NS comments on 3

[french frank]

http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/11/cold-cold-heart

http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/11/the-sad-decline-of-bbc-radio-3

Discuss ...?

[teamsaint]

Questions for those in the know.

How much would a 20 minute or even 1 hour Discovering Music actually cost to produce?

Anybody know what listener numbers were like for Discovering Music, in any form, at any point?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

comments on the R3 facebook page ......

[Padraig]

http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/11/cold-cold-heart

http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/11/the-sad-decline-of-bbc-radio-3

Discuss ...?

Item 1, I thought, was short, to the point and moved effortlessly from an appreciative particular point to a general quite angry condemnation of Radio 3 in its present form. Some of you have been saying these things for a number of years, and the writer has extracted the essence of your arguments in this piece. It deserves to have an impact, and should not be easily dismissed.
Item 2, I think, is just the sort of piece that can be batted nonchalantly away; which may, by contrast, enhance the effectiveness of Item1.

[french frank]

Anybody know what listener numbers were like for Discovering Music, in any form, at any point?

I don't know the numbers - but back in the very dim past, before Discovering Music became Charles Hazlewood Discovering Music (c 2003?). Discovering Music had a number of different presenters (I think Catherine Bott said she had done it), each programme used to be a topic of discussion every week on the old BBC messageboards, rather like BaL is now. So it was keenly appreciated.

The makeover with a live audience and headline presenter (Stephen Johnson used to do it too, but I think it was still referred to as CHDM) didn't go down too well. Classic case of 'If it ain't broke...'

But Roger Wright definitely said that the reduction to the 20-minute interval talk was to save costs.It might have been expensive having a whole orchestra in the studio, but I'm sure they didn't have that in the early days.

I did gain the impression, from reading the evidence submitted to the Trust review in 2011, that people who they wanted to attract to Radio 3 were invited to listen to certain programmes - one of which appeared to be DM - and they were asked to say what they thought of them. There was certainly one respondent who said it was very interesting, but it was over her head and she wouldn't listen to it very much. I heard the axe being sharpened then - ask someone who doesn't listen to Radio 3 to listen to a programme of musicology and if it's too daunting and elitist, get rid.

Padraig - yes!

[teamsaint]

thanks FF.

I would imagine the cost of SJ and a CD, (or a BBC orchestra recording) for an hour would be astronomical.

I really wish Discovering Music was an integral part of the schedule. It could be a sort of mini brand...One hour specials, 20 minute concert interval editions, 5 minute snippets during playlist programmes.. People like SMP, for example, could quite usefully contribute in their specialist fields, in addition to more heavyweight analysis.

[aeolium]

I most enjoyed Discovering Music when it was a full length scripted programme without an invited audience, and when the insights were shared around different experts such as Anthony Payne and Gerard McBurney. The change to the audience format with Charles Hazlewood (and sometimes Stephen Johnson) was not an improvement and the later reduction to a 20-minute talk, invariably by Stephen Johnson, was worse still as it was insufficient to provide more than cursory analysis and it was always the same person's perspective. I don't make the effort to listen to the programmes now but would if it reverted to the earlier format. It is one of the very few programmes left on R3 which attempts to provide some more in-depth understanding of the music broadcast so perhaps one should be grateful for small mercies but it has been so much better in the past.

[doversoul1]

I think these articles are a very much the case of opportunities wasted, worse, it can easily backfire. Neither goes beyond saying ‘I don’t like it’ to which WR & Co. have been replying ‘I am sorry you don’t like some of our programmes or the changes we have made but it is not possible to please everyone’. The first article is slightly more intelligent but again, she may not like being seen as part of subset of Radio4 audience but that’s her preference. A lot of people listen to both stations so what’s the problem?

This remark and the article as a whole make sense to us because we know what has been discussed here but without that background, it does not say what is wrong with Radio 3. Saying 'I don't like it, therefore it's wrong' only makes things worse.

It doesn’t help either to make a remark like ‘Oh, such a simple, inexpensive programme! One record, one script’. WR could easily point out her ignorance. And then she goes on to complain about the low budget .

And why do they always bring in CFM? There is nothing wrong with CFM. It’s only minding its own business. This is a sort of article that makes some (a lot of) people see Radio3 and its audience as stuck up, snobby and elitist (whatever that is). It makes it even worse being in NS if it is quoted. What a pity.

[french frank]

The first article is slightly more intelligent but again, she may not like being seen as part of subset of Radio4 audience but that’s her preference. A lot of people listen to both stations so what’s the problem?

I think the problem could be the response that you can't expect to like everything BBC Radio does, can you? If we're only a subset of Radio 4 we're already being catered for by Radio 4. Not liking Radio 3 is no more important than not liking The Archers. Just listen to what you do like.