Sam Jackson's reply

[french frank]

Possibly off-topic, but I just did a search for "Wacko" on the forum - either I've counted wrongly or there are only ~2 references to his nibs. (And there's also one to Jimmy Edwards' Whack-O!")

And to a jazz drummer :-)

But if the request is for a civil discussion without anger or insult, I think that should be respected. It cuts both ways: nor reference to snobbery or elitism ...

[AuntDaisy]

...
But if the request is for a civil discussion without anger or insult, I think that should be respected. It cuts both ways: nor reference to snobbery or elitism ...

Well said.

[french frank]

Would a FOI request be relevant? (I tried one re. BBC Sounds account linking and age discrimination, but it never came to anything.)

I refer my friend to the oracle on this subject: the BBC itself:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/publication-scheme/excluded/

[french frank]

Also from the Information Commissioner:

"This is known as the “derogation”. This means that information that the BBC holds for the purposes of journalism, art or literature - in broad
terms, its output or related to its output – is not covered by FOIA. If information falls within the derogation, then that is the end of thematter; there is no public interest test or similar provision to consider the merits of disclosure."

'[I]ts output or related to its output' seems to cover most things the general public might want to know.

[AuntDaisy]

Also from the Information Commissioner:

"This is known as the “derogation”. This means that information that the BBC holds for the purposes of journalism, art or literature - in broad
terms, its output or related to its output – is not covered by FOIA. If information falls within the derogation, then that is the end of thematter; there is no public interest test or similar provision to consider the merits of disclosure."

'[I]ts output or related to its output' seems to cover most things the general public might want to know.

Thanks for that, French Frank. I think that's what scuppered my request, although they'd originally said it would go ahead, then corrected themselves.

BTW since I think you're TV-less, you may have missed the excellent BBC film about the MP's expenses scandal & FOI, "On Expenses" - Brian Cox at his best...

[LMcD]

[QUOTE=french frank;n1319788]

Should the station attempt to be many things to many people or should it be in some sense a 'specialist' station?

I would say it should definitely be the latter.

[smittims]

Sam's reply strikes me as very 'politician-speak'. Saying he cares very much about Radio 3 doesn't mean he wants to play more complete pieces of classical music and less inane chatter. It could mean he cares very much about making it more like CFM.

[Pulcinella]

My question to Sam Jackson is a simple one:

How are you going to tempt me back to Radio 3?

I could go on, but I don't want to offend his delicate feelings, when he cares so much about the station.

[oddoneout]

[QUOTE=LMcD;n1319813]

Should the station attempt to be many things to many people or should it be in some sense a 'specialist' station?

I would say it should definitely be the latter.

Phrased like that I would also opt for the latter. However I see no reason why that should preclude having some programming that is not so "serious" or demanding of particular knowledge, provided(and it is a big proviso) that it is done well. The "April Refresh" attempts, such as Music Map, demonstrate all too well how not to do it as far as I'm concerned. I don't think they are of use to the more casual listener(although they might be enjoyed for the bits of music included, they don't advance knowledge and understandng much if at all IMO) and they don't have enough substance or structure to be of interest to the core R3 audience. I can cope with a certain amount of bittiness - I still listen to Breakfast most days - but bitty, supposedly fact-providing, programmes that are just ever so slightly expanded versions of the same format are just a big disappointment. I may be a long-time listener(core R3 I suppose), but my musical knowledge is less than my musical ignorance and when programmes fail to deliver and effectively waste airtime in doing so I feel let down. COTW has its critics but I find it a good way to learn a little more either about composers I already know or ones that I don't, and that kind of "illustrated talk" by a good presenter/specialist can be accessible to a wide audience if handled well. I'm certain that some of the EMS episodes would work for those with little knowledge of that genre simply because the specialist involved has enthusiasm and a way of sharing(that may - shock horror - include humour) that that does not require much if any prior knowledge, and where technicalities are either so well explained that they are understandable or don't impede the general progress of the narrative.

[AuntDaisy]

My question to Sam Jackson is a simple one:

How are you going to tempt me back to Radio 3?

I could go on, but I don't want to offend his delicate feelings, when he cares so much about the station.

I love the BBC & owe it a lot - R4, R3 & R2 introduced me to radio drama, classical music, features, comedy, quizzes, G&S...
But, current radio, and R3 in particular, wouldn't do that now.
We have 3 children (in their 20s), none of them listen to R3 or R4 or watch BBC TV, just R1 occasionally and that's it.

[oddoneout]

Sam's reply strikes me as very 'politician-speak'. Saying he cares very much about Radio 3 doesn't mean he wants to play more complete pieces of classical music and less inane chatter. It could mean he cares very much about making it more like CFM.

I don't doubt that he "cares", but I do think that the focus of his care isn't the same as ours. I don't know about wanting to remodel it along CFM lines but I do wonder if he assumes that what worked there will work for R3 if slightly tweaked. That misses several key points. It may well be easier to tick boxes such as women, diversity etc since the R3 offering is less about (or was) just churning out the same safe bits of music by a narrow selection of composers, but seemingly disregarding what should be a, or the key, difference of R3 playing whole works rather than taking the CFM sampler approach is a mistake.
On a specific issue I very much resent the deception implicit in "Classical Live" as a programme title, since the only genuinely live music in the pm afternoon schedule now is the Monday Wigmore Hall slot. If the evening concert is a recorded one then "In Tune" may be the only live music for the whole day. Yes, financial considerations are the driver, but "recorded live" isn't the same as "as it happens" live and shouldn't be presented as if it is.

[Ein Heldenleben]

On a journalistic note it strikes me that we are responding to a partial quote . Is the entire reply available?
To save evry one a lot of time and tedium I pretty much agree with OOO . However after 50 years of music being my main hobby I don’t realistically expect the BBC to educate me much- not because I’m an expert but because the level of analysis I would require would just alienate others.

I’m not that obsessed with whether Classical Live has to be live but I’m pretty sure you not supposed to say things are live when they’re not . That’s certainly true in TV maybe there’s more flexibility in Radio .Even recorded as live will have edits in it,
Final point - it’s struck me that there’s been quite a bit of criticism in the press of what’s been happening on R3 - and not just the recent schedule changes - from the Guardian to the Telegraph - it’s all struck me as well argued so we are not alone.

[antongould]

Possibly off-topic, but I just did a search for "Wacko" on the forum - either I've counted wrongly or there are only ~2 references to his nibs. (And there's also one to Jimmy Edwards' Whack-O!")

both mine I would guess and if they have caused anguish and/or distress and reflect badly on this forum I most humbly apologise ……. I shall eat nothing but sackcloth and ashes for a week ….

[french frank]

Having posed the question, I would want to hear what Sam Jackson's response is - rather than disparate or similar views here :-). I am cautious because last time I took this approach (with RW) sending him a list of open-ended questions, he took one look, declared he was 'aghast' (or some such word) as he hadn't the time to answer them because he "had a radio station to run". This time I would respectfully suggest that someone at the BBC or R3 did sit down and have a long think about this. They seem to take a reactive approach to whatever happens to be going on rather than having any firm idea of a clearly expressed remit, or the station's scope. As Paul Donovan of the Sunday Times once asked in his column: "Where's the vision?"

For a start, it seems to me to be a mistake to focus on 'the audience' rather than the content. R1 is popular music for the under 30s with (I assume) some 'social' output suitable for the age group. There is also a specialist station for young Asian (actually Indian sub-continent) listeners - the Asian Network - and another for fans of black popular music 1Xtra. Radio 2 is popular music for older listeners, 6 Music is (looks round for inspiration) contemporary popular music of an 'iconic' character. So can we encapsulate Radio 3 as succinctly? Classical, jazz, world, drama, arts and music features and documentaries ... Late Junction, Unclassified. Plus random inclusions on classical programmes such as Ladies in Lavender, Moon River, Mr Freddie's Blues, Sailing By ...

The current Director of Music, with overall control of all these music stations is Lorna Clarke - formerly head of popular music. I was going to ask whether any senior management person at the BBC promotes classical music, but I see that 'Working with colleagues in BBC Radio 3 and the BBC Orchestras, [Suzy Klein] also leads on classical music strategy'. Unfortunately, information on what that strategy is comes under the BBC's FOIA 'derogation' - excluded from Freedom of Information requests.

[Barbirollians]

Was that his total reply FF or just a section ?