If you could control Radio 3...

[ahinton]

"if there were less careless repetition of the same pieces within a short space of time. Recently we had Elgar's First Symphony (I think) twice in one week in the evening concert" - that's absurd and surely could easily be avoided even without such electronic logging? I love Elgar's First Symphony but that's absolutely not the point; sadly, I have noticed several instances of similar repetitions in close proximity that likewise suggest that at least some of those charged with programme planning just - er - don't plan programmes...

[smittims]

OK Alistair , I propose a truce on this. Certainly, in view of the remarks on 'nasty personal attacks' I wouldn't want to suggest that I was critcising the composers personally. If Radio 3 want to play their music I wouldn't expect them to refuse. But overall, it's just my opinion (and that's what this thread is about) that their music has been on just a bit too much, whereas other (in my opinion) better composers are hardly played if at all.

Many years (40 - 50)ago Radio 3 did broadcast two Brian operas , 'Tigers' and 'Agamemnon'. And about eleven years ago they played one Brian symphony at the Proms. I can't help feeling they then said 'Right, we've done our bit, now for weeks and weeks of Judith Bingham', and indeed there was a time when her music was on every week. I think that's not levelling up but overbalancing.

[Alison]

I’d promote John Shea and Jonathan Swain from fringe players to absolute regulars on at prime time.

[RichardB]

it's just my opinion (and that's what this thread is about) that their music has been on just a bit too much, whereas other (in my opinion) better composers are hardly played if at all.

Like the broadcast of the same Elgar symphony twice in one week, I think this situation arises from nobody having a sensitive overview of the entire output of R3 over the course of a week, or a month, or a year, and thinking in terms of how and why the enormous richness of music, past and present, might be represented. For example one might think "Right, we've had some bland and derivative contemporary music (mentioning no names), now let's have some original and challenging contemporary music".

[Serial_Apologist]

I didn't mention science, but I really meant that R3 could do more or less anything as long as it was dealt with intelligently and in depth

It's worth mentioning that Radio 4 still often does very good science, anthropology, sociology and history subjects to standards that once informed Radio 3 programmes about music. My fear would be that more of these programme categories on Radio 3 would just lead to their being reduced in terms of quality to appeal to whatever Radio 3 believes its target audience is or should be.

[french frank]

Personally, I don't need science talk on R3 and am happy with it as an "arts ghetto", even though that would not be my choice of vocabulary.

I'm entirely with you on presenters - as I said earlier, "De gustibus… " though it is clear that certain presenters are not qualified to comment critically, even en passant, on the music they play. Some are employed purely to appeal to a certain kind of listener that R3 is trying to attract (and here I would include Jess G, regardless of her musical knowledge: the most is not made of her). As for 'science talk on R3', I don't think it's a matter of whether an individual 'doesn't need it': it's a question of defining what kind of station R3 should be, why it should be so and what programming aligns with that definition.

Entirely a personal view and thus of limited importance: I think belgrove's "brainy and challenging" should be a hallmark of what R3 should be. Obviously, some people don't want 'brainy and challenging' but if the audience for such programming is gradually diminishing that is not in itself a reason for the BBC to abandon it. It's a reason for the BBC to address the problem, and see that it is the type of programming that needs to be encouraged over the BBC networks, not simply the audience for R3 (of which less and less is 'brainy and challenging').

For heaven's sake, there are enough separate BBC radio stations now for a bit of 'impingement' on their schedules rather than a constant impingement on R3's schedules of music and presentation aimed at audiences of 10-45 who don't really do classical music.

[DracoM]

I’d promote John Shea and Jonathan Swain from fringe players to absolute regulars on at prime time.

Yes, oh YES!!

[ahinton]

Like the broadcast of the same Elgar symphony twice in one week, I think this situation arises from nobody having a sensitive overview of the entire output of R3 over the course of a week, or a month, or a year, and thinking in terms of how and why the enormous richness of music, past and present, might be represented.

Fair comment, although the sheer carelessness that allowed this to go through seems hard to deny.

For example one might think "Right, we've had some bland and derivative contemporary music (mentioning no names)

No, I don't think that you need to mention any names, Richard! (though maybe not for quite the same reasons as I eschewed mention of presenters' names other than Mr Service en passant in response to someone else's mention of him)...

now let's have some original and challenging contemporary music"

Well, indeed - and, given that the four composers mentioned as having been over-exposed are all British, I might likewise argue (although I realise that I lay myself open to the possible accusation of flogging my own moribund if not dead horse here) what about some British music that was undoubtedly challenging at the time of writing, namely that of Sorabji who gets almost no airtime at all?...

[Jonathan]

I think a new series of programmes devoted to unknown composers would be a good asset to R3. This could be on the basis of instrumentation so one week you could do Piano, next time string quartets etc.

Along with from removing certain presenters (I'm mentioning no names either) and pointless chat, that would be a good start.

Nice to see you back smittims!

[frankbridge]

A number of changes to the roster of presenters

They are not presenters, they are announcers and I would get rid of some of the new awful intake on the third too, I suppose in vain by the BBC to court the "youth" vote: I cannot stand Elizabeth Alker's tone, and her signing off of "err rah" really gets my gander up too
signed Sir Herbert Gussett (and my dear lady wife)

[oddoneout]

ironically the much criticised morning schedules have often given an airing to lesser known/heard composers, notably women composers from across the ages.

[french frank]

ironically the much criticised morning schedules have often given an airing to lesser known/heard composers, notably women composers from across the ages.

They have five and a half hours to play with. Not difficult to find a space for the odd novelty now and again.

[Nick Armstrong]

They are not presenters, they are announcers

Fair point, well made

[cloughie]

They are not presenters, they are announcers and I would get rid of some of the new awful intake on the third too, I suppose in vain by the BBC to court the "youth" vote: I cannot stand Elizabeth Alker's tone, and her signing off of "err rah" really gets my gander up too
signed Sir Herbert Gussett (and my dear lady wife)

It’s tara she says not ‘err rah’ !

[Bryn]

Fair point, well made

Some are but others make a good fist of presenting, with their own research regarding the works presented (no, not merely a quick glance at Wikipedia). No names, no pack drill. It is pretty clear from listening, which is which.