The Eternal Breakfast Debate in a New Place

[french frank]

'What's happened to CFM's figures, incidentally?

They have shot back up through 6 million again. No way to compare the breakfast figures as they have changed their schedules and designated the breakfast show as the 3-hour 6am-9am slot, replacing the 4-hour 8am-12pm slot. I should say there's no way for us to make a comparison: CFM and R3 will both know how the figures compare, hour by hour.

It doesn't acknowledge anywhere that internet listening is now included (it is) whereas formerly it wasn't (it wasn't), but that should have been said somewhere if that is what all the 'record' listening is down to.


[Edit: I should say that I don't know at what point internet listening was included - the change wasn't made this quarter]

[aeolium]

Personally I don't really mind that Breakfast has moved in a direction which has made it much less appealing to me. I don't expect every programme on R3 to satisfy my tastes and I don't bother to listen to it. What's more concerning is when the Breakfast-style trend of shorter and more popular pieces (and trails and gimmicks) permeates into other programmes on the network, such as Classical Collection (as mentioned in another thread), to some extent Ao3 and In Tune, as well as the Sunday magazine programmes like Sunday Morning and Private Passions. Increasingly large proportions of the output seem now to be directed at that newer audience while that section of the audience which wants a more ambitious output with more unfamiliar repertoire is marginalised. Accessibility is all. I simply don't recognise the R3 that I listen to from the description of the Sony judges in the UK Station of the Year award:

Radio 3's entry impressed with its range and quality of programmes. The Judges noted how Radio 3 continues to evolve and has the genuine ability to surprise the audience with thought provoking and stimulating programmes. The momentum of the previous year has been maintained and improved on and shows a station with ever growing confidence.

[french frank]

I simply don't recognise the R3 that I listen to from the description of the Sony judges in the UK Station of the Year award:

These were the judges. I recognise Jez Nelson (Gold award this year for Jon3 - well done, Jez) and a couple of CFM presenters. Mainly, I'd say, representing that 'wider audience' that doesn't currently listen to R3

Oops, they've just changed the pictures - Jez now gone. Unless they keep changing the viewable pictures and all the names on the list were judges this year. The last comment still applies.

Back again: Yes, this is the full list including Jez and lots more CFM people. So, again, the kind of judges who will approve of a populist 'evolving' policy. Still, talkSport was the SotY winner, not R3 ...

[Suffolkcoastal]

You begin to wonder if the Sony judges actually tuned in to the correct station as nothing could be further from the truth. The only explanation could be that as so many television and radio stations are now 'dumbed down' to such an extent, R3 actually manages to appear relatively good in comparison with them.

[french frank]

I don't think they 'tune in' at all. I think (all a bit mysterious) they just listen to chosen clips. Whether those are the ones they use to nominate for programme awards too, I simply don't know. But R3's classical progs seldom get a look-in.

[Norfolk Born]

Personally I don't really mind that Breakfast has moved in a direction which has made it much less appealing to me. I don't expect every programme on R3 to satisfy my tastes and I don't bother to listen to it. What's more concerning is when the Breakfast-style trend of shorter and more popular pieces (and trails and gimmicks) permeates into other programmes on the network, such as Classical Collection (as mentioned in another thread), to some extent Ao3 and In Tune, as well as the Sunday magazine programmes like Sunday Morning and Private Passions. Increasingly large proportions of the output seem now to be directed at that newer audience while that section of the audience which wants a more ambitious output with more unfamiliar repertoire is marginalised. Accessibility is all. I simply don't recognise the R3 that I listen to from the description of the Sony judges in the UK Station of the Year award:

Agreed!

[aeolium]

You begin to wonder if the Sony judges actually tuned in to the correct station as nothing could be further from the truth. The only explanation could be that as so many television and radio stations are now 'dumbed down' to such an extent, R3 actually manages to appear relatively good in comparison with them.

Or, as Lear said, "not being the worst stands in some rank of praise".

[Eudaimonia]

Well, let's not go back to the argument that it has to be either populist, audience-pleasing or Lutoslawski/Berg (or more usually Bruckner/Mahler symphonies) in the early morning.

Bruckner and Mahler in the morning? Really now, what kind of music junkie needs their Mahler fix first thing when they wake up? That's hardcore! Good grief--they practically need a twelve-step programme. I really would rather listen to Lutoslawski and Berg...

The discussion should revolve around what one thinks Radio 3 is for. [...]
As far as I'm concerned, until that question's sorted there's nothing meaningful to discuss. Yet we're led to believe it's a discussion which the BBC has never had.

All things considered--and if you want to be a pragmatic, cold-eyed b*stard about it--the obvious answer is "Radio 3 is for surviving." And I'd lay odds there are plenty of pragmatic cold-eyed b*stards about who are sorting THAT one all the time. And if they really had gone full-blown CFM, why the massive commitment to live concerts? That's R3 doing what only R3 can do...I'm not sure why you're all not happier about it.

[Frances_iom]

... why the massive commitment to live concerts? That's R3 doing what only R3 can do...I'm not sure why you're all not happier about it.

because for those of us who have been listeners since before the 'blessed' Wright got the job can remember when this was the norm - your 'hero' mangled the English tongue in an attempt to portray R3 as the home of 'live' music (and criticised by advertising agency)

[french frank]

Bruckner and Mahler in the morning? Really now, what kind of music junkie needs their Mahler fix first thing when they wake up? That's hardcore! Good grief--they practically need a twelve-step programme. I really would rather listen to Lutoslawski and Berg...

All things considered--and if you want to be a pragmatic, cold-eyed b*stard about it--the obvious answer is "Radio 3 is for surviving." And I'd lay odds there are plenty of pragmatic cold-eyed b*stards about who are sorting THAT one all the time. And if they really had gone full-blown CFM, why the massive commitment to live concerts? That's R3 doing what only R3 can do...I'm not sure why you're all not happier about it.

Euda - I have a sort of grudging admiration for the type of argument which can quote one's words back at one and change the entire significance of them

I was saying that just because people complain at the CFMification of Breakfast doesn't mean that, au contraire, one is demanding a diet of Lutoslawski and Berg (though there are Berg works which would be very suitable and Lutoslawski has been played, albeit a single movement only, and wedged between Lenny Sayers' Raisins and Almonds and Ketèlbey's Sanctuary of the Heart, scoring 0 out of 3 for me. Similarly, if one complains about the increasing shortness of the pieces, it doesn't mean one is demanding Bruckner and Mahler every morning. There must be a rhetorical term for attacking an argument by opposing its complete opposite as the only alternative.

Also, I'm not sure where you conjured up the view that anyone was in any sense unhappy about the return of the live concert in the evenings.

As for the "obvious" [sic] answer being "Radio 3 is for surviving" - oh, dear. Well, actually, if they came out and admitted it, that would, partially, satisfy me as we would know what line of argument to attack. But I do give them credit for thinking what you think is "obvious" is in fact a load of rubbish . The populist route is being taken for other reasons, nothing to do with the 'survival' of R3.There is too much investment (not exclusively financial) in R3 for its closure to be at all appealing to the BBC.

[Zucchini]

It doesn't acknowledge anywhere that internet listening is now included (it is) whereas formerly it wasn't (it wasn't), but that should have been said somewhere if that is what all the 'record' listening is down to.

[Edit: I should say that I don't know at what point internet listening was included - the change wasn't made this quarter]

Internet & Digital platforms have been incuded in respondents' diaries since commencement of the current research contract, Jan '07. In addition, Midas (Measurement of Internet Delivered Audio Services) reports are freely available and published twice a year. Around 1000 respondents who have listened via internet services are revisited.

[Bax-of-Delights]

Now, you see, I thought I was entering some kind of Alzheimer's universe when I began to hear all these self-congratulating and puffery adverts for the "live" programmes because I could have sworn that the evening broadcasts were indeed always live - and not that long ago. I'm pleased to be confirmed that I am not going ga-ga (lady or otherwise).

A radio is left on in the house more or less all the time although we are more likely to be elsewhere, working. It came as no surprise to me this evening when I wandered past the open window to hear the very familiar sounds of "In the Steppes of Central Asia" emanating from Sean Rafferty's programme. Followed a little later - after some of that toe-curling unctioness that Mr Rafferty occasionally indulges in - "Lieutenant Kije".

[french frank]

Internet & Digital platforms have been incuded in respondents' diaries since commencement of the current research contract, Jan '07. In addition, Midas (Measurement of Internet Delivered Audio Services) reports are freely available and published twice a year. Around 1000 respondents who have listened via internet services are revisited.

Ah, right. I'd read the news release at the time but had missed the significance of 'New diary incorporating platform' . I think this has been bedding in over the last few years, then.

[Eudaimonia]

FF: oh, I know you weren't really suggesting Mahler in the morning; I was just being difficult and impish-- that's what the winky-face was for.

Also, I'm not sure where you conjured up the view that anyone was in any sense unhappy about the return of the live concert in the evenings.

Well, if you'll remember, a lot of people seemed to react like this...

NORMAL PERSON: Hey guess what! R3 is going to feature live music every night, isn't that fantastic?
MESSAGE BOARDER: GRAAAAAR OH MY GOD I BLEEPING HATE ROGER WRIGHT SOMEBODY FIRE THAT NO-GOOD BLEEPING BLEEP (etc. ad nauseam)

Kind of a strange way to express being unreservedly happy, isn't it? I still think you should be writing him thank-you letters.

The populist route is being taken for other reasons, nothing to do with the 'survival' of R3.There is too much investment (not exclusively financial) in R3 for its closure to be at all appealing to the BBC.

Really? I think every time someone mentions "reaching new audiences", ultimately they're thinking about the long-term survival of their organization. (It certainly seemed to be a front-and-center consideration for all the orchestra management types I used to hang around with.) And who knows how much of the bias toward "short pieces in the morning, repeated often" has to do with some kind of deal they cut with the record industry to promote individual artists and albums to help keep the whole business afloat? Could be everything, could be nothing. Who knows?

[aeolium]

I must remember that if and when my local council restores a service such as a library that they have recently closed, I should not dwell on the loss of the service (a service which prior to its closure had been regularly enjoyed for a very long period by its users) but should express gratitude for its restoration and my thank-you letter should be fulsome in its praise.

"Just rejoice!", as someone else said a while back