Controller, BBC Radio 3

[gurnemanz]

I quite like a bit of "West End show music" but certainly can't imagine tuning in to Radio Two under any circumstances, let alone on the off chance of catching some Cole Porter, Irving Berlin or Richard Rodgers. I havent noticed much such music on Radio Three (I probably don't listen to the programmes which might play it) but if it did appear it wouldn't enrage me. Many types off programme I enjoy like live Lieder recitals are only available from R3 and are bound to be much the same as they always have been, but with better sound and the added ability to stream later, if you miss it.

Even if some of Radio Three's output doesn't appeal to me, I do not have too much reason to complain about it generally and certainly don't sit around yearning for the past. Surely most classical music fans nowadays construct their daily listening from a multiplicity of sources, with the marvellous opportunity to select exactly what one wants at any given time. In my case: Radio Three, Spotify, YouTube, CDs, DVDs, opera streams, downloaded music, foreign stations on the net ... live concert-going. Definitely not Classic FM or Radio Two.

[french frank]

What do we want 'restored' / 'rejected' to the R3 offering to make / continue to make it it essential listening?

For me, a chief point would be a complete end to the concept of the trivialised 'CD-sequence' type programmes, each one on for 2-3 hours, every day with your regular cheery presenter - the very thing (I think) which is valued by listeners to other music stations: a mix of the more or less predictable music presented by a familiar voice. 16+ hours of Breakfast per week, 18 hours of Essential Classics + Sunday Morning. That wipes out morning listening in the most popular listening slots for radio. In Tune is slightly different - and being live serves a particular purpose - but it's more bitty, presenter-led background listening. The later evenings are - well, we know what they've become: all right for those who like them and are not particularly interested in classical music. And mixtapes because mixtapes are A Thing.

This is all lazy, lazy, lazy formula broadcasting, sold as 'carefully curated'. I want more intellectual stimulation but have always accepted that breakfast time could be different. It always was, but gradually became more and more about chatty presenters, predictable features. Same picnic hamper: just take out yesterday's stuff and replace with today's.

Enough! That's what's wrong with R3 now - for me alone (and I was once introduced to one of the BBC's Trustees by the then controller as "Radio 3's most faithful listener" even though, even then, I was getting more critical). What I'd like is a different rant

[french frank]

Surely most classical music fans nowadays construct their daily listening from a multiplicity of sources, with the marvellous opportunity to select exactly what one wants at any given time. In my case: Radio Three, Spotify, YouTube, CDs, DVDs, opera streams, downloaded music, foreign stations on the net ... live concert-going.

Well, yes. Fortunately most classical music fans are well off and can afford access to a multiplicity of sources, can't they?

The question is: Is there a place for a more "Third" radio station now or isn't there? If yes, then who would provide it but a state-funded BBC? If no - because not enough people want that kind of radio - then the future of many art forms will be bleak because 'not enough people' want that kind of entertainment.

[oddoneout]

Well, yes. Fortunately most classical music fans are well off and can afford access to a multiplicity of sources, can't they?

The question is: Is there a place for a more "Third" radio station now or isn't there? If yes, then who would provide it but a state-funded BBC? If no - because not enough people want that kind of radio - then the future of many art forms will be bleak because 'not enough people' want that kind of entertainment.

As I'm limited to just radio in real time I perhaps don't know enough about the alternative to assume this but - isn't a multiplicity of sources available as part of what people consider normal living these days? Modern TVs, smartphones, internet connections, are standard, and subscription and paid for services, although now the target of costcutting for many, are not seen as elite or unusual.

[smittims]

I think there is still a place for a 'Third' radio station more than ever , considering the deluge of kitsch and commercialist misinformation put out by so many other media: something with a passion for truth. It's no accident George Barnes was a Cambridge man*, heir to the tradition of Forster, Russell and G E Moore.


-----------------------------------

* I wasn't.

[french frank]

As I'm limited to just radio in real time I perhaps don't know enough about the alternative to assume this

Me neither - except very occasionally YouTube.

but - isn't a multiplicity of sources available as part of what people consider normal living these days?

Yes, but two things occur to me:

1) 'people' may well mean 'most people', but what about minorities? It seems that more and more minorities are considered to have their rights and therefore should be treated appropriately.

2) is Radio3 simply an alternative source of music, according to taste?

In the case of 1) using YouTube, Spotify, Qobuz, the Naxos online library &c assumes that you know what you want find and listen to in the first place. It doesn't involve the external choices of a wider, informed/expert knowledge base.

In the case of 2) I want much more than just that. I also have my own CDs I could listen to if all I want is the music. The Third and early Radio 3 offered more in depth analysis, interviews and discussion. A range of discussion programmes (no, Radio 4's are Radio 4 treatment not Radio 3 treatment), current affairs, science/archaeology/history, psychology &c &c, classic drama, all treated in a way appropriate to an intelligent, interested general audience.

[JasonPalmer]

Frank,

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/2Dw1c7rxs6DmyK0pMRwpMq1/archive

In our time archive ....

[JasonPalmer]

I enjoy the third as it is though rediscovering my cd collection as well.

[oddoneout]

Me neither - except very occasionally YouTube.



Yes, but two things occur to me:

1) 'people' may well mean 'most people', but what about minorities? It seems that more and more minorities are considered to have their rights and therefore should be treated appropriately.

2) is Radio3 simply an alternative source of music, according to taste?

In the case of 1) using YouTube, Spotify, Qobuz, the Naxos online library &c assumes that you know what you want find and listen to in the first place. It doesn't involve the external choices of a wider, informed/expert knowledge base.

In the case of 2) I want much more than just that. I also have my own CDs I could listen to if all I want is the music. The Third and early Radio 3 offered more in depth analysis, interviews and discussion. A range of discussion programmes (no, Radio 4's are Radio 4 treatment not Radio 3 treatment), current affairs, science/archaeology/history, psychology &c &c, classic drama, all treated in a way appropriate to an intelligent, interested general audience.

I should perhaps have edited the quote to clarify I was responding to your point about affording listening alternatives.

[french frank]

Frank,

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/2Dw1c7rxs6DmyK0pMRwpMq1/archive

In our time archive ....

I listened to that twice Too much Melvyn Bragg. Too many experts. A single expert talking about it for the whole programme, please, without the necessity of having a 'presenter' as an intermediary between the expert and the listeners ("So could you explain ... ?" No, I understood the first time. "Going to have to stop you there. The clock has beaten us."). Someone who can write a 29, 44 or 59 minute script, as required, and deliver it in an articulate way, please. IOT is what I think of as being R4 treatment.

[JasonPalmer]

I enjoy them as a general introduction to a subject, like the round table of experts forum.

[Frances_iom]

... Too much Melvyn Bragg. Too many experts. ....

methinks you are too critical - I listen to most tho probably not to all the literary ones so possibly these are those that Bragg interjects too much - certainly in the more STEM based subjects he is much quieter mostly asking for specialist usage to be explained - having three or four experts, usually of different backgrounds does in my opinion generally work out better than a I suspect a single speaker would - both the range of voices and viewpoints are key.

[french frank]

methinks you are too critical - I listen to most tho probably not to all the literary ones so possibly these are those that Bragg interjects too much - certainly in the more STEM based subjects he is much quieter mostly asking for specialist usage to be explained - having three or four experts, usually of different backgrounds does in my opinion generally work out better than a I suspect a single speaker would - both the range of voices and viewpoints are key.

But it wasn't a criticism of the programme itself. There's (in my view) a critical difference. I think that Radio 3 should do things differently. Similarly, I say (have said frequently) that it's fine for Radio 3 to broadcast a programme or short series on hiphop - a talk about the social importance, the themes, the performers or whatever they want to talk about. It's not right to provide programmes with DJs playing hiphop for people who like hiphop and want to listen to it. That's not a criiticism of hiphop nor about programmes which provide hiphop. Just as what I said wasn't a criticism of In Our Time: it's a Radio 4 programme, and if people find the programmes consistently interesting, that's where they can find them.

[hmvman]

...Yes, but two things occur to me:

1) 'people' may well mean 'most people', but what about minorities? It seems that more and more minorities are considered to have their rights and therefore should be treated appropriately.

Ah, but there are minorities and then there are minorities...

[muzzer]

But it wasn't a criticism of the programme itself. There's (in my view) a critical difference. I think that Radio 3 should do things differently. Similarly, I say (have said frequently) that it's fine for Radio 3 to broadcast a programme or short series on hiphop - a talk about the social importance, the themes, the performers or whatever they want to talk about. It's not right to provide programmes with DJs playing hiphop for people who like hiphop and want to listen to it. That's not a criiticism of hiphop nor about programmes which provide hiphop. Just as what I said wasn't a criticism of In Our Time: it's a Radio 4 programme, and if people find the programmes consistently interesting, that's where they can find them.

Agree. The problem with In Our Time is Melvyn. The programme provides really great introductions to a wide range of topics, obviously, and all he adds is a slightly officious bystander giving everyone the hurry up as if he’s paying them. But his show, his rules. Such is the Beeb.