If you could control Radio 3...

[eighthobstruction]

Do you mean that by judicious removal of icing and grouping you could end up with whole a cake?

....Oh please don't broadcast this evil ugly knowledge too widely....

[Andrew Slater]

....Oh please don't broadcast this evil ugly knowledge too widely....

I won't, but as it's the inverse of what they've been doing on Afternoon on 3, I would expect any new Controller to broadcast it literally

[Andrew]

Remember that the Third Programme of old was not wall-to-wall classical music as many contributors to this post seem to want. There was intellectual discussion (more broadly based and less PC than Free Thinking), more drama, poetry and other general arts output. Bringing back some of this would be very welcome.

Yes, I was a ware of that & I want that intellectual "heft" to return, in the form of talks and discussions, as well as musical items that one would wish to listen to, as opposed to merely hearing. I remember reading in "The Envy Of The World" that the early Third Programme producers were worried as to what listeners would be doing while listening...."Some might (perish the thought) be shaving!...."

[french frank]

the early Third Programme producers were worried as to what listeners would be doing while listening...."Some might (perish the thought) be shaving!...."

Reminds me of one of the quotes we have on the FoR3 homepage:

"While dedicated listeners, the ones who are devoting their whole attention to the radio, will always be a minority it is a minority that most of us belong to at least some of the time; and shouldn't broadcasters be aiming to please that minority rather than cultivating the majority's benevolent indifference?"

If people aren't listening with their full attention, why does it matter to them whether at any particular moment they are listening to a 'part symphony' (which they often are at the moment eg the Andante from Mozart's Symphony 41) or the whole of that symphony (but only part of it because you have to go to work)? Why not play short whole pieces on, say, Breakfast (and can't you think of a better programme name?) and then from 9-12 not necessarily essential more substantial pieces?

Should add that I suspect the reason why people just want music is because it's better to listen to with half an ear. Not so rewarding to listen to a discussion with half an ear.

[smittims]

At Mozart's concerts, or at least concerts in which he performed, it was quite customary to distribute the movements of a symphony amongst other items, but I don't think we can assume that Mozart actually liked doing that.

I've always felt that playing snippets doesn't encourage casual listeners to take an interest in classical music, because one cannot appreciate the whole work by hearing only a part. People who heard Waldo de los Rios' 'Mozart-40' and who inevitable tired of it, said 'I tried classical - it was boring'.

There are of course many short whole pieces of supreme value, but Radio 3 doesn't even seem to appreciate them. Playing, for instance, only the first movement of Bachianas Brasileiras no.5; the 'whole piece' lasts less than ten miinutes, and the oft-omitted second movement less than four-and-a-half. R£ should really be doing better than padering to tose whose attention span is so limited.

[oddoneout]

Reminds me of one of the quotes we have on the FoR3 homepage:

"While dedicated listeners, the ones who are devoting their whole attention to the radio, will always be a minority it is a minority that most of us belong to at least some of the time; and shouldn't broadcasters be aiming to please that minority rather than cultivating the majority's benevolent indifference?"

If people aren't listening with their full attention, why does it matter to them whether at any particular moment they are listening to a 'part symphony' (which they often are at the moment eg the Andante from Mozart's Symphony 41) or the whole of that symphony (but only part of it because you have to go to work)? Why not play short whole pieces on, say, Breakfast (and can't you think of a better programme name?) and then from 9-12 not necessarily essential more substantial pieces?

Should add that I suspect the reason why people just want music is because it's better to listen to with half an ear. Not so rewarding to listen to a discussion with half an ear.

Which has long been my preferred "solution", not least because it would allow for some creative programming linking to pieces/styles/composers played in the Breakfast slot, and also for the lesser heard (whether because from other countries[not world music] neglected for no/little reason etc.) part of the repertoire. If something less well known is well received in the morning schedules it arguably increases the chance of a wider audience in due course since it will be repeated there and listeners may be inclined to look for/request more of the same. A good few women composers(from various periods) have gone down well with the morning audience, and hearing their longer works or the complete version of the part they first heard might be be likewise appreciated, but even if not it makes them available to other listeners.

[Nick Armstrong]

Ol' Caliban will know to what I refer. To.

Ol’ Caliban does (oh go on then, pass me a yellow one)

[french frank]

Ol’ Caliban does (oh go on then, pass me a yellow one)

[cloughie]

Reminds me of one of the quotes we have on the FoR3 homepage:

"While dedicated listeners, the ones who are devoting their whole attention to the radio, will always be a minority it is a minority that most of us belong to at least some of the time; and shouldn't broadcasters be aiming to please that minority rather than cultivating the majority's benevolent indifference?"

If people aren't listening with their full attention, why does it matter to them whether at any particular moment they are listening to a 'part symphony' (which they often are at the moment eg the Andante from Mozart's Symphony 41) or the whole of that symphony (but only part of it because you have to go to work)? Why not play short whole pieces on, say, Breakfast (and can't you think of a better programme name?) and then from 9-12 not necessarily essential more substantial pieces?

Should add that I suspect the reason why people just want music is because it's better to listen to with half an ear. Not so rewarding to listen to a discussion with half an ear.

Sounds a bit like CD Masters!

[smittims]

Ah, come back Rob Cowan. Sadly, historical recordings seem to be taboo on Radio 3 these days. Back to my CDs again...

[cloughie]

Ah, come back Rob Cowan. Sadly, historical recordings seem to be taboo on Radio 3 these days. Back to my CDs again...

Time goes on - I can remember when what are thought of now as historical recordings were hot and new and historical recordings the were originally on 78s!

[smittims]

Yes, indeed, I was thinking this morning that the duPre/Barbirolli Elgar concerto , played on Radio3 a few days ago, is now about 57 years old, whereas when I first heard Vaughan Williams' recording of his F minor symphony, around 1967, it was only 30 years old. That was on a Third Programme or early-Radio3 programme called 'Historical Interpretations on record'.

[ucanseetheend]

Any new head will have to be either female or nonwhite and Under 50 , box ticking .Any advertising of the position will be cosmetic, and anyone taking it will be committed to finding new listeners rather than retaining those it has or even recovering the many it lost .

[smittims]

Sadly, I fear that will prove all too true.

[oddoneout]

Any new head will have to be either female or nonwhite and Under 50 , box ticking .Any advertising of the position will be cosmetic, and anyone taking it will be committed to finding new listeners rather than retaining those it has or even recovering the many it lost .

Will it also be subject to direct political interference as has been seen in recent times. Or is R3 too obscure and small/unimportant to figure on the manipulation/keeping friends sweet radar?