Hear Today; Gone Tomorrow

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

As part of the Beeb's ongoing cost-cutting exercise, Hear & Now is being replaced by The New Music Show, with a different "format": Tom Service's eager request for listeners to last week's H&N to send in recordings of what Saturday Nights sound like "wherever you are" so that they could feature on the new New Music programme (to be presented by TS and Kate Molleson [sic - no mention of Robert Worby or SM-P]) didn't exactly get my pulse rushing in keen anticipation of the new programme.

I'm reminded of when Spirit of the Age was replaced by the Early Music Show, with a considerable dip in interest as far as I was concerned.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I assume that these changes will take place in the week following the last night of the Proms.

Tom Service has just announced that the changeover from Hear & Now to The New Music Show is happening "in April", so if all the programme changes are being dumped on us as a package, it'll happen a lot sooner than September.

[Richard Barrett]

I guess the times when the late Saturday schedule could be cleared for a live broadcast of the premiere of a piece lasting over two hours are well and truly over...

[french frank]

This seems to be the content of the first programme, apparently next week(?)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00040cw [Show more link]

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

... the first programme, apparently next week(?)

Yes - the Hear & Now website has no "next on" features, so tonight's edition is the last.

How the replacement programme will affect coverage (and patronage) of festivals like Huddersfield ...

An "evil mess", indeed.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Posts have been moved as suggested from the World Music board to devote attention to the new New programme here. They've been edited so that references to previous posts not included here have been removed. Apologies for that - only my own Posts have been re-worded: nobody is now saying anything that they hadn't said before, although they may find that they're now saying in about something a bit different. If I've misrepresented any ideas/opinions in so doing, let me know, and I'll revise.

[french frank]

Thanks ferney. There was something I wanted to say but felt a bit inhibited about trespassing on the other discussion. I will try to remember what it was I was going to say

Lovely thread title, btw!

[french frank]

1. I've always been more sympathetic than many others about BBC/R3 financial cuts: Radio 4 is the 'Public Service' network, Radio 2 is the 'Nation's Favourite' - with by far the largest audience of any station. They get the money and, when there are cuts, they are better protected than stations of lesser importance to the BBC. I have argued for years that Radio 3 has been unfairly treated, since my view is that services should, as far as possible, get the funding they need - based on the kind of programming they are required to produce (rather than to maintain bigger audiences by e.g. having expensive presenters). As an argument, it has always been a lead balloon.

2. Nevertheless, I would suggest that Hear and Now listeners should define what it is that the programme has provided and what has been particularly valuable - to whom/what. Cui bono.

3. Give the new programme a few hearings and be clear what it is not providing, what is otiose in the new provision; and if possible, try to establish whether this is clearly for a different audience. Or Cui not bono any longer.

4. Start a dialogue with the controller. Yes, I still believe in reasoned argument.

I should add that it is perfectly possible - or should be - to make a distinction between one's personal tastes (rubbish or not) and what is of fundamental importance. As a non-listener, I believe the programme to be the epitome of what Radio 3 should provide.

[edashtav]

Yes - the Hear & Now website has no "next on" features, so tonight's edition is the last.

How the replacement programme will affect coverage (and patronage) of festivals like Huddersfield ...

An "evil mess", indeed.

Oh deary me!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

1. I've always been more sympathetic than many others about BBC/R3 financial cuts: Radio 4 is the 'Public Service' network, Radio 2 is the 'Nation's Favourite' - with by far the largest audience of any station. They get the money and, when there are cuts, they are better protected than stations of lesser importance to the BBC. I have argued for years that Radio 3 has been unfairly treated, since my view is that services should, as far as possible, get the funding they need - based on the kind of programming they are required to produce (rather than to maintain bigger audiences by e.g. having expensive presenters). As an argument, it has always been a lead balloon.

Yes - I have some sympathy, too, for the Beeb having to provide material with progressively less funding year on year. But I so wish that Alan Davey would be honest and say that this is the principal reason for the changes, rather than pretending that this is some brilliant new initiative that demonstrates the creative ingenuity of the Corporation. With political enemies hounding the Corporation, I would have thought that getting the sympathy of the public by being honest about how desperate is their financial situation would win them greater support. I can see that it might be dangerous to point too strongly at the very politicians who decide how the Corporation is funded, but playing along with those who wish to see it folded (or, more cynically, severely weakened) by presenting changes made necessary because of lack of funds necessary to do better as continuing the best traditions of the Beeb is feeble.

I'll come back to your other points after sleep.

[french frank]

With political enemies hounding the Corporation, I would have thought that getting the sympathy of the public by being honest about how desperate is their financial situation would win them greater support. I can see that it might be dangerous to point too strongly at the very politicians who decide how the Corporation is funded

But BBC politics is also in play. The BBC has an insufficient amount of money to maintain its programming at current levels, but it's the BBC executive that decides how the funding is allocated between the various services. If the controller were to say publicly, 'I've pleaded with the top brass for more money but they insist on pouring it into light entertainment and pop music', R3 would probably be looking for a new controller in a year or two.

There are two lines of argument:

1. If everyone (more or less) has to pay the licence fee, the funding should go to the programmes they want to (sorry!) 'consume'. That means the one that attract the biggest audiences.

2. The BBC's remit as a PSB is to 'Educate, inform, entertain' and that means adequate funding for a range of public service broadcasting. But how is public service broadcasting to be defined? In these days even Ofcom leans towards 'that which serves the greatest number'. Therefore funding is best spent on mass audience programmes, with 'Blue Planet' and the Proms being the rare nod towards 'traditional' PSB values. Gone are the days when classical music was referred to as 'good music'.

I should add that the station's declared strategy is still getting more listeners by attracting younger listeners, with the 'replenisher' group being the 35-54 year-olds. But the station's average age appears to be higher now than I have ever known it.

[teamsaint]

Yes - I have some sympathy, too, for the Beeb having to provide material with progressively less funding year on year. But I so wish that Alan Davey would be honest and say that this is the principal reason for the changes, rather than pretending that this is some brilliant new initiative that demonstrates the creative ingenuity of the Corporation. With political enemies hounding the Corporation, I would have thought that getting the sympathy of the public by being honest about how desperate is their financial situation would win them greater support. I can see that it might be dangerous to point too strongly at the very politicians who decide how the Corporation is funded, but playing along with those who wish to see it folded (or, more cynically, severely weakened) by presenting changes made necessary because of lack of funds necessary to do better as continuing the best traditions of the Beeb is feeble.

I'll come back to your other points after sleep.

I don't have much sympathy actually, on overall funding. The BBC receives most of its income all but guaranteed, with no sales effort required ( not in the case of overseas). Its expenditure on programme making is pretty secure, an enviable position to be in. And they must have enormous financial clout in areas like TV commissioning, where there might be savings to be made.

That doesn't mean that the relative peanuts spent on things like R3 shouldn't be increased, amounts which could easily be found from within the budget for their top entertainment " talent", but is just to mention some commercial realities.

[french frank]

Its expenditure on programme making is pretty secure

I'm not sure what your evidence is for this. There is also, as ferney mentioned, the pressures from outside the corporation to serve 'the licence fee payers' - meaning the mass audiences - rather than spending on 'worthy programmes' (as a late Labour Secretary of State for Culture described them).

[teamsaint]

I'm not sure what your evidence is for this. There is also, as ferney mentioned, the pressures from outside the corporation to serve 'the licence fee payers' - meaning the mass audiences - rather than spending on 'worthy programmes' (as a late Labour Secretary of State for Culture described them).

To clarify, what I meant was that at the point where programme expenditure is planned, the income is more or less secure, certainly the licence fee part of it. And that should make decision making on programming much easier , and made with much greater confidence than for other broadcasters, for example. Until this year at least, licence fee income has continued to rise.

There may well be political pressure on how to spend licence fee payers money. But even the most popular shows are minority interest. The BBC needs to fight the ( Its) corner for niche programming.

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Short-Guide-to-the-BBC-1.pdf

( see P9. I'm not clear on a quick look what happens to net licence fee income after the over 75's thing kicks in)

[teamsaint]

Rather than edit, another point, and a clarification.
1. I don't have a better plan than the licence fee model.

2 Within the niches is, I strongly suspect ( note, not evidence based !) where a great deal of the strongest support for the BBC and it funding model exists. Plenty of people on this forum would doubtless pay their fee for R3 alone. Elsewhere, I think the same is true on the BBC local radio stations as an example. If you have to "sell" the idea of this funding model, this ought to be a point of strength.