always going to be the stuff which is likely to attract the larger audiences which will tend to dominate. The football analogy may be weak but, local allegiances aside, more people will travel to watch Arsenal than Aldershot simply because they see a difference in quality of output.

That is why the Mozarts, Beethovens and Mahlers are so ubiquitous ... precisely because they are simply more popular than the others. I feel certain that 'quality' has something to do with that popularity as well.

That is not to say, of course, that they (and Arsenal) are necessarily everyone's cup of ... er ... tea!

This ignores two things.

First that Mahler would not have become popular here, were it not for the fact that Radio 3 promulgated his music back in the 1960s - before which time his music was considered incapable of travelling, much in the way Bruckner and Schmidt were (too "Germanic").

Secondly that Radio 3's past mission in knowledge impartation gave the likes of french frank and myself the reference points from which to gauge the relative importance of the different works from a composer's output, so that it was possible to see where in the case of the populist works one could distinguish commercial from aesthetic desiderata determining frequency of broadcast/exposure. And in any case, why the need constantly to give prominence to the commercial? It offers no critical perspective other than what makes the biggest money, and under capitalism that is what has the fastest turnover.

[french frank]

Have you never heard anything else? Have you never explored record shops and experimented or increasingly these days searched for new stuff online?

I meant on the radio and with reference to your response which appeared to equate 'good' with 'popular' (i.e. that what was popular was good, and that what wasn't popular, presumably, wasn't good).

It can't be true that 'less well-known' means the same as second rate - or even the same as 'unpopular.' How can we judge whether it's second rate if we never hear it? Who are we leaving the critical judgement to? And on what grounds?

[rauschwerk]

I feel certain that 'quality' has something to do with that popularity as well.

I, on the other hand, am firmly of the opinion that quality and popularity (in art) are independent variables. Good and bad music co-exist in both the popular and unpopular domains.

[Serial_Apologist]

I, on the other hand, am firmly of the opinion that quality and popularity (in art) are independent variables. Good and bad music co-exist in both the popular and unpopular domains.

Yes, an awful lot more goes into taste and its formation than is accounted for by hard-wiring!