What can I say?

[James Wonnacott]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11546044/BBC-boss-Radio-3-harder-to-run-because-people-are-more-ignorant.html

[Beef Oven!]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/...-ignorant.html

The headline is very misleading and couched pejoratively.

What he's saying is not negative. He's just pointing out that through no fault of their own, audiences haven't had the benefit of previous exposure to classical music (at school).

Seems true and obvious to me.

Good that he acknowledges that CFM have audience savvy. And it's not about dumbing down.

[MrGongGong]

Seems true and obvious to me.

Two things which don't necessarily go together.

[James Wonnacott]

But, in my experience (20 years working in schools) it is true.

[Beef Oven!]

Two things which don't necessarily go together.

Here they do.

[french frank]

Sub-editors are employed to think up sensationalist headlines - they don't have to go with the story.

"BBC boss: Radio 3 harder to run because people are more ignorant
The new controller of Radio 3 has claimed that running the station is more difficult than it used to be because audiences are less educated than in the past "

"In an interview on Radio 4's Feedback programme, Mr Davey was asked about changes to general classical music knowledge over the last 30 years. "

“The modern audience might not be getting the same education in music in school as they might have done a few years ago – not consistently so, anyway.

"We have to perhaps offer more explanation and context for works. "

Outrageous!

[Beef Oven!]

Sub-editors are employed to think up sensationalist headlines - they don't have to go with the story.

"BBC boss: Radio 3 harder to run because people are more ignorant
The new controller of Radio 3 has claimed that running the station is more difficult than it used to be because audiences are less educated than in the past "

"In an interview on Radio 4's Feedback programme, Mr Davey was asked about changes to general classical music knowledge over the last 30 years. "

“The modern audience might not be getting the same education in music in school as they might have done a few years ago – not consistently so, anyway.

"We have to perhaps offer more explanation and context for works. "

Outrageous!

So what's good journalism? This sort of stuff, or reporting on the nitty gritty, setting out that which the reader didn't previously know? Is there a third way?

[ardcarp]

The article is incoherent.

However ignorant the public is now cf 'The Good Old Third Programme Days', what is wrong with allowing R3 to enlighten? It's deeply unfashionable for any controller to admit Reithian credentials, but surely casting a few pearls can only be a Good Thing. Or are we all swine?

[french frank]

So what's good journalism? This sort of stuff, or reporting on the nitty gritty, setting out that which the reader didn't previously know? Is there a third way?

Making a news story of a Radio 4 Feedback programme seems a bit odd.

I've just listened to that bit again:

Roger Bolton: "Do you think your job is more difficult now because people are less well educated classically, lack of knowledge of classical music, that people need helping towards it ...?"


D. Telegraph: "Running BBC Radio 3 is more difficult today than in the past because audiences are not as well educated, the classical music station’s new controller has claimed.

Alan Davey risked alienating some of his listeners by making the controversial suggestion when he was asked about the challenges of the station's top job." Er, no: Roger Bolton was the one who made the controversial suggestion.

It's an example of rubbish journalism: ask someone a question and then, whether the answer is yes or no, put the words into their mouths by suggesting THEY said it

[Honoured Guest]

The Third Programme which ended over 47 years ago. Alan Davey was avoiding answering the question by harking on about a service of two generations ago.

[Dave2002]

It seems that I had to read the torygraph article about Alan Davey (linked to in msg 1) in order to discover this;

"• BBC Radio 3? No male composers allowed"

- due to International Women's Day on March 8th.

I'm afraid I hadn't even noticed that there was a day during which no male input was allowed - well, composers anyway.
Perhaps others also missed noticing that. I can't remember what we were doing that day.

Looks as though the "ban" on male input wasn't extended to presenters, and also to playwrights - as the drama at 10pm was Sophocle's "Electra" - http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/programm...les/2015/03/08

[MrGongGong]

This "article" is hopeless

I had a little think about this (not even sure who said it?)

"If you look back at the Third Programme, they were bringing high culture to a relatively mass audience but they could assume that their audience knew everything,” the controller said.
"They did not need to have the ins and outs of classical music explained to them.

The assumption is, that in some golden age, everyone had "Classical Music" at school so they understood it's "ins and outs" ?
REALLY ?

and what are these "ins and outs"?
The names and dates of composers?

(once again the trusty Dahlhaus is needed)

they could assume that their audience knew everything,

If they did yhen they were most mistaken.

Though I do like the entry for "non sequitur of the day"

Mr Davey’s comments about his listenership came the day after Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, attacked the audience in front of whom he was taking part in an election leadership debate.

It also "came after the day" that someone was born, some blokes in shorts played football and I had a very nice egg and cress sandwich...

[Richard Barrett]

The article is indeed hopeless and Davey's comments seem to me pretty hopeless too. I do think however there's a point to be made about how Radio 3 presents itself. First, an anecdote. I learned a lot of what I know about music by listening to Radio 3 as a teenager in the 1970s. I didn't "have classical music at school" except in my first two years of secondary school. A lot of what I heard n the radio about the music that was playing was incomprehensible to me at the time I heard it, but sufficiently interesting that I was impelled to find out more on my own initiative. Now, a generalisation. I agree completely with MrGG that there was no golden age in which Radio 3 audiences "knew everything". The problem lies IMO less in "classical music education" or lack thereof, but in the education system as a whole whose obsession with exams and other forms of continuous assessment leaves little room for encouraging adventurous thinking, and in a general dumbing-down of society, which manifests itself not just on Radio 3 but in general cultural and political discourse.

The people at Radio 3 may claim they're not aping Classic FM, they may even believe they're not aping Classic FM, but actually that's what they have to do, so long as so much of culture is involved in a headlong race to the bottom, as exemplified by the centrality of listener headcounts and how this is deemed to be a measure of how much cash a station like Radio 3 should receive.

[french frank]

First, an anecdote. I learned a lot of what I know about music by listening to Radio 3 as a teenager in the 1970s. I didn't "have classical music at school" except in my first two years of secondary school. A lot of what I heard n the radio about the music that was playing was incomprehensible to me at the time I heard it, but sufficiently interesting that I was impelled to find out more on my own initiative. Now, a generalisation. I agree completely with MrGG that there was no golden age in which Radio 3 audiences "knew everything". The problem lies IMO less in "classical music education" or lack thereof, but in the education system as a whole whose obsession with exams and other forms of continuous assessment leaves little room for encouraging adventurous thinking, and in a general dumbing-down of society, which manifests itself not just on Radio 3 but in general cultural and political discourse.

I agree with that. The real question is WHY you (and I) weren't put off by listening to Radio 3. Many people didn't come to Radio 3 because they knew all about classical music but because they were interested to learn. Does one however think that there are particular "kinds" of (ignorant!) listener who should be targeted? And others who 'needn't be targeted'? If one really takes 'popular culture' seriously, then why not let people pursue their own tastes? They have enough opportunities.

But ... there surely do need to be ways of opening up culture/the arts/music to people who may miss out on much that they will come to appreciate because, if for no other reason, there is such an inundation of culture in its diverse manifestations?

[gradus]

I don't dissent from the 'interested to learn' claim but it wasn't true in my case, I just liked music from my earliest memory of primary school teachers playing 78s of The Nutcracker, I liked music, simple as that and R3 provided it. No one taught me to like music, I didn't always pursue it avidly it just appealed to me and if anything my grammar school experiences did absolutely nothing to foster it.
Good luck to CFM and R3, I think they plough different furroughs but can appeal to a common listener base.