Schubert - second poll questions

[french frank]

I'm trying to think up some telling questions for the second poll. I think I can set this as multiple choice.

Suggestions (up to 10):


Altogether an impressive enterprise

Plenty of interest, even for a Schubert fanatic

Knew little of his music but now appreciate it more

Good and less good content, but on balance engaging

Good and less good content, and on balance off-putting

Liked the general tone and presentation

Much of the presentation and tone was irritating

The schedule was confusing

Like the total immersion coverage

Hate the saturation coverage




Five are broadly positive, five negative. Any better suggestions, keeping the same balance?

I think it should be possible to vote for as many or few as you like.

[Don Petter]

Only immediate thought - Do the last two mean much the same thing?

[Vile Consort]

For the sake of balance, you should offer a positive option about the presentation and tone.

[Simon]

"Saturation" is a negatively loaded word. In fact, I don't think you need numbers 8 and 9 at all.

[french frank]

"Saturation" is a negatively loaded word. In fact, I don't think you need numbers 8 and 9 at all.

I'll change the positive one to 'total immersion' then, which is the R3 term. Why don't you need those questions?

Yes, to the other two ...

OP updated (in a moment).

[Simon]

Given that we can vote for as many or as few as fit our views - I'd probably tick 3 boxes - I think it's very fair and that you've done a sterling job. The rewording seems to make things balance better.

[Don Petter]

Looks pretty good to me.

[Carmen]

I agree you've done a good job. The only thing that bothers me is that all of the suggestions assume listeners stayed tune during the whole week, when a lot of us tuned out for 200+ hours. But maybe you just want the poll to be for people who actually listened to all or part of it?

[french frank]

I agree you've done a good job. The only thing that bothers me is that all of the suggestions assume listeners stayed tune during the whole week, when a lot of us tuned out for 200+ hours. But maybe you just want the poll to be for people who actually listened to all or part of it?

I sense that people are already losing interest in the subject, otherwise I could construct a couple more polls!

No. It's a problem because I do want to get some idea of of what turned people off - either completely (probably option 10) or as a result of something that they were listening to (e.g the jingle for the 1,017th time, or a particularly fatuous contribution from a presenter, listener or press-ganged celebrity, the fifth airing of the arpeggione sonata or the continuously self-congratulatory tone); whether they didn't like it because they don't like Schubert or because they do ...

The poll isn't a very good instrument for this kind of investigation (especially with a limit of 10 options), though the comments are more useful.

If I'm doing them an injustice, perhaps someone would put me right, but one reason why I would mistrust the BBC's claims of a stunning success is illustrated on Facebook. They give a hip-hooray link to a write-up in the Guardian praising The Spirit of Schubert (not on this occasion by Tom Service!), but not to a review which took a fair, but rather more negative view of the whole proceedings.

[JFLL]

They give a hip-hooray link to a write-up in the Guardian praising The Spirit of Schubert (not on this occasion by Tom Service!), but not to a review which took a fair, but rather more negative view of the whole proceedings.

Fiona Maddocks's Guardian review ended with the words: 'If part of me cannot stand this completetist-crazed excess, nor will I complain. Long live the only radio station in the world that can offer this extraordinary level of commitment.' I'm surprised they didn't quote the last sentence (but not the penultimate), as in theatre reviews which are quoted as 'Extraordinary!!!" when the review said 'Extraordinary -- extraordinarily awful' or something similar. Ah, selective quotation -- the instrument of the puffer from time immemorial.

[Dave2002]

Maybe I'm missing something here (likely), but can't you have the kind of poll where you rate things by 1 (great) up to (say) 6 or 7 (awful) with perhaps N/A as an option.

e.g.

Did you like the saturation/immersion coverage:

1 Loved it, 2 Quite liked it 3 Neutral 4 Turned me off 5 Let me get my hands on the **** who inflicted this on us 6 No Opinion

Did you find the presentation OK?

[As above]

Did you find the discussions informative?

1. Very informative 2. Slightly 3. Turned me off 4. I knew it all already 5. etc.

Maybe the kind of polls you can do on this MB don't permit more complex questions etc.

I'm thinking of the kind of questions you can ask in Survey Monkey and other tools.

You could also rank programmes according to characteristics.

e.g Essential Schubert/Schubert Salon/the Breakfast programme/Play Schubert for me/etc.

and rank them according to: information content, entertainment value, presentation etc.

[Richard J.]

I'm not sure where I'm supposed to comment on the Schubertathon*. It seems a bit late now to be discussing what questions we might ask about an event that's been over for half a week.

I liked the Bach and Beethoven weeks, but I must admit that every time I switched on R3 last week, after a few bars it was "oh, it's still Schubert". There seemed to be a lot of scraping the barrel, even performances of mere fragments of music that couldn't possibly be regarded as completed works or even movements. And I realised several times why certain rarely-heard works of Schubert are rarely heard. Basically, although there are some Schubert works that I love, I just don't think his music covers a wide enough set of dimensions to fill more than a few days of R3.

* I realise that "Schubertathon" annoys some people, but it seems to me to sum up the way the event was run. It was a question of how many hours of programming this composer's music could be stretched to. Otherwise, why go beyond a calendar week? Why bother with all the fragments if not to extend the hours?

[hackneyvi]

In both style and content, an impressive enterprise

Good content and, on balance, engaging

Although I knew quite a bit of Schubert's music, the week was of interest

I knew something of his music and now appreciate it more

Variable content and, on balance, off-putting

I disliked the length of the coverage

May or would have preferred the programmes as series

The presentation and tone were engaging

The presentation and tone were of varying effectiveness

Much of the presentation and tone were off-putting

I wouldn't suggest my efforts are better but they have a little more neutrality and therefore perhaps invite a little more reserve in responses. 'Hate' is an extreme word while 'dislike' covers a range negative reactions.

[hackneyvi]

I sense that people are already losing interest in the subject, otherwise I could construct a couple more polls!

... perhaps someone would put me right, but one reason why I would mistrust the BBC's claims of a stunning success is illustrated on Facebook. They give a hip-hooray link to a write-up in the Guardian praising The Spirit of Schubert (not on this occasion by Tom Service!), but not to a review which took a fair, but rather more negative view of the whole proceedings.

Does the loss of interest signify that the event made little impression?

On the reviews, I did see the latter review but ultimately as a little evasive. She is very clearly critical of the enterprise but chooses a summarising non-sequitur. Is R3 the 'only radio service in the world that etc etc'? I know very little about any of the others. Does she? What is the relevance of the 'commitment' she refers to if the 'commitment' is exhibited in quality she explicitly finds questionable ? As comment, it's a bit afraid of itself and might have been braver.

[doversoul1]

I think we should now be asking WHY Radio3/BBC did this thon event because it is directly relevant to why R3 is how it is now. And as Phil says (#14) ‘commitment’ to what? If this event is the tip of the iceberg of its commitment, I wouldn’t like to think what the iceberg might look like…